Cross Keys Swing Bridge, Sutton Bridge, Lincolnshire

Menu:

Sutton Bridge Parish Council - Latest News

Feb 32012

Notes on the Sutton Bridge Parish Council Meeting
held on 31st January, 2011

Present: Cllrs. D. Dewsberry, M. Booth, Mrs. M. Preston, C. Croxford, C. Brandon-King, J. Grimwood, Mrs, V. Hills, Mrs. J. Rowe

OPEN FORUM

Mr. Clery welcomed the meeting to its new home and hoped they would find it most convenient.

Mr. Ford referred to the planning application for change of use from a hairdressers to a Take –away food shop and requested the council to think carefully about this, as there were already two fish and chip shops, a Chinese, Indian and Kebab/Pizza take-away and did not think that this small village could support yet another such shop.

Mrs. Minns again asked when would the markings be put in place at the junctions of Chestnut Terrace and Withington Street, as it was very dangerous trying to pull out into the mainstream of traffic from these roads with large vehicle blocking the view of oncoming traffic

Mrs. Giles questioned the payment to Mrs. Ripley, as the present Clerk had now been in the job for almost a year and surely could be mentored by existing Parish Councillors.

Mrs. Grimwood asked the PC to carefully consider the Planning Application for 8a High Street, as car parking was already at a premium in such a narrow road.

Mr. Blundell stated that it despite the huge protest against it, the proposed incinerator for King's Lynn was now going ahead. As a consequence, PREL were on the prowl again about progressing their incinerator. Mr. Blundell reiterated PREL's own calculations that there would be one HGV movement every four minutes. He asked for reassurance that the Parish Council take any further proposals a great deal more seriously than they had the Screening and Scoping document submitted two years ago.

Mrs Blundell made a statement about her concerns regarding the new application by Centrica for further work on the Marsh in the summer months. She said that the members of SB Parish Council will be aware that Centrica have submitted their planning application for a continuation of work on the sea defence wall, the marsh and intertidal flats east of the East Lighthouse to be carried out this summer in order to bring ashore the western marine cable to connect with the land cable connection to the Walpole Sub-station.

This will involve a second breach close the one cut last year and while the methodology has be altered in the light of 'lessons learned', there is still cause for concern about maintaining the integrity of the sea wall, especially since some remedial work took place in mid September 2011 to reinforce the sea wall after the work finished at the beginning of September.

With this in mind, she urged councillors to scrutinise the planning application carefully, which can be found at www.sholland.gov.uk/doitonline/plandev/ . The planning application number is H18-1024-11.

Local users with knowledge of the marsh and the creeks were very concerned last year that the direct line for the trench to the toe of the seawall across the marsh had the potential to allow an easy passage for water to seep under the seawall. The fact that remedial action had to be undertaken, suggests that their local knowledge was accurate.

A number of unfortunate incidents occurred on the marsh during last year's work programme, whereby heavy machinery got stuck and damaged the marsh considerably more than was envisaged and this must not happen again. It is important, therefore, with Sutton Bridge's history of flooding and sea surges that have occurred over time on this very vulnerable section of the marsh and sea wall that the Parish Council is very aware of the problems that might occur.

The consultation period ends on February 9th 2012.

Mrs. Faires stated that many people had spoken to her about how much they were impressed with the new community centre and congratulated all those who had worked so hard to bring the new building to a reality. However, she was most concerned that there was no fire escape from the upper floor and hoped this would be a priority before the upper floor was used for public activities.

Mr. Clery advised that although they had been surprised that the building had been allowed to be completed without a fire escape, they were told that it was not a requirement as the building only had a capacity for 300 people. However, in view of the proposed nursery being housed on the upper floor, a fire escape would be provided shortly.

Mrs. Faires continued by saying she did not understand Cllr. Croxford's suggestion that the open area on the Falklands Estate is not available to all and only used by people walking dogs. She said she goes there on her buggy and also takes her grandchildren there to see and identify trees, plants, birds, beetles hand other creepy crawlies. Our ages range from over 70 to under 8 years of age, so how can it not be available to all?

She also stated that a lot of time was spent discussing the bus stop at the Birches in Bridge Road, and asked what has or is being done about it, and were there not more important matters to be discussed in such depth?

Mr. Fenton had very strong grievances about the very serious effect the nearby factory was having on his home since the change of use from a joinery company to metal fabrication works, in that there were cracks in every single room of his house. His insurance assessor was going to visit his house to look at the drains, which are believed to have been damaged by the continual vibrations. The company works a 7 days per week and there is no respite from the noise. A representative from the SHDC had been to visit and suggested that the works guillotine be moved to the other side of the workshop in order to reduce the noise and vibratory effect on local residences, but this had made little difference.

