Photo of Graham Bird

Posted by

Webmaster

28 November 2006

Last updated: Tuesday, 28 November 2006, 06:25 PM

Members Present

I. Storr (Chairman)
G. Chamberlain (Vice Chairman) J. Stewart
R. Grenfell A. Freeman
M. Farmer T. Bhachu
Also present:
L. Howells (Clerk to the Parish Council)

1 Apologies for absence were received from Ron Lewis-Smith and G. Atkinson.

2 Minutes of Meetings held 24th October 2006 were agreed as a true and accurate record with one amendment.

3 Open session (meeting officially closes for, and reopens after this session) – There were no members of the public present.

4 Matters Arising from previous minutes (for information only)

Hardwick Allotments Association (HLA).
Howard Baker has met with Chivers Farms. It has been agreed that HLA may use the land behind Main Street for allotments subject to full details being worked out. HLA can now put in a grant application to ‘Awards for All.’

Chris Sproston has been contacted concerning the street light at Cahill’s Corner which remains unlit.

5 Other Matters:

A) Playground Inspections
Playground inspections have been carried out on all playgrounds. At Egremont Road the missing fence slats are to be replaced shortly. The skate park area is quite muddy with the recent rain, it is to be swept. The Church Play Area had no faults found.

A letter of complaint concerning anti social behaviour from the Czyloks was read out in full at the meeting. Teenagers hanging around the skate ramps and Egremont Road are causing a nuisance. The combined problems of a lack of policing and a lack of parental supervision exacerbate the problem. It was asked that an edited letter be placed into the Hardwick Happenings asking parents/guardians to make sure they know what their children are up to in the evenings. It was agreed to send the Czyloks letter which is primarily about anti social behaviour to Inspector Paul Ormerod and invite Inspector Ormerod to the January Parish Meeting. The response to be given is to include the CCTV and PARC initiatives supported by the Parish Council to help the situation.
The Czyloks have also asked about the tree screen not growing too tall that shields them from the skate park.

The noise nuisance complaint on the skate park was then addressed. B Heffernan SCDC has informed HPC that:

On 5th April noise readings were taken with SCDC acoustic consultant Richard Collman and Mr. Ken Dibble at the skate park. A report from Mr. Ken Dibble was received on August 11th 2006. Mr. Dibble opined that a degree of attenuation had been achieved by the barrier. On August 24th 2006, Richard Collman Belair Research Limited responded to Mr. Dibble’s findings. On November 8th 2006 SCDC received a response from Irena Spence & Co. Solicitors with a report from Mr. Dibble dated October 20th 2006. On November 17th 2006 SCDC received a letter from Mr. Richard Collman Bel Air Research Limited. In one paragraph Mr. Collman said:

Mr Dibble acknowledges that we all believed that the other works(Monoglass insulation and closing in of the ramps) would have been carried out by now, as previously agreed and it seems reasonable to expect this be done without further delay in order to get the improvement in performance closer to that which was previously stated would be achieved and was agreed to by us.

Mr Heffernan SCDC requested an update regarding Hardwick Parish Council’s position regarding the remaining works to the ramps.

The response of Hardwick Parish Council is that they be guided by the expert advice and this above statement suggests that the experts believe the other works need to be carried out. The Parish Council therefore await a letter of instruction from SCDC that SCDC wish the Parish Council to get on with this work and that funding is available to pay for the entire costs of this work, either through a grant from the District Council’s Cultural Services, or through another source.

B) Maintenance
The Clerk has been out with Dennis Vacher Highways, CCC to inspect the village Highways needs.
The following actions are being carried out:
a) Renewed white give way Lines on Egremont Road/Cambridge Road, Egremont/Limes Road, St Neots Rd/Cambridge Rd, Limes Rd/Ellison Lane x 2.
(It is not possible to line the major cul de sacs as this is not general practice.)
b) The manhole cover inspected by HPC in the village walkabout near to St Neots Road/Enterprise requires some work by Cambridge Water Co which is on order to enable a proper repair by May Gurney to be made. (This is still considered very dangerous for motorbikes and cycles as the tarmac dips down on two of the four sides and vehicles catch it going round the bend)
c) A more permanent tarmac repair is to be carried out on St Neots Road opposite the top of Cambridge Rd.
d) The encroachment of the Church path is to be cleared to see the true state of this footpath after which remedial action will be considered if needed.
e) Dropped kerbs have been ordered on the St Neots Rd bus stops that are raised and unusable by buggies and wheelchairs. These are awaited.
f) Pavements repairs are in hand, though the budget is restricted and they are to be done on a worst case basis. A priority list is being worked through.

