Cross Keys Swing Bridge, Sutton Bridge, Lincolnshire


Sutton Bridge Parish Council
Archived Meetings News for 2013

Aug 22013

Notes on the Sutton Bridge Parish Council Meeting held at
The Curlew Centre on 30th July, 2013

Nobody in the space allotted wished to contribute to the Open Forum. [The Chairman seemed to find this difficult to believe… Speechlessness is perhaps a sound response to the proceedings… Why make a comment when nothing is ever replied to or acted upon or even taken seriously?]

1. Apologies: Cllr Giles & Cllr Booth S — no reasons given...

• Cllr Brewis left at 8pm without explanation and spent some time making some kind of arrangement with Winston of Lincs Free Press [Cllr Brewis had been absent for three successive meetings before this]

3. Presentation: Angela Scott from the Environment Agency gave a talk about the installing in September (in conjunction with Centrica and Port Sutton Bridge) of a Wash Tide Gauge at a cost of £3m but with a benefit of £65m of accurate tide data and immediate e-contact for vessels. There will be a day's worth of deep piling evening/night which we would probably be aware of. The purpose was to fill a gap in provision between Immingham and Cromer, a need which was identified as long ago as 1953... She said that it was no good siting the Gauge at Hunstanton because the site had to be constantly full of tidal water for measurements to be taken. [However, BW understands that the constant accretion and displacement of sands in the Wash estuary and the Wash itself may make its intended life span of 60 years impossible to achieve...]

The chosen site avoids shipping channels and will replace an MOD buoy near the reservoir island whence the Gauge, 13m above the water, will be a landmark.

Data about tides is already publicly available at (National Tide & Sea Level Facility). Data from the Wash Gauge will eventually be found there.

Cllr Brewis said how 'jolly pleased' he was about this; he had seen a Gauge in the Bristol Channel once and added that if there were going to be boat excursions out to see this one he'd like a booking. [See FROM THE GALLERY below]

5. Police Matters: Cllr Rowe referred to Speeding on Bridge Road & New Road and the incidence of youngsters riding bikes out into New Road. [See FROM THE GALLERY]

6. Chairman's Remarks:

• Glad to see that LCC had got signs up about A17 road closures as compared with lack of them over Bridge closure previously.

• Nice to see tourists using picnic tables on the green on hot days.

• Vandalism in churchyard—gate to be chained.

Cllr Croxford pointed out that anybody intent on vandalism would only find a way round and for some people this was a convenient shortcut to the village.

7. Clerk's Report:

• Simon Gamage (Centrica: East Lincs Wind Farm) will attend the September meeting to present an update.

• The Dog Warden, Rachel Thompson, who's currently employed on a contract basis is now to be directly employed by SHDC. She will look at dog-poo hotspots and other places. She could be invited to a PC Meeting.

8. Cllr Brewis had apparently provided a written report—which was not read out (a relief in one way but there might have been something useful in it). He also wanted to say how pleased he was at the progress of road surfacing especially up East Bank and Garner's Lane. He had phoned Highway to praise them and they were suffering from shock because of its unexpectedness.

9. Finance:

• Cllr Dewsberry caused a bit of a stir when he said there were six further items to those detailed in the accounts presented totalling £42000.

• The Clerk queried this and after she had survived Cllr Dewsberry's abrupt manner with singular self-control, she totted things up and said that the amount was around £6000.

• Cllr Dewsberry muttered something about the Clerk's salary but things were left in a totally unsatisfactory state.

• Cllr Rowe commented that there wasn't much of a discrepancy then. [Laughter...]

• Nothing was resolved and things simply moved on to the next item.

10. Correspondence:

• An email from a resident who had resigned from the Newsletter working party was not read out but was to be considered in the secret part of the meeting. [See FROM THE GALLERY below]

• The East Bank Lighthouse is still shrouded in polythene & scaffolding and so will not be open to the public in August. [See BW for details of the current state of work progress at the East Lighthouse]

• Lime Street Play Area: SHDC will improve the area with gates. Re-doing the surface will have to wait for finance to become available. SHDC propose to deliver a leaflet to residents saying that rubbish had been removed for the last time. It would not be removed again.

It was pointed out that SHDC had removed the existing gates for repair ages ago. Any leaflet would have to be in several languages as would a sign saying NO DUMPING (Item 27)

• Resolved to send SB in Bloom a letter of congratulation over successful funding application.

• Cllr Rowe proposed that Curlew Centre management committee be sent a letter of insistence that the toilets be open when the centre is open.

• A proposal for a Trim Trail round War Memorial Park would be referred to Friends of SB Parks & Open Spaces.

• Centrica are doing a geo-technical walkover of the new area for penetration sometime between 5th & 30th August. Natural England and Crown Estates have agreed to this. They would also be doing 'bores' at the same time.

Some discussion over this.

• Cllr Rowe expressed deep concern—we need to protect The Wash.

• Cllr Croxford said that now the precedent had been established the sea defences were likely to be regularly compromised. He asked what had happened to his proposal for a 30 year monitoring.

• Cllr Rowe proposed that the Clerk write to Natural England and Crown Estates to seek clarification.

• Cllr Brewis said the country needs energy-generation implying that therefore any risk was worthwhile.

The Clerk read out the following letter from a resident:

On 18 February of this year the Sutton Bridge Parish Council received a screening and scoping document from Parsons Brinckerhoff on behalf of EDF Energy regarding the proposed development of EDF power station phase B. If approved the new 1800Mw gas turbine power station will dwarf the existing much smaller 790Mw power station. The Parsons Brinkerhoff letter informed the Parish Council that although an application was made in 2005 under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to the Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC), due to changes made to the original proposal, the Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC) required the company to update and re-submit the application.

The re-application process will require EDF Energy to describe the proposed changes to Sutton Bridge B in detail and to produce an updated Environmental Impact Assessment. In the letter the Sutton Bridge Parish Council were asked to forward their comments to Parsons Brinkerhoff and to reply even if they had no comments to make.

I was somewhat bemused at the parish council meeting on 25 June when the Chair of the Parish Council suggested that as planning consent had already been given there was nothing that could be done about this proposed development. As a Sutton Bridge resident I wonder if the Parish Council have in fact checked the status of the planning permission that was given in 2005 to verify that it is still valid ? Even if the planning permission is still in place, as the screening and scoping document makes clear, the parish council are invited to comment as part of the re-application process for EDF phase B to DECC. It seems it is far from the case that there is nothing the parish council can do as they were specifically asked to comment on the proposal. I am left wondering if our parish councillors actually read or understand the papers that are circulated to them prior to their meetings. I should be obliged if you could let me know if the Parish Council responded to the screening and scoping document ?

At the same meeting the Parish Council agreed to ask for an extension to the deadline for submitting the comments on South East Lincolnshire Local Plan. An extension was necessary because at the Parish Council meeting on 30 April the council made the decision not to participate in the consultation. As the Local Plan includes Housing, Transport and the Infrastructure, Industrial and Commercial Development for the next 18 years until 2031 the decision not to take part appears to me to be a dereliction of duty by our Parish Council. Under the proposals Sutton Bridge will be designated as a main Service Centre where there will be few restrictions on industrial or commercial development. It is beyond comprehension that the parish council decided to opt out of participation and only when residents brought the importance of the Local Plan to their attention, did they decide to seek an extension. Did the South East Lincolnshire Joint Strategic Planning Committee agree to the extension and if so, how did the Parish Council respond ?

I am surely not alone in thinking that the people of Sutton bridge are badly let down by their elected representatives if they do not take the time to consider these really important issues. Instead an inordinate amount of time is spent at council meetings considering trivial issues.

Cllr Brewis indicated in his arcane manner that there were 'updated conditions that would have to be met'. Cllr Rowe asked for the Screening & Scoping document and Environmental Impact Assessment to be placed in the library. She also pointed out that the new power station was not being built on Enterprise 'Park' land. It was asserted that the PC had asked for an extension to the Local Plan Consultation period - some councillors had responded during the additional time.

11. Under Planning Matters it was accepted that a 'new steel basket handle' be fixed to the bridge to protect it from impact and slow HGV's down. There was a comment that a speed camera should also be fitted and a flashing 30mph sign. This would be referred to the Road Safety Partnership.