Mr. Fenton was also very concerned about employees of the factory parking their cars along West Bank and blocking the view of on coming traffic, and together with their use of a fork lift truck loading HGV's, he said it was an accident waiting to happen.

Mr. Fenton also asked about the Police office at the new community centre. He said that although the light was above the door, there was never anyone in the office. Another point he made was that there is no telephone number displayed. If the office is unmanned, then surely a telephone number should be displayed in the window. He made a further suggestion that when so many people were attending a parish council meeting and all wanted to speak, would it not be better to increase the Open Forum from 15 to 20 minutes?

BUSINESS TO BE TRANSACTED

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE with reasons: Cllrs. Brewis and S, Booth apologies accepted.

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST - to receive Declarations of Interest in accordance with the 2000 Local Government Act. Cllr. M. Booth had signed the book reference his interest in Allotments.

3. SIGNING OF THE MINUTES – Notes from meetings on 29th November 2011 and
10th January 2012 to be accepted as minutes. Agreed

4. POLICE MATTERS – To include update on Community Engagement Model Group – with no Police representative present Cllrs. Mrs. Rowe advised that it had been reported there was still a lot of "Cold Calling" being done on the Falklands Estate after dark by the WWF, UNICEF and other enterprises. This was quite unnerving for the majority of the elderly residents who live there. The New Inn is being reopened under new management. The 4x4 project had been completed and the refurbished vehicle had been sent to Portsmouth for delivery to The Second Chance Children's Charity. Daisy, the only girl who worked on the Project, had been chosen as one of many to carry the Olympic Torch through the county prior to the start of the Olympic Games. The Grange Wind Farm Fund was now up and running and applications would be welcomed for £500 to £5,000 by not for profit groups serving the local community. Cllr. Mrs. Hills added that cars were still being driven at high speeds throughout the village, but it appears that the police do not take the matter seriously as although they had been given the vehicle registration numbers, the vehicles were supposedly scrapped on the day of the reported offence. Previous owners declared that the vehicle had been sold a month prior to the report. Cllr. M. Booth again stated that illegal hare coursing was still an ongoing problem.

5. CHAIRMAN'S REMARKS – several councillors had helped to move the contents of the old Parish Council office into the new office at the new community centre. Unfortunately BT had not yet connected the telephone line, though it was anticipated this would be done by Friday 3rd February. The old safe from the Sports Pavilion was to be transferred to the new PC office. The Chairman thanked all those who had helped with the move. Although there had been three meetings of the personnel committee, there was no report, due to there not being a quorum.

6. CLERK'S REPORT – the Clerk gave a report on the work done since the last PC meeting. It was hoped that books would be donated to the new library by the public and the LCC who were also donating a considerable amount of books and equipment. Letters had been sent to SHDC regarding the CCTV system without a response so far. It is to be considered whether to keep this system live as it does not appear to be value for money. The costs involved for alterations to the bus stop near The Birches in Bridge Road would be approximately £1200 and the roof would also be another very expensive item to modify. Some improvement measures would be undertaken. Costs for Parish Council notice boards would also be quite expensive. Metal boards prices start from £500, with wooden ones starting at £1100. Post mounted boards are even more expensive with metal boards costing from £650 and wooden ones from £1500. A member from the gallery offered to speak to a local carpenter for quotations.

7. TO RECEIVE REPORTS FROM DISTRICT AND COUNTY COUNCILLORS – Cllr. M. Booth reported that saga of Travellers site continues, and it is anticipated that the building works could begin in April. The next SBMAG meeting would be on the 20th February in the Con. Club at 6.30 pm. There had been a very productive meeting with some of the Sutton Bridge students attending the Peele School and their input had been very positive. A small group of the students have been invited to attend the next SBMAG meeting on the 20th Feb. SHDC could be soon be building new council houses to reduce the waiting list. Our local district councillors are concerned about SHDC scrapping of the monthly Saturday refuse collections at the industrial site in Railway Lane, as well as those for Long Sutton and Holbeach, whereas all other areas appear to be retaining their service. Cllr. M. Booth also reported on the terrible state of the industrial units in Railways Lane. He also referred to the cheaper fuel campaign at present being conducted through SHDC and advertised widely in the local press. The Christmas tree lights had been tested by Mark Everitt at no charge although he could not hang the lights himself, he obtained the use of a cherry picker to enable the job to be done at a cost of £250.

Cllr. Brandon-King read a report from Cllr., Brewis stating that the Sunday 505 bus service was being increase to every 30 minutes during the day. There would be a late daily bus from starting from King's Lynn at 7.45 pm. Good news was the registry Office and Wedding Venue in Long Sutton will continue. From the floor, Mrs. Giles pointed out future renewal of bus passes would now be made through LCC instead of SHDC.

