Your Comments

If you have anything to say, or draw our attention to – we will post your comments.

Your comments give weight and credibility to our efforts on your behalf but please remember we cannot post any content that is libelous,  abusive or contains bad language.


84 thoughts on “Your Comments”

  1. I refer to the draft Minutes of the last meeting and the Council’s scant comment that the late Mr Fred Beard had been a councillor for ‘a good many years’ which I found deeply offensive. Those few words were barely sufficient or adequate for a past chairman who had served on the Parish Council for over 50 years and rarely, if ever, missed a meeting. I trust that an amendment will be made to the draft Minutes at the next meeting in recognition of Fred’s valuable contribution to the Parish Council as both Parish Councillor and Chairman and will give him the respect he so richly deserves.

  2. New Clerk Recruitment [ 29 th Oct 2019 ]

    Cradley and Storridge PC are having to recruit a new Clerk and have given just 21 days for applications to be received . The time scale is far to tight for would be applicants . A minimum of one month , or better still , 6 weeks is more likely to garner in an acceptable selection!
    Council’s Oct Draft Minutes confirm that the Council’s Employment Working Group will be carrying out this recruitment .
    The Council’s website provides details for applicants including a Job Specification and an Application Form .
    Please can the Council explain why ALL applications must be sent direct to a Lynda Wilcox at HALC offices in Hereford .

    Why will confidential , personal information be sent to HALC who have nothing to do with CSPC recruitment . This must be a breach of the Council’s Data Protection Rules .
    Could it be simply yet another example of incompetence by the Employment WG / Clerk .
    The online documents have HALC logo , etc all over them .
    Some urgent action required here .

  3. As an addendum to my last comment regarding allowing dogs onto the Buryfields Recreation area. I would question whether you have read your own Bye Laws in force at the Recreation Grounds and also point out that the provision of replacement no dogs signs for the Play area which were according to your own minutes to be ordered and have never materialised to this day.

  4. Kate thank you for your email regarding the orchard decision at Buryfields which in fact confirms my questions points. I am somewhat surprised that you have not placed the answer in the public domain on the website but answered me personally.
    The ENVIRONMENT working group report you attached was dated 15th August and 29th August. Whilst members of the Recreations group were invited no reference was made of what input was made by them. It would appear that the report from the recreation group to have an orchard at Buryfields should have been THEIR project with Environment being consulted by them and not as it appears the other way round.
    The report and the so called map of the suggested area was never made public as you will recall NO documents were made public for the September meeting so that the public were never consulted nor had chance to have a say on the matter.
    On a matter such as this and the proposed erection of a fence to keep dogs away from play equipment has again not been discussed with anyone from Buryfields or the Leys for whom the recreation ground serves.

    The PC cannot continue to slip matter which are pet projects for a minority through “on the sly” ignoring their duty and obligation to consult with the community on such matters. I sincerely hope you make a fully informative and detailed specification on any such project with full financial documentation and costings made public
    for immediate consultation.
    As RFO it is your duty to ensure that spending by the council meets the laid down fiscal prudence and value for money policy.

  5. I am amazed that on checking the Hereford Council report a pothole? repairs needed online service that they have given this response to checking Rectory Lane for reported defect (which all in Cradley have been aware.
    “We are unable to report an incident at this location as it is an un-adopted/private road. Did you mean to click somewhere else? If so, click OK and try again”
    My amazement is brought on by awareness of the Herculean efforts made by previous councils and members of the community especially Mike Haimes over several years in bringing the Council to the point where they finally admitted responsibility for the Lane and its upkeep.
    Can the PC please investigate and report how and why this error has occurred which effectively negates A) anyone reporting repairs needed and B) Allows the county council to avoid meeting their statutory duty

  6. Kate thanks for your reply. Unfortunately it does not address the main points I raised.
    It would appear that the confusion arises from a basic breakdown in communication within the council which is happening with frightening regularity lately. Whilst appreciating your reduced workload requirements it should of course been addressed by council by having contingencies in place to ensure that the website is administered by a backup councillor when you are unable to do so yourself.

    The lack of publishing of documentation, until recently has gone a long way to informing the community of matters (and details) of what will be discussed at meetings now has fallen by the wayside. Thereby no one is informed of when matters are being discussed by council and decisions to be made.

    The playing fields are a prime illustration of this. The discussion on placing an orchard at Buryfields and the proposal to fence off areas(undefined and not shown) for the use by dog owners have all been carried out with NO reference or input from the community whatsoever.

    These are COMMUNITY areas and there should be by all of the rules governing the PC, not interfered with until full consultation is completed with all Parishioners and a consensus obtained with the community for their alteration or change of use.

    • Dear Ken,

      Papers should be published on the website as usual for the next meeting – I am slowly getting through the backlog.

      Kind Regards

  7. Kate thanks for your reply and I appreciate your position regarding fully returning to work.
    This matter flies totally in the face of the PC’s requirement to comply with codes of conduct and standing orders and indeed the Chairs avowed intent to “I would like us to be able to be more aware of, and more responsive to, what the community
    wants. We’ll seek to improve means of consultation,””We want to be
    open to suggestions, challenge, and criticism. “”We may not agree, but we will listen, and we’ll be as open and transparent as we can about the decisions we take and the reasons for them – that’s local democracy as I see it.”

    It is blatantly obvious in this case that none of the above has even been considered.
    The decision was made not on an agenda item but as a result of a report from a working party. Such a decision cannot be made without consultation with and support of the community involved. Your point that it was not a councillor but a single community member is irrelevant as one person cannot bring about such an action.
    The PC is only the custodian of the recreation areas on behalf of the community and not some feudal land owner making unilateral decisions. Full consultation is the only method of “local democracy” madam Chair.

    What happened is a travesty of everything a PC should be and cannot be tolerated in Cradley & Storridge

    • Thanks Ken. Just to clarify, the decision has not been made as yet, the matter was discussed at the last meeting. Apologies for any confusion.

  8. Further to the comment regarding fencing off part of the Buryfields play area for dog walkers that was discussed at the September meeting, is the Parish Council aware that this item should have been on the Agenda? The Good Councillors’ Guide states “It is actually unlawful to make a decision, especially a decision to spend money, without sufficient (three clear days) warning. The three clear days is established in law because it is important to be notified of issues to be discussed”. Please can you confirm that any decision already made on this issue will be rescinded.

