ITEM 10 – GRASS CUTTING 2017

ITEM 13 – SECTION 106 FUNDING

ITEM 20/1 – REVIEW OF PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES

ITEM 20/2 - COUNTYWIDE ACCESSIBILITY POLICY REVIEW – PARISHES REFERENCE GROUPS

ITEM 20/3 - SHALE WEALTH FUND

ITEM 20/4 – CONSULTATION WITH THE TREE WARDEN

ITEM 20/5 - LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE SETTLEMENT

ITEM 20/7 – CHAPEL CLOSE JITTY

ITEM 20/8 – HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL DAY

ITEM 20/9 – CONSULTATION WITH TREE WARDEN

ITEM 20/10 – PARISH COUNCIL MINUTES

ITEM 20/11 – DAMAGE TO JUBILEE WALK

ITEM 20/12 – NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING NETWORKING EVENT

Agenda 5_10_16 Supporting information 1 ITEM 10 – GRASS CUTTING 2017

Comments of Ian Hill, Chairman, Houghton Village Hall

The village hall is satisfied with the existing arrangement of 14 cuts over the growing season and will be happy to engage with defining a revised contract.

Comments of Steve Goodman, Chairman, Houghton Field Association made during the informal public participation session of the Parish Council meeting on 8 September 2016

Steve Goodman, Chairman – Houghton Field Association commented on grass cutting at Houghton Field. He considered 2016 to have been a difficult year for grass cutting because of weather factors but considered that it would be more appropriate to specify an optimum grass height as opposed to stating a cutting frequency. He asked to be included in consideration of the grass cutting arrangements for 2017 and that he should have more involvement in management of the contract on an ongoing basis. Trimming around walls and hedges could be included but at a lower frequency than grass cutting.

ITEM 13 – SECTION 106 FUNDING

Comments of Councillor Ian Hill

Ann (Sleath) and myself and also Rob Miles (rector) and Roger Bettles attended the briefing session on S106 held at HDC. We have not held any community buildings group meetings since that date.

Agenda 5_10_16 Supporting information 2 ITEM 20/1 – REVIEW OF PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES

2018 Review of Parliamentary Constituencies

On 13th September the Boundary Commission for England published its initial proposals for the 2018 review of parliamentary constituencies and is undertaking a 12 week period of consultation from 13th September to 5th December 2016. The Boundary Commission is seeking views from all sections of the community to help them shape the new constituencies.

Full details of the proposals are available on the Boundary Commission’s website at www.bce2018.org.uk together with more information about how to respond as well as details of where and when they will be holding public hearings in the area.

Harborough is currently split between 3 parliamentary constituencies but under the initial proposals the district would be split between 4.

Parishes which would change constituency under the proposals are detailed below:

Parish Current Constituency Proposed Constituency Catthorpe South Leicestershire Daventry and Lutterworth Cotesbach South Leicestershire Daventry and Lutterworth Fleckney Harborough Daventry and Lutterworth Foxton Harborough Daventry and Lutterworth Gilmorton South Leicestershire Daventry and Lutterworth Gumley Harborough Daventry and Lutterworth Houghton on the Hill Rutland and Melton Harborough Husbands Bosworth Harborough Daventry and Lutterworth Knaptoft Harborough Daventry and Lutterworth Laughton Harborough Daventry and Lutterworth Lubenham Harborough Daventry and Lutterworth Lutterworth South Leicestershire Daventry and Lutterworth Misterton with Walcote South Leicestershire Daventry and Lutterworth Mowsley Harborough Daventry and Lutterworth North Kilworth Harborough Daventry and Lutterworth Saddington Harborough Daventry and Lutterworth Scraptoft Rutland and Melton Harborough Shawell South Leicestershire Daventry and Lutterworth South Kilworth Harborough Daventry and Lutterworth Stoughton Rutland and Melton Harborough Swinford South Leicestershire Daventry and Lutterworth Theddingworth Harborough Daventry and Lutterworth Thurnby and Bushby Rutland and Melton Harborough Westrill and Starmore South Leicestershire Daventry and Lutterworth

