Response to comments on Parish Meeting post.

We would just like to remind readers, this blog is not run by any one person, it has a number of residents as members and we work as a team, no single member has full control on what appears. If you wish to comment on anything on this blog you should either comment through the normal channel or email us direct, If you would like to join our group please email us, thank you.

Response to comments on Parish Meeting post.

Thank you for your comments on the Parish Poll posts, we’ll try to answer the points raised which are, in no particular order,

1.    What happens if not many people attend.

2.    East Riding may refuse on technicality.

3.    Should Parish Council organise it.

4.    Annual Parish Meeting.

5.    Why is this information not given by the Parish Council.

6.    Can any 6 people call a parish meeting on any subject.

7.    Likelihood of success.

8.    Why hasn’t PPCP used this tool.

9.    Would we organise your meeting.

1.     What if not many people attend.

You should not be too optimistic on attendance levels, we have suggested you print 3 dozen agenda’s, that’s the most we would reasonably expect to attend. There is no lower limit set, if you only get 2 people attend you obviously wont be able to generate your 10 signatures and no poll will take place, that’s why we have suggested you keep in touch with your supporters and have a substitute group on hand to attend if any of those need to fall out at short notice. So long as your 10 signatories attend you should be ok but you must be 100% certain they are all on the electoral roll for Preston. Once you have the 10 signatures you can then request a Poll take place, providing you have followed the correct procedure in calling the meeting.

We would suggest your 10 signatories and substitutes email East Riding and request their Electoral Roll number so they can be included in your documentation.

2.     East Riding may refuse on a technicality.

If they are able to we suspect they would object to a poll and the Parish Council would almost certainly encourage them to do so.

We have made arrangements to record the proceedings on video from people walking in to the meeting from the moment it’s convened, through to its closure, this becomes essential if council members are involved as Chair and Secretary. We have produced a plan for a timeline of every action we take along the way such as obtaining signatures, posting Notices of the meeting, where, when and time they were posted, with every other action committed to the Time Line.

Should there be any dispute we would be able to establish our position beyond reasonable doubt.

3.     Should the Parish Council organise it?

Absolutely not, that would be a crazy idea. The Parish Council have proven themselves to be untrustworthy and have prevented a Parish Meeting in the recent past, we would certainly not feel comfortable relying on them.

The council is not involved except for the Chairman and Clerk acting as Chair and Secretary during the Parish Meeting if they attend, that’s extremely doubtful. It should also be remembered that if the Council Chairman does not attend but the Vice Chairman does, that person should act as Chair of the Parish Meeting.

You must remember this is a meeting of the Parish (residents) not the Parish Council, the council have no influence at a Parish Meeting, that’s the idea of it, its residents who organise it and residents who decide on the issues. You should inform them of the meeting with the appropriate information and invite the Council Chair and Clerk to attend, beyond that they are of no consequence.

4.     Annual Parish Meeting.

There must by law be a Parish Meeting held at least once each year, the “Annual Parish Meeting” between 1^st March and 1^st June.

In Preston that meeting is held in accordance with the legal requirements but beyond that the whole thing is a farce.

Section 9 of the Local Government Act 1972 states that ‘for every parish there shall be a parish meeting for the purpose of discussing parish affairs and exercising any functions conferred on such meetings by any enactment...’ Section 13 of the Act states ‘the parish meeting of a parish shall consist of the local government electors for the parish’. It is not a part of any Parish Council Meeting and any councillors who might attend are there as residents, just the same as anybody else.

With the Preston ‘Annual Parish Meeting’ its usually given a 30 minute slot before a normal council meeting, less if the council can manage it, that way its swallowed up and nobody really realises its actually taken place it just becomes part of a council meeting to most residents eyes. Giving a parish meeting 30 minutes without informing residents what its actually about is an absolute joke and demonstrates the councils lack of commitment to residents.

The council to our knowledge has never given out any information to make residents aware of their rights and the true purpose of a Parish Meeting. If you ask, the vast majority of residents will most likely tell you that they think it’s a ‘Public Participation’ exercise only and they have no idea of their legal rights. The council should at the very least cover the subject of Parish Meetings on their Web Site to make all residents aware of what they are all about and the rights residents have in convening a meeting and during such meetings. The council very clearly does not want any residents to have that type of information.

5.     Why is this information not given by the Parish Council.

We can’t answer for the Parish Council other than they clearly don’t want residents to have such information as stated above, if they wanted residents to have it they would have given it long before now.

If residents were aware of their legal rights it would mean the Parish Council would be open to challenge from residents and that is something they appear to avoid at all costs.

Some months ago we were told that the council were exploring how to “engage with the public and make the council more open and transparent”, that was because some questions were being asked at the time but a number of councillors were unhappy with that approach because they obviously didn’t want the Council to be ‘open or transparent’. It would seem they have once again won the day because the issue hasn’t been mentioned since, it seems to have died a death!

Ironically, it was in response to a request to the council for a Parish Meeting (that shows the lack of residents understanding), the council was not at all responsive and refused to organise a Parish Meeting and used the above to side step the issue. That was an ideal time for the council to make information available to resident’s, they obviously had no intention of doing that.

If the council wish to give residents meaningful and understandable information explaining their legal rights it should develop a short manual and make it available to all residents and possibly on the Council’s Web Site. There should also be a mechanism in place to explain the items in more detail should any resident request it.

6.     Can any 6 people call a Parish Meeting on any subject?

Yes, with the proviso that they are all registered electors of the parish and the subject is within the remit of the Parish. A resident calling a parish meeting must ensure they follow the correct procedure for any meeting to be effective. If you raise 6 signatures for a Parish Meeting to discuss the war in Afghanistan it may not be valid because the Parish Council (who will be paying the bill) has no power to discuss or influence the war in Afghanistan, in other words its outside of their remit.

7.     Likelihood of success.

If you follow the steps we have outlined and have 10 registered electors of the Parish willing to vote in your support there is a high likelihood of success. Be sure not to fall foul of the procedural requirements.

8.     Why hasn’t PPCP used this tool.

This is one of the things we had planned for in the early days, we set out the subjects we would be prepared to call a Parish Meeting on and once we decided to go, how we would proceed. Another consideration for us was the potential cost to the Parish Purse, we have no desire to waste money on meaningless and possibly ineffective Parish Meetings. We concluded at the time that the timing of any such meetings would be our most important consideration, that came out as the 12 months leading up to a common election in 2015.  That is due for re-consideration early in 2014.

9.     Would we organise your Parish Meeting.

We would be very reluctant to organise your meeting for you, that’s the reason we have tried to give you as much information on how to do it as we could.