  9. I am totally astounded with a decision made at the parish council meeting on 10th September.
    It was decided that the council would go ahead with looking to fence off a section of the recreation area at Buryfields around the play equipment.
    Apparently, this is on the suggestion of a dog owning parish councillor who felt that dog owners should have access to the area to exercise their dogs. Despite Cradley being in the countryside and having over 60km of public rights of way paths and numerous roads with footpaths.
    Now I would question why the parish council decided without any consultation or notice to the community (especially those with children in Buryfields) to go ahead with such a scheme using tax payers money?

    Why was there no notice of the discussion on the agenda so that interested parties could make representations BEFORE discussion and decision?. Apparently this was as a result of a report from the recreation working party. Surprisingly enough such reports are supplied with the agendas but for some reason not for the September meeting so no one knew what was to be discussed.

    If it goes ahead then I would enquire as to who will clear the dog mess from the football pitch to allow the children to use it as we all know not all dog owners clear up after their beloved pets. What are the insurance liabilities for the council allowing dogs in close proximity to children playing?
    I would urge the council to seriously think this through again and only proceed if they have a majority of residents in favour after a thorough consultation.

    • Dear Ken,

      I was not actually at the meeting so had to take some advice before responding. The idea to fence off part of Buryfields was submitted by a parishioner, not a councillor, and was discussed at the meeting before councillors made a decision.
      Unfortunately I have had time off over the summer and am now on a phased return to work. This had led to a significant backlog of work and is why the papers were not on the website with the agenda, although not required legally, I like to put the papers up for parishioners to read and hope that normal service will be resumed by the next meeting.

      Kind Regards
      Kate Joiner
      CSPC Clerk

  10. Please can all the vitriol and constant criticism within the comments page be balanced by a little positivity. I have disagreed with some of the actions of CSPC in the past weeks but find the constant attacks both offensive and repetitive – let’s move forward in a positive and constructive manner.

  11. FAO : Clerk to CSPC

    Dear Kate ,
    I would appreciate some replies to my several email requests for information over the last 3 months from both the Chair and the Clerk .
    Why do I not even have the courtesy of acknowledgements for the most part ?
    Also , I note that both the July 9th Council meeting and the 19th July EO meetings have been uploaded to the public website as simply MINUTES !
    These are NOT simply Minutes . They will not be approved as Minutes until your 10th September Council meeting . THEY ARE DRAFT MINUTES only .
    Big Difference and is misleading for parishioners seeking accurate information .
    In addition , I note that NO council Agenda Item or Council Resolution has been put in place to authorise Eyelid ltd to upload the Council website ( see recent Task and Finish Upload by Eyelid ) . WHY ?
    Surely this is in breach of Council’s rules and statutory regulations .

    Geoff Fielding

    Geoff Fielding

  12. FAO : Storridge & Cradley PC and its Councillors 29/07/2019
    What about the CSPC Website ?
    Cradley and Storridge Parish Council have a statutory obligation to both provide and maintain a publicly accessible Website.
    The reason for this is so that parishioners and the public at large are able to learn about the ongoing work, actions and decisions of the PC .To achieve this the council is required to upload ALL the business of the Council in a timely and comprehensive fashion.
    Two years on and the website maintenance is lamentable . So much of the activity of Working Groups , judged by the paucity and in many cases the total lack of any published records of their meetings and activities means we , the community , just cannot make much sense of anything .
    Many questions arise regarding lack of records .
    • Take a look at Working Group Notes on the Website – If the records are correct then two WGs have not met since last year (2018) and others have not met for month after month . Accountability?
    • Playing Field Health and Safety reports should be done each month and recorded on the Website . NO REPORTS for last 3 months and only 3 inspection reports since November 2018! Council Liability Risks?
    • Lengthsman Reports : These have now stopped being recorded on the Website . They stopped when the new Lengthsman Co-ordinator role was created last year . Prior to this change , full monthly reports were produced for Council and can be seen under Archive Lengthsman Reports on the Website . The community now has virtually no knowledge of the activity of the Lengthsman and work done or not done. What happened to Accountability and Openness?
    How on earth are parishioners expected to be kept up to date with such issues and events? Is this deliberate or just the Council’s failure to get to grips with a situation of which they are well aware and have been reminded about many times ? Hoping for some answers soon .
    Come of Parish Council , be OPEN and Transparent with your community.
    Geoff Fielding (Parishioner)

  13. To whoever is updating website
    Please con we have draft minutes of July meeting. Long overdue. Why has this website not changed so that comment box is at beginning??
    Ann Carver

  14. Kate,
    I have just read the minutes of the last Parish Council for the 11th of June.

    Unfortunately they are incorrect and should be rectified before being passed at the next meeting.
    1. 4.2 Top receive representations from the public

    There is nothing in the minutes about the fact that a question was asked about the Richard Hill Charities. the question was originally asked at the Parish Meeting but then in the June meeting was again missed on the agenda. there was a short discussion about it but this is not in the minutes.

    2. 4.2
    A small mistake. ‘the clerk has queried how the comments box can be moved…
    This was not the clerk but a member of the public.

  15. Many thanks for your response Kate on behalf of CSPC. It’s a shame that the Parish Council will not allow advertisements from the Cradley Enquirer as it not only contains a lot of useful information, but also advertises village events which otherwise parishioners wouldn’t know about. It’s website is easily accessible online for those who can’t get around to the notice boards to see upcoming events. Perhaps councillors might reconsider.

  16. Notice Board Policy: I am pleased to see that common sense has at last prevailed and the Parish Council is now allowing posters from organisations and other groups trying to raise much needed funds for Cradley Scouts, Macmillan nurses etc. Furthermore it is good to see that posters relating to the informative Cradley Enquirer will no longer be removed as per Policy No: 2 (g).

    • Thank you for your comment – CSPC are keen to ensure that noticeboards are useful for the community. However, I just wanted to highlight section 3 – (information that should not be displayed on CSPC noticeboards), point E –

      e) Anonymous material – i.e. not attributed to an identifiable individual, editorial team, or known

      Kind Regards
      Kate Joiner
      CSPC Clerk

  17. The notice board policy has a heading Cradley Parish Council surely this should be Cradley and Storridge Parish Council.

  18. Morning Kate,
    At last nights meeting of the PC it was stated that you would be asking HALC’s advice on the Policy regarding the environmental part.

    I presume that, as it has been passed in a previous Council meeting, this request and reply with be in writing. I will be at the July meeting to see if this has been carried out. Mine or Derek’s correspondence has not been in writing to my knowledge.

