Get documents about "WROUGHTON PARISH COUNCIL - Download as DOC
Shared by: HC12080906621
-
Stats
- views:
- 9
- posted:
- 8/8/2012
- language:
- pages:
- 14
Document Sample
WROUGHTON PARISH COUNCIL
Minutes of the Environmental Amenities and Road Safety Committee meeting
held on Monday 6th June 2011 at 7.30 pm.
Present:
Councillors: V Emanuel, T Fairbourn, M Hinder, D Hayward, P Hurst, B Kingstree,
Mrs S Mathias, G Mills, J Newman, N Powell and Mrs A Richards.
Clerk: Mrs C Martyn.
Public: Four present.
Chair: Councillor G Eyles.
Public Questions.
Two members of the public raised concerns about the memorial on Wharf Road as it
restricted the view for drivers as flowers etc were tied to the post. The flowers were then
thrown into the ditch rather than being taken away. They also raised concerns about the
flooding on the fields south of the M4.
A second member of the public raised issues regarding vehicles parking with their wheels
on the pavement in Marlborough Road, obstructing the pavement and causing pedestrians
to walk into the road. In addition his car had been scratched where people had tried to
squeeze between his car legitimately parked on his own property and the vehicles parked
with their wheels on the pavement. He had also seen someone in a wheelchair being
pushed into the road to get round the cars parked on the pavement. He had suggested
designated parking spaces should be painted onto the road to indicate where people should
park and to keep them off the pavement and that this should slow down the traffic as
drivers would be less likely to try to squeeze past as they did at the moment, but instead
would be forced to stop and give way.
1.0 Election of Chair.
Proposed by Councillor Hinder, seconded by Councillor Hayward, ‘Councillor Eyles be
elected as Chair of the Environmental Amenities and Road Safety Committee for the
2011-2012 municipal year. There were no other nominations so Councillor Eyles was
re-elected unopposed.
2.0 Apologies:
Apologies were received and accepted from Councillors Kingstree and Smith.
3.0 Declarations of Interest required by the Code of Conduct adopted by the Parish
Council on 18th June 2007.
Councillor Hinder declared a personal interest in minutes 9 and 10.1.
Councillor Mills declared a personal interest in minute 7.3.
Councillor Fairbourn declared a personal interest in minute 7.3.
Page 1 of 14
4.0 Policing.
4.1 The Police had advised they were unable to attend the Environment meeting due to shift
patterns and an operation scheduled to take place that day. Graffiti had appeared on the
Weir Field pavilion and the Guide Hut during the night of 18th May. It had been reported
to the Police who advised they would go into the local schools to see if any staff
recognised the tags. The Guides had been informed.
4.2 Members formally acknowledged receipt of the April 2011 Neighbourhood Watch which
had been sent out prior to the meeting.
5.0 Clerk’s Report.
Members formally acknowledged receipt of the Clerk’s Report which had been sent out
prior to the meeting.
6.0 Members unanimously agreed to change the order of the agenda to deal first with the
agenda items for which the members of the public had queries.
7.0 Councillor Newman left the meeting at 7.50pm.
8.0 Parking issues in the village.
8.1 Marlborough Road.
This related to the concerns raised by the resident during public questions. The Police had
tried to deal with the matter informally but the situation had not improved over recent
weeks. The Clerk had put the resident in touch with the ward councillors who had asked
the Clerk to let them know of any recommendations reached.
8.2 Swindon Road.
Councillor Eyles asked that this item be put on the agenda as parked vehicles had been
causing traffic jams during rush hour. He had suggested that signs stating ‘No loading
between 8am-9.30am and 4.40pm-6pm’ be erected along the length of Swindon Road.
8.3 Perrys Lane (double yellow lines from the junction of Perrys Lane with Wharf Road to the
boundary of No.5).
Swindon Borough Council (SBC) had advised they would add this request to their list of
requests for prioritisation and possible inclusion in future years' works programmes, to be
considered will be for inclusion in the 2012/13 works programme. The Committee agreed
that the issue could not wait another year before any action was taken.
