MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF CATFIELD PARISH COUNCIL HELD at 7pm ON WEDNESDAY 3rd MARCH 2021 via ZOOM.
Attendance: Dr Bacon in the Chair, Mr Harris, Mr Hill, Ms Johnson, Mr Jordan, Mr Read, Mrs Wickens Richard Price (County Councillor) and six members of the public.
Apologies for Absence: Mr Filgate, Mrs Walker, Mrs Grove-Jones (District Councillor), Mrs Millership (District Councillor).
Dr Bacon stated that Mr Beckley was not in attendance because he had resigned from the Parish Council. Dr Bacon repeated what he had previously said in an email to all councillors that it is with great regret that Mr Beckley had resigned, that his calm and considered approach was invaluable for over thirty years as a Councillor, much of that time as Vice-Chairman. He could always be relied on to remind the Council of tasks that needed to be followed up and thoroughly examine the documentation we received and he took a leading role in setting up and maintaining the children’s playground and also in getting parish property registered with the Land Registry. Dr Bacon thought Mr Beckley would be a great loss to the Parish Council.
Dr Bacon went on to say that creates a vacancy in two ways; one is for Vice-Chairman although that would come up for re-election in May. The other is a vacancy on the Parish Council. Mr Beckley had hoped his resignation would mean that the vacancy would be dealt with by the forthcoming by- election, but this is not the case. The clerk has notified the District Council of the vacancy, the notice has been put up on the notice boards and advertised on 24th February. If there is not a demand from ten parishioners for a formal by-election by 16th March, then the Parish Council would be able to co- opt. If there is a call for an election this would probably be sometime at the end of May.
Dr Bacon said that there is the vacancy for Vice-Chairman until the AGM. Mrs Wickens proposed Mr Hill for Vice-Chairman. Mr Read stated that as there is only this meeting plus one more meeting would it not be better to wait until the AGM. Dr Bacon replied that Chair and Vice-Chair would be elected at the AGM but we need the formality of having a Vice-Chair in case the Chairman could not make it to a meeting. Mrs Wickens repeated that she proposed Mr Hill. Ms Johnson proposed Mr Read.
Mr Jordan seconded Mrs Wickens’ proposal and Mr Harris seconded Ms Johnson’s proposal. Mr Harris asked on a point of order, this is not on the Agenda so should it not be on for the next meeting. Ms Johnson agreed. Ms Johnson stated that as we have an election coming up in May could the two be combined. Dr Bacon explained that a Vice-Chairman is needed for the remainder of the term. Mr Harris stated that the people not present may have a view on this and it should be postponed until the next meeting. This was agreed. Ms Johnson stated that if the Chairman was at the April meeting the clerk would start the meeting and then arrange for someone to stand in on that day.
Declaration of Interests: Mr Harris updated the Parish Council from what he said last time. At the last meeting Mr Harris declared an interest and did not speak because of the code of complaint that had been made against him by the Chairman on 31st December for bullying the clerk. After the complaint he spent the first week of the ten working days he had been given in which to reply attempting to find out the criteria by which the complaint would be assessed but got no luck from the Deputy Monitoring Officer who was too busy to talk to him. Eventually, he spoke to the Independent Person on 14th January who said Mr Harris would find the relevant Code of Conduct on the Catfield Parish Council website but when he looked he found a blank and then said in those circumstances the North Norfolk Code must apply and he sent a copy to Mr Harris. This is based on the Nolan Principle and does not
527
mention bullying itself. Mr Harris returned his eighteen page defence report on 19th January within the specified ten working days. The Deputy Monitoring Officer was supposed to adjudicate within the following ten working days but when Mr Harris had heard nothing he spoke as a constituent to the District Councillor, Mrs Grove-Jones, on 4th February when he expressed his concern that there had been no decision in the proper time frame and also detailed his reservations about how the process itself was being conducted. Mr Harris warned that clearing his name was important to him and if the matter was not resolved he would reluctantly go to a lawyer. This would risk opening Pandora’s box which might prove easier to open than to close, the only tangible response appeared to be that a Code of Conduct suddenly appeared on the Catfield website which was quite different to North Norfolk’s as it specifically referred to bullying. Mr Harris stated that to him the inference was obvious, and he immediately appointed the lawyers Rogers and Norton who had represented the Parish Councillors in the recently well publicised Attleborough case. They wrote to the Deputy Monitoring Officer on Friday 12trh February and she speedily dropped the charge on Monday 15th February, after the weekend. The Chairman circulated this decision to the Parish Council on 16th February. Rogers and Norton have reviewed all the evidence, minutes, correspondence, recordings, etc and in their view there are a number of significant governance and procedural issues that need to be addressed which they summarised to the Deputy Monitoring Officer in their letter of 24th February, this has been circulated to the County, District and Parish Councillors who attend our meetings because Mr Harris is particularly concerned that these questions be answered and that no other councillor has to repeat the experience that he has had to over the last two months.
Dr Bacon made a statement regarding that solicitor’s letter, because it involved a solicitor he read what he had to say. “You have all received a copy of a letter from Mr Harris’s solicitors, Rogers and Norton, to the Monitoring Officer at North Norfolk District Council. This contains what appears to be an accusation that I, or the clerk, fabricated a Code of Conduct after my complaint was made. Quote “It is quite clear that a Code of Conduct did not exist when the complaint was lodged”. In fact Catfield Parish Council formally adopted this Code of Conduct at the meeting held on 27th June 2012. Quote from the minutes a draft Code of Conduct has been received from NALC (Norfolk Association of Local Councils) and it is necessary for all Parish Councils to adopt this. The document has been circulated. MR Beckley proposed that the Code of Conduct be adopted as it stands and this was seconded by Mrs Wickens with all in agreement. That Tim had not seen the Code of Conduct is a separate issue but it had existed for over eight years when I made the complaint. I will write to NNDC pointing out this and refuting any implied misconduct in creating a Code of Conduct after making the complaint. Tim’s solicitors then asked “who drafted the Code of Conduct that has been post Code of Conduct complaint been posted on the Catfield website and who was consulted about it?”. It was drafted by NALC and all Parish Councillors in 2012 were consulted and agreed to it. He then asked who decided for it to be published on the website. The North Norfolk Monitoring Officer asked Sarah on 14th January for a copy as it was not on the website and she recommended that Sarah put it on the Website. In the NNDC Decision Notice of 15th February the Monitoring Officer recommends “the Code of Conduct for Catfield Parish Council is published on the website (now completed)”. So the clerk published the Code of Conduct on the website following the advice from NNDC Monitoring Officer, my biggest concern here is the implication in that sentence “it is quite clear that a Code of Conduct did not exist when the complaint was lodged”.
