Held on 23rd November 2023 at 19.00 in the V.H.
1.0 Present.
Ruthven Horne, Stuart Mattock, Caroline Mattock, Anthony George , Steph Talbot, , Geoff Willson, Lynn Burdett, Anna Bussey, Di Payne, Frank Payne, Jo Douglas, Grahame Douglas , Richard Garton, Shane Lakhani, Di Morgan, Lois Newport, Katie Lowe, Ian Balmer.
2.0 Apologies.
Cllr Brown, , Andrew Wallace, Hugh Talbot, Sue Lee, David Lee, Andrew Bussey, Robbie Rudge, Shelia Rudge.
3.0 Welcome.
Ian Balmer welcomed everybody to the meeting.
4.0 A very sad loss.
Before the meeting started a few minutes were taken to remember our neighbour and friend Judith George who had recently passed away. Although she and Anthony had not been in the village that long she had thrown herself into its activities and life and had become a friend to many. She will be greatly missed. The meeting was asked to mark her passing by remembering a happy moment they had shared with Judith.
5.0 Minutes of the Previous Meeting.
The minutes of the previous meeting held on 11th May 2023 were agreed as a correct record.
6.0 Progress over the last six months.
A paper giving a progress report to the meeting was circulated with the Agenda.
- Projects funded by the Community Infrastructure Levy.
As has been previously reported CIL monies have been used to fund five years support and we are about to organise or annual training session for those who were trained last year.
After several discussions with RCC and research work undertaken by Russ Horne and Anthony George it became clear this was not a project that could benefit from this funding source.
With regard to the lawnmower for the playpark, this matter would be covered later in the agenda.
2.0 Traffic calming measures.
The Chairman reported that discussions continue with RCC about the potential introduction of a 40 mph before the 30 limit, and also raise the possibility of ‘false gates’ at either side of the road. The Council have been asked to comment on these issues but as yet no response had been received.
The red road markings had been refreshed this week.
3.0 RCC Plans – Village implications.
The process for creating a county Plan continues, and this is covered later in the agenda.
4.0 Digital Rutland.
The Community Fund has supported a one year contract with the service provider which comes to an end at the beginning of December.
The Village Hall Committee had decided not to continue with this for the time-being.
5.0 Community Fund.
It had been agreed that this body should have a formal legal status and that it would best fit a Charitable Trust.
The work has been completed to create this Trust with the following objective;
To further or benefit the residents of Glaston and the neighbourhood, without distinction of sex, sexual orientation, race or of political, religious or other opinions by associating together the said residents and the local authorities, voluntary and other organisations in a common effort to advance education and to provide facilities in the interest of social welfare for recreation and leisure time occupation with the objective of improving the conditions of life for the residents. …..
It was reported that this Trust could not be registered with the Charity Commission as its income was less than £5,000.
The Chairman confirmed that after discussions with HMRC that gift aide could not be claimed on the contributions.
The fund has three managers (Steph Talbot, Suzie Colliss and Polly Grimmett).
The only source of income for the Community fund is the Bonus Ball scheme run by Steph and Hugh Talbot.
Steph updated the meeting with regard to the Fund.
The current membership of 37 people contribute £1 per week and the potential prize each Saturday is £20.The current balance in reserves is approximately £4,000.
There are currently 37 out of 59 possible numbers allocated. The annual income is therefore £1,924.If all the numbers were allocated there would be a pay out every week (£20) totalling £740 p.a
Currently the main routine expenditure commitment is the funding of the ongoing maintenance of the playpark which is budgeted at approx. £550 per year ( using volunteers to cut grass ).This figure will obviously increase if commercial grass cutting contractors have to be used.
In addition ad hoc projects are funded, most recently being the first year provision of internet facilities in the village hall and the wine provided at the Coronation Street Party.
In the past questionnaires have been used to stimulate request for funding which are then presented to the Parish Meeting.
There is currently a bid being considered by the Fund from the Village Hall management committee to contribute to the funding of tables and chairs.
7.0 The Playpark.-A discussion.
A paper was circulated regarding the future of the Playpark.