15. Updates re PREL.

• Nothing re S106 bribe. P Jackson (SHDC Planning Officer) will let PC know if/when agreement is coming up before the Planning Committee

• The Environment Agency can't comment on the risk of an explosion. They haven't yet decided whether the proposed plant does combustion or incineration... [Only when they know what feedstock is to be used can this be decided.]

• J Hayes had forwarded to the PC a copy of a letter from P Jackson (SHDC) which pointed out that everything had been 'fulsomely' discussed [guffaw from the gallery at this point] and that anybody who wished to complain should go to higher quarters.

• Cllr Rowe said that the Health & Safety Executive had advised that the proximity of a pipeline should be considered. She could find no evidence in all her papers that it had been. She proposed that the Clerk write to ask if it had been looked at.

• No reference to the Judicial Review was made.

16. Power Station B - still awaiting notice of exhibition

17. CRIME AND ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR WILL NOT BE TOLERATED sign for War Memorial Part car park. Comments were made that such a police notice was needed in other places where such things took place.

18. It seems that a preliminary surveyor's report on War Memorial Park Pavilion was not as damning as expected. Proposed to await full report.

19. New Parish Xmas tree. It would cost £300 to get a tall tree from Holland. Cllr Rowe expressed an objection: she requested that local garden centres might do this more cheaply.

20. The Clerk had discovered that War Memorial Park legally belongs to the long defunct Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF). She will seek legal advice as to current ownership.

21. Resolved to authorise police action against paint scatterers in War Memorial Park car park.

22. Fly tipping of grass cuttings. A final warning letter to the miscreant.

Cllr Grimwood left the meeting in the hands of Vice-chair M Booth at this point. He was off on some 'long journey'.

23. Question about who is authorised to receive CCTV info from War Memorial Park. Cllr Hills maybe. There was some indecision.

24. Discussion of action re Emergency Planning considerations deferred.

25. Purchase of a strimmer which would have to be given to the operator for insurance purposes. Figure of £200 suggested. Expenditure unwise till outcome of Judicial Review process decided when it will be known what's left in the coffers.

26. Cllr Lawton of SHDC to notify re progress of arrangements for warden visits & alarm system in Church Gate. SHDC withdrawal of same.

27. Lime Street Play area - see above...

28. SBCCFC Fun Day 25th May 2014

29. The listed building phone box at the end of East Bank is in a terrible and declining state. British Telecom asked to see to it immediately...

30. August meeting? No, unless there are developments with regard to the Judicial Review...

The meeting ended at 8.45...



Tide Gauge

¦ ⇑ Back to top of page ⇑ ¦

Jul 32013

Notes on the Sutton Bridge Parish Council Meeting held at
The Curlew Centre on 25th June, 2013

NB: In the expectation of a large number of local residents attending the Parish Council Meeting, the Main Hall was used. However, the acoustics in this room and the close proximity to activities in adjoining rooms, meant that it was not possible to hear clearly and succinctly everything that was said. The arrangement of the chairs in a long line was not satisfactory—the members of the council did not have eye contact with one another. As it happened only 12 members of the public attended and apart from three members of BATI (Sutton Bridge against the Incinerator), who were there 'wearing other hats', no other member of BATI attended. (NB All comments 'from the Gallery' are in this colour.)

Present: D Grimwood, G Croxford, J Grimwood, V Hills, S Giles, M Preston, D Dewsberry

Guest Speaker: Neil Goudie—Environment Agency Regulatory Officer, Combustion Team—Pollution, Prevention and Control (PPC) Team, Brampton, Huntingdon


a) Mr Howard Shapland spoke on behalf of Mrs Hardy (Sutton Bridge in Bloom); in answer to a request from the SBCCF to use the notice board at the entrance to the Curlew Centre (Agenda item 25). She had replied that the board belonged to the SBiB team who negotiated with the developers and the Parish Council. (Feb 2012 PC Meeting) for its exclusive use for SBiB. He said the situation hadn't changed. Later, the PC suggested that the two parties involved negotiate between themselves.

b) A parishioner asked a question about Royal Close but the question and the answer were inaudible to the Notetaker.

c) Resident said he was dismayed that the Council should consider getting rid of the Sports Pavillion because it had been there since 1952 and should be upgraded

d) Another request from a parishioner about road markers at the end of a particular street were inaudible.

e) Mr Blundell said that last weekend (21/23 September) there was a notice on the corner of Garners Lane, along East Bank, saying that the road would be closed for a day on Monday. At the other end of the 'closure', and the junction with Hospital Road, there was a similar notice saying that the road would be closed for two days. The Lincolnshire Highways Dept was phoned. The resulting conversation was not very satisfactory as they said they didn't know the area and therefore couldn't offer practical advice, except to suggest that we negotiate a passage through the works with the work team. When we said this was not good enough, we were told that this was 'Just one of those things.' CB then asked whether the traffic chaos that will result from their decision over PREL's HGV's will be 'just one of those things'. Highways do not know the area. The District Council is housed in Spalding and probably those who were voting had no idea that they were voting for traffic chaos when they OK'd the incinerator proposal.

The question: What plans does the Parish Council have to monitor traffic chaos, plant emissions and effects on the food chain when the incinerator is functioning?

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE: M Booth, S Booth, JR, CB (who said he would be along later)


3. SIGNING OF THE MINUTES: Notes from meeting held on 28th May 2013 agreed.

4. PRESENTATION: Neil Goudie, Environment Agency, Combustion Team Officer
This section is presented in dark red as it was the main purpose of the PC Meeting and an important issue for the residents of Sutton Bridge and the surrounding parishes, and we wish to highlight its importance in this way. (BW)

Neil Goudie explained his role: that he was based in Huntingdon, which was in one of four centres nationally that dealt with 'permitting' for combustion sites. Nottingham is the Eastern regional base. The law is based on European directives and new regulations are integrated when they come along. The EA has to consider the following:

that there is no risk to human health
minimised risk – prevention of accidents & limits to their consequences
prevention of accidents
mandatory emissions regulations
monitoring conditions in the permit to see they are applied.

He explained the terms:

Gasification—releases limited air (not enough to fully combust waste)
Pyrolasis—no air
Incineration—excess air (significant to ensure 'complete' combustion

A gasification plant, combusting excluded waste, where the thermal output is greater that 50MW is considered by the EPR's to be a combustion activity regulated by the EA. (F-the-G):It was thought that Ms Rome (PREL) in a letter to the PC that the clerk read out later in the Meeting referred to their plant as being 49MW)

NG added that under European Directives, Gasification and Pyrolasis are still 'incinerating' if burning WASTE.

European Incineration Regulations (EIR) defines Biomass. There are exclusions for special provisions. DEFRA's guidance provides clarity.

NG said the proposal for Sutton Bridge has a thermal input, and therefore is a combustion activity which requires a permit, which may have conditions applied to it.

How the assessment is made:

Pre-application discussions are held with the client by both the Planning Authority and the EA to gain more information. This is essential to ensure that the correct permit is applied for. It saves time.

Consultation Period: Press releases through local press, the EA website, to advertise consultation period. (At this point, all documentation is then in the public domain)

Comments from the statutory bodies* and the members of the public are taken into consideration.

* Local Planning authority
Health authorities
Natural England
Food Standards Authority
Health& Safety Executive
Parish Councils

Consultation period timescale: 30 working days, but can be extended up to 8 weeks.
At the end of the CP, the the applicant must provide:

a non-technical summary of the proposal
the best available technical assessment
economic argument to explain whether the proposer is using the 'best practice'
process diagrams and text to explain how things such as removal of waste emission, discharges into details about how discharges from sewers, water and on land will be carried out.
all materials used must be as efficient as possible
matters concerning noise and odour
condition of site and the measures to return the site to former state
human risk assessment

Guidance is given about

new European Directives and how they must be incorporated (although this often takes up to two years to be fully understood!)
gasification as opposed to pyro-alysis and traditional incineration
all sensitive receptors, including people and the environment (ie the Wash)

NG commented that a weakness in applications in general was that applicants had not considered ALL affected areas. For instance, in this case, The WASH.

Although Planning Permission is NOT required to for a Permit, both are needed for production. Ideally a planning application and request for a permit should be submitted at the same time, so that common themes can be sorted out (F-the-G:PREL did not do this), for example, flood measures to be taken, access to site etc.