Mr Harris thanked the Chairman for clarifying that but he talked to quite a number of Councillors none of them had the slightest awareness of this, he has also seen the joining pack that Councillors have been sent, there is no reference to any of that. At least half Councillors had never heard of it or signed anything so in those terms it did not exist and also it should be renewed there is a requirement that it is updated and renewed regularly which it has not been.
528
Dr Bacon stated that he believed it is almost word for word what still exists as NALC’s recommended Code of Conduct. He agreed that there has been a lapse in that it has not been distributed to new Councillors and what we learn from this is that the Parish Council and perhaps lots of other Parish Councils need to make sure that all their Councillors have a copy and sign to say they have received a copy. This apparently is quite common amongst many Parish Councils that this is not the case. Dr Bacon started that his big concern, and the reason he is speaking about this is the implication that a Code of Conduct was fabricated after the event, which he absolutely refutes, whether by himself or the Clerk.
Mr Harris thanked Dr Bacon for clarifying the point but of course it has not been re-adopted and new Councillors going back quite a long way, because he had spoken to quite a number, had never seen it, never heard of it and it should be re-adopted. It is not correct to say there are quite a large number of Code of Conducts out there and inclination came from the Independent Officer who he was supposed to discuss this matter with and it was he who pointed this out and in fact the charge should have been dismissed as soon as it became apparent that there was no Code of Conduct in operation in Catfield as far as the majority of Councillors were concerned. It has been pointed out by the Deputy Monitoring Officer that there are a good number of governance issues which we should address. Mr Harris suggested these are reverted to later in the meeting. Mr Harris noted that Dr Bacon said that it went through the minutes in 2012 but it is different from the North Norfolk one which the Independent Officer sent Mr Harris. Dr Bacon replied that it is difference because it is the Norfolk Association of Local Councils’ Code of Conduct which was recommended to all Parish Councils in 2012 and which most Parish Councils adopted on the basis, and that is why it says in the minutes as it stands, because if you make alterations to it, even a few words, you are deviating from the recommended Code of Conduct.
Mr Harris replied that is not the case because he had spent some time with the Independent Officer and others there are a wide variety of different Codes, Norfolk County Council has one, there are many different Codes out there. There is no standard one. The point is it has to be adopted by the Council and regularly adopted and then informed to Councillors when they join which it wasn’t; he had seen the joining pack for many Councillors and it is not mentioned. In those areas all of this is deficient and it is the case Monitoring Officer who Mr Harris discussed this with made clear that the Council has within its power to modify the Code in any way which they consider appropriate. This case he suggested has indicated that it absolutely should be on the agenda which is discussed in the 360 meeting because the fact that it has been absent in recent years as far as Councillors are concerned and that they have a right to consider it and modify it where they chose is relevant because Mr Harris thought many Councillors have been very disappointed how this issue has been handled by the Chairman and also by NNDC.
Dr Bacon agree, he was not happy with the way NNDC have handled it but the statement Dr Bacon has just made particularly deals with that one issue which is the implication that he or the clerk fabricated the Code of Conduct after the event and that is what he intends to write to NNDC about.
Mr Harris stated that was not the point that was being made, the point was when he tried to find the nature of the charge and he had ten days to do so and tried to find the criteria by which this was to be assessed; Dr Bacon had referred to Lord Evan’s report, he had not referred to the Code of Conduct. That is exactly what Mr Harris tried to find out from the Deputy Monitoring Officer who did not answer his calls at all and the Independent Officer who is the second port of call then referred him to the North Norfolk one. He said that must be what is defined because Mr Harris had nothing on the website which is where you should look and he explained that it had to be renewed and it had to then be presented to new councillors, none of that has happened.
529
Dr Bacon agreed that the Council needs to look at the issue and put right some of the irregularities.
Mr Price stated that in his fourteen years as a District and County Councillor he has witnessed many Parish Councillors being co-opted and elected onto Parish Councils and he witnessed at that time clerks handing over, getting signatures and making them aware and handing over the Code of Conduct and certainly from all the elections he has been in at District and County that is very near the top of the list. It is unfortunate but he thought that the Council will put it right.
Mr Harris stated that the fact that this came after one week and it then went on for another six weeks it relevant to what has happened in this case and he suggests that this should be handled in the 360 degree.
Ms Johnson stated that when she did Code of Conduct at schools, and other committees she is on, there is a box at the bottom of it and she had noticed on some of the councils’ sites they do the same. A box at the bottom which said the date it was adopted or reaffirmed and then the date of the next review and most are reviewed annually or bi-annually purely to cover when there are changes that come up. Eleven years ago, there would not probably have been a website. She did not think it was an issue now, it is in the minutes, but no one had seen it. Ms Johnson said at the last meeting she had seen it, but it was the Good Councillor Guide.
Dr Bacon thought that everyone agrees that Code of Conduct is one of the issues that will be discussed at the special meeting.
Mr Harris standard declaration regarding the hedges still applies. The courts at the moment are doing nothing as far as he can see. He asked for this declaration to continue without having to waste time on it each week. He will report if there is any change in the status.
Public Forum: Mr Edwards stated that in view of how he was silenced at last month’s meeting he began by quoting from the Seven Principles of Public Life. One of which says “holders of public office are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this”. He ask for Councillors to keep that in mind as he continued to speak. He confessed that when he spoke at the last meeting he may have been a little naïve and presumptuous, he believed it impossible that in today’s woke society the complaint of a serious nature made against the conduct of Councillor Harris one that called into question a man’s integrity could be submitted by our Chairman without firstly any preliminary action at local level and secondly without any consultation with other Council members. He had hoped to receive an explanation but he was silenced before any appropriate questions could be put. If he had been allowed to continue Dr Bacon may have had the opportunity to elaborate with regard to the references he made as noted in the minutes to the committee. Having followed reports relating to Attleborough Town Council when mention is made of a disciplinary sub-committee he wrongly assumed a similar committee existed within Catfield Parish Council. He has carried out some research, he has become aware of the January 2019 report compiled by the committee on standards in public life. To his utter disbelief he noted on page 78 of the report the Chairman had in fact acted in accordance with Best Practice 11 which says that complaints about the conduct of a Parish Councillor towards the clerk should be made by the Chair or the Parish Council as a whole, he assumed this is the same document the Chairman has referred to. Dr Bacon confirmed that was the document he referred to.
