Given the potential significance to our community, here is an interim post to update last month’s information on local planning applications, prior to our next full listing of ‘active’ applications at the end of this month:
An application for change of use of the former Spar Shop has been submitted (Application ID: 0408/0307) for conversion of Parwich Shop from retail to domestic residential use. It seems to be for living accommodation ancillary to the existing flat. The reason for the application given is: The shop, once prosperous, has suffered since the opening of supermarkets in Ashbourne and Matlock, the latter being the “final nail in the coffin”.
The application also includes two proposed new windows: one facing onto the Square at the front (right of the existing shop door) and one facing sideways (in an old blocked doorway) towards the old farmhouse next door and the access to Hideaway Cottage. It also appears that it is proposed to close up the doorway from the the extension (garage/store) into the footpath through past the Memorial Hall. This garage/store would be used as a two car garage.
Information has been sourced from the search facility on the Peak District National Park Authority (PDNPA) website.
The application was announced in the last Ashbourne News Telegraph (21st May ’08 ) saying comments had to be in within 21 days, which would give a deadline of 11th of June for interested parties to comment. Comments can be in writing or by email (see PDNPA’s How to comment on planning applications). We do not know if the application is to be decided on the Officers’ delegated authority or if it will go to the Planning Committee, though this may be influenced by whether there is any local opposition or not.
PARWICH.ORG 
Once change of use has been granted by Peak Park then we have lost any future potential for a shop on that site forever.
Currently we are extremely fortunate that Janet has opened a room in the pub for use as a shop. What happens in the future is she leaves or if the brewery changes their mind, we then won’t have a shop at all & the loss to the community will be enormous. It’ll affect house prices (the desirability of people wanting to move in) and worse how will older people or those with no transport cope.
In talking to Peak Park they appear quite supportive to the closure of the shop on non-viability grounds. But what is viable to one is not to another. Surely a couple buying and being willing to run the shop as a couple without employing lots of staff is far more profitable. Maybe if the sale price had been more realistic it would have sold. Maybe they never wanted it to sell because as a house it would realise more financially.
If you are happy for this planning permission to go through then do nothing. If you wish to object then you must refer to the Peak Park Local Plan (see below) and object using this information. If sufficient objections are received (possibly 6-10) would be sufficient to refer the matter to committee. The committee is then more likely to take other reasons for objections into consideration.
We all remember the impact on our community of the closure of our post office, our full time shop has gone, our Methodist Chapel this month, what next?
Peak District National Park – Local plan adopted 2001
Shops, Services & Community Facilities
5.6
Changing a shop to another use is resisted by Structure Plan Policy SC1. This protects the availability of facilities locally, and in particular helps the young, the elderly and those without access to private transport. It can therefore encourage a more sustainable transport pattern. Only where it can be shown that a shop is no longer viable or required by the local community, and that the proposed new use meets another community need, should change of use be allowed. In determining whether change of use will be allowed, the National Park Authority should therefore consider why the application has been made, the importance of the outlet to the local community and whether reasonable efforts have been made to continue the use if still viable. Where it is accepted that the present use is unable to continue, the approved new use should provide for another local community need, such as affordable housing or workspace. However, where an existing shop is operated from part of a family home, residential amenity may sometimes override other considerations. The General Permitted Development Order 1995 allows for the change of use of the first floor of a shop to living accommodation or a financial or professional service use without the need for Planning Permission. Such uses can prevent the loss of vitality that accompanies buildings, which are partly unused. The National Park Authority will encourage the appropriate use of upper floors of buildings when assessing development proposals.
http://www.peakdistrict.org/chapter5.htm
Loss of facilities such as a shop is likely to have an impact on planning applications for affordable housing provision in the village. One of the main considerations in planning guidance is that of sustainability, the fewer the facilities a village has the less sustainable it is seen to be in planning terms and therefore the more difficult it can be to argue the need for affordable housing.
Re. the commercial viability of a continuing village shop, I hope that the PDNPA will take a long-term view. A recent survey has shown that the take-up of broadband by rural households has now overtaken the take-up in urban areas. (Click here for the full story.) This is a dramatic change from four years ago, where urban broadband households outnumbered rural broadband households by a factor of two to one.
As a consequence, we are almost certain to see more and more people working from home, rather than commuting to an office each day. Indeed, our own recent estimates have suggested that 50% of Parwich’s working population already work from home. (Click here for more.)
These home-workers are consequently more likely to make use of their local shop – not just for the convenience, but also as a way of punctuating their day, getting themselves out of the house, and making contact with the outside world. There are also healthy environmental knock-on effects to all of this, in terms of decreased road usage.
This trend towards increased local working and local shopping may only have just started, but it’s a trend which, to my eyes, looks irreversible. In which case, it could be a terribly short-sighted decision to permanently get rid of our one dedicated retail space, just at the point where the tide might be starting to turn.
I hope that the Park will take the long term view and we will not lose this “retail space”, but is it enough to hope or do we send in our concerns to the National Park?