8. FINANCIAL MATTERS

a. Accounts for payment 31.1.12:

       Payee

Detail

Chq. No.

Net

VAT

Total

Came & Company

Insurance

#000023

133.01

  

133.01

Woodco

Photocopier

#000024

11.24

2.25

13.49

N J Portass

Picnic Site

#000025

325.00

  

325.00

Solo Window  Blinds

Office blinds

#000026

124.20

24.84

149.04

B T

Calls

#000027

86.44

17.28

103.72

Color-Tec

Office Rent

    #000028

185.00

  

185.00

Steve Cousins

Shower repair

#000029

158.00

31.60

189.60

Fraser Dawbarns

Legal services

#000030

250.00

50.00

300.00

Viking

Stationery

#000031

25.80

5.16

30.96

Mrs J Ripley

Staff Costs

#000032

119.00

  

119.00

Carter Jonas

Land Rent

#000033

2600.00

  

2600.00
         

4148.82

Suzanne also added that another couple of cheques had been paid out, one of which was to herself for expenses incurred.

Cllr. Croxford raised the question about the payment for the shower repair in the sports pavilion and it was suggested that any such repairs to the pavilion in future be  first  referred to the PC and quotations obtained.

b.   Money In:  

    £
As per bank reconciliation:  Allotment Rent 244.50 
VAT Repayment   637.65
Wayleave 147.38
SHDC – Refund Grasscutting  10485.92
SHDC – Refund litter & picnic area 5505.00
  17020.45

c. To receive update on 2011-2012 budget - parishioners did not get an update.

d. To resolve on contribution to St Matthews Church – as proposed by Finance
Committee 29.11.11. It was agreed to donate £250 to St. Matthew's Church with a letter of thanks for the use of the facilities enjoyed by the PC for many years.

e. To resolve on re-imbursement of funds to SBCCFC in relation to fees paid to
Thornton Firkin on behalf of the Parish Council – this relates to the sum paid to employ an agent at the insistence of SHDC while the building was being erected.

9. CORRESPONDENCE:
a. Items of correspondence for comment:

(i) Letter, Brown & Co - Advice on allotment matter – To be discussed in closed session.
(ii) Email, SHDC - 'Right to Warmth' scheme. (a parishioner in the gallery was heard to mutter that it should start right there in the library!)
(iii) Letter, Parishioner – Street Art Group. Although discussed, some query over who owns the land in question.
(iv) Email, PCSO B. Harrington – Sutton Bridge Motor Project. – this project had now been completed and the fully roadworthy vehicle had been sent to a children's charity in Portsmouth.
(v) Letter, Big Lottery Fund – Torch Relay London 2012, briefing.
(vi) Letter, HMRC – Cancellation of penalty. The PC were not at fault.
(vii) Letter, parishioner – Request for trees to be cut back. This also was cause for a long discussion about what could or could not be done. It is thought that the trees all have preservation orders on them and they were there before the houses/estate was built. It would appear there is no legal right to light. The owner of the property has been advised he is at liberty to have the offending branches cut off at the boundary of his property and throw them back over the fence as well as the annual fall of leaves. The PC will see if there is anything they can do to help this resident.
(viii) Letter, parishioner – Damage to Village Green by parked cars. Part of the Village Green is being continually damaged by vehicles cutting the corner as they park or drive by. This has resulted in an unsightly mess. There is little remedial work the PC can do to stop this inconsiderate parking, mainly due to Highways and health and safety regulations. It was suggested that as many parishioners as possible send letters of protest together with photographs to the Highways dept at LCC and asking them for their support in keeping our village presentable.
(ix) Letter, Lincs Comm. Health Service – NHS Foundation Trust.
(x) Email, Simon Gamage – Lincs Wind Farm, latest planning application. Although planning applications are no longer available on view at the PC office, these can be downloaded from the SHDC website. A request is to be sent to Mr. Gamage to visit Sutton Bridge to give an update on Centrica's latest plans at a date and venue to be agreed.
(xi) Email, FOSBPF&OS – Request to install litter bin.
(xii) Letter, Lincs Comm. Foundation – Grange Wind Farm Community Fund - this fund is now open for applications for amounts ranging from £500 to £5000 from local community not for profit groups.

b. Correspondence received for information purposes only:
(for further details please contact the Parish Office):

(i) Email, SHDC – Information re 'Garden Organic' scheme, volunteer network/training for anyone wishing to develop a Community garden or grow their own vegetables.
(ii) Letter, Came & Co – Confirmation of increase in insurance cover.
(iii) Email, Lincs Community Foundation – Grants to support rural communities, for example; countryside projects.
(iv) Letter, Santander – Confirmation of closure of bank accounts.
(v) Email, SHDC – Open Arts Exhibition, S. Holland Centre 29th Feb-6th March 2012.
(vi) Email, NHS Lincs – 'Meet your Health Trainer' days, SB Curlew Centre, Thursdays 9am – 4 pm.
(vii) Letter, Fraser Dawbarns – Confirmation of completion of office lease.
(viii) Letter, SB in Bloom – Acknowledgment and thanks for £500 grant.
(ix) Publication, CPRE – A guide to neighbourhood planning.