The All Weather Pitch lights have been repaired by Cable Test Ltd on behalf of Ringway. The electrics on the main towers are fixed and it is now some minor remedial work on ballasts/igniters to turn the remaining bulbs on. This work is on order.

Checking of the CCTV system each week has found a fault on the hard drive/recorder, certain dates were not being recorded. Secura-cam has been out to rectify this and the weekly testing will continue until the end of December.

The Grenadier Walk road signage has been reported. The broken wooden fence is an eyesore and detracts from the village appearance. It was requested that the residents of Grenadier Walk are to be written to asking that they clear this area up in the next two weeks or the Parish Council will deal with this fence as it sees fit to do.
The state of this car park was also criticised and it was discussed that the parish council could maintain this land if it were given over to the Parish. The residents would not have their parking spaces guaranteed if this action was taken.

Peter Round of Grounds by Rounds and Groomfields has been out to quote for the contract for recreation ground maintenance. Hardwick Community Primary School use Grounds by Rounds and are pleased with them. Likewise CVC and Girton Parish Council use Grounds by Rounds. The benefit of using Grounds by Rounds is that it includes the weed spraying around the Pavilion and footpath across the recreation ground as well as the edge work. A quote from Groomfields offered comparison. It was agreed to award the contract to Grounds by Rounds for the 2007 season. Proposed Grenville Chamberlain seconded Malcolm Farmer carried unanimously.

Quotes for the fence adjacent to 124 Limes Road have been received it was agreed to award the work to Andrew Purse.

Quotes for the construction of the disabled ramp at the St Neots Rd bus stop have been received it was agreed to award the work to Ian Sharpe Construction.

Payments for the usage of the recreation ground & all weather pitch were put up by 5% to make a contribution to the increased costs of maintaining the recreation ground. Invoices will be: Hardwick Football Club (HFC) £525, Hardwick & Shepreth Cricket Club £250 and Hardwick Netball Club £55. Proposed Grenville Chamberlain seconded Malcolm Farmer carried unanimously. If the HFC wishes to allow Cambridge United to use the pitch for youth development that is an issue for them, including the use, cleaning and any charge to be passed on. The Parish Council grants permission for this usage by Cambridge United but it is the responsibility of HFC that the facilities are left without damage, clean and tidy after such usage.

C) St Neots Play Area – Saxon Place Storm cell
Significant work has been carried out on this investigation into the storm cell being placed in an elevated position (instead of underground) where the LEAP should be placed.
Our solicitor, Ben Smith, Mills & Reeve has provided further legal advice concerning the adoption of this LEAP play area. He states that unless there is specific provision in the transfer then it is probable that the storm cell will pass, with the rest of the land, into the Parish’s ownership – since the presumption is that when land is transferred that includes everything under that land. The key thing, therefore, would be to ensure that the transfer makes provision for this, and that responsibility for it remains with the developer, or at least that the Parish does not unwittingly accept responsibility for the storm cell unless there are financial provision to enable it to meet any costs arising as a result of it.
In addition in the s106 agreement, it appears that the provisions (set out in the second schedule of the agreement) are intended to operate as follows.
The developer is unable to build more than 50% of the dwellings until the public open space (which is to include the LEAP) has been provided.

Before the transfer they have to clean, level cultivate, seed and plant the area and then offer to transfer it to the Parish Council (on condition that the Parish continues to use it as public open space). The developers are not to make this offer without confirming that (a) the conditions in paragraph 1 of the second schedule have been complied with and (b) that the Parish Council is satisfied with the standard of the site. In relation to the standard of the site, prior to the transfer it is the developer’s responsibility to maintain the site, including re-seeding, re-planting, keeping tidy and weed-free. If the developer does not meet this obligation then it is open for the Parish to step-in and perform these tasks, and then claim the reasonable cost of doing so from the developer.