Agenda 5_10_16 Supporting information 3 The Boundary Commission for England is currently consulting on their its proposals for changes to parliamentary constituencies. As part of this consultation it is holding 3 hearings in the East Midlands as follows:

Region Location Date (2016)

East Derby 27-28 October Midlands Opulence Suite, Cathedral Quarter Hotel, 16 Saint Mary's Gate

Northampton 31 October-1 November Great Hall, Northampton Council, The Guildhall, St Giles Square

Lincoln 3-4 November

The Elliott Room, Bishop Grosseteste College, Newport

Agenda 5_10_16 Supporting information 4 ITEM 20/2 - COUNTYWIDE ACCESSIBILITY POLICY REVIEW – PARISHES REFERENCE GROUPS

Countywide Accessibility Policy Review – Parishes Reference Groups

What is in this for local councils

Leicestershire County Council is carrying out a Countywide Accessibility Policy Review (CAPR). This policy covers the council’s support for public transport (subsidised bus services) and community transport. As such, the policy may impact on the transport services available to their residents in future.

Many Parish Councils are already actively involved in responding to the transport needs of their residents. Examples include Parish Council involvement in Community Bus Partnerships, but also their role in Good Neighbour Schemes and voluntary car sharing schemes that help to support vulnerable residents in accessing key services and activities.

Details

The Countywide Accessibility Policy Review is being led on the Council’s behalf by ITP, a firm of sustainable transport consultants with experience in this area.

The aim of the project is to review the Council’s accessibility policy to see whether it is still fit-for-purpose in the light of the needs and priorities of Leicestershire communities, likely future constraints on budget, and the Council’s new set of overall desirable outcomes that are currently being developed.

Included in the scope of this review are:

• (Council supported) local bus services • (Council supported) Demand Responsive Transport (DRT) services • (Council support for) Community Transport services • (Council support for) the Wheels to Work scheme • Provision of public transport information The project will take place in two distinct phases. Phase 1 will run until March 2017 and will focus on reviewing current services and developing potential future options. Phase 2 will involve developing recommendations to the council’s Cabinet and holding a public consultation. Any new policy would not take effect until 2018 at the earliest.

Agenda 5_10_16 Supporting information 5 Parishes Reference Groups

We appreciate Parish Councils will have a keen interest in this policy, which may impact on the transport services available to their residents in future. Many Parish Councils are already actively involved in responding to the transport needs of their residents. Examples include Parish Council involvement in Community Bus Partnerships, but also their role in Good Neighbour Schemes and voluntary car sharing schemes that help to support vulnerable residents in accessing key services and activities.

As part of Phase 1 of the project we are working with the Leicestershire & Rutland Association of Local Councils to arrange a Parishes Reference Group. The aim of this group is to enable parish council voices and views to inform the early thinking about current services and future options.

As such, we are looking for parish council representatives from around the county and from a range of parish sizes.

Reference Group Meetings

The reference group will meet twice during the latter part of 2016, with each meeting lasting for approximately 90 mins.

The first meeting will be to discuss:

• What the travel challenges are that are faced by Leicestershire residents, especially those with no or reduced access to a car. • To what extent current Council-funded travel options (eg. some local buses, demand-responsive transport services, community transport schemes, the Wheels to Work scheme) help meet those challenges • In an era of reducing budgets, what should the priorities be for Council service provision • What could people and local communities do for themselves to address the travel challenges The second meeting will be to discuss the pro’s and con’s of emerging future transport policy options that will have been developed by then, drawing on discussions with different stakeholders and on internal deliberations.

Agenda 5_10_16 Supporting information 6 If you are interested in taking part in this reference group and are available on both of the dates below, please contact Jake Atkinson by Friday 30th September to nominate yourself.

Parishes Date & Time Venue Reference Group First Meeting Wed 12th October , 1.30 – County Hall, Glenfield 3.30pm Second Mon 21st November, 10am – Jubilee Hall in Anstey Meeting 12noon

Please note that, to ensure the reference group has the right balance and size, there may not be places for all nominees. Jake will confirm with all nominees by 4th October.