8.4 Markham Road: The office had received recent complaints from two residents regarding
parking causing obstructions along Markham Road at school and playgroup drop off and
pick up times. There were solid yellow lines along the road as well as no parking from
8am to 6pm which were being disregarded causing problems for residents. The Police had
advised they could not issue tickets due to the yellow lines, the road must be patrolled by
SBC parking wardens who could then issue tickets. The Clerk had passed on to SBC the
residents’ request that SBC send parking wardens on a regular basis at school and
playgroup drop off and pick up times: 8.50-915am, 12noon to 1pm and 2.50-315pm. This
issue recurred regularly and had never been resolved. The Clerk had asked SBC what
could be done to alleviate the situation. The Police have agreed to patrol the area and
advise the school regarding parents parking in Markham Road.
Page 2 of 14
8.5 Proposed by Councillor Mills, seconded by Councillor Fairbourn, ‘A site meeting should
be held with Swindon Borough Council officers and the Police to discuss the above
parking issues in the village and also enforcement.’ Carried unanimously.
8.6.1 Wharf Road:
SBC had received a request to replace the white ‘H-bar’ outside No.24 Wharf Road with
double yellow lines due to drivers parking outside the property and potentially preventing
the resident entering or exiting his property in the event of an emergency. The white H-bar
was an advisory marking that could not be enforced but sought to deter drivers from
parking across the private access. In replacing this marking with an enforceable order SBC
would not be able to keep this to an isolated length within the layby, and would look to
introduce double yellow lines through the entire length of the layby. SBC would be happy
to add this request to their list of requests for prioritisation and possible inclusion in future
years' works programmes.
8.6.2 Proposed by Councillor Mills, ‘Double yellow lines should be painted on the whole
length of the layby.’ There was no seconder, therefore the proposal fell.
8.6.3 Proposed by Councillor Mrs Richards, seconded by Councillor Hurst, ‘The Parish
Council does not to support the request made to SBC for the H-bar in the lay-by on
Wharf Road outside No.24 to be replaced with yellow lines. The Council was unsure
whether the other resident would support the request. In addition Members considered
that if the lay-by had yellow lines, there would be nowhere on that stretch of Wharf Road
for people to park if they needed to drop someone off, visit, or deliver anything locally to
that area. Members requested that Swindon Borough Council send traffic wardens,
particularly at school drop off and pick up times, to enforce the existing parking
restrictions on Wharf Road and Markham Road.’ 9 votes for, 1 against therefore the
proposal was carried.
8.6.4 Proposed by Councillor Hurst, seconded by Councillor Hayward, ‘The Parish Council
should contact Wroughton Infant School asking if the school would request that those
parents who drive to school should use the Ellendune carpark, and those parents who
can should use the school bus, in the hope that these measures will reduce the traffic
and congestion both on Markham Road and on this area of Wharf Road which may
alleviate the parking situation outside No.24.’ Carried unanimously.
9.0 Wharf Road Safety Scheme.
SBC had asked for the Parish Council’s comments on this consultation by 26th May but
had agreed to extend this deadline until 7th June after the Environment meeting.
Members unanimously agreed to comment as follows:
The Parish Council was still concerned at the way in which the recent speed checks had
been carried out on Wharf Road and the way in which the average speeds had been
calculated. Speeds had been shown to be over the current 50mph limit at various times
of the day and night and had been shown to be close to the 50mph limit for much of the
time. Given that the statistics had included cycles etc which had significantly reduced
the average speed, Members considered that reducing the speed limit on Wharf Road to
40mph would be more effective than installing additional signs. Members asked why, if
SBC considered there was no need to reduce the speed limit on Wharf Road and there
was no enforcement of the current speed limit, SBC should consider it necessary to
introduce additional measures to improve safety and reduce accidents.
Page 3 of 14
Members considered it would be more effective to reduce the speed limit to 40mph and
then to enforce that limit and asked that SBC should advise the relative costs involved in
the safety measures it had suggested and in reducing the speed limit, and also why if
additional safety measures were necessary to reduce accidents, SBC would not consider
reducing the speed limit on this dangerous road to 40mph.