We are very lucky that Janet is willing to run a small shop at the pub; this involves a lot of extra hours for her. Several days a week she leaves Parwich at 7am to get new stock from Derby in time for opening the shop at 10am, despite the fact that she might not get the pub cleared up until well after midnight or later. There is no guarantee that any future publicans would be willing to work at this level.
The planning application for change of use of the former Spar Shop states that opening of supermarkets in Ashbourne and Matlock have rendered it no longer viable. Have figures for a decline in turnover been submitted to the Planning Officers to support this? Had this argument been made five years ago it would have been very hard to counter, but surely the hard work of the current owners in the past has demonstrated it is possible to overcome the lure of the supermarkets.
I would contend that the change in viability of the Shop relates not primarily to change in demand but to the change in management strategy. The owners reversed their own very successful formula of relying on few employees. One understands their family circumstances dictated this, and one must wish them all the best. As a family they are an asset to our community, but is this relevant to planning issues?
Further, even if one accepts that a general village grocery store is no longer viable in Parwich and that all reasonable attempts had been made to market the Shop as a going concern, have all reasonable attempts also been made to explore alternative retail options for the premises? It is something of a leap to say, because one business is no longer viable here, that the premises can no longer house any viable retail unit. The business has been marketed, but have the shop premises independent of the business been marketed?
Whatever your views, do contact the Peak District National Park Authority’s Planning Service and let them know. You can write to Planning Service, Peak District National Park Authority, Aldern House, Baslow Road, Bakewell, Derbyshire, DE45 1AE; or you can phone them on 01629 816200; or you can email planning.service@peakdistrict.gov.uk. Whether you don’t want to lose these retail premises to the village, or whether you think this is an inevitable result of social change, please contact the Planning Service. At the very least this should be discussed by a meeting of the Planning Committee.
CESSATION OF PARWICH SPAR SHOP AT THE SQUARE.
Firstly Michael Goulden ran the Shop for 10 years until 1998 taking it over from Larry Birds who had run it whilst he worked full time at Friden with his mother and Mrs Spencer. Michael tried to dispose of it for four years and then put a notice up to say he was to close in February 1998.
The Parish Council held a Village Meeting to discuss ‘ Save Our Shop ‘ after a six month trial with a couple, Mr and Mrs Roberts who found it difficult, I took over the Shop and when the bank overdraft and trading losses had to be dealt with, I had to announce the closure of the Shop in March 2002. BUT, I had been trying to get someone to take it over and Emma and Jason took it on. Emma was in Retail as a Manager in Bakewell but her parents were running a similar Spar Shop at nearby Birchover ( open 7am to 10pm)
I did warn Emma of the difficulties of running a Village Shop in particular, my Trading Losses had escalated to over £20000 and I needed to curtail them.
Trading for Emma was satisfactory initially but with the advent of Sainsburys in Ashbourne and now Matlock and spiralling overheads it has impossible to continue. Quite simply the Bank Overdraft is not covered, increases in delivery charges and Spar Merchandising Charges, reduced turnover, due to the changing shopping habits of the village people, the advent of internet delivery vehicles, competing with the same became impossible.
We are a much more mobile society, just observe the number of Holiday Cottages in our Village and thus people can shop elsewhere and ‘buy it all in one call’.
One Overhead alone had doubled recently the delivery charges of the Newspapers Wholesalers from £22.50 per week to £45.00 per week. Fortunately I was able to get MSN of Ashbourne to deliver to each house at a cost of only £3 per week, so the newsapapers are available.
Emma and Jason have two children, they were aware of falling profits, despite their efforts to attract trade last Xmas it was very poorly supported, the offers from the larger supermarkets just could not be matched. Messrs Fidler and Taylor, Chartered Surveyors have tried to sell the Shop since July 2006, I had an embarrassing meeting with potential buyers who brought their Accountants with them, after they just laughed at the profitability they left.
As an Accountancy Practice we have acted for well over 50 shops like this one in Derbysire, all have closed and this was our last one.
Emma and Jason have given me permission to show all their trading accounts and their present Bank Overdraft and Commercial RBS Mortgage to the Committee all of which need to be addressed. Initially we wish to change the Commercial mortgage which is at a 3% penal rate because we cannot change it to a private mortgage, hence the necessity to ask for change of use and lift the Mortgage Restriction.
A change of use I am informed does not mean it can never be reversed, Re the closing of the Post Office, Barbara and Brian at the Crimble put up so many posters ‘ use it or lose it ‘ they lost it. The Methodist Chapel closing was supported by 4 members it seems and with the poor state of the building they have now
joined the St Peters Church which is likewise not that well supported physically but a good number of people give standing orders that do not attend but enable the Church to remain financially stable. We are shortly to go to Appeal to assist with major repairs that our Church Architect requests and I can see this will get support.
So what have we now, well the good news is that I brought to Janets attention the offer from the Derbyshire Dales District Council about claiming 100% rate relief at the Sycamore as the only General Store was contained therein. Janet was ahead of me, I was pleased to note.
