Three Parish Councillors were available between 7.15 p.m. and 7.30 p.m. to talk to parishioners.

Members present: Mr. B. Oliver (Chairman), Mr. K. Ascott, Mr. L. Cooper (District Councillor),

Mr. D. Fleming, Mr. S. Potter, Mr. G. Staines, Mr. G. Strathern, Dr. R. Woodcock.

Also in attendance: Mrs. Jane Potter (Clerk).

Three members of the public attended part of the meeting.

Apologies were received from Mrs. S. Owen, who was unable to attend the meeting due to a prior personal commitment and from Mr. J. Archer (District Council Ward Member) who was unable to attend the meeting due to a prior District Council engagement.

Mr. Fleming apologised for his late arrival to the meeting, having been unavoidably detained. Mr. Fleming joined the meeting during discussion of Agenda item 6.3/03/06.

Mr. Strathern apologised for his early departure from the meeting as he had another engagement to attend. Mr. Strathern left the meeting during discussion of Agenda item 7/03/06.

2/03/06. THE MINUTES OF THE PARISH COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 10^TH FEBRUARY 2006, having been circulated to all Members, were approved, and signed by the Chairman.

3/03/06. TO DISCUSS ANY MATTERS OF INFORMATION ARISING FROM THOSE MINUTES:

3.1/03/06 Clerk: 10/02/06 Recycling collection service: Members noted that Maggie Saltmarsh (Contract Monitoring Officer, Maldon District Council) had thanked the Parish Council for its comments regarding the green waste collection service. Regarding doorstep recycling containers, Purleigh would be added to the list of areas where there had been problems. Members noted that the service was monitored on a regular basis, but in the meantime if specific addresses where problems were occurring were notified to the District Council, complaints could be made formal and passed to the contractors for rectification.

With reference to the Parish Council’s query regarding the separation of recyclables, Mrs. Saltmarsh was confident that the contractors used the compartmentalised vehicles as intended. The District Council had had problems however with orange sacks being mixed in with refuse, as some property owners had been using them for refuse rather than recycling.

Green Waste Collection: Members noted that Saturday collections would take place between 1.30p.m. and 1.50p.m. in the Glebe Lay-by, commencement date to be confirmed.

3.2/03/06 Members’: 4.6/02/06 District Council Planning Committees: Mr. Cooper reported that a decision had not been taken in February, as anticipated, about the future of the Area Planning Committees. District Council Members would be attending a seminar on Thursday, 23^rd March 2006 to discuss the various options.

At this juncture, with the agreement of all present, it was agreed to change the order of the Agenda and discuss the Playing Field and Open Spaces, taking item ‘6.3/03/06 Pavilion extension’ first, so that interested members of the public present could discuss the proposed extension with the Parish Council.

With the agreement of all present the Chairman closed the meeting so that members of the public and Parish Councillors could discuss progress on the pavilion extension.

After a constructive exchange of information the meeting was reconvened.

Mr. Fleming joined the meeting during discussion of this Agenda item.

6.3/03/06 Pavilion extension: Members noted that Mr. Strathern and Mr. Staines had met with Mr. Steeples (Chairman, Purleigh Playing Field Association [PPFA]) and Gary Lynch (G. J. Lynch Building Contractors), on site on Wednesday, 1^st March 2006.

Since then the project had had to be put on hold, and Mr. Lynch asked not to proceed, for two reasons:

Members noted that Officers from the National Lottery Awards For All programme had revised their opinion about the validity of the Parish Council taking receipt of the £5,000 grant they had made to the PPFA. In a written response to the Parish Council’s original correspondence with Awards for All dated 13^th December 2005, Officers now advised that the grant was to the PPFA as having tenure or responsibility for the Pavilion's kitchen.  If the Association simply handed the grant money to the Council the PPFA would be in breach of their grant conditions and incur liability to forfeiture.

Members noted that this contradicted the verbal advice given to the Parish Council by Mr. Bates (Awards Officer) on 3^rd January 2006, who had informed the Parish Council that it could accept a donation from the PPFA, which may include the Awards for All grant, provided the PPFA commissioned the Parish Council to act as its agent.

Members noted that the Parish Council had written back to Awards for All advising Officers that given the need to proceed with the project, the Council had acted in good faith on Mr. Bates’ advice, and had subsequently accepted the donation from the PPFA and employed a contractor to build the extension.