Agenda 5_10_16 Supporting information 7 ITEM 20/3 - SHALE WEALTH FUND

Shale Wealth Fund consultation

Leicestershire County Council would like to let Parish Councils know that on 8 August 2016 the Government launched a consultation seeking views on the delivery method and priorities of the Shale Wealth Fund.

A copy of the consultation document, which includes a number of questions, is available on the Government’s website via the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/54424 1/shale_wealth_fund_final_pdf-a.pdf

The Government welcomes responses from individuals or from organisations, such as charities, businesses, local authorities and community groups.

The consultation seeks to explore the following key issues:

· what the Government’s priorities should be for the Shale Wealth Fund

· the allocation of funding from the Shale Wealth Fund to different stakeholder groups

· the extent to which the industry community benefits scheme and the Shale Wealth Fund should be aligned

· potential delivery models for the Shale Wealth Fund – to ensure that households and communities benefit, and to

· decide how funds are spent, and how any process should be administered

How to respond

If you wish the Government to hear your views you should respond directly to them by emailing [email protected] or by letter to:

Energy Branch Energy, Environment and Agriculture Team HM Treasury 1 Horse Guards Road London SW1A 2HQ

The deadline for receiving comments is 26 October 2016, 12am.

Agenda 5_10_16 Supporting information 8 ITEM 20/4 – CONSULTATION WITH THE TREE WARDEN

Francesca Wall-Bray

Tree Warden – Houghton On The Hill

14 September 2016

Dear Parish Council,

Re: September Parish Council Meeting and Tree Work Application for 2 The Rise

I attended the above PC meeting as a parishioner: not as the village Tree Warden (nor had I been contacted by the Parish Council prior to the meeting regarding any work to tree applications).

It was common good practice for the Parish Council to consult with the village Tree Warden on a monthly basis from autumn 2006 to April 2011. This consultation involved village trees and the general environment, all work to tree applications – and – I was always invited (and pleased to attend) the annual Parish Council Village walks in order to advise, give background or answer any questions any Councillor might have during the walk. As the present Chair, Councillor Sleath will doubtlessly recall.

Since May 2011, Parish Councils seem to have inexplicably ignored that our village has an active, respected and experienced Tree Warden.

Therefore, I was astonished to be asked during the on-going PC meeting about a works to tree application. My confusion was compounded by the fact that protocol demands that the PC meeting should have been closed by the Chair – in order for any member of Council to address a member of the public in attendance. Therefore I was very taken back and not sure whether I should even respond.

It may be realised that during such an unanticipated interchange, that I could not think clearly or recall having consulted with this resident regarding their tree.

However the following morning (after the PC meeting), I remembered I had indeed attended these residents, either very late last year or very early this year. Having remembered this, I made the effort (on the same day), to revisit the resident and review the situation in case anything had changed.

The tree is a lime tree, which ultimately will become very large. At some time in the past it was pollarded which has now resulted in an abundance of branches – creating a large area of shade during the leaf season.

Agenda 5_10_16 Supporting information 9 Branches could be raised to a certain height to allow more light and access but this choice is with the resident. I informed them that whatever dialogue Council wishes to have them on the subject is between the resident and the PC.

I have written to you, as I did not want Council to think the parishioners in question had misrepresented the fact of having consulted with me.

Lastly I should like to say it was appreciated, that Councillor M Hopkinson recognised that Houghton does indeed have an active Tree Warden.

Sincerely,

Francesca Wall-Bray

Tree Warden, Houghton

Agenda 5_10_16 Supporting information 10 ITEM 20/5 - LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE SETTLEMENT

IMPORTANT – Possible “capping” of parish and town council council tax

The Government is consulting on proposals to extend referendum principles (the requirement to hold a referendum if the proposed council tax increase exceeds a set threshold) to parish and town councils for the first time. Those of you involved in the sector for more than a year will know that there have been consultations on this issue in previous years, last year the consultation took place over the Christmas break (!), however there is anecdotal evidence that the potential for a “cap” and referendum rules being implemented is greater this year than in previous years.