It is not because we do not agree with your aims, our views on the Play Park should be reasonably well known by now and we do support a Play Park for Preston, we strongly disagree with how people have gone about it and possibly not with the extent of the proposed installation. In addition to that we very strongly disagree with what appears to council secrecy on the whole topic, so in principle we support your view.

Without strong requests from a reasonable number of residents for us to be involved or organise a meeting we would have to remain with our own aims.

 

If you decide to go ahead with your plan for a Parish Poll we feel you now have all the information you need to make your effort a success and if you do take it forward we wish you all the best and shall support you. If you require further help please e-mail us and we will be pleased to help if we can.

We hope this has been useful.

If there are any residents with similar experience of the council do please contact us by comment or email. If you wish we will post on your experience without your identity being released, or not post anything if you simply want to share your experience it’s entirely up to you. We would love to hear your story, your not alone, there are a number of us, let us compare notes and grow as a group.

Response to Preston Debate Page.

Response to Preston Village Debate Page.

We would like to reply to a comment on Preston Debate page by Carol Osgerby who seems to think we are asking for a “public enquiry” (that should be 'inquiry') and want Preston council taxpayers to pay for it!! Either you haven’t managed to grasp what we’re about or your maliciously putting forward misinformation in order to help the council by generating ill feeling towards our members.

You are the first person that has mentioned a public enquiry, where did you think that one up from, we have never mentioned a public enquiry. If you’re going to comment please read our material first and carefully to ensure you understand it and please don’t add emotive and expensive words like “public enquiry”, Preston doesn’t have the financial means to cover the cost of a public enquiry so let us not start making silly and scurrilous statements attributing them to people who have never said them.

It would be a good starting point to read your own Debate Page rules because your comment breaks a number of them, you may be in danger of having to remove yourself from your own page. The rules we think you breach are attributing such statements to people who haven’t said them is dishonest and may be interpreted as libelous, no persistent attacks on individuals who cannot defend themselves on your debate page, be kind, polite and honest.

So you cannot misunderstand, we have asked for an “Independent Investigation” into Parish Councillors submitting false statements to the Standards Committee, that we presume would be carried out by the Monitoring Officer of East Riding Council on behalf of the Standards Committee, the financial cost to Preston council taxpayers……Nil!

If we were simply trying to cost Preston money we would complain about councillors spending public funds on planning permissions without council approval, which would cost Preston a few thousand pounds. One of our main platforms is that we are against any public money being wasted on such exercises, especially money from the council taxpayers of Preston.

You begin your comment by quite gleefully stating “Still only 6 signatures on that petition”, just so there can be no misunderstanding on your part. It makes no difference to us how many signatures the petition generates whether its 6 or 60 or 600. The petition could have been posted for 12 months, if you would care to read it you will see we posted the petition for only 6 months, if we were interested in getting as many signatures as possible we would have posted it for the full 12 months.

Can we also note that you posted your comment a mere 4 days after your initial link to the petition, you really shouldn’t be quite so keen to belittle those who do not always agree with you. If we recall correctly your the person who believes we should display “generosity of spirit”, you would appear to have little yourself!

It is entirely possible that a number of people who have read your comment do not read this blog, maybe you would like to post a link to this response in the interests of balance and fairness?

Comment reply, Lena.

Reply to comment, Lena (8^th February)

Written for the Blog by a Preston resident.

Hi Lena

Thanks for your patience. I’m probably not using the correct terminology by saying an ‘Active resolution’ but, during an ‘in camera session’ some months ago the council agreed they would not discuss any issues with me. My reading of that is councillor’s are not able to talk to me so I obviously am unable to talk direct to councillor’s. There is a 6 month rule whereby the council is unable to alter that agreement (resolution) within that period unless a majority of councillor’s have reason to request a change. I believe we are probably still within that 6 month period so that resolution is still ‘active’.

We normally take the grandkids to the Village Show, they like the usual kids stuff. Last year we were away so didn’t manage to get there so unfortunately we missed that particular event.

Our past experience with the council is that they took some drawings of the proposed New Community Hall to display at the village show, people passing were asked if they would like a new village hall along the lines of the drawings. Most people of course said yes, most people would, from that date the council considered it had carried out a full village consultation and the whole village agreed with them building a big new hall, with no documentation what-so-ever. The end result was a complete waste of our precept money and it wasn’t just a couple of quid!

I’m pleased to hear that I’m no longer ‘anonymous’ to you, so you have the advantage because you are still anonymous to me.

Lena, I have absolutely no disagreement with you when you say ‘people only have information regarding questions that are important to them’ and the reasons you give for supporting the park are admirable and a credit to you. I would support it for those same reasons with regard to our grandkids.

What is also important to me is that people are treated with a little respect and consideration, if the park is to place a financial burden on the village that amounts to a capital sum villagers should be asked for their views and not left out in the cold. If not and the project is to be self funding you can add our names to your list of supporters.

I have asked a few people who commented on this subject to let us have all the information relating to the park, hopefully they will do that and convince us.

As for questioning this councillors motives I would accept (for the sake of argument) it may have come across that way but it was not meant as an accusation of wrongdoing. Again our past experience with the previous administration is still raw and unfortunately that has an influence on our initial view. I am not defending anything or making excuses it’s just human nature and that will probably remain the case until remaining issues are resolved. 

We have always taken the view that should the council develop a programme of improvements for the village which would mean an increase in precept it would not be opposed by most people because we do need some improvements. What those improvements should be is a matter for debate and something we feel the council should have been addressing a couple of years ago, but to do that in an ‘ad hoc’ fashion is we believe the wrong way to do it.

The old council administration has never given residents any respect and therein lies the problem, new councillors appear to have simply continued that tradition. I have contacted councillors (in writing) many times to ask that outstanding issues be resolved, I have even written to the Vice Chairman (2011) reducing my grievances to 3 items that could easily have been resolved and I strongly indicated that I was prepared to move my position in order that resolution could be achieved. That was turned down it would appear the only satisfactory outcome for the council is my complete capitulation but my background could never allow that, so here I am today.

I fully accept the only way to break the impasse is dialog but dialog takes two parties. As for my posting negative things about the council I agree they are negative but at the same time unfortunately I also believe them to be true. I do not require or need respect of councillors that is entirely meaningless to me and has no currency at all.

Any credibility I have will disappear if I agree with you much more but I do agree that Preston is a lovely village and it is a nice place to live but I wouldn’t for one minute expect these posts to de-motivate councillors, in any case I do not post for the benefit of councillors.

Yes if we had a council that was much more open and transparent things would move forward much more quickly.

Thank you for your comment and best wishes.

Reply to comments Play Park.

Reply to comments, Play Park.

Written for the Blog by a Preston resident

Me

Firstly I would like to say, no comments have been removed from this blog, the comment referred to if you would like to read it, was removed by the author, I was the author and it actually read that a comment reply was on the main page. I then realised I hadn’t posted the reply so removed the comment.