Mr Edwards went on to say that answered one of his questions he wished to ask last month. Mr Edwards stated that we can assume that the Chairman acted autonomously in submitting the complaint and we now know in doing so he did not exceed his authority and acted within his terms of reference. Mr Edwards stated that his fist thoughts were that if it is that easy to instigate a complaint
530
coupled with the definition provided by Councillor Johnson of what in 2021 constitutes bullying that being, if I feel bullied then I am bullied, then the days of robust and healthy debate commended previously by Councillor Price are over or so one could easily have thought.
Delve a little deeper into the committee report there are some interesting facts with particular relevance to this case. Mr Edwards began with Best Practice 1, this is not particularly important but needs consideration, on page 35 it says a Code of Conduct should include a definition of bullying and harassment supplemented with a list of examples of the sort of behaviour covered by such a definition. Catfield Parish Council Code of Conduct which very recently and miraculously appeared on the website, does not comply to such best practice. For clearer clarification of what constitutes bullying it may be beneficial to gain an understanding of what does not constitute bullying in the context of the Parish Council meetings, debates, general day-to-day conduct of business for this he referred to some detailed text found on page 35 of the same booklet. “A Councillor should not be considered to be bullying or harassing an officer or another councillor simply by making persistent enquiries or requests for information nor by saying something the individual concerned dislikes or which they may strongly disagree”. He then referred to some case law on page 40 of the booklet which relates to Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights which states “in found Article 10 not only adds substance to what it said but also the form in which it is conveyed, therefore in the political context a degree of Immoderate, offensive, shocking, disturbing, exaggerated, provocative, political, colourful, emotive, non-rational and aggressive that would not be acceptable outside the context is tolerated”.
Mr Edwards stated that he found himself astonished to think that the Chairman who clearly availed himself of the sections in the report confirming his mandate to submit the complaint autonomously either did not bother to read the other section of the report or ignored them if he did. The document could not be clearer in confirming the behaviour exhibited by Councillor Harris was perfectly permissible within the confines of the Council so no case to answer. The case which should never have been instigated is despite NNDC decision continuing to smoulder, Councillor Harris has not, to date, been exonerated, the case has simply been dropped after long and inexplicable delays on a technicality. This means the good name of Mr Harris remains tainted as indeed does the Council as a whole. In the eyes of the public the Parish Council must now look very silly and he feels for the Councillors who wish no part in this and now find themselves all tarred by the same brush. At the very least we now need our District Councillors, sadly both of which are not present, to intervene and make robust enquiries of NNDC officers involved in this debacle. Surely, they must have been aware of the content of the Ethical Standards Report but in view of their response of handling of the case logic dictates they probably were not. Competence issues have now been exposed over both Parish and District Council levels, we must put our trust in our District Councillors to act in our best interests, pursue NNDC officer concerned with vigour and integrity to ensure a fair and ethical outcome. As for the Chairman Mr Edwards feels this matter has now crossed a line and one cannot see how he can come back from where he finds himself now. Presiding over a Council and spends months debating a possible additional dog poo bins which possibly comes to nothing is one thing but even laughable but the incompetent handling of putting a complaint against a fellow Councillor which Mr Edwards has now demonstrated in the eyes of the Standards Committee had absolutely no substance whatsoever leaving a blemish on the name of a man of impeccable character is quite another. Mr Edwards stated that it was not for him to say what the Chairman should do now but he did hope that whatever he does he put the needs of the village, the parishioners and fellow Councillors foremost in his thoughts when giving serious consideration to his position.
Dr Bacon thanked Mr Edwards for his advice on his position but he is perfectly happy with his position and many of the issues that Mr Edwards mentioned will be discussed at the special meeting about procedures and again Dr Bacon began the complaint by saying because of the Lord Evans Ethical Standards Committee’s recommendation that is why he made the complaint defending our Parish
531
Clerk and that is what they recommend should be done, either the Chairman or the Parish Council makes a complaint rather than the clerk herself making a complaint.
Mr Edwards stated that he was in agreement with what the Chairman had just said, he followed the recommendations of the report to give himself the mandate to act in the way he did i.e. he confirmed that it was within the recommendations that he could singlehandedly get a complaint underway, which he did. Mr Edwards stated that his argument is did Dr Bacon not think to read further into the report, or of he did, he must have ignored what he read because the report tells you everything you need to know that basically clears the person before you have even submitted the complaint.
Dr Bacon thanked Mr Edwards for his opinion. Mr Edwards replied that it was the opinion of the Standards Committee.
Adam Varley (Norfolk County Council candidate) reported that he had attended a meeting regarding the Norfolk Water Strategy which is between Water Resources East, Norfolk County Council and their nature conservancy. It is also hosted by many different organisation; NNDC are involved, the Broads Authority, Internal Drainage Board this is about making sure that there is infrastructure in place as we are a growing population, making sure that there is housing needs and obviously farming needs for the land and making sure that we can all work together to make sure that we are resilient. It is forming an alliance, this is at the beginning of this at the moment. There were a lot of interesting slides and information from scientists who have been working on this across the world but this is yet to come into Europe and especially the UK. It is a sort of experiment. Mr Varley stated that he would send the slides and the presentation to circulation. Mr Harris also attended this meeting which was interesting. He found they had case histories from the Potomac, Venezuela and also from Arizona which he did not find particularly relevant to the issues in Norwich, in Norfolk. Mr Harris stated that he had been involved in water studies in this county for at least ten years and he also had a Zoom meeting recently with Anglian Water who are trying to address these issues and one of the problems they have is that four times over the last short period of time been asked to change where they get their public water supply from and it makes it very difficult for them, they have had to go from when they closed the Ludham water supply because of the Catfield case, they are now apparently are going to close East Ruston and Watton as well and they are taking the water from Norwich. Their concern in that this thing keeps on changing so the idea that because this great and the good are talking together is going to come up with some sort of solution requires quite a good deal of looking at the detail to make sure it is not just a talking shop.
Mr Varley replied that this does not stay at talking it about getting involved and finding the best solutions, working together and actually do that.