NG summarised what should be in an application:

Non-technical summary
Best available technique (BAT assessment)
Description of the process & how it is controlled
Emissions to the environment
Efficient use of materials, water & energy
Noise & odour
Accident prevention
Monitoring of emissions
Site condition report
Environmental Impact Assessment
Air dispersion model
Health risk assessment.

(At this point Standing Orders were lifted so that the Public could ask questions.)

Cllr SG: 1. How often are emissions measured at the existing EDF Power Station? Through regular visits, continuous monitoring of data; through a summary sent to EA every 3 months for review. 2. Does the monitoring meet requirements? There are no current issues.

Cllr G C asked about particulates in the emissions. NG said the particulates were subject to European Regulations control.

KW asked about the plume of yellow emissions. The plume contains nitrogen dioxide and is emitted at start up. At the moment, there is an over-production from gas fired power stations nationally and shut downs occur in most plants. At SB, they shut down over night and restart in the morning. This should only take between 20—30 minutes. KW said that on the morning of the Meeting it had taken a lot longer up to one and half hours. NG said he would look into this.

SW asked was whether, in their considerations about the emissions from the incinerator, they took into account the fact that there would be HGV's travelling to and from the plant every 6 minutes for twelve hours a day and whether this would affect the air quality and the environment. This was a Highways problem, not for the Environment Agency.

BHM asked the following questions:

You described how the Environment Agency makes site visits to the gas fired power station and inspects the data provided by the operating company. Will the same thing apply to the incinerator so that you rely only on data provided by the operator? Does the Environment Agency take any steps to make sure that the air quality monitors are situated downwind of an incinerator or gasifer as these are the likely to be the most affected areas or does it leave the applicant to decide where they will placed? If the latter the company will presumably place them in the areas where there is a much lower chance of the limits being exceeded?

NG explained that the Environment Agency uses the EN14181 emissions monitoring standard to manage the process. The agency will usually visit the site once during the first year it is operational and then a visit will be scheduled at least once every 4 years. Calibration checks are conducted by the operator and the data is checked by the Environment Agency during site visits. The operator is required to have an annual surveillance test to be conducted by an external consultant. The Environment Agency does not monitor off-site or stipulate the location of off-site air quality monitors. Under UK legislation air quality management is the responsibility of the Local Authority.

You made it clear that the legal responsibility for air quality lies with the Local Authority. The Planning Authority told residents that it is not resourced to monitor breaches of the conditions it imposes on planning applications and that it relies on the public noticing a problem and reporting it to them. You will appreciate that this gives little comfort to the public especially as the most harmful emissions are invisible so we have no way of knowing when the limits are breached.

NG acknowledged that it would be difficult for the public to know if emissions levels were breached as these would not necessarily be visible to the naked eye or produce an odour. The public can only report what they can detect. He re-iterated that air quality management is the responsibility of the Local Authority.

You said that a permit would not be given unless the plant used the Best Available Techniques so that breaches are unlikely to occur. Yet, experience elsewhere: for example the Dargarvel incinerator that uses BAT, has repeatedly breached the permitted emissions level and been closed down by the Scottish Environment Agency for a few days 3 or 4 times last summer in order to rectify the problem. The Scottish regulations for emissions are more stringent than in the rest of the UK as they are set by the Scottish Executive. You will understand why we have less confidence than the EA that problems will not occur, given the track record of biomass incinerators.

NG: the Environment Agency will not grant a permit if it thinks that problems that breach the statutory regulations will occur. He understood that the incinerator in Scotland had a record of repeatedly breaching the emissions levels and that problems had occurred there.

From the public gallery: we believe that some of our questions put the EA representative in a difficult position because the regulations we have in the UK do not protect the public. However, his job is to explain their regulation, no matter what we may think. The government knows how harmful emission levels are in the UK and that the current levels are breached but to admit the harmful effects leaves them open to legal action. We are continually being misled.

When asked the question about the 'life-cycle & sustainability of the plant', NG reiterated that this is a Planning Issue, just as the question of emissions from HGV's to & from the plant are the responsibility Highways Department as part of the Planning Application. (F-the-G) Unfortunately for us, these things - were ruled out of 'discussion' at the SHDC Planning committee Meeting.

HG was also asked if he'd be looking at the cumulative impact of Power Station 1 & 2 & the PREL-proposal. How stringent will this be? He said he would.

CB said that the Planning Committee had ruled out anything that was not a material consideration, which encompasses all the things that perhaps the EA will look into, for instance: air quality, health, food chain, etc. Will this be the case? The answer was: There would be discussion with the planning officer to decide what is what.

It transpired that, according to NG, the life cycle of the plant and the sustainability of the feedstock is a planning matter as is HGV emissions to and from the plant. Both of these were described as 'non-material considerations' in the planning debate. SHDC Planners said that they were only giving permission for a building.

CB said that since there would be tighter air quality air regulations in 2013 and that there was a study being conducted about the health effects on those living within 15km of incinerators to be published in March 2014, will these two things be taken into account in the EA deliberations? They will have to revise retrospectively ALL permissions already granted in order to be in line with these two things. If the new standards are not met, then action will need to be taken.

JB asked: what if the operator runs out of his declared feedstock and seeks to change this to another feedstock? An interesting question: then they would have to reapply for a permit for a change of feedstock with all the relevant process (as outlined above) included. In other words, apply for a new full permit.

Summing up, HG said that if the applicant was not using Best Available Technique (BAT) it was up to them the applicant) to provide an economic argument to the EA to justify their decision not to use BAT technology.

5. POLICE MATTERS: No Police present.

6. CHAIRMAN'S REMARKS: JG described the havoc caused by inadequate signage when the Cross Keys Bridge was recently closed for emergency repairs. It was reported to LCC Highways, who responded that it was 'an emergency'. JG commented on the newly repainted village signs (thanking again JB & MH for their work) adding that a replacement board for the damaged one is being worked on. He congratulated the SBCCF for a successful Fun Day in the Memorial Park on June 16th.

7. CLERK'S REPORT: Signage for the new public toilets at the Curlew Centre has been requested. A reminder was given to the Meeting that the RAF memorial Service will take place on 8th September.

8. TO RECEIVE REPORTS FROM DISTRICT AND COUNTY COUNCILLORS As both M. Booth (DC) and C Brewis (DC&CC) were absent there were no reports from either councillors:


a. Accounts for payment 25.6.13:

Payee Detail Chq. No. Net VAT Total
Dent Security MP CCTV #000228  6796.74 1359.35 8156.09
Wingland litter #000229 105.00   105.00
Wingland District cuts " 1503.63   1503.63
Wingland Parish cuts " 1545.03   1545.03
Mrs V Hills Expenses #000231 17.75   17.75
Mr D Large MP gate repair #000232 195.00   195.00
Mr D Large MP drop posts " 60.00   60.00
Mr D Large Clearance of MP b'dry " 1380.00   1380.00
HMRC Tax & NI #000233 621.77   621.77
Mrs S England Clerk's salary #000234      
Mrs J Ripley Admin post salary #000235      


a. Money In: Items were listed, but no total was given.
b. Cllr DD reported that expenditure to date amounted to £1581.85

Clr Dewsberry announced, (with no explanation), that £35,000 had been transferred to a 3-month interest account.

Items of correspondence for comment:

(i) Letter, SBCCFC – Request to use MP notice board – See Open Forum (a) above
(ii) Letter, SBCCFC – Request for update on new metal finger posts—ongoing
(iii) Letter, Friends of SB Sports Pavilion – Copy of survey questionnaire—reminder to return Q/aire by June 30th to Parish Office.
(iv) Letter, Rt Hon john Hayes MP – Details provided in PREL update

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

(i) Rural Services Network – News Digest issues 28/5, 4/6
(ii) Bakkavor Party in the Park – 20.7.13
(iii) Play & Leisure News 2013
(iv) SHDC Volunteering Newsflash
(v) LCC Highways – Transport & Travel update
(vi) LCVS – Newsbite issue 21
(vii) Rural Services Network –
Rural Opps Bulletin E Local Plan – Information available to view at P Office

Non- Commercial:
H18-0476-13, Renewal of external render and pvc windows in Lighthouse tower, East Bank Lighthouse, SB – Mr D Hilton
H18-0320-13 – Extension to rear of dwelling to enlarge kitchen, 43 New Rd, SB – Ms K Baker.
H18-0307-13 – Proposed new dwelling, Adjacent to 101 New Rd, SB – Mr & Mrs A Thompson.
New application (no ref number given) – the former chapel (132 Bridge Road – modification to fist floor windows—agreed


a. Update on outstanding matters: apparently road markings are not mandatory.
b. To report any new matters: gutter cleaning not done in SB because there was no money left in the kitty!