Members also commented that cutting back the bushes at the side of the road would
encourage vehicles to speed and a large number of additional signs would divert drivers’
attention away from the road. Members wondered whether it would be more effective to
reduce the number of additional signs and have a sign similar to that on the Aldbourne
Road which states the number of serious accidents and fatalities which had occurred on
that stretch of road.
Members did not wish to sound unsympathetic or insensitive, but the memorial outside
Wharf Farm still remained more than a year after the event. The memorial was sited on
a dangerous bend. It reduced visibility turning out of Wharf Farm onto an extremely
busy and dangerous bend. The flowers were tied to the pole and are not taken away but
thrown in the ditch/stream. When people visited the memorial there could be 12/13 cars
parked in the drive of Wharf Farm. SBC should be asked to advise whether it had a
policy on how long roadside memorials should remain. Given that a fatality had
occurred on this bend, SBC should also be asked to advise whether this memorial could
now be removed from this dangerous bend.
The Parish Council considered the new safety barriers at Berrywood Culvert were
dangerous as they were sited too near the road – Members understood they used to be
1 metre away from the road but were now only 0.5 metres away. In addition Members
considered it dangerous that the yellow covers and ends of the barriers now faced
towards the road instead of away. This meant that the barrier stood out as being very
close to the road and Members were concerned it might distract drivers’ attention and
cause an accident.’
10.0 Culverts and Ditches.
10.1 Wichelstowe.
Members formally acknowledged receipt of the response from Gwillam Lloyd regarding
the letter sent to David Potter about Wichelstowe culverts and ditches. The Committee was
handed a letter by the tenant of Wharf Farm dated 29 January 2009, received from the
Borough Land Agent.
The Committee unanimously agreed that a response should be sent back as follows:
The Committee asked whether the Wichelstowe development had S.104 agreement
(formal approval of the design by Thames Water). If so, Members were concerned that
the design was not working as fields south of the M4 were flooded where flooding did
not take place prior to development beginning on Wichelstowe, and the Wichelstowe
development was not yet complete.
Page 4 of 14
Previously there had been a flood zone at Mannington where a designated field flooded
on a regular basis. However, since there had been development on Wichelstowe, the field
at Mannington no longer flooded. Instead, fields south of the M4 were flooding and had
been designated as a flood zone on the new flood prevention plan, whereas the field at
Mannington had been removed from the flood zone. Members agreed that when writing,
the Clerk should enclose copies of four photos which showed the extent of recent
flooding at Wharf Farm.
The Parish Council understood that the Environment Agency and Swindon Borough
Council no longer cleaned the ditches north of the M4, between the M4 and Swindon,
and had not done so since Wichelstowe had been declared a development/building site.
The Parish Council understood that prior to this the ditches had been cleaned out
annually, by the Environment Agency and Thames Water. Consequently the ditches on
Wichelstowe had now silted up and water flow had been and continued to be restricted.
The Parish Council also understood that the culverts for the new road had been laid on
top of the silt, whereas the culverts should be below the level of the ditch/ watercourse.
Therefore it appeared the culverts either had not been designed or had not been installed
properly.
Finally, the Parish Council understood that if the farmer wanted to remove the choke
point he must write to Swindon Borough Council asking for agreement to its removal
and that it would be the farmer’s responsibility to evidence how that removal would
affect water flow both upstream and downstream. However, the Parish Council
understood that the Borough Land Agent wrote to the tenant of Wharf Farm by way of
letter dated 29 January 2009 advising that ‘the small field access culvert that has been
placed in the watercourse close to your house may need to be replaced at the same time
to prevent localised flooding’. This culvert was the choke point referred to above and
was installed, not by the tenant, but by Wiltshire County Council when it owned the
farm. The letter of 29 January 2009 seemed to be placed in the context of replacing
Wharf Road/Berrywood Culvert. The Parish Council understood that the replacement of
the small culvert never took place. It appeared therefore that Swindon Borough Council
was aware of the potential issue that this culvert/choke point could cause flooding south
of the M4 more than two years ago. SBC should advise, in the light of this letter, whether
its removal was intended to be the responsibility of Swindon Borough Council, rather
than the tenant farmer and should be asked to look into this as a matter of urgency.