The Playpark is the subject of a long lease between Robert Boyle and the Parish Meeting (RCC ). The use of the area is limited to that of a children’s Playpark.
The Playpark is effectively managed by the Community Fund.
As all will know the playpark has not been available to children for some time due to the removal of dangerous equipment and since then little equipment remains.
Suzie Colliss, on behalf of the Community Fund, has explored the cost of fully re-equipping the playpark with appropriate kit (from Wicksteed) and the quote in June 2022 totalled £37,916 + vat (£45,500 ).
A new lawnmower will be required and it was proposed that this should be funded from CIL funds (cost of approx. £750.)
It was reported that the main annual cost is the insurance of the playpark. The current annual cost, paid by the Community Fund, is £235 for insurance as is the cost of the three green bins used to dispose of the grass cuttings at an annual cost of £150.
The Council have in principal decided that they will not continue to collect the green bins associated with the Playpark, although after discussion RCC agreed to delay this by one year . A commercial contractor will need to be found to collect the green waste from the site if the Council stick to their decision. The Chairman was continuing to pursue quotes for this contract.
An annual inspection fee for any equipment will also potentially have to be paid, in the region of £150.
The second area of cost is the ‘volunteer cost ‘, people’s time to cut the grass and keep the area tidy.
This is currently undertaken by a small group and if this is to continue, more volunteers will be required to join the team if it is to be sustainable.
It will be necessary to prepare and show some rules of use of the area to comply with the public liability insurance.
It may be possible to gain grant monies for the re-provision of the play equipment. Other local playparks have employed commercial grant writers to achieve this at no cost to the village.
Ongoing annual costs would need to be met by the Community Fund .
The likely annual cost for maintaining a playpark on the current basis, using volunteers, is in the order of £550 per annum. This figure could rise significantly if a commercial contractor is used.
The last Village meeting discussed the need for a Playpark and concluded that although use had been low in recent years in would be unfortunate if the facility had to be given up as it was difficult to predict the future use and it may be an asset to future generations.
After discussion it was agreed that the ideal solution would be to potentially relocate the playpark, maybe in a smaller configuration and combine the site with a small car park to support the Church and/or the Village Hall.
It was suggested the possibility of a ‘swop’ of sites may be a solution but this clearly would depend on the views and wishes of the Landlord.
Following discussions with Robert Boyle the following points can be made;
- RB is aware that the Playpark is not well used.
- At some point RB may wish to apply for housing development on his land along that section of road and this area had been identified as a potential housing development site as part of RCC planning exercise. Any development would have to go through the full planning process.
- RB didn’t wish at this stage to consider any type of site ‘swop.’
- RB did suggest that if the current lease was surrendered, occasional car parking would be provided on hard standing slightly further down the road.
During discussion it was confirmed that the terms of the current lease could not be altered to allow for wider use of the space and the position set out above is unlikely to change unless it was part of a wider development and any change benefited both parties.
The Chairman set out three options moving forward;
- Retain the current Playpark and re-equip as suggested above.
This would require significant fund-raising for the new equipment which we believe would require professional assistance.
The CIL fund would need to purchase a replacement lawnmower at an approximate cost of approx. £750.
- Retain the playpark and re-equip with less equipment.
This option would still require significant fundraising but to a reduced level than that set out above, maybe to the sum of £25,000.
- Surrender the Playpark lease back to the Landlord.
Andrew Bussey unfortunately couldn’t attend the meeting but had submitted his views in writing. The Chairman suggested he read out the key points raised by Andrew at this stage of the meeting. Andrew stressed that these comments are made as a resident and not in his capacity as a director of Gateley Smithers Purslow.
The village has 2 public community buildings. The church and the ‘village hall’ and my understanding is both are the responsibility of the PCC and owned by the diocese. In addition, we have a play park and this is Boyle land leased to the community.
Residents seemingly want a church, a community meeting place and play park, but they all take administering and maintaining and we can’t afford all that from current sources. How we currently operate barely covers the running costs. Maintenance is needed and not happening. The play park is shut and you have seen the Gateley Smithers Purslow report on the village hall, highlighting lots of work to get it in good order and appealing to users.