All comments received by this blog will be published whether they agree or disagree with our view. You must realise that I have many other things to do so do not spend my entire life glued to this blog so if there has been any delay in moderating and publishing comments I apologise but can assure you all comments will be published with only one exception, abusive comments will not. To-date all comments have been published.

Lena A resident of Preston.

Lena’s first line mentions another blog who are selective in their publication of comments, they don’t like to publish anything controversial and I believe the list you refer to only lists Preston councillors for the North Ward. We have already reproduced that here in a previous posting, we listed our recent post as a reply to a comment requesting a list of all councillors.

We have never suggested this particular councillor somehow cheated the system, what we wrote were facts as far as I’m aware we did not try to interpret them. I have already dealt with this point in answer to ‘A resident’ (6^th February). You are quite right in so far as I do not give my name in postings though I am not quite anonymous, I’m sure all councillors know my identity as I’m sure you do.

You have put your comment on as ‘Lena A Preston resident’ apart from your friends or family or possibly parish council most people won’t know who you are. In which case you are more anonymous to me than I am to you. I am only anonymous to people outside our area so for you to suggest being anonymous is cowardly is unjust on your part and the use of the word is uncalled for, but we have still published it!

I entirely agree with you when you say ‘Perhaps if people collated the information they required containing ALL the facts first, they would not feel the need to be so Rude’. That sound a little like a consultation to me and as you will see from my recent reply to ‘A resident” I am fully in favour of that and would appreciate it if you could forward all the facts to me, there is an email address on the main page.

You make a point in stating that ‘at some point the people of Preston voted in favour of it’, I seem to have completely missed that vote because I was completely unaware of it, if you would be good enough to email all the details of that consultation and vote confirming the majority voted for it then I too will support you in your efforts.

I believe you could be right in saying that 19 people stood for election in 2011 but it was for 13 seats on the council not 10. I would like to respectfully differ with your assertion that I voted for all 10 (13?) candidates, there were a number that I voted for that didn’t make it onto the council, unfortunately, but I certainly didn’t vote for them all. If you are suggesting that all councillors were voted into office by residents of Preston I would not agree with that, 3 councillors were voted on by councillors alone. If you are suggesting that when any councillor who is elected or co-opted onto the council we no longer have any right to question their decisions or actions and they should be left to do as they please I would feel compelled to disagree with you.

Your last paragraph reads ‘I am not saying that everything is perfect, nothing ever is but i think people should look into things and talk to people in person before writing on a blog to insult somebody/people who obviously work very hard regardless of their own lives. Its nice to be nice.’

Again I agree with you entirely everything never is perfect but it would be nice if it was, we have never set out to insult anyone so if that has been occasioned we apologise but if we have simply misinterpreted something please talk to us and explain why.

You will see from the postings on this blog that I request information from the council on a reasonably regular basis and on a number of subjects, those requests for information are almost never responded to. I contact the council the way I do because the council have a active resolution that forbids councillors from talking to me I am therefore unable to talk directly to councillors so again, if you would like to email all your facts I would love to see them.

I’m sure your friend works very hard for the community and I admire that, I feel I also work hard for the community because I would like the council to be honest, open and transparent, neither is wrong.

If we are talking about the same person I am also aware that she has spent time and energy improving the Sports Pavilion and that certainly has my approval and thanks for a job well done.

Anonymous (7^th February)

I can assure you there is no intention of any personal attack on any councillor we are questioning the wisdom of a councillor’s actions given our past experience, nor have we suggested the councillor in question is doing anything wrong (presumably we’re talking about the same person).

We have our grand kids stay with us quite often (for a week or more) and I’m sure you will agree they are total bundles of energy, at least we have trouble keeping up with them. We’re fortunate in so far as being able to have them securely gated in and can let them play to their hearts content without the fear of them wondering off but that excess energy (to us that is) has to be burnt off and we often take the kids to a play park, often Burton Pidsea where there is a good play area and space for them to run and get rid of that energy. When we finally get them to bed, boy do they sleep, the fresh air helps as well!

It would be far more convenient for us to walk them down to Preston Playing Fields and let them get rid of all their energy there, less expensive too because we wouldn’t have to transport 5 of them around the country.

Our concern is a price tag of £144,000 and the burden on ratepayers should that materialise. We have already published a posting on the subject and one above, we are asking if a wider consultation is needed, without your people giving us that information we are not able to comment on that but I will say the same to you as I have said earlier. We are not against a play park, we personally would support one given the right circumstances but if there is to be a financial cost to ratepayers we think they should be asked for their view

If as the previous commenter stated, the people of Preston voted for it please send us that information and if it’s right we’ll support it too.

Me (7^th February)

Firstly I would like to repeat all comments are published, none are deleted.

This comment is anonymous apart from ‘Me’ but I suspect there may be a connection to the council here, forgive me if I’m wrong.

My personal dealings and experience with the council can only generate negative comments, one of the main reasons why we would like the council to be more open, transparent and honest, these are three things the council can’t be accused of and these are the three aspects we would like to change, if that changes, Preston will be vastly improved and a case for a Play Park would have been made very much easier. The reasons for the negative comments I would have thought are self evident from the postings but if you consider them to be wrong or unjust please comment and say why.

You say that you support the drive for a Play Park and ask what I am doing to help, the answer quite frankly is……nothing! But then I don’t recall anyone asking for my help so how would you expect me to help. In fact I didn’t know of the efforts to install a play park until I received your leaflet (having now found it I think it may have been in September 2012). I will say the same to you as I have said to some other recent comments on this subject. We are not against a play park, if it has good support we will support it too, we will also use it quite happily if we know its safe for our grandkids.

Would you like to supply us with your relevant information and then we will be able to make that decision.

In your last sentence you say ‘I hope this comment does not get deleted like a lot of the others made by residents’. After accusing us of unjustly commenting on the play park (which we have never criticised) you immediately accuse us for doing something that we do not do. If you would like to have a reasonable conversation on the subject of the Play Park our door is always open.

We actually get more emails than comments and I’m sure you would be surprised at how many of those are supportive of our efforts.

I hope this has answered your comments and thank you for reading our blog.

Reply to comment, Play Park.

Comment reply, Are you accusing the Child minder of cheating in some way?

Written for the Blog by a Preston resident.

At this point, no I’m not accusing the child minder of cheating in anyway, I am questioning the wisdom of a councillor using a charity of which only councillors are trustees, with no resident representation. Such an action can very easily be misinterpreted, especially given this councillors occupation and proximity to the Play Park, which can only damage the efforts of the person in question succeeding in her project.