A. Churchyard and Playing Fields – Cllrs D Grimwood, J Grimwood, Hills
B. Allotments – Cllrs M Booth, Brewis, Giles, Croxford, Preston
C. Personnel Committee – Cllrs Booth, Brewis, Croxford, Preston
D. Footpaths & Byeways – Cllrs M Booth, Hills, Preston
E. Burial Ground Committee – Cllrs Giles, J Grimwood, Hills, J Rowe
F. Parish Newsletter – Cllrs Dewsberry, Giles, Preston, Mr Collins-McDougall (co-opted)

(F-the-G:As there was nothing to report, these items need not been shown on the Agenda. It seems a waste of time to list Agenda items where there is nothing to say. These items should have been discussed prior to the meeting. It would save everyone's time, including attendees! Similarly with the following items, where there was no report to be given.)


Phillips and Allen's Charities – Cllrs Dewsberry, Hills, Preston
Voluntary Car Scheme – Cllr Grimwood
SBCCFC – Cllr S Booth
LALC – Cllr M Booth
Holbeach Senior Links – Cllr Dewsberry
Power Station Liaison – Cllr Hills
K. L. Advisory Group Special Area of Cons. – Cllr Grimwood
Charter of Friendship Group – Cllr Dewsberry
Grange Wind Farm Liaison Group – Cllrs Grimwood & Preston
Sutton Bridge LIVES – Cllr Croxford
Sutton Bridge Multi Agency Group – Cllr Preston
Friends of SB Sports Pavilion – Cllr Hills
Sutton Bridge Youth Club – Cllr Grimwood

15. To receive update on matters relating to PREL planning application and resolve on further action as considered appropriate (F-the-G): There was no update and no resolution about further action. The clerk reported that although planning permission had been agreed subject to conditions that included the discounted electricity scheme and environmental issues, it had already been sold by PREL. She also referred to a letter that Mr Hayes (MP) had received from Eric Pickles in response to his questioning.

letter from Eric Pickles

16. To receive update on matters relating to EDF Power Station B and resolve appropriately –The Clerk had been notified that EDF's Exhibition had been postponed yet again until the autumn. (From-the-G: It appeared that planning permission was current and nobody queried this, even though the customary 5 years has lapsed.)

17. To resolve to contact SBCCFC to request daily opening of public conveniences located within the Curlew Centre – Cllr Giles said that the toilets should be open when the Centre is in use. She cited a recent example of the congestion that is caused when a queue formed to use the only available open toilet—the disabled one. When questioned as to why this is not a matter of course, the reply was: it only has to be cleaned!

18. To resolve on action to be taken concerning Memorial Park Pavilion taking into consideration recommendations contained in risk assessment report. Cllr Preston thought it was a waste of money. It was explained that a Risk Assessment was necessary to determine the safety of the building. It was agreed to spend £350 on the RA

19. To resolve on distribution of Parish newsletter — given approval

20. To resolve on action concerning improvements to Christmas lighting scheme in Sutton Bridge – Standing Orders were lifted to allow Phil Scarlett (Chairman of Spalding Chamber of Commerce) to explain how he was willing to enable Sutton Bridge to have Christmas lighting (not just the Christmas tree) using S106 money and with no extra work for the Parish Clerk, as he would do all the work for free! It was felt that the PC had too much on its plate at the moment to take this on board. It was agreed to reconsider the matter in 2014.

21. To consider content of SE Lincs Local Plan and resolve on appropriate action — In the absence of Cllr Rowe, this item was not fully discussed. However, Cllr Croxford suggested more time beyond the June 30th deadline be requested, for further discussion. (From-the-G: Question: As Cllr Brewis is on the SHDC Planning Committee, why was there no input from him? Even though he had not yet arrived at the meeting by this time, a written statement could have been offered prior to the meeting.)

22. To resolve on action concerning SHDC's decision to end the supply of free dog poo bags Clerk to provide update on cost – Most councilors were in favour of this decision. Cllr Grimwood cut through the 'crap' (!) by saying he would provide poo bags out of his Chairman's Allowance to appease some concerns that if the bags are available, then there is an incentive to use them.

23. To receive update on 'old public loo' building and resolve on appropriate action. This item concerned ownership of the land and the exact location of the land discussed in a letter received from SHDC only a few hours before the meeting. As the letter's contents were not clear, further clarification would be requested.

24. To resolve on action concerning Emergency Planning considerations/procedures. The Meeting congratulated Cllr Croxford on his initiative who said that 5 additional people had offered their services and there were plans to begin fund raising.

25. To resolve to authorise the Memorial Park playing field area to be 'dedicated' by QE2FC in order to allow funding to be sourced by FoSBPF&OS to increase the provision of adult fitness equipment. After some discussion as to the legitimacy and logic of this proposal, it was finally decided to drop the idea as legal advice would need to be sought. This was agreed. Cllr Giles said that she was against renaming the Memorial Park on principle. (From-the-G: Presumably this is because it is actually War Memorial Park. Not a lot of people know this).

26. To resolve on request from SBCCFC to authorise their use of notice board located at the entrance of the Memorial Park. This was reported above under Open Forum.

27. To consider judging program for Best Kept Village competition and resolve on appropriate action. Apart from organizing a litter pick, nothing else was suggested but it was commented on that the village has already been judged as the judging period has already begun!

The following items were agreed:

28. To resolve on re-painting of yellow lines marking out disabled parking bays in MP car park – Cllr D Grimwood

29. To resolve on sign for Memorial Park car park.

30. To receive requests from members for consideration at the discretion of the Chairman: none requested.

The Council went into closed session. The Public were asked to leave. The public part of the Meeting ended at 9.20pm.



Other observations:

¦ ⇑ Back to top of page ⇑ ¦

Jun 62013

Notes on the Sutton Bridge Parish Council Meeting held at
The Curlew Centre on 26th May, 2013

Open Forum

Mr. Fenton stated that he had noted the Dodfrey’s Engineering had put in a planning application to extend their premises, he felt that this would increase the noise nuisance level not only to his own home but also those of his neighbours.  He said that although the company had moved their equipment to another part of their building, the noise and vibrations were still apparent.  Mr. Fenton also said that the caravan was still being illegally parked.

Mrs. Faires spoke of her dismay that the tulips on the East Bank had been cut down far too early by the grass cutter, thus spoiling the bulbs for another good display next year and asked if it would it not have been possible to delay the final cut for another month.

Mr. Jackson spoke of the recent Extraordinary Parish Meeting when it was intimated there would be a further Public Meeting and when would this be?

Mr. Blundell spoke eloquently about the flawed planning application by PREL.    He said that, like everybody in the room, he had spent much time going through the PREL EIA with a fine toothcomb and was astonished to find that there was no reference to the danger of explosions and/or fire hazards. He was even more amazed to note that Mr. Fidler had ruled the danger out as being ‘not a material consideration’. We have this in writing.

Then he realised with horror that there was a distinct pattern in the position of the so-called Planning Committee. Anything that campaigners might consider to be important on the general grounds of environmental pollution was deemed to be ‘not a material consideration’. For example

Fire & explosions - not a material planning consideration
Danger to cockle beds from emissions fallout - not a material planning consideration
Danger to crops from toxin fallout entering the food chain - not a material planning consideration
Toxins etc entering the food chain through fish stock in the Wash - not a material planning consideration
Potential traffic chaos - not a material planning consideration
Deterioration of living conditions for Sutton Bridge residents - not a material planning consideration
Effect on wildlife in general - not a material planning consideration
Noise & light pollution - not a material planning consideration
Depletion of the world's forests - not a material planning consideration
Etcetera, etcetera - not a material planning consideration

He pointed out that Fidler & Co will say that the Planning Committee was in business simply to make a decision about a building... They were not concerned with what it's used for, what the consequences of its operation might be or any effects on the local population. [This contrasts with the PC's own later correct rejection of the planned extension to Dodfrey’s Engineering which did take into account consequences and effects...]

