This post has been created at the request of a reader who was concerned the Parish Council land making up part of The Square off Pump Hill in the centre of Parwich village is to be sold without any public consultation. At the March Parwich Parish Council meeting Item 14 “it was agreed to sell Pump Hill back to the previous owner for the sum of £1“. (This “previous owner” is not named in the minutes, but it is presumed this reference in the minutes is an error as the previous owners have no current connection to the village, see below.) The minutes make no mention of any conditions as to the future use of this land being specified as part of the sale.
This land, in front of Parwich Hall, was originally part of the Parwich Estate. Some time around the 1820s it was made into allotments for use by villagers. The 1843 Tithe Map refers to it as ‘gardens’. The estate was bought by Sir John Crompton-Inglefield in the 1930s. After World War II the allotments went out of use, and Lady Crompton-Inglefield had trees planted here to hide the separately owned garden at the south end of the land, in front of the former Shop, which was then being used to cure deer hides amongst other things.
After the sale of the bulk of the Parwich Estate in the 1970s, this land remained in the hands of Sir John’s heirs, one suspects on the speculation that restrictions on building here might someday be removed. Over a number of years Dorothy L gardened this land on a voluntary basis, and created a very attractive woodland garden, much enhancing this part of the village.
When it came up for auction in the early 2000s, the Village Action Group raised buying it with the then Parish Council. There was strong local support for protecting this land in the heart of the village against any future development. In the light of this a number of potential buyers agreed not to bid at the auction and the land was purchased by the Parish Council.
A number of options then were considered for this land, but local opinion was strongly in favour of Dorothy continuing to garden it for as long as she wished. She has now left the village.
What are your views on the future of this land?
PARWICH.ORG 
Can we have some more details? Jean
I have now had some more information on this – with knowledge this seems perfectly acceptable and understandable. Jean
I agree with Jean. How much did PPC council pay for the land? Who is the interested buyer at £1.00
Maybe there has been some mistake with regards to it being sold on for £1.00.
Obviously, it should remain as an asset to the village .
Would the parish council be kind enough to specify for everyone in the village — on this website – why it wishes to dispose of an important asset, to whom, and why the giveaway price of one pound is appropriate. Whatever info was given to Jean should be available to us all – and more if the info given to her does not cover these points.
The following does not reflect any position held by the Blog Team, but is purely my personal view point:
The Parish Council minutes don’t seem to go through the process that lead to the Council wanting to sell this land.
As it is no longer being maintained by Mrs L, there is a need to ensure it continues to be looked after appropriately.
When it was bought at auction there were a number of suggestions for community use. Have these uses been re-explored? It was also considered letting it as a private garden to a neighbouring property. Although the main parties then interested are no longer living near by, has the option of letting been explored now? If there is interest in purchasing it, does that mean there is interest in renting it?
It is not clear that the original reasons for the community purchase of this land no longer apply. My understanding was that this land, significant to the history and character of this part of the village, was to remain indefinitely in Parish Council ownership, in order that the community could control how it was used. I do not see that has changed.
I personally feel embarrassed by this sale of the land so relatively soon after its purchase, as in my previous capacity as chair of the Village Action Group, in conjunction with Parish Councillors, I actively persuaded a number of people not to bid at auction, on the understanding it would remain in community ownership. If those people had known it would return to private ownership after a few years they might have chosen to bid against the Parish Council. Effectively the community came together to ensure that the land was purchased as cheaply as possible.
Though there may be excellent reasons, if the land needs to be sold, for selling it to the ‘gentleman’ referred to in the minutes, people, who refrained from bidding at the original auction, could quite rightly feel aggrieved. Also the original vendors could quite rightly feel aggrieved.
Also the minutes make no mention of any conditions being attached to this sale. Though I am not yet convinced there are no viable community uses and no potential tenants, if that should prove to be the case, the Parish Council still has a moral obligation to protect this land for future generations.
Excellent points Peter
Sorry for any confusion over my recent entry. I simply looked through the past parish council minutes on the blog, and realized that, since Dorothy stopped maintaining the woodland, that pump hill had been a challenging problem to the parish council with regards maintenance etc for at least the last 2 years – I dont usually read the minutes very well so previously was totally unaware of the problems. Nothing more interesting that that im afraid. jean
If my memory serves me correctly this piece of land was bought by a person ( still resident in the village) to ensure that it was not bought by anyone wanting to build on it, develop it or urbanise it in anyway. He then transferred it to the parish council for a nominal sum of £1. Dorothy maintained it as a lovely bit of a ‘wild wood’ in the centre of the village. Sadly it has deteriorated since she has left and some fairly major tree work and wall building needs to be done. I think the Parish Council did try to offer it to other village parties but to no avail.