There is a precedent for this when the old administration set up the New Community Hall Charity and sought to build a Hall at a cost of something in the order of £400,00. This was all done very secretively without any consultation of residents and without any resident involvement, the whole thing was a farce from start to finish and ended up costing ratepayers many thousands of pounds with nothing to show for it. In fact I would suggest that there was so much secrecy that all documents relating to this project have been ‘hidden’ somewhere by the council in order that residents are denied access to that information.

The council did apply for grant funding but to achieve that income they would have to demonstrate that a village consultation had been carried out showing strong support for the project, but still the council wouldn’t ask residents. The record of Preston Parish Council on such projects is not a good one and if that one cost the parish so much money with nothing to show for it what assurances do we have that this one won’t follow suite?

If the organizers for the Play Park are raising funds by their own efforts and hope to fund the whole project without turning to the public purse they could easily open a bank account in whatever name they call themselves and not use the Preston Playing Fields Charity (PPFC) as a vehicle. As it stands and according to the leaflet we received PPFC is being used as a holding account so we (residents) are already involved in the scheme and therefore have a right to ask questions.

Being open and transparent would be far more helpful to you and I believe would help your efforts a great deal. Produce a document that outlines the scheme, deliver it to all households and organise a consultation venue over perhaps 2 or 3 days to accommodate people who work being able to attend at some point convenient to them, this could also be dealt with by utilizing the Parish Council website.  Give an overview of your project with slides etc. possibly powerpoint and have all documentation prepared so any attendees can record their views in writing and arrange an independent person or group to collate figures. You would then hopefully be in a position to demonstrate the strong support for your project and take it forward with confidence.

It isn’t for me to say how you should conduct a consultation, that is a matter for yourselves but it is important that you get it right first time.

If following any such consultation there is the required support for your project, I will tell you the same as I told the council in relation to their project. If support is shown to exist at a predetermined level I would not only support their efforts I would actively campaign in their support. You have an offer there if you are prepared to be open and transparent.

I can recall a leaflet being delivered in about November 2012 informing us that the scheme was well on the way at a cost of £144,000 and construction was due to start in early 2013. I understand at that time the organizers had managed to raise a couple of thousand pounds towards the cost of the project, where was the balance coming from, I believe the leaflet informed us that an amount from ‘commuted’, sums was earmarked for the financial pot. This is money held by East Riding for Preston so Preston residents are already financially involved, I also understand that the organizers had ‘coffee mornings’ to generate support and a number of mothers had been asked their opinion when picking up their children from school. That doesn’t exactly amount to a consultation of residents, if public funds are to be used I happen to believe that the public should be given a chance to voice there opinion and have a say in whether or not the scheme is a worthy cause, especially in light of the Parish Councils history.

Personally I have absolutely no objection to a Play Park being erected at the pavilion for the use of children and if the organizers are raising the full sums needed then I applaud their efforts and wish them well.

I understand there used to be a play park at the pavilion which had to be demolished and removed because of vandalism, the proposed park would need the involvement of the police in the planning stage in order that when the park is complete and residents need to have unruly youths (if there are any) removed from the facility during closing or nighttime hours the police are in a position to act on the requests. I also understand that the play park would not have the benefit of security fencing, which raises other questions.

My understanding from the previous Parish Council Chairman is that youths used to break bottles and glue the glass onto the slide, who would want their children sliding down that? Without a security fence that had to be opened in the morning who would carry out any safety inspection before any child used the area? You might consider the risk of such an event as small, but on the off chance that it did happen the consequences for any innocent child could well be catastrophic, that can only raise the risk profile.

I also understand you now have the assistance of another councillor to progress the scheme and I wish you well. We shall be publishing a post on ‘Preston Charities’ in the near future and your activity I’m sure will feature in that, it would be very welcome if we could list your activity in a positive light, if you would like to contact us please do so by email and we will give you our assurance of anonymity. If you have any details that might help your cause and wish to have them published here we would be very pleased to do that for you, but without prior discussion we would assess the details on merit and comment accordingly

I do hope this answers your comment.

Thank you for reading and for your comment.

Comment reply, list of councillors..

Comment reply, KG.

Written for the Blog by a Preston resident.

Councillors sitting on Preston Parish Council is a matter of public record, as mentioned in a previous posting those names can be found on the internet and should be available on the Parish Councils Website.

Whilst I do not intend to name councillors in postings I have listed their names here for your information along with their ward and when they joined the council, one I am unsure about so have left that date blank.

I do hope this helps and thank you for your comment.

List of Preston Parish Councillors.

Councillor                                                Date joined.                                    Ward.

J Clappison                                                <1999                                                North

G Bell                                                        <1999                                                South

P Fortnum                                                  <1999                                                North

B Mendham                                                  2003                                               South

N Hughes                                                                                                            South

J Weatherill                                                  2011                                                North

A Bullock                                                    2011                                                North

H Harrison                                                   2011                                                North

M Acey                                                        2011                                                North

M Masters                                                    2011                                                North

L Carmichael                                               2011                                                North

K Gilby                                                        2012                                                North

M Alford                                                      2012                                                North

Reply to comment by AT.

Reply to comment by AT.

Written for the Blog by a Preston resident.

Hello AT

We’re so pleased to hear from you, at last someone who actually supports the council in what they do, we’re sure your right in some respects and, we do try to give the council credit where its due and where they are right the difficulty is we never really know what they’re doing.

I have sat in council meetings as the only member of the public there and because of my presence councillors have tried to speak in some sort of code, presumably to confuse me and when they have realised it’s a bit of a clumsy effort they have stopped the debate and decided they are not really allowed talk about the subject and refused to continue it.

One particular occasion was a short discussion on the positioning of a council office to the rear of the Preston Community Hall and the fact that the decision was to be taken by a Planning Officer and not a Planning Committee. The discussion seemed to be complete nonsense and councillors talked under their breath in order for me not to hear them, they know I’m pretty deaf and the whole thing was in danger of becoming a farce and was abandoned. I probably knew as much as they did about the subject so the whole thing was a waste of good debating time.

When the council has a vote to approve or reject whatever it is they may be voting on they invariably vote not with an arm or hand in the air as would be considered normal but with the slightest movement of a finger. We are not able to see who voted which way because any votes from councillors not facing the public are very well hidden, why for heavens sake, it’s a parish council meeting not MI5.

The items I personally bring up about the council are a result of digging deep often in the face of stiff opposition from the council but, I eventually find what I’m looking for and they almost always show the council in a poor light, hence the struggle to find it out and get the information from the council in the first place.

There is a recent posting about getting information from the council if you read that you may begin to see what I mean.

Having said that, I do wish our council was exemplary and I would not have to be sat here punching a keyboard when I could be doing something more productive to my life. The sad fact is they are not exemplary and I do need to be sat here because someone has to challenge them and drag issues into the open for discussion. That cannot be resolved by the council being as difficult as possible it can only be resolved through dialog and debate.