We understand the government is concerned about increases in parish precepts, which rose by 6.1% this year – total precepts are now £445 million, £36 million more than in 2015/16. In NALC’s view these figures illustrates how our councils are continuing to invest in local communities, with increases in many cases attributable to making up for a shortfall in council tax support funding, a general expansion of their role and use of powers, and in particular delivering new services, often taken on from principal councils.

However NALC has told LRALC that there is a view by some in government (and in some principal councils) who believe referendum principles should be applied to higher spending local councils or indeed all of them. NALC fundamentally disagree with this and have so far been successful in ensuring local councils are not brought within this regime.

Yesterday NALC issued a press release about the proposals to get our position and message out early (see here: http://www.nalc.gov.uk/news/entry/659-nalc-warns- parish-will-damage-communities). NALC will be analysing the consultation when it is published and issuing a further update through LRALC.

Please bring this consultation to the attention of councillors and ask them to consider responding to this key consultation. Please send a copy of any response to LRALC (using the usual email address), so that we can feed them into the NALC response to the consultation. The full consultation paper can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/local-government-finance-settlement- 2017-to-2018-technical-consultation The consultation will close at 5pm on 28 October.

Agenda 5_10_16 Supporting information 11 ITEM 20/7 – CHAPEL CLOSE JITTY

Agenda 5_10_16 Supporting information 12 Agenda 5_10_16 Supporting information 13

Agenda 5_10_16 Supporting information 14 Extract from Parish Council minutes 8 September 2016

11- FOOTPATH BETWEEN FORSELLS END AND CHAPEL CLOSE 09/16 A resident had contacted the Parish Council in connection with the footpath between Forsells End and Chapel Close. The resident had received a letter sent on behalf of the Highways Manager of Leicestershire County Council requesting him to arrange for vegetation to be cut back. The resident however claimed that the land did not belong to him, and had therefore requested the Parish Council’s help and advice.

It was resolved to ask LCC to indicate who owned the land. Clerk

It was noted that the vegetation had since been cut back although it was unknown who had carried this out.

Agenda 5_10_16 Supporting information 15 Email from Daniel Watson 21 September 2016

From: Daniel Watson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 21 September 2016 12:47 To: [email protected] Cc: Emily Berrington Subject: RE: Jitty - Chapel Close, Houghton on the Hill (NDI/CW395)

After some discussion internally, it has been established that I am best placed to provide you with a response to your query at the current time. While we are not part of the team which administers the procedures to deal with highway obstructions, it is our responsibility to support the Highway Authority in all of its duties by advising on any matters requiring analysis of highway status, extent or land ownership.

As you are aware many highway obstructions are caused by vegetation that overhang or are a danger to roads and footpaths. In order to take action to protect the highway rights of the public, the Highway Authority has powers under Section 154 of the Highways Act 1980 to serve notice on the owner of the vegetation to cut or fell the vegetation to remove the likelihood of danger to the public. In order to carry out these duties, initial investigations take place to establish who is believed to be the legal owner of the vegetation. Enforcement procedures then begin on the conclusions drawn from these initial investigations.

In this case I expect that the information acquired during the initial investigation established that the properties neighbouring the jitty appeared to be the owners of the vegetation which was overhanging or obstructing the jitty. I would note that without evidence to the contrary, it is a common presumption that boundary features which abut the highway are the responsibility of the adjoining landowners.

Should the properties wish to dispute ownership of the vegetation, it is their responsibility to supply information which supports their view. It is at this stage where my team become involved by completing a comprehensive investigation of all the information available, in order to review the position of the Highway Authority with respect to this new information. At this stage I have not received any information which contradicts the views of my colleagues who sent the letters, so am unable to review our position further.

I would note your comments that “The Parish Council…is now responsible for grass verges and jitties within the Parish”. I am not aware of this arrangement but as the custodian of all street information for Leicestershire County Council, I would be grateful if you could supply further details.

Kind regards,

Daniel Watson Senior Transport Analyst

Agenda 5_10_16 Supporting information 16 ITEM 20/8 – HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL DAY

Dear Sir or Madam

By way of introduction, my name is Julian Harrison and I am the East Midlands Regional Support Worker for the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust (HMDT).