We have what I had hoped for ‘The Pub’s the Hub ‘ being run by Janet and Steve who are not involved with bringing up children and therefore become the ‘ couple ‘ that has been suggested could run a shop without staff, and we have the ability to have a chat at the Shop whilst enjoying a drink too. Great fun shopping now at the Pub.
So when it goes to the Committee in Bakewell I shall be delighted to show you all the papers and the financial position, including when I was running and was left with a £20000+ adverse position. The Government have closed so many Post Offices recently with a further 2500 on the cards to go too. I refused the offer of a Post Office at Parwich because a Client of my Practice at Whatstandwell was raided and tied up on a Thursday night all for the Pension Monies that had arrived, a gun to her head, my client’s wife never really recovered and became a nervous wreck and their marriage as traumatised. Thus ‘stand alone’ Post Offices without living accomodation are preferable.
I hope to be able to speak at the Parish Council meeting on Thursday. I understand you can speak before the meeting but not during the same.
By all means blame me for the Shop staying Open and demanding that it closes. BUT the move to the Pub I think is a master stroke.
If there is a funding deficit on the Memorial Hall then perhaps the St Peters Church will be able to house the same with some innovative architectural design. It’s a fine substantial reasonably unused building.
Stuart M Chambers, Chartered Accountant.
My husband and I have read the comments on the application for change of use of the Spar Shop at Parwich with great interest. We are related to Emma and Jason and feel well qualified to comment on the viability and sustainability of the shop at Parwich having run three village shops over the past 27 years.
Some of the comments made by concerned villagers are obviously made by people who have no business accumen whatsoever and have little or no understanding of what it takes to run a successful village store.
My husband and I are well qualified to comment on the viability and sustainability of a village store such as the one in Parwich. We have run three village stores in Derbyshire over the past 27 years, the first for 7 years, the second for 11 years and the third for 18 years. We actually ran two of them side by side for 10 years, and are in the process of extending and renovating our present store. This is possible because we have an excellent customer base, supported locally but more importantly by the constant flow of tourists. Without the tourist trade our village store would not exist.
There is no way on Gods earth that a shop in Parwich will survive in todays climate. Emma and Jason have given the business 100% and if they cant make it work then nobody can! As the Spar Representative said when asked what he thought about the shop closing down “Its a very expensive hobby!”.
And that is exactly what it is – because unless you can get someone prepared to work 7 days a week 364 days a year and not take any holidays then you can forget it. Emma and Jason are at present taking a well earned holiday for the first time in five years and even this is being spoiled by comments being made on this web site by certain individuals who havent a clue about how difficult the decision to close the shop has been for them. Maybe if these individuals had put a bit more effort into supporting Emma and Jason over the past six years the outcome would have been different. Alas, most choose to support the major supermarkets instead and these multiples are the ones who gain in the long run.
I was very surprised that someone came into take the shop on the last time it went up and I think this has been forgotten. Emma and Jason always seemed to work hard and put alot of effort into it, but with the new supermarkets, internet shopping , internet news broadcasts they didn’t really have much hope add on top of that the ever increasing fuel, electricty and other things that have to be paid as well as their own young family it is no wonder they decided to cease trading in what I image was a very hard and difficult decison for them.
The last time i looked the shop was still on the market as a commercial business, well all of these people who think a shop in the village would work on its own perhaps they should put an offer in and work the 364 day a year with very long hours. and from what i can work out very little reward apart from alot of back stabbing.
if no one is prepared to buy it then maybe Emma and Jason should be left alone to make their way in life hopefully in Parwich
With regard to Jackie and Bill’s comments, I just want to make it absolutely crystal clear that no criticism of Emma and Jason’s decision to cease trading was implied in my comments at #3 above. In my mind, there’s a clear separation to be made between Emma & Jason’s entirely justified personal decision, and wider issues regarding the PDNPA’s planning policy for the future.
Equally, I am aware that because the discussion on this site has been focussing on the future of the shop premises, there has been very little public recognition of Emma & Jason’s huge efforts to keep the business afloat for so long. With that in mind, I for one would like to publicly thank them for all their hard work over the past few years, along with everyone else who worked in the shop during that time.
Any debate about the future of the shop premises is bound to stir up strong feelings, but I sincerely hope that Emma and Jason don’t feel personally attacked by anything which has been said here.
Interesting debate – I guess part of the difficulty’s revolve around the fact that we all know each other and live together so there will be issues beyond the business decision, and the shop is a key asset to many in the village.
If one considers the business element in isolation though (and although I haven’t ever run a village shop, I have built and run several businesses, and been through the Machester Business School mangle), the viablity argument should be be based on ROCI, or Return On Capital Invested.
The argument goes like this…..
If one buy’s an asset for say £100,000 and then generate say £25,000 Gross profit (the difference between what you buy goods for and sell them) then you get a ROCI of 25% – a handsome return. However, if you buy an asset for £300,000 and and generate the same GP of £25,000 then your ROCI is only 8%. Not, on the face of it, a good business decision considering risk etc. when you can get 6% in the bank with no risk at all.