I do respect your view and wish you well in your relationship with the council, if you are able to contribute some positive aspects that are attributable to the council we would be extremely pleased to hear from you again and publish that contribution.

Unfortunately the Village Hall is not one of them, that has absolutely nothing what-so-ever to do with Preston Parish Council. I do agree that the improvement is vast and a credit to all those residents who have been involved in its transformation, I think they all deserve to be mentioned in dispatches.

I know this won’t satisfy you AT but we have different views and we need to respect each others position and opinion, if you bring a positive angle to the discussion and can suggest some good things the council have achieved for Preston and residents we will be very happy to publish them and talk about them, I will look forward to hearing from you again.

Just to finish, in late 2010 I believe, I did ask the council in writing what they had achieved in their 13 years in control of Preston Parish Council, you may be amazed at the answer. If I am able to locate that paperwork I shall Publish it because it details the councils achievements for Preston in their own words.

In the mean time, thank you for reading and making that comment.

Information request not satisfied.

Information request, not satisfied.

Written for the Blog by a Preston resident.

As listed in a previous posting (Getting information from Preston Parish Council Sat. 12 January 2013) I requested information from Preston Parish Council on 10th December 2012 for information relating to council resolutions approving the Planning Applications for the demolition of the existing Village Hall and the building of a New Community Hall with their associated costs.

A local Authority having received such a request under FoIA have 20 working days to respond, they can refuse to give the information for a number of reasons as listed in the legislation and in which case they are required to issue a Notice of Refusal, alternatively if there are no reasonable grounds for refusal they are required to release the information to the applicant within the 20 working days unless, they have informed the applicant of a delay in being able to respond and give reasons for that delay.

The council did not acknowledge the request or respond, I again repeated the request on 8^th January 2013 asking that they respond in full or issue a Notice of Refusal, I received some information that the council the following day. I have now had time to read and consider the information sent to me. I do not believe the information I have received to be that requested but if it is, it’s very ambiguous.

Minutes 130906.

05-96 Refers to the lease for the existing Village Hall and draft plans being with East Riding Council, those minutes do not identify the draft plans they are referring to.

There is no mention of any application for the demolition of the existing Village Hall or the building of a New Community Hall nor is there any mention of costs relating to those applications.

There is no record of any council resolution approving the demolition of the existing Village Hall or the building of a New Community Hall. Therefore the minutes do not meet the request for information.

Minutes 140207.

05-027 Refers to a constitution having been drawn up, presumably for the Charity and an application for Building Regulations. It doesn’t clarify what the building regulations are for, presumably something to do with the existing Village hall.

These minutes also state that ‘Planning approval had been received’, for what? These minutes also refer to land transactions, again presumably for the charity?

There is no mention of Council approval for any Planning Application to be submitted for the demolition of the existing Village Hall or the building of a new one or approval for any associated costs. Therefore these minutes do not meet the request for information.

Minutes 140606.

05-66 refers to a quote of £6,000 for producing plans for the proposed village hall, that quote was accepted and agreed by council. The Chairman was to ask that the plans be produced in time for the Village Show.

Again there is no mention of any Planning Applications or their associated costs for the demolition of the existing Village Hall or the building of a New Community Hall.

Therefore these minutes do not meet the request for information.

The above minutes state a quote for plans of £6,000, the minutes show a payment to Frank Hill of £7,800?

We have always had difficulty in getting information from Preston Parish Council and normally the information we do get is ambiguous and wide open to misinterpretation.

It also allows the council if challenged to say they didn’t quite mean what we are interpreting it as and there will never be a clear unambiguous answer, there is always something secretive about the council.

There appears to be very little mention of issues that have been resolved by council by voting.

My request was very precise and clear so I fail to see how the council can misunderstand it or send inappropriate information, I really don't think it's by accident.

My understanding of council minutes is that they are required to be an accurate and clear record of the council meeting in question and for the purposes of posterity anyone can look back at those minutes whether in 10 or 100 years time and get a clear understanding of what was happing at the time of the meeting. Preston Parish Council Minutes are neither clear or accurate and will be of very little use to future generations.

If any historians look back at Preston Parish Council Minutes with a view to understanding the activities of the village at this time, I would suggest they will be completely and utterly confused by the ramblings of the minutes produced. They will be left with the necessity of having to half guess what was happing and try to make sense of it from that point of view.

By producing such ambiguous minutes the Parish Council is doing a great disservice to Preston, it’s future generations and its residents of today, not to mention failing to comply with legal requirements.

A very legitimate question is ‘by producing such poor minutes are they meant to conceal anything. Whatever your conclusion we return to the old position of yet another thing the council has produced that is confusing, misleading and not entirely honest.

Having read minutes from other councils that go back a number of years I can very clearly see what councils were considering, approving by resolution or rejecting by resolution, their minutes are clear and precise and anyone reading them is able to get a good handle hold on what they are about, not the case with Preston.

Could the council please review it’s production of minutes and come up with a new format that is informative and accurate not only for residents but for those historians that may be seeking to understand current council activity at some future date.

I have written to the council today and listed the minutes received so you are able to draw your own conclusions, I have listed the full minutes with the relevant sections highlighted in red.

Minutes of the Annual Meeting of Preston Parish Council

Held at South Holderness School on 13^th September 2006

Present. Councillors: Wood, Bell, Clappison, Fortnum, Little, Mendham, Pank, Parkes, Taylor and Walker.

(01-96) Apologies.  Accepted from Councillors Fenwick & Falconer.

(02-96)Approval of Minutes.  Minutes of the meetings held on 12^th July and 18^th August 2006 were approved and signed by the Chairman.

(03-96) Declarations of Interest.  Cllrs. Mrs P. Fortnum and Mrs L. Little declared personal interests in Cranswick Country Foods and took no part in any discussions relating to this item.

(04-96) Police Matters. The Police were not represented. The Clerk informed the Council that a letter had been received from the Humberside Police Authority advising that the police merger proposals for the region had been withdrawn. There was to be a meeting of the Hedon Police Neighbourhood Panel at Hedon Town Hall on the 27^th September.

(05-96) Village Hall Project.  The Chairman reported that a new draft lease had been received from Burnstall which was to be considered and amended as necessary following a meeting with the PCC. Burnsall had been instructed to deal with the matter as soon as possible in view of the time scales already involved. The draft plans were still with the ERYC and no comments had been received as yet.

Clerks Report.

