Cross Keys Swing Bridge, Sutton Bridge, Lincolnshire


Sutton Bridge Parish Council
Archived Meetings News for 2012

Jan 102013

Notes on the Sutton Bridge Parish Council Meeting held at
The Curlew Centre on 18th December, 2012

Open Forum

Mr. Blundell
(Reproduced by kind permission of Mr. Blundell)

The PC doesn’t seem to have seriously addressed the most important issue for SB.

Yes, we’ve had endless repetitious addresses from PREL who have a vested interest but there’s been nothing of an independent nature. PREL flog the cash bribe and the hundreds of jobs and say there’ll be little or no impact on traffic but are we going to fall for that? Is it that the PC will put cash and the empty promise of jobs before health and environment?

The fact is that Biomass incineration is not a proven technology and there is no understanding of the effect it will have on the environment.  Let alone its dubious safety record. To call the development an ‘energy park’ is to make it sound green and pleasant. Tell that to the Wheelers and the Stancers.

I have heard it said that the PC has said No to the development but as far as I can make out they’ve only asked for an independent EIA which was not forthcoming. That’s not saying NO. I wonder how our District Councillors and the County Councillor will represent the residents of SB when the issue comes up at a District & County Planning level.

Discussion about bus shelters is like fiddling while Rome burns—a bus shelter will not shield you from fallout from a Biomass Plant

Compared with SB, some Parish Councils are actually beginning to focus on the real issues.

For instance, Sutton St James Parish Council highlights the proposed biomass plant at Wingland as likely to be an aggravation of the HGV problem: they say we feel it would be sensible to have a joint meeting with neighbouring parish councils as many villages in South Holland suffer similarly. Will the SBPC be meeting them?

We will suffer. PREL blithely quote an increase of 1% in traffic on the A17 but if you translate this into vehicles it means one traffic movement in and out of the proposed development every 5 minutes. Just think! One every ten minutes if the operation is round the clock.

Do we really know what PREL intend to burn? Do you know? They tell a different story every time. Last May Councillor Booth seemed quite enthusiastic when they said they were going to burn straw. It’s been food waste, specially grown trees & crops, agricultural waste. Then it was wood pellets and now it seems to be treated compost. Do PREL know what they are going to burn?

As an Environmental Services rep said recently—The plain fact is that until we know for sure what they will burn we (and they) can have no idea what the fallout will be, what the traffic problems will be, what the effect of emissions on people’s health will be.

I think that we ought to be told how we will be represented when it comes to the Planning discussion at District & County level. Councillors Booth & Brewis were publically thanked by MS Rome for helping to deliver PREL leaflets last May. This suggests to me that they support the proposed plant.

Councillor Brewis is on record as saying that the PREL development is an ‘exciting prospect’

16th March 2009 Spalding Guardian

'...Residents and community groups were asked what benefits they would like to see as a result of the development. Sutton Bridge councillor Chris Brewis said the facility is an exciting prospect and added: ‘The principle of us using our landfill waste and getting more energy from waste and recycling materials has got to be a good one. I would be very surprised if there aren't more moves all over the country to do this kind of thing. It's a very interesting idea. It's an exciting prospect if it meets all the criteria...’

Does Councillor Brewis now think it meets all the criteria, whatever he thinks they might be? Is it still an exciting prospect for him?

Under the new Localism Act (November 2011) it seems it is now proper and acceptable for all councillors to play an active part in local discussions & they will not be open to legal challenge when they do express opinions. It’s no longer the case that Councillors are gagged in order to maintain some kind of neutrality. ‘This will help them better represent their constituents and enrich local democratic debate.’ I think we deserve to know how we are going to be represented.

Mr. Fenton thanked the Parish Councillors for getting the hedges cut.  He is still concerned that some black sacks in the Lime Street area are not being collected.  Mr. Fenton went on to say that vehicles are still being incorrectly parked, with some of them not only on yellow lines but also half way onto the footpaths making it impossible for people to get by safely.   He had photographic evidence of this which he was willing to hand to the PC.


Simon Gamage  and Kit Hawkins, both of Centrica, gave an update on the work carried out during the year for the Race Bank Offshore Wind Farm Project and a presentation of new works expected to commence in April 2013.

Cllr. Brewis explained why the proposed increase in council rents was unfair and why the District council’s housing stock is so low.

Cllr. M. Booth explained why the Christmas lights were not as good as last year, which was due to adverse weather conditions when they were installed and that had prevented all of the lights being put up.  The unused lights are now in store.

Cllr. M. Booth also said that as he was the Chairman at the Parish Meeting when a Parish Poll was requested, he was the official to whom the results would be sent. He added that two complaints of intimidation about signing the Petition outside the Curlew Centre had been received.  The organiser of the Petition, when asked later, said that one parishioner had accused them of acting illegally and that some discussion took place about this. They had no knowledge of the other complainant.

Cllr. Dewsberry explained the Accounts and these were agreed and seconded. The Meeting to resolve the Precept was deferred until Jan 2013 Meeting. This is because the government grant has not been determined.

The costs, including installation, for the new bus shelters will be £2,500 each.  The PC is to contact Norfolk Green to ascertain which bus stops are used by the most people and to install the new shelters at the busiest sites first.  It was also noted that the East Bank bus stop in the lay-by on the north side of the A17 is still in a potentially dangerous position for passengers as large vehicles are often parked either side of it. 

The Clerk read out an email from a parishioner concerning the request for an Independent EIA for the proposed Energy Park (PREL) planning application.  As this linked with Item 16, it was proposed that this item should be brought forward to this point of the meeting.

Cllr. Mrs. Rowe reiterated her call for an Independent EIA for the proposed Energy Park (PREL) because not all the information had been given; that it goes against local planning policy and that the SBPC should point this out to the SHDC.  It was agreed that Cllr. Mrs. Rowe would help the Clerk draft a letter on behalf of the PC to SHDC. A copy of this letter should be sent to the local MP, Mr John Hayes.

Cllr. C. Brewis said that members of the public can speak at the Planning Meeting provided they give notice of their intention to do so. Two persons may speak in favour, and two against. The speakers can be Parish Councillors and Cllr. Mrs. Rowe offered to speak against. She added that the Parish council should speak on behalf of the parishioners and that a written objection should be sent to all councillors on SHDC, not just to members of the planning committee.

Cllr. Mrs. Rowe also queried why SHDC had not formally advised the PC about its refusal to do an independent EIA and that it had been announced in the local paper only.

After some discussion it was agreed to meet with other local councils who would be affected by the development – Walpole Cross Keys, Terrington St. Clement, Tydd St. Giles and West Walton. A meeting in January was considered.

It was suggested that the result of the Poll should be put on SHDC Planning application website.

Cllr. M. Booth suggested that the Action Group should conduct their own Traffic survey.

Parish Council meeting dates were agreed and an August Meeting would be held if there was a need.

Update on S106 contribution to Economic development Post.  There were strong objections that S106 money should be used to pay for this post. It was suggested that this had been agreed but no emails or diary events could be found in SHDC archives to support this, even though a Meeting Minutes Note showed this had been agreed.

It was agreed that the Walsingham Cross Carrying Pilgrimage could use the shower facilities in the sports Pavilion during their overnight stay at the Curlew Centre.

Funding for the travelling library has been reduced but some money is still available for the service to continue at present with fewer stops in Sutton Bridge.

Cllr. Mrs. Grimwood wants the state of the Pavilion discussed in view of it’s the ‘disgusting state’ left by recent visitors.

The Public were asked to leave as the PC went into closed session.


A Poll on the said question

Do you want a gasifier* on Wingland Site?


28 said YES / 470 said NO!


¦ ⇑ Back to top of page ⇑ ¦

Dec 62012

Notes on the Sutton Bridge Parish Council Meeting held at
The Curlew Centre on 27th November, 2012

Open Forum

Mr. Fenton thanked the Parish Councillors at the Extraordinary meeting for how well they had handled the Extraordinary Meeting when many residents crowded into the Parish Office, and also to the Chairman of Friday’s meeting when again people were all speaking at once.

He stated that his main concern was the state of the High Street with the falling leaves being crunched to a pulp and blocking the gulleys and drains.  It should all be cleared off the main highway. 

Mr. Fenton was also concerned that the black and green bags were not being collected at the proper times.  Stickers were being put on some bags and the bags uncollected.

Mr. Reid said he thought the chairing of Friday’s meeting had been appalling. 

His concern is about the breed of dogs now to be seen on the streets of Sutton Bridge.  He had seen a ‘Staff’ type dog cowering from its owner as he walked out of a shop.  He had seen another Beagle type dog aged about six months being kicked by its owner.  He spoke of a disabled new comer to the village who had walked his Alsatian dog out on the marshes and who had been shot at by someone using an airgun. 

Mr. Reid also said that banned breeds of dogs were being bred in Long Sutton and that more of these doubtful breeds of dog were to be seen increasingly on our streets.  Some obviously fighting dogs as they had visible scars.

Members of the Parish Council considered this was a police matter and that Mr. Reid should report the matter to them.

Mr. Blundell stated there was considerable disquiet expressed at the recent public meetings about the proposed incinerator.  SHDC have refused to order an independent EIA.  He would like to know what further representations the PC will make to express their opposition to the proposed incinerator.  What leadership will they offer to the concerned residents of Sutton Bridge?  Further, what research will members of the PC undertake in order to investigate the potential negative effects of the proposed incinerator?  Answers are to be found on many websites all over the globe.  It is to be hoped that they will not opt for the money which is nothing more than a bribe from PREL.

Mrs. Freezor stated that she agreed with what Mr. Blundell had just said.  She considered the performance of the PC about the proposed gasifier/incinerator was poor, especially as they are supposed to represent the public.


It appears there is a new format for the Declarations of Interest.  All parish councillors had to complete a form and hand same back to the Clerk.

Mrs. Doreen Grimwood was welcomed as the newly co-opted Parish Councillor by all members of the PC.

In his remarks the Chairman stated that a group from the Pay Back team had been to clear the leaves and litter from the Memorial Park including the children’s play area and the Memorial Park Car Park.  A considerable amount of hard work had been done.

The Clerk reported the Ambulance Service had been invited to attend a PC meeting as residents are concerned about the long delays in response times.  

District Cllr. C. Brewis referred to the new parking laws.  From December teams of Parking Wardens would be in the area of South Holland at unpredictable times during the day and also occasionally during the evenings.

District Cllr. M. Booth stated that fly tipping was still a problem, especially in the Woad Lane area.

The 2013-2014 Precept and the grant application from the Sutton Bridge Youth Club have both been deferred until the next PC meeting.

SHDC had advised that drains in Bridge Road had been cleared and all gulleys cleaned.  This does not appear to have been done.  Clerk to write and request for roads to be swept and all drains cleaned.

Further to the site meeting held with the Highways Dept in October, regarding the kerb levels in many areas of Bridge Road, the PC have been informed that to lower the road level would be too costly.  Work will be done at the two pedestrian crossings where there is a problem of standing water.

The LCC have advised that all damaged grit bins will be removed.  The PC are to ask for the grit bins at Chalk Lane and at strategic points on East Bank to be maintained.

The problem of overgrown hedges alongside footpaths continues on several roads in the area.

The cattle grid on East Bank is being repaired.

Dog owners are using the litter bags in the children’s play area to deposit bags of dog faeces.

The old Youth Club building has now been demolished.

The Chairman referred to the amount of work the Clerk had put in getting the paperwork for the Allotments in order and requested that the PC thanks to her for this be minuted.

Cllr. J. Grimwood has been appointed as the PC representative to the Youth Club.

Cllr. Dewsberry listed all the bus stops along Bridge Road where bus shelters could be erected, and will send list of same to LCC. 

Cllr. Mrs. Giles stated the cost to move the milestone to its original placing would be very expensive.  Matter to be kept on the agenda.

Cllr. Brewis stated a new 3ft x 2ft sign with the opening times of the Memorial Cark Park was being obtained at no cost to the PC.

It was agreed to the hire of the Memorial Park for an auction in aid of the Curlew Centre on April 6th, 2013.

Date of the next PC meeting will be Tuesday, 18th December.  It was proposed that this should be a short meeting covering essential items only.

Cllrs. Mrs. Preston suggested there should be a covered waiting area outside the SB Health Centre.  It was agreed to write to the Practice Manager to ask if they could provide a solution to the early morning waiting problem.

Cllr. Mrs. Rowe requested that the Gasifier be kept on the agenda, and advised that John Hayes MP would be coming to meet with residents in the near future.

The meeting went into closed session.  The Public left at 8.30 pm.

¦ ⇑ Back to top of page ⇑ ¦

Dec 22012

Notes on the Sutton Bridge Parish Meeting held at the Royal British Legion Hall, Gas House Lane 7pm on 23rd November, 2012

Following on from the fiasco at the Extraordinary Meeting in the Parish Council office on 6th November when a Parish Meeting was called for by Cllrs. Mrs. Rowe and Cllr. Mrs. Hills on the subject of the proposed Gasifier/Incinerator, the called for meeting took place on Friday, 23rd November.

Over 150 people attended the meeting, the greater majority being local residents.

Cllr. M. Booth chaired the meeting.  PREL representatives were Helen Rome, John Dickie MD and Paul Darley, Technical Advisor.

Brian Collins-McDougall asked those attending to consider a Poll, adding did the people present want a gasifier to be built on the Wingland site – Yes or No?  A resounding NO echoed round the hall. At least half of those attending stood in support.

Ms. Rome gave a brief update from their first contact in 2009 to their planning application lodged at SHDC early September 2012 for the 64 acre site for the 48 mw installed biomass power station.  She stated there would be 300 constructions jobs, and 85 permanent jobs. They had the land under option and would not complete until planning consent is granted.  Time limit for objections/approvals had been extended until the end of October, objections still being received by the Planning Officer at SHDC were being considered.

The question and answer session then began with Cllr. Mrs. Giles asking if they would reconsider the proposal if a significant number of residents objected to it.

Ms. Rome confirmed they would, adding that the proposal would bring economic growth and jobs to the area.  To date there had been 12 meetings in Sutton Bridge about the proposal.

Craig Jackson asked if the anticipated economic growth and jobs offered would be at the cost of the health and welfare of residents.   He said to call it what you will, to all intent and purposes it is an incinerator as it burns fuel, you could put lipstick on a pig but it would still be a pig. The Peterborough plant is sited away from any residential area, unlike the proposed plan for Sutton Bridge and it would mean would mean more than enough through traffic in the town.  He also asked would PREL/Energy Park Sutton Bridge provide free energy for all in Sutton Bridge. 

In response Ms. Rome stated that 100 job applications had been received from residents in Sutton Bridge, but whether they would all be employed would depend on whether cv’s were of  the required standard or appropriate to the position being sought.

She also stated the proposed plant was a gasifier, not an incinerator.   Assurance was given that delivery vehicles of feedstock would not pass through Sutton Bridge.  The vehicles were fitted with GPS monitoring systems and drivers would be penalised for any deviation of route.

The people living nearest to the Peterborough plant have made no objection and the distance from the site was 600 yards.  Other residences were about half a mile away from the Peterborough plant and they had not objected either. 
Referring to the question about free or cheaper electricity, Ms. Rome said it would not be possible to supply free energy to local Sutton Bridge residents.  They were liaising with John Hayes MP about a reduced rate Power Purchase Agreement.

Mr. Wheeler is very concerned by the prospect of an extra eight lorries every hour every day passing within 80 metres of his home.  He considered the noise and increased level of pollution would outweigh the eventual saving of carbon foot print.

The response being the eventual carbon footprint would be 130,000 tons saving of CO2.

Mr. Dickie stated that the 64 acres was land already allocated for industrial and commercial use.  SHDC had approached PREL regarding the site.  He also mentioned there was a haulage company with over 120 vehicle movements a day near the proposed site.

Mrs. H. Stalley stated that a biomass plant in North Lincolnshire had already been turned down as it was considered a health risk.   Here in Sutton Bridge with a population of over 3000, how many were children who could not vote?  Did PREL condone the possible damage their incinerator may do to future generations?

In PREL’s response they referred to biomass plants in Germany using municipal waste, these were closing down due to lack of supply, not for health and safety reasons.

Ms. Rome said that she had done much research on the subject and had educated herself regarding the production of biomass produced energy and considered it safe.

A resident questioned the wisdom of building such an incinerator so near to a gas fired power station, and asked how they proposed the energy produced would be connected to the National Grid. 

Ms. Rome responded that SHDC had requested them to consider the area in Sutton Bridge as they had liked what PREL were proposing in Peterborough.   She could not change the fact that some people considered Sutton Bridge to being a ‘dumping ground’.  Connection to the National Grid would be via the Walpole substation.

Cllr.  Rowe asked who at SHDC had approached PREL in the first place.

Mr. Dickie stated the approach had come from the SHDC Economic Development Dept (Bruce Wakeling and Nigel Birch).

Mr. Collins-McDougall referred to Mr. Dickie’s letter printed in the Spalding Guardian back in April 2009 when he claimed there would be no discernable odour, when in more recent documentation it dismisses the impact of offensive smells on local residents and quoted from the Planning Application “Due to extended exposure residents will be desensitised of the odour, and are likely to find any odours more acceptable due to familiarity”.   He stated this statement showed contempt for local residents and was considered it highly offensive.

Mr. Darley stated the feedstock for the gasifier would not be stored for long enough for it to decompose so there would be no discernable odour.  It would take about 4 days for any decomposing to start and the feedstock would not be kept that long.  Feedstock would be delivered to the site in sealed containers from which odour could not escape.  There would be no odour from the chimneys.  If any, the most likely cause of odour would be from diesel vehicle exhausts.

In the following exchange PREL stated that if they breached permitted levels of emissions, they would be closed down. 

Mr. Collins-McDougall stated that would not be so as the EA usually imposed fines and did not close down offending plants.

Emma Robbins stated her main concern was the 60 mph speed limit on approaching roads leading to the proposed incinerator and asked if it would not be possible for PREL to have this limit reduced to a safer level.

Mr. Dickie replied that as it was a public road, it was a Highways issue.  The LCC had adopted the road servicing the industrial area, it was up to them to decide on speed limits.  The LCC had intimated to PREL that no change was required.

Craig Jackson stated that if an explosion within the incinerator complex occurred it could also knock out the gas fired power station, which would be like a small nuclear explosion.   He also stated there would be with breaches of emissions on start up.