Members noted that Mr. Bates had subsequently verbally apologised for the confusion and had said that the Parish Council would have to return the £5,000 to the PPFA. He suggested however that the Parish Council could carry out the work on the pavilion and then invoice the PPFA for the sum of £5,000.

Members noted that the Parish Council was empowered to receive grants. It was also empowered to receive donations including capital gifts of money ‘for local public purposes or for the benefit of the inhabitants of the area or part of it’ (Local Government Act 1972 s139). Receipt of a grant should be the outcome of a successful grant application and was usually made upon submission of a receipted invoice. There did not appear to be any legislation to empower the Parish Council to invoice for anything other than goods or services provided.

The Parish Council agreed that:

1. The PPFA’s donation of £21,050, which included their grant of £5,000 from the National Lottery Awards for All programme, should be returned to the organisation in full.

2. Upon receipt of written confirmation from Awards for All that it was acceptable to do so, G.J. Lynch Building Contractors would be asked to invoice the PPFA for the refurbishment of the pavilion kitchen in the sum of £5,000 inclusive of VAT.

3. G.J. Lynch Building contractors would then deduct the sum of £5,000 inclusive of VAT from the Parish Council’s invoice for the pavilion extension.

4. The Parish Council would then pay for the remaining work to the extension, with the assistance of a donation from the PPFA and a £2,000 grant from the District Council, provided there were sufficient funds available (See item 2 Foundations below).

Members noted that on 2^nd March 2006 Gary Lynch had held discussions with Maldon District Council’s Building Regulations Department who, after initially questioning whether the Parish Council had Building Regulations approval, were insisting on 3 metre strip engineer designed or pile and beam foundations for the extension. It was noted that the Parish Council had obtained the appropriate Building Regulations approval (ref: 625/91) when the project had been started, but that the Regulations had changed since that date.

It was noted that the PPFA had asked Mr. Osborn (architect) to negotiate with the District Council to see if there was any way that the extension could proceed under the old Regulations.

It was agreed that Mr. Osborn be given the time he required to prepare a case and negotiate with the District Council to try to ensure that the Parish Council could proceed to build the extension under the old Regulations, given that work on the project had already commenced and that the Oak tree in the proximity of the extension which the District Council believed necessitated deeper foundations, did not appear to have altered since 1991 when the project had commenced.

It was understood that pending the outcome of these discussions G.J. Lynch Building Contractors may have to submit a revised quotation for the extension (See item 1.4 above).

6.1/03/06 Children’s Play Area: Monthly report: Mr. Ascott reported that he had carried out his usual weekly inspections of the Children’s Play Area and that all items of play equipment therein appeared to be in a satisfactory condition.

6.2/03/06 The provision of safety surface beneath the tyre traverse and ladder walk: Members noted that Adventure Playgrounds Ltd had installed wet pour safety surface beneath the tyre traverse and ladder walk. In the process, considerable damage had been caused to the surface of the playing field, which the company had agreed to inspect and rectify.

Members noted that problems had also been experienced with a skip, which had been parked on the playing field car park by the contractors whilst the safety surface was being laid. During the Whist Drive for example, old radio parts (which had presumably been left in the skip without permission) had been thrown at the pavilion, and the matter had been reported to the Police. It was noted and approved that the Parish Council had asked for the skip to be removed as soon as possible to reduce the likelihood of further trouble.

It was agreed not to post Adventure Playgrounds Limited’s cheque until agreement had been reached over the repair of the playing field.

6.3/03/06 Pavilion extension: This item was discussed before item 6.1/03/06 immediately after 3.2/03/06 ‘Members matters of information arising from the February 2006 Parish Council meeting’.

6.4/03/06 Maldon District Council: Green Spaces Audit: Members noted that Maldon District Council were launching some green spaces pages on the District Council’s website. The District Council asked for the Parish Council’s opinion on the draft Purleigh entry and for suggestions for other information to be included on the Purleigh page.

It was noted that the Clerk had already provided the District Council with the Parish Council’s telephone number and e-mail address and had suggested incorporating a link to the Purleigh website where details of the clubs and societies who used the facilities could be accessed.

It was noted that the Green Spaces Conference scheduled to take place on 1^st April 2006 had been cancelled.

6.5/03/06 Other playing field and open space matters: Chair loan: It was agreed that Purleigh Women’s Institute could borrow approximately 20 chairs from the Pavilion for their meeting to be held on 20th April 2006.