  19. kate,

    out of courtesy, I should tell you that I am sending a report of the Parish Meeting to the newsletter. I have had the report verified by 2 members of the public who were at the meeting to agree that is what was said. It is just a factual report.
    If you do want to see my report, it is in the Enquirer.

  20. Kate,

    This comment should definitely put at the top.

    Please can you let me know when the minutes of the Parish Meeting will be on the website which was held last Tuesday.
    Also thee reports by the Cradley Village Hall, Storridge Village Hall should be on together with the report on the Richard Hill Charities which was not given on the evening.

    • Dear Ann,

      I have been held up a little with the miniutes but I aiming to be in a position to publish them later this week, along with the relevant reports. However, please note that the Chair’s report is already available via the website – it is a new post.

      Kind Regards
      Kate Joiner
      CSPC Clerk

  21. Katel
    Please can you let me know if you have in the Parish Council records, the statement I read out at the Parish Council meeting and which I asked to be minuted. Have HALC given any advice on the recording of this statement yet? If not why not as we pay HALC a lot of money.

    With regard to a comment made regarding me sending it to the monitoring officer. No I did not do this, but in hindsight perhaps i should have done so. I do have the complete email if you wish to see it.
    Secondly, please can you put this ‘leave a comment’ at the top of the comments,not here at the bottom as one has to scroll right down and is not helpful.

    I hope all goes well with your new Council.

    • Dear Ann,

      I have not received the advice sought as yet but will continue to pursue the issue. However, if you read the approved minutes from the 9th April meeting there has been a slight amendment to the section which recorded your statement.

      I have tried to change the format of the comments page but unfortunately I think it is a WordPress set up, I will seek advice from Eyelid Productions to see if it can be moved to the top of the page though as I agree, that would be more user friendly!

      Kind Regards

  22. Dear Kate

    Many thanks for your reply. I understand that agenda items and related papers what the Resolutions refer to can be found by navigating around Herefordshire Council’s website (for planning info) or from the extensive amount of documents on CSPC’s website but it’s rather unfair of councillors to expect parishioners to jump through hoops to try to find this information when it would be much simpler to add a few extra lines about the subject being discussed before the vote is taken. As far back as I can remember minutes have always included the subject matter, an outline of the discussion, the proposer and seconder and following the vote (including any abstentions), the Resolution. Why has this suddenly changed with the current parish council?

    In regard to HALC: It is in the public domain that Herefordshire Council has agreed not to renew the City Council’s membership to HALC from April this year as County Ward Cllr. Jim Kenyon stated of HALC “They seemed hell-bent on giving advice that was politically motivated rather than objectively”. So why does CSPC continue to hang on to HALC’s coat tails (at enormous expense) and refer back to them when CSPC should be making its own decisions? Minutes should not be brief as per HALC’s training method and I’m amazed that councillors voted to keep them brief in January this year especially as it’s been pointed out that “this is an issue that has been raised before on a number of occasions” in which case the matter should be revisited after 6 months and the decision reversed.

    I have now had sight of Cllr. Ann Carver’s statement and I am both shocked and appalled at the content of the email she received last year from a ‘current senior councillor’ with much less experience of CSPC than Cllr. Carver. The said councillor, who should be named and shamed, was surely in breach of the Code of Conduct. Presumably a complaint was made to the Monitoring Officer and if not, why not?

    Finally, I have no desire to shoot the messenger (Kate, the Clerk), who is doing an excellent job under which must be extremely trying circumstances. Kudos to Kate for lasting a lot longer than the previous clerk who resigned after only two months.

    • Dear Patricia,

      Thank you for your comments, I will answer them each to the best of my ability.

      I was advised by HALC with regards to the minutes, as this is judged as part of my CiLCA training which I have been doing since I joined CSPC, having never clerked for a parish council before. This is something that the council has discussed at various points I believe and at the January 2019 meeting (at which I was not present due to personal circumstances) it was decided that the minutes would be as advised by HALC and kept to just decisions made.

      I appreciate the comments made regarding HALC and the fees were queried when we renewed this year. Council were clear that it may not always require the support from HALC that it does currently and that each year the decision to renew will be put to councillors and the advantages and disadvantages weighed up. I have to say, from a personal point of view I do find it reassuring that I have somewhere I can go to ask questions if an ad-hoc query arises, although as I progress I hope to require the service to a lesser degree.

      I cannot comment on the email sent to Cllr Ann Carver as I have not seen it, I also do not know if it was reported to the Monitoring Office at the time. Complaints may be made to the Monitoring Office by individuals – councillors or parishioners, and are not generally made by councils as I understand it.

      Lastly, thank you for your comment about ‘not shooting the messenger’. I appreciate that people feel strongly about various issues and my aim is to be as objective as possible. I can assure you and other parishioners that I am working as hard as I can as clerk.

      Kind Regards
      Kate Joiner
      CSPC Clerk

  23. Re : CSPC requests for professional advice and direction from HALC

    Dear Clerk , on 6/11/2018 you wrote to HALC with the letter shown below .
    My request is
    (1) For copies of HALC’s written responses to Council questions especially regarding new Policy initiatives , changes to procedures , etc . and which CSPC has a duty to make available to parishioners and the public , to be made available .
    (2) To see a copy of HALC’s confirmatory letter to comply with CSPC Resolution .
    (3) Council pays over £800 pa ( plus VAT ) for this advise . Do Council consider they get value for money ?

    Thank you in anticipation .

    Geoff Fielding

    FAO : Mrs Lynda Wilcox [ CEO – HALC ] ]
    Date : 6th November 2018
    Subject : CSPC Protocol re communication with HALC
    Dear Mrs Wilcox ,
    At the 10th July 2018 Meeting of Cradley Parish Council , the Item detailed below , was discussed and duly approved / resolved :-
    10. To consider whether to require Herefordshire Association of Local Councils to provide written replies to all Cradley PC written requests for professional advice. Council approved that Cradley Parish Council requires that any professional advice from HALC be in written form (“written” is defined as including email), to be valid. It was agreed that any telephone conversations vis a vis Cradley Parish Council matters should be summarised in a subsequent email from Cradley PC to HALC.
    This letter on behalf of the Cradley and Storridge PC is to advise HALC that henceforth , ALL requests for HALC’s legal advice and opinions are to be made IN WRITING in response to all written requests from CSPC for legal opinion or advice .
    Unfortunately , this has not happened in relation to certain matters and as a result the Council’s particular issues have not been adequately addressed .
    As members of HALC , Council have the right to seek legal opinion [ HALC being the council’s source of opinion on PC legal matters ] rather than personal opinion which is not referenced to Law .
    Please confirm receipt and acknowledgement of this letter

    Kate Woods Clerk to Cradley & Storridge PC

    • Dear Geoff,

      Thank you for your comments.