The PREL representatives considered an explosion within the gasifier complex was highly unlikely as gasifiers were not run under pressure.  It was possible that some breaches of emissions could occur on start up, but the gasification process would eliminate almost all of the emissions.

Cllr. Hills asked if the government was subsidising any of the £300million build costs and was informed the project was mostly being privately financed.

Cllr. Hills stated that as electricity could not be stored in real time, what advantage would the gasifier have?  The gas fired power station was frequently on shutdown due to lack of demand.  She also questioned the enormous £82k fee for their planning application. 

Mr. Darley said that battery power technology was not yet advanced enough to store electricity.   The advantage a gasifier had over a gas fired power station was that it was akin to switching on a gas cooker, much more instant, as opposed to restarting a gas fired power station.

Mr. Dickie stated that the fee was normal for this type of planning application.

Cllr. Hills stated that as the water pressure was already low in Sutton Bridge, what effect the proposed incinerator would have on the water pressure due to the volume of water they would be extracting.

In response PREL advised large capacity underground water tanks would be installed to capture rainwater, and would not affect the ground water.  They would still require to draw water from the mains for the amenities they would provide such as a canteen and toilets.  

Cllr. Hills asked if this would not deprive the water table of captured water and what would happen in the event of a drought and their tanks were empty. 

PREL advised they have to maintain the greenfield run off. 

Keith Hargreaves suggested that PREL had no knowledge of the surrounding area.   Already there was a gas fired power station, a seven turbine wind farm being constructed as well as a proposed Travellers Transit site.  He stated all this was having an adverse affect on local wild life.  He also believes that it is not acceptable to grow biomass fuel on agricultural land used for feeding Britain.  The proposed incinerator project was also reducing house values by a considerable margin as he has found to his cost of his own home.

Ms. Rome commented that there would be money for the community, but not there to buy the community.  The local economy would be improved by the creation of the 85 permanent jobs on offer.  It was possible that Sutton Bridge would not be able to fill the skilled gap, but there were opportunities for jobs in security, canteen work, cleaners and office staff.

A resident asked if PREL would give assurances to residents regarding health issues that may arise.  What come back would local people have now and the future in regard to health and safety?

Mr. Darley stated that emissions would be regulated by the EA and their standards were most stringent.  In the past there had been health issues, since then standards had now been raised, and PREL would meet the highest standards in gasification.  Emissions would be controlled so they would have no harmful impact on the environment or humans.

PREL were asked what come back would there be if emissions exceeded permitted levels?

Response was they would be shut down by the EA, but once on line they would continue monitoring emissions.

Mrs. J. Blundell asked what fuel would they be burning.  Was it now wood? They had at one time suggested straw, among other things.  Where was it coming from if they kept to their 32KM radius catchment area?  How would it be brought to the site?
The response was that the source of the feedstock was confidential and could not be revealed until after planning permission was granted, as until then contracts for feedstock could not be signed.

PREL maintain that feedstock would be within the 32 kilometre catchment area and conveyed in 22 ton sealed containers. 

It was asked if feedstock would be made from slurry as it is known that biomass fuels can be. 

PREL stated the feedstock would not contain slurry.  All feedstock used would be biogenic.  Feedstock would not be imported from abroad.

There gasifier would have one major shut down a year.

A resident stated that the visual impact of the six chimneys would not enhance the area and asked if any of the PREL representatives would want to buy a house here.

Mr. Stalley asked about the traffic movement on the A17 and A47. Would the traffic to the site also be coming from the west, say Sleaford and as well as from King’s Lynn?

Mr. Dickie stated the traffic movements would be travel in both directions along the A17.

Mr. Stalley also stated he had heard on TV that evening that the cost of renewable energy in the UK would increase to £2000 per year on household fuel bills.  He said it would appear that PREL were only concerned with the WIFM effect = What’s In It For Me?

PREL stated this was not the case as 75% of the running costs would be paid for by the Government subsidies.

Cllr. Giles asked where is the forest the feedstock would be coming from and was it not at King’s Lynn port.  She urged all residents to write letters opposing the proposed PREL planning application, not only to the Press and the Planning Officer at SHDC, but also to all SHDC councillors.  She offered to help anyone who wished to do so and advised she could be contacted through the Parish Council office and via their website.

M. Reid stated that the main concern of residents was of the impact the PREL proposal would have on the environment and house prices.  Would PREL indemnify all sellers of properties?

The PREL representative advised that to indemnify all vendors of properties would not be lawful neither does the Planning Act allow it.  They could not guarantee there would be no impact on the community.

A ‘straw poll’ was conducted.  The majority of residents present were against the proposed gasifier.

The meeting closed at 9 30 pm.

¦ ⇑ Back to top of page ⇑ ¦

Nov 182012

Notes on the Sutton Bridge Extraordinary Parish Council Meeting
held on Tuesday 13th November 2012

Around sixty residents turned up to this meeting no doubt lured by the second item on the agenda:-

To resolve on arranging a public meeting in order to discuss the proposed
Sutton Bridge 'Energy Park'.

Because this very extraordinary meeting was held in the cramped Parish Office there was a good deal of confusion and lack of clarity about what exactly was going on in relation to this item. Those who attended the meeting could not gain admittance for some reason until the meeting had already started, after the usual formalities. Then they were required to stand out of sight of the Councillors with some even standing in the corridor.

The item about arranging a public meeting appeared to have been hi-jacked by Councillor Brewis who was delivering a lecture, which did not always seem to be accurate, on the legal niceties of arranging Parish Meetings. The majority on the Council did not appear to be bothered about discussing the real issues at all being more concerned about the leaflets circulating round the village doing the job which the Council ought to have done long ago. That is to say, giving residents some real indication of the issues involved in the Incinerator proposal instead of leaving it to PREL to describe their one-sided pitch.

Residents expressed their anger at the whole proceedings. Some loudly indicating that this was the first they'd heard about the Incinerator proposal. The Parish Clerk gamely and resolutely pointed out that the proposal had been notified to the public in various ways including the recent newsletter.

Mrs Preston said that people only came to Parish Council meetings when there was something that really mattered to them. It's difficult to imagine why anybody would want to attend other meetings which give no space to the expression of real democracy and usually amount to councillors talking at great length about things without having done their homework.

The majority on the Parish Council, pursuing their own limited agendas, seem only too content to ignore the issues connected with the Incinerator project. It has been that way since the Scoping & Screening document was passed 'without comment' in early 2009.

The Parish Office emptied after it became clear that the Parish Council was not intending to take a role in organising a Parish Meeting.


Bridge Watch observes that a new group is in process of formation to fight the Gasifier development: SuBraaG = Sutton Bridge against a Gasifier. This came through the letterbox:-


to attend a Parish Meeting called by Parish Councillors Jenny Rowe and Vicky Hills
to be held at The Royal British Legion, Gas House Lane
at 7pm on Friday 23rd November 2012


Together we can stop it!

Your support is needed to demand an official Poll of residents of Sutton Bridge

These are some of the issues:-

The threat to health
Likely traffic chaos
Poor emissions and safety record of biomass incinerators
Recent reports of explosions at Biomass plants
The threat to the planet from the burning of wood and wood products
Another visual blot on the landscape of Sutton Bridge


published by Sutton Bridge against a Gasifier - printed by Prontaprint

¦ ⇑ Back to top of page ⇑ ¦

Nov 52012

Notes on the Sutton Bridge Parish Council Meeting
held on 30th October, 2012

Present: Cllrs: Grimwood (Chair) M. Booth, Dewsberry, Hills, J Rowe, Giles, S Booth, Preston,

Apologies received from Cllrs. Brewis and Croxford

Press represented.  Public attendance high

The Chairman announced that as so many were attending this meeting he was extending the Open Forum to half hour.  He further stated that residents should send their objections regarding the proposed incinerator directly to SHDC and not to the Parish Council.

Open Forum began with Mr. Fenton stating that nothing appears to have been done about the footpaths and parking on footpaths.

Mr. B. Collins-McDougall asked would the independent Environment Impact Assessment refer to the impact on residents of Sutton Bridge should the incinerator be granted planning permission.

Mr. J. Webb voiced concern about the fall in values of local properties if the incinerator plant goes ahead.  Although it was alleged that this should not be the case if the incinerator was built, it had reduced the value of properties in other places where there was an incinerator.

Mr. C. Blundell observed that, in spite of earlier questions and requests, the PC has made no attempt whatsoever to put the issues for and against the incinerator to the residents.  The so-called recent Newsletter had a feeble reference to it.  At the Annual Parish Meeting in the spring when it was suggested that, since he and Mr Booth were thanked by Ms Rome for delivering leaflets for PREL, they were in favour of the incinerator, Cllr. Brewis was vehement that the PC would of course consider all factors objectively.  What is the result of their thinking?  We have no idea.

Mr. Blundell said that PREL were of course in this to make a huge profit—that’s their major concern. Once they have developed what they hope for they will sell it on and will have no further responsibility for the consequences, nor will they be responsible for any ‘monitoring’.  They are bound to say that there will be no traffic problems, no light or sound pollution, no emissions; they’re bound to say that there will be loads of jobs and lots of money for SB—that’s the standard line—but they won’t be around to answer for any possible failures.

He concluded by pointing out that they say they want their proposed development to be at the heart of the community. They call it a ‘gasifier’ which is perhaps rather reminiscent of a concentration camp—is that really what we want at the heart of our community?
Mr. Blundell’s speech brought a huge round of applause.

Cllr. Mrs. Rowe proposed that Item 11 on the agenda be brought forward to the beginning of the meeting as so many residents had come especially for this discussion.  Another round of applause from the chamber as residents showed their appreciation for having an opportunity to have their say too.

Suggestion that there should be a referendum brought cheers.

A councillor and several residents stated that Sutton Bridge was becoming a dumping ground for noxious industries when they could be placed in more appropriate industrial areas and not in such close proximity to a large village.

The Chairman again made the request to residents to send their objections to SHDC as the Parish Council held no sway in the matter.

Reference was made to a leaflet that had been delivered to all residents about the incinerator showing our two District Councillors and the Parish Clerk’s contact details.   This was considered a gross infringement on them as the perpetrators of the leaflet omitted to include their own names and contact details as well as where the leaflet had been printed.  Copy of said leaflet is being sent to the legal department of SHDC.

Cllr Rowe said that anybody was entitled to issue a leaflet.

Cllr. S. Booth’s contribution to the debate was to say that all the points in the offending leaflet had already been answered. Reactions from the Public Gallery suggested that this was not the case. He also suggested that if the space in the industrial complex was given over to distribution centres there would be a lot more traffic.  Shouts of disagreement.

Cllr. Grimwood said that there had to be absolute certainty that there would be no risk to health and that the road situation had to be addressed seriously.

Cllr Rowe asked whether it was right to have an incinerator next door to a food processing plant. There were many issues not addressed by PREL’s own EIA. There should be a thoroughgoing health risk assessment and attention given to the effect on air quality from the proposed development.

Cllr. M. Booth (Vice-chair) said that he thought there were enough professionals around who could be relied on to assess things accurately. Nothing had been decided at a higher level yet.

Cllr Rowe pointed out that PREL gave us a different story every time we had a meeting with them; they seemed to have an answer for everything and were good at shifting goalposts. According to them there will be no emissions & no smells.

Conclusion of discussion is that SBPC want an Independent Environmental Impact Assessment, and a Health Impact Assessment.

It was very apparent from the reaction of the residents present that the majority of the residents of Sutton Bridge DO NOT want an incinerator on their doorstep.

Most of the audience left after the discussion on the incinerator, and the meeting continued with its usual trivia. 

In his report the Chairman stated that the Police Office will be open once a fortnight. Hours of opening can be obtained from the SBPC office or the Curlew Centre.

He thanked Cllr. Brewis for arranging the Open Meeting on the 16th October, when representatives of PREL attended to respond to the questions put to them.

He also thanked Mrs. B. Ling and Mrs. D. Grimwood for helping deliver the Parish Newsletter, when certain councillors refused to do so. Cllr. Mrs. Rowe responded saying that she was not prepared to deliver the PC Newsletter while ex Cllr. C. Brandon-King was involved with it.

The recent visit to Sedlec had been a success and the town has made lots of improvements with a new hotel and a golf course.

The Public Toilets had been vandalised twice since they were recently opened, so were yet again closed for repairs.

The Youth Bus had been in the Curlew Centre’s car park all day and had proved to be a great success. The young people were being encouraged to state what they want for a youth club.

Cllr Rowe asked why the youth were not accommodated in the Curlew Centre since a large amount of money had been designated for that purpose .

The Clerk reported on the purchase of a new Parish Office sign at enormous cost, and also that the Memorial Service at the Church and Propeller Plinth would be held on morning of Sunday, 11th November. 

District Cllr. M. Booth reported that the matter of the CCTV had been brought up with the Portfolio Holder and had been informed that this would now be left until after the elections on the 15th November for the Police and Crime Commissioner. He also stated that the police had been very successful in making many arrests of hare coursers in the surrounding area.

Cllr. Dewsberry had attended to the accounts very efficiently and began to tell us details of subjects that were to be discussed in Closed Session.

Correspondence was dealt with very quickly. A resident of Railway Lane South had emailed about the state of the road, with houses and gardens unkempt as well as several of the council houses appearing to be used as business premises.

Planning matters passed with little comment.

On Highways & Footways, Cllr. Mrs. Giles reported on a site meeting held with William Webb (Highways) and Jonathan Pearson (Area Highways Manager). They had walked along Bridge Road to the Anchor Inn noting the state of the footpaths in certain areas that were in need of urgent attention. The outcome is awaited.

It was stated that the residents of Chalk Lane could erect their own sign for restricting traffic, but it remains that Chalk Lane is a Right of Way.

Cllr. Mrs. Hills stated that the Burial Grounds Committee had learned that Scotts Miracle-Gro were not now willing to sell the land as had been envisaged, and it was back to the drawing board.  Subject to be put on agenda for next meeting.

The Clerk gave a detailed update concerning the S106 funds allocated to ‘Economic Development Officer’ 2007-2009.  The sum of £24,254 is still unaccounted for. The Freedom of Information searches at SHDC have had no result. Although every effort has been made they still cannot say where the money is. The matter is to be pursued.

Cllr. Dewsberry stated there are thirteen bus stops in Sutton Bridge with no shelters. None are provided on the north side of Bridge Road. He suggested that the Highways Department be approached to discuss where bus shelters could be erected. The cost would be met by the Precept over the next few years.

With regard to the Ambulance Services Cllr. Dewsberry quoted from a recent article in the Eastern Daily Press stating that East Midlands came bottom of everything to do with the ambulance services.  It is the worst in the country. It was suggested that letters be sent to the Ambulance Service and NHS as the nearest depot to Sutton Bridge is at Algarkirk.

Public part of the meeting closed at 8.50 pm. 



• It seems to have escaped notice of the Press that there were nearly a hundred residents at the meeting who were eager to express their opposition to the Incinerator proposal. What appeared in the newspaper was an old photo of Cllr. Brewis seeming to be addressing the 16th October meeting though he was notable by his absence at this PC meeting.

• Most of the audience was unfamiliar with PC Meetings procedure and took it amiss that they were not allowed to contribute after the first session.

• It had emerged at the Public Meeting on 16th October that SHDC had directed PREL towards Sutton Bridge. What chance is there of the Planning Department coming up with an unbiased view? What will our two District Councillors have to say on the subject? The Vice Chairman was singularly reticent about expressing his view.  Cllr. Brewis was absent. What chance is there of SHDC mounting a proper independent EIA? Should not PREL be obliged to pay for this?

• There was criticism of the leaflet which had been circulated anonymously. This filled a vacuum left by the PC’s lack of information. One could not help but recall the 2009 leaflet purporting to come from the PC but which was in fact put out by Cllr. Brewis off his own bat and acted on by him to fulfil his own agenda. What is preferable—a leaflet without details of an issuer or one that has the wrong issuer on it?

• It was interesting to note that ex-Cllr. Brandon-King had had to be called up to help with the writing of the Newsletter. On a previous occasion the question was asked whether this would not make him privy to PC deliberations to which he ought not to have access. Are the other members of the PC majority not capable of writing a newsletter on their own?

• Once the youth of the village have contributed answers to questions about what they want from a youth club, what will actually be done about them?

¦ ⇑ Back to top of page ⇑ ¦

Oct 22012

Notes on the Sutton Bridge Parish Council Meeting
held on 25th September, 2012

Present: Cllrs: Grimwood (Chair) M. Booth, Dewsberry, Hills, J Rowe, Croxford, S Booth, Giles, Brewis,

Apologies received from Cllr. Preston

Press and Police represented. Public attendance low.

All seats in the chamber had a leaflet which stated that there was to be a public meeting on October 16th to enable the residents to express views about the PREL incinerator. This meeting has been organised Cllr Brewis independently from the Council. Some Parish Councillors did not know that the public meeting had been organised. It emerged that Cllr Brewis will also chair the meeting and that a vote will be taken and that will be the guiding principle for the PC's response.

As usual the meeting began with the Open Forum. First to speak was Mr. Fenton, who stated that dog fouling was an increasing problem in the village, even to the extent of dogs fouling the football pitches in the Memorial Park. He further stated that he had been out of his home since June while repairs to his property were being made. Also that the Dodfrey Engineering company were working until 2.30 pm on a Sunday recently and making considerable noise while doing so.

Mrs. Blundell spoke of the Planning Application submitted by Energy Park Sutton Bridge Ltd (formerly PREL) now with South Holland District Council, highlighting the misleading photographs of the A17, showing it wider than it actually was and totally devoid of traffic. She added that the document suggested that the opening of the bridge was a minor problem as it opened only once a week on average. (Laughs all round from those present). In addition there was hardly any mention of the added pollution that would be caused by the stream of lorries coming to the plant from all direction, east, west and south at the rate of 4/5 per hour (plus going out), probably over a 12 hour period, possibly 24 hours, for seven days a week. She raised the question that if these were some obvious discrepancies, might there not be others?

Mr. & Mrs. Wheeler stated their grave concerns about the effects the proposed incinerator (or gasifier as some prefer it to be called) for the Wingland site would be having not only on their, but their neighbours' lives, if this project were to go ahead. They stated that they have been told that traffic noise will be negligible, but they very much doubt this since the recent crane lorry fire on the A17 had vehicles of all types from cars to HGV's using Centenary Way and Chalk Lane as an escape route caused absolute chaos. Vehicles were going to the end of Centenary Way then having to turn around as it is a dead end, those that used Chalk Lane not only further damaged what is mostly a private road, but also damaged the frontages of several residents' homes.