Holocaust Memorial Day (HMD) takes place on 27th January each year, and is the day for everyone to remember the millions of people murdered in the Holocaust, through Nazi Persecution, and in subsequent genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur. On HMD we honour the survivors of these atrocities, challenge ourselves to work to end discrimination and prejudice, and pledge to help create a safer, better future.

The annual theme for HMD 2017 is ‘How can life go on?’ It asks audiences to think about what happens after genocide and of our own responsibilities in the wake of such a crime. This year’s theme is broad and open ended, and there are few known answers. Guidance on our 2017 theme is available on the HMDT website. Click on http://hmd.org.uk/resources/theme-papers/hmd-2017-how-can-life-go

Many different groups and organisations are involved annually in HMD activity. They range from small community bodies through to large workplaces and major employers. Some combine their involvement with others in their local areas. Some are keen to do their own thing. Parish Councils, being at the hub of their community, are a really important mechanism for bringing people together in observation.

Accordingly, I’m e-mailing to ask whether you would consider holding an event or activity on or around 27th January 2017 to mark HMD? If you are interested in doing something, please remember that it doesn’t have to be a large, long or complex event. Sometimes the simplest observation proves to be the most poignant and has the most impact. Whatever it is you decide to do, has to be right for you.

Our website (www.hmd.org.uk) has lots of information about HMD and you can access FREE resources that we produce to help people commemorate. You may find the section entitled ‘Organise an Activity’ of particular initial use. Click on http://hmd.org.uk/page/organise-activity-0

We also produce a free activity pack, which includes a series of posters and a copy of our ‘About HMD’ booklet. You can request a copy of this on the website by clicking on http://hmd.org.uk/campaign-pack. The new Activity Pack for HMD 2017 is hot off the press and is available to order now.

Agenda 5_10_16 Supporting information 17 In addition, you can sign up to our newsletter. Key announcements about all sorts of things including resources and training are made via this channel. Please go to http://hmd.org.uk/content/newsletter-sign

Finally, I’d like to draw your attention to our East Midlands Regional Workshop. It will take place on Tuesday 18th October at the Derby Museum and Art Gallery. It’s a half-day event (from 1.00 pm to 4.00 pm) and you can book your place now via our website: http://hmd.org.uk/news/book-your-place-our-hmd-2017-workshops

If you already have plans to commemorate HMD 2017, it would be great to hear about them! We are keen to keep a record of everything that is happening in our region. Alternatively, if you are interested in organising an HMD event or activity and you would like to discuss this, or if there is any support I can offer, please do not hesitate to contact me, and I will be delighted to help.

Many thanks and kind regards,

Julian Harrison

Agenda 5_10_16 Supporting information 18 ITEM 20/9 – CONSULTATION WITH TREE WARDEN Francesca Wall-Bray

Village Tree Warden

16 Freer Close

2 October 2016

To the Parish Council and Clerk,

RE: Parish Council consultation practice with Tree Warden

Parish Council Consultation practice with Tree Warden: As mentioned in various previous letters to the PC: Up to May 2011 it was common good practice for the Parish Council to consult with the village Tree Warden on a monthly basis (autumn 2006 to April 2011). This consultation was of benefit both to the Parish Council and the village, as it not only involved village trees and renewal tree planting but also the general well-being of the overall environment of the village.

In addition the PC expected me to view if possible and make comment on all applications for works to trees – and – the PC always invited me to attend the annual Parish Council walks. On this basis I was readily available to advise, give background, history, or answer any questions (within my remit), any Councillor might have during PC meetings or during the annual walk. All of which, the present Chair, Councillor Sleath should recall very well, as she was a member of that Parish Council.

From 2006 to May 2011, by direction of the PC, the Tree Warden had a separate slot on the monthly PC Agendas, prior to the public session – which was inexplicably changed under the incoming Parish Council of May 2011 – again facts – as Vice- Chair then and current Chair now, Councillor Sleath is well aware of.