      With regards to HALC I do always aim to get a written response. HOwever, this does sometimes take a little longer than a phone call would, although I appreciate the reasons for obtaining advice in writing. I am awaiting a response about the most recent queries – the policies, this is something that I have chased and can assure you that I will not forget, I would sincerely appreciate clear confirmation on the matter to ensure that I complete my duties as clerk properly.

      The council considered the cost of HALC this year and decided that the subscription would be renewed for another 12 months. However, it may not always be the case that the council requires the support that it does at this current time. As clerk, a relatively new clerk, I do find it reassuring to have the option of asking an ad-hoc question of HALC, although as I progress I hope to require their advice less and less

      Kind Regards
      Kate Joiner
      CSPC Clerk

  24. Something very wrong here. When I started my previous question on my missing comment it had still not appeared. Now after posting my request for clarification it magically appears! What is going on ?

    • Dear Ken,

      I have not logged on the computer over the weekend and from my recollection, have not logged on since around lunchtime on Friday so cannot explain why your comment could not be seen, I can only confirm that I had not approved it until now when I have been responding to comments on the website.

      I am very sorry for any inconvenience caused.

      Kind Regards
      Kate Joiner
      CSPC Clerk

  25. Kate, several days ago I posted a comment on the comments page which has subsequently disappeared. I have received no reason for this from yourself. Can you please let me know why it was removed or has not been re-posted

    • Dear Ken,

      I can assure you that I did not delete any comments on the website – please see above comment.

      Again, apologies for any inconvenience.

      Kind Regards
      Kate Joiner
      CSPC Clerk

  26. Kate, as a parishioner I am somewhat concerned with the paperwork sent out with the agendas for next weeks meeting.
    The first item in the received correspondence is:”Email from parishioner interested in being co-opted, policy sent and informal meeting arranged with the current chairman”

    I am sorry to point out that there is NOTHING in the co-option procedure which allows for a meeting either formal or informal with the chair or anyone else from the council prior to their presenting their specified application for councillors to consider at the next available meeting. This is a complete disregard for your own standing orders. The only involvement by the chair is that the clerk is to be informed of applications received. It is not within his power or responsibility to meet prospective co-optees

    The Chair has no right or power to be involved until he is asked to deliberate as part of the council.

    I sincerely hope you arrange to correct this very important ignorance of the standing orders procedure.

    If indeed the chair has already met with this prospective candidate then a full record of the meeting should be available and the chair should be not allowed to vote on that persons acceptance and he should not pass on any information or conclusions he has been party to to any other councillor. To do so would be prejudicial to the councils decision making.

    I find such behaviour astounding

    • Dear Ken,

      I do not know if the chairman has met with the parishioner as yet and unfortunately it is my fault that this has occured. I suggested to the parishioner that if they wanted further information or to ask any basic questions then I could arrange for them to meet with the chairman who could answer those questions, hopefully they would then feel able to apply for co-option. I have to be honest that it did not occur to me that this may be an issue which is perhaps inexperience on my part, for which I can only apologise.

      Kind Regards
      Kate Joiner
      CSPC Clerk

  27. To Kate,
    Regarding Patricia McCulloch’s request and your reply. I did make a verbal statement but a written copy was given to the clerk. This should be included in the Parish Council Papers for anyone to see, I hope the clerk can confirm this.
    Councillor Ann Carver

  28. PC Censorship !!
    Dear Clerk ( Mrs K Joiner) ,
    Yesterday afternoon ( Sunday 28th April ) at circa 3-00 pm BST I posted a comment on this Public Comments section of the PC Website on behalf of Councillor Ann Carver who was having trouble with her pc setup and asked me to upload the statement for her .
    Lo and behold , today [ Monday 10am ) it has disappeared .
    Why ?
    What happened to openness and transparency ?
    Please can Councillor Carver have her statement put back .
    There is nothing libellous , bad language or untruthful in the simple statement .
    Surely our community has the right of access to all PC Council meeting discourse excluding confidential items .
    We do not want a Star Chamber style of Council censorship .
    Geoff Fielding

    • Dear Geoff,

      I was on leave for the last week and did not open my laptop until first thing this morning. I will seek advice from Eyelid Productions who provide assistance with our website to see if comments only appear once they have been approved. I can assure you that it is not PC censorship – as far as I am aware I am the only person (other than Mark Milmore of Eyelid Productions) who has access to the site in terms of editing.

      Kind Regards

  29. Message to Cradley /Storidge Parishioners from Councillor Anne Carver
    • As I am currently experiencing problems with my PC I have asked Geoff Fielding to help me by having my statement placed on the council Website .
    • At the April CSPC Meeting I read out a statement to Councillors and Public present and requested that my statement be attached to the council’s Minutes .
    • This would be a permanent record , for members of our community who were not at the meeting , to see .
    • My request was refused by Council on spurious grounds
    • In the public interest of Openness and Transparency my reasons for not standing again for the Council after over 25 years public service are recorded in the statement below
    Statement by Councillor Ann Carver delivered to Councillors at CSPC Meeting April 9th 2019

    I have been a Parish Councillor for about 25 years with a small break.
    When I first joined it was very friendly, sometimes we got together at Christmas with our other halves.
    It was very open and we had detailed minutes to let the village know what we had done or trying to do.
    Individually we had good discussions before passing any policy or proposal.;
    It took me some meetings before I knew what HALC stood for and certainly the Monitoring Office (HCC) was never mentioned.
    I enjoyed the meetings very much

    Now :

    The meetings are sometimes unfriendly and in some cases acrimonious
    We do have long Agendas hence longer minutes but these are not that detailed.
    Like it or hate it, the Cradley Enquirer does fill in a few gaps .
    Perhaps in the future we could work with the Enquirer though very much doubt it.
    We seem to rush through some proposals. Important policies should have time to be discussed or Council Working Groups set up to discuss them.

    HALC. : We keep referring to HALC instead of sorting our own problems for the best of the village. HALC have not always given us good advice.
    We are still asking our clerk to do too much but then I know that Parish Councils now have much more to do.

    I received a personal email last year from a current senior councillor which explains in part why I am not standing again this year.
    I partly quote as follows :

    ‘Dear Ann,
    You really are a trouble maker, aren’t you? We need to talk face to face, and soon. Happy to meet somewhere neutral, like the back
    of the church or something if that is more comfortable for you’

    This type of comment does not encourage one to be part of the council.