10 PLANNING MATTERS
Commercial:
New:
H18-1024-11, Temporary modification to primary sea defence north of SB to allow installation of electricity cable – Land East of River Nene and North of secondary
sea defence, Wingland – Lincs Wind Farm Ltd. – request for an extension of dates to be requested from SHDC Planning Department, in order that the matter first be fully discussed with the involved parties, ie Lincs Wind Farm, Environmental Agency and Natural England.

H18-1019-11, Conversion of Care home into 12 flats and associated works –
Sudeley House, Wharf St, SB – IMN Properties. – No objections apart from the observation that an area for refuse collecting be made accessible for the SHDC's vehicles.

H18-0602-11, Amendment, Change of use from joinery workshop (B1) to joinery/metal fabrication workshop (B2) – Dodfrey Engineering. Cut off date extended to 2.2.12. This is to be strongly opposed on the grounds of the totally different environment now caused to local residents. SHDC are to be requested that work be stopped until the matter is resolved to the satisfaction of nearby residents. It was also mentioned that environmental health was also involved.
.
H18-0010-12, Change of use of ground floor from A1 (shops) to A5 (takeaways), 78
Bridge Rd, SB – Mr S Miah. An objection to this application will also be made, as smells from a take-away would affect the residents in the premises above the shop.

H18-1017-11, Change of use and conversion of existing shop/accommodation to form 3 apartments and construct 2 new semi-detached dwellings – 8a High Street,
SB – Mr M Crass. Cut off date extended to 2.2.12. This application also to be strongly opposed due to it being a massive over-development, with no consideration for the extra parking spaces that would be required in such a narrow street.

Granted:
Refused:
H18-1024-10, Change of use of part of shop to one-bed flat retrospective) – 88
Bridge Rd, SB.

Other:
New:
H18-0982-11, Proposed detached garage – Holding 30, Grange Rd, Wingland –
Mr & Mrs D Copeland. Cut off date 10.1.12 – Planning WP offered no objections.

It is understood that PREL are having an Environment Impact Assessment done and likely to put in a planing application for an incinerator in the near future. It was suggested that a public meeting be called and a referendum be offered to the village so that all parishioners can have their whether they want it or not. A letter will be sent to PREL inviting them to a meeting to give an update and discuss their plans prior to their making a formal application.

Granted:
Refused:

11. HIGHWAYS & FOOTWAYS

a. Update on outstanding matters

b. To report any new matters

12. TO RECEIVE REPORTS FROM WORKING PARTIES & COMMITTEES
(Action recommended in reports to be included for resolution on next agenda)

A. Churchyard and Playing Fields – Cllr Grimwood, Hills, T Rowe – a new safety surface had been placed on the round-a-bout in the playing field. Cllrs. Mrs. Hills and J. Grimwood had met with a representative from Sutton Bridge in Bloom and had agreed the area where the paintings could be erected.
B. Allotments – Cllrs Brewis, Croxford, Preston – Nothing new to report apart from sending out reminders about keeping livestock on allotments.
C. Finance Committee – Cllrs Brandon-King, Dewsberry, Grimwood, Hills – already discussed.
D. Personnel Committee – Cllrs Booth, Brewis, Croxford, Preston. As the meeting did not take place due to there not being a quorum, there is no report.
E. Planning – Cllrs S Booth, Brandon-King, J Rowe - already discussed.
F. Footpaths & Byeways (to include update on 'The Wash Local Access Forum) – Cllrs M Booth, Hills, Preston - no report.
G. Burial Facilities Committee – Cllrs Brandon-King, Grimwood, Hills, J Rowe – Cllr. Mrs. Hills passed a hand-out to all as follows"

QUOTE

BURIAL GROUND COMMITTEE PROGRESS REPORT

Cllr. J. Rowe contacted Jon Sharpe from the Highway Authority providing him with a map of the area he considered that on the evidence that they presently know that they would be supportive of this proposal.