Mr Varley also reported that the Broads Authority are worried about Pennywort getting into the Broads, it a rapid spreading plant. If Pennywort gets into dykes or rivers it could get into the Norfolk Broads and once it does it takes over, it is a costly and long process to remove it. Mr Varley will send some information for circulation. Dr Bacon stated that he believed Pennywort is already in the upper reaches of the Ant and North Walsham, Dilham Canal.
Mr Price gave an update on Covid figures for North Norfolk, today we stand at 2,930 cases which is an increase of 21 cases in the last seven days. The infection rate for England is 91 per 100,000. In North Norfolk the infection rate is 31 per 100,000 (a drop from 52 last week) and in Norfolk 59 per 100,000. Sadly, there have been five further fatalities in the last week. The vaccination program is going well. More than 95% of the seventy plus age group have received their first vaccine and 23% of the sixty to sixty-nine year olds.
532
Councillor Price reported on the County Council budget, one of the positive features is about libraries, Norfolk County Council is investing more than four million in the coming year and they will be doing major projects in Attleborough and Great Yarmouth and very much encouraging libraries to become local community hubs to support the community and broaden what they do.
Councillor Price went to say with regard Water Strategy; there are thirty-six different organisations in Norfolk responsible for flooding, chairing a meeting with thirty-six different organisations is difficult to try and get agreement. NCC have formed the Norfolk Strategic Flood Alliance, they have had the first meeting of the major agencies presenting what they do and the Chair finished that meeting by making it very clear that was the first meeting that would be talking about what they do or have done or are supposed to do. Future meetings will be about how they are going to solve the problems and find a strategy forward. Lord Dannatt is the chair for these meetings. The organisations which Councillor Price represents Norfolk County on which is the Regional Flood and Coastal Committee have been discussing and they are keen to support and bring their experience from the Essex Flood Board and the Suffolk Flood Board. The Chair of the Regional Committee is actually a Norfolk resident which will be a huge help. Norfolk County Council has increased the flood reserve in their budget for the coming year by £1.5m so that is very good news. Anglian Water and Highways are still struggling with the aftermath of the bad weather and he has reports with problems with highways and blocked gullies in a high number of his parishes. Highways and Anglian Water are doing their best.
Minutes of the previous Meeting: Councillor Price stated that on page 512 when he was talking about the flooding issues and the organisation/alliance where it says “Regional Southern Coast Committee” should be deleted because he had already referred to the “Regional Flood Committee”. Dr Bacon asked if that was what Councillor Price actually said. Councillor Price asked the word “Southern” should be removed.
Mr Read asked for clarity as two or three times the minutes say “the committee” who or what is the committee. Dr Bacon presumed it meant the Local Government Ethical Standards Committee. Mr Harris stated that clearly this is what Mrs Grove-Jones had been talking about because she said she was going to explain it to us at this meeting but unfortunately she is on holiday this week. Mr Harris stated he was sure that is what it was because it is called the Review by the Committee on Standards in Public Life which is what Dr Bacon and Mr Edwards had been talking about. Mr Harris went on to say that it worth saying that Committee is the consultative document not a legal document going to Parliament so it has not got the force of law behind it.
Mr Edwards stated that the expression he had used on page 509 is “the milk turns sour”.
Mr Hill proposed that the minutes could be accepted, this was seconded by Mr Jordan with all in agreement.
Matters Arising: Nothing to discuss.
Correspondence: An email had been received from Trend regarding their community day, they asked if there were any projects the Parish Council would like help with. The Parish Council had asked them to look at the village sign Dr Bacon stated that it would be good to see the Sandholes railing finished. Dr Bacon also said that anything involving scrub clearance or work of that nature, unfortunately the time of the year mitigates against it because of the nesting season regulations.
An email had been received from North Norfolk District Council regarding dog bins. A resident had complained to NNDC that the dog bin on the corner of Back Lane had a broken lid and they objected to it being sited there. The clerk had circulated the costs of repair and relocation. Dr Bacon stated
533
that if the Parish Council considers moving the bin it could be worse for the people who are objecting but we do not know who they are. Ms Johnson noticed that NNDC suggested two other places to put it. She stated that part of her thought that when you buy a house you know what is there, you should not expect people to have to change things because it might make an improvement to what you see but it could be an eyesore then to other people so if it was moved either of those roads that were suggested somebody may then be looking at that. On the Thorn Road junction the house on one side has a high fence and therefore is not likely to see it from within the confines of their property. The reason it was sited on the corner of Back Lane was so that it caught people from three directions.
Dr Bacon replied that the precise location was based on the junction of three roads therefore you get the dog traffic from all three directions, if it moved further along to any one of those, then people using some routes would not deviate to that point to get rid of their dog waste.
Ms Johnson stated that it is not far but there is an impact on other people. Mr Johnson wondered if something could be done to make it a little less unattractive rather then re-siting.
Mr Hill agreed with Ms Johnson, he thought the point was as stated that it was on this site. Whether it could be moved slightly one way or the other just to help he did not know but he agreed that it should be kept on the junction and agreed with Ms Johnson’s point that it was there first.
Mr Harris stated that Mrs Harris has much more informed comments and asked that she could speak on his behalf. Dr Bacon agreed saying that Mrs Harris could also speak as a member of the public. Mrs Harris stated that for any outsider of the village that dog bin is in completely the wrong place because it sends the message, this is a dog bin village. It should go at the end of Zenda’s garden on the left- hand side not far from the junction and people can walk there, far enough from her garden so the smell does not influence her sitting in her garden. At the same time the Back Lane sign should be move a little to the right, so it looks as if we are a proud village.
Ms Johnson stated that the bin needs fixing, something should be put around it. Mr Hill asked if it would be better to have a green bin rather than red? Dr Bacon stated that it would be cheaper to paint the existing one because the cost of changing it for a different one would be considerable. The clerk had the costs: provision and installation of dog bin with a post £190, £175 without a post, just the bin with no installation £120. Ms Johnson stated that the lid is the problem. Mr Jordan stated that NNDC said the lid could not be fixed and the Parish Council needs to a new bin regardless.
Mr Hill thought so that the bin does what it was intended to do the best effect it needs to be in the most convenient/accessible place for the dog walkers to use otherwise they will tend to not use it. We do want above all to keep the village free of dog foul as much as possible. Mr Harris disagreed with Mr Hill, he thought there could be a compromise. Clearly the people who have it right in front of their house have a right to have an opinion that may be it should a few yards the other way and secondly if they could be made slightly less obtrusive he did not think that it would have any adverse effect because the village does not present itself very well. We have been focused on the issue for some time. It might be worthwhile trying to play down the dog bins if we can.