    May I end by wishing the new council the very best.

    Please Clerk, can you minute this statement

  30. Would it be possible for the Minutes to have more information so that parishioners who aren’t able to attend the monthly meetings know what the Resolutions refer to? There were 2 planning applications at the April meeting, 5.1.1 and 5.1.2, that gave no indication of the planning works although we know that the Council had no objections to either of them. Agenda item 9 states that Ann Carver read a statement which was noted. What was the statement about? Item 10 regarding the Maclean War Memorial; the Council made no comment, no comment to what? From reading the Cradley Enquirer it appears that HALC’s training method is to minute as little as possible but parishioners have a right to know what Councillors, who represent them, are voting on.

    • Dear Patricia,

      Thank you for your comment. All documents that are referred to at meetings are posted on the website with the agenda, this includes Working Group reports and the War Memorial information. Cllr Ann Carver gave a verbal statement so that is why it is not within the papers published.
      You are right with regards to the HALC training and being very brief with the minutes, this is an issue that has been raised before on a number of occasions. Therefore councillors took a vote on it in January this year (a meeting that I did not attend due to personal circumstances) and they decided to continue with the HALC suggestion of brief minutes.
      Councillors have previously considered recording meetings – do you think this would help? We are having a communications WG meeting very soon and I could raise it if you think it may help.

  31. Thanks Kate it seems that the owner is ignoring everything regarding this site and carrying out whatever he wants with impunity and to the detriment of this entrance to the Village. I was under the impression that we had a planning enforcement group with wide ranging powers. It seems that the cost of an appeal against enforcement is more important than “doing the right thing”

  32. Can the Parish Council explain why there is work going on at the Mirrorbrook Small holding at Stoney cross clearly in contravention of planning?( appP163253/F)
    In October 2016 the land owner applied to build a “noise reduction” bund running along side the A4103 Effectively a great pile of earth. This application was withdrawn in Jan 2017. Since that time he has gone ahead and piled hundreds of tons of soil in exactly the position he applied to the planners for. We were all informed that the planners were ‘keeping and eye on it’ but apparently doing nothing to prevent what is a blatant contravention of the planning laws.
    It NOW transpires that he has commenced planting this pile of earth with hedging (which will be inaccessible to cut and control) and semi mature trees. Why has our council done nothing to stop this rape of this piece of land and are not calling the planners to account for their lack of action?

    • Dear Ken,

      Thank you for your email. This is an issue that has been raised by other parishioners and has been escalated within Herefordshire Council by Ward Councillor Ellie Chowns. A visit was due on 19th March and we are now awaiting the report from the visit.

      Kind Regards
      Kate Joiner
      CSPC Clerk

  33. 16th Feb 2019

    FAO : CSPC re Council ‘Comments’ facility on Website
    On entering the CSPC ” Comments” facility today on this Website I discovered that Items 32 – 39 have disappeared without trace . Why ?
    Surely they were in the public interest and it is the duty of CSPC to maintain these public records and make them available to the community ?
    The Comments facility of the website , open to all parishioners , was shut done one year ago by the then Chairman Bruce Herriot . The Council are on record as stating that the facility would be restarted again in January 2019 ; it is now mid-February .
    Will you please confirm that the Comments facility is now operational again and serving the community as intended ?

    • Thank you for your comments. Unfortunately I accidently deleted some comments in error – I am trying to get this section of the website working to enable parishioners to post comments as they did previously. However, as clerk I only work part-time (12 hours per week) and therefore have to try and prioritise as best I can to ensure work is completed. Therefore, the most effective way of contacting the council is via the clerk email address –
      Any comments posted on the website will be dealt with, but may take a little longer at the moment so please be patient with me!

      Best Wishes
      Kate (Clerk)

  34. 16th February 2019
    FAO ; Cradley & Storridge Parish Council
    CSPC are seeking new volunteers to manage dog bin emptying around Cradley and Storridge . Are residents to assume that all the current volunteers have signalled that they are no longer prepared to empty the bins on a fortnightly basis or is it the case that only one or two are giving up after just over a year at the job ?
    Having set up the dog bins for the parish some years ago I can confirm that there are 6 Dog Bins in Cradley and one in Storridge , NOT 4 Bins . The council has obtained a quote for partial collection of only 4 bins . Why only 4 ?
    I personally emptied all 6 Cradley bins every 14 days for over 2 years without fail with no problems or even a single complaint . So what is the problem with the current people doing a single bin each ?
    I note that the PC has stated that they wanted a commercial collection service on ” health grounds” , so why now change their minds and appear to be going back to ‘a ‘volunteer system ‘ ?
    Council cannot have it both ways , the job is either a health hazard or it is not a health hazard . Which is it please ?
    Can the Council please indicate which bins / locations are being given up and which bins , if any will continue to be emptied as at present .
    Can the PC really justify spending circa £3000+ of ratepayers money on dog bin emptying because our community cannot even get a handful of volunteers to do a really valuable job ?
    It cost the council nothing when I did it and residents really appreciated it !
    It is a sad commentary on those who would claim to be committed to doing something for their community .
    ps There is still , after notification to CSPC some 7 months ago , a plastic dustbin located INSIDE the Buryfields Recreation Area , currently half full of Dog POO .
    Why hasn’t the Lengthsman done as requested and removed the bin permanently .
    By Law , dogs are not allowed into the children’s play but they are still going there .

    pps Why have the council still not affixed the free NO DOG NOTICES at Buryfields and Chapel lane ? The council were offered free signage last summer from HCC !

    • Thank you for your comments regarding the dog waste bins. The council are currently exploring all options available to find a suitable, long-term solution with regards to the collection and disposal of dog waste. There have been no decisions made regarding this matter as yet, but Cradley and Storridge Parish Council are open to any suggestions from parishioners and will collate all the information to enable councillors to make an informed decision.

      Best Wishes

  35. Helen, ref councillors declaration of interests.
    Thank you for your reply which again is somewhat astounding. Whilst councillors do make a judgement as to declarations of interest on agenda items at council meetings their statutory declaration, which Cradley PC has had as an annual declaration requirement at the Annual PC meeting. I do not note that a PC resolution to change this has been made or resolved by council.
    Any changes to the statutory declaration to Herefordshire is not restricted to pecuniary matters and includes all interest of councillors (and their partners or family) which may give concerns regarding their unbiased judgement in matters before council. as stated to not do so is in direct conflict with the Nolan principles which councillors agree to abide by.