Gross profit is also only part of the story if you have to employ staff, and any wages will eat into GP. The point about working 7 days a week 364 days a year is a good one, and it would seem unreasonable to expect anyone to run a business on that basis without some staff.
In the final analysis Jason and Emma now own the asset, and it is their perogoative to do with it what they want within the resitrictions of the law (planning). The issue for the rest of us is, could the shop be viable under any circumstance?
Once we lose that shop, it will in all probability be gone forever.
– But then we now have another shop.
Why is it I only see typo’s after I post something – do you have a random typo generator in the software?
mildly indigant emoticon. (ALT F9 RTN)
Does anyone doubt the hard work Emma and Jason had put into the Shop? I understand the level of losses the Shop had been making before they took it on, as I was conversant with the previous accounts and was one of those who lost, though less than some, in that venture.
In particular one can not but recognise that Emma’s skill and determination turned an apparently non-viable business around when they took over five years ago. Further, I never ceased to be impressed with how she achieved the impossible by running the Shop without (to my knowledge) attracting a single negative comment, nor ever publicly making one. I am one of the many that benefited directly and indirectly from the Shop under their management.
No sane person would argue that they should continue trading at a loss. Their decision to cease trading themselves is theirs alone and no one can question their right to make that choice. This is not what is under debate here.
The importance of the future of these premises to the community is self-evident, and doesn’t everyone want to be certain that the correct planning decision is made, after due consideration, in the interests of the whole community?
Obviously any discussion is potentially fraught as it relates to premises that are also a family home and we are necessarily considering business matters which in the general run of things would properly remain private. However one of the purposes of public consultation on planning applications is to encourage dialogue, which is essential if we are all to understand the situation and grasp any potential opportunities.
PARWICH.ORG offers us a powerful forum for this, but also it carries risks which we will only begin to understand through experience.
Thank you for the further comments made, when I had the position of running the Shop 1998-2002 my £20000+ trading losses took no account of the hours and hours of work I did and my staff and my Office staff too keeping the Shop going, working the credit cards paying one off with another for free interest,when the Overdraft went over my limit of £15000 (we hit £20000) it was a pain keeping tags on everything and for what. Certainly no real thanks but what a joy to get Emma and Jason. So it looks like a long battle to get the 3% penal excessive mortgage rate that Emma and Jason are facing presently because we need to lift the commercial restriction.
Think of the new situation ‘The Pub’s the Hub’ no real new overheads to encounter and The Shop was on National Central TV News yesterday. great interviews etc.
Stuart M Chambers.
Well Bill, the P.O went, the Methodist Chapel, the shop why not the buses, the school, the Church. That’s the reason the change of use for the shop has to be fought – for the future of our community and the younger generation. It’s not an issure about Emma & Jason but what we have and are losing in the village. Good on Janet – it was great to see her and The Sycamore on the News and I hope she wins the award. She deserves it. But remember everyone to sign the petition in the Shop which objects to the change of use to Spar Shop. What’s next to go!!
The football field to 10 afffordable homes!
This has been an incredibly interesting debate to watch from a distance like I have, and it is obvious that the whole issue is a difficult one to grapple with. However, no matter what your views are on this, there are several cold, hard inescapable facts.
1. It is well known that the shop had struggled for many years, but I for one did not realise how much effort Stuart had had to put into it to keep it going. NO small business can stomach that sort of loss, and as Bill says, if it was making these losses when Stuart was running it, then it was VERY BRAVE of Emma and Jason to take it on at all.
2. Emma and Jason have, from what I can see when I visit, put an incredible amount of effort into that business, the opening hours were incredibly long and it must of put a serious kibosh on their social life. They invested in the shop with new storage facilities and extra floor space to increase product range and sales and lower transport costs by being able to store more on site. But their life has also moved on, as it should, they now have a family and they needed to get help in (indeed they would have needed to get help in even if they did not have a family, those hours were unsustainable in the long run), so the costs go up as wages have to be paid and therefore more trade is needed. But Parwich does not have a passing trade…..you are not on a main road, indeed one of the attractions of the place is that you do not go there unless you are going there……as Jackie says, without the passing trade and with a customer base of only 500 ish, most of whom are out of the village during the day in towns or big cities where there are supermarkets….well you work it out.
3. So the decision is made to try and sell the shop as a going concern. Comments have been made about the realism of the asking price…..based on the houses advertised on this very site it seems very reasonable for the area to me, prime village location , three bedrooms and looks, on the estate agents website, to be very nicely fitted out. But, as Stuart says, people come and look at the books first (as business people should) and see the figures………even the Spar man describes it as an expensive hobby!
4. Eventually, the inevitable happens, it is no longer possible to carry on and the final cost increase tips the balance. Following professional advice, the shop closes. And we get to Grahams point, which is a key one, and that is that Emma and Jason own the asset. It is THEIR MONEY paying the mortgage, NOT the communities, and (if I understand Stuart’s post correctly) they are paying a 3% penalty for it being formerly a business. In today’s climate, where interest rates are high enough anyway, that is hard.