Cllr. Brewis stated that he had organised a public meeting to be held at the Curlew Centre on Tuesday 16th October 2012m at 6.30 pm for the public to discuss the proposal for an Energy Park by PREL.

Sergeant Laura Griggs and our new PCSO updated the Meeting on the reasons why the police office in the new community centre is not being used. It had been given a fair trial period with staggered timings for both afternoons and evenings, and only eight people visited it in the trial period of three months. More people had visited the mobile police vehicle. Cllr. Brewis said he would contact the new Chief Police Officer for Lincs, with a view of getting some sort of police presence visible at the appointed office. To have the mobile vehicle in the area it needs to be booked at least a month in advance.

Hare coursing is again taking place in the district and the public are requested to contact the police by telephone on the emergency number 101, or even 999, if they see signs of such activity going on in the area.

A recent count of vehicles going through the east end of the village over the course of six days revealed that 23,148 vehicles passed a certain point. Most of the vehicles were not speeding although some were.

The Chairman reported that the RAF memorial service had recently been held and had been attended by over 50 people. Thanks were offered to the ladies who had prepared the buffet lunch. He also stated that the memorial propeller plinth on the East Bank had been rebuilt and was now a credit to the village.

It has been arranged for a bus to be parked in the Memorial Park car park on four consecutive Tuesday evenings from mid October into November, to give the youth an opportunity to have a say in what they want, and also in an attempt to rekindle youth trust.

The Memorial Park gates are now being locked in the evenings after complaints from residents about loud music been played in the car park.

The litter bin in the Memorial Park has been subject to vandalism and an outside contractor is to reset it, as well as the metal bin near the church, which has also been damaged.

The Clerk gave an informative report regarding the state of the pavements in Bridge Road and had contacted Mr. W. Webb of the Highways Department to visit. It was estimated it would cost in the region of £250,000 to repair the footpaths where flooding occurs in Bridge Road. It was noted that a request had been made for an election to fill the vacancy on the Parish Council.

Answer to the question of the £24,000 (approx) of the S106 fund unaccounted for in the period of 2007-9 is still being sought.

The Lighthouse project has been awarded a grant from the S106 money.

Fly posting is still a major problem in the village.

Cllr. Croxford had requested to be allowed to attend the CEMG meetings but this is not allowed as Cllr. Rowe is the current PC representative and only one member of the PC may attend the meetings.

Sutton Bridge did not make it into the 3rd and final round of the best kept village.

The External Auditors were satisfied with the way things were being done in SBPC.

District & County Councillors reported that fly tipping was still a problem and again requested residents to contact them if they see such acts being committed.

The funds from SHDC had been received for the upkeep of the public toilets at the new community centre, but since these had been open to the public they had already been vandalised. Cllr. Rowe queried why no hand-drying facilities were available in these toilets.

The SBMAG meeting held in July had been very successful the next meeting being held on 22nd October in the Curlew Centre.

The District & County Councillors budgets had been allocated to:

While the building of the Wingland Travellers Site was due to start at end October, this has been put back until early March 2013.

With regard to Financial matters, Cllr. Dewsberry stated that SBFC were to be asked to pay £200 towards the water and electricity rates as the water and electricity had been left turned on for several days in the sports pavilion.

During the session on correspondence, the PC had received a reply from Long Sutton PC regarding the request to share the cost of security patrols to the effect there was little vandalism in Long Sutton but they would monitor the situation and consider same at their next meeting.

It would also appear there is still some contention over the land known locally as "Tom's Wood" as it is still an issue with some parishioners, who maintain there was a covenant placed on the land when it was originally sold to the previous owners. A strongly worded letter, detailing the history of the 'open space' on the Falklands, from 'a resident' was read out.

Planning matters centred on the proposed development of a renewable energy park. Some time was spent on deliberating how to answer pertinent questions from a parishioner in an email rather than focussing on the issues themselves. The Parish Council needs to be well informed from their own reading of the document rather than being guided by what the developer might say at the Public Meeting planned for October 16th. For details of this email, please see: Sutton Bridge Parish Council and the Planning Application submitted by Energy Park Sutton Bridge Ltd

The proposed closure of the Tydd Road while repairs are made to the bridge by the sluice gate has been deferred until April 2013.

Cllr. M. Booth confirmed what Mr. Fenton had said about the increase of dog fouling on footpaths and that the notices had now been printed and would be placed around the village very shortly.

The Knotweed in the Arnie Broughton Walk appears to have been considerably weakened and it is anticipated that what is now visible will be resprayed in the autumn.

Other points of possible interest were the following:

Attention was brought to the considerable inconvenience and disruption suffered by the people in Chalk Lane during and after the recent crane lorry fire, as the lane was used as an escape route by many drivers as was mentioned by Mr. & Mrs. Wheeler earlier. As this is a partly private road from the Centenary Way end, and only a short length has been adopted on the River Nene end, measures to stop all traffic, other than that for access is being considered.

Several requests from members were proposed.

A) Cllr. Giles - the moving of the milestone in Bridge Road (west of the village) to a spot near the town sign board, as it is alleged that the stone had previously been moved from where the new bus stop has been installed.

B) Cllr. Dewsberry –



Some members of the Council will remember the time in 2009 when a 'Scoping and Screening Document' was submitted by PREL to test the water. The then Planning Committee passed it without comment when a simple read of the 49 page document demonstrated that there were plenty of comments to be made about inaccuracies and sleights of hand.

The voters of Sutton Bridge require that the Parish Council look properly at the proposed incinerator in some detail and not just opt for the community bribe.

These are the issues:-

These are the questions:-

Since the time for time for getting answers to these questions is very limited, I suggest that SHDC be asked to extend the consultation period so that proper democratic procedures can operate.

The Parish Council chose not to make any significant comment….

¦ ⇑ Back to top of page ⇑ ¦

Aug 152012

Notes on the Sutton Bridge Parish Council Meeting
held on 31st July, 2012

Present: Cllrs: Grimwood (Chair) M. Booth, Dewsberry, Hills, J Rowe, Croxford, S Booth, & Preston

Apologies received from Cllrs. Brewis, Giles, and T. Rowe.

Press represented; public attendance low.

In Open Forum Ms. Bostock made a compelling plea to the PC regarding the planning application to erect two three bed detached houses with off street parking in Bridge Road.  The proposed plans would severely infringe the privacy of the nearest residents.

It is now a matter of choice whether councillors sign the Declaration of Interest Book or not, and to leave the chamber if and when they have particular interest in the item under discussion.  Such declarations of interest are now made directly to SHDC.

An interesting and informative briefing was given by Jennifer Snowball, Consents Manager for Centrica, updating the situation and reporting on the good work that had been undergone on the Sea Defence Wall, the Marsh and tidal mudflats to enable the cable laying to be completed. There now only remains for the seabed installations to be completed. She reported that the first turbines are installed and the first power to be generated will occur within the next few weeks.  The whole operation was completed five weeks before the end of their consents.

She said that with permission granted for the Race Bank wind farm there is no other option than to apply for planning consents to bring the cables from that wind farm ashore 500 metres from where the East Lincs cables have been installed.

It was reported that Sutton Bridge is through to the second round of the Best Kept Village competition.  Also, that the Arnie Broughton Walk would be cleared using the Community Payback team and any other willing volunteers.

There is continuing concern about the damage and vandalism in the area surrounding the new Community Centre.  It was decided this was a police matter.  Cllr. J Rowe stated that in the past a security company had been engaged to patrol specific areas as well as locking the car park gates at a very reasonable cost.  She went on to suggest that as Long Sutton had similar problems, perhaps the two Parishes could employ a security company and share the cost.

District Cllr. M. Booth reported on the recent SBMAG meeting, referring to the Vitality classes for the over 60’s being held at the Curlew Centre and confirming that our District Councillors budget would be funding it for the rest of the year.

The Council agreed to give the Friends of Sutton Bridge Sports Pavilion £500 towards expenses to be incurred in raising funds and applying for grants etc.

Friends of Sutton Bridge Playing Fields and Open Spaces are requesting money from the S106 Fund to replace play equipment in the playgrounds.  Cllr. Croxford suggested the decision be postponed until they have found another suitable site for a play area.

Planning Application H18-0492-12.  This was the item referred to above and the council agreed to request a site visit from SHDC Planning Dept to discuss the issues Ms. Bostock had raised.

The SBCCFC have been granted extension of hours for events as 1 am for private functions and 2 am for New Year’s Eve only.

There is concern about the footpath alongside the Old School in Bridge Road as there is quite a drop from the footpath to the parking area in the Old School’s grounds.  A letter will be sent to the owners.

Since Bridge Road has been resurfaced it is now level, and in some places higher than the footpath, causing flooding during wet weather.  A letter will be sent LCC Highways requesting a remedy for the situation.

The bridge on Tydd Gote Road is to be repaired.  While repairs are being carried out the road will be closed and diversion signs placed directing traffic to the A1101.

The Allotment committee have met with some allotment tenants and have agreed to define plots with markers. They suggested that the tenants form themselves into a group to liaise with the Council.

An update on the S106 Fund was given, and it has been agreed that £100,000 be granted to the Snowgoose Wildlife Trust.  Standing Orders were suspended to allow Doug Hilton to answer councillors’ questions.

The PC are to cost signs to the effect of “Please Take Your Litter Home” at approaches to village despite Cllr Croxford saying that the problem is mainly caused by residents within the village.

It was agreed to produce another Parish Newsletter.



It is a pity that SBPC spend so much time listening to the sound of their own voices when, if they were well prepared and paid some attention to what they actually say, they might find the meetings considerably shorter. How they are going to make the August meeting short is difficult to know when so many items on the Agenda are mere formalities and there seems to be no attention given to the importance or relevance of items. So that important items, like the request from The Snowgoose Trust for S106 money was placed near the end despite the fact that it is an important item, and that Mr. & Mrs. Hilton had travelled a long way to attend the meeting.

It is also not very polite for a councillor to request at the beginning of a presentation by an invited speaker to ask that the presentation be short as they had a lot to get through and then during the evening spend so much time wittering on about things that should have previously been circulated to council members and referred to briefly at the meeting. Preparation beforehand is vital to the efficiency of any kind of business meeting.

A good example of where this did happen was in the case of the Snowgoose Trust's request for £100,000 of the S106 money. (Agenda Item 17). Clearly everyone had been apprised of the issues beforehand and three members were able to ask relevant questions. This was a prime example of how the PC should conduct its meetings.

¦ ⇑ Back to top of page ⇑ ¦

June 302012

Notes on the Sutton Bridge Parish Council Meeting
held on 26th June, 2012

Present: Councillors Grimwood (Chair), M. Booth, Dewsberry, Hills, J. Rowe, Croxford, S. Booth & Preston.

Apologies received from: Cllr Brewis (no reason given) but accepted anyway.

The public attendance was small: 10 plus Anthony Pearson from Lincolnshire County Council who spoke during the Open Forum on behalf of the latest Youth Project for the young people of Sutton Bridge. He wanted to set up a meeting with key people but he was having difficulty because the people he had already contacted had not got back to him. He highlighted the problems of there being no venue and the one favoured by the youngsters themselves was unsuitable because it had an alcohol licence and bar facilities.

A member of the public asked that the council should adopt a 'zero tolerance' attitude to fly-posting as the posters are rarely removed from where they have been placed, making the village unsightly.

Other questions from the public:

• Why is the Library van still coming to Sutton Bridge when we now have a Library?

• Cllr Croxford spoke as a parishioner to defend his neutral position in his campaign to make Tom's Wood on the Falklands available as a play area.

From now on any issues raised by 'the public' will, at the discretion of the PC, be made an Agenda item at future PC Meetings.

The Police Office is now open on Wednesdays, 2 pm to 4 pm alternate weeks, and 4 pm to 6pm alternate weeks.

The Chairman expressed disappointment that only two members of the public plus one councillor turned up to help with the litter picking during week beginning 18th June. On one day only two members of the Payback Scheme turned up so the Council has been given two free days to compensate, these being the weekend of 7th and 8th July, meeting at 10 am in the Memorial Park car park. The foul weather might have had something to do with the lack of support.

Major concerns:

Vandalism in the Memorial Park, particularly in the children's play area—broken glass, condoms, empty drinks cans and other damage.

RAF Memorial beyond repair—needs rebuilding.

Fly tipping (confused later with fly-posting) – an ongoing problem caused by vehicles offloading rubbish, often into lay-bys and other places.

Everyone urged to take photos, registration numbers report incident to police and SHDC, who will take action

Dog fouling – continues to be a problem and new notices are to be posted throughout the village about this offence.

There is no public toilet in Sutton Bridge. On-going discussion between SHDC & The Curlew Centre about promise to contribute towards cleaning costs.

Human faeces waste dumped in Sutton Bridge in Bloom flower container & A17 lay-by. One councillor said all the blame should not be attributed solely to lorry drivers.

Camera on Off Licence still not working despite assurances that it was.

Election for vacancy on PC will be held on 26th July.

Good news:

Wingland Foods to provide a Notice Board for the PC to commemorate the Jubilee.

District councillors have been allocated a further £5000 each to be spent on local community groups.

The Olympic Torch will be in Long Sutton on the 4th July, expected between 11 am and 12 noon. Then via A17 to King's Lynn.


This was an agenda item presumably in response to a public forum question about 'projects and things' that resulted in the 48% increase in Council Tax for Sutton Bridge.
Councillor Dewsberry presented a list of 'reserves':-

1. Burial Ground £20,000
2. Burial Ground On-going Costs £ 5,000
3. Play Areas £10,000
4. Signs & Village Furniture £ awaiting quotes
5. Grant Fund for Local Community £ 5,000
6. Outdated Office Equipment £ 2,500
7. Trees £ awaiting quotes
8. Litter Picking £ 1,000

Councillor Dewsberry then asked rhetorically, "Have we answered the question?"

Other matters:

No advancement in Sports Pavilion scheme—work in progress, seeking funding etc.

Complaint ref overhanging trees on their property, resident to be kept informed of PC progress.

Concern of resident regarding unacceptable behaviour by footballers to be sent to SBFC asking what action they intend to apply to remedy situation.

Invitation received from Sedlec (Charter of Friendship Group) to visit in late September during the 28/29 September to coincide with the Feast of St Wenceleslas. Invitation is open to all residents of Sutton Bridge. Interested people to contact Cllr. David Dewsberry.

Knotweed in Arnie Broughton Walk: sprayed last week. Will take minimum of 3 years to eradicate before ground can be safely levelled. Anglian Water aware of knotweed at their site on Bridge Road.

Marina Project: further discussion on funding arrangements for project. Council finally agreed to accept the funding arrangements as explained in letter from SHDC knowing that £136,000 will still be left in the S106 pot.

Details of overgrown hedges alongside footpaths in various parts of the village are to be referred to the Highways Dept.

Broken manhole cover in Railway Lane North not fit for purpose, currently covered by yellow board. Matter being referred to LCC.

SBCCFC – AGM being held on 9th October. Craft Fair planned for end October/early November. A Race night and a Children's Christmas Party are also being planned.



Public Forum: the question of democratic representation

When there was no comment on issues brought up in the Forum at the meeting in May it was as though the PC paid no regard to what members of 'the public' had to say.

In a sort of answer to this the Chairman said that his advice from LALC was that 'debate' in a Public Forum should be discouraged.

On a previous occasion we know that a LALC person had said that 'barrack room lawyers' should be stamped on in Public Forums.

It appears that the LALC position supports the view that democratic interchange is to be avoided.

Based obviously on majority discussion of what to do about the criticism of lack of democracy in Sutton Bridge, the PC's response to all this was that, if they considered it necessary, issues raised in a Public Forum would in future be put on the agenda for the next meeting.

But just consider the process.

1. Somebody raises an issue in a Public Forum—no immediate answers are forthcoming.

2. The issue may, at the discretion of the PC, be put on the next agenda where, on previous evidence, 'debate' by councillors will be pretty hit & miss, to say the least of it.

3. The person who originally raised the issue could respond to what councillors might have said in 2 at the next Public Forum two months after the original raising of the issue.

4. Under the new dispensation, the PC may, in their wisdom, put this on the agenda for the next meeting... and so on.

5. By which time the issue will have faded away from lack of interest/enthusiasm.

Thus democracy in Sutton Bridge... It's no wonder that interest in local affairs is pretty well nil.

There's a psychological principle that reinforcement of a response should take place within 45 seconds or it has no power to reinforce.

We are here talking about one month, two months, three months... The interchange becomes a complete waste of time & energy. It all sinks into the sand. Nobody stays the course - certainly not most of the councillors. And who can blame them?

On the other hand, at least one enlightened Parish Council in the land not only has a public forum at the beginning of a PC meeting but it also has a session at the end of a meeting in which 'the public' has an opportunity to make immediate responses to what's been said in the meeting.

Instead of which Parish Meetings in Sutton Bridge expire into closed-up-ness.


Councillor Hills suggested that the vandalism in the village was, amongst other things, likely to be the result of there being no provision for the youth. The Parish Council does not seem to take this issue seriously. What happened to the idea of provision for the youth being made in the new Community Centre?

Anthony Pearson should be given every support possible.

Any new notices about Vandalism, as suggested during the meeting, will probably be vandalised.

Sports Pavilion - what happened to the amount that was set aside for the provision of sport facilities in the new Community Centre?

The chairman requested that the August Meeting be 'short' because it is the holiday period and people have other commitments. All Meetings could be considerably shorter if councillors involved themselves in concise, constructive debate of issues rather than indulge in their own opinions and repeating points that have already been made. This wittering-on usually occurs at around 8.30pm —their watershed moment!

¦ ⇑ Back to top of page ⇑ ¦

June 52012

Notes on the Sutton Bridge Parish Council Meeting
held at The Curlew Centre on 29th May, 2012

This meeting was held in the Diamond Room at the new centre where the acoustics are appalling for such a meeting. It was extremely difficult to hear what was being said by the parishioners in Open Forum or by Parish Councillors in response or during the meeting. In addition music being played at another event being held in the Jubilee Room upstairs, could be clearly heard. What follows may contain omissions because it was impossible to hear what was being said at all times.


Mr. Pointer reported that he cannot find an insurance company to insure his property for building insurance as his neighbour has a claim for damage to his property which he believes is caused by a guillotine at the factory adjoining their properties. Although the machine has been moved to the other side of the factory floor, when this machine is in use the shock can still be felt in their houses.