The simple question that ought to be asked of some legal mind or the other is: since all this is contrary to the current Local Plan are SHDC legally correct to go against their own Local Plan? Otherwise, what's the point of having a Local Plan?


Cllr. John Grimwood was re-elected as Chairman and signed the declaration of acceptance.

Cllr. M. Booth was re-elected as vice-chairman.

Apologies for absence had been received from Cllr. S. Booth and C. Brewis who, as on a previous occasion, had stated he would be arriving late.

POLICE MATTERS: The PCSO Officer present stated they were aware of the caravan and were taking the necessary action.

DISTRICT COUNCILLORS REPORTS: A copy of District Councillor M. Booth’s report was handed out, main points as follows: 

A copy of Cllr. Brewis’ report can be obtained from the Clerk at the PC Office.

Finance:  Included in this report was the cost of £535 for the repairs at the pedestrian gate of the Memorial Park.


Highways & Footpaths:

Reports from Working Parties & Committees:

As the items covering reports from Working Parties & Committees, and Reports from Outside Bodies Representatives take too much time and seldom have any reports made, that in future these items will be reduced to allow only those who have reports to make.

Update on the PREL planning application: 

It was agreed to submit a formal complaint via the formal complaints procedure concerning the flaws to the planning process in relation to application ref H18-0723-12 (PREL).

Cllr. Mrs. Giles had researched and contacted four specialist legal advisers and although had received very little if any information from three of them, one company had submitted a detailed itemised summary of what costs would be involved, and this was below the £10,000 bench mark.  This company also offered a free 4 hour consultation to the PC in order to ascertain if there was a case for the PC to follow.

Cllr. M. Booth was reluctant to commit the sum of money (£10,000) earmarked for matters relating to this planning application towards the funding of independent legal advice, preferring to wait until after the all other formal avenues had been explored.

The Clerk reported on the advice from NALC (see From the Gallery) and offered a warning about possible costs.

Cllrs. Mrs. Giles, Mrs. Hills and Mrs. Rowe each emphasised the urgency of this matter (as well as most of those present in the public gallery) with time being of the essence. 

Standing Orders were removed for Craig Jackson to address the meeting and he explained that both himself and Paul Espin had made official complaints to South Holland District Council regarding their failure to disclose key information from Natural England (NE), the failure to observe the Bio-diversity Action Plan (BAP) requirements which NE referred to in their correspondence which insisted on a marine life survey being completed before the application was determined by the authority.  NE is a Government body and statutory consultee for planning applications of this kind.

He pointed that the Environmental Impact Assessment was seriously flawed in that it did not meet the planning guidance, omitted key receptors in the emissions modelling, failed to deliver on its promises and bore little relation to the application that was finally passed.

He also pointed out that BATI was not eligible for legal aid and had already made enquiries regarding pro-bono Judicial Review and was awaiting a response, but this was a lottery on whether they would be eligible.

With regard to legal services, he stated that the offer of significantly discounted legal services made to the PC, in legal terms at the prices outlined by the Clerk, was a bargain.

After much deliberation it was agreed that three councillors (Mrs. Giles, Mrs. Hills and Croxford) attend the proffered four hour free consultation.  It had also been suggested that one member of the public also be allowed to attend the said consultation, which Cllr Preston thought might be useful but Cllr. Croxford proposed that only PC councillors should attend and Cllr Preston supported him. There was no discussion about this.

Cllr. Mrs. Rowe proposed that part of the sum of money from the said £10,000 be used to fund information leaflets in order to keep parishioners fully updated on this planning application.  It was agreed that such information should also be placed in the parish newsletter and that it is published as soon as possible. Cllr Booth stressed that any leaflet should not contain what he called propaganda.

If the free consultation proves that the PC have a case, then a public meeting will be called as soon as possible.

There are no plans to reinstate the bottle, can and glass recycling facilities in the Memorial Park car park as all residents have a recycling collection on a weekly basis.

The cost of providing free ‘dog poo bags’ is to be investigated.

There will be a ‘No Ball Games’ sign and a ‘5mph Advisory Speed Limit’ sign placed in the Memorial Park car park.

Regarding the ‘Rave’ events held at the Hydraulic House adjacent to the Churchgate area, although the matter has been reported to the police, they cannot make them turn the music off.  The matter will no w be taken up with the new Police Commissioner.

It had been reported to the SBPC that the planters on the traffic islands near the swing bridge were to be removed, but as they have been there for a number of years the PC consider they are not a hazard.  Cllr. Mrs. Rowe requested that the PC write to Lincs CC requesting that the planters remain in situ.

Members of the Army Display Team are to be allowed to sleep overnight in the Memorial Park on 15th June in order to provide site security.

It was agreed to all a bouncy castle to be put up behind the Curlew Centre on 1st June in support of a pre-school nursery fundraising day.

At the Chairman’s Discretion



Exactly how are the PC representatives going to use the four hours’ free consultation? They will need to be very sharp.

Cllr. Mrs. Giles presented a comprehensive paper containing a mix of things which, it’s feared, would not impress a legal mind. The mix of things seemed to fall by memory into two broad categories:-

The NALC advice about grounds for a Judicial Review, which the Clerk read out during the meeting, provides a sound legal-minded and logical framework by which to consider the case.

The Decision re PREL can only be challenged on the grounds of (1) irrationality (2) illegality and/or (3) procedural impropriety. The NALC conclusion was that there was not enough information for further advice to be offered.

It has to be borne in mind that Cllr. Gambba-Jones pointed out that they were only granting an application for a building. All other considerations were therefore immaterial.


The following is the substance of an email subsequently sent to the Clerk for onward transmission to Councllors. Only John Grimwood and Jenny Rowe have replied

It seems totally irrational to campaigners and some members of the Parish Council that objections on grounds of health, emissions, explosions, toxins in wheat, cockle beds & fish stock, traffic jams and general environmental pollution should have been excluded from discussion.
On the other hand, if ‘planning’ was just about granting permission for a building there is nothing irrational about the decision. It makes complete sense from the so-called Planners’ point of view. It’s why they did not appear to be listening to complainants.
To save a lot of wasted breath, whenever an objection is voiced now the test question that it's worth asking is—Would the Planners reject it on the grounds that, in their judgement, it’s ‘not a material consideration’?
The question that arises is— Were SHDC legally within their rights when they decided to exclude all environmental considerations from their discussion? After all, this goes completely against the current Local Plan which puts protection of the environment at the top of the agenda.
The fore-going is intended to address the issues of (1) irrationality and (2) illegality.
In terms of (3) procedural impropriety, in attempting to get round complaints and objections (which in their mind were to be described as not being ‘of material consideration’) as expeditiously as possible, the Chair was simply being ham-fisted in his haste to conclude discussion of what to him, in taking the Fidler/Jackson line, was irrelevant to the straightforward application for the erection of a building for a ‘power station’. This is why the 'debate' seemed so barren.
What seems like ‘procedural impropriety’ to campaigners might just be construed as the Fidler-Jackson-Gambba-Jones Axis' cack-handed way of circumventing what they considered to be irrelevancies. If SHDC were legally correct in excluding all environmental considerations from the ‘debate’ then the process was not particularly ‘flawed’—just a rather inept piece of theatre.
This does all raise the issue of why SHDC were in such unseemly haste to get the application dealt with as soon as possible. That is no doubt immaterial.
If there’s no legal case to make regarding the SHDC decision, then campaigners’ only chance now is to direct their objections to the Environment Agency in the strongest terms. This should begin now.


In fact, the whole Planning Committee approach is totally contrary to the principles of the SHDC Local Plan the Core Principle of which is that ‘...the environment should be considered throughout the Development Plan process...’  ‘...We want to preserve the quality of life within the District and to maintain a sustainable environment for residents and visitors to the District in the Future...’  The Local Plan includes statements like ‘...the     quality of life for residents [should be] unimpaired or enhanced....’ ‘South Holland’s essential character and main environmental assets are not damaged...’ (SG 1). It proposes that any ‘...development is acceptable in terms of traffic generation and road safety in the surrounding area...’(SG2); that ‘...the need for the development in [a particular] location outweighs its impact and no other site or solution exists to accommodate the proposed development...’(SG4) and that ‘...Planning permission will only be permitted for development proposals which do not cause unacceptable levels of pollution of the surrounding area by noise, light, toxic or offensive odour, airborne pollutants or by the release of waste products...’ (SG13)

The simple question for a legal mind to answer is: Were the planners legally within their rights to exclude the environmental objections from campaigners? If the answer is ‘Yes’, disgraceful though it might be, then there’s no case.

