Minutes of the Meeting of Bidborough Parish Council held

on 27 November 2006 at 8 pm in the Village Hall

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. PRESENT: Cllrs D Wheeler, P Eames, C Rea, D Moore, Rev. S Hills, Mrs A Parsons, Mrs D Reynolds

 

2. MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON THE 30 October 2006, having been circulated, were approved and signed by the Chairman.

 

3. MATTERS ARISING FROM MINUTES: Covered in the agenda.

PARISHIONERS' QUESTION TIME:

 

Clerk to report poor condition of finishing work by contractors working in the vicinity of the A26/Bidborough Ridge junction and the Darnley Drive. (Reported to Highways Agency under Ref. No. 112757)

 

4. TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING:

  

05/02568:   OS Plot 4200, Penshurst Road

Construction of a farm workers cottage and farm building (revised proposal - TW/04/03067)

Parish Council: The PC still has concerns regarding development outside the village envelope but will be guided by the TWBC and the relevant experts dealing with the application.

TWBC: Decision Awaited

06/01950:   St. Lawrence Church, High Street

New boundary fencing and repairs to boundary wall   

Parish Council: Decision Awaited       TWBC: APPROVED

06/02651:   The Lodge, Swaylands School, Penshurst Road

LBC - Renovation of existing lodge, removal of lean-to structures on eastern elevation and demolition and rebuild of rear porch.

Parish Council: No Objections       TWBC: APPROVED

06/02834:   10 Glebelands, Bidborough

First floor rear extension

Parish Council: No Objections       TWBC: APPROVED

06/02830:   Birch Cottage, Penshurst Road, Penshurst

Conversion of existing garage into annex (renewal of consent 01/02364)

Parish Council: No Objections       TWBC: APPROVED

06/02970:   21 Bidborough Ridge

Double Garage

Parish Council: No Objections       TWBC: Decision Awaited

 

06/TEMP/0041: Bidborough C of E Primary School: To utilise under croft area to the hall/dining block to provide a fully disabled toilet, large store, and new entrance to the hall. Parish Council: No objections

 

5. FINANCE:

November Expenditure
EDF	Street Lighting Maintenance	73.00
EDF	Street Lighting Energy	58.97
How Green Nursery Ltd	Plug Plants	121.82
RIP Cleaning Services	Dog Water Removal	76.49
Mr J Hill	Poppy Wreath S.137	15.00
Pierson Agriculture	Birch Wood tree surgery	365.00
“ “	Brookhurst Field Flail Topping	90.00
Monster Play Systems	New Play Equipment	12,515.17
SLCC	Annual Subscription	105.00
A J Thompson	Lengthsman	216.00
Mrs E M Divall	Clerk Salary/Expenses Oct/Nov	1,154.72
Mr D Moore	Play Equipment Bolts/Ties	8.77

a. Gangmowing Contract : Clerk confirmed the estimate from KCC for the gangmowing contract for 2007 at £1045.46 plus £241.83 for the new recreation ground area for twenty four and sixteen cuts respectively. This represented a 4% increase in costs and took into account the increases in fuel costs. This estimate was approved, clerk to confirm the KCC.

 

6. REPORTS:

a. VILLAGE CARE/RECREATION GROUND/GROUNDS MAINTENANCE:

 

i.   Play Area Upgrade: Installation of new equipment completed. Contractors had attended site in response to problems with the initial installation of the safety surfacing. Arrangements had been made for a supervisory officer of the company to attend site to inspect the completed project prior to payment being despatched. Members of the Parish Council registered their sincere thanks to Cllr Moore for the many hours he had spent overseeing the problems experienced with the project, it was much appreciated by all. Work party to be arranged for the weekend to assist with the removal of the old safety surfacing. Cllrs Moore and Mrs Parsons to liase. Timber removed from the play area (train) and serviceable items of fencing to be used at bottom of Spring Lane entrance to field to facilitate pedestrian access.

b. NEWSLETTER: This had been distributed by the councillors to the parishioners.

c. COMMUNITY COUNCIL: The AGM had been held, existing members had been re-elected.

 

d. BIRCH WOOD: No report

 

g. PRIMARY SCHOOL: The school had been awarded £50K towards its building project.

 

h. CEMETERY:

 

a. Church Wall :

 

Response received from TWBC (Nigel Bolton) 19 October 2006 as a result of meeting on 20 September:

 

“Following the meeting held on Wednesday 20 September where a representative from BdR and I met with Parish Council and community representatives, we have now had an opportunity to consider the options that were discussed. You will recall that BdR considered moving the fence 1.5 m away from the edge of the wall for about 2/3rds of its length. Having now had the opportunity to consider this option in detail, BdR have concluded that the fence will still be the only barrier to prevent people reaching the edge of the wall and therefore it will still have to achieve the requirements of BS6399 irrespective of the distance between the wall and the barrier. Augering the post holes will not achieve the required loading, therefore concrete foundations of 900 x 900 x 600 deep will still have to be used. There will therefore be little or no cost savings in moving the fence back from the edge of the wall.

 

We therefore propose that we proceed with tendering the original specification, and I would be grateful for your Council's views on this.”

 

Copy of letter forwarded to TWBC advising following details from Mr R Moon after attendance at Parish Council Meeting on 30 October -

 

“...I understand the justification for retaining the large and expensive concrete bases, even where the fence can be moved back from the edge of the drop, is put forward as a British Standard 6399.