Ms Johnson suggested that two or three people could have a look before the next meeting and see what they think with regard to re-siting it slightly. Mr Harris and Mr Hill agreed. Mr Harris suggested that, on his behalf, his wife should have a look because she had a good paper on this previously. Ms Johnson, Mr Hill and Mrs Harris could then make a proposal at the next meeting.
534
An email had been received from a resident of Limes Road regarding the lighting, the clerk had forwarded this on to Flagship Housing but no response has been received. The clerk has chased for a response.
An email had been received from John Enser from Milestones had been circulated. Milestones has closed. We await the outcome for the site. Ms Johnson stated that the company has gone into liquidation. Dr Bacon asked if the other site was included in this, it is. Ms Johnson stated that they will need to find a buyer, she was unsure if the use was purely for a hospital or care home. It would make a nice residence for the older generation. Dr Bacon stated that in the time that it was open he could not recall any complaints at all whereas previous users of the site did generate complaints so it is sad that they have gone.
An email had been received from a mobile pizza business asking for permission to park on the village hall car park, the clerk stated that there could be a concern in that Catfield Crown does have a pizza night. Ms Johnson agreed but she was unsure if there is one at present but when they reopen it would be nice if it didn’t clash.
Dr Bacon reminded councillors that this is not a planning application but if it were a planning application, rivalry with an existing business is not a relevant planning reason for a refusal but we should bear in mind that if there is discussion to approve or not it should not be on the basis of competition with another business. We should think of the village as a whole. Ms Johnson stated she was thinking more about the availability to the people in the village to be able to have pizza on two separate nights.
Mr Read said that in time things are going to get opened up and people will be able to move around, things will be happening in the village hall then will that be taking up valuable space which is relatively small car park when there is something happening in the village hall so they are pushing people out of a car park which is specifically to use the hall onto the side of the road. Dr Bacon agreed there could be competition for parking space and that if the Council did agree to this and it is only occasionally we would have to make sure that it doesn’t happen on a night when the village hall needs the car park for its parking. For instance, the first Wednesday of the month and there is Parish Council meeting on we would not be able to park conveniently if the pizza van and customers were there. Mr Read agreed the van would be taking up valuable space of users of the village hall.
Ms Johnson stated that if there is Parish Council once a month does that mean that usually the other Wednesdays are available so a Wednesday night on one of the other weeks could work? Dr Bacon stated he only mentioned that as an example.
Mrs Wickens started that the pub does takeaway pizza on a Tuesday night but they will make a pizza whatever night people want so she thought it would be most unfair to have a van selling pizzas nearly opposite a public house that would do it anyway and when one considers how much the landlords have done for the village she would not be in favour of having the pizza van there at all. Mr Jordan stated he would be concerned about traffic if the Parish Council is seen to be allow bad parking and also if there is a pizza nigh and get twenty or thirty extra cars in and out of the carpark who is going to foot the bill for any repairs resulting from the extra traffic.
Dr Bacon stated that other factors that need to be considered would be potential litter and noise etc.
Ms Johnson asked if it would be worth asking one of the other village halls that have it outside if they have any issues with that. She has a concern about taking away some of the pub’s livelihood but these pizzas are special, they are woodfired.
535
Mr Varley stated that he is a Horning Parish Councillor and in Horning they have a pizza van a few times a week. There is also a business in Horning which does pizza, takeaways etc and they made sure that it would not clash with that business. However, this will enable other parishioners who might not have gone to that business to now have a pizza from the pizza van so it is generating income. Horning Parish Council set up a legal contract with the business and they lease the time to the company so if there are any issues with litter and parking that can be reviewed.
Dr Bacon also felt that if this was agreed it ought to be as commercial concern, it ought to be for a payment of a rent or licence to be there not just free. Mr Edwards asked how much rent the pizza business would pay that should be a fundamental part of the decision-making process if the rent is a pittance why bother. He also thought it was unfair to the pub, pubs have been struggling.
Ms Johnson stated that if there is a revenue it should go to the village hall, like renting the village hall for three hours that would save the problem of people trying to the village hall because in effect it would be rented. Mrs Gardiner (public) as yet they do not know how many people are going to come back to the village hall, they were very lucky that it was in use most days twice and then most evenings. If they were coming there would have to be an income and the village hall would have to close for that night or not take a meeting. They often have other bookings on Wednesday.
Dr Bacon stated that some village halls have large car parks, and their users would not be affected. Mr Read proposed the Parish Council should stand by our village pub where the landlords do a great deal for the village and not allow it. Mrs Wickens seconded this. Mr Hill stated that the pub needs to be considered but we also need to represent the interests of all the residents of Catfield and some might like to have a pizza so it is a difficult decision. Is there a possibility for them going elsewhere in the village for example on the industrial area which would be easier for vehicles. Dr Bacon stated that it would be for the business to explore. The proposal was carried to refuse permission.
Financial Report: The current account stands at £1504.82, the number 2 account at £629.52, the BPA at £20179.74 making a total of £22314.08 Two cheques were presented for payment: For £93.20 payable to HMRC for tax Fir £141.50 payable to Andy Man for work to the village hall. The clerk’s salary will be paid by standing order. Mrs Wickens proposed that these payments be made, this was seconded by Ms Johnson with all in agreement.
Village Hall: Mr Read asked if there was an update on the Lease between the village hall and the Parish Council. It was agreed that the Parish Council and the Village Hall Management Committee need to get together to discuss this, it would be better to do this once the village hall has re-opened when a meeting can be held in the hall to discuss who does what.
Mrs Gardiner (a member of the public) said that the VHMC will be meeting and will consider opening as soon as possible if all goes to plan. They will do risk assessments.
Planning: Approval has been given by the Broads Authority for Planning Application BA/2020/0238/FUL. Habitat restoration works to bury 0.2Ha area of the invasive non- native species Crassula helmsii by burying it under 600mm of compacted peat which would be sourced from an adjacent compartment by creating a 0.45 hectare pool.
536
Mr Harris stated that he wanted to ask Mrs Grove-Jones if there had been any further developments on the Sands site, because of the water issues which Mr Harris and Dr Bacon had raised, the application appears to have disappeared from NNDC planning website. This is an issued which should be kept an eye on.