¦ ⇑ Back to top of page ⇑ ¦

May 52013

Notes on the Sutton Bridge Parish Council Meeting held at
The Curlew Centre on 30th April, 2013

A 15 minute Open Forum commenced at 7.00 p.m. with 8 Parishioners wishing to ask questions.

  Business to be Transacted

1.         Apologies for Absence with reasons: Apologies for absence were received from Cllr.S. Giles.
It was noted that Cllr.Brewis would be half-an-hour late.

2.         Declarations of Interest:

3.         Signing of the Minutes:  Notes of 26th March 2013 meeting were agreed.

4.         Police Matters:  The PCSO reiterated her comments regarding the caravan on Bridge Road and said she was satisfied that the owner was trying to find a storage solution.  There followed a lengthy discussion on the role of the Police Commissioner.

5.         Chairman’s Remarks: Chairman remarked that he had attended the Planning Meeting at SHDC on 17th April and was not at all impressed.  Those attendees, who were situated in Room 1 as there was insufficient room in the Council Chamber, could not see the plans.  (At this point, Cllr.Hills pointed out that he hadn’t missed anything as the situation was the same in the Council Chamber).  He added that the Incinerator application was to be discussed again at the next Planning Meeting on 8th May.

6.         Clerk’s Report:  Two youths caught on CCTV damaging Curlew Centre.  Not enough evidence to convict.  Full risk assessment being carried out on the Memorial Park Pavilion.

7.         To Receive Reports from District & County Councillors:  Written report from Cllr.M.Booth - briefly set out below:

8.         Financial Matters: Finance Committee met earlier in the day. 
(a) Four further payments to be made in addition to those listed on the Agenda.  Cllr.Dewsberry said the reserves were healthy.
(b) Precept and allotment rents had been received.
(c) Accounts approved for year end 31/3/2013. These now available to anyone to read at the Parish Office – appointments required before viewing.
(d) Agreed to allocate £20,000 to reserves (i.e., £15,000 for burial ground and £5,000 for play equipment).

9.         Correspondence
(a) Clerk read out correspondence as listed on agenda.  Commented that letter from Centrica available to all if required.  SE Lincs Local Plan Consultation Exhibition at Curlew Centre 15th May, 3-7 pm.  Power Station B – Modified proposals. Arrangements are being made for a public exhibition in the early summer. Pest Baiting around industrial units. Claims of rats within that locality.  Drainage Board to fill in ‘grips’ and warning against digging these grips into watercourses. Burial Facilities – Now an urgent matter for this Council.
(b) Further correspondence available at Parish office.

10.       Planning Matters:  (i) New: - No comments. (ii) New: - No comments (Ref: H18-0246-13 Cllr.Rowe commented that perhaps the developers should be made aware of the proposed incinerator which would be close to this new development). (iii) Same comments apply as previous application. 

11.       Highways & Footpaths:  Standard of work on tarmac repairs is appalling. Agreed to write to Lincs CC regarding repair work.    Traffic restrictions at Tydd Road from 3-14th June.  Diversions in operation.  Comment made about lack of bus timetables.

12.       To Receive Reports from Working Parties & Committees: (a) Knotweed still a problem. (b) Most of the allotment plots now looking better. (c) No meeting held. (d) Nothing to report.  (e) Looking at another piece of land. (f) Nothing to report. (g) Nothing to report.

13.       To Receive Reports from Outside Bodies:  (a) Nothing to report. (b) Meeting held on 28th March. Precept same as last year.  Urgently need voluntary drivers. (c) Confirmed toilets now taken over by SHDC. (d) Nothing to report. (e)  Nothing to report.  (f) Nothing to report. (g) Meeting to be arranged (h), (i), (j) and (k) Nothing to report. (l) Bank account finally opened after 6 month wait. ‘Needs Assessment’ form being revamped. (m) Youth Club attracting 20-30 people in two sessions.  Need volunteer helpers.

14.       To Receive update on matters relating to PREL Application:  A lengthy discussion took place regarding the Planning Meeting held at SHDC on 17th April.  It was generally agreed that the meeting under the chairmanship of Mr Gambba-Jones was appalling.  Most Councillors did not understand the full implications of the proposal by PREL, had come to the meeting ill-prepared, lacked understanding of the major issues and were led in their decision by the Chair.  Whilst Cllr. Jenny Rowe gave a presentation on behalf of Sutton Bridge PC, she had no support whatsoever from her fellow Sutton Bridge Councillor Chris Brewis.   Had he supported her and the majority of Sutton Bridge residents who opposed this plan, it could well have meant that the application was thrown out.  It was noted that the next meeting of the Planning Committee would be on 8th May and that this item would be first on the Agenda.  In view of the urgency of this matter it was agreed by a majority that a letter should be written immediately to the Planning Committee urging them to put back the date of the next Planning Committee meeting.  The Clerk and Cllr.Rowe to liaise on the content of the letter.  Also agreed that if the date of the Planning Committee was put back, a further public meeting should be called by the PC and that leaflets should be distributed to all households.  PC to meet the expense of the leaflets.  Cllr.M. Booth abstained.

15.       To Resolve on Parishioners Refurbishing Village Signs at West End and A.17:  The Clerk showed a picture of the newly refurbished village sign on the village green.  Agreed an excellent job had been done.  Agreed that signs on A17 and west end of Bridge Road would be removed for refurbishment.  Also agreed that the Parishioners involved should be offered recompense for their efforts.

16.       To Resolve on further Action regarding Consultation re Local Plan:  On reading the paperwork Cllr.Rowe commented that the PC should not proceed with this since it seemed that local people would have to do all the work while SHDC would take all the credit or cherry-pick whatever they wanted from any local proposals.

17.       To Resolve on new Location in Memorial Park for Adult Exercise Equipment:  Cllr.D.Grimwood said that original site has now proved unsuitable for a variety of reasons.  New area for consideration is outside of the children’s play area in the park.  Agreed.

18.       Entering Best Kept Village 2013:  Agreed.

19.       Resolve on Action to be taken on Unfinished Triangle of land, rear of Curlew Centre:
Agreed that Friday Coffee Morning Ladies, the In-Bloom and some of the youth can clear and plant a wildflower meadow (as per email from Sutton Bridge in Bloom as read out by Clerk).  PC to install a lockable post so that vehicle access can only be for emergency vehicles.

20.       Resolve to confirm repair Works to Memorial Park Car Park:  Agreed.

21.       Consider Creating new Children’s Play Area: Deferred for time being.

22.       Receive Requests from Members at Discretion of Chairman:  Items raised under this heading will be put on Agenda for next meeting.  Cllr.D.Grimwood raised objections to the recently issued Newsletter by Cllr.Brewis in which he claimed responsibility for curing the pothole situation.  Cllr.Preston suggested there was no need for two football pitches in Memorial Park.

23.       Resolve to move into Closed Session:  Agreed, public left the meeting at 8.45 p.m



¦ ⇑ Back to top of page ⇑ ¦

Apr 232013

Notes on the Sutton Bridge Annual Parish Council Meeting held at
The Curlew Centre on 16th April, 2013

Present: John Grimwood – Chairman
Cllr.Shirley Giles – Note Taker

1. Welcome - The Chairman welcomed all those attending the meeting and introduced Cllr.Shirley Giles as the Note-taker for the meeting in the absence of the Parish Clerk.

2. Signing of Minutes – Notes from the Parish Meeting held on 23rd November 2012 to be accepted as Minutes.  Agreed

3. Report from Chairman of Parish Council

4. Report from Clerk to the Council – No report was given due to absence of Clerk.

5. Presentation – ‘Friends of Sutton Bridge Playing Fields & Open Spaces’. Mrs. Shirley Giles gave a presentation on behalf of ‘FSBPFOS’. She said that the group, although small in number had achieved a lot since inception. They had installed a number of benches in the village together with two picnic tables at the village green. These picnic tables had been well used over the past year. At present the group were seeking funding to install outdoor gym equipment in the Memorial Park alongside the Pavilion. She was seeking signatures of approval from the community as to need and use. This will help with their funding for the project.