Like Peter, I was on the Environmental Group and knowing how hard it is to motivate anyone to contribute regular hard labour to keeping the village looking lovely, I dare say the Parish Council is just trying to ensure that the land doesn’t fall into hands that might want to change it. If it is returned to the original purchaser then he would just be buying it back for the original nominal sum.
Perhaps the Parish Council might like to correct any factual inaccuracies in either my, or any other contributor’s comment to stop any ‘wild’ conclusions being jumped to?
Patti says ” I dare say the Parish Council is just trying to ensure that the land doesn’t fall into hands that might want to change it”. One way to ensure that would be not to sell it at all. The parish won’t miss not receiving a quid. But if this does go ahead then the Parish Council should surely put a covenant on the land prohibiting its development and should publicly announce, preferably on parwich.org, that it intends to do so or has done so already and that it will remain an open space.
Has the parish council elicited from the mystery ‘person’ why they want it back and what they intend to do with it? Has the mystery person promised to maintain it in a better condition than it is at the moment so that there is some clear benefit from this sale to the parish council and to the village? And if not shouldn’t the parish council reappraise this proposal and ask what is the point if it benefits nobody. I think the Parish Council should make a detailed public statement in its own name (please) since clearly several villagers are concerned about what it is up to with ‘our’ asset.
Mmmm, firstly let’s not use the word mystery as it’s rather emotive. The reason why no one is using this original purchaser’s name is purely one of good manners as he might not, or then again he might, but I don’t know this, wish for his name to be public. I do know who this person is ( as do many other people) as it was in the public domain at the time.
As the original purchaser bought the land for the explicit reason of keeping it unchanged I would imagine that to return it to him would be to return it to a safe pair of hands. After all, he in effect gifted it to the village at some considerable financial loss to himself! If he had any sense I would imagine that he would have stipulated that he would have first refusal if the Parish Council ever wanted to dispose of it.
The point seems to be entirely missed here that the original purchaser has in fact been the benefactor to the village and would not be ‘benefiting’ in any way. Indeed just the opposite, as he would have the considerable burden of keeping it tidy and safe should the Parish Council be able to persuade him to buy it back.
In 2004 local groups, individuals and the Parish Council came together with the common aim of preserving the character of this significant plot of land, making up part of ‘The Square‘, in the centre of the village. I assume all commenting above still share that aim. Consequently the relevant questions in order are:
1. Is there a community use, that would preserve the character of this land?
If not, only then
2. Is there a potential tenant for this land, that would ensure the community retained control of the land?
If not, only then
3. Is any sale to be undertaken such that it will continue to ensure the on going preservation of the character the land? (Sale to a safe pair of hands, does not necessarily ensure it will always remain in safe hands, as the previous history of this land illustrates.)
The Blog Team, in drafting the original post, and myself, in my comment, were not intending to undermine the Parish Council, nor devalue the individual and community support that enabled the Parish Council to gain ownership of this land when it was auctioned in 2004. However, I would strongly argue the above questions should be discussed both by the Parish Council and the community.
Surely these discussions should have taken place, and be seen to have have taken place, before focusing on the issues of who to sell to:
Does the Parish Council have any obligations (legal or moral) to any individual or individuals? Would sale to any specific individuals best meet the aim of the 2004 purchase, to provide ongoing preservation of this land?
Such discussion does not undermine our representatives, who have taken on a lot of hard work on our behalf, rather it strengthens local democracy and enables those representatives to better represent the community. Also it better helps the community to understand what individuals and our representatives do on our behalf.
Some valid points there Peter. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to write a letter to the Parish Council with your concerns asking them to discuss it. I suspect that as they are a collective body they can’t comment without that comment having been agreed by discussion at a meeting. Or perhaps the ‘reader’ who asked the blog to discuss it could do this?
Patti, After the above post was published, I wrote on my own behalf to the Parish Council. As you say they are obliged to go through the appropriate processes and they can not respond collectively until after they have met. This month there are their Annual Meetings, so I don’t expect any response until their June meeting at the earliest.
Ye Gods!.
While I have no knowledge of the proposed sale beyond what has been written here and in the council minutes, I do know that the Parish Council is made up of good, honest citizens from our village who give generously of their time, and help make decisions about often difficult and contentious issues which are never going to suit everyone.