Donations, fundraising events and working parties is great for community spirit but fundamentally it’s not solving the big issues here and I applaud the wider debate that is now happening.
The church is here to stay and looking after that is unavoidable.
I think appetite in the village to assist with our needs is limited. Working parties, donations and fundraising is usually the same faces and quite restricted. That’s not a criticism of residents – everyone has different priorities and I respect that.
If we want a desirable village hall and useable playpark on top of the church that’s fine, but I can see us needing to find very significant investment to achieve that.
Grants and loans are out there, but it’s years of effort and then years more effort to maintain and look after.
An alternative strategy would be to use the church as the community building. Other villages have been successful with this. It brings churches back to life, seeing them used more frequently, as in the past. Potential income from the sale of the village hall could fund this change.
Further, I think dialogue could be re-explored with Mr Boyle about relocating the play park further down Wing Road opposite the church ramp and this could incorporate some off road parking and hardstanding. If that was agreeable we’d have a community building with dedicated parking which might make hire for events to non-residents appealing, also bringing in funds we barely see at present.
Better parking could be provided on Church Lane for whatever buildings we decide to have. If the linear bays outside the bungalows were converted to chevrons by RCC and their agents, more parking would result.
Please take all I say in the right spirit. I live and work in the village and care about it and its people, and just feel it’s time to start looking at the bigger picture and coming up with a robust long term plan. Proper constructive debate will ensure we get to a solution we can all embrace.
After discussion the following was agreed;
- Preference was to retain the facility of a playpark which certainly initially would be in its current location.
- A specification should be drawn up setting out equipment requirements.
This should include any potential re-use of existing equipment, but it was recognised that any re-use would have to be agreed with the insurers.
- The potential of professional fundraiser/grant writers should be further explored.
- Help would be required to move this project forward and any volunteers would be welcome.
- If a solution could not be found the decision to retain the Playpark would need to be revisited.
8.0 Use of Community Infrastructure Monies.
The Chairman explained that the Community Infrastructure Levy is a levy that local authorities can charge on new developments in their area to ensure sustainable development overall i.e. facilities and services in the area have capacity to keep up with growth. Parish Councils receive a proportion of this funding.
Under the requirements of the CIL regulations, 15% of the CIL receipts collected as a result of development within a given town or parish area will be passed to the relevant Town/Parish Council.
Parish Meetings must use the CIL receipts passed to it to support the development of the Parish area, or any part of that area, by funding:-
“The provision, improvement, replacement, operation or maintenance of infrastructure; or Anything else that is concerned with addressing the demands that development places on an area”
The original fund ,held by RCC on our behalf, totalled £7,088 The only cost that has been charged against this is the five year contract for the defib at a cost of £1,759.
Two further projects were supported in principle, the renovation of the Cartwash which we now know cannot be funded in this way, and the purchase of a lawnmower for the playpark, if that was to be required in the future at an approximate cost of £750.
The current funds available are £5,329
A recent request has been made by the Village Hall Management Committee for financial support in relation to some immediate repair works that have been identified as part of the wider restoration work described in the report provided to the Village Hall Management Committee by Andrew Bussey.
The immediate work required includes repairs to rainwater goods and drainage, replacement of a fire escape door, work to vent the fireplace flu and repairs to the kitchen roof. The cost of this work is estimated to be £2,690.
I have discussed this potential request with RCC and in principle this could be a supported by CIL funding as long as this is not deemed routine maintenance and is supported by the Parish Meeting. Further correspondence has seen RCC asking for further information regarding this project as follows;
‘Please could the group who are coordinating the works to the village hall provide me with a project plan detailing all of the specific works required to the village hall including the larger works, why they are required, timescales of commencement, completion, and the costs involved. Please could you also confirm the amount of CIL required for this project.’
In addition, RCC wanted confirmation from the PCC of the continued use of the building as a village hall by the community. This has been given in an email from Sue Lee on behalf of the PCC where she states the following;
- The premises remain legally the Church Rooms and during their 100yr existence they have been operated by the Rector and Churchwardens generally in conjunction with a village committee. Currently the PCC can confirm that the premises continue to be used as a village hall organised by a Village Hall Management Committee (VHMC).