    I sincerely hope that this matter is resolved quickly so that the official course of action proposed is not necessary saving further embarrassment to the Parish Council’s credibility.


  36. Helen, in response to the Chairman’s reply of the 20th February, He says that – Decisions can be revisited within six months if substantial new information is received which I understand is what happened during the time the Parish Council was inquorate.
    Can you please let me know what the substantial new information was. Also I cannot find any reference to this procedure in the Standing Orders, therefore can you advise where this information came from.

  37. Helen (Bruce) I note your answer and take on board what has been said. I find it strange that classing money to a cause discussed at council over a considerable time is deemed not important enough to declare to the community,

    Unfortunately the main question was regarding the updating of the registered interests by the three members. I think that you will find that the requirement is not just on an annual basis but must be updated if the annual declaration changes. It is noted that at the May 2017 AGM none of the councillors altered their declarations from the previous year despite the previous ones being inaccurate and incomplete. The details of the changes have already been given to the PC so nothing to gain by re-quoting them here to their embarrassment. I look forward to councillors meeting fully THEIR obligation to honesty openness and transparency with the community


    • Dear Ken

      I note your queries but declarations of interest remain the sole responsibility of each individual councillor and it would therefore be inappropriate for me to comment.

      PS. There is no requirement to update registers of interest on an annual basis.

  38. Helen perhaps you could look into a matter of concern regarding councillors declarations of interests which you know is a requirement of members of the council.

    I note that three members of the council declared non-pecuniary interests in the planning notice of the withdrawal of the HOV application. Whilst this may not have been necessary as no debate or discussion was entered into can you look into the fact that two of those councillors have indeed given some substantial amounts of money to this organisation over the last couple of years.

    Can you also look into the fact that all three of them have incomplete and incorrect mandatory annual declarations registered with Hereford.

    I think it inappropriate that councillors should ignore such an important basic issue of transparency and honesty.

    I know this matter has already been reported to the PC but ignored.


    • Dear Ken

      It is the judgement and responsibility of each individual councillor to assess whether they consider a declaration of interest in any agenda item is relevant and whether that interest is pecuniary or non-pecuniary. I therefore passed this comment to the three Councillors you refer to and their response is as follows:

      Dear Mr. Nason,

      Thank you for this letter to Helen about the declarations of interest regarding the HoV project. Such an accusation, which is calling into question our ‘transparency and honesty’, would normally be passed straight to the Monitoring Officer for an investigation as it relates to our Code of Conduct. The reason that this has not happened is because Alan Eldridge has already had this matter looked into by the Monitoring Officer and the judgement delivered was that we were correct to declare a non-pecuniary interest in HoV rather than a pecuniary interest. The reason given, and the reason we declared a non-pecuniary interest, is that the money donated to HoV was a GIFT, not an investment. Therefore there was no financial gain to be had by any of us. You are aware that HoV is set up as a Community Benefit Society so if it had started to trade and make a profit then all money raised would have been donated to community projects.

      We are of the opinion that we only have to declare PECUNIARY interests annually. (Statutory Instruments 2012 No. 1464)

      We are aware that we needn’t have left the room at the January meeting when an update about Hov’s planning was read out, but we felt that we might be critised if we didn’t. It comes as no surprise that we are critised for leaving. All three of us correctly left the room at the August meeting when the HoV planning came up at the PC meeting after declaring a Non-Pecuniary Interest in HoV.

      Given that we have followed the correct procedure, I trust that you will find this answer satisfactory. If you still wish to pursue this matter, then we cannot enter into any further discussion with you, and I suggest you contact the Monitoring Officer at Herefordshire Council yourself directly.

      Bruce Herriot
      Chairman of Cradley Parish Council

  39. Dear Bruce and CPC,
    As Hereford list us as Cradley then I’m content with the current title of the new and much website, I don’t think there is a requirement for another change.
    Looking at the draft budget for 2018, approximately 30% goes on the worthwhile work of the lengthsman, however, with no grant this year perhaps under Jeff’s guidance a volunteer group of between 6-8 people could venture out once or twice a week for 2-3 hours and undertake the trimming and essential works. Saving both cost but a useful way in which to foster friendships, get some fresh air and serve the community.
    With the recent snow and watching 20 plus people gather at the memorial and point at the snow and ice , perhaps a list of volunteers could be registered who could be called on when either snow needs clearing or those of us with chainsaws can help with fallen branches and trees, what would have helped would have been a couple of grit bins one near the memorial and one near Hawkhurst House, the CPC could purchase some snow shovels and store them in the village hall. It might only be a once on 5 years requirement, but at east we’d be prepared.
    The Crowns of Cradley and the 3 Villages Festival brought together the villages and whilst “ unrealistic dreams “ resulted in unreasonable behaviour that’s the past, so to move forward could the CPC consider a B.Y.O picnic, the Scouts could provide the BBQ the RBL the outside Bar the WI Cakes and Tea , the PC fund some entertainment ( music , bouncy castle ) and as a community without an agenda we just meet, socialise , converse, smile even laugh and reignite the very reasons why we were attracted to and wanted to live in Cradley originally.
    Just a thought.
    Mike Sherriff

  40. Dear Helen

    Thank you for your reply; I agree with the Chairman regarding the closing date for items published in the CMS Newsletter. However, I would point out that my first letter to the him regarding the web name was on the 5th January, he replied on the 6th January and I responded on the 7th January saying-:

    At an August 2017 meeting of the Cradley Parish Council’s Risk Management Group a detailed specification was discussed and approved.
    The document heading was
    Cradley and Storridge Parish Council (C&S PC) – Website specification.

    As a member of that Working Group you will recall that the domain name to be adopted was – ‘ ‘

    This was unanimously approved at the August meeting and quotes were invited.
    At the October meeting the council under item 6.1 unanimously RESOLVED to follow the Working Group recommendation to request Eyelid Productions to set up a new interactive word press website for Cradley Parish Council.

    This decision cannot be revisited as set out in our Standing Orders, before 6 months have lapsed (i.e. 10th Feb 2018). On the 19th of October the Chairman (GF) instructed Eyelid [by e-mail to Mark Millmore] to proceed with the new web site and to include the domain name. [I.e. the domain NOT a domain]

    In your email you say that-:
    If you feel that this decision should have gone through full Council then I apologise, but I personally feel that it was a sensible decision and has enabled us to have the new interactive website up and running in time for the next PC meeting.