Mr. Pointer believes that this former warehouse is not suitable for heavy engineering purposes as it is so close to residential properties. He is hoping that SHDC, by granting planning permission to this engineering company, have not made his home uninsurable.

Mr. Shapland asked why Item 24 is included on this agenda as it was requested at the discretion of the last chairman, who had jumped ship. As the previous chairman is no longer a Parish Councillor, why was it being included?

Mr. Blundell referred to his letter to the PC, and also his question at the last PC meeting, when he asked what exactly were the specific projects proposed by the PC that incurs an increase of 48% in the Parish Precept. He was still awaiting clarification.

Mrs. Blundell, referred to a letter Cllr. Brewis had written to the local press of May 22nd stating he was ashamed of his County Council, accusing them of secrecy and not being open.

She referred to the insert (from Cllrs Brewis and Booth) on the Council Tax for Sutton Bridge that was delivered with Cllr. Brewis's Newsletter, which effectively masked the 48% rise in Council Tax for SB. The 48% figure was the one SHDC printed on the Council Tax demand.

Cllr. Brewis had talked about a figure of 3.85%, and while he knew what his figures meant, she doubted if the majority of people in Sutton Bridge receiving his newsletter did. She said this was not being very 'open'.

Mrs. Grimwood said the sound was awful and nobody could hear what was being said.

Mr. Ford referred to Item 24 on the agenda, concerning the Marina development, stating he was a director of Nene Marine and wondered why the PC continued to discuss this matter when approval for a marina had been given at a SBPC meeting several years ago. He considered that it was sour grapes and a case of shutting the stable door after the event.

1. TO ELECT A CHAIRMAN – Cllr. J. Grimwood was elected.

2. CHAIRMAN'S DECLARATION OF ACCEPTANCE – Cllr, Grimwood pledged to do his best for the parishioners of Sutton Bridge.

3. TO ELECT A VICE-CHAIRMAN – Cllr., M. Booth was elected Vice Chairman.

4. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE with reasons – Cllr. T. Rowe – he was baby sitting.

5. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST - to receive Declarations of Interest in accordance with the 2000 Local Government Act. Cllr. M. Booth declared his interest in allotments and Cllr. S. Booth declared his interest in allotments and the SBCCF.

6. SIGNING OF THE MINUTES – Notes from meeting held on 24th April 2012 to be accepted as minutes. Resolved.

7. POLICE MATTERS – To include update on Community Engagement Model Group – there were two police officers present. It was confirmed that there would be a police presence in the Police office of the new centre on 6th June from 2pm to 6 pm. After that there would be a police presence at the police office for two hours every Wednesday when the hours would be staggered, say, 2 pm to 4 pm one week, 5 pm to 7 pm another week, and so on. Only the day being regular, not the hours.

It was reported to the police officers present that vehicles were still parking incorrectly on West Bank and also without lights.

8. CHAIRMAN'S REMARKS - the letter box old Parish Office had been damaged so Cllr. Grimwood had boarded it up with a piece of wood. The breach of the sea wall had almost been completed, the cable laid across the marsh and that Centrica had observed all necessary cautions.

The East Bank Lighthouse would be open at weekends during August .

9. CLERK'S REPORT – the election for the vacant position of councillor would take place on 26th July. A discussion took pace regarding this situation and it was agreed that to save costs no polling cards would be issued. There is an ongoing matter about the CCTV in SB. The internal audit had not yet been completed. Risk assessments had been carried out.

10. TO RECEIVE REPORTS FROM DISTRICT AND COUNTY COUNCILLORS – Cllr. M. Booth stated there had recently been a good SBMAG meeting. He reported that the repairs and insulation of the various council houses in the area had been completed.

a. Accounts for payment 29.5.12:



Chq. No.




Johnston Publishing

APM Advert





S H Everitt

Hoist for tree lights






Photocopier (Apr)






Photocopier (May)





Wingland Grasscutting

Parish cuts






District mowing






Litter picking





N J Portass

Picnic area





S England

Clerk’s Expenses











Cheque No. 000080 - Clerk's Salary to be added.

b. Money In: Allotment rent 4602.12
Repayment of surplus Chairman's allowance 208.70
Precept 77000.00
VAT reclaim 1341.01

Cllr. Dewsberry confirmed all was in order and that invoices would be paid.

c. To review Financial Regulations - agreed

d. To review Council's Inventory of Assets - agreed

e. To review Insurance cover and resolve appropriately - agreed

f. To sign off end of year accounts - agreed

g. To approve Audit Return for 2012 - agreed

h. To resolve to approve payment of the Chairman's allowance for the sum of £500 - agreed. Cllr. Grimwood stated he would do the same as the previous office holder, and return any unspent allowance to the PC.

a. Items of correspondence for comment:
(i) Letter, parishioner – re vandalism to Memorial Park play area
(ii) E-mail, parishioner – re condition of Memorial Park play area
(iii) E-mail, parishioner – FOI request
(iv) E-mail, Lincs Free Press – FOI request
(v) Letter, SB & LS Ostomy Club – Thanks
(vi) Letter, parishioner – Re Falklands open area
(vii) E-mail, parishioner – Re grass verge along Falklands Rd
(viii) E-mail, parishioner – Traffic issues, King John Bank – see agenda item 21
(ix) Letter, SHDC Planning – plot of land between 130 & 134a Bridge Rd
(x) Letter, Audit Commission – Appointment of new external auditor
(xi) E-mail, Community Action Projects for National Citizen Service 2012
(xii) Letter, Ark Housing Consultancy – Request for information re needs of gypsies, travellers
and travelling show people

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

(i) Newsletters, Rural Services Network - issues 23/4, 30/4, 7/5, 14/5, 21/5 – 2012
(ii) E-mail, SHDC – Local Heritage Grants
(iii) E-mail, HMRC – Employer alerts
(iv) Newsletter – 'My Colony' Allotment News
(v) Newsletters, LCVS – 'Newsbite' issues 11,12,13,14,15 - 2012
(vi) E-mail, SHDC – 'People Postcode Grants', new funding round now open
(vii) Newsletter – 'Satchels', school travel information
(viii) E-mail, SHDC – 'Sing South Holland' concert, Sat 9th June
(ix) E-mail, LCC – 'Joint Health & Well Being' strategy
(x) E-mail, SHDC – Village SOS Fund
(xi) E-mail, Rural Services Network – Opportunities bulletin
(xii) E-mail, SHDC – Olympic Torch Relay information
(xiii) E-mail, Grange wind Farm – copy of letter sent to provide traffic update for residents
(xiv) Letter, confirmation that grass cutting contractor has received information contained in the updated Safety Code of Practice (CPE1) – 'Verge Mowing by Parishes'
(xv) Letter, Norfolk CC – Information re Mineral Site Dev Plan & Waste Site Dev Plan
(xvi) Letter, First Contact – Details of community event, Wed 30th May, 16.30-19.00, Holbeach United FC Social Club, Park Road, Holbeach
(xvii) E-mail, SHDC – Information re Community Gardens Project E-mail, SHDC – from a resident saying that the area under discussion is privately owned and therefore should not be the concern of the Parish Council, or SHDC.


H18-0344-12 (Flood Risk Assessment) - Proposed wind turbine, 91 Peters Point
Rd, SB – Mr & Mrs Neve.
H18-0338-12 – Change of use of 3 outbuildings previously used for photo lab to
domestic use, 48 New Rd, Sutton Bridge – Mr K Oldroyd
H18-0394-12 (Flood Risk assessment) – Change of use of rear of shop to 1 bed
flat (retrospective), (Re-application following refusal of H18-1024-10), 88 Bridge Rd, SB – Mr R Green

H18-0115-12 (Conditions 3,4,5 & 6 of Permission H18-0748-10) - Details of
materials of construction, surfacing materials and sections of all works to the river
embankment, archaeological report, external lighting to parking areas and
construction to be accordance with Flood Risk assessment, Sutton Bridge Marina,
West Bank, SB – Lincs County Council, Economic Regeneration, Waterside South,
H18-0066-12 – Variation of condition 2 of H18-0743-10 to allow amended
works/parking bays and removal of condition 8 of H18-0743-10 relating to signage,
Sutton Bridge Marina – Lincs County Council, Economic Regeneration, Waterside
South, Lincoln.
H18-0170-12 – Proposed wind turbine, Fenberry Farm, Peters Point, SB –
Mr K Hargreaves, Fenberry Farm, SB.
Refused: N/A

New: N/A
H18-0350-12 – New brick skin to external perimeter of dwelling, 'Jubilee', Wharf
Street, SB – Mrs R Marshall.
H18-0399-12 – Proposed ground floor extension and alterations, 'Rest haven', 70
New Rd, SB – Mr A Slade.
H18-0392-12 – Proposed two-storey extension and alterations. 'Leamside', Guys
Head Rd, SB – Mr & Mrs Frost.

Very little discussion was evident on any of the new applications.

Refused: N/A

a. Update on outstanding matters –
• New road markings are to be made east side of the swing bridge on the A17.
• Dog fouling in Bridge Road/New Road was still a problem and members of the public are requested to report the owners of dogs seen to be fouling the pavements.
b. To report any new matters

15. TO RECEIVE REPORTS FROM WORKING PARTIES & COMMITTEES (Unless detailed below; any action recommended in reports to be included for resolution on next agenda)

A. Churchyard and Playing Fields – Cllr Grimwood, Hills, T Rowe -
• Cllr. Grimwood stated that a fence was broken between the churchyard and the playing field.
• The spraying of the knotweed in the Arnie Broughton Walk would soon be done and that notices advising the public that this would be going on were to be posted at the entrances of the Memorial Park.
• The rubbish bin at the East Bank Lighthouse had not been emptied.
• The river bank viewing area of the workings on the marsh had been improved.
• He had collected two full sacks of rubbish from the picnic area, 80% of which was McDonald's wrappers. It was suggested to contact McDonalds to ask them to clear it.
• The village sign in Bridge Road that had been knocked down is to be repositioned.
• A bench in the Arnie Broughton Walk had been broken in two.

B. Allotments – Cllrs Brewis, Croxford, Preston – no Report

C. Personnel Committee – Cllrs Booth, Brewis, Croxford, Preston – no report

D. Footpaths & Byeways – Cllrs M Booth, Hills, Preston - The machinery that had been blocking a Right of Way had been moved to allow access to pedestrians

E. Burial Ground Committee – Cllrs Grimwood, Hills, J Rowe – Cllr. Mrs. Hills reported that contact had been made again with Premier Foods about the portion of land they owned in the Arnie Broughton Walk area and that the matter now has to go through their legal department. A positive response is expected.

F. Parish Newsletter – Cllrs Dewsberry, Preston
• It was suggested and agreed that ex councillor Mr. C. Brandon-King be co-opted to edit the newsletter planned for July.
• Cllr. Mrs. Rowe stated that it should be a member of the PC and not a member of the public.

G. Farmers Market – Cllrs Grimwood, Hills - no report

Proposal put forward by Allotment working party:

(i) To Resolve to split each vacant garden allotment plot in Wrights Lane into two equal halves; to be let separately. After twenty minutes of discussion, which was barely audible due to the loud music being played in another part of the building, it is difficult to say whether or not this matter had been agreed.

16. TO REVIEW COMMITTEES & WORKING PARTIES (To include, Finance Committee: currently Cllrs Dewsberry, Grimwood & Hills and Planning working party: currently Cllrs S Booth & J Rowe) The membership of the committees was reviewed in the light of Mr. Brandon-King's departure from the Council.


a. Phillips and Allen's Charities – Cllrs Croxford, Dewsberry, Preston – no report

b. Voluntary Car Scheme – Cllr Grimwood – this scheme improves year upon year.

c. SBCCFC – Cllr S Booth - reported that they had had a very successful Fun Day in the Park, that they were pleased with the amount raised and with the publicity given in the local press

d. LALC – Cllr M Booth - no report

e. Holbeach Senior Links – Cllr Dewsberry – reported that with the resignation of the previous Chairman, no one else is will to chair meetings.

f. Power Station Liaison – Cllr Hills – no report

g. K. L. Advisory Group Special Area of Cons. – Cllr Grimwood – covered earlier in the meeting.

h. Charter of Friendship Group – Cllrs Dewsberry & T Rowe – Cllr. Dewsberry is awaiting a reply from the Czechs

i. Grange Wind Farm Liaison Group – Cllrs Grimwood & Preston – Cllr. Grimwood reported that a further £10,000 was available to voluntary groups. Applications to be submitted by July.

j. The Suttons Emergency Planning Group – no report

k. Sutton Bridge Multi Agency Group – it was agreed that Cllr. Mrs. Preston would be the representative for the PC.

18. TO REVIEW COUNCIL REPRESENTATION ON EXTERNAL BODIES (To include; Community Engagement Model Group: currently Cllr J Rowe)



21. TO CONSIDER CONTENT OF CORRESPONDENCE ITEM 9a(viii) CONCERNING TRAFFIC ISSUES ALONG KING JOHN BANK AND RESOLVE APPROPRIATELY – considered and resolved to refer the matter to the police and advise local residents to do the same.

22. TO RESOLVE ON CHANGING FINGER BOARDS AT THE BRIDGE AND OUTSIDE THE CURLEW CENTRE TO READ 'THE CURLEW CENTRE' (currently 'Village Hall') – the question arose on whether the cost was for one or two new signs. It was mentioned there were three. The Clerk to check, and matter to be put on the agenda for the next meeting.

23. TO RECEIVE UPDATE CONCERNING DONATION TO THE PARISH BY WINGLAND FOODS IN RECOGNITION OF THE DIAMOND JUBILEE AND RESOLVE APPROPRIATELY – Cllrs Hills & Preston – Cllr. Mrs. Hills stated they had attended a meeting with Wingland Foods and had suggested they might like to subscribe to new village sign boards. This prompted quite a discussion. Cllr. Mrs. Rowe stated that as the PC had not organised any events for the Diamond Jubilee but had promised to support the RBL in their organised event, she suggested that the £200 handed back into the coffers by Mr. Brandon-King be granted to this event. Cllr. Brewis was definitely against this proposal. A heated discussion then followed with the Chairman taking hold of the meeting. Cllr. Mrs. Preston also tried to calm Cllr. Brewis and was firmly shrugged off by him. It was resolved that as the PC had already promised to support any other Diamond Jubilee event that £200 be granted to the RBL.

Cllr. Mrs. Rowe left the chamber having declared an interest in the next item. She left declaring that Cllr Brewis, in relation to the Marina, could now 'get his own back' for her success over the Jubilee donation.

24. TO DISCUSS AND RESOLVE ON WHETHER THE PARISH COUNCIL SUPPORTS THE SPENDING OF £830,000; INCLUDING £400,000 S106 FUNDS; ON A MARINA FOR SUTTON BRIDGE - several of the councillors present confirmed that they support the Marina Project, but do not support the £400,000 S106 money being spent on it. It was pointed out that the figure of £830,000 was nothing to do with SBPC, and that it should be struck from the resolution. However, it was agreed that £250,000 S106 funding had been pledged to the Marina Project originally, and that should stand, but the remaining £150,000 had originally been allocated to an East Bank Light House Project, which had folded. The contention being that this £150,000 was then reallocated to the Marina Project without reference to SBPC. It is money that is needed for other projects such as the Pavilion.

25. TO RESOLVE TO REFUND COMPENSATION RECEIVED FROM THE DRAINAGE BOARD IN RESPECT OF DAMAGE CAUSED BY 'MUDDING OPERATIONS' TO THE ALLOTMENT HOLDERS AFFECTED BY THE WORKS – Cllrs. M & S. Booth left the chamber, having declared interest. After a lengthy discussion, (little of which could be heard), it was agreed to resolve the matter. The amount in question is about £71.00.

26. TO RESOLVE ON REFURBISHMENT OF VILLAGE SIGNS – Finance Committee – it was agreed that the signs at the west end and at the village green to have the words 'Gateway to Lincolnshire" removed and replaced with 'Welcome to Sutton Bridge and "Sutton Bridge Welcomes Careful Drivers". It was also resolved to include recent 'in-bloom' awards. The sign on the A17 would retain the words 'Gateway to Lincolnshire'.

27. TO RESOLVE TO AUTHORISE CLLR GRIMWOOD TO ORGANISE A PARISH LITTER/RUBBISH CLEARANCE EVENT OVER THREE CONSECUTIVE DAYS IN LIAISON WITH THE COMMUNITY PAYBACK TEAM – The Community Payback Team are coming to Sutton Bridge for three days in June to help with tidying up the village, litter picking etc. The dates agreed are 18th, 19th and 21st June.




At this point the members of the Press and Public were requested to leave.

GROUNDS OF CONFIDENTIALITY (Detail of discussions not for publication by virtue of Section 100(A) para. 4 of the Local Government Act 1972)







¦ ⇑ Back to top of page ⇑ ¦

May 82012

Notes on the Sutton Bridge Parish Council Meeting
held at The Curlew Centre on 24th April, 2012


Karen Bostock spoke of her concern that there is nothing for young people to do in the village since the Youth Club closed.  She went on to say that the Councillors were elected to organise such things for the community and asked what the Council intended to do for the children of Sutton Bridge.  Karen also said that although she understood there were local funds available such as the S106 monies, and although she did not fully understand how that all worked, she was aware of a lot of argument about what was happening to the funds.

The response was that since funding from LCC for youth services had been withdrawn, no one body had been able to raise the funds needed for the refurbishment of the Youth Club building.  Efforts were being made to regenerate a youth club and provision had been made for them in the new community centre. 

However, Karen said that the youth needed their own place, not a room where everything had to be stored away after one evening's usage. 

The response was that meetings had been set up with the new youth worker Sam Newton and two meetings had already been held.

With no funding available for a youth club, local volunteers were being sought, but volunteers are put off by having to have CRB checks, which cost money.  Major conflicts of interest for funds were being experienced, in particular a large amount of the S106 fund had been allocated to the Marina, the new Community Centre and some in reserve for the refurbishment/rebuild of the sports pavilion.    

Cllr. Brewis stated that the Lincs CVS may be able to finance the costs of the necessary CRB's required for people working with children and young people. 

Cllr. M. Booth invited Karen to the next MAG meeting being held on 30th April at the Curlew Centre.

Karen also voiced her disappointment that nothing had been organised by the Parish Council for the Queen's Jubilee and that she thought that space in the Parish Council's newsletter could have been used more effectively than listing how many times a councillor had attended PC meetings, and that she, like many others had looked for help from the Parish Council.