Cllr. Hills has obtained utility plans that show there is no evidence of water, gas, electricity or BT cables/pipes in the designated area for the proposed burial ground.

A quote has been submitted to SBPC for excavation of the 4 trial pits to ensure that ground conditions are suitable for the proposed burial ground if accepted a risk assessment, method statement and insurance certificates will be provided.

A Burial Ground meeting has been arranged for the 9th February 2012 at 10 am at the Curlew centre Parish Office.

Cllr. Hills January 2012 for Burial Ground Committee.

UNQUOTE

H. Parish Newsletter – Cllrs Brandon-King, Dewsberry, Preston – No report. Meeting to be arranged.
I. Pavilion Redevelopment – Cllrs Grimwood, Hills & J Rowe – a discussion centred on this with regard to setting up a new group. The suggested name being Friends of Sutton Bridge Football Pavilion Committee or similar, as this would put them in a better position to apply for funding.

13. TO RECEIVE REPORTS FROM OUTSIDE BODIES REPRESENTATIVES

a. Phillips and Allen's Charities – no report
b. Voluntary Car Scheme – no report
c. SBCCFC – no report
d. LALC – no report
e. Holbeach Senior Links – next meting will be in March.
f. Power Station Liaison – no report
g. Kings Lynn Advisory Group Special Area of Conservation – Cllr. Grimwood reiterated what had already been discussed saying that all were very concerned about the works being undertaken on the sea wall and so close to the last man-made breach.
h. Charter of Friendship Group – no report
i. Grange Wind Farm Liaison Group – already discussed
j. The Suttons Emergency Planning Group – no report
k. Sutton Bridge Multi Agency Group – next meeting 20th February, 6.30 pm at the Constitutional Club.
l.

14. TO RECEIVE REPORT ON FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS RELATING TO S106 FUNDS
FOLLOWING MEETING WITH MARK STANTON AND TO RESOLVE ON APPROPRIATE
ACTION – Cllr. Brandon-King stated he had a rather long report to make after his meeting with Mark Stanton and Nigel Birch. A representative of Bridge Watch was offered a copy of the report, which is reproduced below at the request of the SBPC Chairman. Cllr. Mrs. Rowe stayed while the report was read out but when she realise, as she said, that the Chairman appeared to be mixing items 14 and 15 she left the room having a declared interet in item 15.

Chairman's report to Council on the results of meetings with Mark Stanton and Nigel Burch from SHDC.

QUOTE

Mark Stanton, the Economic Development Manager at SHDC invited me to attend a meeting with him, and Nigel Burch the Economic Development Officer at SHDC. Suzanne kindly agreed to accompany me.

At that meeting, on 9th November 2011, we explained our concerns about a number of issues relating to the s106 funds administered by SHDC.

Mr Stanton explained that the £150,000 pounds [originally earmarked for the East Lighthouse Project] had been amalgamated with the £250,000 for the Nene Marina Project, and that SHDC had agreed with LCC to create a charge on the Sutton Bridge s106 fund of £400,000, as detailed in the letter sent to members of the public and the Council.

The question was asked, when, why and on whose authority had the two sums been lumped together. Mr Stanton indicated that SHDC and LCC had entered into a Joint Funding Arrangement, initially covering 'Shep Whites Marsh; The East Lighthouse and the Marina Project. It soon became apparent that Shep Whites was outside the scope of the Sutton Bridge s106 funds, and that element scrapped.

The question was also asked about the £24,254.63 of Sutton Bridge s106 funds being drawn for an 'Economic Development Capital Project Post 2007-2009'. That is, on what basis were these funds appropriated, by whom and on whose authority? I have been advised by e-mail [20/1/12], that the funds drawn off the Sutton Bridge s106 Fund, will be returned to the fund, but I don't know when.

A further question was asked – why were SHDC baulking at paying out the £5,000 for the employment of 'Agents' to supervise the building of the Community Centre? When they insisted SBPC employ them, and agreed that the cost would come from the general Sutton Bridge s106 fund. I am pleased to report that Mr Burch authorised the payment on 25/1/12.

At the conclusion of that meeting on 9th November, the SHDC representatives agreed to answer the questions raised without delay.

On 14th January 2012, not having received a response from Messrs Burch or Stanton, and on receipt of the Marine Licence Application for Nene Marine CIC Ltd, I e-mailed to Mr Burch a request to find out 'what was going on?'.

On 15th January in the absence of replies to those questions, I trawled through the SHDC web-site looking for Cabinet Minutes of decisions relating to Nene Marine Group, later to become Nene Marine CIC Ltd. I produced one and a half pages of queries, and concluded from the review of the minutes and the Joint Funding Agreement with LCC, that SHDC had appeared to have acted without authority [ultra vires] in lumping together funds from the Sutton Bridge s106 fund, for East Lighthouse and Nene Marine CIC Ltd. I requested answers to a number of questions.