Industrial Estate: Mr Hill reported that following the previous meeting he had spoken to Matt Monk who owns some of the units that were discussed. When the meetings were held with Trend to discuss improvements on the Industrial Estate officers from NNDC came and attended, Mr Monk is very keen to improve his area and redevelop it. Mr Monk has tried to contact NNDC to try and move things along but he had no response. The buildings at the moment he is very limited by because of the construction and being what they are and all he can do is patch up and make good. He would like to deconstruct them and do something more advanced. Dr Bacon explained that the officers are to do with Economic Development Rob Young and Steve Blatch. Steve Blatch knows the site well both of them attended the meetings. Action Point: The clerk will try to contact Mr Young or Mr Blatch to put them in touch with Mr Monk.
Mr Harris stated that with regard to the Mushroom Site, the Parish Council had come up with a consensual view on it because the sub-committee is also talking to Mr Ashwell and supposedly Mr Blatch about what the Council policy is to try and introduce some housing into there to clean the site up. He thought all of this needs to be co-ordinated so that we have no divergence of opinion, no divergence of contact which leads to confusion because there has been enough of that in the past on that site.
Dr Bacon though something might come up soon regarding the site as he had seen, what he presumed is, the owner of the site and a man with a clipboard walking along the edge of the road doing various things.
Ms Johnson thought the owner hopes to attend the next meeting. Ms Johnson went on to say when the new Local Plan comes out because we are told we now have to wait for that when we make our representations for change. Mr Harris thought all this should be coordinated in one go. Ms Johnson replied that by then we should be looking where else in the village and try to identify land on the corner, look where else could be put linear housing if necessary like they talked about before a ribbon going through the village. Mr Harris stated that as part of the sub-committee have talked about perhaps trying to open up some consultation on that which he thought was a good thing to take forward to get a buy in from people in the village about where the future development should go and how. Ms Johnson replied that perhaps one night we could have a meeting once everything is open where people can come and put their points forward, they might have some good ideas.
Dr Bacon stated that personally he could not see the value of having a meeting until we have had some kind or proposal whether it is a planning application or whatever from a developer and then you can see something to discuss. Ms Johnson replied that we have to come up with ideas where we think there could be housing and have ideas to put forward not wait for a developer. Mr Harris stated that it was pointed out to us as Ms Johnson and he know from his talks with Mr Ashwell that because the Council did not participate in the Regulation 18 that we are behind the curve on it and he did not agree with Dr Bacon he thought it would be better for the Council rather than to react to whoever wants to develop to try and get some form of buy in from the parishioners as to what they think and therefore we could better represent our parishioners in identifying how the housing in the village is developed. Mrs Grove-Jones previously said we are going to have to take a lot of housing, Mr Harris is not sure that is entirely correct but we should try and be influential in that and not just react to people when they put in proposals. Dr Bacon stated that he said that on the basis he thought Mr Harris was just talking about the Mushroom Site, that has got so far ahead with a development proposal that we can
537
expect a planning application very soon which is why thought we should wait until there is one. If the Parish Council wants to have some kind of public meeting to discuss future housing development in Catfield then there is no problem at all. Mr Harris stated that Ms Johnson was talking about Lea Road and how to develop it. The sub-committee should try and put a proposal together. Ms Johnson and Mr Hill agreed to involve the public. Mr Harris stated that it would make it easier when things like the Lea Road development come in because they would have had their chance to have their say earlier rather than reacting to something they don’t like.
Recreation Grounds: Mr Read reported that when they had the clean up after the last meeting. Mr Filgate, Mr Beckley and Mr Read did a litter pick. There are one or two places especially down behind the houses off Elderbush Lane and also alongside the Ludham Road where it is gradually creeping out further, if the Parish Council is paying to have the grass cut on a given area, we are not getting the money’s worth as there is a lot of stuff which is growing out and we are losing a lot of room. Dr Bacon stated that presumably with a gang mower they cannot cut into the longer stuff but on the other hand they encourage more of the longer stuff by reducing the area they cut each time by a few feet which may mean we need some other form of cutting before the gang mower goes in there to get some of the long stuff near the edges. Mr Hill stated that some of the hedges are creeping out as well where people have not cut their hedges. Mr Read agreed, there are one or two which look quite smart and tidy where they have a sensible fence up and then a little further up there are heaps of old drainage pipes thrown over onto the playing field. At the top end picking rubbish up it looks as if somebody had dumped loads of apples the more it gets grown up the more people are inclined to throw rubbish in there because they think it is being hidden by the undergrowth, it will just get worse.
Dr Bacon stated that in that case we need to get somebody to cut with appropriate machinery cut back the edges of the field so that the gang mowers can get in closer and so it discourages people from tipping rubbish into the long grass. Mr Read agreed. Mr Hill asked if we could cut their hedges? Dr Bacon thought we had the right to cut the face of the hedge on our side as far back as where the boundary is. Mr Read though it is allowed to cut a hedge back which is overhanging your property, but you have to give the hedge cuttings back to the person otherwise it is classed as theft.
Mr Read suggested a working party, Mr Hill stated that hedges cannot be cut now because of the nesting season. Mr Read asked about the undergrowth, Dr Bacon replied as it is part of the playing field, he thought the edge of the playing field could be cleared. Dr Bacon went on to say that the grass needs cutting so it becomes regularly mown and the also discourages people thinking it is abandoned long grass and fair game for dumping. Mr Read stated there were whole black bags with rubbish that were rotting away, although he was wearing gloves, he was not prepared to put his hands in to try and clear it up. Mr Hill has a tractor and topper as long as there is nothing in there which would break it. Mr Read said that it needs to be walked first just to make sure that there is nothing in there to save any damage to machinery. Mr Hill will take a look.
All Saints Church: Dr Bacon reported that the volunteers had started grass cutting.
Poors Trust: Mr Harris stated that he had previously requested a response from the Poors Trust. Mr Beckley had sent a response. Mr Harris said that last September he had asked for the Terrier which would have enabled him to tie the income against the relevant assets, the information Mr Beckley has given him does not enable this to happen. The object to his question was to review whether it might be possible to generate more income from the assets of the Trust. Mr Harris thought that was not unreasonable given the extreme length of time that most of the Trustees have been in place on the Poors Trust and as we have seen in Catfield Parish Council sometimes when people have been on these bodies for such a long time things can fall between the cracks. Mr Harris stated that he thought his request was reasonable and might be helpful for the Trust. Dr Bacon replied that the rents for all
538
the various bits and pieces are reviewed annually and people written to formally to say either there is as rent rise of a certain percentage or there will not be a rent rise etc. The rent levels are looked at every year. Mr Harris said that he was sure this was the case but when someone has been in such a place for such a long time you don’t necessarily see what someone else coming from outside would see and it was a positive attempt to help the Poors Trust generate more income, he might be able to make some suggestions like in Johnny Crowe’s Staithe which might be construed as helpful. If the information is not given, he has no hope of being able to help. Dr Bacon stated that he would take that back to the Trustees.