The response was that the PC had pledged to support any event for the Queen's Jubilee.

Mr. Fenton stated there were big cracks in the road near his home, and that HGV's were parking on the highway without lights.  The village sign at the west end of the village had been pushed into the dike.  The problem of noise etc in the factory in the building behind his home continued.  His neighbour had been unable to get insurance for their home, and he himself had also waited a month for a reply from his insurers.  He stated that the company in question had gas cylinders stored inside the building, and had recently taken delivery of a diesel tank without an under tank.

Cllr. M. Booth responded that modern diesel tanks were tanks within a tank and therefore did not require to have an under tank. 

Again Mr. Fenton reiterated that vehicles were parking too close to the junction, and that HGV's were parking on the wrong side of the road without lights.  Workmen were using a front loading fork lift truck on the highway which he considered dangerous.  Lorry drivers were leaving bottles of urine on the verges. 

In response it was stated that it is not a criminal offence to take work outside a company's premises unless it violated the planning conditions.  Mr. Fenton was advised to make copies of all exchanges of correspondence he had made with the company and to send copies to SHDC.   Cllr. Brewis had offered his assistance to Mr. Fenton.

Cllr. Brandon-King stated he was speaking as a resident and again stated his grave concern about the way the Nene Marine project was being handled.  He had requested the leaders of the SHDC to pause the proceedings that were being bull dozed through for a reappraisal of the business plans and feasibility studies.  He referred to the lack of discussion of the £150,000 S106 money that had been allocated from other projects to the Marina project, and the two glaring errors in their feasibility study.  He, John Grimwood and Cllr. Brewis had called on leaders at SHDC to investigate that no S106 money be provided until a new business plan/feasibility study had been produced.

Paul Crinian stated that in the 17 years he had lived in Custom House Street it appeared not to have been cleared or cleaned and that in weather such as we were currently experiencing, water was pouring across the road making it difficult to get in and out of their houses.

He was advised the problem would be dealt with by two different agencies.  The first being the Highways department, and the second being SHDC for the cleaning.  It was suggested to him that he would get a quicker response if he telephoned the SHDC Waste Management Department, and the Highways department about the lorries parking in Lime Street making it very difficult for other drivers to get out of the street safely.

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE with reasons – no apologies received.

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST - to receive Declarations of Interest in accordance with the 2000 Local Government Act. Cllrs. M and S. Booth both declared their interests in the Allotments and Community Centre, and Cllr. Ms. Hills declared interest in the FOSBPF.

3. SIGNING OF THE MINUTES – Notes from meeting held on 27th March 2012
to be accepted as minutes
. Agreed

4. POLICE MATTERS – To include update on Community Engagement Model Group – with no persons present to give an update it was stated a letter had been received from PCSO Ben Harrington & Cllr. J. Rowe that the next meeting would be on 4th July, at the Long Sutton Fire Station

5. CHAIRMAN'S REMARKS - he stated that councillors should not write letters to the press using their status as a councillor unless acting with Parish Council permission.

• With the continual referral from the public about the 48% increase in the Parish precept, he stated that as the document had been available for perusal, it was a lack of understanding by the public of how the precept is raised.
• There had been an extraordinary meeting with Cllr. Eddie Poll and two others about the Marina project. The meeting had proved to be unsatisfactory in the responses given to the questions that had been raised.
• It had been learned that LCC would be the owners of the Marina, Fenland DC would be managers and there appeared to be an agreement with the land owners.
• That the pontoons had been secretly ordered and delivered into storage at Wisbech.
• At the APM a presentation had been made by PREL about their intention to build a "gasifier" (incinerator) on the Wingland site.
• The Chairman said praise had been heaped on the SBPC through a letter to the Lincolnshire Free Press on 3rd April, 2012, so concluded they were getting things right.

6. CLERK'S REPORT - the matter of the litter bin at the bus stop in Bridge Road had been taken up with SHDC.

• Four of the new bollards had already been damaged, so a request had been made to have all of them changed so they are all the same type.
• The new indications for the finger signposts would cost £360.00 plus another £40 to install as they were not of a standard size. Matter placed on the next agenda.
• Still looking into the prospects of CCTV.
• Application forms for bus passes now available at the Parish office.
• The External Audit will take place on the 16th July; meanwhile the accounts can be viewed by appointment from 12th June to 10th July.
• New village signs would cost in the region of £3000 to £4000 each.
• Council led Litter Pick on 28th April, meeting at the Memorial Park at 10 am.
• SBPC to enter Best Kept Village 50th anniversary competition. Mrs. Hardy of SBiB had drafted a poster and also provided a map highlighting areas of interest. Letters will be sent to local businesses to advise of the new category to include businesses, with best kept and clean frontages etc.

At this point Standing Orders were suspended to allow a group of young children a chance to put in their request for decent play equipment in the Lime Street Play area.

Young Oliver was elected their speaker and listed the items they would like to have in their local play area. The young boy also explained there was also a lot of broken glass there as well and his friend had suffered a cut playing there. One of the items they would really like is a round-a-bout and he thanked the PC for allowing them to speak.

Cllr. John Grimwood stated there was a lack of play equipment at the Lime Street area. He said it was established that SHDC owned the land and several requests for new equipment had been made to them, without result. However the Parish Council would do their best to get some new equipment.

Mrs. Grimwood said that the FOSBPOS were trying to obtain grants from various funding bodies and was hopeful they would get some funds to enable more play equipment to be provided.

The children were thanked for coming along to put their request before the PC. They then left the gallery.

Standing Orders were reinstated.

7. TO RECEIVE REPORTS FROM DISTRICT AND COUNTY COUNCILLORS – Cllr. M. Booth stated that Cllr. Nick Worth would be meeting with all Parish Councillors in regard the continuing use of CCTV.

• He also stated that he would arrange to meet with the children in the Lime Street Play area to talk about their recent request.
• Cllr. Dewsberry suggested SHDC be asked to transfer the land of the Lime street play area to the responsibility of the SBPC.
• The Clerk stated she had written to Karen Johnson for information of where to apply for relevant funds.
• The planning permission for the proposed Sutton Bridge Travellers site had run out and needed renewal.
• The District Councillors Budget had now run out with the final amount being paid to Mr. J. Cooper to keep the Rose Garden in Railway Lane North in good order.
• There had been a very useful SBMAG meeting in February and the next was scheduled for the 30th April.
• The trees that had been planted and stolen along New Road and Guys Head Road had been replaced.
• The wooden planters purchased for the SBiB were nearly all finished and were being stored at Cllr. Booth's farm.
• All promised equipment from this fund had now been paid.


Cllr. Dewsberry said there had been a meeting of the Finance Committee and all invoices had been agreed.

a. Accounts for payment 24.4.12:



Chq. No.




Lincs Ass. Of Local C'cils

Annual Sub





SH Vol. Car Scheme

Annual contribution





Carter Jonas

Land Rent





Mrs J Ripley

Exps, Feb-Apr











Henry Smith Charity

Land Rent





KL Int Drainage Board

Drainage Rates





SH Int Drainage Board

Drainage Rates











Wingland G'cutting






Wingland G'cutting

Parish mowing





Wingland G'cutting

District mowing





S England






The Clerk advised that since the agenda had been issued further cheques had been written.

It was agreed that all invoices be settled.

b. Money In:
Allotment Rent 1777.25
HMRC – Refund due to overpyt. In 2010-11 676.44
Total: 2453.69

c. To resolve on Grant application for Sutton Bridge and Long Sutton Ostomy Club – It was agreed to grant the sum of £200.

d. To resolve on funds to be allocated to reserves for year end 31st March 2012 – (details of these can be obtained from the PC office) Resolved.

a. Items of correspondence for comment:

(i) E-mail, member of the public – FOI request – The PC do not hold the information and the member of the public had been informed.
(ii) E-mail, parishioner – FOI request – an exemption applies.
(iii) Letter, Royal British Legion – Enquiry concerning Queen's Diamond Jubilee – The Pc will support any organised event, but will not be organising one.
(iv) E-mail, parishioner – Matters relating to precept – this letter was read out. The Chairman stated that the writer had seen a copy of the Precept months ago and questioned why make calls on it now. The current newsletter covers the first six months, the next will cover the period from November 2011 to April 2012 .
(v) Letter, Lincs County Council – Request for feedback on SE Lincs Local Plan, see agenda item 20
(vi) E-mail, parishioner – Request for play equipment, Lime Street – already discussed

To resolve on investigating the possibility of providing extra play equipment in the Lime Street play area. Resolved

(vii) E-mail, Wingland Foods – Donation to Sutton Bridge, see agenda item 17
(viii) Letter, SHDC Monitoring Officer – Information, to be reported in closed session
(ix) 'Hire of Memorial Park' form, SBCCFC – completed for Family Fete to be held 26.5.12

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

(i) Letter, Lincs CC – Local Plan publicity poster
(ii) Newsletter, Community Lincs – Community & Play news
(iii) Notice, Big Bloomers – Annual Fundraiser, Sat 26th May, St Matthews Church, 12-4 pm
(iv) Newsletter, The Suttons police team – Details on notice boards
(v) E-mail, Lincs CC – Lincs parking policy
(vi) E-mail, Lincs CC – Information relating to Civil Parking Enforcement
(vii) E-mail, Nat Assoc of Local Councils – Future Homes Commission Consultation
(viii) E-mail, Lincs CC – Waste Recycling Centre opening times
(ix) E-mail, Market House Photographic Group – Photographic Competition, for entry details tel.
01406 366767
(x) Letter, SHDC – Information relating to Spalding Flower Parade
(xi) E-mail, SHDC – Police Property Act Fund
(xii) Newsletter – Tulip Radio
(xiii) Email, SHDC – details of changes to Lincs Community Vol Services
(xiv) Email, SHDC – Amateur photographic competition. Free entries accepted 1.4.12 – 1.9.12
(xv) Newsletters, Rural Services Network – 26.3.12, 2.4.12, 10.4.12, 16.4.12
(xvi) Newsletter, Came & Co – Insurance information
(xvii) E-mail, NALC – 2012 Events
(xviii) Newsletter, SLCVS – Issue 10, 2012
(xix) Newsletter, Longhurst Group – Spring 2012
(xx) E-mail, SHDC – Sports coaching bursaries
(xxi) E-mail, SHDC - Summer Fun brochure 2012
(xxii) E-mail, SHDC – Information relating to recruitment of an 'Independent Person' for South Holland
and the towns and parishes within it


H18-0278-12 (Renewal) – Provision of gypsy and traveller caravan site with 10
pitches (temporary stopping place), land off Centenary way, SB – South Holland
District Council.

• SBPC are to strenuously object to this application as it is unnecessary and unwanted. If the proposed planning application by PREL is granted, with the increase in the traffic already using that road it would be increasingly dangerous to travellers not aware of the extra volume and increase chances of injury.
• Cllr. Brewis stated he had heard it said they would build the site then throw away the key. It is important that the residents of Sutton Bridge have an opportunity to say whether they are for or against have the travellers Site.
• Cllr. Brewis proposed that the PC restate their original objections and resend them.

H10-0290-12 – (Flood Risk Assessment) – Erection of 500kw wind turbine with
access tracks, electricity switchroom and underground connection cables, Land
adjacent to A17, Long Sutton – Susenco Management Ltd. Noted that this application did not fall within the boundaries of this Parish.
H18-0055-12 – Part use of first floor accom as either office space (B1) or for a
purpose ancillary to community centre, The Curlew Centre, SB – SBCC, The
Curlew Centre, Bridge Rd, SB.
H18-1024-11 – Modification to sea defence North of SB, Land East of River Nene
and North of secondary sea defence, Wingland – Lincs Wind Farm Ltd, Millstream,
Maidenhead Rd, Windsor.
H18-1019-11 – Conversion of care home into 12 flats, Wharf Street, SB – IMN
Properties, 116 London Rd, Long Sutton.
H18-0098-12 – Removal of condition 5 of H18-0793-10 relating to erection of timber
fencing, Memorial Park, SB – Mr P Clery.

No further objections raised.

Refused: N/A

New: N/A

H18-0102-12 – Erection of pair of semi-detached dwellings, 217 Bridge Rd, SB –
Mr M Baggaley, 217 Bridge Rd, SB

Refused: N/A

a. Update on outstanding matters – nothing outstanding
b. To report any new matters – Cllr. Dewsberry stated that the hedge adjacent to 208 Bridge Road had again grown half way over the footpath and people were being forced to walk in the road. The Clerk to write to owners.

(Unless detailed below; any action recommended in reports to be included for resolution on next agenda)

A. Churchyard and Playing Fields – Cllr Grimwood, Hills, T Rowe - Cllr. Grimwood Cllr. Grimwood stated that damage had occurred to the pitch when a player sustained an injury and an ambulance had driven onto the pitch to attend the player.
• The large gate in the Memorial Park is corroding badly and needs attending to.
• Cllr. Grimwood had replaced the rotting wooden seat with a new one on one of the toddler swings.
• The Knotweed in the Arnie Broughton Walk was coming under manageable control but as small patches are still sprouting, it is necessary to get quotations for the spraying that needs to be done at the proper time.
• The village sign at the West end of the village had been pushed over.

B. Allotments – Cllrs Brewis, Croxford, Preston – there had been several applications for allotments, and enquiries about subdividing one or two.

(i) To resolve to request the Allotments working party to identify those allotment
holders who are failing to adequately maintain their plots
. Resolved.

C. Personnel Committee – Cllrs Booth, Brewis, Croxford, Preston – No report

D. Footpaths & Byeways (to include update on 'The Nene Local Access Forum) – Cllrs M Booth, Hills, Preston – Cllr. M. Booth referred to the piece of farm machinery allegedly blocking a Right of Way, and stated it would be moved further to the side to allow pedestrian access.

• Dog fouling on footpaths appeared to be on the increase. Residents are requested to remind the dog's handler if the animal is seen committing an offence or otherwise report the matter to the Environmental Health Dept.
• Cllr. Grimwood suggested that the small plastic notices about the offence of dog fouling should be put on more lamp posts.
• Cllr. Mrs. Hills advised that Mr. Laws was abandoning the project of the walk between Sutton Bridge & Long Sutton due to lack of support.

E. Burial Ground Committee – Cllrs Brandon-King, Grimwood, Hills, J Rowe – Cllr. Mrs. Hills reported that they were awaiting dates for the trial pits to be done, and that they were still awaiting a reply from Premier Foods.

Resolutions put forward by Burial Ground Committee;

(i) To resolve to employ Cemetery Development Services to produce draft plans
for the new burial ground
- Resolved

(ii) To resolve to allocate £3000 of PC funds to produce the draft plan subject to
satisfactory outcome of trial pits, soil analysis testing (if required); and agreement in principle from landowner to sell the land
– Resolved.

G. Parish Newsletter – Cllrs Brandon-King, Dewsberry, Preston – Cllr. Brandon-King stated that delivery of the Parish Newsletter had started the previous weekend and that a copy was now on the PC's website.

H. Farmers Market – Cllrs Grimwood, Hills – No report


a. Phillips and Allen's Charities – no report
b. Voluntary Car Scheme – although Cllr. Grimwood is now a volunteer driver for this organisation it was agreed there would be no conflict of interest if he stays on as the PC representative.
c. SBCCFC – no report
d. LALC – No report
e. Holbeach Senior Links – meets 25th April.
f. Power Station Liaison – no report
g. Kings Lynn Advisory Group Special Area of Conservation – Cllr. Grimwood spoke about the recent meeting of this group and briefly outlined what would be happening this year. He thanked the Chairman (Roger) for all the hard work he had put in and also thanked Janet Blundell for all the hard work she had also put in to keep all the relevant agencies informed. The site was being well monitored.
h. Charter of Friendship Group – No report
i. Grange Wind Farm Liaison Group – Cllr. S. Booth reported that things were now moving along and that traffic to the site will increase.
j. The Suttons Emergency Planning Group – Representatives will be attending the SBMAG meeting. It was questioned where the sandbags were being stored, have they been inspected recently and who has the key to the storage space in Railway Lane North.
k. Sutton Bridge Multi Agency Group – next meeting to be held on 30th April at the Curlew Centre.


15. TO CONSIDER CONTENT OF LETTER RECEIVED FROM 'FRIENDS OF SB SPORTS PAVILION' AND RESOLVE APPROPRIATELY – Carried forward from March meeting, letter distributed 21.3.12 – The PC is not be involved in this project, and any legal fees for leases etc., are not the responsibility of the PC. It is requested that the group assess a genuine need for the replacement of the pavilion and in this connection Cllr. Mrs. Hills advised a leaflet will be delivered to every household. The PC will offer support in principle.

16. TO RECEIVE UPDATE FROM CLERK ON FALKLANDS OPEN AREA AND RESOLVE ON APPROPRIATE ACTION – the Clerk had made extensive enquiries into the ownership of the land in question and had found the Land registry details. SHDC does not have responsibility for the area. Several trees have TPO's, but it was stated that these could be removed. The land could be registered as a village green by local residents and not by the PC. Cllr. Brewis suggested a letter be sent to the owners asking what they wanted to do with the land. Cllr. M. Booth suggested the local residents form a Residents Association.

17. TO RESOLVE ON ACTION TO BE TAKEN IN RESPONSE TO LETTER RECEIVED FROM WINGLAND FOODS CONCERNING A DONATION TO THE PARISH IN RECOGNITION OF THE DIAMOND JUBILEE – Correspondence item 9(a)(vii) – several suggestions were made for things such as notice boards or seats. It was agreed that that a meeting be arranged between Wingland Foods and Cllrs. Mrs. Preston and Mrs. Hills being the PC representatives.

18. TO DISCUSS AND RESOLVE UPON THE CONTENT OF A LETTER TO BE SENT TO LCC AND SHDC TO ASK FOR CONFIRMATION THAT; IF THE MARINA HAS TO BE SOLD AT ANY TIME IN THE FUTURE; AT LEAST 48% OF THE SALE PROCEEDS ARE RETURNED TO THE SB DEVELOPMENT FUND, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHEN THE SALE OCCURS – Cllr Brandon-King – has grave concerns about the viability of this project. Cllr. Brewis stated it needed to be sorted out once and for all. It was agreed that in the event of the Marina being sold then at least £400,000 or 48%, whichever is the greater, be returned to the SB Development fund.

