PARWICH.ORG

Notes of Meeting to Discuss the Future of Parish Council Land off Pump Hill 23 February 2015 at Parwich Memorial Hall

Over 50 residents were in attendance.

Peter Trewhitt opened the meeting on behalf of the blog team and introduced Councillor  Simon Spencer. Cllr Spencer outlined the purpose of his role and emphasised that he was there as an independent chair.

David Wigley outlined the process of acquiring the land when he was Chair of the Parish Council. Cllr Spencer then opened the meeting for comments.

After considerable discussion the following points were agreed:

• the land should remain as garden indefinitely
• that the Shields family are regarded as the preferred custodians
• should the Shields decide not to exercise their right of pre-emption, then this would be opened up again for consultation.

The full notes of the meeting can be read here:

Notes of Meeting to Discuss the Future of Parish Council Land off Pump Hill 23 February 2015 at Parwich Memorial Hall

Over 50 residents were in attendance

1. Introduction

Peter Trewhitt, speaking on behalf of the PARWICH.ORG Team, welcomed people to the meeting and explained that it had been called as a result of the poll on the Blog, which called for an open meeting to discuss this (click here to see poll results https://parwich.org/2015/01/18/land-off-pump-hill-2/). He introduced the chair, Cllr Simon Spencer.

Simon Spencer explained that he was there as an independent chair, being County Councillor and former District Councillor for our area. He stressed the value of Parish Councils and encouraged people to stand for election. He then invited David Wigley to speak as the Chair of the Parish Council at the time the land was originally acquired.

2. Background

David Wigley explained that the land was purchased with a gift from the Shields family. He explained that there was a clause in the deeds giving the Shields first option should the land be sold. He also pointed out they retained certain accesses and restrictions in relation to this land.

Simon Spencer asked when the land was purchased. David Wigley said 2005. This was contested by Robert Bunting who believed it was 15 – 20 years ago but was persuaded that this was not the case.

Simon Spencer pointed out that Robert Bunting was in attendance and although current chair of the Parish Council he wasn’t here in an official capacity, so may not be able to answer questions. He was able to table the Parish Council’s statement which had previously appeared on the Blog (click here to see this statement https://parwich.org/2015/02/17/pump-hill-notice-prepared-by-parwich-parish-council/). Robert Bunting then asked Simon Spencer to read the statement out on his behalf which he duly did.

3. Comments and Discussion

Simon Spencer then opened the meeting for comments:

• Robert Bunting pointed out that he had spent 5 hours clearing the land and was sick of clearing ditches etc for the village.
• John Barnett stated that he was clerk at the time of purchase and agreed with David Wigley’s statement. He also said that there is a covenant which states there is a 20m strip of land along Smithy Lane which must be retained as the Shields would wish.
• Jane Harris said she felt the Shields should be able to buy the land back at a low price.
• Robert Bunting stated that the Parish Council were legally obliged to sell at a fair market price.
• John Henbery said that in that case the Shields should get a refund as they were paying twice.
• Stuart Chambers stated that from an accounting perspective the original money from Robert Shields would be seen as a donation.
• John Barnett said that it was a gift and suggested renting (in perpetuity at a token rent) the land to the Shields family rather than them having to pay the market price.
• Richard Tressider asked what the maintenance costs were and whether there was no provision in the parish council finances for such costs such as a sinking fund.
• David Wigley asked whether the parish council were selling the land because it needed the money
• Robert Bunting had no figures for maintenance costs. Simon Spencer referred Richard Tressider to previous year’s accounts.
• John Fuller Sessions asked whether it was a done deal and Lucie- Clare Watson asked what everyone was doing there then.
• Simon Spencer asked Robert Bunting whether the PC had formally made the decision to sell the land and Robert Bunting agreed it had. He also said the current covenant that this land remain garden would stand for any future owners.
• Christine Goldstraw said that she felt that many people were concerned that the land would be sold on the open market but would feel happy to now knowing it would be going to the Shields.
• Fiona Hadfield asked whether other options had been considered, for example seeing whether anyone in the village would be interested in maintaining the land, a ‘Friends of Pump Hill’ for example. Simon Spencer asked Robert Bunting whether other options had been considered and he said yes. Fiona Hadfield then suggested that all land needs maintenance and this could result in other land in the ownership of the parish council being sold off in the future.
• Marion Fuller Session said that the PC needs a fair hearing
• Janet Gosling felt that some people were annoyed that they were persuaded not to bid against the PC at the time of the sale but now the PC were selling it to the Shields family.
• David Wigley said the Shields would look after it.
• Ian Morton said he had cleared half a skip-full of rubbish from the land and felt that Robert Shields would keep it tidy.
• Stuart Chambers reminded the meeting of the excellent job carried out by Dorothy Littlewood. Simon Spencer commented that things change.
• Lynette Coyne asked whether anyone in the meeting would be prepared to help look after the land. 7 people raised their hands. Simon Spencer then asked who would prefer Robert Shields to look after the land and 20 people raised their hands. Approximately half the meeting did not vote.
• Janet Gosling asked why the PC had purchased it in the first place, if they were going to sell it after only 9 years. David Wigley said that PCs change and different councils make different decisions.
• Roy Millward said that he was fine with the land going to the Shields but was concerned that selling on the open market had appeared to be an option. He suggested that if it came to selling the land on the open market then they may be far more people volunteering to look after the land to prevent such a sale happening.
• Esther Tyson questioned whether the decision had already been made. Robert Bunting indicated it had, but Simon Spencer pointed out that the statement prepared by the PC said that the offer had been made to the Shields. Robert Bunting agreed that the Shields had not yet agreed the purchase.
• Fiona Hadfield asked what happens if the Shields do not purchase. Robert Bunting didn’t know. Simon Spencer suggested it would go back to the PC for consideration and Robert Bunting agreed.
• Simon Spencer asked the meeting if it would like to reopen the debate if the Shields did not purchase the land. The view of the meeting was that they would definitely want to be consulted if this happened. Robert Bunting said he would take that message back to the PC meeting on Wednesday.

4. Conclusion

The agreed consensus of the meeting was that:

• the land should remain as garden indefinitely
• that the Shields family are regarded as the preferred custodians
• should the Shields decide not to exercise their right of pre-emption, then this would be opened up again for consultation.

Notes taken by Fiona Hadfield