5. Which brings us to Peter T’s point about the “concern regarding the future of these premises to the community being self-evident, and doesn’t everyone want to be certain that the correct planning decision is made, after due consideration, in the interests of the whole community?” Yes, you obviously do (whatever your view), and this forum has been a good display of that, but it is not an issue that “has to be fought” as Jazz describes it. The unemotional question you have to ask yourself, as you look at your mortgage payment each month, is aren’t you glad you are not the couple up to road with a young family who have to pay this and then some for the privilege of living in the former shop, having worked their socks off for the last few years in a business that eventually failed through no fault of their own. You might want to think about “what is in the interests of the whole community”? If the use is changed to a house, there is a possibility that Emma and Jason might be able to stay, and put their children through the school. If not and they are unable to keep up the repayments and are forced to go, that is children lost to the school, which might tip the balance on the the school’s viability. So what is of more benefit to the community in the long term?
6. So what is the solution? I suggest it is fairly simple, if you think you can make a go of it (bearing in mind there is also competition in the village now, something Emma and Jason did not have to contend with – indeed, lets accentuate that point – YOU ACTUALLY DO HAVE A SHOP, Janet has stepped in and opened up a shop), but if the shop HAS to be where it was, pop round and make a realistic and sensible offer for the building within the environs of it’s asking price, as it is now with the current usage restriction on it. Then, using the past trading figures, convince a bank (in the current credit climate) that the business is feasible, and then, as has been said, run it. If you pull it off, all well and good. An alternative would be to apply for planning permission to change a room in your own home, or your garage, into a shop. As Stuart points out, these planning decisions are of course changeable in the future (and I don’t mean by appeal, but by new application). BUT, as Bill says, if no one is prepared to buy it then Emma and Jason should be left alone to make their way in life with their new family (the “younger generation” ) and hopefully they will want to stay in Parwich and support the school as I mentioned above.
Which brings me to Jazz’s point about what the village has lost over the past few years, and it is interesting. There is no polite way to say this, (bearing in mind I am quite young) but the village population is noticably older than it was even 10 years ago. I can think of only one person from my school year of seven who still lives in the village (which means the other 86% of us have left). I would quite like, one day, to come back to the area, but when houses on Smithy Close (which as I recall were built as affordable starter homes) are up at £219000, then it is not a realistic option, probably until my children (currently small) are grown up. See where I am going, it is to expensive. So the younger generation, and those of us who are slightly older and have kids already, are being priced out. We have to go elsewhere. Lifestyles have also changed. Religion is not the in thing for instance amongst my generation so church numbers are down (and indeed for those of us who do do religion, church is actually one of the last places in which we do it, but that is for another day). Commuting, internet shopping, higher mobility, more supermarkets in local towns, more farmers markets etc, higher rates, higher costs, wider TV channels meaning more news so fewer papers………I could go on, the demand is simply not there for some things anymore and nice though they are to have, if there is no demand then there is no need (though there may be a want – which is a different thing altogether).
Miles from Parwich as I am, it is easy for me to be detached from the emotion and it is obvious that this is an issue people have very strong feelings about. But remember, you have to carry on living together in a small remote village after this issue is resolved, and as Peter T points out, PARWICH.ORG offers you a powerful forum for discuss things, but also it carries risks which you will only begin to understand through experience, so use it wisely and thoughtfully.
A final point, I hope Bill was jesting about building 10 starter homes on the football field, because if you are talking about the field opposite Nether Green, I’d be very surprised if you could build on that. I remember 25ish years ago not being able to go on it because it was just a bog – I believe it still floods quite easily, and whilst I am no structural engineer or builder, I doubt you could dig down far enough for some decent foundations before you hit water, The whole area down there is called Wash Meadow for a reason……. No mortgage or housing insurance company would touch them (or if they did, it would probably be so expensive they would no longer be “affordable homes” ). Mind you, stranger planning decisions have been made in the past………….
So that area as a local resource is probably safe but then, of course, that raises the question of where could you build ten affordable houses in Parwich?
Answers on a postcard……or should that be blog post…….
These emoticons are a nusiance, that Smile is supposed to be a closed bracket!!!! Don’t know how I did that !
East Anglian Exile, do you want the smile removed? One of the Blog Team can go in and do it for you. I have the same problem with 8 and ), which becomes 8)
Well put theeastanglianexile. The key questions are:
Is the Shop viable?
Can any Shop here be run without the owners having to work unacceptable hours?
Is there adequate local demand to justify a shop?
Were the various offers that have been made to buy the business and/or the premises at a fair current market level?
i thought all planners found a flood plain then built on it ?
Bill, depends what you want to build. the youngsters in our village wanted a skate board park a couple of years ago and suggested it went on the land behind our village hall. We were told this was a flood plain by the council and it wouldn’t be happening, so we were all somewhat amused, when on the same flood plain, the childrens play area appeared at the end of last year !!!!!!