19. TO RESOLVE ON ACTION IN RELATION TO THE TREATMENT OF JAPANESE KNOTWEED – Cllr. Grimwood stated that there were areas where the Knotweed was still growing and these would need to be sprayed when enough growth had been made for spraying to be effective. As agreed at the last meeting, three quotes would now be sought for advice of control and spraying costs. The matter to be kept on the agenda.

20. TO RESOLVE TO SET UP A WORKING PARTY TO PROPOSE A RESPONSE TO LINCS COUNTY COUNCIL FURTHER TO ITS REQUEST FOR FEEDBACK ON THE SE LINCS LOCAL PLAN – Correspondence item 9(a)(v) - Cllr. Brewis declared an interest. It was agreed that Cllrs. M. and S. Booth and Mrs. Preston form a working party.


Cllr. Brandon-King stated that it was the end of the first year of the new Parish Council. He was very pleased with the progress that had been made and that the new councillors had proved to be very dedicated to their tasks. He asserted that Sutton Bridge PC is the envy of its peers. However, one councillor having not turned up for over six months and is now disqualified, is an absolute disgrace. He said that those who set themselves up as the guardians of Standards were sniping at the wrong people and still living in the past, not comprehending why the PC has to discuss confidential matters in closed session. Where were the letters from the people who claim good governance and community spirit in relation to Councillor absenteeism and the Marina Project? Those who proclaim that the Marina will be a benefit to the community are being led by the nose and used etc. He then stated that as from the end of this meeting he was resigning from the Parish Council. He was returning the unspent balance of the allocated expenses. He then thanked Cllrs. Grimwood, M. Booth and Brewis for all the help and advice he had received during his year of office.

Cllr. Grimwood asked him if he would reconsider as he had been a valued asset to the PC. Cllr. M. booth stated the Cllr. Brandon-King had been an excellent, hard working councillor. Cllr. Brewis said that the day he had persuaded Chris Brandon-King to stand for election was the best thing he had ever done. Cllr. Brandon-King advised that he would not reconsider his decision to resign.



¦ ⇑ Back to top of page ⇑ ¦

May 22012

Notes on the Sutton Bridge Annual Parish Council Meeting
held at The Curlew Centre on 19th April, 2012

The Chairman welcomed all those attending the meeting.

1. SIGNING OF MINUTES - Notes from Annual Parish Meeting held on 31st May 2011 to be accepted as minutes. The Chairman read out the minutes of the last Annual Parish Meeting and these were accepted.

2. REPORT FROM CHAIRMAN OF THE PARISH COUNCIL – Cllr Brandon-King outlined what the SBPC had achieved during the past year.

• He stated that the PC was now well run and had been praised in the local press quite recently.

• Although the progress for the new proposed Burial Ground was slow, it was moving forward.

• It was disappointing that the new office for the Police in the Curlew Centre had not been used despite the rent for same having been paid from the budgets givens to Cllrs. M. Booth and Brewis. It was again mentioned that letters had been written to the Chief Constable (retiring) but the matter would be taken up with the new Chief Constable as soon as possible.

• That the SBPC are supporting the new development of the East Bank Lighthouse by Mr. Doug Hilton.

• Matters still outstanding being the Travellers Site, the Gasifier and the Marina.

• The Chairman thanked the Sutton Bridge in Bloom teams for all their work in making the village a more pleasant place and also thanks to the Friends of Sutton Bridge and Open Spaces for the work they have done throughout the village.

• A full review of allotments and rents is now in place.

3. FINANCIAL REPORT FROM CLERK TO THE COUNCIL – Mrs. England gave a detailed report of the financial matters of the SBPC.

• The Clerk advised that the accounts were available for inspection at the Parish Office from 12th June to 10th July. Appointments to view are required. Thereafter, the accounts would be audited and the date set for such is 16th July.

• It was also announced there would be a SBPC led Litter Pick on Saturday, 28th April, meeting in the car park of the new Community Centre (the Curlew Centre).


• The Chairman introduced Helen Rome one of the executives of PREL and other members of that company. Helen Rome then outlined the proposed planning application for a "gasifier" to be built on the Wingland area of Sutton Bridge. Details of the new plans differ somewhat from the original Screening and Scoping Document they issued almost two years ago.

• The favoured product now proposed is wood chips, as opposed to the chicken litter pellets which were shown to those attending the previous presentations as this product is no longer considered a safe material to use.

• Details of the transport movements have been changed from one vehicle entering the proposed site every four minutes to one every twenty minutes. This figure is based on deliveries being made over a twenty four hour period. However, it is also proposed that there may be a shift to a maximum time limit of deliveries during a twelve hour period, which would mean 8 vehicles entering the site every hour.

• It was said that detailed studies had been made by various outside organisations such as the Environment Agency, Highways Departments, etc.

• Also mentioned was the opportunity for jobs for the people of Sutton Bridge, although some of the positions would be of a highly technical nature and therefore recruitment for these would be outside the immediate area, but there would be many jobs available such as for cleaners, security personnel, wages clerks, receptionists and the like.

• Much was made of the progress of the Peterborough project.

• The Peterborough Plant had been put on hold because of funding difficulties. The reason why they had not put the planning application in for the SB plant was they had been focussing on getting the Peterborough plant up and running. Because of this delay, they were looking again at Sutton Bridge.


Cllr. Croxford started the ball rolling by asking about what were the anticipated emissions expected once the "gasifier" was in operation, especially in regard to the size of the particles. The response was it would be well within the "safety limits" required. Cllr. Croxford also referred to the advertising material which had been placed around the hall, stating that it was different from what had been said during the presentation, as it still gives the impression it would be a place for the public to take their household waste. The response was it was unfortunate these were out of date

Cllr. Grimwood's question centred on where the wood chips would come from, as we are short of forests in this area, and it had been stated that all the material would be sourced within a 30 km radius.

Cllr. M. Booth asked if household waste would be burned on the proposed site and would they be burning straw? The response was that although the medium of straw had been considered, it would not be a feasible option as the farmers producing it would want it removed from their premises sooner rather than later, and the proposed plant would not be able to store it. Not only that but it would not be an efficient burning material.

Mr. Blundell said he hoped that the SBPC would look extremely carefully at the new proposed planning application, as when PREL had produced the Screening and Scoping Document the councillors who had looked at that had thought it was about planting trees for screening the site. Cllr. Brewis strongly objected to the suggestion that he and Cllr. Booth were already committed to supporting the PREL project and stated that the PC would give the planning application a very thorough going over. Mr. Blundell said he was glad to hear it.

Mrs. Blundell referred to the biomass material for burning in PREL's proposed incinerator at Wingland, as currently timber is imported by ship from Scandinavia, via the port at King's Lynn, for processing at one of its timber factories. Unusable material falls into two categories:

1) waste that can be recycled into board materials

2) un-recyclable biomass. This biomass is then exported, via the port at King's Lynn, for burning in the biomass plants in Sweden.

i. Does PREL have any intention of capturing this biomass market, and if so, how would they envisage transporting it to Sutton Bridge? The response was they did not intend to tap into this particular market.

ii. And would they be competing with the Willows Recycling Plant at King's Lynn for this biomass material? Again the response was in the negative.

iii. Does PREL yet have any guaranteed funding for their proposal to build their plant at Sutton Bridge? The response was that although funding was in place, no contracts had been drawn or would be signed until the planning application had been approved.

Mrs. Hardy asked whether the land on which the plant would be built was actually owned by PREL insofar as they kept referring to the land as 'under their control', and if the planning application were refused, what would then happen to the land. Helen Rome commented that they were buying the land for this specific plant and if it were not to go ahead, then they would have no use for the land.

In addition, Mrs. Hardy asked whether the project was entirely funded by private investors or whether the government were funding any portion. The answer came back that the project will be funded entirely by private investors.

Mr. Mountain stated that he was in favour of the proposed plant.

A resident was heard to question where the wood material would be coming from and suggested it could come from as far away as Cumbria, also suggesting that long haul transporting companies would set up new depots within the 30 kilometre area thereby the movement of the material could be deemed as being brought in within the specified area.

Mr. Shapland asked about emissions from the plants. The response was that there would be omissions which would occasionally be visual but these emissions would be odourless. Mr. Shapland also asked how tall the chimneys would be and was told they would be approx. 45m. He further commented on the 'intelligent traffic lights' which Helen Rome had spoken about in the presentation, and asked whether these were 'intelligent specific' to PREL's transporters or whether they were just ordinary lights which would start their sequence when traffic approached. The response was that they would sequence as per normal traffic lights. He also commented on the use of the bridge into their site and was told that PREL would use the A47/A17 to the site wherever possible with the bridge only being used in isolated cases.

Cllr. Croxford pointedly asked if there were to be a referendum in the village and the majority, say 3,500 of the residents voted no, would PREL still go ahead with their planning application. The response was that they would have to look at their plans again.

Mr. Shapland further asked about the traffic count that had been done, and while Helen started to read out the figures of how many cars, lorries, motorcycles and buses had been counted, she was interrupted by Cllr. Brewis who suggested she send Mr. Shapland the list direct.

Mr. Blundell pointed out that objections to the Travellers site were based on the argument that it would cause too much traffic to come out to the busy A17. He said that if the PREL project materialised the traffic problem would be horrendous. The same objection applied even more. This was dismissed by Cllr. Brewis. (See "From the Public Gallery for a recalculation of the likely traffic movements based on PREL's own figures).

Helen Rome and the others of the PREL team were thanked for their presentation and left the hall.

Annual Parish business resumed.

Mrs. Hardy said that some few meetings ago it had been suggested that a representative from The Woodland Trust be invited to address the Parish Council. Nothing further had been reported and she wondered whether this talk was going ahead at any time. The Clerk said they were still pursuing this.

Mrs. Faires wanted to know who was responsible for emptying the free standing litter bins as the one in Railway Lane South had not been emptied for over two weeks resulting in litter being spread around and blown into the underpass. This was not the first time she had complained about this problem. The response was that she should report the matter direct to SHDC, as it appeared that reports from residents appeared to carry more weight than any from the PC.

Mr. Mountain asked why the previous parish clerk had been sacked, and how much compensation had she received.

The Chairman pointed out that the previous clerk had in fact resigned but had taken the matter to the Employment Tribunal on the basis of 'constructive dismissal'. To save the Parish even more money it had been agreed a settlement would be made out of court with the result that both parties were bound by a gagging order. The Clerk intervened as there had already been enough explanation.

Mr. Mountain said that what was going on amounted to "cooking the books". The Chairman commented that the figure had been (as he said 'had been thrown back at him') 'masked'.

Cllr. M. Booth then thanked the Chairman for all the work he had done during his year in office, at that the SBPC was now working in a satisfactory manner.

The meeting closed at 9.15 pm.



¦ ⇑ Back to top of page ⇑ ¦

Apr 42012

Notes on the Sutton Bridge Parish Council Meeting
held at The Curlew Centre on 27th March, 2012


Mr. Fenton proffered his thanks to Cllr. Brewis for speaking up for him at the Planning Meeting at SHDC offices, after he found out he was not allowed to speak as he had not written in to say that he wished to do so. He was also annoyed to receive a letter from SHDC stating that planning permission had now been granted to Dodfrey's, as he understood it was to be held in abeyance for three months.

Mr. Blundell said he was very surprised that the whole of Sutton Bridge had not turned up at this meeting to protest at the massive 48% Council Tax increase in the precept for Sutton Bridge. He said that when Cllr. Dewsberry proposed the increase last November he had said the increase was necessary because a lot of 'things' needed doing, and Cllr. Brewis had said that there were 'many projects' on the go but since neither Councillor had stated what these things/projects were he supposed that the details would appear in the forthcoming Newsletter, if it ever appeared.

The reply was that the draft newsletter had already been approved and was in the process of being printed, so a statement about the projects would appear in the Newsletter which would appear in six months.

Mr Blundell added that by that time it was convenient that everybody would have forgotten the whole matter.

Mr. Southgate stated he was still concerned that the trees overhanging his garden had still not been cut back and no-one had come to his house to talk about this problem with him as had been promised.

The response was that this would be discussed later in the meeting.

Mrs. Grimwood suggested that when it came to planning matters perhaps the PC should say "no" to the things they wanted to be passed and "yes" to the things they did not want to be passed as it appeared that SHDC always took the opposite view to the SBPC.

Cllr. Brewis explained that he had asked for an extension to the time for considering the planning matters Mr. Fenton had spoken of, but a decision was later made to allow the company to continue,

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE with reasons – Written apologies had been received from Cllrs. Grimwood and Mrs. Hills.

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST - to receive Declarations of Interest in accordance with the 2000 Local Government Act. Cllr. M. Booth and S. Booth both signed their declarations of interest with regard to the Allotments and the SBCCF.

3. SIGNING OF THE MINUTES – Notes from meetings on 28th February 2012 and
6th March 2012 to be accepted as minutes. Resolved.

4. POLICE MATTERS – To include update on Community Engagement Model Group – with no Police presence or PC representative present there was no report. However it was asked what had happened to the police "drop in" in Sutton Bridge, and were there any plans for it to be re-introduced, especially now there was provision for them in the new community centre. It was perceived that the use of the police office would probably have avoided the vandalism to the new community centre on the previous weekend. The vandalism had been reported to the police and a report number obtained. Both our district councillors asked that letters be sent to the Chief Constable with copies to the Chief Inspector of Lincs Police for an explanation regarding the non-presence of the police at the new drop in facility.

5. CHAIRMAN'S REMARKS: With regard to the complaint about the noise of one of the pubs in the village it was understood that the application for a music licence had been withdrawn.

• Parishioners and LFP had both made requests for information under the FOI facility. Both had been told that the information they had requested came under the heading of exempted information.

• Referring to the recent Extraordinary Meeting concerning the proposed Marina, the Chairman stated that no wonder Cllr. Eddie Poll sat there with a smug look on his face and in effect gave a two fingered sign to SBPC as he already knew that the pontoon for the Marina had been ordered months ago and was delivered to Wisbech within days of this meeting, although Cllr. Poll had stated that the figures were still being worked out.

• The Chairman also suggested that the other two representatives for the Marina also knew what was going on but had feigned ignorance.

• The Chairman accused the initiators of the Marina Project of having 'questionable morals' and Cllr Poll of operating with 'questionable ethics'

• It would also appear that Mr. Harvey (supposedly a Harbour Master and member of the Fenland District Council) who gave a presentation on the Marina at a PC meeting last year, had been in contact with a private company who had offered funding for the building of the Marina. It could therefore have been built without the need to use S106 money. Mr Harvey had now gone to live in Australia.

• The Chairman stated that the whole project should now be reviewed: why should the s106 sum of £400,000 be allocated to the project. The whole set up required a proper investigation and was based on flawed assumptions. He was asking Gary Porter to suspend the project until a review could be instigated.

6. CLERK'S REPORT - read by Mrs. Ripley (who was standing in for the absent Clerk), covered a variety of subjects, including an email received from PCSO Ben Harrington who had intimated it was better for the police to be seen on the streets than in an office. Also covered was the subject of animals grazing on the river bank and whether the appropriate notices had been posted, as well as that of trees in public places especially in relation to the PC's position of public liability and safety. Many of the trees in the village have preservation orders on them and as such special permission is required for any lopping of branches, or other remedial work.

7. TO RECEIVE REPORTS FROM DISTRICT AND COUNTY COUNCILLORS – Cllr. M. Booth stated that trees which had been planted along the far end of New Road and on towards the river had been stolen. The trees had been removed and the support posts left behind. If anyone has any information about this problem then would they contact the PC office as soon as possible.

• Rubbish dumping was still a major problem. There was a large amount of black plastic sacks in Allenby Chase, but as these were on private land and had not been placed outside the property, they had not been picked up by the refuse collectors. The matter is now very serious as many of the bags contain food scraps and are attracting vermin.

• There had been a meeting of SBMAG in February and pupils from the Peele School had been invited to attend the next meeting scheduled for 30th April, at 6.30 pm in the new community centre.

• Cllr. Booth also referred to the CCTV presentation given by Cllr. Nick Worth. It would be more costly to opt out of the system and then start up again when the new system was in place.

• Together with Cllr. Brewis £200 from their budget has been given to John Cooper at Leesons Garage for maintenance of the Rose Garden at the top end of Railway Lane.

• The SHDC were still hoping to build more affordable social housing, but still required more land to do so.

• He is encouraging residents to register for the Fuel tariff at SHDC, and a form can be obtained from the PC office to do so.

• Cllr. Brewis stated that the Library was now open thanks to a lot of hard work by the group of volunteers.