They were: -

Why wasn't a payment of £9,400 to 'Nene Marine Group' detailed on the earlier letter sent explaining the disposition of Sutton Bridge s106 funds?

Why wasn't the £150,000 from the East Lighthouse returned to SHDC, as required by cabinet minute 2.7 dated 21/7/2009?

I asked for the date of signing the Joint Funding Agreement

I asked for copy documents which were required under sections 4.6, 4.8, 4.9 and 5.3 of the Joint Funding Agreement, as there was no evidence that the obligations in those clauses had been met

Why was there no reference to the £5,000 payment to Nene Marine CIC Ltd, as agreed/approved in cabinet minute C86 dated 22/2/11?

I am still waiting for answers

An urgent request for a meeting in the Parish Office for Tuesday 17th January was made by Mr Stanton. I asked Cllr Grimwood to sit in with Suzanne and me.

Prior to the meeting, I reviewed the Marine Licence Application, which had been sent to the Council for observations, and raised a number of queries with Mr Stanton.

They are: -

Why was Mr Peter Harvey still involved?

Who assessed, when and how did the background to the project include "... in response to an identified local need...."?

What was the Environment Agency's, reaction to the parking which appeared to be cutting into the riverside sea defences, as queried by SBPC on receipt of the planning application? Subsequently this was resolved to Cllr Grimwood's and my satisfaction.

The Environment Agency Representative was asked why "Application for Environment Agency consent had been made and has been agreed in principle, formal consent is scheduled to be in place February 2012? Subsequently explained to my satisfaction by telephone.

Had LCC Highways Dept been consulted on the effects of the land-side project on HGV's passing by the new parking area?

What evidence did they have, to justify the comment - "Following local consultation by the Parish Council in conjunction with District and County Councils, to provide a mooring facility to satisfy demand from the immediate area."?

What evidence did they have to justify the comments - "The Sutton Bridge Parish Council has been instrumental in promoting the scheme, and there is general local public support for this proposal"? Subsequent to this, I have reviewed the Council minutes for the whole of the Council from 2004 to 2008 and concluded that there is far more to this issue.

What evidence is there to support the comment "SHDC in conjunction with SBPC has conducted a number of local consultations. It should be noted that South Holland DC is, through an economic development fund, financially supporting this proposal."?

When is the Water Framework Directive Appraisal to be completed?

Where is the evidence that "The development proposed here will create up to 18 new local jobs …......?

Mr Stanton advised that the marina project was likely to go ahead. Land had been acquired from the owner, and the total cost would be in the region of £830,000 – £900,000, despite the MLA quoting £450,000. Following that meeting further questions were raised by both Cllr Grimwood and myself. They were submitted to Mr Burch by e-mail on 18th Jan: -

Would they provide a copy of the original business plans for the Marina, and subsequently, to support the switch of a further £150,000 of Sutton Bridge s106 funds?

Would they provide a copy of all the evidence provided by Nene Marine to support their contention that 'economic benefit will accrue to Sutton Bridge', as it is extremely difficult to see what those benefits could be?

Subsequently, I have received another e-mail from Mr Stanton on 26/1/12, to advise that, as I had claimed that SHDC had appeared to have acted 'ultra vires', that the whole issue was being referred to Lincolnshire Legal. As a result he could not answer on that specific question. However, he has offered to provide answers to all of the other questions.

I have not received answers to those questions yet.
He also provided me with the names of two individuals at LCC, who I will contact to get the up-to-date position.

Finally, do any Cllr's have any questions on the report?

UNQUOTE

Cllrs. Mrs. Hills expressed the view that the Marina Project was being singled out for rather aggressive attention. Other Councillors pointed out that they were certainly not against the Marina Project.

15. TO DISCUSS MARINE LICENCE APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION AT SUTTON BRIDGE MARINA Cllr. Croxford stated his concern about inexperienced people navigating in the Wash and being a danger to other shipping. He added that he was also concerned about seals and wildlife and health and safety issues at the Marina site.

Cllr. Mrs. Rowe returned to the chamber.

16. TO DISCUSS ARRANGEMENTS FOR 'WOODLAND CREATION' PRESENTATION BY
REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE WOODLAND TRUST – this is to take place as a separate meeting

17. TO RESOLVE ON AN APPROPRIATE NUMBER OF PARISH NOTICE BOARDS AND WHERE THEY SHOULD BE SITUATED – Carried forward from November meeting – The discussion focussed on whether to have one large board at the new Community Centre or 5 – 7 others placed around the village.