10.2 Wroughton Culvert (Priors Hill).
Members formally noted that SBC had advised this needed to be upgraded to a 40T limit.
Works were due to start 11th July 2011 for approximately 4 weeks and would involve the
replacement of the current reinforced concrete slab with a replacement slab which will
meet the 40T requirements. In order to facilitate works whilst maintaining access for
residents and businesses, the works would be carried out with lane closures only and the
road would remain open at all times. SBC would carry out a letter drop to residents and
businesses and would erect advance warning signs one week prior to work starting.
Page 5 of 14
10.3 Berrywood Culvert.
The Committee considered a request from Councillor Hinder to ask Swindon Borough
Council to provide Wroughton Parish Council with information regarding the cost of all
works related to the recent replacement and upgrading of Berrywood Culvert. The work
had not been finished and rubbish/equipment had been left on site on the ditches and field.
Members agreed they would consider a Freedom of Information request only if a
satisfactory response was not received.
The Committee unanimously agreed to ask Swindon Borough Council the amount
quoted by the successful bidder and the actual cost of the completed project.
11.0 Alexandra Park and Brimble Hill.
11.1 Proposed Speed Restrictions:
SBC had asked for the Parish Council’s comments by the end of May but had agreed to
extend this deadline until 7th June after the Environment meeting.
Proposed by Councillor Hurst, seconded by Councillor Mrs Richards, the Parish
Council should comment as follows:
‘The Parish Council welcomed anything which restricts traffic in a residential area and
considered that enforcement was key. However, Members were very aware that
Alexandra Park was quite isolated and asked who would enforce the speed restrictions
and how often enforcement would take place. Members considered this could be another
area within the Parish where residents could undertake speed camera training and
asked whether this had been considered by SBC?
Members considered the 30mph limit was too close to the bus stop on the Barbury Castle
Road and asked whether it could be moved back towards the T-junction with Hodson
Road to give drivers sufficient time to slow down before passing the bus stop where
pedestrians were likely to be crossing the road?
Whittingham Drive was used as a through route and short cut from the Barbury Castle
Road to the Conference Centre and was therefore used by many strangers who were
unaware of the area, as well as taxis which speeded to pick up clients as quickly as
possible. Children from the latest development at Alexandra Park using the existing play
area came out onto Whittingham Drive at its widest point where the worst speeding took
place. Members wondered whether it would be possible to have a speed table at this point
to try to slow down vehicles and reduce the potential for accidents.’ Carried
unanimously
11.2 Footpath linking Alexandra Park with the existing pavement at the top of Brimble Hill.
The Clerk advised that she had heard that day that SBC had instructed Halcrow to carry
out a feasibility study and would get back to the Parish Council as soon as they had
anything further to report.
Page 6 of 14
12.0 Service changes to the bus network in Wroughton.
The Committee formally acknowledged the following information:
Stagecoach had reduced the frequency of Service 72 to half hourly during the day
from the previous every 20 mins.
Service 73 serving East Wichel was currently being trialled for six months initially
and so therefore this provided a third bus during the hour serving Wroughton.
Swindon Borough Council, as previously stated, was withdrawing financial support
for the evening journeys on Service 72 after the 4th June and those journeys would
be withdrawn by Stagecoach after this date.
13.0 Anti-social behaviour on the Weir Field.
The Clerk had received a complaint from a person on behalf of a resident living adjacent to
the Weir Field that an elderly lady had had to go out at near midnight to retrieve her gate
which had been thrown into a neighbour’s garden by a group of people who had been
drinking alcohol. This person had previously complained about anti-social behaviour on
the Weir Field and was concerned about drug use. He had now requested that the Parish
Council removed the seat from behind the car park hedge and that CCTV be put onto the
Weir Field.