(06-96) Traffic Matters. The Clerk informed the Council that the ERYC proposed to make a traffic regulation order relating to the introduction of a 20mph speed limit in the Staion Road / Helms Avenue and Marshall Avenue area. The proposed scheme would include two speed reactive signs as traffic calming measures. Following discussion it was agreed that the Council lodge an objection to the proposals. The Clerk informed the Council that work being carried out on the traffic lights included the installation of a new set outside 6 Station Road which would create a clear zone for traffic entering Station Road from the North. This would in turn prevent larger vehicles from mounting the curb. There was nothing to report on the proposed access only scheme for Neat Marsh Road / Middle Lane and Acey Lane area..

(07-96) Parish Paths.  Nothing to report.

(08-96) Yorkshire Water.  Nothing to report.

(09-96) Allotments.  Nothing to report.

(10-96) Preston South. A letter had been received from Hedon Town Council regarding complaints by residents in the Farrand Road area regarding motorcycles using a gap in the hedge at the east end of the amenity area. After some discussion it was considered that the hedge was the responsibility of those responsible for the bridal path on the east side of the hedge. Clerk to inform Hedon Town Council.

(11-96) Preston Church Yard.   The Clerk informed the Council that Smiths of Derby had been to service the Church Clock.

(12-96) Burial Ground.  Nothing to report.

(13-96) Parish Newsletter.  Nothing to report.

(14-96) Cranswick Country Foods. It was reported that the company was appealing to the planning inspectorate on the refusal of its planning application by the ERYC. There was some discussion on whether the revised plans would be submitted to the ERYC.

(15-96) Hull to Withernsea Railway Line (RL4). Nothing to report.

(16-96) Parish Office. Nothing to report.

(17-96) Proposed Closure of Public Conveniences.  The Clerk informed the Council that Sandhills Nursery had agreed to plant a selection of shrubs on the new amenity area. It was agreed that this item be removed from the minutes.

(18-96) Preston Village Sign.  Nothing to report.

(19-96) Plans for Household Waste Incinerators within the East Riding.  The Clerk informed the Council that Hedon Town Council had officially objected to the planning application from Waste Recycling Group Ltd. for an incinerator in the area. The Chairman reported on the last HOTI meeting where information had been received on a Bio-Science incinerator which was being built in the Liverpool area. It appeared that this type of incineration was much more environmentally friendly and more economical to operate than the type used by Waste Recycling.

(20-96) E. Whiting. Notice to quit tenancy of allotment land at Weghill Road.  The agreement with the new tenant, R. Robson, had now been signed and Mr Whiting had received the fees in respect of the agricultural entitlements. It was agreed that this item now be removed.

(21-96) Streetscene . Comments were raised relating to some verge edging and pavement cleaning not being completed. Clerk to follow up.

 (22-96) Correspondence.

1. Far Grange Golf Club. Wind Farms the case against. Meeting 18^th September. Information only.

2. ERYC.  Parish & Town Council Web site facility. Offer of easily maintained web site fir parish and town councils. Following discussion a proposal to take up the offer was refused on a two for six against vote. No further action.

3. ERYC. Election of representatives of Parish & Town Councils to Area Forums. The Clerk informed the Council on the results. Councillor Clappison had been unsuccessful in being elected. Information was provided on dates of meetings and deadlines for items to be included on agendas.

(23-96) Planning Applications

DC / 06 / 05554 / PLF. Erection of single storey extension to rear following demolition of existing at 80 Hull Road, for Mr, & Mrs. Houlton. Application type: Full planning permission. No objection.

DC / 06 / 06891 / PLF. Erection of single storey extension to rear following demolition of existing conservatory at 16 Manor Road, for Mrs Simms. Application type: Full planning permission. No objection

DC / 06 / 07149 /PLF.  Submission of details as required by condition no.21 of planning  permission ref. 05 /01360 / STPLF relating to pedestrian refuge at land east side of New Princes Avenue, for Scruton and Co. LTD. Application type: Approval of details required by condition. Objection, recommendation of condition should adhered to.

(24-96)To receive notice of decisions on planning applications.

Notification to fell a tree within the Preston Conservation Area. Application Number 4838. Approved

Application to prune a tree at Manor Road. Application Number STA 4797. Approved.

DC / 03867 / PLF. Single storey extension at 71 Staithes Road. Approved.

DC /06 / 04444 / PLF. Two storey extension & carport at 36 Andrew Lane. Approved

DC /06 / 04287 / PLF. Erection of stables at land west of the Cottage Acey Lane. Refused.

DC / 06 / 04222 / PLF. Erection of conservatory at 1 Chapel Mews. Approved.

DC / 06 / 02330 / PLF. Enclosure for pumping station behind 79 Station Road. Approved.

Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Appeal by Mr & Mrs Galbraith. Site at land east

of Tithe Road. APP /E2001 / A / 06 .2007121. Dismissed.

Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Appeal by Mr & Mrs Tessyman. Site at Abbey House, Abbey Lane. APP / E2001 / A / 06 / 2006140. Dismissed.

The following appeals had been lodged:

Appeal case Number:05 / 00144. Work to alter appearance of existing garage and retention thereafter at 26 Kirk Road.

Appeal Case Number: 06 / 00158. Erection of building to house new abattoir facility. Cranswick Country Foods Plc.

Appeal case Number: 06 / 00169. Retention of external non illuminated sign. Destiny Fitness.

 (25-96) Accounts.

The following accounts were approved for payment.

ERYC.    Water account burial ground          £8.05p

SOS.        Office supplies.                              £89.64p

Russells Ltd. Tractor spares                          £14.87p

K.C.         Telephone account                        £54.11p

R Waterson   Wages / Travel / Parish Paths £715.38p

C. Cromack     Salary                                     £471.30p

Frank Hill.  Village Hall project drawing   £2350.00p

Frank Hill.  Allotment land entitlements.  £1435.00p

(26-96) PACE. The Clerk advised the Council that it had agreed to support the group on receiving confirmation that the group had its own bank account (minute1844 11/01/06 refers). This had now been confirmed and following discussion it was agreed that a donation of £100 be granted under the L.G. Act 1972 section 137.

Date of the Next Meeting.

11^th October 2006 at Preston South Village Hall commencing 7.30pm.

Signed……………………………                    Date ……………………………..

Minutes of the Meeting of Preston Parish Council

Held at Preston South Village hall on 14^th February 2007

Present. Councillors: Wood, Bell, Clappison, Falconer, Fenwick, Fortnum, Mendham, Pank, Parkes, Taylor and Walker

(01-027) Apologies. Councillor Little.

(02-027)Approval of Minutes.  Minutes of the meetings held on 10^th January 2007 were approved and signed by the Chairman.

(03-027) Declarations of Interest.  Cllrs. Mrs P. Fortnum declared a personal interest in matters relating to Cranswick Country Foods.

(04-027) Police Matters. The Police were not represented and the Clerk had nothing to report.