Of course they are accountable to genuine public scrutiny – but it seems from reading the Parish Council minutes there appears to be a current trend of persistent and vexatious questioning of procedure and decisions which borders on harassment. Allowing behaviour which crosses this line without challenge is not without cost, both in real terms (cost to all ratepayers to support the administrative burden of dealing with them – see recent minutes) and also from dissuading other public spirited people from getting involved.
Here’s a radical idea…….. why not those who continually question the procedure, judgement and actions of the Parish Council either help out (for instance by removing the issue of maintenance of the square by doing it themselves) or more radical still, why not stand for office themselves so they can help make the decisions?
Let’s see if we get any takers………
Oh – and who is the reader who was concerned about the land sale and why does he not post under his or her own name – is this really in the spirit of the weblog…..?
I agree with Graham – I thought that the blog was not allowing anonymous postings after the last fiasco about the shop. If a “reader” contacts the blog, the blog should not post their comments without a name.
On a purely practical point it is worth going to have a look at secondary succession of unmaintained woodland in action at pump hill – even more challenging than my garden – and thats saying something! jean
Reflecting on this blog site while gardening, might i say how very distressing i find this present discussion, not least because (unless Google agree to remove it) it is mistakenly written in stone as to how life in our lovely village is – not too good either for those wishing to sell their houses?
This seems to be completely the wrong place to have this discussion. Might I humbly suggest that is stops and that future concerns(including those of the originator of the discussion) are addressed to the parish council at its next meeting. Jean
I find the positions taken by both Graham and Jean very worrying. Surely open and frank discussion and debate are signs of a healthy democracy? Whilst I agree that being part of a parish council can be a thankless task, if we took Graham’s argument of “put up or shut up” to it’s logical conclusion then we would have no debate or discussion of national or local government policies unless we were prepared to stand for parliament or our local council!
Both national and local government like to emphasise their commitment to” listening” through focus groups, consultation exercises, social media sites like yougov etc. It seems ironic to say the least that at the very local parish level listening, consulting and debating are seen to be unacceptable by some.
I am also concerned by Jean’s view that open debate casts a slur on our village. I would take the opposite view, as I believe discussion and dissenting voices reflect a healthy and active interest in local issues. I am shocked by her suggestion that such democracy would effect house sales. I am sure there are many in the village who consider a commitment to village life more important than the value of their house. I for one live here because I want to be part of an active community not to because I am interested in protecting a capital asset.
Fiona
You are missing the point of my post where the salient point is clearly stated as follows:
“Of course they are accountable to genuine public scrutiny – but it seems from reading the minutes there appears to be a current trend of persistent and vexatious questioning of procedure and decisions which borders on harassment. Allowing behaviour which crosses this line without challenge is not without cost, both in real terms (cost to all ratepayers to support the administrative burden of dealing with them – see recent minutes) and also from dissuading other public spirited people from getting involved.”
Having in the past been on the receiving end of an orchestrated and malevolent campaign of disinformation and general unpleasantness, which has the effect of tying people in knots and is generally not in the public interest, I am warning that there is a counter argument to the “we demand this” or “we demand that” or “it’s my right” etc.
If you read what I wrote I am clearly not suggesting that questions cannot be asked. What I am saying is that continuous and vexatious demands of community volunteers (NOT MP’s Fiona, who get paid or County Councillors who are generally politically motivated and get expenses) is not democratic or conducive to getting things done for the best of the community where we rely on goodwill and of people giving of their time with no other motive than helping the community.
What’s wrong with asking about this proposal POLITELY at a Parish Council meeting before demanding the Parish Council jump this way and that in social media with thinly disguised implications of alterior motives?
If we don’t behave as a polite and reasonable community, we will end up with nobody prepared to put up with such nonsense, with the result being no Parish Council or any other volunteer group.
It would be great if the “reader” would reveal themselves and answer these questions…….or as I suggested, stand for council themselves.
Graham, I don’t see anyone making demands in these posts – just asking questions.
A parish council is not a “volunteer group” but is a tier of local government with tax raising powers.
1. Disagree – plenty of demands in those posts Fiona.
2. Ok – For volunteer read unpaid.
First off, I do believe that it was a mistake to start this whole thing off by reference to the anonymous “reader”. But that was simply a misstep, nothing fatal to the ensuing discourse.
Secondly, I must say I found Fiona H’s definition of a “Parish Council” at best uninformed; at worst, wilfully aggrandised (for what purpose I know not). A Parish Council is an ancient civic body, at the grass-roots level of England’s governance. Parish Councillors are unpaid, and they volunteer to serve. I have the greatest respect for anyone who is willing to perform this noble civic duty – the more so today when social media opens up the possibility of a fire-storm of abuse (personal or corporate) – instantly visible to anyone on the planet.