The Committee understood that the young people tended to congregate on the ‘balcony’ of
the Weir Field pavilion, so removing the seat adjacent to this would not encourage them to
move elsewhere. The lights on the pavilion were out. The Clerk hoped to get the
electrician to look at both those lights and the streetlight by the play area soon as possible
as lighting tended to put off those who may misbehave. CCTV on the Weir Field pavilion
would not have helped with the resident’s problem of her gate being removed as there
were rules/laws about where CCTV cameras may be trained, and training any parish
council CCTV cameras onto private property would not be permissible.
The Parish Council’s maintenance men checked the Weir Field (including the play area
and youth shelter) for litter Monday – Friday and during all the years they had made those
checks, they had never found any evidence of drug taking. The Police had also advised that
they had never seen any indication that drug dealing was taking place. The office staff had
encouraged the residents to report any anti-social or criminal behaviour to the Police at the
time it occured as this was the only way in which the Police could build up a picture of the
real issues. However, the Police could not move people on if they were not committing an
offence. There was no money in the budget to purchase CCTV.
The Clerk had advised the person making the complaint that it would be useful to get a
better idea of their friends’ concerns and suggested they could ring or come into the office
to advise how often the anti-social behaviour took place, at what time of day/night, and the
form it took, but other than the one incident of drunken behaviour, they had not provided
any other information. The Clerk understood from the Police that the Weir Field was one
of their priorities and they looked into it as often as they could.
Given the information above, the Committee unanimously decided not to remove the seat
and not to install CCTV in the Weir Field.
Page 7 of 14
14.0 Wroughton Parish Council Emergency Plan.
SBC was populating the risk assessments into a register which should link into the
Community Risk Register.
The Committee unanimously agreed that SBC should bring Alistair Ireland, Chair of the
Local Resilience Forum Risk Assessment Group to the next meeting with the Parish
Council to explain the risk matrix and individual risks which SBC had evaluated for the
Parish Council.
15.0 Renovation by Vision For Wroughton (V4W) of the public open space between
Barrett Way and the Working Men’s Club.
15.1 Update on the meeting with the facilitator held on 23rd May 2011.
Councillors Hinder and Hurst gave a verbal update and advised that V4W had advised that
they wanted fruit trees on site but had yet to decide whether this should take the form of
trees within the grass area or cordon trees against the Ellendune Community centre
building.
15.2 E-mail from V4W of 5th May 2011 outlining dates and deadlines for the project.
Members formally acknowledged receipt of a copy e-mail from V4W dated 5th May 2011
which had been circulated prior to the meeting and which advised as follows:
‘We will be presenting our Stage 2 open space lottery application for the Wroughton
Village Green Project, inclusive of final design and costs, to the Parish Council, end of
July beginning of August. We will need to let them know dates at the beginning of July so
they can schedule for an environment and full council meeting in early August to meet our
21st August Deadline. They have some flexibility in meeting dates in August as long as we
can give them this early notice.
We had in mind the possibility of presenting our garden design brief to the Council June
Enviro meeting, which they would then pass to the full council. However we are unable to
structure our combination of analysis of input from the community, drawing up a design
brief and obtaining quotes and a preliminary design from garden designers within their
timetable of meetings.
Although we will not be formally going to the Council at these intermediate stages we will
be holding steering group meetings with parish representatives present, as we progress
our bid. The next such scheduled meeting will be on the 23rd May, when we will have a
draft design brief available and our Facilitator Ruth in attendance.
The 6th June Council Enviro meeting and subsequent Full council meeting are still
important deadlines for us however. There other issues concerning the bid eg:
insurance and planning, questions of which we need to put to them. We must firm these up
by our meeting of the 23rd MAY.’
15.3 V4W Consultation Report.
Members formally acknowledged receipt of the V4W Consultation report, copies of which
had been sent out with the agenda prior to the meeting.