    As Chairman, you had no authority to make this decision .The decision had gone through full council but you decided to change it without any consultation. This is exactly what happened at the Oct 10th meeting [refn Interview Panel] and you know the outcome of that.

    In Conclusion
    Therefore the Chairman was fully aware of the issue and the breach of Standing Orders nine days before it was published in the CMS Newsletter. Surely with the issue of the web name and the breach of Standing Orders the letter from the Chairman should not have been published again.

    • Hello Derek,

      My apologies for the delay in replying to your comment regarding the website name and alleged breach of standing orders. As you know this was discussed at the Parish Meeting last Tuesday. Decisions can be revisited within six months if substantial new information is received which I understand is what happened during the time the Parish Council was inquorate. Following this, a decision was made at the Extraordinary meeting on 29th November to proceed with a website address and as such the only name that could then be used is the official parish name of ‘Cradley Parish Council’. However, it was decided at the meeting last Tuesday that we research the possibility of changing the official name of the Parish to ‘Cradley and Storridge Parish Council’ which may then enable us to change the name of the new website. I shall report back regarding the proposed name change in due course.
      Kind regards

  41. Helen, our comments appear to have been made at the same moment. I accept that you will be reviewing the communications group discusions for placing before the council for a decision.

    The point being made is that the Chair had no right or was not authorised to make such statements as to what would and would not be acceptable as communication acceptable and answerable by the PC from members of the community.

    He exceeded his authority and went against all principles of the PC in that it is the PC who make decisions not the chair.

    As with your assurance to Mr Scully, can the following be passed to councillors for their information.

    There are people in the community who are precluded from communicating their needs to the PC for whatever reason one of which is them being identified and judged for their opinions expressed. Their communication with the PC should be eased not censured by insistence of full identification as a requirement by the PC

    Members of our community should be encouraged to forward their opinions to the PC however they feel most comfortable with doing and not censured by the invented of rules they cannot comply with (for whatever reason).

    Why is it that ALL branches of public sector, including Herefordshire council will communicate quite openly with members of the Public via just an email address but apparently Cradley is somehow different. The Police, Housing and NHS accept completely anonymous communications without hesitation and receive supportive information that assists them by doing this. Why not Cradley?

    Effectively by doing this you are alienating a larger section of the older members of our community which is in complete disregard for your requirement for communication and transparency. According to your minutes it has already been put down to alter the website to further restrict free and open communication with yourselves.

    This completely against what the Parish council should be doing


  42. Helen thank you for your response to my posting of 5th Feb (although I note no response to my question of the 4th). Can I point out that as far as the War Memorial is concerned there are deadlines in place for applications for funding to enable work to be completed by a meaningful deadline. As the memorial was erected by private monies it sits on land controlled by the PC and as such they should take responsibility for it’s upkeep as a community landmark’

    I hope a swift decision could be made by inclusion in the February meeting as I am sure agendas are not yet closed

  43. The complete closure of the A4103 will have an adverse effect on all local businesses and communities despite the works taking place beyond Fromes Hill. It is vital to the survival of The Red Lion that this is not allowed to happen again. Please sign the online petition using the link below. Thank you.

  44. Dear Chairman
    Letter in the CMS Parish News Letter
    I read your letter again with interest and especially this statement “We have been made aware of rumour and gossip about all sorts of Council issues” Could I suggest that the way to prevent this happening is for the Council to be open and honest about all matters discussed, which is clearly not the case at the moment. For instance you were asked at the November meeting whether there would be an enquiry as to why there was a mass resignation of Councillors, you replied “No” result-gossip. I was somewhat surprised to see that your letter was published in the CMS News Letter advertising the new web site again. When it had been posted originally on the old web site I wrote to you to say that it had not been ratified by the full council and that you are in breach of the Councils Standing Orders again. I also attended the last Parish Council Meeting and reiterated my statement and it was agreed that it would be discussed at the February meeting. I have since the last meeting written to you again strongly urging the Council to consider the name as I believe it should refer to Storridge in the title as this was agreed by full Council at the October meeting hence .
    Therefore to see that the letter had been published without any explanation behind the web address is misleading the residents of Cradley and Storridge as they believe this is the agreed name which it isn’t, the rumours and gossip are starting again
    Perhaps you will reply via this forum and explain to the residents of the Parish exactly why the Standing Orders were not adhered too. I do not have a problem with the contents of my correspondence to you being shared.

    • Dear Derek

      In response to your query, I have spoken to Bruce and am responding accordingly. The Chairman’s letter was written at the very beginning of my employment early in January and posted on both the new and old websites. The copy deadline for the CMS Newsletter was, I believe, the 16th January and so the letter had already been submitted for print before the meeting on the 23rd January when it was agreed that the name of the website would be an agenda item for further discussion at the February meeting. I acknowledge receipt of your emails which will be forwarded to the councillors with the agenda.

      With a new Parish Council and a number of new councillors, we are trying to move forwards and make strides to develop an open, transparent and honest culture and it is not felt that looking back into what happened in November would be helpful in achieving this.

      Kind regards

  45. Helen, as we are now entering into the 100th year since the end of WW1, and as a Parishioner I feel that it might be a fitting project for the Parish Council to fund the cleaning and restoration of our War Memorial in Rectory Lane.

    I am sure this would get a lot of support from the community as a whole and to have it completed in time for the Remembrance Day celebrations held every year at the memorial

    • Thank you Ken, there are grants of up to 75% of eligible costs available from the War Memorials Trust which I am currently looking into for exactly this purpose. I hope to have information to feed back to council for the March meeting. Kind regards Helen

  46. Looking after the Infrastructures of Cradley and Storridge Parishes.
    I fully support the continuation of the lenghtsman scheme in its old format which worked well, even Storridge was beginning to be included in the work program. The scheme run last year was going to be used as an exemplary model by Balfour Beatty because it worked so well, so hopefully this will continue. The added bonus is that the Council pays for one man but gets the work of two week in week out. If its not broke then why try to change it. Also congratulations to Geoff Fielding he is one of the hardest working Councillors I know, I hope everyone supports his continuing efforts.