This is our only designated shop outlet, which is a much needed facility for all resident’s in the village. In particular the old or disabled, as you know our transport link’s to and from Ashbourne are sporadic and under threat, as along standing resident in the village it is my intention to grow old myself here, in so doing I too will need the facility, hopefully!.
The temporary solution in the form of the Pub is just that…and can not be considered a lasting available outlet. The Brewery business is a separate business and there only needs a change of heart by Janet, or change of ownership, or direction from Robinson’s brewery and we will be left with nothing at all.
It is the responsibility of Peak Park to protect village life and insure the future of the village and its inhabitants and their fundamental needs which undoubtedly are a facility to acquire food. If the shop is lost forever the will be catastrophic repercussions for the most needy in our community.
This is in no way a personal issue, I applaud Emma’s hard work and effort bringing the shop to the vibrant wonderful shop it became, I am delighted that she has two beautiful children now and her direction has rightly changed. However, the village will continue to NEED a shop and with that in mind efforts must be made to maintain this facility for the people living here.
Pheadair, if you could take that thing out it would be good. Thanks
Please when you write such a script make your self known ,it is very spooky to be dictated to by an unknown quantity, you apparently no longer live in the village , so what gives you the right to cast comment on how we see our future and how we as a village are going to cope without a shop..? ask Freda , Jack ,Ron or any of the older generation …how are they going to cope..?
l spent on ave £100.00 per week supporting the shop, for the specific reason that it kept it running . l am sick of hearing how we as a village did not support it ..we did ..and we will..
Stuart is the unsung Hero of the shop he did everything he could to change the shop and supported Emma to the hilt and beyond ..whatever his position now l know it will be in good faith…BUT we will regret it lf we do not stand together to maintain a deignated retail outlet which for generations to come will thank us for our determination to do just that…
otherwise we will have lost as a community forever.
Although the previous semi-community venture, spearheaded by Stuart, failed here and though Winster is a much larger village than Parwich, it might be interesting to find out more about what is happen at the village shop in Winster (see http://www.winster.org/shopAssociation.htm)
Whilst I agree with most of what Joanne writes, I am not sure that I agree with the notion that every commenter should leave their real name. I think I understand the sentiment behind it – but sometimes for a variety of reasons, people want to join the debate without being identified, especially in a close knit community like ours where sometimes issues which should be depersonalised, become very personal. I for one would rather have a lively debate where everyone can have their say (identified or not), than have a situation where people are nervous about speaking out, and therefore have no forum to air their views.
As to individuals outside the village commenting – why not? At least it gives us a broader perspective, and one doesn’t have to agree with the comments.
I really enjoyed reading theeastanglianexcile’s comment 16. It was very well written and considered, and represents an educated view (after all, eae has lived in the village), but after reading it and thinking about what eae said, I think I agree much more with with Joanne comment 22 para 4.
Yours sincerely,
Mavis.
ALT [Home] – that’s the mildly concerned emoticon………..
At the request of Prof. Peter Young we have copied his comment (dated 13th June) from under the post ‘Last Chance to comment on Shop change of use’ (https://parwich.org/2008/06/13/last-chance-to-comment-on-shop-change-of-use/) below, so it can be read under this post as well.
I have only just become aware of the “Parwich.org”, and have rattled off the following to the planners:
“I can see no valid reason why the application for change of use should not go ahead. I was significantly involved in earlier attempts to “save the shop” (and, indeed lost money in the process). Emma Machin then took over, and she and her partner Jason put an immense amount of work into enlarging the premises, and running the business in a way which could not be faulted, in terms both of effort and of imagination. It became a model village enterprise – and the sad fact is that it was not supported adequately by the village population. It is possible that a smaller shop run on the back of the village inn, with more limited objectives, may succeed. However, I was privy to the financial situation of the shop in it’s last incarnation and closure was forced upon it.
On a more personal (but not, I think, irrelevant) note, the owners, Emma and Jason are an excellent young couple with two young children, and it is extremely important that we keep such folk in the village (with it’s currently ageing population). The ”change of use” will stabilize their future in the village, where Jason has already found local employment.
I hope that my comments can be taken into account.”
Apart from which:
(a) I knew nothing about this website, which is impressive; and
(b) I have the gravest doubt about blogs in general – they can so easily become vehicles for local busybodies, and especially so when you permit publication under pseudonyms or initials – which is a most reprehensible practice which you should abandon forthwith!
If this is published, please do so under my name!
I am grateful to the moderators for copying my contribution across! Under the “last chance” string I had a reply from an anonymous “Bob”, in which he tried to defend anonymity, and in which he extolled the “fun and amusement” which blogs can give.
I don’t want to carry on this conversation much further, but “Bob’s” comparison of anonymity in voting ballot papers and in a village blog just did not hold water.
I have no wish to condemn blogs in general – they are enormously popular, if not entirely to my taste – but rather I object to the the cloak of anonymity which is here being allowed. Even Bob rather hedges his views when he says that such comment is “not completely reprehensible”.
