349

DEBDEN PARISH COUNCIL

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF DEBDEN PARISH COUNCIL HELD ON WEDNESDAY, 3RD SEPTEMBER, 2014 IN THE MEMORIAL HALL, DEBDEN.

Present:Cllr. A. Tetlow(AT) Chairman

Cllr R. Forster(RF)

Cllr S. Jasper(SJ)

Cllr J. O’Brien(JO’B)

Cllr S. Watson(SW)

In attendance:

Mrs C. Griffin Clerk(CG)

19 members of the public

14/061 Apologies for absence

Apologies were received from Cllr S. Luck (holiday) and Cllr R. Simmonds (holiday).

14/062 Public participation session (15 minutes available if required

A resident of Church Lane raised the following issues regarding the proposal for two new properties on land south of Church Lane, application UTT/14/2333/FUL:

  • Further development will spoil this unique part of the village
  • The building of two large detached houses will lead to extra traffic in the lane.
  • Current residents frequently have to back up. If more houses are built this will add to the problems, erode the surface and our access will be severely affected.
  • The proposed dwellings are outside the village development limit. If this is allowed it will set a precedent. We could end up with the village destroyed.
  • A previous application for the Stables in 2004 was refused and nothing has changed since then.
  • The documentation states that the trees were cut down over a number of years; the trees were actually cut down in 2013 and the new access made. Was planning permission obtained for this new access?

We would ask the PC to please note our concerns.

The resident of Church Lane who has submitted the planning application UTT/14/2333/FUL made the following submissions

  • We were informed by Cllrs. Simmonds and Luck that the PC’s policy is to make a “no comment” reply.
  • An anonymous note was distributed through the village. We would ask Cllr Forster to state whether he had any part in this.
  • Our view is that two, 3 bedroom, family homes in Church Lane would be a positive use of the land.

350

  • There have been a number of letters objecting to the proposal and everyone is entitled to submit their views.
  • With regard to the comments that the dwellings are outside the village development limit and would set a precedent, each application is judged on its own merits and permission has already been given for several new dwellings outside the village limit.
  • Another objection has been the increase in traffic; the Highways authority has no objection to the proposed development.
  • With regard to loss of amenity; what amenity is being lost?
  • The trees were cleared for reasons of safety. We are not intending to replant if permission is refused.
  • An ecological report has been prepared and will be available on the website.
  • We have not sought to obtain any permission for the access.

A resident read the UDC decision notice relating to the planning application submitted for the Stables, UTT/1208/04/FUL which was refused in 2004. Nothing has changed since then.

A resident of the village reported that she attended the PC meeting in February and was incensed to read the recent article on the hearing at UDC and has since made a freedom of information request to Mr. Perry at UDC. We all witnessed what happened at that meeting. I received a reply from Mr. Perry this morning and if anyone would like to see it I would be happy to show it to them.

It saddens me that this matter has divided the village but to be misrepresented in this latest manner is appalling. There was no apology on that night. Every voice needs to be heard and voices are not being heard. I attended the open day for the new village hall and only some people were shown an alternative plan. People will feel part of something if they consider it is achievable and will dip into their pockets to help.

Two requests were received from residents to speak under item 14/066.

14/063 Declaration of interests relating to items on the Agenda

JO’B declared an interest in planning application UTT/14/1969/FUL (the applicant is

a neighbour) andUTT/14/2554/HHF (the applicant is a neighbour). RF declared an

interest inUTT/14/2333/FUL(resident of Church Lane)

14/064 To approve and authorise the Chairman to sign the Minutes of the

Meeting of the Council held on 2nd July 2014

It was resolved that the Chairman should sign the Minutes as approved.

Proposed: SJSeconded: RFAll agreed

14/015 To receive an update from the Parish Clerk

  • I have been in touch with the residents who requested sand bags when we had the bad weather earlier in the year. They were delivered last week to Brocton’s Farm but I am not sure how many they have delivered. UDC has pointed out this is a “on-off “ initiative
  • The 35 mile cycle ride on Saturday was very successful. The resident who organised the event has asked me to pass on his thanks for allowing the use of

351

the car park. In view of the number of entrants he may have to use Carver Barracks next year.