  47. Looking after the Infrastructures of Cradley and Storridge Parishes

    Members of our community will know only too well how difficult it is for a cash-strapped HCC to deliver the care and maintenance of our beautiful villages . That is why your Parish Council took on the work of looking after the infrastructure of Cradley and Storridge Parishes .
    For over 3 years now , your Lengthsman and I have worked diligently to maintain our minor roads [ especially minor potholes ] , public footpaths , verges , drainage , signage , dog bins , notice boards , hedge overhangs , road visibility splays , gates , steps , stiles , fence and railing repairs , culverts and various flood prevention measures .
    We work to agreed budgets and an annual maintenance plan and are properly insured . Our Lengthsman is fully qualified for the work he carries out . We operate risk – hazard assessments and have a full programme based on funds available .
    Both Cradley and Storridge folk have always shown very positive and continuing support for our work .
    Your Parish Council’s budget proposals for 2018 -19 recommend continuing support for the work .
    Please let your Parish Council know that you continue to support this vital work to look after your villages . We appreciate your support .

    Geoff Fielding [ Councillor ] and Jeremy Phillips [ Lengthsman ]

  48. Helen, perhaps you can clear up a question that has arisen from statements made by the chair on several occasions that last one being included on this site.
    “I would just like to reiterate that the Parish Council can only communicate with those who contact us directly with a verifiable name and address. ”

    I have served on the Parish Council for some considerable time and having searched the minutes of the Parish Council I cannot find anywhere that this policy, quoted by the chair, was in fact adopted by the council. Perhaps you or he can enlighten me as to where it was?

    Now whilst in days of old (pre-computers) a letter to the PC without a name and address would make it impossible for the PC to answer the complainant directly (though not restrict their responding to its contents) in modern times where emails are accepted as the normal for communication why is the receiving of an email from a member of the Parish treated as “anonymous” and ignored?

    Surely if an email is drawing attention to a genuine matter of concern rather than just being abusive it is the PC’s duty to investigate and respond to the matter and the email sender.

    With an email address there is no reason not to.

    One of the requirements of the new website is that “interaction with the community” is a priority. Interaction and communication is a two way matter.


    • Dear Ken,

      In response to your query, I can advise that the Communications Strategy Working Group met last week to develop a strategy for improving communication and interaction with the community which will be presented to full council for discussion and agreement at the February meeting next week. This includes the process of attending to anonymous comments and/or questions which I am sure will address your concerns. I shall pass on your comments for inclusion in the debate.

      Kind regards

  49. Hi
    Could you please let me know if the council has the intention of getting Balfour Beatty or the lengthsman (if that position has been filled) to resurface the road from the School to Finchers Corner. It is appalling and instead of being patched up when ‘craters’ appear, it needs to be resurfaced.
    Thank you

    Lucy Tudor

    • Dear Ms. Tudor

      Thank you for bringing this to my attention – I have spoken to Balfour Beatty today who have advised that they undertake quarterly statutory inspections of this road, which was last inspected on 12th December 2017 when no major defects were identified. However they completed a further inspection on 12th January 2018 following a report of potholes and have implemented a schedule of pothole repairs which they hope to have completed by mid-March. I am advised there are currently no plans to resurface the road. I hope this has been helpful.

      Kind regards
      Helen, Clerk

  50. Hi thanks for your answer which doesn’t address the problem of supplying the community with details of progression or result of any planning application for the parish. Many feel that this is something that is important along with decisions taken on planning by the PC. These details should be available very quickly in light of the speed at which applications are processed by Herefordshire. Having to wait for minutes to be published is rather obstructive to getting this information. Complicated and by inference of more concern are long term applications “which fall off” the RSS feed and got forgotten about,

    The old website was providing all required information to the community years before websites were to become a requirement for PC’s. The fact that it did not meet a particular specification devised between yourselves and HALC did not make it “not fit for purpose” as you state but not changed by the PC to meet your specifications.

    I personally visited one of the “training” courses organised by HALC on website design which turned out to be purely a thinly disguised session on yourselves “selling” your web site design to Parish Councils.

    When your spec for a website is given via HALC for PC’s to follow when updating their websites is it any wonder when your company win the order?

    Like all websites of course when updating is left to individuals then it is not surprising that they become out of date and in-accurate and by your definition “not fit for purpose”

    • Hi Ken
      Thanks for your comments – I’ve handed the website over to the parish council and will not be replying to comments in future. There were a number of reasons the old website was no longer fit for purpose.
      1. The transparency code requires accessibility the old site failed here because it was not responsive meaning it did not adjust its content to different devises. ie mobile phones etc.
      2. The website must engage with the community – as you can see from this comments page we are engaging.
      3. The parish council must have control over its content – this was not the case with the old site – you had that control.
      4. There are a number of functions in this website which will become apparent – such as the ability to subscribe and receive email newsletters – further engaging with the community.
      5. There are also a number of security elements to this site such as SSL (https) which was not part of the old site.
      6. The back end includes automated website and database backups.
      7. The editor is easy for none techie people to use and has many features that you are unaware of as you can only see it from the front end. Also members of the PC have access to a video training and support site.
      8. This website model has just received a star award from the National Association of Local Councils and it now being adopted across the country by many PCs.

      I’m aware that for many years you did a great job for the PC. However, in this business technologies change and the PC has to change to remain relevant to its local community. Complying with the transparency code is part of that.

      I’m sure the local people of Cradley thank you for your efforts in the past and you should feel proud of your contribution.

  51. Whilst I appreciate that the feed is set up to just give the last 20 it appears that it does not inform those interested in planning in their area vitally important information on existing positions of applications as per the two examples given. Effectively this information is not being made available via the site only by hunting for it. Perhaps it could be taken up with Herefordshire or at the very least made clear what people have to do on the new site and that their expectations of information cannot be met.

    • Thank you for your comments Ken. It is good to see the comments section is already working. You will have to take up the rss feed with Hereford Council not Cradley Parish Council we are simply running their feed. This website still has some development to do but is already performing better than the old website. As you may have noticed it works on all mobile devises, is properly secured with an ssl certificate, with encrypted forms and runs off a GOV.UK domain. In fact this comments function together with the back end features such as email newsletters, surveys and security features are some of the advantages over the old site, which was unfit for purpose. If you are a resident I suggest you sign up for the email newsletter at the foot of this page.

  52. Why does the RSS feed not show updates on existing planning applications and only NEW applications. The latest important updates Church Stile Farm refusal of appeal and Heart of the Village withdrawal are not accessible. Perhaps this could be rectified by contact with Herefordshire’s IT dept

  53. Two key Cradley applications have recently been decided but the details of neither are linked to this website:

    Application 160601 – Change of use to community use etc (Heart of the Village) withdrawn after Planning officer advised that it would be refused.

    Application 162155 – Outline permission for 29 houses at Church Stile Farm – refused on appeal.

    In both cases the details are on HCC’s planning website and are of such material note and interest to members of the Parish that a full briefing should be on the PC website.

Leave a comment