Bob says that the blog has provided “a lot of fun and amusement along the way”. This may be so in many cases of a less contentious nature, but in the present case it has reduced Emma to tears. Contributors need to try to put themselves into the minds of the recipients of their criticisms – and if they do not have the sensitivity to do this then the moderators should move in.
Why should contributors need to cloak their identity? What have they to hide? Think about that!
At the risk of drifting “off topic” on this thread, Peter Young’s last comment raises some points on commenting policy which, in my role as one of the site administrators, I’d like to address.
Firstly: If any comments left on this site were ever to cross the line into name-calling or personal abuse, obscenity, slurs on integrity, potential libel, or invasion of privacy, then we would have no hesitation in removing them. In my personal opinion, no comments have yet strayed into this territory – but if anyone would like to raise any specific objections to any specific comments, then they should contact parwich@hotmail.co.uk immediately.
Secondly: As site administrators, we would not wish to impose a commenting policy whereby people were obliged to leave their full names. That is a matter for each individual. We do however ask for valid e-mail addresses to be provided, and we also pledge that these e-mail addresses will never be revealed.
Thirdly: There is one very good reason for pseudonyms, and that reason is Google. It is entirely reasonable that people would wish to comment on this site without their comments being picked up by people randomly searching for their full names. Without wishing to cause undue alarm, I have personal knowledge of friends and acquaintances who have been “cyber-stalked”, and it’s not a predicament that I would wish upon anyone.
To conclude: commenting policy is by necessity a balancing act. On the one hand, people can hide behind aliases to make pointed comments that they would not make to people’s faces – and in the course of this particular thread, some decidely pointed comments have certainly been made, even if the line into unacceptability has (in our judgements) not been crossed.
On the other hand, an overly restrictive commenting policy would stifle both healthy debate and the dissemination of useful information amongst the community. For instance, has this thread been useful to people who have been trying to form an informed opinion on a subject of major local importance? I would definitely say that it has been.
As moderators, we think very carefully about matters of policy and procedure, and as such we are satisfied that acceptable guidelines are being followed (click here to read them). As this is everybody’s site, and not our own personal empire, we prefer to keep direct interventions to a minimum, and to place individual responsibilities firmly with the individuals concerned. However, this would also be a good place to remind people that anonymity should not be used as a convenient cover for overly confrontational remarks.
As a member of the blog team I want to state my support for Mike A’s comment (No. 29 above).
It is worth considering whether our attitude to pseudonyms and moderation of comments is influenced by whether we agree or not with what has been said. It seems to me that complaints about pseudonyms tend to arise when the complainant disagrees with what has been said.
It has taken me sometime to come to terms with the fact that people can comment anonymously on what I have posted on the site. however, regardless of who says what, surely fully understanding an issue is what really matters.
I use the pseudonym pheadair when acting as a member of the blog team, to distinguish such input from my personal views when I generally use my own name. However the other members of the team do not feel this is necessary.
Similarly suggestions for moderation have tended to occur only when the comments are not to our liking. This morning I had a phone call from an individual who was very concerned that a comment of theirs seemed to have been deleted. The comment was there, it was under a separate post on the same issue. That person would have been rightly incensed if we had deleted or altered their comment.
As long as our comments do not stray beyond the law and commonly accepted decency, or as Mike says invade other’s privacy, it would be wrong of the web team to impose their views.
Philosophers will be familiar with Popper’s suggestion (excuse my over-simplification) that Science only progresses through evidence that conflicts with our theories, not through evidence that confirms our theories. Similarly I would argue we learn much more from those that disagree with us, than from those that agree with us, however much it is in our nature to be drawn to the latter.
We are still learning as a community how to use the fantastic opportunities this website offers us. There are also very real risks as well, but on the whole I would say that as a community we seem to be handling these very well. What is important is mutual respect, not uniformity of opinion.
In response, I do not believe that “Bob” is in any way trivialising the issue of the village shop closure. Reading the comment, he (she) is simply defending the blog as a resource, and countering Prof. Young’s view that blogs are a forum for busybodies.
It is entirely right and proper that the people of this village have the opportunity to comment on the possible removal of an amenity which affects all of us, especially those who need it most in the village.
It is an important issue. People should comment. And most importantly people should feel they can comment hoenstly without anyone being judgemental. If, due to the nature of village life, that means doing it anonymously, so be it.
I have not read one word of criticism for Emma. In fact their has been universal approval for the industrious way she grew the business so successfully before she was blessed with her new family, so I’m not sure where Prof. Young reads any personal criticism. Just because one doesn’t agree with a planning policy change, doesn’t mean an implied personal criticism and to suggest that it does is certainly personalising the issue.
Right from the start of this thread, there have been constant pleas to separate the intellectual and policy issue from the personal. It is regretable that some contributors have been unable to differentiate these two vital elements.