(05-027) Village Hall Project.  The Chairman reported that a constitution had been drawn up and would be brought to a future council meeting for approval. The application for building regulations approval had been submitted to the ERYC. The Clerk and Chairman had attended a funding seminar hosted by WREN and confirmation had been received that the project was within the land fill site 10 mile radius required. The Chairman advised that planning approval had been received, however, there were conditions attached. Certification that no land transaction had taken place in securing the lease was signed for HM Revenue & Customs. The document had then to be returned to Burstalls Solicitor.

Matters Arising.

(06-027) Traffic Matters. The Clerk reported that he had received notice that the access only restriction for Middle Lane / Acey Lane area would come into force on the 15^th February for an 18month period, during which time traffic monitoring would be carried out by the ERYC. Councillor Pank raised the issue of the pedestrian crossing facility at the Main Street junction not appearing to be working at School times. It was stated that the lights did operate but pedestrians could be waiting for up to three minutes before the green light indicated they could cross the road safely. The Clerk to contact Alan Frankish to see if the situation could be improved. It was suggested that Mr. Frankish contact the school to advise on how the pedestrian crossing sequence worked.

(07-027) Parish Paths.  The Clerk advised that the Nuns Walk gate had been repaired and re-fitted.

(08-027) Yorkshire Water.  The Clerk informed Council that a letter had been received giving reason for the recent constant odours from the treatment works as a result of a chimney stack being damaged during recent high winds. Work was underway to repair the stack. Councillor Pank gave an update on the recent pumping station installation advising that residents in the area were experiencing odours from the vicinity.

(09-027) Allotments.  The Clerk advised the Council that allotment holders at Sandhills would be gaining extra turning area as part of the development work taking place at the Sandhill Nursery.

(10-027) Preston South. Nothing to report.

(11-027) Preston Church Yard.   The Clerk advised the Council that he had taken delivery of the signage for no ball games allowed in the church yard.

(12-027) Burial Ground.  New signage for the burial ground had been received.

(13-027) Parish Newsletter.  The Clerk informed the Council that Sandhills Nursery had offered to sponsor the production of the next newsletter. It was agreed that the offer be taken up.

(14-027) Cranswick Country Foods. The Clerk advised Council that the planning application for the site had been approved by the ERYC but as yet no official notice had been received.

(15-027) Hull to Withernsea Railway Line (RL4).  The Clerk informed the Council that any work carried out by contractors should have been reinstated.

(16-027) Parish Office. The Clerk was looking at prices for paper shredders.

(17-027) Preston Village Sign.  The Clerk informed the Council that the new village sign had been sited on Wyton Road. This item to be removed from the minutes.

(18-027) Plans for Household Waste Incinerators within the East Riding.  The Chairman gave a report on the Hull City Council planning meeting held 8^th January when approval had been given for the proposed incinerator. He advised that HOTI were now looking into appealing against the decision and one possible option was going to the European Parliament.

(19-027) Playing Field Footpath Lighting.  The Clerk advised that he had been informed that the street light had been repaired, however, no invoice had been received to date.

(20-027). Humber and Wolds Rural Community Council. Parish Plans. This item to be removed and an agenda item relating to Parish Plans to be included on the next agenda.

(21-027) ERYC. Planning liaison Meeting. Hedon Town Hall 1^st February. Councillor Taylor and the Clerk gave a brief report on the meeting.

(22-027) Correspondence.

1. Graham Stuart M.P. The future stratergy for Community Health Services. Request to support the opposition of proposed closures of NHS beds at Withernsea, Beverley and Driffield by the Primary Care Trust. It was agreed that a letter be sent to the PCT objecting to its proposals to close beds and the preferred option of 30 beds at Goole and 30 beds at Bridlington. Clerk to action.

2. NALC. Review of the Quality Town and Parish Council Scheme. Update. Noted.

3. ERYC. Community Composting Officer. Introductory letter. Noted.

(23-027) Planning Applications

DC / 06 / 100160 / PLF.  Erection of a dwelling at land rear of 26 Kirk Road. Application type: Full planning permission. Refuse.

DC / 06 / 08798 / PLF. Retention of caravan in connection with operation of kennels at Paradise Kennels 3 Cottage Holdings East End Road. Application type: Full planning permission. Approve.

DC / 06 / 00406 / PLF Installation of antenna and 1 GPS antenna on existing tower at Holderness House, Staithes Road. Application type: Full planning permission. Refuse.

DC / 07 / 00338 / OUT / Erection of 3 dormer bungalows following demolition of existing bungalow at The Garth, 44 Manor Road. Application type: Outline planning permission. Refuse

DC / 07 / 00464 / PLF. Change of use from domestic garage to granny annexe at Fairways, Neat Marsh Road, for Mr & Mrs Richmond. Application type: Full planning permission. Refuse.

(24-027)To Receive Notice of Decisions on Planning Applications.

DC / 06 / 09577. Conservatory to rear at Pollard Cottage. Approved.

DC / 06 / 09779. Demolition of existing church hall. Approved.

DC / 06/ 09312. Erection of village hall. Approved.

DC / 06 / 09854. Conversion of outbuildings into two dwellings north of Field House Farm. Approved.

DC / 06 / 09614. Single storey extension to rear at Westliegh, Staithes Road. Approved.

DC / 06 / 09145. Erection of dwelling and garage at land to the rear of 22 Main Street. Refused.

 (25-027) Accounts.

The following accounts were approved for payment.

R. Waterson   Wages / Expenses                             £201.29

C. Cromack     Salary                                              £471.30

Hedon Hire     Machinery maintenance                  £229.13

Woodmarket       Village Sign                                 £352.00

R.M.A.          Tractor Insurance                               £123.80

SLCC         Working With your Council updates     £19.70

Frank Hill &Son  Village Hall Project                     £2728.08

The Clerk circulated copies of a summary of accounts to the 31^st January 2007 for the Councils information.          

(26-207) Election Timetable. The Clerk reminded members that local elections will be taking place on 3^rd May 2007. Nomination papers will be available from the Clerk from 1^st March 2007 and papers have to be at County Hall, Beverley by noon on 4^th April. Non contested elections will be published on 11^th April 2007.

Date of the Next Meeting.

14^th March 2007 at South Holderness School commencing at 7.30pm.

Signed……………………………                    Date ……………………………..

 

Minutes of the Annual Meeting of Preston Parish Council

Held at Preston South Village Hall on 14^th June 2006

Present. Councillors: Wood, Clappison, Falconer, Fenwick, Fortnum, Houghton, Little, Mendham, Pank, Parkes, and Walker.

(01-66) Apologies.  Accepted from Councillors Bell and Taylor.

(02-66)Approval of Minutes.  Minutes of the meeting held on 10^th May 2006 were approved and signed by the Chairman.