The environment of Houghton is a living resource that each generation of parishioners passes on to the next. It may arguably be called one of the most important resources the village has – and this of course includes all existing trees pre-2006 and those since.

However, from 2006 on, I have helmed [funded by the PC (2006-2011) and in all other cases funded by parishioners, village organisations, businesses and other agencies], a consistent program of annual environmental projects focused to renew our village’s tree canopy, increase daffodil bulb tally, remove eye sores, install bird boxes village wide, preserve historical trees, raise awareness about the importance of our village trees, and through them, our local history and - overall and in every way possible—improve the whole environment of our village.

Agenda 5_10_16 Supporting information 19 The addition of all the trees planted in last decade while I have been Tree Warden - has greatly enriched the existing resource of our village’s landscape, and continues to ensure that the resource of Houghton’s environment will be growing strong for years and decades – if not a century or so to come.

In the face of all these years of obvious commitment, activity and hard work— for the village---it is therefore difficult for parishioners to understand, why Parish Councils since May 2011 have apparently not only acted as if the village does not have a Tree Warden, but has been so curiously silent – on awards garnered and on all the industrious activity being done by tree volunteers and myself—-solely for the village: its attractiveness, environment and future.

This apparent inexplicable stance of the Parish Council towards the village Tree Warden, becomes even more confounding with the knowledge that the Parish Council is supposedly the guardian body of the village, and should be acting in every instance for the greatest good of the village.

It follows, that the PC should then naturally, be encouraging and acknowledging all these good works, and of course, actively be exhibiting a willingness to support any and all such efforts by the Tree Warden and volunteers (within the PC’s remit), and show a willingness to work together for the common good of the village.

If the Parish Council wishes to consult with the village Tree Warden, I am very happy to help – but would suggest that this follow an appropriate format in line with protocol, that is mutually respectful and suits both parties.

Sincerely,

Francesca Wall-Bray, Tree Warden Houghton

Agenda 5_10_16 Supporting information 20 ITEM 20/10 – PARISH COUNCIL MINUTES

Francesca Wall-Bray

Village Tree Warden

16 Freer Close

Houghton On The Hill

1 October 2016

To the Parish Council and Clerk,

RE: Inaccuracies in recording of PC Minutes

Inaccuracies in recording of PC Minutes and Obligation of Council: I have taken the time to point out a number of inaccuracies for both personal and community reasons – and in a spirit of helpfulness to the PC.

Since doing village research, I have discovered the rich resource of historical Parish Council documents in giving an accurate description of events – which makes the past more interesting and sometimes quite entertaining. For these reasons, PC records are very helpful to historians and researchers from all backgrounds.

However as PC Meeting minutes are admissible as true evidence in a court of law, it is clearly of paramount importance that any known inaccuracies be corrected as soon as possible.

Being aware of these facts, Council members may wish to monitor and query Draft Minutes more thoroughly in future, as indeed according to protocol each Councillor not only has the right to do so but, is in fact obliged to do so.

1) 8 September 2016 PC Meeting and Initial Draft, now approved Minutes For Same

Planning Applications – Tree Works 2 The Rise

After the ending of the public session, I was shocked that during the following formal and therefore recorded session of the PC Meeting, that I was suddenly asked by Council - to comment on the application for tree work, regarding 2 The Rise.

Having taken professional advice, it is clear that correct procedures were not followed in that instance. Therefore, any comments I made under pressure from Council at that moment (i.e. PC 8 September Minutes, Planning Applications c) ii) “…that comments attributed to the Tree Warden on the application had not been made by her”, or any reference to the contents of the letter I subsequently sent the

Agenda 5_10_16 Supporting information 21 PC after the 8 September PC Meeting --- should not be included in the minutes for the 8 September PC Meeting. I would ask that you might please amend the minutes for the 8th September PC Meeting accordingly.

Although there were a number of procedurally incorrect interactions between the Council and the public (during the formal session of the PC Meeting) it seems odd that only mine was highlighted, selected and inserted into the draft PC minutes. The only logical conclusion to be reached is that Council chose to do this for a positive reason; i.e. to formally record that I was being consulted - and asked to speak - as the Village Tree Warden.