Dr Bacon reported that parts of the land have been badly affected by high river levels, high groundwater levels and surface water flooding. At the moment there is a problem with the loke across the common which is a permissive path, circular walk and hopefully Matt Monk went there today to look at a possible solution for the problem on the track. At the moment it is very wet if someone tried to do the circular walk.
Highways: Mr Read stated that a couple of people asked him where the gas site entrance is on the Potter Heigham to Catfield road, whose responsibility it is. There is a lot of stone and underlay which is coming out of the gas site making a heap in the middle of the road and it is becoming dangerous that stones will fly up. Dr Bacon replied that it is the responsibility of the Highways Department to investigate and take it up with the landowner concerned. This is actually in the parish of Potter Heigham. Mr Read stated that there is pothole possibly eight inches deep off the highway. Action Point: The clerk will report this to Highways.
Dr Bacon reported several large potholes in Plumsgate Road at the Wood Street end, near to Holly Farm. Action Point: The clerk will report this to Highways.
Ms Johnson reported that she had moved the speed camera down to this side of the village for the last two weeks. At the previous meeting Mrs Gardiner had asked for the signs to be placed in New Road. However, the clerk, fortunately, had informed Ms Johnson that SAM2 signs could only be used can only be used in a 30mph area. We cannot establish whether that is 30mph or 60mph. Dr Bacon thought beyond the bypass is 60mph. Ms Johnson shared the latest data from the SAM2 signs which showed the daily incoming number of vehicles. There were nearly a thousand vehicles some days. Almost 3,000 vehicles have gone above 30mph out of nearly 13,000 during that time. There were nine at 50mph, none above 50mph. 65 doing 45mph, 511 doing 40/45mph and then 2,386 above 30mph. This amounts to about 25%. The only benefit is that you can see the cars visibly slowing down when the see the sign this acts as a reminded when they approach into the village. The cameras have now been returned to Potter Heigham.
Dr Bacon thanked Ms Johnson for sharing he information, it is interesting.
Councillor Price said it is good to hear that there has been a reduction in speeds. With the cars that are speeding if you get the right chart you should be able to tie that into a time of day or particular day of the week so, this can be passed on to the police to say we have regular speeders going through this direction at this time and then they can come and do a speed check.
Mr Edwards (public) commended what Ms Johnson had been doing. Clearly the Council has its eye on road safety he thought there were some other very important issues within the village regarding road safety, probably more likely to cause accidents than the speed. One is turning as you approach the shop to come from Trend and want to turn right that is a blind corner, it is exacerbated by the fact that there seems to be a competition taking place in the village who can do the most stupid piece of
539
parking outside the shop. They park quite far out from there; they park on the corner and when you try to make a right turn you are so exposed to what is coming round the corner and pedestrians so not know where they are coming from. Mr Edwards stated that to impose parking restrictions around the shop is very sensitive for the shop and we would not want to harm his trade but likewise we do not want to see anyone killed either.
Mr Edwards went on to say with regard to road safety he found it ludicrous that the speed outside his house is 60mph, this is the same piece of road that we were saying a few meetings ago whether it was wide enough for a tractor to get down. Mr Edwards knows it is not very wide because he has tyre marks on the grass verge. Also passed the entrance to Hall the speed limit is 60mph on a blind bend. Surely these should be reviewed.
Dr Bacon stated that instead of turning right to down into Church Road past the shop he goes to Limes Road junction and turns around, so he does a left turn instead.
Councillor Price stated that on 8th March the conditions and terms for the next years Parish Partnership are being announced and so if the Parish Council comes up with any ideas for improving road safety these are things that can be applied for under the Parish Partnership, so the County pays half, and the Parish pays half. If he is still the County Councillor, he will be able to help with funding.
Footpaths, Staithes & Sandholes: Dr Bacon reported that there are two big ponds in the Sandholes, this is due to surface water runoff and high ground water levels. In some ways it is a concern when there is not water there because much of the Street near the Crown and the Post Office drains into a drain near Mr Beckley’s house which goes round the side of his house, down the back of the loke, under the road and into the Sandholes. If there is no water going through there it is always a potential problem and part of that does get blocked.
Schools: Ms Johnson reported that the school should go back on 8th March. They have done an amazing job all the staff in how flexible they have been with keeping the school open for the children that need to go to school and also ensuring as best education as possible for those at home. Dr Bacon asked what proportion of the normal school number have been attending because they are key workers’ children. Ms Johnson replied it is about 25%, it varies, it is key workers and children who are vulnerable. Dr Bacon went on to say it is an extra workload for the teachers they are not only coping with the normal school day with the children who do attend but also dealing with those who are home schooling as well. Ms Johnson also said the TAs have done an amazing job as well in the way that they have stood up to be counted.
Mr Jordan asked if anything materialised after she approached the Poors Trust for some laptops, Ms Johnson will email the information, they are still going to have a lot of people still at home because children who are in families where people are vulnerable probably won’t go back to school and some members of staff.
Any Other Business: Mr Read said that a review meeting had been discussed some months ago, would it be possible to set a date for this. Mr Read thought considering how things had been over the last few months it is time something was sorted out to get it done. Dr Bacon asked if Mr Read meant a Zoom meeting in the next month or two rather than leave it until the Parish Council can meet in the village hall. Mr Read stated if it was held as a meeting in the village hall if there are new members of the Parish Council they will not really be up to date and will not be concerned about what has happened. Dr Bacon stated that if we wait until then it would involve at least two new members and it would be almost like an induction for them in that they would be discussing what we are all about, he thought it would be good for new councillors to be involved in that.
540
Mr Read thought this needs to be organised as soon as possible and also her thought that it should be chaired and minutes taken by an outside body who has nothing to do with North Norfolk District Council or Catfield Parish Council so there is no bias on either side. Dr Bacon stated he has no problem with that, but the most likely person would be someone from the Norfolk Association of Local Councils. Mr Read agreed, someone independent would be best. Dr Bacon agreed saying that he would be freer to contribute ideas at the meeting rather than having to concentrate on chairing it, he has no problem with that suggestion.