• He confirmed that Mr. Harvey of the Fenland District Council had gone to Australia permanently and that he had been arranging with a private company to build the Marina.

a. Accounts for payment 27.3.12:


Detail Chq. No.  Net VAT Total

Anglia Locksmiths






The Curlew Centre

Hall hire






Tax & NI





N J Portass

Picnic Area





Wingland G'cutting

Litter picking












Plus a cheque for the Clerk's salary.

b. Money In: £0.00

Cllr. Dewsberry confirmed all invoices would be paid, that the bank reconciliation had been sent to all councillors. All allotment rents had been paid.

a. Items of correspondence for comment:
(i) Letter, Friends of SB Sports Pavilion – Request for information re existing pavilion (copy letter circulated to Cllrs 21.3.12)
(ii) Letter, Friends of SB Sports Pavilion – Requests relating to funding and support for new sports pavilion (copy letter circulated to Cllrs 21.3.12)
(iii) Email, Karen Johnson SHDC – Information relating to 'Evidence of need' for projects (copy circulated to Cllrs 21.3.12)
• These three items were discussed in detail and it was agreed that the present pavilion would not be demolished until plans were firmly in place for a replacement, which is currently estimated to cost approximately £400,000 and would be similar to the new one in Terrington St. Clement.
(iv) Letter, parishioner – Memorial Park trees (copy to Cllrs 21.3.12)
(v) Email, Rostron Photography – Cancellation of wedding fayre
(vi) Email, Lincs Free Press – FOI request
(vii) Email, parishioner – FOI request
(viii) Letter, SB in Bloom – Request to retain wooden notice board structure at entrance to MP – see agenda item 18
(ix) Letter, parishioner – Obstruction to footpath
• This concerns the obstruction of a footpath between Sutton Bridge and Long Sutton. This matter was on the same subject of complaint received last year. It is stated that there was not room enough to pass the implement placed across the gateway and partially blocking the Right of Way, certainly for wheelchair access, though it was disputed that it would be impossible for a wheelchair to be taken along this RoW due to the terrain and also the fact there used to be a stile and small wooden bridge. It is understood that the iron implement was placed in it's present position to deter motorcyclists from riding through the fields, but it needs to be moved a couple of feet to improve access. Cllr. M. Booth will speak with the owner prior to any further action that may be necessary.
(x) Email, parishioners – Lime Street Play Area - Request for extra play equipment
• It would appear that this email was sent by young children with a long list of what they would like to have in the play area.
(xi) Email, parishioner – Bus shelter, Bridge Road (copy to Cllrs 21.3.12) – to be included for discussion under agenda item 14
(xii) Email, PCSO B Harrington – Bus shelter, Bridge Road (copy to Cllrs 21.3.12) – to be included for discussion under agenda item 14
(xiii) Letter, SHDC Planning – Alleged breach of planning re Memorial Park public convenience building – to be included for discussion under agenda item 18
(xiv) Email, SHDC Planning – Confirmation that 'breach of planning' is unable to be enforced – to be included for discussion under agenda item 18
(xv) Email, SHDC Asset & Property Dept – Memorial Park public convenience building- to be included for discussion under agenda item 18
(xvi) Email, Lincolnshire Legal Services – Request for Information – Closed Session

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

(i) Email, Peterborough CC – Update re Cambs & P'boro Minerals & Waste Local
Development Framework.
(ii) Email, Rural Services Network – Rural Opportunities Bulletin March 2012
(iii) Newsletter – SLCVS Issue 7 2012
(iv) Email, Rural Services Network – Weekly News Digest 5.3.12
(v) Newsletter – SLCVS Issue 8 2012
(vi) Email, SHDC – Community Builders Fund
(vii) Email, Chandlers Oil – Information re Sutton Bridge 'Community Oil Buying Group'
(viii) Email, Superact – Information re 'Bandstand Marathon 2012'
(ix) Email, LALC – Section 137 Expenditure increase to £6.80 for 2012-2013
(x) Email, LALC – Local Govt. Pay – no pay offer 2012-2013
(xi) Email, LCC – Good Citizens Awards 2012
(xii) Newsletter, Lincs Biodiversity P'ship – Background to 'The Natural Choice' White
Paper & Local Nature Partnerships
(xiii) Email, Lincs Co-op – Support for Queen's Diamond Jubilee events
(xiv) Letter, St Matthew's PCC – Thanks for contribution
(xv) Email, SHDC – 'Children in Need' grants available
(xvi) Email, SHDC – Launch of Lincs Sports Library
(xvii) Email, Rural Services Network – Weekly New Digest 19.3.12
(xviii) Newsletter – SLCVS Issue 9 2012
(xix) Letter, Lincs Community Health Servs. – Consultation on becoming a Community NHS Foundation Trust
(xx) Letter, LCC Env. Management – Hedge & Small Woodland Grant
(xxi) NALC Legal Topic Note – 'Members' conduct and registration and disclosure of interests' (distributed to Cllrs 12.3.12)
(xxii) NALC Legal Topic note – 'Pre-determination' (distributed to Cllrs 12.3.12)
(xxiii) Letter, Anglian Water – Hosepipe ban for Anglian Water customers taking effect from Thursday 5th April 2012
(xxiv) Email, Came & Co – Insurer's recommendations for Jubilee events


H18-0170-12 – Proposed wind turbine, Fenberry Farm, Peters Point Rd, SB –
Mr K Hargreaves, Peters Point Rd, SB.
No Objection
H18-0010-12 – Change of use of ground floor from A1 (shops) to A5 (takeaways), 78
Bridge Rd, SB – Mr S Miah.
Refused: N/A

New: N/A

Granted: N/A

Refused: N/A

a. Update on outstanding matters
b. To report any new matters

It had been brought to the PC's attention that when the zebra crossing was put in place near Nene Lodge the pavement had been left in a state of disrepair and work to rectify the problem would soon be carried out.

Discussion then centred on the bollards on the build outs in Bridge Road, as some of these had been damaged although they were supposed to be indestructible. The Highways Department have intimated they would replace the damaged ones with a cheaper alternative, but the PC request the damaged bollards be replaced like for like otherwise it would not be uniform. The manufacturers ought also to be challenged about their claim that the bollards were indestructible.

(Unless detailed below; any action recommended in reports to be included for resolution on next agenda)

A. Churchyard and Playing Fields – Cllr Grimwood, Hills, T Rowe –
• Mrs. Ripley read out Cllr, Grimwood's report. He had commented that there were still long outstanding matters.
• The bottom of one of the park gates was rusting away.
• The knotweed in the Arnie Broughton Walk had been largely cleared and made it easier to see the new growth. A contractor from outside the village had been used to do the spraying of the knotweed originally, but such aggressive chemicals would not be needed in the future. Therefore it should be considered that any future spraying work could be done by a properly certified local contractor.
• A council led community litter pick could be organised for the same day as the refuse lorries are in Railway Lane.

B. Allotments – Cllrs Brewis, Croxford, Preston – Will report next month.

C. Personnel Committee – Cllrs Booth, Brewis, Croxford, Preston

Recommendations put forward by Personnel Committee:

(i) To resolve to confirm that Mrs J Ripley continues in her role as mentor to the Clerk; terms and arrangements as previously agreed Resolved

(ii) To resolve on Parish office official opening hours Resolved

(iii) To resolve on calling extraordinary Parish Council meetings solely for the purpose of dealing with truly extraordinary events Resolved. Cllr. Brewis stated that if a Parish Council has more than two extraordinary meetings per year then something is wrong. (The SBPC's website shows there have been at least six extraordinary meetings since May 2011).

D. Planning – Cllrs S Booth, Brandon-King, J Rowe This item to be deleted from future agendas.

E. Footpaths & Byeways (to include update on 'The Nene Local Access Forum) – Cllrs M Booth, Hills, Preston : No Report.

F. Burial Ground Committee – Cllrs Brandon-King, Grimwood, Hills, J Rowe – Progress is very slow at present. Still awaiting the response from Premier Foods with regard to access road to the new burial ground.

G. Parish Newsletter – Cllrs Brandon-King, Dewsberry, Preston – in the process of being printed.

H. Farmers Market – Cllrs Grimwood, Hills – No report.


a. Phillips and Allen's Charities – No report

b. Voluntary Car Scheme – No report

c. SBCCFC – Cllr. S. Booth informed the meeting that:
• Peter Clery had stepped down as Chairman and Alan Barber would be acting chairman until the AGM, when proper elections would take place.
• A fund raising event in the Memorial Park was being planned for May 26th and would have a fly past of a Lancaster Bomber aircraft, together with other attractions.
• Clarification was sought on whether it would be in order to charge for entry to the memorial Park on that day. A long discussion on this matter followed with the conclusion that investigation of the Deeds to be sought for any reasons why this should, or should not be the case.
• From the gallery it was said that at previous Spring events in the Memorial Park a modest charge had been made. Therefore Cllr. Brewis proposed that as a precedent had been set it would be in order to make a charge.

d. LALC – No report.

e. Holbeach Senior Links – No report

f. Power Station Liaison – next meeting in two weeks time.

g. Kings Lynn Advisory Group Special Area of Conservation – a report on their meeting being held on the 27th March also would be given at the next PC meeting.

h. Charter of Friendship Group – it was stated that on their last visit to Sutton Bridge the people of Sedlec-Prčice had donated the first book for the new library and therefore it should now be displayed in the new library itself.

i. Grange Wind Farm Liaison Group – No report.

j. The Suttons Emergency Planning Group – No report.

k. Sutton Bridge Multi Agency Group –covered earlier.

ROAD AND RESOLVE ON APPROPRIATE ACTION – correspondence items 9a (xi),(xii)
• As it has been reported many times there is a lot of vandalism occurring at this particular bus shelter. This has been caused by various groups at different times of the day. Morning disruptions are caused by a large group of children waiting for the bus to the Peele School, and in the evenings it is loutish and drunken behaviour by an older group.
• It was agreed that the Clerk would send letters to various bodies to bring this type of behaviour to their attention. One letter to go to the Head of the Peele School referring to the pupils behaviour at this particular bus shelter. The other letter to the police authorities.
• A suggestion of that perhaps a school prefect could be on duty there in the mornings
• It was agreed to leave the shelter as a skeleton, with maybe a coat of paint.
• That this was a policing matter and a police presence would be more effective at the necessary times.

15. TO RESOLVE TO AUTHORISE CLLRS BRANDON-KING, BREWIS & HILLS TO TAKE PART IN DISCUSSIONS WITH REPRESENTATIVES FROM LINCS WIND FARM/CENTRICA IN RELATION TO COMMUNITY BENEFITS FOR SUTTON BRIDGE – carried fwd from Feb Meeting – it was agreed to co-opt one other to the present committee who had specialist knowledge of the workings of this type of funding

16. TO RESOLVE ON DATE FOR ANNUAL PARISH MEETING – will be held on 19th April at the same time as PREL will be giving their presentation.


CONVENIENCE BUILDING AND RESOLVE APPROPRIATELY – correspondence items 9a (xiii),(xiv),(xv)
SHDC own the building, the SBPC own the land. It was agreed to accept the offer from SHDC that they remove the sanitary ware from the building and it would be made into a storage facilities for the Sutton Bridge in Bloom team and the PC.

19. TO RECEIVE UPDATE ON 'BEST KEPT VILLAGE' COMPETITION AND RESOLVE ON APPROPRIATE ACTION TO INCLUDE ARRANGEMENTS FOR PARISH COUNCIL LITTER PICKING EVENTS – it was agreed that Cllr. Grimwood would liaise with Mrs. Hardy so that both teams could work together at appropriate times and especially at times when the Saturday refuse collection was available.


21. TO RESOLVE ON PUTTING FORWARD REQUEST TO LCC FOR 'VILLAGE HALL' SIGN TO BE CHANGED TO; 'COMMUNITY CENTRE' OR 'CURLEW CENTRE' – carried fwd from Feb Meeting – the councillors present unanimously voted that the sign should read Curlew Centre.


GROUNDS OF CONFIDENTIALITY (Detail of discussions not for publication by virtue of Section 100(A) para. 4 of the Local Government Act 1972);

The public left at 9.15 pm.

Finance Committee


MATTERS – To include correspondence item 9a (xvi)



¦ ⇑ Back to top of page ⇑ ¦

Mar 112012

Notes On Sutton Bridge Extraordinary Parish Council Meeting
Tuesday 6th March Held In The Curlew Centre

Present: Cllrs: C. Brandon-King Chairman, D. Dewsberry, Mrs. M. Preston, M. Booth, S. Booth, J. Grimwood, C. Brewis

Mr. David Pullen: Lincs Waterways Partnership, LCC Cllr. E. Poll: Executive Committee member and representative on many outside bodies, including the Inland Flood Risk Assessment Group and the Shoreline Management Group and Justin Brown, Head of Enterprise at LCC

The chairman announced that as this was a Question and Answer session only regarding the Marina Project Plans, there would be no Open Forum.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE: Cllrs. Mrs. Hill, Mrs. J. Rowe and T. Rowe, G. Croxford

1. Declarations of Interest: to receive Declarations of Interest in accordance with the 2000 Local Government Act:

2. Standing Orders removed for question and answer session.

A resident stated he had written to SHDC for a copy of the business plan under the freedom of Information Act, but had not received a reply. He was promised a reply within the next few days.

Cllr. C. Brandon-King asked which Business Plan the resident was referring to and was told that it was the replacement one. Cllr. C. Brandon-King said he had studied the first one in great detail.

One resident asked that vehicles towing sailing boats should not be allowed through the village as it would be impossible for them to get round the bend on the West Bank. The response was as there would be no facility to launch any boats from the Marina site (as there was no lifting equipment), this problem would not arise.

Another resident asked how many extra cars there would be; where the car park would be; and if they going to move the river bank. He was concerned about the extra traffic in an already busy road, and was worried that if the river bank was moved it would cause flooding in the Lime Street/Wharf Street area. He was also concerned about the discharging of waste water etc from the moored vessels and stated that the existing drainage system in the area was inadequate.

The response was that car parking would be at the far end of the proposed site with spaces for 25 cars and 3 spaces available for disabled parking.

Assurances had been given that the river bank would not be damaged, although Cllr. Brewis disputed this.

Concerning sewage waste from the boats: it was stated that vessels would not be allowed to discharge into the river and that the Marina would be connected to the sewerage system. Vessels would have to go to Wisbech to be pumped out, where there were facilities.

Electricity and water for the moorings would be available for the Marina, with the mains water system being connected underground into the office on the pontoon.

Another resident raised the question of speed restrictions along West Bank stating that many vehicles already exceeded the speed limit.

The cost of berthing was expected to be £125 per metre of vessel per annum. There would also be some short term mooring available, including day visiting.

A resident was concerned about the Customs & Excise and Border Control as he considered it to be too easy for any vessel to moor at the Marina from any part of the continent. Who was to stop them? The response was that this is possible now.

Cllr. C. Brandon-King asked a number of questions regarding the Project, as he considered it was 'a non starter', especially since there were already three other marinas within a 30 mile radius of Sutton Bridge. He added that there were no special services or chandlery available in Sutton Bridge.

He wanted to know how it would benefit the local economy, questioning whether vessel owners really want to come ashore to buy goods from the Co-op or spend money in the several takeaways (Chinese and fish and chips, etc) as he considered marina visitors would all buy their requirements in Tesco's prior to setting sail.

Cllr. Brandon-King then asked about the business plan stating that there appeared to be great holes in it. He said he got his information from the first business plan submitted five years ago. He was told that there is now a revised business plan reflecting the current financial situation.

He said that plans for marinas had been lodged both in King's Lynn and Great Yarmouth five years ago and they had not been built so, he doubted the viability of this application and the ability of the managing committee to run it successfully.

He also raised further questions about the use of the S106 monies: stating that originally £250,000 had been set aside for the Marina Project, and then suddenly it appeared to have also had another £150,000 added to it from another project (which had failed—the East Bank Lighthouse). He wanted to know how £150,000 had been transferred directly to the Marina, without any discussion on the matter.

It was explained later in the meeting that a pot of money had originally been set up for three Wash projects and that if one failed, then the money would go to the other two. If the second failed, then all the money would go to the third. Only if the third project failed would the money go back to the original pot. An added complication is that the time limit for the spending of this S106 money is running out.

Cllr Brandon-King next questioned the arrangements for the set up of the Community Interest Company (CIC) and quoted extracts from the Marina Project about proposed directorships. He asked how the funds would be dispersed as it was his understanding that each member was also a director. He challenged if 'they' really understood what a CIC was.

He also wanted to know how many jobs the Marina Project would create once the project was completed.

He stated that it also appears that no accounts will be available to the public and queried the Articles of Association.

Mr. Ford (from the Public Gallery and a director of Nene Marine) responded by stating that since the first presentation in the Bridge Hotel six years ago, there had been no less than 38 press releases. He said that as there had been over 100 residents present at that initial meeting, he wanted to know how many people had lodged objections since then. There was no response to this question.

Another resident wanted to know that if the proposed project was costing £800,000 and £400,000 had been pledged from the S106 fund, where was the other £400,000 coming from. The response was that funds had been secured form the East Wash Fens Waterways Partnership and other funding bodies.

Cllr. Grimwood stated that the Nene Marine was an independent group that had no Parish Council representative on its committee. More than once the Parish Council had requested Nene Marine to give a presentation, but this had not happened. Therefore, he wanted to know what the Fenland District Council's interest was in running the Marina. The response was that the LCC would own the Marina and the Fenland District Council will oversee the running of it. The buildings would remain with LCC who would lease them to Nene Marine at a peppercorn rent.

A member of the public wanted to know if Marina Project managers had acquired the necessary land on the river bank for the building of the Marina (At this point both Cllrs. M. and S. Booth declared their interest in the subject stating as their reasons that they were both tenants of Henry Smith's Charity, who allegedly own the river bank on the west Bank). Cllr Poll said that the LCC would be leasing the land from the HSC and in case of default by the Nene Marine Group, the lease would revert to the LCC.

Mr. Ford then challenged Cllr Brewis about a letter which he had written to the Lincs Free Press and had appeared that day (Tuesday). He asked Cllr. Brewis who the two Directors of Nene Marine were that he referred to in the letter, who he claimed, had spoken to him about their concerns. Mr Ford said he had asked all the other directors in the group and all denied having spoken to Cllr. Brewis. Mr. Morley (another Nene Marine director present in the public gallery) said Cllr. Brewis had not spoken to him either. Mr Ford reiterated his question: would Cllr Brewis please name the two directors he alleged he had spoken to? Cllr. Brewis declined to name anyone, saying that it was 'confidential'. Mr. Ford then suggested in no uncertain terms that Cllr. Brewis was telling untruths. Cllr. Brewis denied this was so.

Apart from answering specific questions from the Councillors and members of the public, Messrs Brown, Poll and Pullen said very little, not having been invited to make an opening statement.


¦ ⇑ Back to top of page ⇑ ¦

Mar 42012

Notes on the Sutton Bridge Parish Council Meeting
held at The Curlew Centre on 28th February, 2012

Present: Cllrs. D. Dewsberry, G.Croxford, Mrs. Preston, M. Booth, Brandon-King, Brewis, S. Booth and Mrs. Hills


This began with the Chairman referring to the suggestion made last meeting that if many people wish to speak in Open Forum, then could it not be extended by at least five minutes?  He advised that Sutton Bridge Standing Orders provided for 15 minutes and this would remain the norm for Sutton Bridge unless Standing Orders were changed.  However, the PC were prepared to be a little lenient.  It should also be remembered that Standing Orders are occasionally suspended to allow comments from the public during the meeting.

It's not 'normal practice' to have 15 minutes - some places have 30 minutes.

Mrs. Eaton spoke about the nuisance being caused by loud music, drunken brawls and damage to bollards etc. occurring at The Anchor Inn.  She referred to the issue of licences being granted or not being granted and flouted regarding the late night music sessions that went on well into the night.  She said she had no wish to deprive anyone of being able to run a business, but there were limits to what the public could tolerate.  Mrs. Eaton commented that the licence would shortly be renewed and sought the help of SBPC to resolve the matter.   The Chairman said that this was not a Parish matter and that the PC would have no power to intervene, but that individual Councillors, if willing, could attend the licence hearing with Mrs. Eaton.