However, I am given to understand (via professional advice) that if my comments as Village Tree Warden are required by the PC – not only mere common courtesy but in fact correct procedure - obliges - that I be advised by Council well in advance.

As the Parish Council has appeared unwilling, since May 2011, to acknowledge even the existence of the village Tree Warden let alone seek consultation on tree related matters, my confusion may be deemed reasonable.

Am I now to understand that the Parish Council would wish me to report to Council at future Parish Council meetings – as I have always been willing to do—given appropriate notice? Please see accurate PC Minutes prior to September 2011.

I am aware that other pressing issues obliged the holding of an Extraordinary PC Meeting on 16th September thus leaving only a week, as opposed to the usual month, for both Council and/or public to either confirm or question the accuracy of the Draft Minutes of 8th September. Since PC Meeting minutes are admissible as true evidence in a court of law, it is clearly of paramount importance that any known inaccuracies be corrected as soon as possible.

Being aware of these facts, Council members may wish to monitor and query Draft Minutes more thoroughly in future, as indeed according to protocol each Councillor not only has the right to do so but, is in fact obliged to do so.

2) PC Changing the title of my 14 September letter from its accurate contents i.e. a letter ‘Regarding Tree Works at 2 Rise’ to an inaccurate one of an email regarding ‘consultation with the Tree Warden’.

My 14 September 2016 letter – was a courtesy, both to you the PC and the residents of 2 The Rise, so Council should not think the residents had misrepresented facts – as I stated plainly in this letter.

Therefore my 14 September letter should not have been labelled, (under Correspondence sent to the Parish Clerk for consideration at the October 2016 Parish Council Meeting) “Email from Francesca Wall-Bray, Tree Warden, expressing views on consultation with the Tree Warden.” But more accurately:

Agenda 5_10_16 Supporting information 22 “Letter from Francesca Wall-Bray, Tree Warden, providing supplementary consultation information to the PC regarding the planning application for work to trees, 2 The Rise.”

It is confusing to me and no doubt will be to the general public, why (let alone how) the PC commented on a 14 September letter in the 8 September PC Minutes, and is now going to consider this same letter at the 5 October PC Meeting, and then to possibly record comments in the 5 October minutes about this letter—again.

I would again ask for the 8 September Minutes to be amended as requested, for the PC referral to my 14 September letter to be more accurately labelled as suggested above, and in this manner – the 14 September letter may more be considered with more clarity at the 5 October PC Meeting.

3) Inaccurate recording of public session comment regarding dumped paint chippings

PC 8 September Minutes of the Informal Public Session: “Comments were made about the telephone box which had recently been painted.” Comments were in fact made about the pile of old paint chippings that had been dumped behind the hedge – during the painting of the telephone kiosk. This was the motivation for attending the PC Meeting in the first place -- in order to make this specific comment – NOT to simply make some generic ‘comment about the telephone box being painted’ as the present Minutes inaccurately imply. I would ask that the Minutes regarding these comments be changed in order to reflect the integrity of the original comments made 8 September 2016.

Adhering to clarity in PC Minutes make them more informative to the public in the present, more precise, and certainly more helpful to researchers in the future. However, as PC Meeting Minutes are admissible as true evidence in a court of law, it is clearly important that the Minutes be as accurate as possible.

Thank you for your consideration,

Francesca Wall-Bray

Tree Warden, Houghton

Agenda 5_10_16 Supporting information 23 ITEM 20/11 – DAMAGE TO JUBILEE WALK

Tree Warden HOT FRIENDS

Houghton On The Hill Houghton Openspaces & Tree Friends

Francesca Wall-Bray Jim N. Sharman, Chair

1 October 2016

Dear Parish Council and Clerk,

RE: Strimmer damage to Village trees (jaquemontii) of Jubilee Walk, Houghton Field

The MAKE HISTORY Diamond Jubilee and Olympic Britain Commemorative Tree Project of 2012-2013 was designed and project managed by our Village Tree Warden.

Over sixty parishioners donated funds, along with the Methodist Chapel and Houghton Field Association.