(03-66) Declarations of Interest.  Cllrs. Mrs P. Fortnum and Mrs L. Little: Cranswick Country Foods.

(04-66) Police Matters. The Police were not represented. The Clerk advised the Council that there had been problems at the cemetery with youths drinking and the litter bin had been vandalised as had the new gates. The incident had been reported to the police.

(05-66) Village Hall Project.  The Chairman informed the Council that a quote £6000 for producing plans for the proposed new village hall had been received from Frank Hill. This was considerably lower than previous quotes received. The Chairman advised that only two quotes had been received from six invites to tender sent out. Following debate it was proposed by Cllr Fortnum and seconded by Cllr Parkes that the quote be accepted this was agreed by Council. The Chairman added that he would ask that the plans be produced in time for display at the Village Show.

Clerks Report.

(06-66) Traffic Matters. The Clerk informed the Council that a letter had been received from the ERYC advising that following a meeting with residents in the Acey Lane / Middle Lane area a proposal for access only signs at both ends of the Lanes was under consideration. There followed some discussion on various options to the proposal. The Chairman asked members to give thought to the overall traffic situation in the Village and bring any suggestions back to Council for consideration.

(07-66) Parish Paths.  The Clerk informed Council that he had met with Steve Parker from the ERYC to resubmit the 2006 claim form in a standardised format.

(08-66) Yorkshire Water.  The Clerk advised that a letter had been received outlining the work being carried out at the plant to improve the environmental issues.

(09-66) Allotments.  Following the inspection the Clerk had sent letters to three tenants reminding them of their terms of contract relating to the upkeep of plots.

(08-66) Preston South. Nothing to report.

(09-66) Preston Church Yard.   The PCC were checking whether a faculty was required for signage and tree planting. Nothing to report.

(10-66) Burial Ground.  The Clerk advised that new gates for the Lytch Gate had been fitted. Quotes were being obtained for new signage.

(11-66) Parish Newsletter.  Next news letter planned for June / July 2006.

(12-66) Cranswick Country Foods. Before any debate Cllrs Fortnum and Little left the room. The Clerk informed that Council that a letter had been received from the Company inviting Councillors to view new plans for the proposed extension to the current operation. The Chairman invited Mr. R. Rooney, who lived adjacent to the factory, to give his comments.  After discussion it was agreed that as the Council were against any further development at the site the invitation be turned down.

(13-66) Hull to Withernsea Railway Line (RL4). Nothing to report.

(14-66) Parish Office. The Clerk advised Council that the handyman would be on annual leave for two weeks commencing 21^st June.

(15-66) Proposed Closure of Public Conveniences.  Nothing to report.

(16-66) Preston Village Sign.  Nothing to report.

(17-66) Plans for Household Waste Incinerators within the East Riding.  The Chairman informed the Council that there was to be a meeting of HOTI on 6^th July 2006 at South Holderness School.

(18-66) E. Whiting. Notice to quit tenancy of allotment land at Weghill Road.  Nothing to report.

 (19-66) Correspondence.

(1) ERYC Conservative Group. Re-organisation of ambulance service. Noted.

(2) Gary Hunter. Traffic Problems, Kirk Road Area. Mr Hunter had concerns at the amount of traffic ignoring the access only signs at Kirk Road and suggested various schemes to improve the situation. After some discussion it was agreed that the police be requested to carry out an enforcement exercise in the area.

(3) Mr K Smallwood. Westbridge Homes. Mr. Smallwood had concerns relating to a newly erected boundary fence between the Manor Farm development and Kirk Road residents. Council noted Mr. Smallwood’s comments.

(4) ERYC. Streetscene. Notice of walkabout for the week commencing 10^th July. Cllr Little and Clerk to attend.

(20-66) Planning Applications

DC / 06 / 03622 /  PLF. Erection of single storey extension at 20 Garbutt Close, for Mr & Mrs Coulman. Application type: Full planning permission.

DC / 06 / 03235 / PLF. Erection of two storey extension and bay window / tiled canopy to front (amended plans), at 3 Thornton Grove, for Mr. Swales.

DC / 06 / 03612 / PLF. Erection of summer house to the rear at the Old Forge, School Road, for Ian & Sarah McNaught. Application type: Full planning permission.

DC / 06 / 03194 / PLF. Erection of single extension to rear, construction of loft conversion and erection of garage following demolition of existing garage at 42 Hull Road, for Mr Broxham. Application type: Full planning permission.

DC /06 / 03867 / PLF. Erection of single storey extension to the rear at 71 Staithes Road, for Mr. Cropp. Application type: Full planning permission.

DC / 06 / 03434 / PLF. Erection of first floor extension to existing conservatory at rear and first floor extension to side at Saltend Social Club, for Destiny Fitness. Application type: Full planning permission.

(21-66)To receive notice of decisions on planning applications.

DC / 06 / 02547. Two storey extension to dwelling east of 84-86 Main Street. Approved.

DC / 06 / 01770. Relocation of boundary fence at 22 Andrew Lane. Refused.

DC / 06 / 02996. Display illuminated sign at North East Truck. Approved.

DC / 06 / 02470. Single storey extension at 8 Village Farm. Approved.

DC / 06 / 02468. Single storey extension at 33 Rectory Lane. Approved.

DC/ 06 / 01207. Two storey building to rear at 30 Main Street. Approved.

DC / 06 / 02576. Extension to rear and dormer to front at 3 Ness Lane. Approved.

DC / 06 / 01823. Retention of sign at Destiny Fitness. Refused.

(22-66) Accounts.

The following accounts were approved for payment.

R Waterson   Wages & Parish Paths cut.                   £736.25

C Cromack     Salary & expenses                             £512.20

Sandhills         Equipment                                          £17.99

ERYC             Burial Ground Water                          £6.01

ERYC             Telephone account                              £52.73

Avalon Software   Annual Support                            £45.24

Woodmarket     New Lytch Gates                            £570.00

(23-66) Litter Bins. It was agreed that the vandalised litter bin outside the burial ground be replaced. Clerk to order through the ERYC.

(24-66) Right of way at Sandhill Garden Centre. The Clerk informed the Council that he had received a draft agreement for the relocation of the right of way to the Sandhill allotments. As there was a question over ownership of the land that gave access to the allotments it was agreed that the item be reconsidered at the next council meeting.

(25-66) ERYC Area Forums. Information had been received relating to Forum areas and terms of reference . Parish and Town Councils were also invited to submit nominations for forum representatives. It was agreed that Councillor Clappison be nominated on behalf of the Council.

Date of the Next Meeting.

12t^h July 2006 at South Holderness School commencing 7.30pm.

Signed……………………………                    Date ……………………………..