 

BS6399 is titled “Loading for Buildings” and none of the cases of horizontal loading for parapets, barriers and balustrades can be justified in the case of a cemetery or churchyard.

 

If, however, it is considered best to play safe and design for a nominated horizontal load, Case C3 at 0.74 K N/m (51 lb per foot run applied at a height of 1.1 m) would seem the figure to apply.

 

To put this in context for the layman, I calculate that the above force would produce slightly less bending moment (overturning force) at the base of conventional fence posts than would occur if the posts were supporting a 1.8m high close boarded fence in a 63 mph wind.

 

It is clear that an engineer could design a conventional fence of specified materials, post centres and depth of ground penetration to resist such a force. Indeed it is likely that an experienced fencing contractor could also do so.

 

If the depth of soil is insufficient over the rock then some penetration of the rock (being allowable back from the edge) would produce an even stronger fixing.”

 

Copy of email forwarded to TWBC from Mr M Taylor dated 13 November after discussions with Mr R Moon -

 

“With regard to the design of the new fencing to be erected adjacent to the top of the retaining wall there are two conditions:

 

Firstly the first 20 meters or so from the Lych-gate to just past the yew tree and the ramped entrance to the Church. This section of fencing needs to be as close to the top of the wall as possible and therefore should be installed in accordance with BdR's recommendations.

 

Secondly from that ramped entrance to the Church for the rest of the length of the wall you can adopt a far more simple construction as you will be able to move the fence line some 6 or 7 feet in from the top of the wall. In this case you will be able to adopt a solution similar to that proposed by Chase Fencing Supplies.

 

They should be asked to confirm that their fencing proposal will meet the requirements of a safety fencing barrier in the Churchyard and that it will be adequate to meet the anticipated loads in use. These loadings do not need to be as high as the BS crowd loading requirements that BdR say they have used. However, this may mean a slight increase in their quotation as Chase may decide to concrete the fence posts further into the ground. They may like to do a couple of test post installations to establish the correct depth and the soil information would be useful.

 

However I remain convinced that by asking the Consultants to design the fence they are being forced into a highly conservative solution which is unnecessarily putting a very high cost on the Parish. I feel that an empirical solution that will be proposed by the fencing companies will more than adequately meet the requirements and that it should be acceptable both to the Council and the Insurance Company .”

 

Letter received from K Delves (Building Surveyor) TWBC in response to above:

 

“Whilst BS 6399 is not directly applicable to this situation, we do need to have a justifiable standard to apply and this does seem the most appropriate. We feel that there is no option but to ‘play safe' as Mr Moon suggests and base the fence design on this standard.

 

Having carefully considered the option of positioning the fence 1.5m back from the top edge of the wall in order to provide a cost saving, we do feel this presents additional risks.

 

The strip between the top of the wall and the fence will have to be maintained and to an extent this can be controlled and managed, however there will always be a risk attached to any maintenance of the land. An unacceptable risk from our point of view is that posed by unauthorised access. Anyone entering that area would then be exposed to an unprotected edge with the consequential risk of falling. This cannot be controlled and therefore presents an unacceptably high risk.

 

We are therefore of the opinion that the scheme as proposed by BdR (drawing no. 4318/S002 rev A) placing the fence adjacent to the top of the wall is the most appropriate.”

 

Quotations are now being sought from approved contractors to carry out the work in accordance with the design and health and safety requirements as raised by BdR.

 

Members were unhappy with the lack of positive response to the points raised by the specialists involved on behalf of the Parish Council when put to the consultants, BdR. All suggestions had been dismissed, clerk to speak with Nigel Bolton to discuss options available to the PC, including obtaining a further opinion from another consultant.

 

Mr Moon confirmed his concerns with regard to BdR's design of fencing and the impact on the stability of the wall caused by the installation of the concrete base at the top. He considered this would be counterproductive in relation to the repair and would be detrimental to the existing condition of the wall.

 

A quotation for fencing in connection with the current project had also been provided by Chase Fencing, clerk to forward this to Nigel Bolton.

 

A quotation had been received from Chase Fencing to install safety fencing to replace that erected during the previous contract, which had been incorrectly installed. Clerk to write to Nigel Bolton at TWBC with copy of quotation.

 

(Discussion with Nigel Bolton: The TWBC are legally responsible for the maintenance of the churchyard, the PC having passed on this responsibility when it was closed, they therefore have final say on how the project is completed. They cannot prevent us from seeking an alternative quotation and scheme for the project, we must however ensure that the company used is reputable, experienced in this field of work and prepared to provide all the indemnities that the borough require to go ahead with any project. If we were able to produce an alternative scheme, acceptable in relation to Health and Safety and cheaper than the existing, the borough would consider it, they would not however, guarantee to accept the proposal if advised against doing so by their own consultants. Nigel does not feel that the borough would withdraw their offer of a loan, it is still their responsibility to ensure the work is completed so we would still presumably, under these circumstances, be able to negotiate the loan with them)

 

b. Gravestone : Rev. Hills reported on a fallen gravestone, he was asked to check if family members were still living in the area. It was agreed to leave the stone flat as this was considered safest at the present time.

 

i. BROOKHURST FIELD: Work party to be arranged in the New Year.

 

c. Farmers' Market: An approach had been made to the Parish for an advertising board to be sited at the High Street/Bidborough Ridge junction to advertise the Farmers' Market held on the first Saturday of the month in Penshurst. Members were not opposed to the request and Cllr Wheeler would discuss this with the local shop.