Once the site is ready to be transferred, the Parish can, (either before or after the offer), refuse to accept the site. After the offer has been made, failure to accept the transfer within 28 days will also constitute refusal. In this case, the developer is then able to offer the site to an approved management company on the same terms.

If the Parish accepts the transfer (with the developer paying the Parish’s reasonable legal costs of the transfer) then this triggers payment of the £18,000 Establishment Sum, after which time the Parish is obliged to maintain the site at its own expense. There will be a further payment, this time to the District Council but for the exclusive use of the Parish Council) of £60,000 after the sale of the 20th ‘Free Market Dwelling’ (in other words the 20th property which is not allocated to be an affordable housing dwelling.

There is also provision, but only within the first 12 months, that the developer will re-seed or re-plant any area which needs it at no cost to the Parish. After this it appears that there is no further provision for payments to the Parish in respect of maintenance and full responsibility passes to the Parish (or the management company, as the case may be.)
The Parish needs to be absolutely certain, before accepting transfer, that it is satisfied with the condition of the site. However, there is possibly some comfort to be had from the fact that the Parish can refuse to accept the transfer. It might also be sensible, at this stage, to ensure that reasonable precautions are taken (by the developer) to ensure that the site is properly protected from future risks such as vandalism, unlawful encampment or occupation (if this is a risk on a site of this size), fire, flooding etc, since if these issues might arise several years down the line.

Nigel Tucker of Bidwells has looked into the situation with this storm cell being placed under where the LEAP should be and his advice follows.

”I now set out hereunder the progress made so far with regard to advising the Hardwick Parish Council on an amount to claim from the builders of the above development for their non-provision of play equipment on the site, in contravention of the Section 106 Agreement attached to the planning permission.

As discussed previously, the approach to determining an asking figure for non-compliance with the Section 106 requirements of the planning permission has been to consider that Taylor Woodrow would adopt the policy of taking the cheapest option available to them. Rectification of the problems surrounding the storm cell installation, such that the play equipment can be provided on the allocated site, rather than re-siting of the storm cell elsewhere on the site at the expense of sacrificing say two building plots, is deemed to be the cheapest solution. Subject to our comments made below.

At the date of inspection, as currently configured, it was felt that the storm cell installation may not have been installed to the suppliers’ standards and could prove to be defective in dealing with high volumes of water, potentially resulting in the washing away of the banked soil and flooding of the localised area.

The simplest solution therefore would appear to be to keep the storm cell in its present location and re-set it at a greater depth.

This, however, assumes that the new lowered depth would be compatible with the existing drainage system and that no adjustment of the pipe work would be required. Further, the new depth would have to be sufficient to provide a suitable base for the support of the play equipment.
I have now received an estimate of cost from a contractor to undertake this work to lower the storm cell by 1 metre.
The estimated costs likely to be incurred, if the work is undertaken by a third party contractor would be circa £35,000 – £40,000 plus additional professional fees in respect of the employment of a design consultant to ensure that the storm cell is properly installed and functioning correctly.
However, as Taylor Woodrow are already on site and have plant, equipment and facilities readily available, the cost to them is likely to be somewhat less, probably below £20,000.

There is also the question of providing a suitable base for the erection of the play equipment. I have contacted the technical department of Wicksteed Leisure, the play equipment suppliers, who have indicated that the majority of their play equipment could be supported by a 1 metre depth of soil, the exception being one of their larger slides, which requires 1.007 metres depth.
As indicated above, we do not know if the storm cell would be able to be connected to the existing drainage system and function correctly thereafter without works being undertaken to lower the drains. If the storm cell can only be lowered less than 1 metre then a support structure for the play equipment such as a raft would have to be constructed. If it proves necessary for these further works to be implemented to ensure a satisfactorily operating system and play area, greater expense will be incurred.

