January 2007
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held on 12th January 2007 at the Village Hall, Uplowman, starting at 9.10pm
Minutes taken by Mr R Hodgson, Clerk. Action points in bold.
Six members of the public plus MDDC Cllr R Radford were present. 47 members of the public attended the open session (see notes at end of minutes).
- MEMBERS PRESENT
1.1 Present: Mr J White (Chair), Mr R Branton, Mr R Burman, Mr D Aggett, Mrs L Veen, Mr Adcock and Mrs S Brown.
- APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
2.1 All councillors were present.
- MINUTES OF LAST MEETING (3rd November 2006)
3.1 Minutes of the previous Parish Council meeting held on 3rd November 2006 had been previously circulated. They were signed as a true record of the meeting without amendment.
- MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES
4.1 Cllr Aggett recalled that a letter would be written to DCC to look at alternatives to the school path. Cllr Brown thought that this should not be done before present options have been exhausted.
- FINANCES
5.1 Current Balance: £ 7872.90
Income since last meeting (MDDC grant for churchyard) £ 140.00
5.2 The following payments were approved and cheques signed to effect the disbursement:
RLP Hodgson for Clerk’s expenses (£3.00)
Uplowman PCC for churchyard grant, agreed at previous meeting (£300.00)
UHRA for hire of hall (£24.00)
5.3 After discussion of recent trends in PC expenditure and allowance for a possible election in May 2007, it was decided to keep the Precept at £2000 for the coming year. The Clerk would inform MDDC.
- PLANNING/LICENSING APPLICATIONS
6.1 06/01989/F: Wood Barton: removal of Agricultural tie: Refused by MDDC
6.2 06/1234/F: Locks Fm: Holiday Unit & Divert Footpath. Awaiting decision
6.3 06/02537/F: Rose Cottage; erection of garage: UPC No Objection
6.4 06/02575/CLU: Melway Stables change of use: UPC recommended restrictions on hours.
6.5 Uplowman School Ceiling: Approved
6.6 07/00005/F: Last Meadow (Putson X): Retention of 2 static Mob Homes: After discussion, the PC objections to this application remained essentially similar to those in respect of the previous application. The Clerk would write accordingly.
- CORRESPONDENCE
A list of correspondence received and sent had been circulated. Attention was drawn to the following items of interest that were not covered elsewhere:
7.1 DCC had sent a community emergency planning pack. This was part of a change to the arrangements for emergency planning in DCC and MDDC.
7.2 MDDC would be holding a consultation on their Community Grants programme but no one was available to attend.
7.3 Mr Tucker had written to say that Sampford Peverell Archaeological Society was embarking on a field study with the University of Exeter and to enquire whether Uplowman would like to join them. It was suggested that the invitation could be posted on the Board and put in the newsletter.
- HALL AND RECREATION ASSOCIATION
8.1 It was expected that work on the footbridge would start in early February.
8.2 Hall business continued to be good. Minutes were being forwarded to the Clerk as previously agreed.
8.3 The bicycle racks suggested at the previous PC meeting had been investigated and costed by Cllr Adcock. It might be possible to get funding from 5x30 project.
8.4 Cllr White asked if the UHRA would like to participate in the proposed village survey. Cllr Veen said it would be discussed at their forthcoming meeting.
- EMERGENCY PLANNING AND NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH
9.1 The Emergency plan would be held until the new council came in.
9.2 One communication regarding counterfeit £50 notes had been received from Neighbourhood Watch.
- VILLAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
10.1 Church gate pillars: suggestions were awaited from PCC.
10.2 The survey form was agreed, with the proviso that the term ‘Precept’ should be clarified. UHRA would provide an additional question the following week. It was agreed that forms could be returned to the local councillor or to the Post Office within a week.
10.3 Cllr Brown remained happy to liaise between the Governors and the PC. The Governors had written the previous day. Cllr White accepted their point that the links need not be too formal.
- CONDITION OF ROAD/TRANSPORT IN THE PARISH
11.1 A hole had appeared in the roadside where the new sewer enters it to the east of the Post Office. DCC had already been notified.
11.2 Some furniture had been fly-tipped in Stoney Lane. Cllr White would phone to have it removed.
- DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The next meeting would be at 7.30pm on Friday 9th March 2007. The following one would be the AGM on 11th May 2007.
The meeting closed at 10.10pm
Public discussion before meeting
This took the form of an open forum to discuss the proposed school footpath with a panel of governors, PTFA and DCC officers chaired by Cllr Des Hannon. 54 participants were present, including Parish Councillors.
Cllr White outlined the proposal for a permissive footpath, controlled by school staff, from the school to the Whitnage Road, where there would be roadside parking for 15 cars. The aim of the scheme was to reduce traffic congestion and to improve the safety of children traveling to and from school. He said that a steering group that included residents and representatives of the School and relevant DCC officers had examined all the options. Cllr Hannon said that villages that lost their schools lost an important hub of village life. It was up to the village to get a practical scheme.
A number of participants questioned the need for the parking area. It was suggested that the Hall car park could be used. This was only 300m further from the school. Mr White said that if the path were built without the parking then people would park on the verge anyway. The section of road to the cross ways was narrow and traffic could be dangerous for small children. He considered that the scheme was not viable without parking. Cllr Hannon said that DCC had made an independent check on the safety issues and considered that the scheme presented was safe and practical. A further safety audit would be made.
Mrs Branton (school PTFA) said that the problem traffic was not parents, who were generally careful, but delivery drivers. She said that the walking bus was successful but there insufficient parents available to man it every day. Twice a week was all that could be done at present. Larger children did walk from the hall but some parents with smaller children in push chairs found it too far. 30 responses from parents had indicated that they would use the scheme as intended; the rest either came from the other direction or already walked from the village.
The cost of the scheme was quoted as £20,000, with half to be raised by the parish council. The ownership of the layby area was questioned. Mr White said this was being confirmed. Once the scheme was agreed in principle, it would be for DCC to work out the details. Planning permission would be needed before work could start and there would be warning signs to alert traffic at appropriate times of day.
Mr White confirmed that provision of a minibus to transport children from the Hall had been investigated several times. The annual cost was exorbitant and there was no budget for it whereas the proposal on the table was a one-off capital cost with very low revenue implications.
Staggering arrival times at school was suggested. The difficulty would be staffing it. Moving the school wall to widen the road outside the school had also been examined and was not possible because the playground was already smaller than the guidelines suggested.
Concluding, Mr White said that there would be no perfect solution but this represented the best one for all concerned. He said that the village needed to support the school, which was a vital resource for everyone.