18. TO RECEIVE UPDATE IN RELATION TO AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE PLANNING AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE FALKLANDS 'OPEN AREA' – As resolved at November meeting –Cllr. Croxford stated trees had been planted on the area without permission. He queried the ownership of the land. It was also stated that many of the trees now have preservations orders on them, and that the land had developed naturally into a wild life area, with rare plants that have seeded themselves. Standing orders were suspended to allow local residents to state their objections in having the land turned into a play area for children. One resident stated that all the residents living nearest this land were retired people and that allowing it to be used as a play area would bring all kinds of trouble as it does in other local parks where access is wide open. Cllr. Booth stated that this subject had arisen time and time again, he did not think it was the PC's responsibility. He suggested that the local residents should form a residents association and thrash the matter out between themselves.

19. TO RECEIVE REQUESTS FROM MEMBERS FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE
DISCRETION OF THE CHAIRMAN (NOTHING MAY BE RESOLVED UNDER THIS
HEADING)

The general Public were requested to leave at 9. 45 pm.

20. TO RESOLVE WHETHER THE COUNCIL SHOULD MOVE INTO CLOSED SESSION FOR DISCUSSION OF THE FOLLOWING AGENDA ITEMS ON THE GROUNDS OF CONFIDENTIALITY;

21. TO PROVIDE UPDATE ON STAFFING & ADMINISTRATION MATTERS

22. TO CONSIDER INFORMATION CONTAINED IN LETTER RECEIVED FROM BROWN & CO CONCERNING ALLOTMENTS AND RESOLVE ON APPROPRIATE ACTION.

FROM THE PUBLIC GALLERY

+++ CLICK HERE +++
To view our archived articles of Sutton Bridge Parish Council Meetings News
+++ CLICK HERE +++

(THE ORIGINAL BRIDGE WATCH WEBSITE ARTICLE IS DETAILED BELOW)

¦ ⇑ Back to top of page ⇑ ¦

Sutton Bridge Parish Council

The majority of the current Parish Council consists of Councillors who were elected with one clear mandate: to get rid of the Bridge Road Enhancement Scheme. That has been their purpose since May 2007 when they were elected.

In January 2009 a compromise agreement was reached with Lincolnshire County Council Highways Department (LCCHD) to carry out certain alterations that it was hoped would meet some of the demands of Sutton Bridge Parish Council without returning Bridge Road to the race track it was previously.

The LCCHD naturally wanted to make sure that all the residents of Sutton Bridge were in agreement with the proposed changes. So, together with the Town Clerk, a member of the Highways Department drew up a detailed survey to be carried out among residents of Sutton Bridge. Although this was an item on the Agenda for the April 28th 2009 Meeting, the survey was not in fact discussed. Cllr Brewis produced a leaflet that he said had been drawn up in consultation with Mr Paul Coathup of the LCCHD. It was approved of by Cllr Dewsberry, who later confirmed his agreement. Mr Coathup subsequently denied his involvement in the production of the leaflet.

The leaflet that was distributed to most, but not all, households in Sutton Bridge was a truncated version of the original document; it simply demanded a single YES/NO decision from recipients. This didn’t allow for people to discriminate between the things they favoured being altered and those they wanted to remain as they were.

Only one leaflet was delivered per household, so residents living in the same household who disagreed with each other could not vote unless they photocopied the leaflet. Because there were no numbers on the leaflet, photocopying could have been done by anyone at any time, including people not on the electoral register.

Other discrepancies were:

None of the above arrangements were discussed by the Parish Council: the document was presented as a fait accompli.

This document was delivered with a ‘short newsletter’ from Messrs Brewis and Booth.

When the count took place (in the Church, not the Parish Council Office), the clerk was not present, nor was there an official adjudicator. One member of the public was present – a member of Bridge Watch. It was decided that some votes were ineligible because they were ‘duplicated’ (see above!).

Those on the Council in favour of scrapping the scheme completely claimed that the result of this vote was a victory. They frequently quote the fact that there was a 90% majority in favour of the amendments.

How do they arrive at this figure?

Around 360 people voted in favour of change and 30 people opposed it. So 90% represents the proportion of the people who actually voted for change. LCCHD required a majority of the residents to be in favour of the amendments before they took action. 360 out of 3000 shows a mere 10% of the residents in favour of a change, which was seen as a victory even though so few people had expressed an opinion.

(In view of this it is inevitable to wonder on what basis LCCHD can possibly now be intent on wasting £45,000 on amendments that only 10% of the residents have voted for.)

In an article on May 7th 2009 in the Spalding Guardian: ‘Views Sought on £40,000 Scheme’, Cllr Dewsberry said that he had authorised the shortened version because the original document was too long for ‘our parishioners to read …’ and that they would probably ‘chuck it in the bin.’