Mr Read asked for other’s thoughts as to whether the meeting should be held when we can meet or whether it should be held sooner.
Mr Jordan thought that sort of meeting is always going to be better in person than on Zoom, this meeting has been postponed because of the issues discussed earlier it is down to Mr Harris as well to decide if he wishes for his solicitors letter for the conclusion of that to go through because there may be some points that need discussing that arise from that letter when he gets a response. Mr Jordan would like to wait until that was cleared, that would give directions to discuss then and equally if there are new members on the Council some new fresh input as well would help, it would be constructive.
Mr Hill and Mrs Wickens agreed with Mr Jordan.
Ms Johnson looked on NALC, the National Association, they talk about local organisations that can help but there are training packs, and it might be an idea if there is a session before the 360 where Councillors could learn a bit more about the formal side of being a Councillor and responsibilities etc and if they were offering that via Zoom then it might be worth doing one night before the 360. Then at the 360 definitely everyone should be there to be able to talk about how we move forward and what we should be doing and how we should do, and the clerk should be there as well but not taking minutes but using expertise and knowledge to help get a better understanding of what needs to be done to be a cohesive Council moving forward for the people in the village.
Dr Bacon said that it should also be considered training for the clerk to be updated, there are all sorts of training course. They cost money to send the clerk on a course, but we could share the cost with Sutton Parish Council if the clerk can find something. Ms Johnson agreed everyone would benefit from for instance the Code of Conduct time flies so quickly and you forgot that people have not signed it because many people were on the Council then.
Mr Harris in the document that was referred to it talks about training for the clerk, it says the clerk benefits if she is qualified, does the clerk have a qualification. Perhaps she could be sponsored to getting the qualification. Dr Bacon agreed that anything the Council can do to help the clerk for training for the qualification. Mr Harris asked if the clerk has the qualification. The clerk replied that she had been looking into the qualification and would like to do it. Mr Harris went on to say that this had been a brutal two months as far as he was concerned and the idea that it just goes away there is a loss of credibility and trust which needs to be recognised and therefore, he thought that Mr Jordan is correct that North Norfolk and others have to find out what has actually happened on this case because he would not wish any other of his colleagues on the Council to be faced with this. It has surprised Mr Harris and heartened him the concerns and support he has had from other Councillors, they are, a good number of them, most concerned about what would happen and do not want to see it happen again. They want us to have procedures in place that would stop it from happening again. Mr Harris thought this has been a breach of trust between us and it cannot be allowed to fester we will not function as a body until that trust is restored. That means frankly speaking, his lawyers have been pointing to him the Human Rights Act that is at least as important and Freedom of Speech the ability
541
to speak frankly, that is critical and must be reflected in anything we do. The Independent Officer who Mr Harris spoke to says in some ways this document which has been discussed is a “snowflakes charter” it is a very modern document in that looks at everything from a modern victim type of way and those of the things that have been latched onto. Therefore, there needs to be a talk about what degree, how we can speak freely without the fear that we are going to be handed up on some charge without any consultation.
Mr Harris went on to say that there is an absence of trust, it should take place soon in his view. This needs to be, and this is recommended in the decision documents, it has to be completely independent of the existing structure and as far as he is concerned that should include NNDC. We need to get someone from outside. Mr Harris thought Ms Johnson is probably a neutral person and suggested she should be the person who tries to find out the person otherwise everyone else are to a degree tainted. Mr Harris proposed that Ms Johnson researches how to get someone from NALC but not from our area, someone from outside.
Dr Bacon asked if Mr Harris meant not from the Norfolk Association of Local Councils. Mr Harris replied someone outside the area so there is not a doubt that someone knows them. Mr Harris asked the Independent Officer who told him there were two possibilities and said either you pay for it with someone like him although he could not do it because he works for NNDC or you get someone from NALC but that has to be an independent person. Mr Harris thought that we have to have someone here who is considered to be objective, and that he thought that person was Ms Johnson, to try and do the research. In terms of timing Mr Harris thought it should be soon because we cannot move on until this is done. In the decision report is says there are a large number of governance issues that need to be addressed.
Mr Harris asked if anyone had seen the defence document he had sent in, no one had seen the full document and appendices. Mr Harris stated that there was a one-page cover letter, she does not refer to that, she spells wrong appendices and there are seven appendices but there is an eighteen page report. Mr Harris will circulate that because he thought it be good for everybody to see what issues he has brought up in his defence, we have seen the charge sheet, but we have not seen any of the defence and it goes to the issues of trust and how to take this Council forward that we need to address in this meeting and that includes a whole list of governance issues, not just the Code of Conduct. Why there is nothing on the notice boards today about who your Councillors are, why are there no minutes on the website, every other council in Britain has the minutes on the website, not ours. The only thing we seem to manage to get on the website is the Code of Conduct. Action Point Ms Johnson should try and find someone from NALC.
Secondly, Mr Harris thought that we should find a date not too far ahead, he thought the newcomers would probably be frightened away if they heard some of the things that have been said. The problem exists among ourselves and that needs to be addressed. Mr Harris thought Dr Bacon’s idea of contributing would be helpful not as Chairman maybe he should consider that in the longer term. It might be quite a good way.
Ms Johnson replied that she would happily investigate, she asked if we are a member of the National Association. The clerk replied that we are a member of Norfolk Association. Ms Johnson stated that the National Association do work with the local Association. Dr Bacon thought that if Ms Johnson contacts the National Association they would pass it on to the local one. Mr Harris stated that the key is that it has got to be independent above suspicion that is the key issue.
Mr Read asked Mr Harris if it is possible to see the document it could be very interesting, Mr Harris will circulate it, it should have been sent round by the Deputy Monitoring Officer she did not manage
542
to get the whole of the charge in, she got Mr Harris’s cover letter and referred to seven appendices but not the eighteen page report.
Mr Read asked Mr Harris for sight of the document he had sent to NNDC.
Mr Jordan reported that he had just been on the NNDC planning site and seen that the Sands application has permission to start the development. Mr Harris thanked Mr Jordan for looking because it disappeared for quite a long time. Mr Harris asked if the Parish Council gets notified of decision, we do not.
Date of the Next Meeting: The date of the next meeting was set for Wednesday 7th April at 7pm by Zoom.
The meeting closed at 9.05pm.
543