Provision of a Youth shelter: At the suggestion of Mr. Ascott it was agreed that the provision of a youth shelter in Purleigh, to act as a deterrent to anti-social behaviour, be put on the Agenda of the April 2006 Parish Council meeting.

4.1/03/06 Decisions taken between meetings: FUL/MAL/06/00151 Erection of small barn for the storage of agricultural equipment. Brooklea, Cold Norton Road, Purleigh. Essex. Steven Bardwell.

The Parish Council RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.

FUL/MAL/06/00196 Single storey conservatory to rear of cottage. Hillside Cottage, Howe Green Road, Purleigh. A.J. Sirett and V.D. Krishnan.

The Parish Council RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.

4.2/03/06 Current applications: FUL/MAL/06/00204 Erection of general purpose building. Rigby Frozen Foods, Atherstone Lodge, Fambridge Road, Purleigh. Mr. Ben Rigby.

Mr. Potter declared an interest in the above application and played no part in the Parish Council’s consideration of it.

The Parish Council RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.

FUL/MAL/06/00229 Side and rear extensions and rooms in the roof with dormer windows. Biroma, Birchwood Road, Purleigh. Mr. and Mrs. R. Williams.

The Parish Council RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.

FUL/MAL/06/00228 Demolition of existing church and outbuilding and erection of new dwelling home. Land adjacent to Penn Cottage, Hackmans Lane, Purleigh. Bulrush Properties Ltd.

The Parish Council RECOMMENDED REFUSAL on the following grounds:

1. The proposed dwelling (and car port) was too large in relation to the size of the plot, and thus constituted over-development of the site

2. The proposed two-storey dwelling would severely dominate and overlook Penn Cottage, a single storey thatched and listed property immediately in front of the proposed development. The proposal, by virtue of its size and design was also out of keeping with Cherrydene and Fir Tree Cottage (similarly thatched and listed), which were both low, single storey dwellings in the immediate vicinity. The proposal if permitted therefore would be incompatible with that existing in the area, and would constitute undesirable over development, which would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the area and the rural street scene.

3. The proposed development was very close to Penn Cottage, which being thatched, may, to satisfy Building Regulations, require a minimum distance to separate it from further development

4. This site had a history of flooding. Therefore no further development on it should be permitted.

5. It appeared from the plans that the front garden of Penn Cottage had been attached to this site to try to improve the sight line to the west when exiting. The Parish Council remained very concerned however about the lack of adequate vision when exiting to the east, which constituted a threat to highway safety.

6. The Parish Council believed that just because a redundant non-residential building existed on this site it shouldn’t follow that a new residential dwelling could be created outside an area intended for development.

TPO/MAL/06/00257 Coppice multi-stemmed Ash tree, raise lower branches of Chestnut tree to 3 metres above ground level and fell two Ash trees suffering with extensive base rot (TPO/8/80). Penn Cottage, Hackmans Lane, Purleigh. Bulrush Properties Ltd.

The Parish Council RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.

FUL/MAL/06/00258 Change of use from former agricultural buildings to business use (offices). Novoli Farm, Pump Lane, Purleigh. Mr. A. Allen.

The Parish Council RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.

FUL/MAL/06 00274 Proposed single storey side extension. Oak Nursery, Hackmans Lane, Purleigh. Mr. Clovely.

The Parish Council RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.

FUL/MAL/06/00290 Erection of a permanent agricultural workers dwelling to replace an existing temporary dwelling. Hillview Farm, Slough Lane, Purleigh. Mrs. E.J. Davis.

The Parish Council RECOMMENDED APPROVAL, provided that:

1. The agreement pursuant to section 106 of the Planning & Compensation Act 1991 referred to in the application was entered into and adhered to by the applicant

2. Development would be restricted to one dwelling on the site, given that the siting of the proposed dwelling differed from that previously granted outline planning permission.

4.3/03/06 Notification of Appeals: Members noted that the Parish Council had not been notified of any appeals between meetings.

4.4/03/06 Maldon District Council planning decisions: Members noted that Maldon District Council had APPROVED the following application:

The following application had been ALLOWED TO PROCEED.

and Maldon District Council had REFUSED planning permission for the following development:

4.5/03/06 Other planning matters: Members did not have any other planning matters to discuss.

5.1/03/06 Lack of a central white line in Fambridge Road: Members noted that Rob Venables (Essex County Council) had advised that the national criterion for carriageways was that no marked lane could be less than 2.75m wide. The section of Fambridge Road between Purleigh Wash to the junction with Round Bush Road was approximately 5m wide and so the centre line hadn’t been reinstated after the resurfacing in 2001.