  • A few months ago we sent a letter of support for a cycle path from Carver Barracks to Saffron Walden. Dist Cllr. Knight has now asked the Council to forward a formal request form to the Local Highways Panel in respect of the cycle path from Thaxted to Saffron Walden
  • I met with Karina Bailey-Watson, organiser of the Rounders Team, and gave her a key to the Pavilion. She has now paid the £20.00 fee for this year.
  • It was a great relief to get the tree in Thaxted Road dealt with so quickly after the last meeting.
  • Several people commented about the Vigil on 4th August. Thanks were expressed to Cllr Jasper for organising it and obtaining the candles.
  • Whitehead and Day have been contacted regarding the War Memorial. and I am waiting to hear from them as to whether, in their opinion, the memorial should be cleaned. (UDC has funding available for this)
  • I completed a form in respect of the Winter Salt bag scheme even though our stocks are high and no salt is required this year. This was required in order to take part in future years.
  • I have heard nothing from the External Auditor
  • We made some enquiries about the watering equipment for Yuva but I am not sure what happened about this. RF said the PC will not be pursuing this.
  • Congratulations were received from EALC on achieving joint third in the BestKeptVillage competition.
  • I contacted the resident about the equipment stored in the top of the pavilion which belongs to the Cricket Club and asked him to make a list of the items.
  • I have now received a reply from the Charity Commission which has been circulated
  • There is no further news on the Village Fete in the Autumn.
  • The EALC AGM is on 18th September. 1.30pm at Gt. Dunmow.
  • The RCCE Village Halls & Community Buildings Conference is on Saturday 18th October.
  • A query was raised as to whether a meeting or the Recreation Ground Trust should be called for items when items relating to the recreation ground are discussed.This should be held at a separate meeting as this is a charity but if it involves anything financial it would have to come back to the PC for approval because they fund the charity. CG will endeavour to group recreation ground items together in future and include an extract from the minutes on the Recreation Ground Trust file.

Finally, when I offered to come and help the Council because you didn’t have a Parish Clerk I certainly didn’t expect to be implicated in a Code of Conduct complaint. The newspaper articles following the hearing have caused me professional embarrassment and have taken up a great deal of my time. I certainly did not hear an apology at the meeting on 13th February and there was definitely no request at the meeting on 6th March for an apology to be minuted. With the Chairman’s permission I would like to present the emails I received from Cllr Luck under the next item.

352

14/066 To discuss the outcome of the UDC Standards Board hearing and agree a reply

Cllr Stephen Jasper made the following statement:

I would like to make the following statement regarding matters surrounding the conduct of Councillor Luck at the EGM meeting which took place on 13th February 2014.

Many of you will recall that the EGM had to be ended early due to an incident in which Councillor Luck verbally abused parishioners. At that meeting Councillor Luck not only verbally abused members of the public (people whom he is supposed to represent), but he also refused to listen to the Chairman and other advice that was offered.

It has recently come to my attention that Councillor Luck claims to have apologised for his behaviour at the next meeting of the Parish Council (which took place on 6th March 2014)in statements made to the Standards Board. I understand that he has also accused Chris Griffinour Parish Clerk, who has worked tirelessly for the village for many years, of failing to record accurate minutes to that effect. I have been informed that some other members of the Parish Council have provided statements confirming Councillor Luck’s recollection.

I attended that meeting. It is my strong recollection that Councillor Luck made no such apology. If Councillor Luck objected to the minutes of the EGM, why did he not object when the Parish Council ratified those minutes at its next meeting? Why has he waited for so long (5 months) to object to the accuracy of those minutes? If the other members of the Parish Council thought the minutes inaccurate, why did they not bring that to the attention of the Parish Council earlier?

We all make mistakes, but it is important that where we do, we apologise for them. Councillor Luck’s behaviour at the EGM was unacceptable and I do not recall his apology at the next meeting. I believe thathis behaviour has fallen well below the standards that we should all expect of those who represent us. For that reason, I believe his conduct at the EGM should be investigated further and I think he should consider his position on the Parish Council.

A member of the public said she attended the hearing as a member of the public. Whether Cllr Luck apologised at the EGM is not the matter I wish to debate. I did not hear it but I was present at the March meeting with two other members of the public. The matter that came up was that Cllr O’Brien and Cllr Luck wanted their full statements regarding declarations of interest put into the minutes. That decision was up to the PC and quite a lot of discussion took place and the PC came to a decision to include his statement except for one sentence. The majority of the PC agreed and the minutes were approved but he abstained because the complete statement was not going in. At no time was the matter of his alleged apology mentioned and at no time did he ask for it to be recorded and at no time was it refused.

At the hearing he said he specifically asked for his apology to be included in the minutes but this was refused. From the paperwork that came to me it would appear that Cllr Watson and Cllr Simmonds have supported his comments. Cllr Watson is a respectable member of the public and I would like to ask her if she sent an unsigned letter, with spelling mistakes, to the hearing.