Page 8 of 14
15.4 Letter dated 25th May 2011:
Members formally considered the questions raised by V4W in their letter of 25th May
2011:
15.4.1 Insurance of assets:
Members formally acknowledged receipt of a copy of the leaflet on Asset Insurance which
had been enclosed with the agenda, sent out prior to the meeting. The Clerk had advised
V4W that the dog waste bin and litter bin were owned by Wroughton Parish Council
(WPC), but WPC had chosen not to insure them. WPC had budgets for street furniture
which it could use to replace them. The Clerk had given V4W the cost of replacing the dog
waste bin. The seats were owned by SBC. The Clerk had e-mailed WPC’s insurance
brokers to ask how much the additional premium would be to insure additional assets of
between £8,000 - £20,000 and had been advised it would probably be between £40 and
£100 depending on the assets to be insured.
Recommendation 1 to Full Council:
Proposed by Councillor Fairbourn, seconded by Councillor Mrs Mathias, ‘The Parish
Council should agree in principle to cover any new assets over a period of 5 years,
dependent on the Parish Council’s approval of the final plan.’ Carried unanimously.
15.4.2 Maintenance:
The Clerk had advised V4W of the maintenance carried out on site by the Parish Council’s
maintenance men which included: flailing the Bowls Club hedge once a year, cutting the
grass weekly from March to November, edging the rose beds once a year which took one
person a week, weeding the rose beds once a year, cutting back the shrubs every 3-4 weeks
during March-November to keep the footpath useable and to keep the brambles down,
oiling the Millennium Wall twice a year, once in Spring and once in Winter, removing
graffiti as and when necessary, cutting the hedge in front of the Millennium Wall three or
four times during the summer (it was there to protect the wall as it made it more difficult
for people to spray graffiti onto it), strimming the banks of the stream once a fortnight
from March to November, litter picking the area every day, Monday to Friday. The
Christmas Tree was put up annually. It used to be put up by the Christmas Lights
Committee at a cost of £100 and was then removed by the Parish Council. It would
probably all come under the remit of the Parish Council from this year. The lights were
connected by the parish council’s nominated electrician, paid for by the parish council.
The lights belonged to the Parish Council which paid to have them PATs tested annually.
The maintenance men occasionally had to remove dead branches from the trees. However,
the majority of the tree maintenance was carried out by qualified contractors on an as and
when necessary basis, after 3 estimates for cost had been received. The Parish Council was
not aware of any urgent work which needed to be carried out.
Recommendation 2 to Full Council.
Proposed by Councillor Fairbourn, seconded by Councillors Mrs Mathias, ‘The Parish
Council should agree in principle to continue to maintain the new gardens to the same
standard, dependent on the Parish Council’s approval of the final plan.’ Carried
unanimously.
Page 9 of 14
15.4.3 Removal of assets:
The Maintenance Men were not averse to the removal of the roses or the boules court, but
they did want to maintain the shrubbery in front of the Millennium Wall as it helped
protect the Wall from graffiti. Councillor Mrs Richards advised she had spoken to the
Twinning Association who were happy for the boules court to be removed as they used the
court at The Check Inn.
The Committee unanimously agreed it was not averse to the removal of the boules court
or the rose plants. However, they would like the beds to remain where they were
alongside the footpath as if they were moved, for example into the middle of the grass, it
would make grass mowing a lot more difficult and time consuming for the maintenance
men - depending on where the beds were placed, the margins might be too narrow for
the maintenance men to use the ride-on mower and hand mowing was a lot more time
consuming. The Committee also agreed the shrubbery in front of the Millennium Wall
should remain as it helped to protect the Wall from graffiti and vandalism
15.4.4 Conservation area.
Members noted the site was not within the conservation area.
15.4.5 Covenants.
Members noted there was a restrictive covenant that no alcohol may be drunk on a small
area at the corner near the stream which is the Methodist Church. The Clerk would send
V4W a copy of the covenant and a map showing the area.
15.4.6 Tree Preservation Orders.
The Clerk and the Committee were not aware of any tree preservation orders on this site.