6. Presentation – ‘Sutton Bridge in Bloom’. Mrs. Teresa Hardy gave a presentation on behalf of SBiB. She outlined the history of the group and said that at present SBiB consisted of 12 very active and busy members. The group had won a Silver Award for the community at the East Midlands in Bloom competition in 2012, but were not entering the competition this year in order to concentrate on current activities. She said that the group had a big project this year in the building of a Community Garden in the entrance area of the Memorial Park. Funding is being sought for this project.  She went on to say that the group totally rely on funding and donations for their work – ‘no funding – no Sutton Bridge in Bloom’. The team are always looking for volunteers and would really like involvement from youngsters in the village. In conclusion, she thanked the Parish Council for their continued support.

7. Any Other Matters Members of the Public may wish to Raise

The meeting closed at 7.45 pm

¦ ⇑ Back to top of page ⇑ ¦

Apr 92013

Notes on the Sutton Bridge Parish Council Meeting held at
The Curlew Centre on 26th March, 2013

Open Forum

Mr. Fenton stated that potholes in and around the Lime street area were getting larger and when filled with water could be a danger to cyclists.

He also stated that as the Walsingham Pilgrims were expected in the village and would be using the shower facilities in the Pavilion, that the surface at the entrance to the Memorial Park should be repaired as at present it was very muddy. It was pointed out that the ‘pilgrims’ were already here.

Cllr. Hills confirmed that new surface work would shortly be carried out in that area.

Mr. Collins-McDougal referred to the EDF Scoping document that had been presented to the PC and SHDC regarding the proposed building of Phase B, with a proposed output of 180 megawatts it would be double the size of the present Power Station.  He further stated that he understood that EDF had sold out to an Australian company in December. 

He said that EDF had been invited to make a presentation at the Annual Parish Meeting, and asked what steps does the PC intend to take to inform residents of this new proposed power station.

Mrs. Houlder also referred to the proposed construction of Phase B Gas fired Power Station stating that not only would air quality be at dangerously high levels if this proposal went ahead, but that the resulting increase in traffic would further add to the pollution of this area.

Mr. Blundell said:


What I want to say concerns the parlous state of democracy in Sutton Bridge. It is highly unlikely that the PC will tell us anything about the proposed new power station any more than they told us about the incinerator.

Cllr Booth has been honest enough to say that he would support the incinerator development provided he could be reassured about the effect on air quality for Sutton Bridge. Unfortunately, since PREL assert that what they will burn is confidential, no such reassurances will be forthcoming. They could burn anything from rats’ tails to old socks in the future. It cannot be predicted what they will burn and so nobody can make a prediction about the likely effect on air quality. In addition to which an HGV going in and out of the proposed site every 5 minutes will have a disastrous effect on air quality quite apart from causing chaos on the roads.

In December I asked why Cllr Brewis declined to express a current opinion over the proposed PREL incinerator since, back in 2009 he seemed to be in favour of it. Through the Parish Clerk I have twice asked Cllr Brewis on what grounds he thinks he is exempt from the provision of the Localism Act which states that Councillors are no longer prevented from expressing an opinion on, for example, planning matters which they may be concerned with. I have not had the courtesy of a reply.

I asked the same kind of question in a letter to the Free Press. Again, no reply from Cllr Brewis. But I understand that he has made a response in his Newsletter which, since I'm on his blacklist, I do not receive. It described the letter as 'waffle'.

The intention of this new freedom in Localism Act was supposed to improve democratic discussion. (See page 5 in the simple person’s version of the Act)

I would like to know what the Parish Council's view of this example of ‘democratic interaction’ is where one of their number writes a resident’s expression of concern is written off as ‘waffle’. The fact is that in the continuing absence of a decent Parish Council Newsletter, the Brewis Newsletter is widely regarded as an organ of the Parish Council. To write a resident's concerns off as 'waffle' could be seen to be bringing the PC into disrepute.
What view does the PC have of this? I think it is important for the sake of democracy.


At this point the substitute Clerk exceeded her role and took over chairpersonship of the meeting. She suggested that Mr Blundell was being unfair to the PC, that Cllr Brewis wrote his Newsletter under the role of District Councillor and that in any case while the Localism Act did say that that Councillors are no longer prevented from expressing an opinion on, for example, planning matters which they may be concerned with they were not obligated to express an opinion. She said this several times.

Mr Blundell emphasised his assertion that the Brewis Newsletter was to most people in Sutton Bridge a Parish Council publication and that because of that the PC appeared to be writing a resident’s letter off as ‘waffle’ - the PC should therefore have a view.

A lively discussion took place with Mr. Hawkins being accused of delivering his presentation so quickly it was impossible for the average person present to follow or even understand. 

Cllr Croxford made the most important point that if two parts of the bank 600 metres apart were eventually fortified - made stronger than the rest of the bank - the stretch of wall between the first breach and the proposed second one would be more at risk. The sea would concentrate on the bit in between. Mr Hawkins said that he was not an expert on sea defences and he would refer this point to their technical experts.

Cllr Grimwood said his concern was the cracks that had appeared in the last breach made in the sea wall.


The Chairman stated that all seven of the wind turbines on the Grange Farm Wind Farm at Tydd Gote were now operational, the project having been completed ahead of schedule.

Jane Ripley, (standing in for Suzanne England) read the Clerk’s report.  It was noted that CCV coverage at the Curlew Centre had been successful in identifying certain culprits.

DISTRICT COUNCILLORS REPORTS: A copy of District Councillor M. Booth’s report was handed out, main points as follows: 

Finance: Cllr. Dewsberry gave a complicated and incomprehensible review of finances, and said there was plenty of money to cover all outstanding invoices.

A grant of £575.20 has been awarded to Friends of Sutton Bridge Playing Fields & Open Spaces.


Planning Matters:
To resolve on Planning Consultation (Flood Risk Assessment) H18-0102-13 re the Race Bank Offshore Wind Farm.

The consideration of the PREL planning application for a Gasifier (incinerator) has been put back until the SHDC Planning Committee meeting in April.

Highways & Footpaths:

The Personnel Committee recommend that the Clerk purchases a new office chair to the value of £500.

SBCCF: Cllr. S. Booth reported it was being considered to put a lower ceiling in the main hall to resolve the sound effect.

The Grange Wind Farm turbines are now all up and running about a month ahead of schedule.

The Youth Club is desperate for volunteer leaders.  A request was made to the local press present by the Chairman, Cllr. J. Grimwood, for people to come forward to offer to help.

Memorial Park: It was suggested that the hedged area of the Memorial Park from the car park gateway, past the Pavilion and beyond be cleared thus giving considerably more space.  Consideration is to be given as to the best way to do this, either by using the Pay Back Scheme or hiring a contractor.

Cllr. Dewsberry stated that the ambulance service was letting down many parishioners, two notable cases recently being a 2 hour wait for a 1 yr old child, and an ambulance was not available to take a 90 yr old who had had a fall, even though this person had been taken to the local Health centre and a doctor had called for an ambulance.

Cllr Hills reported the very prompt ambulance service that she had received.



¦ ⇑ Back to top of page ⇑ ¦

Mar 22013

Notes on the Sutton Bridge Parish Council Meeting held at
The Curlew Centre on 26th February, 2013

Open Forum

The meeting began with a minute’s silence in respect for a former Chairman of the PC, Mr. Bert Goode, who had recently died.

Lynn Harrison, reporter for the Lincs Free Press, reported the successful candidate for their Smile Competition was Mrs. Jan Denwood from the Sutton Bridge Pharmacy, who had won against much competition within the South Holland area.

Plans are being put in place for Lynn Harrison to be in either Long Sutton or Sutton Bridge on a weekly basis to encourage local residents to give their views on local issues or stories of local heroes that may be used to promote and publicise these two areas.  


Sgt. Laura Grigson reported to date the vandals who damaged the PC’s letter box and the lights at the Curlew Centre had not been caught.

The Chairman reported that the area behind the industrial units in Railway Lane had been cleared.

Cllr. M. Booth reported that fly tipping was still a problem in the Woad Lane area.

Cllr. Brewis made a long report on the subject of the EMAS and other areas of the NHS where services were lacking.

In Financial Matters, several more expenses had been incurred, including the cost of repairing the fence in the children’s play area in the Memorial Park by Lutton Fencing.

A grant of £500 has been awarded to the Sutton Bridge in Bloom group

A grant of £357 has been awarded to the Sutton Bridge Youth Club.

