Please click here for the draft minutes from the Parwich Parish Council Meeting held on 15th October 2014.
Please click here for the Agenda for the Parwich Parish Council Meeting to be held on 19th November 2014.
Parish Council Draft Minutes for October and Agenda for November
Friday November 14, 2014 by Emma S
11 Responses
Leave a reply to Saskia T Cancel reply
Contact the blog team
Latest Comments
-
-
-
You can follow @parwichblog on Twitter, and you can also "like" us on Facebook.
-
Recent Posts
PARWICH.ORG 
On having just read the minutes of the last meeting of PPC. Why on gods earth do they feel it is necessary to have a seperate web site for the Parish Council, when it has always been possible to put the minutes and agenda on Parwich.org. What a waste of tax payers money, mind as long as the rate payers are footing the bill, who cares.
Terry, I agree that my first thoughts were exactly as yours: why on earth a separate website when the Agendas and Minutes work well on the blog!
However, I now understand a little better, having attended a PPC meeting earlier this year that the PPC is following up on the advice provided by their umbrella organisation DALC to consider a dedicated PPC website which would be assisting in providing / receiving information (including automatic feed-ins from DCC, PDNPA, etc. in future?), which would make the work of the PPC more transparent, but possibly also save time and effort in the future as a result of the gathering and streamlining of information. (PPC, please correct me if I am wrong!). This issue isn’t ‘just’ about publishing and sharing the PPC’s Agendas and Minutes with the local residents, it will potentially have a wider impact on the work of the PC. PPC members have already spent a significant amount of time exploring this issue, through training, discussions and seeking further advice, and I would like to thank them, especially as they are volunteers!, for taking on every month a long agenda of wide-ranging issues, some of them very controversial, on behalf of the village to try to progress, resolve and implement these issues.
I do not see it as problematic there being a Parish Council website in addition to the Blog. The two would have different functions. The Parish Council have statutory obligations, whereas an advantage of the Blog is that we have a freedom of action.
However I would still see it as important that we post the same Parish Council information on the Blog, including links to meeting agendas and minutes, even when the Council starts their site, as people look at the front page of the Blog on a regular basis.
The issue here is cost. In a time of austerity local councils are trying to save money. The money the Parish council spends comes out of our Concil Tax, if the Parish Council over spend it gets added to each and everyones Council Tax bill.I do agree volunteers should be applauded for giving up there time.
And Saskia took time to bring to the fore certain issues of things from different depts of DCC take a short cut to a dedicated site. But the small amount of business that is conducted by PPC still dosent in my humble opinion need a dedicated website when it can be done for free on Parwich.org.
The cost is greater than Terry suggests. Previous parish council minutes say there will be an annual cost to village ratepayers of £250. Over and above this, there is the cost of the clerk’s time populating a website for which there have been no estimates. It may also be that a later parish council – there are elections next year – will be locked into the agreement for a minimum period. This needs clarification. Indeed, a parish council of a different persuasion may conclude they do not want it in which case the website will become a white elephant.
I am not aware that there has been any research on the number of households in Parwich without access to the Internet for whom the website will be meaningless. There are households for whom extra expense in times of Government -led austerity creates real hardship. This should be borne in mind in a year when the village precept rose by nearly 50 per cent, presumably, in part, to cover estimates for the website.
County councillor Simon Spencer attended a June meeting of the parish council and advised against a website. An argument advanced at that meeting was that the county and district authorities could populate the website with relevant information.
The minutes record: “Councillor Spencer advised that at present, DCC has no facility to disseminate information directly to any parish council’s own website. He further added how impressed he was with Parwich Blog. He suggested that this may be an expensive venture without full benefits.”
I read with interest Richards input , especially the piece about all the residents of parwich and local area not being able to access the internet and website, it is quite apparent not all people are computer literate. Also a county councilour advising against it. I would humbly suggest spend money where it is most needed.
Terry & Richard,
I quite agree with you both. I was also at the June meeting and can recall Councillor Spencer advising against a web site.
Besides which, if the parish council minuets are anything to go by, there will not be much to fill a web site. I have already raised the point to PPC that the parish council minuets are far too succinct. I do not feel that they give a true reflection of what is happening.
For example;
An approved minute for PPC meeting of 17 September 2014 stated at 14.9.9:
“An email had been received from another resident immediately before the meeting which was read in full by the chairman. Mrs Bennett made a statement clarifying some points raised in the resident’s communication. Mrs Bennett had also seen an Enforcement Officer at Peak District National Park Authority (PDNPA). References made by Mrs Bennett at the June parish council meeting stand. The enforcement officer advised that residents at Blanch Meadow are complying with the planning consent at their property.”
What the minuets do not state is that the email I sent was a follow up to formal complaint I had made to PPC (and not had a response to,) about a member of PPC misleading the parish council by saying that the residents had full planning consent for business use for the equestrian facilities at their property.
The minutes for the meeting of 15-10-14 do not have much to say upon the matter and make just brief reference to a letter the clerk to the parish council had received earlier that day, as follows;
14.9.4 Public speaking. “Three members of the public spoke in turn; one referred to an extract of letter which she had received from the parish council;
another spoke of a letter provided from Peak District National Park Authority (PDNPA).