The Old Black Horse Inn, Everard’s Brewery, Houghton School, Houghton Cricket Club, Coop Farms, Parkers Farms, Harborough District Council and Leicestershire County Council also took part – resulting in over sixty trees being added to our Parish for this noteworthy and history making commemorative project. (Note: The then Parish Council did not take part.)

This project was a gift to the village and to everyone who lives here AND is a living legacy to future generations. It is obvious that all the trees we gained through this project should be valued, preserved and conserved – and considered village resources and village amenities.

Agenda 5_10_16 Supporting information 24 Strimmer Damage To Jubilee Walk On Houghton Field: Unfortunately, the Parish Council’s present contractor, responsible for grass cutting at Houghton Field, has caused strimmer damage to a number of the lovely jaquemontii trees that make up Jubilee Walk. The contractor should know better – strimmer damage kills more young trees than anything else in public areas – and most professionals use spray around young trees to avoid this needless – and expensive – damage. Should any of these trees die as a result of this strimmer damage, the replacement costs would be high – and, if not covered by the contractor’s insurance, would have to be met by the Parish Council – as it is the PC who hires the contractor.

Original Costs: In 2012, these six jaquemontii trees from Barcham Trees cost a total of £628.56 (including a 10% discount given by Barchams and VAT of £104.76) Delivery from Barchams in Cambridgeshire would have been £100.00 but Craig Bollard, then Chair of Houghton Field Association, arranged to have these trees collected. The sixty parishioners and Houghton Methodist Chapel donated £451.30 towards this cost, while Houghton Field Association donated the balance of £177.26. These six 100 litre trees were then planted by our Tree Warden, Francesca Wall- Bray and Tree Planting Volunteer Frank Clark, with one or two others helping for an hour or so.

Replacement Costs: Barcham Trees: Today’s price for six 14-16 girth 100 litre trees would be £706.32 (This includes the 10% discount and £117.72 VAT). As it would be unlikely to find someone willing or able to collect six large trees, the delivery fee from Cambridge is £110.00 plus VAT. The trees would still need to be planted and this is £100 per 100 litre tree. The total cost of replacing what was so generously given to this village in 2012 by parishioners, Houghton Chapel, Houghton Field Association and Planting Volunteers – would be £1438.32 (Trees £706.32, delivery £132.00 delivery and planting £600.00)

We no longer use Coles Nurseries due to problems in the past, but their quote for the same trees totals £1579.20 (Six trees of 14-16 girth and 100 litres, £979.20 includes VAT, delivery free and planting costs of £600.00)

Parish Council Responsible To Conserve and Preserve Village Resources And Amenities: The Parish Council is the responsible body (hiring said contractor) and the PC is responsible to ensure the protection and conservation of our village resources and amenities.

We hope the Parish Council will take immediate and appropriate action to ensure that the trees of Jubilee Walk – given by numerous parishioners, Houghton Chapel and Houghton Field Association, will be protected, cared for and preserved for future generations.

Agenda 5_10_16 Supporting information 25 It might be helpful for Councillors to view these trees, and be accompanied by the Tree Warden (who will be able to provide advice, give background and answer questions) and members of HOT FRIENDS. The Chair of the Houghton Field Association may also wish to attend. Should this be agreeable to Council, please advise.

J N Sharman, Chair

Houghton Openspaces & Tree Friends

HOT FRIENDS

Francesca Wall-Bray

Tree Warden, Houghton

CC Steve Goodman, Chair, Houghton Field Association

Agenda 5_10_16 Supporting information 26 ITEM 20/12 – NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING NETWORKING EVENT

The next Neighbourhood Planning Network Event will be taking place on Tuesday 22nd November 2016. All bookings will now be handled on our new Neighbourhood Planning website. To find out more about the event and book your place, please visit:- https://www.leicestershirecommunities.org.uk/np/networking-event.html

We look forward to seeing as many of you as possible in November.

Regards

Nik Green (Mrs)

Policy Officer, Communities

Leicestershire County Council | Room 300b | County Hall | Glenfield | Leicestershire | LE3 8RA

Agenda 5_10_16 Supporting information 27