Mr. Fenton spoke of an unfortunate incident that occurred in the Memorial Park concerning a dog running loose and fouling in the park.  He spoke to the owners of the dog who were abusive in their response to his request that they remove the dog’s faeces and also to keep the dog on a lead as per the bye laws appertaining to the park.

It was agreed that dog fouling in the Memorial Park appears to be on the increase, especially in the Arnie Broughton Walk area.

Mr. Fenton went on to say that people were leaving black bags of rubbish blocking the pathways, and that parents were allowing their children to use the passage way between Lime Street and Wharf Street as a toilet.

Mrs. Giles commented on the proposed change of use at the Community Centre and voiced her opposition to such change citing that the Centre is for the community and should not be occupied by businesses.

Mrs. Blundell reported she was surprised to see under Item 7 Correspondence on the Agenda, that there is no mention of the email she had sent to the PC on February 13th concerning the disrespectful behaviour of Cllr Brewis towards a fellow councillor and the Chairman.   She added that although the clerk replied that advice had been sought from LALC and that all such matters should be referred to the Monitoring Officer at SHDC, she would have thought that the email should have been recorded as being received. The Clerk responded that as the email had been addressed to her as ‘Suzanne’ and therefore ‘personal’, she could not list it.  In addition, Mrs. Blundell had only asked her advice on the matter, which she had given.

Cllr. Brewis wanted to know what it was all about and a copy was offered to him.

Mr. Blundell said that we knew that there had been meetings in November about the Employment Tribunal and he assumed that something had been settled out of court as he had not been called as a witness.. He added that as a Sutton Bridge taxpayer he thought he was entitled to know what extra burden the Parish Council had incurred as a result of their unseemly behaviour towards the previous Parish Clerk. Certainly the voters ought to know about this. He asked when the amount of any settlement would appear in PC accounts and how it would be described. Councillor Brewis had made reference to ‘extra expenses’ a few meetings ago but he had been unspecific.

Cllr. C. B-K replied that as the matter had been settled out of court both parties were bound by a “gagging order” by law, not to divulge any details whatsoever of the case. Both parties had signed and were bound by the agreement of the out of court settlement.

(The Parish Clerk has subsequently provided the information that the ‘gagging order’ is the result of Exemption 32, Court Records, sections (1) (c) (i) and 4 (a) – as detailed in Freedom of Information Act Part II. Exemption 44, Prohibition on Disclosure – as detailed in Freedom of Information Act Part II.)

Although Mr. Blundell insisted he still had a right to know what it would cost the local tax payers and how it would appear in the PC’s accounting, again he was told that the information would not be forthcoming. The PC had taken legal advice on how the settlement figure would be concealed in the accounts and that they were following the instructions to the letter.

Mrs Giles wisely interjected that to discover the Settlement figure it would be a simple matter of subtracting one precept from another.

Mrs. Hardy wished to speak about the requested change of use for 4 rooms on the 1st floor of the Community Centre to B1 for possible office space for business use, or a purpose ancillary to the Community Centre - whatever that might mean, and stated that she is totally opposed to this proposed change.  Mrs. Hardy also said that all want to see the Community Centre do well financially, but the prime reason for its erection is for the community to use.  To change part of the building into office space goes against the principle of community use.    Also, how does such a change affect the funding which has been granted to the SBCCF from both S106 and that raised from public events?

There is also the added concern that if part of the centre is being used for a community event which could be noisy, how would this affect those working in the commercial offices?  Could they legitimately request that the noise is kept down?

If, in time to come, the PC were to take over the Community Centre, would they then become landlords to a commercial business with all the problems that that entails?
In her view this application has not been thought out properly and if granted, would not be in the public interest.

The Chairman replied that if the PC were to take over the Community Centre then they would not be running it, but would merely mothball it until new people could be found to run it.

Mr. Shapland asked for the figure of the payment regarding the Employment Tribunal and received the same response from the Chairman as had Mr. Blundell.  Mr. Shapland persisted in asking how was this going to be shown in the accounting system.

He also referred to the request for a banner advertising a Wedding Fayre to be put on the Memorial Park fence or gates.  He considered this was a commercial enterprise and not a community function so why consider it.  If the PC choose to agree to it, then does it not open up a can of worms once agreement had been given for all manner of advertising on or around the new Community Centre.

Mr. Shapland also referred to matters being discussed in closed session and in particular the bus shelter.  

The response was that this matter would be subject to getting quotations from contractors and it would be illegal for the PC to publicly discuss this.  

Mrs. Faires said she was also asking why the bus shelter was to be discussed in closed session and what had happened to the openness and transparency this PC had promised the electorate.


  1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE with reasons;  The Chairman said that while the PC had been fairly relaxed about accepting verbal apologies for absence, in future they would be following the LALC directives on the correct procedure and in future apologies for absence must be given in writing prior to the meeting taking place.
  1. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST - to receive Declarations of Interest in accordance with the 2000 Local Government Act.  Cllrs. M. Booth and S. Booth both declared their interest in the Allotments and the SBCCF respectively with Cllr. S. Booth adding two other interests but these would be held in closed session.
  1. SIGNING OF THE MINUTES – Notes from meetings on 31st January 2012 and 14th February 2012 to be accepted as minutes.  Accepted.
  1. POLICE MATTERS – To include update on Community Engagement Model Group: with no Police present and Cllr. Mrs. J. Rowe absent there was no report.  Cllr. Brandon-King stated there had been a “Drop in” scheme in the Police Caravan in the old village hall car park and thought there would be one in the new specially furnished room for Police use in the new Community Centre. Cllr. M. Booth stated that there were notices giving contact telephone numbers put in the windows of the Police room.  It was also stated there had been a complaint about lorries parking illegally along the river bank.
  1. CHAIRMAN'S REMARKS:  Cllr. Brandon-King thanked Cllr. Mrs. Hills for all the work she had done as a representative on the Burial Ground committee, and also to the Newsletter committee for their input.  He reported that the Clerk’s appraisal had been successfully completed and would now be referred to the Employment Working Party.  Referring to the Open Forum timing, it was to be hoped that all residents wishing to speak would ask all their questions in the Open Forum and not interrupt during PC discussions, which meant that Standing Orders had to be suspended several times last meeting, thus taking up more time than was necessary. 
  1. CLERK’S REPORT:  covered the following items:

Cllr. Brewis reported that:




Chq. No.




St Matthews Church

Donation-use of facs





Solo Blinds

Office blind





G Goodwin & Son

Notice board maint.






Thornton Firkin fees





Wingland G'cutting

Litter pick Dec-Feb





N Portass

Picnic area





Wingland G'cutting

Pest Control





R Dunn

Internal Audit fee





J Grimwood

Exps - new lock





Lincs Ass. Local Councils

Annual sub












Broadband Nov-Apr






Water rates - pavilion







b.   Money In:  

As per bank reconciliation:  Allotment Rent 7.00 
SHDC – Refund Thornton Firkin fee  5000.00

c.   To resolve to adopt Council’s reviewed Financial Regulations – as recommended  by Finance Committee, circulated to Cllrs 16.2.12.  Resolved

The Clerk added that two more cheques had been issued, one for her expenses and one for her salary and this would be shown on the website.


a. Items of correspondence for comment:
(i) Letter – S B in Bloom, planting & maintenance request – see agenda point 16
(ii) Letter – SBCCFC, re arrangements for office keys – closed session
(iii) Letter – RH & RW Clutton, re allotments – closed session
(iv) Letter – Carter Jonas, re allotment land – closed session
(v) Email – Adam Rostron Photography – Request to put up Wedding Fayre advertising banner on Memorial Park fence or gates – it was stated that this was a matter for the SBCCFC. Cllr. Mrs. Hills stated that the PC cannot be a party to facilitate business ventures. After much discussion the request was refused.

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

(i) Newsletters – SLCVS, Newsbite Issues 5 & 6 2012
(ii) Letter – Community Lincs, details of Bulk Oil Buying Scheme (details on website & notice boards)
(iii) Email – SHDC, details of 'Master Gardner' Project
(iv) Email – SHDC, details of 'Annual Big Lunch'
(v) Newsletter – Lincs Registration & Celebratory Services Newsletter
(vi) Email – Wisbech Town Council, Wisbech Mayor's Quiz Evening 9.3.12
(vii) Letter – CPRE, details of 'Wildlife in your Village' training sessions
(viii) Email – Spinal Injuries Assoc, details of 'Great Fish & Chip Supper' fundraising
(ix) Email – SHDC, details of Queen Elizabeth II Field Challenge
(x) Email – SHDC, 'Street Party' tool kit

10. PLANNING MATTERS – Cllr. S. Booth left the chamber while the following planning applications were discussed.

H18-0098-12 – Removal of condition 5 of H18-0793-10 relating to erection of timber
fencing, Sutton Bridge Community Centre – Mr P Clery (SBCCFC).

There is some confusion here as the land in question belongs to the SBPC.

H18-0055-12 – Part use of first floor accommodation (Rooms B,C,D,E) as either
office space for business use (Class B1) or for a purpose ancillary to the
Community Centre, The Curlew Centre, Bridge Rd, SB – Applicant: SBCCF.

There seems to be a great deal of confusion regarding the change of use. It was explained that the PC have leased the land plus one metre round the "footprint" of the building to the SBCCF. If the SBCCF defaults, the property reverts to the PC. However, the PC do not intend to run the Community Centre, and in case of default the PC would moth ball the building until a new management committee was formed.

Discussion then centred on the permitted use of the new building, including whether or not it could be sub-let. In the case of any default then any sub-let lease would cease with immediate effect. The general feeling was that the building should be run for the benefit of the Parish. The Chairman stated that the planning applications/permissions are between the SBCCF and the SHDC. It is not a SBPC issue.

Public opinion suggests that since the new Community Centre, is just that - a Community Centre - it should not be used for commercial purposes. It was then argued that if space was available and unused then it would be far better for it to be let to generate income. Additionally it was regretted that this would mean that commercial premises would again be boarded up in the main road while businesses were operating from within the Community Centre.

(This discussion went on so long that Cllr. Brewis feared it would go on till 11.30 pm (past his bedtime) and left the room at 8.20 pm). The Chairman concluded that the wrong planning permission had been sought and granted and that a letter should be sent to SHDC pointing this out, and that the proper planning clauses be implemented.

Cllrs. Booth and Brewis re-entered the chamber.

H18-0125-12 – S73A CONTINUATION – Continuation of permission granted under Ref. H18-0306-07 without complying with Condition 2 (provision of acoustic screen), Felbinder UK Ltd, Tydd Bank, SB – Mr S Smeeth. No objection.

H18-0066-12 – SEC 73 MODIFICATION – Variation to Condition 2 of H18-0743-10 to allow amended works/parking bays and removal of Condition 8 of H18-0743-10 relating to signage, Sutton Bridge Marina, West Bank, SB – Lincs County Council

It was agreed to defer comment on this until after the requested Question & Answer session arranged for the 9th March.

H18-1017-11 – Change of use and conversion of existing shop/accom to form 3
apartments and construct 2 new semi-detached dwellings, 8a High Street, Sutton
Bridge – Mr M Crass, Burleigh Rd, Ascot.

H18-0102-12 – Permission Renewal – Erection of pair of semi-detached dwellings,
217 Bridge Rd, SB – Mr M Baggaley

No objection.

H18-1011-11 – Details of method of disposal of manure and foul water, Riverside,
East Bank, SB – Miss EJ Garner & Mr MA Mears, Rushdene, Church Gate,


a. Update on outstanding matters – no report.

b. To report any new matters – LCC Highways intend to block the road running alongside the river south and west of the swing bridge as it is not necessary as a highway.

(Action recommended in reports to be included for resolution on next agenda)

A. Churchyard and Playing Fields – Cllr Grimwood, Hills, T Rowe

Cllr. Grimwood reported on the following:

• The trees in Chalk Lane had been trimmed back, but the debris had been left.

• At the East Bank Lighthouse there was graffiti on the litter bin and a vast amount of litter at the car park area.

• Cattle on the East river bank were straying into an unfenced area near the East Bank Lighthouse and concern was expressed about the Health and Safety issues that could arise

• Arnie Broughton Walk still needs a lot of work doing on it but some clearance has revealed clumps of snowdrops

• A post had been put in to stop cars entering the field behind the old Youth Club.

• It had been reported that a strong wire had been put across the pathway between Royal Close and the playing field in an apparent indiscriminate act of vandalism. This had been cut away and reported to the Police.

• In the Playground in Railway Lane South, the trees had been trimmed back on the west side of the park and looked the better for it. There remained the problem with the fencing and SHDC should remove it as it could be a possible danger for children playing there.

• The door to the electric meter at the Pavilion had been wrenched open, and Cllr. Grimwood had re-secured the door.

B. Allotments – Cllrs Brewis, Croxford, Preston – No report

C. Finance Committee – Cllrs Brandon-King, Dewsberry, Grimwood, Hills; as this had already be dealt with it was agreed to have this item removed from future agendas.

D. Personnel Committee – Cllrs Booth, Brewis, Croxford, Preston: No report

E. Planning – Cllrs S Booth, Brandon-King, J Rowe : As this matter had already been discussed it was agreed to have this item removed from future agendas. There was some discussion about the reopening of the Bargain Booze shop and requests for certain measures to be put in place if the shop is to continue trading. The SHDC Licensing Committee have taken the matter very seriously and have added the following conditions:

  1. That the Designated Premises Supervisor is to be a full time permanent member of staff to perform the required duties.
  2. In the absence of the DPS then the Premises licence holder be present.
  3. Two members of staff shall be present during trading hours.
  4. The use of an incident record book to be used when challenges of underage sales or drunkenness are made.
  5. Underage policy - Challenge 25 to be used.

Inspections and visits will continue to be made by SHDC Licensing Department, as well as Lincolnshire Police.

F. Footpaths & Byways (to include update on 'The Nene Local Access Forum) – Cllrs M Booth, Hills, Preston – Notices have been put up at Guys Head and on the East Bank about the closure of certain footpaths, but diversions were in place. Will give report next month

G. Burial Ground Committee – Cllrs Brandon-King, Grimwood, Hills, J Rowe : Cllr. Mrs. Hills gave a detailed report on progress of this project and put forward the following proposals:-

Resolutions put forward by Burial Ground Committee:

(i) To resolve to accept the quotation for the excavation of four trial holes;
subject to receipt of training certificates and a valid insurance
document; for the sum of £200 + VAT. Resolved

(ii) To consider and resolve on employing Mr Nixon to carry out the
necessary ecology survey subject to the results of trial holes. Resolved.

(iii) To resolve to support an application for £50,000 from the remaining
S106 funds for the burial ground project. After some discussion about whether to ask for £100,000 it was agreed that request for £50,000 would remain . Should further funding be required then a further request would be made. Resolved

(iv) To resolve to accept recommendations that are appropriate from Justin
Smith (Technical Director) of Cemetery Development Services. Resolved in principle subject to all conditions being met.

H. Parish Newsletter – Cllrs Brandon-King, Dewsberry, Preston – pro forma newsletter was discussed and with a few amendments agreed to go ahead.

Resolutions – Parish Newsletter working party:

(i) To resolve to accept 'terms of reference' for Newsletter Working Party
(ii) To resolve to accept for general distribution the Parish Newsletter-
'Spring Edition' as presented by the working party - Resolved

B. Farmers Market – Cllrs Grimwood, Hills – Will make report next month


a. Phillips and Allen's Charities – No report

b. Voluntary Car Scheme – No Report

c. SBCCFC Cllr. S. Booth Reported that:

• the SBCCF website was up and running
• The CAB had started their sessions that day
• A caretaker had been employed
• The Library would be opening shortly
• Risk assessment was underway
• Village Hall sign to be changed to Community Centre or Curlew Centre. (This is a matter for LCC .

d. LALC – No report.

e. Holbeach Senior Links- Cllr Dewsberry referred to a letter.

f. Power Station Liaison – no report

g. Kings Lynn Advisory Group Special Area of Conservation : Cllr. Grimwood reported there was to be a meeting of this group on the 27th March and as he wished to attend that meeting, he tendered his apologies to the PC. The Chairman asked him to put it in writing.

h. Charter of Friendship Group – no report

i. Grange Wind Farm Liaison Group – no report

j. The Suttons Emergency Planning Group – no report

k. Sutton Bridge Multi Agency Group – next meeting to be arranged.


15. TO RESOLVE ON PRESENTATION BY MR DAVID PULLEN (LINCS WATERWAYS P'SHIP) RE MARINA PROJECT : Resolved and agreed to invite Justin Brown and Eddie Poll. An Extraordinary Meeting will be held on 6th March, 7 pm at the Community Centre. Cllr. Brewis commented that it was unusual for there to be extraordinary meetings to hear presentations from potential developers, and asked if there was not a precedent being set. The Chairman replied that a precedent had already been set with representatives from Centrica visiting recently on two occasions.






(iii) ACCESS ARRANGEMENTS FOR PARISH OFFICE – correspondence item 9a(ii)



¦ ⇑ Back to top of page ⇑ ¦

Feb 172012

Notes on the Sutton Bridge Parish Council Meeting
held on 14th February, 2012

Present: Cllr Brandon-King (Chair), Cllr Croxford, Cllr Vicky Hills, Cllr Simon Booth, Cllr Mary Preston

An Extraordinary Parish Council Meeting was held at the Curlew Centre on Tuesday 14th February, 2012 to hear a presentation given by Simon Gamage, of Lincs Wind Farm Ltd , Consents & Environment Manager (Onshore), and to discuss the Parish Council’s response to LWF Ltd’s latest planning application for the second breach to the primary sea defence wall, north and east of the East Lighthouse. Application  H18-1024-11.  This meeting is reported under the Centrica page of this website.

¦ ⇑ Back to top of page ⇑ ¦

Feb 32012

Notes on the Sutton Bridge Parish Council Meeting
held on 31st January, 2012

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


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 . 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?


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.


a. Accounts for payment 31.1.12:



Chq. No.




Came & Company












N J Portass

Picnic Site





Solo Window  Blinds

Office blinds












Office Rent





Steve Cousins

Shower repair





Fraser Dawbarns

Legal services











Mrs J Ripley

Staff Costs





Carter Jonas

Land Rent







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

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.

a. Items of correspondence for commen

(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.


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.

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

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.



a. Update on outstanding matters

b. To report any new matters

(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"



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.


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.


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.

– 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.


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?


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.

– 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.


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





¦ ⇑ Back to top of page ⇑ ¦