No wonder ordinary, public-spirited folk are reluctant to step up to serve on Parish Councils these days. And judging from the most recent Parish Council minutes, who would want to deal with the kind of public aggravation all too evident in their recorded proceedings? Does anyone seriously believe that the Parwich Parish Council has some hidden agenda; is hostile to the interests of the local community? I’m all for open scrutiny of public bodies, but in this case people’s concerns might best be expressed at Parish Council meetings, in person.
Anthony C
Hi all
I do not want to get involved in this imotive debate, but I would like to put an idea forward for the councils consideration.
We have just had a new village hall with very limited parking for its patrons, I am not privi to the legals in this debate over the land, but please consider under the councils ownership turning the said piece of ground into a car park for the village hall, once surfaced thier would not be a maintenance issue to any great degree, the only problem would be getting approval from peak park planners
Tarmacked over to create a car park? Why? The longest, most languid, stroll for the vast majority of local people who wish to visit the Village Hall can be only 15 – 20 minutes, tops. Heck, our small island is already suffering greatly under the relentless pressure of our over-dependence on cars – multiple cars per household often. And if the issue of parking at the Village Hall is related to disabled access, or for people travelling from afar, reserve spaces for those visitors. If we continue in this egregious, unsustainable way, we might as well dig up the pavements to make way for more and more vehicles, as a “lifestyle” choice – just like the United States (which had few “sidewalks” to begin with). No, No, No, Mr Speaker…
Anthony C
Reading all the posts again, I see that they have evolved into two issues – the future of the land at Pump Hill and the attitude ( intended or otherwise) towards the Parish Council.
On the first issue, some interesting suggestions have been made and Peter has already pursued the correct channel of sending then to the Parish Council for consideration. If any other reader has more ideas, I’m sure the PC would welcome them.
On the second issue, some of of the posts contain remarks that make uncomfortable reading including the suggestion/hint that the Parish Council or others involved, might have hidden agendas.
We need to remember that over the years, decisions are made by the PC AT THAT TIME, ( sorry no italics) which might have consequences that without a crystal ball, they could not have forseen. They make the decisions as best as they can, with all the information they have available and without recourse to expensive legal ‘rubber stamping’ unless absolutely necessary. This might mean that sometime later, possibly many years, another set of volunteer members have to make yet another set of decisions as a result of unforeseen developments. Sometimes they have to do this without relevant knowledge surrounding the decisions made previously.
As Graham so rightly points out, there can be unpleasant, if not traumatising, side affects to anyone attempting to volunteer. Indeed, mistakes might be made but I think we owe it to those volunteers, including Parish Council members, who work so hard on our behalf, to be a little gentle and considerate in our comments. By all means use our fantastic village blog for discussion but let’s curb any tendencies to make disparaging or derogatory remarks which can be so damaging to a volunteers life. We are not the gutter press but hopefully a wonderful village with an active but considerate voice.
Wise, insightful, and calming words Patti, thank you.
You picked up on two points I raised in a couple posts I submitted yesterday, which have not been published here. The first concerned the “urbanisation” of the land at issue; the second addressed attitudes towards the Parish Council.
Perhaps technical problems prevented their publication? At any rate, I shall be contacting the Blog Team privately to find out whether my posts reached the Server, and if they did, why they weren’t approved for publication here. I do realise it’s a difficult thing to juggle, given the rising temperature of this particular thread!
But good job Patti.
Anthony C
As for our lovely village asset, the blog, Patti’s hoped for ‘active but considerate voice’…
I would like to suggest that perhaps we need, for everyone’s sake, to revisit and agree some basic principles about our understanding of the blog and what is or is not acceptable.
The blog is not the gutter press. It is ‘a community website for the residents…’. It is managed by the blog team – unpaid and hardworking volunteer ‘editors’ – on behalf of our community.
We had previously accepted a policy of no anonymity, and that all comments should be monitored before going live.
I’d assume also that there is a basic understanding that contentious issues are (and are seen to be) debated fairly and without bias…
…and that there is a recognised process if a blog discussion threatens to get out of hand.
This all needs clarifying, particularly if members of the blog team are to become personally involved in a discussion on the blog.
And if they are involved, who then will be the final arbiter? (Mike Atkinson very wisely refrained from getting involved personally in debate, however strongly he may have felt.)
So we also have to agree how, as members themselves of our community, they can express their personal views safely, without unwittingly compromising their role as blog editors.