Other potential demands on this funding that have been identified in previous meetings include a contribution to traffic calming measures if any are agreed by RCC and improvement to street lighting on Spring Lane.
After a full discussion it was decided that subject to the questions raised by RCC being answered satisfactorily the Parish Meeting would support a contribution of £2,690 to pay for the urgent works that had been identified which would allow further time to work on the more substantial issues raised regarding the structure of the village hall.
The other bids would be considered when more information was forthcoming from RCC. The Chairman agreed to further clarify the situation with regard to the length of time the CIL monies would remain available.
9.0 The Rutland Plan.
Rutland County Council is consulting on a new Local Plan. This is a stage of the plan-making process when the Council asks for feedback on a draft version of the Plan. The draft Local Plan sets out policies on how the Council will plan for future housing, employment, transport and retail growth
All the information you need about the Draft Local Plan and how to take part in this consultation can be found at www.rutland.gov.uk/localplan. You can also contact RCC with questions by emailing: localplan@rutland.gov.uk If you don’t have access to the internet, you can take part in the Local Plan consultation by phoning: 01572 722 577. The consultation period ends at 4pm on Monday 8 January 2024.
During discussion further information was provided about the potential of residential development in the village.
Following earlier consultation there was a view from the responses that housing in some types of settlement need to be supported, with some of the County’s smaller villages indicating the need to have a more flexible approach to allowing very small-scale development to sustain them and to provide opportunities to meet changing housing needs within their community.
The Council has developed a criteria-based policy approach to development in small villages and hamlets which would allow for small-scale infill, redevelopment (defined as 5 or fewer dwellings).
Proposals will be considered on an application-by-application basis.
The new policy approach for small villages will ensure that only the redevelopment of a previously developed site; an infill plot within a substantially built-up frontage; or a site where development will complement or enhance the existing settlement edge will take place, providing the following criteria can be met where the proposal is:
• of a proportionate scale and density and reflects the existing pattern of development;
• does not harm erode or harm the public amenity of open spaces or gaps that contribute to the character of the village, including sites identified in the Important Open Spaces and Frontages;
• supports or enhances the vitality of the local community;
• maintains and/or complements the form and character of the settlement;
• does not have an adverse cumulative impact on the settlement with regard to other developments permitted during the plan period; and
• is designed to be sensitive to its landscape character and setting with specific reference to the Rutland Landscape Character Assessment 2022.
10.0 An Update from the Village Hall Committee.
Jo Douglas gave an update on the progress that she and the committee had made in recent months.
Jo also provided an overview of the plans for the future including further work to the village hall.
The meeting was thanked for their support of the CIL monies application which if approved would fund the urgent work that she had outlined. Jo reported that this work had been scheduled for late December. It was also reported that the community fund had agreed to contribute to the funding of new furniture to the sum of £750, which would allow an application to another grant giving body to complete the purchase at a total cost of £5,000.
Several events were planned over the next few weeks including wreath making classes which would raise £400 for the village hall and £400 for The Dove Hospice.
In addition to a number of scheduled events it was reported that Caroline Mattock would be running a drop in for a cup of tea and a chat session every Wednesday between 3pm-7pm.
Jo and her committee were thanked for their continued efforts and enthusiasm.
11.0 Update from the PCC.
Anna Bussey gave the meeting an update regarding PCC maters.
Anna reinforced the point that no decision had been made regarding the future of the village hall. The PCC were currently in a fact finding phase and once this had been completed discussions would begin regarding the future of the building. The Chair of the village hall committee would be included in these discussions
Anna reported that it cost approx. £10,000 per annum to run the church which was in the main provided by planned giving. Glaston was lucky in that the church still maintained 3 services a month. The PCC had recently agreed a new reserves policy but if more was to be achieved increased income would have to be found.
Anna thanked Jo and the village hall committee for their work and enthusiasm.
12.0 The Precept.
After a short discussion it was agreed not to change the precept.
13.0 Any Other Business.
Anthony George thanked friends and neighbours for their kindness over the recent weeks at a time which was very difficult for him.
I.A.J.B Nov.2023.