The site was leased from SBC so the Parish Council would need to tell V4W that the
Parish Council would need to get permission from SBC’s arboriculture officer if any tree
works were needed.
15.4.7 Additional Environment meeting.
V4W had asked whether the Council would hold an additional Environment meeting on
11th July 2011 to consider the draft garden design for the area (incase there was anything
within the design with which the Parish Council was not happy).
Proposed by Councillor Hinder, seconded by Councillor Mills, ‘The Committee should
hold an additional meeting on Monday 11th July 2011 to consider the draft garden
design for the area.’ Carried unanimously.
15.4.8 August Full Council meeting.
V4W had asked for the final lottery bid form and garden design to be considered by Full
Council in August. The only agenda item would be the V4W bid.
Recommendation 3 to Full Council:
Proposed by Councillor Hinder, seconded by Councillor Mills, ‘The Full Council should
hold a meeting before 21st August 2011 purely to consider the recommendations from the
Environment Committee meeting to be held on 1st August 2011.’ Carried unanimously.
Page 10 of 14
16.0 Youth Working Party.
Members formally acknowledged receipt of the report which of the meeting which took
place on 27th April 2011 with Steve Smith and Gail McVicar from SBC, which had been
sent out prior to the meeting. Members had no comment to make.
17.0 Weedkiller spraying of ‘mowing margins’ within the village.
This agenda item came from a request by Councillor Ford who had received a complaint
from a resident who had expressed concern that the weedkilling of the mowing margins
was killing wildflowers and could affect plants growing in residents’ gardens (although her
garden was not affected by the spraying). SBC had advised that under the grounds
maintenance specification, it allowed a "mowing margin" to be sprayed out around fences,
walls and other obstructions within grass areas to facilitate mowing as close as possible to
these features. In the past much of this follow up work would have been carried out on a
regular basis using hand mowers and strimmers but the cost of undertaking such work
throughout the borough was now too expensive, hence the use of weedkillers. Without the
use of such weedkillers, there would be a strip of long grass left around all such
obstructions which looked untidy. SBC used herbicides to control weeds growing in shrub
beds and around the base of hedges - principally because it now only maintained these
features once a year and without the use of weedkillers, such features would quickly be
overgrown with weeds. The herbicide used was based on glyphosate which SBC advised
was commonly available in garden centres for amateur use and was generally considered
to be very safe.
SBC accepted that some residents would prefer to have the grass left untreated for wildlife
but many would also object and complain about the visual appearance of such areas.
However, there might be options around certain areas being "adopted" by local residents or
the Parish Council so that SBC might not need to undertake such an intensive level of
maintenance and as long as the majority of the local community agreed, there were options
around varying the borough-wide specification. It appeared that if the Parish Council or
residents did not want some of the margins sprayed with weed killer, they would have to
undertake to partially maintain the area themselves. The Clerk had checked with the Parish
Council’s maintenance men who had advised they would struggle to maintain the areas for
which they were already responsible. They would not have the time to take on further
areas of maintenance. The office had not received complaints from any other resident.
One councillor had spoken to a member of the public who had had his shoes sprayed with
weedkiller whilst he had walked past, another had complained that as he walked past with
his dog, the contractors had continued spraying despite their proximity to him as he and his
dog walked by. Members understood that SBC had contracted out the weedkilling and
were very concerned whether the operatives had been properly and adequately trained and
licensed and that the spraying should be done properly and safely.
Proposed by Councillor Fairbourn, ‘The Parish Council agrees that not all areas should
be sprayed.’ There was no seconder so the proposal fell.
The Committee unanimously agreed it was not averse to individual residents coming to
their own arrangements with the Borough if they felt able to take on additional
maintenance of the Borough’s land in order that the spraying could be reduced, but,
having noted Martin Hambidge’s comments, the Committee decided that the Parish
Council would not support any reduction in the mowing margins.