Is this democracy?

In the absence of the Clerk on August 18th , there was an additional meeting of the Parish Council called to discuss a letter from the LCCHD asking specific questions in order for the Department to be able answer residents’ concerns. The Standards Committee was of the opinion that this whole episode was 'unfortunate'...

As stated on the Home Page, it was this series of events that first drew Bridge Watch’s attention to what appeared to be happening within the Parish Council. Since May 2009 Bridge Watch members have attended every meeting and, using their right to ask questions during the Open Forum that precedes each meeting, have attempted to draw attention to what they understand to be some of the failings of the Parish Council.

Among them:

Is this democracy?

It is the aim of Bridge Watch to encourage good governance in Sutton Bridge Parish Council. All Councillors should attend training sessions organised by SHDC on implementing the Code of Conduct.

By attending Parish Council Meetings, Bridge Watch is making sure that councillors are answerable for their actions to the electorate. Our questions have to be answered according to the Code of Conduct, which sets out the duties and responsibilities of councillors.

What happens if Parish Councillors infringe the Code of Conduct?

The monitoring of local government is complicated. The only body that escapes total scrutiny is the Parish Council. We can complain to the Standards Committee about individual councillors but not about the Parish Council. Experience shows that it is very difficult to present a case to the Standards Committee and have it accepted.

Time and again at Parish Council meetings we have been told to refer our dissatisfactions to the Standards Committee and have done with no success. Even the Local Government Ombudsman is unable to intervene in Parish Council affairs – only the Courts. It is little wonder, then, the Sutton Bridge Parish Council feels, as one councillor has said on two occasions at Parish Council Meetings, "We can do what we like!"

What is needed is more vigilance, more residents taking an active interest in Parish Council Affairs – after all, their decisions affect us all.　

Watch this Space!

¦ ⇑ Back to top of page ⇑ ¦

A CODE OF CONDUCT

Introduction

By what yardstick is it possible to measure the behaviour of Parish Councils?

The South Holland District Council Code of Conduct is based on a national Code which was published in May 2007.

All Parish Councillors are given a copy of the local Code of Conduct on taking office and agree to abide by it. The SHDC Standards Committee Newsletter regularly points out that ‘unfortunately some members still fail to do so...’

The Code of Conduct is by no means rocket science: it simply notes the need for reasonable behaviour in dealing with other human beings, treating them with respect, and lays out rules for the avoidance of political chicanery.

The problem, of course, is in the interpretation of its detail. For instance, what specifically constitutes ‘bringing their office or authority into disrepute...’

Who assesses the decision-making capability of the Standards Committee?

An Assessment Sub-Committee (which considers complaints about councillors) comprises 3 members of the Standards Committee which must include one independent member who must also chair the meeting. The decision of the Assessment Sub-Committee can be appealed if it decides to take no further action in respect of a complaint. The appeal would be heard by an Assessment Review Sub-Committee which would again comprise 3 members (none of which must have served on the original Assessment Sub-Committee) and must again be chaired by an independent member. On the other hand, if an Assessment Sub-Committee refers a complaint for investigation the subject member who has been complained of has no right of appeal.

Bridge Watch believes that members of Sutton Bridge Parish Council have not necessarily followed to the letter the Code of Conduct which is supposed to have been in force since 2007. Anybody concerned with good governance should make themselves familiar with the detail of the Code in order to be able to challenge things quickly as soon as they happen.

Sutton Bridge Parish Council has been asked what mechanism it has in place to make sure that the Code of Conduct is adhered to during their meetings and in their relationship with the public.

Its members have a collective responsibility to make sure, both as individuals and as a body, that the Code of Conduct prevails. It is certainly not sufficient to comment, as the Chairman has done, "Take your complaint to the Standards Committee..." That is a total abrogation of responsibility.

Parish Councils Code of Conduct 2007

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

INTERESTS

Personal Interests

Prejudicial Interests

THE REGISTER OF MEMBERS’ INTERESTS

Registration of Gifts and Hospitality

This is a digest of the Model Code of Conduct for Parish Councils. The full version may be seen by consulting:- www.sholland.gov.uk/council/democratic/policies/MembersCodeofConduct - Click on ‘Model Code of Conduct for Parish Councils’ at the foot of the Home Page

Notes
South Holland District Council Notes on a Code of Conduct spell out what is meant by ‘treating others with respect’:-

Reference:- www.sholland.gov.uk/council/democratic/meetings/standards click on ‘Members’ Code of Conduct’...

¦ ⇑ Back to top of page ⇑ ¦