From our Reporters...
PARISH COUNCIL MEETINGS GALORE All covered by our Crier Reporters
David Greenfield's Report appears to have so delighted our PC that they had
three meetings during August - perhaps they were hoping to see him again? All
the meetings were about planning applications. In days long gone it was assumed
that all August planning applications were a bit dodgy as most people were away
and applications could go through on the nod, especially slight amendments
which would add an extra floor to an originally modest proposal. It might have
been the case then, but it is certainly not now, I'm sure.
PARISH COUNCIL MEETING 9TH AUGUST
Curious as to why our Parish Council should break with hallowed tradition and meet in August I went to listen in the public gallery. The Agenda promised no burning issues - and none arose until (after a reprise of the traffic on Mill Hill, the threat to the Lodes, the National Trust plans, parking problems in Ely, fly tipping on the droves) we finally got there.
There were three planning applications. The one for a garage with utility room behind 39 Cage Hill raised some concerns, while an application to demolish a clunch barn at 28 High Street, said to have "had its useful life", was contested rather more hotly. Although the building is currently unsafe, it is in the Conservation Area and the meeting was evenly divided over the merits of retaining it. Roughly speaking the "old guard"opted for demolition while the newer arrivals voted for it to be kept. The Chairman had to cast his deciding vote, which he did, in favour of preservation.
MEETING FOR MILL HILL RESIDENTS 15th AUGUST
Six Parish Councillors and the Clerk attended the presentation by the Ashwell Property Group to Mill Hill residents about the development of the Water Tower site. There were 3 Mill Hill residents, 2 from the High Street, and 1 other. Ashwell went out of its way to meet objections - by reducing the height of some of the houses and by having considered the Mill Hill traffic problem and agreeing to contribute money to what is called a "build out". They offered to make a donation to the Parish Council and rarely have I seen people put in such a spin at the offer of money. Both the Chairman and GeoffreyWoollard exclaimed "Don't give it to us, give it to the CCC."The Ashwell representative was nonplussed and didn't know what to say. Being helpful I offered to look after the money but for some extraordinary reason this simple solution was not taken up. No-one asked how much would be contributed and no questions were asked about the Thirties/Greco/Egyptian concrete shed/building which has been left out of the new Water Tower enclosure. When asked about this at the previous Ashwell presentation one of its staff said "It's not on our patch."On whose patch is it?
PARISH COUNCIL MEETING 28TH AUGUST
The Parish Council had called an extraordinary meeting to discuss the plans for the conversion to a house of the Chapel at the end of the High Street. A nudge from nowhere came from a strange voice in my ear telling me that I'd really be interested in the discussion and, anyway, it wouldn't last very long. So, there I was, on Wednesday 29th, in the Village Hall - observing.
There were about eight Councillors sitting round the large Committee Room table, with the plans spread out before them. Members were eager to see where the parking was sited as traffic congestion could easily become an issue in that part of the High Street. Satisfied that this question had been answered, there was little further discussion except that Geoffrey Woollard liked the development and commended the environmentally sympathetic treatment of this important building. Living nearby I think the proposal could not have been bettered. The plans were approved. And the strange voice was right - I was interested and the meeting was very short.
PARISH COUNCIL MEETING 13TH SEPTEMBER
The Night that Eric Day Dropped a Bombshell
On the Agenda of the July Meeting I noticed that Swaffham Bulbeck had offered Karen the job of being their Clerk. How dare they try to steal our Clerk! I thought. And it wouldn't be the first time that the dastardly Bulbeckians have put one across us. For example they nicked Marlon Brando's bedroom door once the filming had stopped. The door is still there, in Bulbeck, and I gather there is no chance of getting it back. As it happens all is well as Karen is now Clerk to both PCs and easily parries questions from our PC - "Are they any good?", "as good as us?"etc. Karen cut them down to size - "I'm not having any of that, so you can stop it."
So what was new in the September meeting? Not a lot. Part of the problem today for any reporter is that letters and other documents are previously circulated by email and just mentioned in passing, usually with no comment. Before email the interesting ones were read out and there could be a discussion. No longer. There is no way round this but there can be times when the Crier reporter is left uninformed and may make the occasional error.
There was a letter about the High Street signs which was being nodded through when Geoffrey dragged it back by the scruff and insisted members should consider it because ECDC had only removed 2 of the 3 High Street signs the PC had asked to be removed. This was a 2/3rd success which normally isn't bad. But Geoffrey was not to be appeased and kept on banging on about number 2 sign still being there. I now began to worry about his map references because in the official Crier record of the signs (March 2007, page 9), number 2 was at the Bulbeck side of Swaffham Prior House entrance, and this has been removed. I think Geoffrey should have used the Crier reference and referred to number 3. This would have avoided the misunderstanding.
The Play Area is to have some substantial maintenance and refurbishment and Steve Kent-Phillips was congratulated for having master-minded this, all without any cost to the PC/Village. Money also has to be spent on the gate to ensure an ambulance can enter. It appears this is a regulation though how Bulbeck can squeeze one into its play area is a mystery.
In Open Question time two members of the public made a contribution and it was immediately after this that Eric Day dropped his bombshell. He, out of the blue, informed the meeting that "the plans for the five houses on the Water Tower site had been withdrawn."Only Eric knew about this, how, we shall never know. Maybe it is because the land was originally owned by Eric's father, had been compulsorily purchased, and therefore it was considered only decent to tell Eric first. Maybe it is going to be given back to Eric which would ensure there would be no development on the site. The meeting ended quite early.