Page 11 of 14
18.0 Dog Waste.
18.1 Update from SBC regarding dog waste.
At the Parish & Town Clerks Forum on 11th May, Richard Fisher (Head of Wastes
Management, Streetsmart, SBC) advised he had completed a report on SBC’s
rationalisation and position on dog waste bins. There had been some disagreement from
parish councils. His report reflected the need for different pro-active publicity in different
areas, depending on whether the parishes continued with their own dog waste contracts. He
was preparing a cabinet member decision note for the removal of dog waste bins in certain
areas, eg: where SBC considered there to be too many bins in one area. Once the Cabinet
member for Streetsmart had been approved, the decision note would be circulated. SBC
would be consulting in the non-parished areas. The report would include the responses
received already from the parished areas.
18.2 Letter from TickTock Playgroup.
Tick Tock Playgroup had written to thank the Parish Council for taking the issue of dog
fouling in School Lane and also in Wroughton generally as a serious issue.
19.0 Summer Bedding.
Members formally noted that the summer bedding in the village had been ordered in
accordance with the usual procedure. This year red white and blue flowered plants had
been selected to commemorate the 90th Anniversary of the Royal British Legion. Members
commented that they would like to consider using perennials in the future.
Proposed by Councillor Fairbourn, seconded by Councillor Mrs Richards, ‘ The
Committee should set up a working party to consider using perennials in the future but
should should bear in mind that the extension to the Ellendune Community and the
possibility of putting together a brief for use of S.106 art money around the War
Memorial would both affect the majority of the planting in the Parish.’ Carried
unanimously.
20.0 Removal and disposal of asbestos sheets from the roof of the Parish Council’s bus
shelter on the Barbury Castle Road.
The Parish Council owned a brick built bus shelter on the Barbury Castle Road. In August
2010, the SBC Lengthmen advised that the roof was made of asbestos, there was ivy
growing up the walls and into the roof, and the asbestos roof therefore needed to be
removed. The Clerk had contacted 3 asbestos removal companies and asked them to quote
to:
Remove and dispose the asbestos cement roof sheets to the bus stop and remove
the ivy.
All works to be carried out under the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006.
To supply a traffic light system to allow a safe working area (the bus shelter was
sited on the verge, close to the road).
No reinstatement was included as the Parish Council’s maintenance men would
carry out reinstatement, if this was proved necessary.
Page 12 of 14
The quotes received were as follows:
Company Quote License No Expiry Date Comments
SCS £1,270 + VAT 4091105439 31.01.2014 SCS will require a
lead-in time for
preparation of full
plan of work and
traffic
management
notification.
Gloucester £1,345 + VAT 1091005390 09.08.11 The company did
Asbestos not confirm that
they would supply
a traffic
management
system, they
merely quoted a
price for the job.
Taylor Roofing £1,217.95 Not licensed N/A I was advised to
Contractors ask Taylor
Roofing for a
quote by SBC but
according to the
HSE website they
are not licensed to
remove asbestos.
Members noted that SBC had put up a hard standing for a new stop outside Halcrow,
which was a couple of hundred metres down the road from the Parish Council’s existing
bus shelter. In addition, SBC was looking at running a footpath from Alexandra Park to
meet the existing pavement at the top of Brimble Hill, with the Parish Council’s support.
Members noted the Clerk’s query whether, if the footpath was installed, it may necessitate
the removal of the Parish Council’s bus shelter, in which case there may be an opportunity
for a bus shelter to be placed on the hard standing just installed by SBC.
Proposed by Councillor Mrs Richards, seconded by Councillor Hurst, ‘Given that SCS is
the cheaper of the two companies which is licensed and given also that they have
confirmed they will carry out the works under the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006
and that they will supply a traffic light system to allow a safe working area, the
Committee should use SCS to undertake removal and disposal of the asbestos sheets.
The roof should not be reinstated whilst the future of the bus shelter was still so
uncertain and the Committee should wait for the Clerk to find out more information on
this issue.’ Carried unanimously.
There being no further business the meeting was closed at 9.20pm.
Page 13 of 14
This page was left intentionally blank.
Page 14 of 14