Can I please take this opportunity to make a full apology for the phrase in my post that said that village did not need a shop. This was not the point I was trying to make, but that is irrelevant as in the event it is exactly what I said. I fully accept that there are people within the village that need the opportunity to purchase food as close to their home as is practibly possible and also that there are people who put ALOT of effort and cash into supporting the shop in the village, I would not to denigrate their efforts in anyway and wish to apologise unreservedly for any offence that I have caused with that line, or any of my post. I also wish to apologise to anyone who thought that I was dictating as to what should happen in the village. All I was really trying to do was offer an objective summary of the points that had been made on the site already and I am sorry if this came across as dictatorial, it really was not my aim and I am truly sorry that this has obviously caused some of you so much upset.
You are of course right that I no longer live in the village, indeed I left in 1996 and in 9 years time will have actually lived out of the village for longer than the 21 years I actually lived in it, which is a somewhat sobering thought for me. I do not, as Jo-anne has said, really have any right at all to comment on things that are going on in the village at present, but Parwich is still an incredibly special place for me, it is where I spent my childhood and grew up and the people that were mentioned in Jo-anne’s post were all there at that time, as indeed were many more who have now sadly passed away. Of course the village has developed and changed immensely in the 12 years since I left, with a great many new people all of whom keep the traditions of the village going, and developing new ones such as this site. The feeling of community and welcome when you visit the village is still there, and it makes visits special.
I actually agree completely with the Professor’s point, and Jo-anne’s, about using your real name on this site, but the whole reason I don’t is exactly the one Mike A cites, and that is Google. I worked in Mental Health until recently, and we are counselled very stongly to keep as much of our personal information out of areas where patients can get at it. The patients I worked with are very adept at using PC’s, indeed at one point they found me on Facebook, so the more I can protect myself and my identity, the more I do.
The joy of this website for me, and I would think other expats of Parwich as well, is that it allows us to keep the link with the village even if we are not there. I will, however, keep my thoughts to myself in future, and close by apologising again to anyone upset by the contents of my post.
Keep on commeting, theeastanglianexcile (although if you could have a shorter pseudonym it would be good!).
Your contributions have been informed, balanced, and well written.
Thank you.
It would be a real shame if anyone felt that they could not put a comment on the blog and as one of the blog team I would feel that we have failed. This is an incredible vehicle through which debate can be stimulated and we all have to accept (but not necessarily agree with) other people’s opinions. The important thing with any debate is not to get personal, be prepared to agree to disagree and still be able to walk away as friends. I sincerely hope that theeastanglianexile will continue to read & comment. I am delighted that more people are commenting and over the next months & years I hope that even more people will continue to do so.
Why not send in a blog to start off a discussion – email it to parwich@hotmail.co.uk
The E-A-Exile, I didn’t agree with all you said, but I feel yours was a valuable and balanced contribution to the shop debate, and certainly don’t think you need apologise for anything.
It is an important part of Parwich, that the expats still feel involved. I am in touch with a number of people whose families moved away fifty, sixty, seventy or even more years ago, but still feel a link with the village. That says something really positive about the local community.
Cyber stalking is worth bearing in mind. Most days someone arrives at the blog having searched for a specific combination of Christian and surnames.
Today for example some one searching for ‘S… C… Matlock’ arrived at PARWICH.ORG. Were they searching for our S.C., who works in Matlock? It may be that it was someone wanting to contact him in a professional capacity; it could be a curious friend or relative; it could be S.C. himself seeing what would turn up; the chances are there was absolutely nothing sinister, but we can not be certain.
There was also someone who arrived here having searched for ‘burial-mounds diagram photo’.
E-A Exile you must continue to write .it is l that should appologize…well maybe we both should .. but my heated response was post the pub -late night snack – and an obligetary glass of wine to accompany it .
As was highlighted on grumpy old women with access to email there should be an automatic cover that shields the thing after a certain time in the evening .
So from me please continue to contribute and you are still part of the village, this dilema has rightly ignited many feelings and oppinions but it does effect all of the people living here and will impact our way of life in many different ways hence the debate and forum t air views which our blog is there for ..
One last comment , l am more than concerned that Emma is, as the Prof said ‘in tears’ about any comments made . that was never my intention or l believe anyone who has commented, l have not read any detrimental thing’s said about Emma. l have the greatest respect for Emma , she worked extremely hard and was and still is admired for the effort’s she made to build the shop into the pleasant , lovely shop it became ,even when she was not feeling great she would smile and get through it .
My mother for one thought she was the kindest girl alway’s ready to carry the shipping order that she came back with after just popping along for some milk !!
This has to be separated from the main issue – which is not at all personal . It is about our right to a voice when faced with the loss of a facillity which will impact the most vulnerable in our society.
Obviously none of you think this is personal against Emma and Jason, but its obvious to me they are taking it to heart, I think I
oops pressed something then which posted my reply!! I will start again…
…I believe what has been said is obvioulsy going to be taken personally by them. Emma- Jason please let it be known that not all of us share the same opinions of the others that have written on here, well done to bill and e-a exile, the professor etc for venting their opinions –
Anyway I notice there is a sign “for let” in the old shop window…. I imagine you are all looking into buying it as we speak……
If this website is not meant to upset people – then why is it?