The clerk had also received a copy of the letter from PDNPA regarding planning permission at Blanche Meadow.”
The extract referred to in the October minutes was that I read from an email I had received on 12th October from PPC in response to my complaint, (which I first made on 16th July) which dismissed my complaint by saying;
“The parish council members do not believe that they were misled by Councillor, Mrs Bennett or other residents and the statements made during the council meeting to which you referred are upheld.”
The minutes at 14.9.4 do not reflect what I read out. I have also since discovered that the copy letter referred to in the October minutes, that the clerk had received from PDNPA regarding planning permission at Blanche Meadow was from an enforcement officer and the letter contradicted more or less everything that Councillor Mrs Bennett had informed the parish council of with regards to the planning consent for business use, including;
The fact that an earlier enforcement case had been reopened in respect of the use of the ménage not complying with a planning condition, which stated that the ménage was for private use only by the residents of the property and that the reactivated enforcement case remains open at the time of writing and that the residents have been advised by PDNPA enforcement team to apply for either an amended planning consent or a certificate of lawful use.
I do not feel that any of the above minutes reflect the true state of affairs as outlined above, so what is the point in having a dedicated web site??!
Shall I or shan’t I post another comment?
Let me make clear that I am not at all an expert in local government IT systems and networks, nor do I have any knowledge of the PPC’s internal and external communication workload.
My earlier post simply reacted to the notion that the issue should be dismissed out-of-hand, simply on the basis that it was going to cost the residents a little more in tax, for creating not much more than ‘a separate website to post Agendas and Minutes’. The latter is clearly not the case.
I am only guessing -and as a lay-person- that a dedicated website for PC’s could have the potential for saving considerable amounts of time and effort for clerical (paid) and members’ (unpaid) time in communication and research, and therefore have the potential to be cost-effective in the longer term. I imagine that all PC’s will be expected to follow this route in the future and may be an unavoidable step. The site would have open and restricted-access pages? I believe that the PPC should be given the support and time to explore this issue. I guess that this issue is largely promoted by the DALC, and the PPC is simply following up on (conflicting) advice. Whether the time is right is a different matter.
Whatever the merits of Lesley’s post, it almost proves to me that it would have been much more appropriate if her post had been published on a dedicated PPC site as the blog doesn’t seem the appropriate platform to raise an issue that largely affects only two ‘parties’, and not a larger number of residents. Even on a dedicated site, let alone on the blog, the PPC probably wouldn’t be able to comment, as the legal implications would have to be taken into account with every response. I have to say that the level of detail in the PPC Minutes is sufficient for me to get a ‘flavour’ of the issues. If people wish to gain more information, then they could attend the meetings.
Let’s show a little more support for the PPC as we won’t have one next year if we carry on criticizing them as we are now.
Saskia,
You are of course entitled to your opinion. However, I cannot agree with your view that this is an “issue that largely affects only two ‘parties’ and not a larger number of residents”.
I feel that when our own parish council has been mislead by one of its own councillors and when the minuets do not reflect this, then it is then a matter of public interest and there for of interest to all local residents, who so far have been given the wrong “flavour” with regards to certain issues in the PC minuets!
With regards to the proposed web site, then so far as I am aware, it is intended that the clerk inputs the information onto the site, though I would agree, it would be far better (and more democratic) if it were to be provided for us parishioners to cast votes and add our own comments on the site.
I agree that the PPC members do give up their own time and also, several of them do some good work. However, this does not excuse a Councillor who it would seem; deliberately misinformed the parish council, the clerk and other residents present at meetings and who also misquoted the Peak Park enforcement department to the extent that the Peak Park (whose time and resources are paid for out of our taxes) felt compelled to put the true state of affairs in writing.
In view of the fact that this has happened, then it is disappointing that our PC has not addressed the matter or even put it on the agenda for the next meeting. If something as serious as this is to be brushed aside, then that is also of public interest. Any public body should be honest, open and transparent. It is a disgrace and the councillor in question should do the decent thing and stand down.
Oh dear, my earlier comment doesn’t seem to have had the desired outcome.
All I would like to say is that 1. The initial trail of Comments in this post has been hijacked and 2. It may be better if the issue of this complex dispute remains within the appropriate place of the PPC meetings, and not on this blog.
Oh, and I would also like to say ‘Happy Christmas’ to you all (even though it’s a little early) ….
In an ideal world, Saskia it should never have happened and having happened, it should have been dealt with by the parish council, who were aware of the fact that they had been misled by one of their own members in mid October’ For whatever reason, they chose not to address the issue at the October meeting or outline the crux of the matter in the minuets for October. The matter is also not on the agenda for the November PC meeting.
Parwich.org is a community site and the conduct of the community parish council member(s) is of public (community) interest. The moderators have not objected to any of these posts.
Going back to the issue (that you feel has been ‘hijacked) of a dedicated PC web site, as I have already said, what is the point in having a PC web site when even the PC minuets are so condensed, they give the wrong ‘flavour’?!
Maybe we should agree to disagree? Anyway, I hope you also have a good Christmas.