From our Reporter at the Parish Council Meeting
The Agenda for our PC increases month by month. This started to happen ever
since the PC was told to remove 'Any Other Business'from the Agenda and
to substitute it with 'Items for the Next Agenda'. In other words no
decision or action can be taken on any new matter which has arisen since the
last meeting and which is not included in the agenda.
Therefore the PC will now be including almost everything in 'Items for the Next Agenda'just in case a matter of importance arises. This of course will require ruthless control by the Chairman to prevent people repeating themselves each month. But it's a worthwhile precaution because no-one has yet explained why no action/decision can be taken on items brought up in 'Any Other Business'. This is a challenge to Mrs Hazel Williams (whose work and ability I admire greatly).
At the beginning of each meeting members declare their non-interest in any item on the Agenda. This was followed by the "Parish Council Vacancy"and the good news that someone was willing to fill it. The volunteer was David Almond, manager of Lord's Ground Farm, who was voted in unanimously, with David remarking how pleased he was to return to the village. I am particularly delighted because David used to be as fine a right wing as we have ever had and it's good to know he will be out there again in the Annual Boxing Day Hockey Match. He also has a very good knowledge of the fens and this together with his realistic approach can only be good for the PC. Steve asked whether David should declare any interests and was told that it didn't matter. This was very confusing because here was a member/stranger who could vote on any issue without the PC knowing if he had any interests in any item. Steve just hoped that nothing "illegal is happening".
Geoffrey raised again the 'Travellers in Headlake Drove'issue and even though the situation changes little it is good he does. At present it seems there is a huge row between the CCC and ECDC about the rubbish. ECDC asks CCC to remove the travellers, CCC won't or fails to, the rubbish multiplies, and ECDC picks up the bill. Neither of these councils is necessarily at fault but both are constrained by.. .. .. .. (fill in your own words).
In 'Correspondence Received'one letter of significance was from Dominic Doble, Senior Countryside Access Officer, to Jake Williams of the National Trust regarding the installation of cattle grids on "Reach (191) Byway 14 'Straight Drove'". It is a very long letter, and I just quote for public interest the last paragraph:-
"I accept that these attempts to balance public rights with private goals may not be the responses you were hoping for, particularly in the latter case. Nevertheless, doing the right thing by local people, within the constraints of the law, should set the National Trust up favourably to pursue the laudable aims of Wicken Vision in the years ahead."
Perhaps we need a reminder about this Wicken Vision. We are threatened with Global Warming and a rising sea and to meet this challenge the National Trust proposes to flood the fen. Is this the Vision? Why not save the money, I wonder. Meantime someone made the observation that the NT was better at looking after buildings than land.
Geoffrey again raised his "Don't Ditch the Lodes!"campaign (see his letter, page 5, of the June Crier which unfortunately omitted the web reference to register your objection). David thought the local people with an interest ought to be better organised because as far as he could see the reaction was rather "spasmodic"and "not terribly well organised". This may well be, as Geoffrey ought to have many more than the 200 signatories he has at that time of writing. It should be nearer 2,000? Maybe there is an emphasis on quality rather than quantity.
Next came up the possibility of Quality Status for our PC. Hazel Williams is red hot on this and she forcefully put forward the need for it in what I thought was at times a bullying approach which was almost tantamount to blackmail. Or maybe it was just excessive enthusiasm. It took Steve to ask pertinent questions whether the extra paperwork gives any tangible benefit, whether not being a Quality PC will have a serious affect, and whether you have to be a Quality PC to have a Quality Clerk - as Karen is fast becoming. A list of requirements will be sent to the PC for its consideration and it will then decide. One requirement it seems is a quarterly report - "But we do a monthly report and also have a monthly outside reporter". This won't do it seems. What we would quite like in this village is a monthly report from our ECDC and CCC representatives, though I suppose a quarterly one would do if time is short.
Mill Hill traffic continues to be of concern and the PC was meeting CCC officials on site on the following Wednesday in the search for a solution - money permitting. Meanwhile there is a very simple measure which would produce immediate results and which is employed in the top half of the High Street. Park on the road a big car which is rarely or never used. The results would be remarkable. All that's needed is a car or a large van. Does anyone have a spare one? Maybe there could be a parked car rota. Give it a try and see what happens.
Then we moved on to the High Street Signs issue which could go on and on and eventually acquire the notoriety of the Shakespeare authorship question. Geoffrey had previously said that if the signs weren't taken away he would personally remove them. He reported that Allen Alderson had advised him not to do so as he could be thrown off the PC for misconduct. Geoffrey was torn between appearing as a "man of straw"or not staying on the PC. There was no contest. Correspondence has been flying around and I think the latest is that the Chief Executive of ECDC has entered the fray and is seeking the official confirmation from the Bulbeck/Prior PCs as to their requirements.
OF COURSE IT COULD BECOME MUCH WORSE. I have a friend in the lovely Cotswold village Painswick who lives in a house which for 400 years has been known as Brook House. A recent arrival in the village did not like the name of his new house and renamed it Brook House. In spite of protests and pleas he has refused to drop the name. There is nothing that the Painswick PC can do, because the Stroud District Council and Post Office rules stipulate that while there is no limit to the number of similar names in a town or village, they only draw the line at more than one house with the same name in any one street. This means that we could have a Swaffham Prior House (or Anglesey House, Shadworth House or any other house name) in Rogers Road, in Greenhead Road, in Lower End etc. Wouldn't that get our PC excited! We must hope that no-one in the village has a mischievous sense of humour.