353

Cllr Watson said she was not at the February meeting but she was at the March meeting. There was a lot of discussion; I sat next to Cllr Luck and he said that he had apologised at the February meeting and I wish it to be recorded that I made an apology. Cllr. Watson said Cllr. Luck said “I am apologising now”. It was not a refusal.

Cllr O’Brien confirmed that she asked for her full statement to be included under declaration of interests and it was agreed. Cllr O’Brien said she believed Cllr Luck did apologise at the meeting on 13th February, although some members of the public were leaving, and the report of the meeting in the March edition of the Parish Pump magazine also referred to an apology.

A member of the public who was present at the February meeting said that as soon as Clr Luck made that remark the Chairman said I am bringing the meeting to a halt; There was no time to make an apology.

Cllr O’Brien said she felt we should show our support for the Parish Clerk and move on. The Clerk said it was her name that was in the papers and this has caused a great deal of embarrassment to her and the PC.

A member of the public said how could anybody support a memberof the community who does this. I do not want it “brushed under the carpet” and I think the Parish Clerk should be treated properly. There used to be honour; it is sad that we are being represented by someone who has behaved in this manner. When asked by Cllr. Watson who the resident was referring to the resident stated that she was referring in general to the lack of honour and good behaviour.

Cllr Watson was presented with the unsigned witness statement and she said she had not seen it before but confirmed that those were the words she used and she stood by the content. She did not put it on that paper, it was an email sent to Cllr Luck’s solicitor. CG asked when it was sent as Mr. Perry had stated that he only received the two statements on the morning of the hearing. SW said she would forward a copy of the email to the CG.

The PC decided that the whole matter must be referred back to the UDC Standards Committee. The Clerk was asked to write to the Standards Committee and send all the relevant paperwork and state that the PC reject the findings of the committee and confirm that everything has been based on an apology that was heard only by a minority of the Councillors. A request to minute an apology was not made, and therefore not refused, at the PC meeting on 6th March.

14/067 To discuss the PC’s Insurance Policy and the extension facility

The PC’s insurance renewal was circulated prior to the meeting. It was confirmed that the valuation of £3,200 for the School Clock which was added to the policy was sufficient. The PC agreed to renew the policy for a period of three years, cost £1,424.36, and as the renewal expires before the October meeting this will be written on to the September payment schedule.

14/068 To receive an update on the new Memorial Seat

SW advised that the seat is in her garden and she would like it fixed on the recreation ground as soon as possible.

354

14/069 To receive the responses to the New Village Hall Questionnaires

CG advised that copies of the responses have been returned to her for safe keeping and she will formally acknowledge receipt. The full results of the questionnaire were published in the September Parish Pump.

14/070 To discuss changes to the management of the Memorial Hall

SW, Chairman of the Village Hall, reported that the Village Hall is a Charity and it is difficult to get trustees, particularly as there is no fixed term for trustees to serve. She suggested that it would be a good idea to set up a way of managing the new village hall so that it becomes a sub-group of the PC. One member of the PC could be responsible for managing the village hall and there could be a “rolling” chairman of the management group. This would be similar to the way the pavilion is currently managed.

The PC is already the custodian trustees of the current village hall and the new village hall should be less demanding to manage. RF said this has been raised before and it was agreed this should be given consideration.

After publishing the agenda a reply has been received from the Charity Commission which will be discussed at the next meeting and agree a way forward.

14/071 To discuss the plans for the Pavilion

Copies of the proposed plans had been circulated prior to the meeting. SW said the

upstairs is quite big and could be used for storage and possibly a meeting room, The

ground floor would be extended at the back but otherwise remain the same. A new

open internal staircase would be added which would make the kitchen area slightly

smaller. The tanks on the upper floor would have to bemoved and the floor joists

reinforced. Dormer windows could be added.

SW said that if the plan is approved we can apply for funding and the Football Club

should be able to get grants. A rough estimate of £50,000 has been obtained.

Costings and funding options will be obtained and discussed at the next meeting.

It has been reported that a manhole at the end of the pavilion needs attention. RF

advised that the cover needs replacing and it was agreed that this should be dealt

with.

14/072 To receive an update on the Allotments

SJ and RF have recently worked hard on clearing the trees from the overgrown plot but there is still work to do and it is hoped that AT will be able to pull out the tree stumps once it is cleared. RF and SJ will also be replacing the broken gate post in due course. CG reported that there is one plot vacant; No. 8. Rents for all other plots have now been collected.