Cllr. Rowe asked where the equipment taken from the old youth club building is being stored.  Apparently there is no trace of it. Some of the equipment was allegedly stored in Holbeach and some in Spalding.  Enquiries have been made without success of finding any of the missing equipment. 

More notices regarding the offence of allowing dogs to foul public areas are to be posted on the Falklands estate.

A re-scoping document from EDF was given to all councillors regarding a proposed second gas fired power station on land adjacent to the present one.  EDF are planning an exhibition in the village in May.  With the Annual Parish Meeting being held end of April, it was decided to invite a representative to give a presentation then.

Highways and Footways – Sutton Bridge has an enormous number of potholes being reported.

The matter of the surface water at the two zebra crossings in the village will be attended to. 

A suggestion has been put forward to place benches in the Falklands Estate area.

Cllr. Grimwood reported on a recent meeting of the K.L.Advisory Group that it had been decided to leave the marsh to regenerate on its own.

It is understood that the PREL planning application will be put before the Planning Committee in March.  Several councillors question whether it is known from which source PREL will get their fuel.  It was asked if they will be using Port Sutton Bridge and if so were the Highways aware of that suggestion?  It also remains for PREL to advise where they intend to source their fuel.

The Marina Project - it appears the problem of the land ownership remains unresolved.

The Snow Goose Project – is presently still ongoing. 

The CCTV problem remains unsatisfactory.  If the CCTV cameras are working in Sutton Bridge there has been no recorded reliable evidence of the vandalism being caused in the village.  Cllr. Brewis to take the matter up again at the SHDC meeting.

Christmas lights – a quotation had been received for improving the Christmas light display at the east end of the village.  The PC considered this a little too expensive at the present time. 

Friends of Sutton Bridge Playing Fields and Open Spaces have made several proposals for the PC’s consideration:

The art work presented for consideration for the refurbishment of the village signs was met with more derision than approval.  It was suggested that perhaps the pupils of Peele School be invited to submit artwork.

With regard to the production of a further edition of the Parish Newsletter it was suggested that Mr. Brandon-King, his not being a parish councillor, should not be involved in the production of it.  Several councillors offered themselves to join the committee.  Suzanne pointed out that this would involve organising the layout of the Newsletter as well as liaising with the publishers etc.

Requests from Councillors for consideration of the Chairman: 

Public were requested to leave the chamber at 9.20 pm.

¦ ⇑ Back to top of page ⇑ ¦

Feb 22013

Notes on the Sutton Bridge Parish Council Meeting held at
The Curlew Centre on 29th January, 2013

Open Forum

Ms. C.  Bunnage spoke of Christmas lights and showed the PC photographs of what could be provided at the east end of the village.  Costs would include maintenance.

Mr. Fenton compared the Council Tax charges from 1979 when he paid £2 per week and the village was kept neat and tidy, roads swept regularly and no litter, to the present day when he pays £20 per week when the village roads are in a disgusting state with autumn leaves still in gutters and people having to walk through water on footpaths in the main road as the drains are not cleared.

He also mentioned that he had contacted LCC about the salt bins on West Bank being empty, only to be referred to SHDC.  Each had said it was not their remit to fill salt bins.  However, after he had complained again he found that the bins had been refilled the next day.

His final complaint was about a report in the local papers about the state the football pavilion had been left in after a football match.  He considered this unfair as it was impossible for the cleaner to tackle the problem at that time of night.  Mr. Fenton also stated that the person who cleans the pavilion does so on a voluntary basis and receives no recompense.


A presentation given by Dr. Steven Dykes (Deputy Medical Director, and Alison Crowe (Service Delivery Manager) on the East Midlands Ambulance Service was given.  Details of new plans in the area covered were outlined and residents were assured their complaints about the ambulance service were being noted.

On Police Matters it was reported that the matter of the stolen lights and post box were still being investigated.  With the new Police Commissioner now being in office, it was suggested that he be approached for plans for Sutton Bridge in connection with youth vandalism.  The PC is also to request an explanation of the police hierarchy from the new Commissioner. 

Cllr. M. Booth also stated the new Commissioner was supportive of a county run CCTV scheme.

In the Chairman's remarks it was stated that up to 18 local parish councils had been invited to a meeting at the Curlew Centre, together with representatives of PREL as well as two members from the action group.
It was also noted that work is much in evidence on the Grange Wind Farm with the first turbine having been erected.

In the Clerk's report she advised there had been several letters of thanks from various other Parish Councils for the informative meeting that had been recently held with PREL.

The area on which the Youth Club had stood is to be seeded.

Lincs Highways were considering the proposed bus shelters for Bridge Road and had pointed out some proposed shelters were situated directly in front of houses and thus may give rise to complaints from the owners.

The Clerk also advised of a Bus Shelter Grant Scheme whereby a successful application could mean a saving of 50% of the cost.

Cllr. M. Booth stated that fly tipping was still going on and that the Woad Lane area is the worst.  Residents are requested to keep a lookout and to report suspected vehicles to the police.

Hare coursing is not so bad, though this may be due to the success of arrests by the police and the recent bad weather.

The matter of the Travellers site is still on going and work is expected to start on schedule, but as yet contracts have not been issued.

There is much concern about the new Bedroom Tax, applicable to people living in rented accommodation.  Tenants would have to pay extra and there would be reduced benefits.

The next SBMAG meeting is scheduled for 11th February, 6.30 pm at the Curlew Centre.

Under the Financial Matters Cllr. Dewsberry gave an up to date report.  He stated that it had been agreed over several committee meetings that the 2013-1014 Precept will be £59,000.

Referring to the CCTV invoice dispute, a credit note for half the amount had been received.  It is alleged there is no CCTV working in the village, and if there is it has not been monitored.  There has been no action taken or anybody charged for the vandalism occurring in the village, or CCTV footage used in evidence.  It is considered the parish is not getting value for the money the system costs. 

In correspondence a cheque for £3,500 had been received from the Head of Libraries and Heritage towards the Library in the Curlew Centre, offset by the withdrawal of the Mobile Library service tot the three stops in the village.

The rumble strips on the A17 are having an adverse effect on the village as many more vehicles are now passing through Sutton Bridge rather than use the bypass.

King John Bank will be closed for one day only between end February and early march 2013.

The contributions to the Voluntary Car scheme remains the same.  More voluntary drivers are required.

The Youth Club is now held in the Curlew Centre on a regular basis.  Numbers attending have been disappointing, but this could be due to the recent bad weather.

Cllr. Mrs. Rowe has been registered to speak at the Planning meeting considering the PREL planning application at SHDC.

A negative response from SHDC had been received to the letter sent by the SBPC requesting an independent Environmental Impact Assessment. 

It had previously been alleged that the air pollution in Sutton Bridge is currently almost at maximum level and if the new development goes ahead this could put it above the safety level.  The suggestion being that if that should happen then the EA would close the plant down.  Cllr. Croxford stated it would be preferable to have accurate measures taken before the proposed gasifier/incinerator was built, rather than after.

Cllr. M. Booth spoke of his concern regarding the S106 funding, as if this is not spent before 2015, then it would have to be returned to the Power Station.  The two projects, namely the Marina Project and the Snowgoose Trust applications have not yet been started.  It had been intimated the Marina would be built by December 2012, but now is projected for second half 2013.  It would appear that to date there had been no response from the Snowgoose Trust to questions raised regarding their application.  Matter to be put on next agenda.

A letter had been received from the Manager of the Health Centre regarding the provision of an outside shelter.  Lincolnshire Primary Care Trust own the building, and they feel that since the Health Centre is already the target of much vandalism, outside shelter would add to this.  A solution to the problem of early morning patients having to wait outside in all weathers is still being sought.

Decision is still to be made where to erect the new Notice Board donated by Wingland Foods.  Posts have also been supplied.

The position of the bus stop on the north side of the A17 will remain unchanged.  Highways Dept consider it would be too dangerous to place it nearer to the East Bank.

Authorisation is being given to the Parishioner's request to undertake the refurbishment of emblems on the village sign near the old Metalair Works fence.  The local art group are also working on designs for the two signs at each end of the village. 

Feb 22013

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

Archived notes for previous Parish Council meetings held in 2012 can now be viewed HERE

¦ ⇑ Back to top of page ⇑ ¦