Therefore, to have confidence in any figures quoted, information regarding the drainage scheme should be obtained from Taylor Woodrow before negotiations begin.

A further problem which has been highlighted by Benjamin Smith of Mills and Reeve is that it is implied that the Parish Council will, by taking responsibility for the land on which the play equipment stands, also undertake responsibility for the upkeep of the storm cell.

In the absence of a clear indication within the terms of the Section 106 Agreement regarding future responsibility for this matter, it could therefore, I feel, be inferred that the Parish Council will also become responsible for the correct functioning of the system in the future – a liability which I am sure the Parish Council would not wish to acquire.

It may therefore be a more satisfactory solution to the problem if the parish council were to insist that Taylor Woodrow fulfil its obligations, rather than accept a cash benefit in lieu.

I would therefore suggest that additional information be obtained from Taylor Woodrow with regard to the drainage scheme of the site-specifically the drain levels, so that it can be determined if the storm cell can remain on its present site but at a lowered level or if it will have to be relocated to accommodate the fall levels.

After lengthy discussion HPC decided that:
(a) The long term responsibilities of this storm cell need to be established during the negotiation to ensure that responsibility for the storm cell remains with the developer. The present HPC would not wish to encumber future HPC Councillors with the potential liabilities concerned with this storm cell.

(b) The storm cell needs to be properly installed such that it works effectively for all concerned.

(c) Given that (a) and (b) can be resolved then the Parish Council would wish that it be insisted that Taylor Woodrow fulfil its planning obligations, to reinstate the storm cell underground, so that it will function properly, and provide the LEAP Wicksteed equipped play area as specified in the section 106 agreement, rather than accept a cash benefit in lieu.

D) Budget 2007/8
A draft budget needs to be produced for the following year. A discussion of items for expenditure will be an agenda item at the December meeting. The Clerk is to provide year to date figures for this financial year at the December meeting.

6 (i) Correspondence:
A) Mills & Reeve – land to North of St Mary’s
noted and declarations awaited
B) Mills & Reeve – land adjacent to 18 Ellison Lane
confirmed as understood, no action to be taken
C) CCC – Street Lighting Maintenance & Energy
the issue of not charging more for power than what it costs is to be queried. OFGEN
D) CCC – Highways survey
Grenville Chamberlain agreed to complete this.
E) SCDC Planning Survey
Grenville Chamberlain agreed to complete this.

6 (ii)Correspondence Table Review:

A) CALC – Bulletin
B) Peterborough City Council – Minerals & Waste
C) CCC – slow down on roads alongside rivers
D) CCC – senior management structure
E) CiLCA training
F) Cambridge United – football in the community
G) Cambridgeshire Police
H) Love Your Post Office – Countryside Alliance
passed to T Bhachu

7 Planning:

A) S/2120/06/F J Dunne 56 Ellison Lane, Hardwick
no recommendation

8 Account presented for approval for Payment: approved.

A) £530.88 Clerk’s salary Sept
B) £96.24 J Dyer village cleaner
C) £534.63 MS Ford Associates
D) £77.55 Algar Signcraft Services (Cambridge) Ltd
E) £108.39 Secura-cam
G) £50.40 Admin expenses, BT, post, travel
H) £163.64 LGPS
I) £440.00 Victoire Press

9 Income received:

A) 102.41 NSIB
B) 47.35 bank interest
C) 877.25 Hardwick Happenings

10 Any Other Business – (Councillors & Clerk comment for future discussion)

1) It was requested that it be checked to see if CCC has a leaf collecting machine and if so that it come to Hardwick to collect the fallen leaves in the gutters.

2) Richard Grenfell has attended a PARC project to explain the role of the Parish Council. Only one youngster was in attendance.

3) The previous day’s fire at commercial premises on St Neots Rd was noted.

11 Date and Time of the next meeting of Hardwick Parish Council is to be Tuesday 19th December at 7.45pm in the Ken Turner Room, Pavilion/HSSC, Egremont Road, Hardwick. Cambs. CB23 7XR

Comments

This entry has no comments so far.