Members noted that Mr. Venables had advised that it had been established nationally that the lack of a centre line removed the comfort factor experienced by drivers with their "own lane". They therefore tended to be more circumspect and drove with more attention. The road did have edge of carriageway markings, so by driving with care and at the appropriate speed commensurate with the prevailing conditions, and with properly adjusted dipped headlamps, the road could be negotiated safely.

5.2/03/06 Chevrons and deployment of Speed Indicator Display’s (SID’s) in the Roundbush section of Fambridge Road: Members noted that the County Council had installed a single chevron sign on either side of the bend, in the vicinity of Greengates. Members noted that the Variable Message Sign was being repaired, but when it was available it would be deployed in Fambridge Road as the Parish Council had requested.

5.3/03/06 Other highway matters: Birchwood Road nameplate: Mr. Ascott reported that despite the fact that he and the Parish Council had informed the District Council that the road name sign was still leaning against the hedge it remained uncollected. Mr. Cooper agreed to intervene in his capacity as a District Councillor to try to get the sign picked up by the District Council.

Resurfacing of the pedestrian footway in Chelmsford Road: The Chairman reported that a relative of the family who lived in ‘Queenside’ had thanked the Parish Council for its efforts in securing the resurfacing of the pedestrian footway. The improved footway was most appreciated by her daughter who could now walk her child to school and by her neighbours.

Condition of Rigby’s Path: Members noted that the improvements to the condition of Rigby’s Path had been much appreciated by users of it.

Bridleway claim: Birchwood Road to Chelmsford Road via Kent Wood: Members noted that the gate into the wood was still locked. Mr. Ascott explained that this may be because the Definitive Map Order had not yet been made. It was agreed to review the situation at the April 2006 Parish Council Meeting and repeat the Parish Council’s request for the gate to be unlocked if no further progress had been made.

Agenda items relating to the playing field and other open spaces in the parish were discussed immediately after Agenda item 3.2/03/06.

Members noted that parishioners had been experiencing problems with the post box at Pump Corner, which was often full to overflowing. It was agreed to request that a bigger post box be installed and to repeat the Parish Council’s request that the box be re-located to the vicinity of the village sign, in the interests of public safety and in response to the results of the Parish Appraisal (2001).

Mr. Strathern left the meeting during discussion of this Agenda item.

Members noted that with regard to the Parish Council’s swimming pool grant, Mrs. Dack had confirmed that after deduction of the charges proportionate to Purleigh catchment’s pupils (£794) the balance of £356 from the £1,150 grant awarded by the Parish Council last year would be used to subsidise the costs to Purleigh parents for the forthcoming season. In previous years the school had been able to give a discount of between £3.00 and £4.00 per pupil resident in the parish. Accordingly once the costs for the 2006 season were known, whatever balance remained from this year’s grant of £1,000 would be used to subsidise the costs to Purleigh parents in 2007.

8.2/03/06 To receive a report of receipts: Members received a report of the following receipts:

8.3/03/06 To approve payment of accounts between meetings: Members noted and approved that the following account had been paid between meetings, adhering strictly to the procedures outlined in the Parish Council’s Financial Regulations 5.3 - 5.7.

8.4/03/06 To approve payments of accounts to hand: It was unanimously agreed to approve payment of the following accounts to hand:

*Members noted that expenses 2005/2006 had been agreed at the December 2004 Parish Council meeting (Min: 9.3/12/04) and were comprised as follows:

8.5/03/06 Subscription to the Local Council Review: It was noted that the Parish Council’s subscription to the Local Council Review was due on 1^st April 2006. This year it was possible to benefit from a discount if subscriptions were taken out for either a two or three year period.

Members noted that the price for one subscription for one year in 2006 would be £14.00, which would be reduced to £13.30 per year for a two year subscription or £12.60 per year for a three year subscription.

It was agreed to take out a three year subscription to the Local Council Review at a cost of £12.60 per annum.

Formal Consultation on new Primary Care Trusts arrangements in Essex: Members noted that Dr. Woodcock had attended a meeting on 27^th February 2006 about the options for reorganising the Primary Care Trusts in Essex. It was agreed to incorporate his comments, which had been circulated to Members prior to the meeting, in a formal response to the Health Authority.

Dr. Woodcock was thanked for attending the meeting and for formulating a response on the Parish Council’s behalf.

It was noted that the following meetings had been arranged: