Notes / papers for parish council meeting on Wed, 13th November, 2019
Numbered by agenda item 6. Finance a. Current position – revised budget, bank statements etc – see appendix A b. Update to 2019-20 budget – see appendix A c. Payments requiring authorisation before next meeting: - Midhurst Community Bus: suggest £250 again, as per approved budget - R&T News: we donated £25 last year, proportionate to the donation from Rogate PC. NR needs to declare that he is on the management committee of R&T News and should inform the PC that R&T expects to end this year with reserves of £11,810 and has just agreed to raise the annual subscription from £5 to £7 (NR voted for £6). 7. Trees in Chithurst graveyard • Advice from Sarah Miles’ consultant (see appendix B) - Tree definitely has ash die-back – “evident from dieback of tips of branches” - It could survive for some time but “It is very probable that in the long-term the tree will need to be removed and therefore it would be worth keeping a reserve in the parish council’s funds to cover that.” • Advice from Mark Carter, Institute of Chartered Foresters - (see appendix B) - No timing can be forecast but “as the dieback spreads larger branches become vulnerable to unpredictable failure and these can pose a significant risk of harm depending on their location” - As the dieback progresses, it soon becomes too dangerous for a tree surgeon to climb and “the cost of that felling in the future will be significantly greater than the cost of felling now.” - The Tree Council endorses the felling of ash trees close to public areas, so “if the tree is in falling distance of the chapel, and the grave yard is open to the public, there is a case to be made to fell the tree now on health and safety grounds.” (see link to Tree Council toolkit) - Doubtful that a court would accept parish passing liability to someone else’s insurance policy – see next item • Advice from Came & Co (our insurance company) - (see appendix B) - Our insurance policy will cover the PC and its members for damage or liability “subject to the parish council taking reasonable precautions to prevent accidents or injury” – but not, of course, the moral responsibility! - They are, of course, only talking about covering us for financial damages claims but not for criminal negligence! - As the tree is the PC’s responsibility, “the neighbour will not have any ‘insurable interest’ and would therefore not be able to arrange or provide a relevant insurance policy to cover this risk.” - Their email says: Liability of tree owners Occupiers and anyone with responsibility for trees e.g. a tenant. Must take reasonable steps to manage and reduce risk and including identifying and inspecting those trees that might cause injury or place property at risk. When hazardous trees are identified suitable remedial action must be taken to reduce risk. In addition to existing statutory requirements the Courts expect those in control of places to which the public has access, such as parks and gardens, to take greater care than those in control of more remote woodland. • Telephone advice from CDC tree conservation officer Henry Whitby: - Confirmed that the graveyard is not in a conservation area or a tree preservation order (TPO) area and that no trees in the graveyard have individual TPOs on them. - His view was that, if a qualified arboriculturalist has confirmed that the tree is infected, it should be taken down before it becomes dangerous to passers-by (by dropping large limbs) or for a tree surgeon to climb – but he would give no view on how long that might be. • Telephone and email advice from Chichester diocese: - Warned that, despite the graveyard being the PC’s responsibility to maintain, it is still subject to the regulations on “Permissions to works on church buildings” - It is the responsibility of the PC and the churchwardens to get professional advice but, if that has been obtained and confirms that the tree is diseased, it is the PC’s responsibility alone to make the judgement on when it becomes a danger to church buildings / property or to people using the graveyard. - If the tree were in a graveyard that was still the church’s responsibility, and if it is overhanging the church or pedestrian walkways, as soon as he had qualified advice that it was infected, he would advise felling it to avoid any danger, and would possibly remove any branches that could pose a danger even before getting permission. - Email procedure for obtaining diocese permission to fell – see appendix B • Summary - The tree is diseased and will have to be felled eventually – no-one can predict when it will become dangerous - Liability cannot be transferred from the PC to anyone else - Our insurance will cover any financial liability only if we take “reasonable precautions to prevent accidents or injury” - It will not cover us for criminal negligence (or moral responsibility for personal injuries) - We will have to have permission from the diocese to fell it; this should not take long but people can register objections. If they refuse permission, I believe that would shift the responsibility to them! - If we decide to go ahead, we should select the contractor and approve the work now, so it can proceed as soon as permission is given – otherwise the delay could take us into bird-nesting season • Selection of contractor If we decide to go ahead, we need to choose between 3 or 4 quotes (3 are shown at appendix C but more is expected in time for the meeting) as follows: - Arborlec (Treyford) £1,600 - David Wilson (Midhurst) £1,780 - S L Lintott £3,000 8. Current consultations a. WSCC travel concessions – closes 4 Dec - details here WSCC currently provides: - Free travel on buses at any time for Disabled Bus Pass holders - Companion Passes so that qualifying pass holders who need help to travel can take someone with them who can travel for free as well - A free Disabled Person's Railcard instead of the Disabled Person's Bus Pass - A free Senior Railcard instead of the Older Person's Bus Pass Most other councils do not provide additional funding to support their concessionary travel schemes and WSCC is proposing to stop providing a free Senior Railcard instead of the Older Person's Bus Pass. Do we want to respond as a PC, encourage residents to respond or ignore the consultation? b. WSCC small schools assessment: - The LA has picked out 5 small primary schools which it suspects are vulnerable due to such factors as poor Ofsted results and/or small pupil numbers with low or nil growth prospects and/or low community involvement, etc - The schools include our catchment school (Stedham) and Compton and 3 more distant schools - The LA is seeking community views on 6 strategic options for these schools: amalgamation, academisation, closure, federation, relocation, no change - If this process leads to the LA deciding to force one or more of the schools to close or re-organise a further, more formal consultation would start in the New Year. - The consultation will end on 25 Nov and the WSCC survey and details are here - Appendix D is a draft response written by PC member (and clerk) Neil Ryder, who is a director of the W Sussex Governors Association and its lead director on small primaries, chair of governors at Rogate primary and a governor at Rake primary, and a former o-chair of governors at Stedham. He points out that Rogate might benefit if Stedham was closed, but he has tried to make his advice as objective as possible. 9. Environment / highways a. Operation Watershed – see appendix E - Quote received from Landbuild for replacing drains from Rother Lane to Trotton bridge - Suggest we ask CB to seek advice from WSCC and obtain 2 more quotes b. Climate change policy - Suggestion that we declare a climate emergency - BC / Andrea Linell to summarise c. Clean energy generation - Email from “Power for people” (www.powerforpeople.org.uk) - see appendix F - Asks us to pass a resolution supporting their movement and promising to write to press and MPs, etc d. Dark skies policy - SDNPA could not provide a model policy (!) but suggested that Milland has a good one . . . - Suggest we adopt something like the following (adaptation of Milland’s): - An important element in appreciation of the natural environment, especially in our area of the SDNP is protection of the area’s dark night skies. In this respect, street lighting (currently non-existent in the parish) will be discouraged. In the case of security and other outside lighting on private and public premises, encouragement will be given to ensure that it is neighbourly in its use, with the minimum impact outside the property and towards the sky. This policy will guide the parish council’s response to planning applications and to complaints by residents. e. Speed / noise monitoring - see appendix G for update from CANS f. Complaints about Cumbers Lane / Gatehouse Lane & Terwick Lane (need resurfacing) - WSCC potholes website only allows reporting of individual potholes but complaints suggest these two lanes badly need complete resurfacing - PC approve request for this? 10. Updates on current projects / plans: a. Emergency / resiliency plan - Updated version here - Suggest PC delegates authority to approve amended version to DS, TR and NR - When approved, NR to post to website nd TR to deal with CDC / WSCC b. START Community Trust - NR update c. Telephone box opposite St Georges – plans for renovation and use - DD d. Paths and open spaces: inc update on Pathwatch meeting with SDNP, police and other parish councils; memorial corner, etc – BC to summarise e. Velo South / WSCC protocol for major public events – no news f. Trotton bonfire: review and update - DD
Appendix A: financial updates (see over)
08/11/2019 TROTTON-WITH-CHITHURST PARISH COUNCIL Page 1 of 2
Budget for 2019-20
Annual return Sub Actual Budget Actual Expected Cat Item Remaining Variance £ Variance % Notes category cat 2018/19 2019/20 to date 2019/20 1 Balance brought forward £4,783.68 £3,685.58 3,685.58 2 Precept Precept from residents £3,000.00 £3,000.00 £3,000.00 £0.00 3,000.00 £0.00 0.0% Approved 13 Mar 2019 to start repaying cost of felling dead ash in Chithurst graveyard 3 Other receipts a Interest income £4.08 £2.50 £3.55 -£1.05 2.50 £0.00 0.0% b Funding £7,210.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 0.00 £0.00 0.0% Sum in 2018-19 was Op Watershed funding for CCTV survey on drains c VAT reclaim £0.00 £2,034.40 £2,034.40 £0.00 2,034.40 £0.00 0.0% VAT claim for 2017-18 (£433.25) delayed so this year includes that and VAT for 2018-19 (£1,601.15) d Other income £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 0.00 £0.00 0.0% Sub-total other receipts £7,214.08 £2,036.90 £2,037.95 -£1.05 2,036.90 £0.00 0.0% Sub-total receipts £10,214.08 £5,036.90 £5,037.95 -£1.05 5,036.90 £0.00 0.0% 4 Staff costs a Wages £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 0.00 £0.00 0.0% Clerk is voluntary - notional salary use for churchyard maintenance see below) b Training / professional body £0.00 -£100.00 £0.00 -£100.00 -100.00 £0.00 0.0% Allowance for subs, conferences & training - none currently planned c Travel £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 0.00 £0.00 0.0% Sub-total staff costs £0.00 -£100.00 £0.00 -£100.00 -100.00 £0.00 0.0% 5 Loan interest Interest / finance costs £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 0.00 £0.00 0.0% 6 Other payments a Payroll costs £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 0.00 £0.00 0.0% No employees b Insurance -£350.00 -£350.00 -£335.00 £0.00 -335.00 £15.00 4.3% New agreement signed for 3 years fixed @ £335 (£15 discount) c Other finance £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 0.00 £0.00 0.0% d Legal and auditing £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 0.00 £0.00 0.0% Open Spaces Soc membership £45 ; ICO registration £35; CDC election fees £160 (not in budget!); provision e Dues and subscriptions -£244.23 -£200.00 -£240.00 -£140.00 -380.00 -£180.00 -73.7% for members' attendance at seminars & conferences £100. NB SSALC membership cancelled f Office supplies & postage -£105.00 -£200.00 -£149.52 -£50.48 -200.00 £0.00 0.0% Includes £100 for printing annual report g Online services -£620.90 -£700.00 -£413.15 -£286.85 -700.00 £0.00 0.0% Website £300 p.a.; domains £100 p.a. ; Office 365 £300 i Repairs & asset maintenance £0.00 -£250.00 -£280.80 £30.80 -250.00 £0.00 0.0% Contingency for noticeboard / defibrillator repairs etc Chithurst churchyard not optional - allows for £2,000 tree felling; clerk is voluntary and his notional salary is j Churchyard maintenance -£1,250.00 -£2,850.00 £0.00 -£2,850.00 -2,850.00 £0.00 0.0% used here k Donations -£275.00 -£250.00 £0.00 -£250.00 -250.00 £0.00 0.0% Midhurst Community Bus £250 l Church amenity plan -£115.05 -£1,000.00 -£432.00 -£568.00 -1,000.00 £0.00 0.0% Amount planned if no further grants won m Other -£8,352.00 -£250.00 £0.00 -£250.00 -250.00 £0.00 0.0% Contingency allowance - does not allow for bus subsidy???? Sub-total other payments -£11,312.18 -£6,050.00 -£1,850.47 -£4,364.53 -£6,215.00 -£165.00 -1.5% Allowing for higher costs which might not be needed Sub-total payments -£11,312.18 -£6,150.00 -£1,850.47 -£4,464.53 -£6,315.00 -£165.00 -1.5% Surplus / deficit Receipts less payments -£1,098.10 -£1,113.10 £3,187.48 -£4,465.58 -£1,278.10 -£165.00 -15.0% Allows for contingencies and loss of one-off £500 and £1,277 income in previous year 7 Balance carried forward £3,685.58 £2,572.48 £6,873.06 £2,407.48 -£165.00 4.5% The budget is pessimistic and still leaves a comfortable margin If our end-year carried forward figure is more than 2 x the precept, we have to explain this in our annual Comparison of C/F with 2 x precept -£2,314.42 -£3,427.52 -3,592.52 return. Currently it is not expected to exceed 2 x precept
Agrees with total balance on transaction sheet
08/11/2019 Page 1 08/11/2019 TROTTON-WITH-CHITHURST PARISH COUNCIL Page 2 of 2 Transactions - year to date
Invoice ref Ann return cat Category Payee Item Pay type Paid Cleared Amount VAT NatWest BC NatWest BR BALANCE Brought forward BF 01/04/2019 £680.10 £3,005.48 £3,685.58 2020-01 6. Other payments Church amenity plan Osborne Signs Event noticeboard for church BACS 08/04/2019 08/04/2019 -£360.00 -£72.00 -£432.00 - £3,253.58 2020-02 2. Precept Precept CDC Precept - first 50% Deposit 12/04/2019 12/04/2019 £1,500.00 £0.00 £1,500.00 £4,753.58 2020-04 6. Other payments Insurance Came & Co Annual insurance premium BACS 19/04/2019 23/04/2019 -£350.00 £0.00 -£350.00 £4,403.58 Statement 3. Other receipts Interest income NatWest Interest Deposit 30/04/2019 30/04/2019 £0.53 £0.00 £0.53 £4,404.11 2020-05 6. Other payments Office supplies & postage Kerrytype Print annual report to residents BACS 05/05/2019 07/05/2019 -£112.00 £0.00 -£112.00 £4,292.11 Statement 3. Other receipts Interest income NatWest Interest Deposit 31/05/2019 31/05/2019 £0.51 £0.00 £0.51 £4,292.62 Statement 3. Other receipts Interest income NatWest Interest Deposit 28/06/2019 28/06/2019 £0.46 £0.00 £0.46 £4,293.08 2020-04 6. Other payments Insurance Came & Co Repay 3 yr discount Deposit 19/04/2019 09/05/2019 £15.00 £0.00 £15.00 £4,308.08 2020-06 6. Other payments Dues and subscriptions ICO Info commissioner registration (annual) DD 09/05/2019 09/05/2019 -£35.00 £0.00 -£35.00 £4,273.08 2020-07 6. Other payments Online services Safenames Annual domain fee - .org.uk (2 yrs) BACS 18/07/2019 05/07/2019 -£47.25 -£9.45 -£56.70 £4,216.38 2020-08 6. Other payments Dues and subscriptions CDC Uncontested election fees BACS 16/07/2019 16/07/2019 -£160.00 £0.00 -£160.00 £4,056.38 2019-11 3. Other receipts VAT reclaim HMRC Reclaimed VAT from 2017-18 Deposit 01/04/2018 29/07/2019 £433.25 £0.00 see 2 rows down n/a 2020-03 3. Other receipts VAT reclaim HMRC Reclaimed VAT from 2018-19 Deposit 01/04/2019 29/07/2019 £1,601.15 £0.00 see 1 row down n/a Statement 3. Other receipts VAT reclaim HMRC VAT reclaim for 2017/18 and 2018/19 Deposit 29/07/2019 29/07/2019 £2,034.40 £0.00 £2,034.40 £6,090.78 Statement 3. Other receipts Interest income NatWest Interest Deposit 31/07/2019 31/07/2019 £0.54 £0.00 £0.54 £6,091.32 2020-10 6. Other payments Online services 2commune Website annual hosting fee BACE 15/08/2019 15/08/2019 -£250.00 -£50.00 -£300.00 £5,791.32 2020-09 6. Other payments Online services Safenames Annual domain fee - trotton.community(1 yr) NR credit card 02/12/2018 28/08/2019 -£47.04 -£9.41 -£56.45 n/a 2020-09 6. Other payments Repairs & asset maintenanceAero Healthcare Defibrillator batteries NR credit card 22/07/2019 28/08/2019 -£234.00 -£46.80 -£280.80 n/a 2020-09 6. Other payments Office supplies & postage Amazon Printer paper NR credit card 30/07/2019 28/08/2019 -£11.90 -£2.38 -£14.28 n/a 2020-09 6. Other payments Office supplies & postage Amazon Glossy paper (fliers etc) NR credit card 01/08/2019 28/08/2019 -£19.36 -£3.88 -£23.24 n/a 2020-09 6. Other payments Repairs & asset maintenanceNR expenses See 4 rows above BACS 28/08/2019 28/08/2019 -£312.30 -£62.47 -£374.77 £5,416.55 Statement 3. Other receipts Interest income NatWest Interest Deposit 30/08/2019 30/08/2019 £0.49 £0.00 £0.49 £5,417.04 2018-08 6. Other payments Dues and subscriptions Open Spaces Soc Annual subscription DD 11/09/2019 11/09/2019 -£45.00 £0.00 -£45.00 £5,372.04 2020-02 2. Precept Precept CDC Precept - second 50% Deposit 13/09/2019 13/09/2019 £1,500.00 £0.00 £1,500.00 £6,872.04 Statement 3. Other receipts Interest income NatWest Interest Deposit 30/09/2019 30/09/2019 £0.51 £0.00 £0.51 £6,872.55 Statement 3. Other receipts Interest income NatWest Interest Deposit 31/10/2019 31/10/2019 £0.51 £0.00 £0.51 £6,873.06
Totals £5,415.80 -£193.92 £3,864.03 £3,009.03 £6,873.06
08/11/2019 Page 2 Brought forward from previous year
08/11/2019 Page 3
Brought forward from previous year
08/11/2019 Page 4
Appendix B: Advice on trees in Chithurst graveyard
• Advice from Dr Martin Dobson (Registered Consultant of the Arboricultural Association – employed by Sarah Miles) From: Martin Dobson
Dear Neil, Thank you for your email reminder and I apologise that you had to prompt me on this. The ash tree in question is suffering from ash dieback (Hymenoscyphus fraxineus – formerly Chalara fraxinea) which is evident from dieback of tips of branches. It was difficult to tell how far advanced the dieback was as the tree was not in leaf at the time of my inspection (22nd February 2019). From ground level I was able to reach a number of low branches and found that there were some live buds, which means that the tree will come into leaf again next year. It is likely that the tree’s appearance will deteriorate progressively over the next few years (fewer leaves and an increase in dead branches) although it is possible that the tree will hold its own for some time. Clearly, decreased leaf area will reduce photosynthetic capacity and that in turn can weaken the tree making it more susceptible to other pathogens such as honey fungus (healthy ash trees are usually resistant to honey fungus). However, at the time of my inspection there was no sign of honey fungus infection – no dead bark and no hollow sound when the trunk was tapped. Infection with ash dieback does not cause ash trees to become unstable. It is only secondary infection with honey fungus and other decay organisms that can result in instability and since I could identify no other pathogens I consider that the tree poses no unreasonable risk of failure by uprooting or snapping. If it is desired to retain the tree for as long as possible then I consider that its health should be inspected each year in about August and management should be reviewed after the inspection. It is very probable that in the long-term the tree will need to be removed and therefore it would be worth keeping a reserve in the parish council’s funds to cover that. If you have any questions about this brief summary please let me know. Kind regards, Martin Dr Martin Dobson BSc (Hons) Biol, DPhil, FArborA, MEWI Registered Consultant of the Arboricultural Association • Advice from Mark Carter (Registered Consultant of the Institute of Chartered Foresters) From: Mark Carter
Dear Veronica, Current Government guidance, as delivered through the Tree Council by DEFRA, states that 75% of all native Ash trees in the UK will be dead in the next ten years as a result of Chalara Ash Dieback. The remaining 25% are likely to have varying degrees of resistance to the fungus, with only about 2 or 3% having a useful (i.e. effective) level of resistance. Breeding programs are underway to raise new Ash trees from resistant trees, but this restricts the gene pool available and there are indications that these resistant trees have some other less desirable traits and/or disease vulnerabilities as a result, so the long term solution to this problem will not be straightforward. The dieback causes parts of the crown, typically the peripheral growth but sometimes whole discreet sections, to die, and this allows the timber in the vicinity of the dieback to become desiccated, leading to increasing embrittlement of the timber. Brittle timber behaves unpredictably under mechanical loading. When the dieback is in the early stages and small in scale, this embrittlement impacts on only small twigs and branches, neither of which are likely to pose a significant risk of harm should they fall, but as the dieback spreads larger branches become vulnerable to unpredictable failure and these can pose a significant risk of harm depending on their location. The embrittlement of the timber poses serious problems for the tree surgeon tasked with removing a diseased Ash tree. When the dieback is small in scale, the tree can safely climbed in the same way as a healthy Ash can be climbed, and the tree surgeon can confidently assess the strength and mechanical properties of the branches they are attaching their ropes to. As the dieback and embrittlement increases in scale, the tree surgeon can no longer make such confident assessments and they should not climb the tree. This means that Ash trees with significant dieback need to be dismantled using mobile elevated work platforms (MEWP) and possibly cranes, all of which significantly increases the cost of the felling. I suggest that it is this issue that is driving the advice of your tree surgeon to fell the tree now. I think the other consultant involved, Dr. Dobson, is Dr. Martin Dobson who I know quite well. He is quite correct to say that the tree poses little increased risk of large branch failure in the early stages of the disease, but that is not the only consideration here, and the increasing cost of felling the tree as the disease spreads is a significant factor to be considered. It is possible that this tree is one of the resistant trees that could provide a source of disease resistant Ash trees in the future, but the odds of this being the case are very long as only 2 or 3% of the native Ash population have this level of resistance. Therefore it is likely that the tree's condition will worsen over time, and that it will eventually need to be felled for reasons of health and safety, and the cost of that felling in the future will be significantly greater than the cost of felling now. Several Local Authorities have already embarked on large scale felling of Ash trees within falling distance of highways. This action is being endorsed by the Tree Council and I recommend their toolkit for reference: https://www.treecouncil.org.uk/Portals/0/Chalara%20docs/Tree%20Council%20Ash%20Dieback%20Toolkit%20 2.0.pdf?ver=2019-09-10-140012-347 Therefore, if the tree is in falling distance of the chapel, and the grave yard is open to the public, there is a case to be made to fell the tree now on health and safety grounds. With regard to passing the liability for the failure of the tree to someone else, I suggest the Parish Council consult with their insurance providers and a lawyer. I am doubtful that a Court would accept this arrangement in the event of the worse happening, but I am not a lawyer so I don't know. If the Parish Council's insurers will not accept this arrangement then I suggest it is a non-starter. What is clear is that the cost of felling the tree will increase as the dieback increases, so whoever takes on liability for the retention of the tree will also need to take on the increased cost of the felling if and when the dieback becomes so great that it must be felled. [personal comment deleted] Best Regards, Mark Carter FICFor. MRICS M.Arbor.A Dip.Arb.(RFS) Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Foresters, Chartered Arboriculturist & Chartered Surveyor, Registered Consultant of the Institute of Chartered Foresters, Professional Member of the Arboricultural Association. 11. Email from Chichester diocese on procedure for obtaining diocese permission to fell From: Greg Moore
Dear Neil Further to our telephone conversation earlier – Yes, you will need permission form the Diocese in relation to churchyard works, as the churchyard remains under faculty jurisdiction. The tree works could be authorised as a List B application – the form is here - https://www.chichester.anglican.org/archdeacons-permissions-list-b/ You would need to also email photos of the trees concerned, and any professional input like a tree report as we discussed. Once you have all this, you would need to send this via email to me, and I then send it off for review. The Archdeacon then decides if the works fall under this, or if it needs a faculty application. Either way, you cannot fell without permission. The current rules are here - https://www.chichester.anglican.org/permissions-for-works-to-church-buildings/ Thanks, Greg
Greg Moore Church Buildings and Pastoral Reorganisation Officer Telephone: 01273 425 690 | www: http://www.chichester.anglican.org | Post: Church House, 211 New Church Road, Hove BN3 4ED The Chichester Diocesan Fund and Board of Finance (Incorporated) Charity No 243134 A Company Limited by Guarantee Registered No 133558
• Email from Came & Co (our insurance company) From: Local Councils
Dear Neil, Thank you for your email. Where a Parish Council is responsible for trees, the Public Liability Insurance provided by the Inspire policy will cover this responsibility. This is subject to the Parish Council taking reasonable precautions to prevent accidents or injury. As guidance provided by the HSE and Forestry Commission are very general, at this time, our panel of insurers have not introduced any specific requirements regarding the management of trees. Therefore the Policy Condition requiring reasonable precautions to be taken to reduce the risk of injury or damage arising remains the key consideration. If the Council are aware of a potential issue and someone is injured as a result of this issue, the policy should still provide cover but there is obviously more chance of a claim against the Council resulting in a higher chance of an increased premium. Our advice therefore is Councils should seek expert advice from an arboriculturalist on the health of the trees under their control and any points arising from the subsequent report are acted on. If the expert recommends, for example, the tree needs felling sooner rather than later or that a 3 year inspection programme is implemented, we are happy for the Parish Council to be guided by this advice. As the tree is the Council’s responsibility, the neighbour will not have any ‘insurable interest’ and would therefore not be able to arrange or provide a relevant insurance policy to cover this risk. In addition, the periodic specialist inspection should be supported by regular, routine visual checks which can be carried out by a person (s) considered competent by the Parish Council. Again, a tree expert should be able to provide advice and possibly some training on the frequency and content of these inspections, however, we do recommend these checks are recorded in writing with any problems identified being acted on within a reasonable period of time. Checks following periods of bad weather are especially important. By following these practices, the prospects of someone successfully claiming against the Parish Council should be reduced thereby protecting the Parish Council’s premium from being increased. I have attached a guidance note on this subject which I hope you find useful. I trust this clarifies the insurance position but please contact me again if you have any further questions. Kind Regards Mark Alexander BA (Hons) Cert CII
Came & Company Local Council Insurance Blenheim House, 1-2 Bridge Street, Guildford, Surrey GU1 4RY Office Tel: 01483 462884 email: [email protected]
Appendix C: Selection of contractors - quotes [see over]
TreyfordQUOTE West Sussex Gu29 0le 07545612007 [email protected] www.arborlecservices.com
Arborlec services Quote
For: Carola Brown Quote No: 75 [email protected] Date: 18/02/2019
Description Quantity Rate Amount
To remove 1x ash tree in Chithurst church yard due to ash die back. Chip and remove all brash and 1 £1,600.00 £1,600.00 remove all timber from site.
Subtotal £1,600.00 Total £1,600.00
Total £1,600.00
08/11/2019 Page 5 1 / 1
David Wilson 1 Winters Cottages, Bepton Road, Midhurst, West Sussex GU29 9HD. Tel: 01730 817898
Mr Ryder Steps Trotton 25th Oct 19 ESTIMATE
Trotton Church Tree Removal
To fell large Ash tree beside Trotton Church, to remove all green waste/timber, cut stump to ground level and leave site tidy
For the sum of £1780 (no vat)
Yours Sincerely
David Wilson
08/11/2019 Page 6 08/11/2019 Page 7
APPENDIX D: RESPONSE FROM TROTTON WITH CHITHURST PARISH COUNCIL TO THE WSCC CONSULTATION ON “PROPOSED REORGANISATION OF RURAL AND SMALL SCHOOLS IN WEST SUSSEX”
This paper has been written by Neil Ryder, a member of the parish council. Neil has overlapping interests and experience in this area, including: - a member of the National Governors Association - a director of W Sussex Governors Association and its lead director on small schools - a member of the W Sussex Schools Forum - the statutory body which advises the WSCC cabinet member for education and skills on policy and (particularly financial) key issues - chair of governors at Rogate C of E Primary and a governor of its partner school, Rake C of E Primary - an ex co-chair (up to Feb 2019) of governors at Stedham Primary - chairman of START Community Trust, which serves the parishes of Stedham, Trotton and Rogate, giving him close relationships in all 3 parishes - a driver of the Midhurst Community Bus, regularly covering the routes to Trotton and Stedham This gives him fairly extensive knowledge, but he fully recognises that some of these interests could conflict. He has tried to be fully objective in writing this draft
I propose that we try to agree a set of core points to put in our response and then authorise 2-3 members to draft the full response and submit it. My suggested points are as follows:
SUGGESTED RESPONSE POINTS Responding organisation: Trotton with Chithurst parish council, Steps, Trotton, W Sussex, GU31 5EP Responding as: Parish council representing residents within Stedham catchment area 1 Do you agree or disagree this school secures the highest quality educational provision for all children and young people? Inadequate information: all local schools have ‘Good’ ratings from Ofsted so Stedham seems as good as others 2 How much do you agree this school is centred on the needs of the children and learners? No information at all to address this question directly. Can only judge by attendance (indicating parent views of the question) – but this was woefully inadequate. - Stedham attracts only 20% of “potential pupils who live in the catchment” but no comparisons given, so the data is useless. - 77% of Stedham pupils come from outside the catchment area – but need parental selection data – what % are at the school through choice (which would be a big strength) or due to a lack of places in their own catchment areas? - Stedham governors say they are confident of increasing their pupil numbers above the levels projected by WSCC, but how? If they only plan to attract children away from other local primaries, that could damage other schools that are attended by some of our parish children. 3 In your opinion, would you agree or disagree this school is financially viable? Again information wholly inadequate - Income depends mainly on pupil numbers but projections for whole area and all local schools are not given – and Stedham governors disagree with the projections for their school - What are WSCC’s plans for Easebourne within the period assessed ? - Must also take into account the costs (and environmental impact) of extra transport if children had to be transported to other schools
13 November 2019 TrottonResponse_summary.docx Page 1 of 2 4 What do you consider to be the best option for your school? Again, nowhere near enough information - Academisation: no evidence that academisation has a positive impact or that any academies would be prepared to take on such a small remote school - Amalgamation: could presumably move the pupils – at once or in stages – to another school (Easebourne?) and close the current site, but at what cost? Without parental choice figures cannot assess the impact on parents. For the 15 or so that come from Stedham, it would presumably be an unpopular move but, as we have pointed out, for children from our parish, Rogate would be about the same distance away and there are plenty of other small schools within easy range for those from other areas. - Closure: We strongly believe that rural village schools can be critically important to their local communities but assessing this is more difficult. As we have pointed out above, the papers do not give sufficient information to assess community support or attendance figures. Nor do they give information about community use of the school buildings and facilities or pupil involvement in other community activities. Stedham governors also said they have strong community support but there are no representatives of either of their catchment parish councils on the governing body and, unlike some of the other schools, neither PC spoke in their support at their public meeting. The governors have not shared their views with us during the consultation, and have declined our invitation to give us their views in preparing this response. - Federation: We fully supported both Rogate and Stedham schools 18 months ago when they were discussing a 3- school federation to increase their viability, both financially and educationally. The resulting partnership between Rogate and Rake has been a great success and the partnership has now made it clear that they would be happy to discuss expanding it, so this would still appear to be a viable option for Stedham if both sides (or other partners) agreed it. - Linked: This refers to linking infant and junior schools and is not relevant in the case of Stedham. - Relocation: It is not obvious that relocating Stedham primary would have any benefits at all – and it would be very expensive. - No Change: As we understood it, WSCC had warned small schools that this as not an option but, as argued above, without answers to all the questions, we would not be able to assess it. 5 General comments - Unlike some of the areas included in the consultation, we have no shortage of small primary schools nearby, so closure of one of them would not seem to unduly restrict parental choice or employment opportunities for our residents. Indeed, most local school have spare capacity and all suffer from shortage of money, so it could be argued that the closure of any one of them might strengthen the others and improve local education provision – if overall local capacity is adequate. - BUT we strongly believe that rural village schools can be critically important to their local communities and we were given no information about community impact - AND much more strategic work is required before any schools can be properly assessed in their local contexts - Timing, information provided, questions, etc appalling, creating unnecessary damage to schools - Cabinet member should not allow any forced changes to any of the schools on the basis of this consultation - WSCC should do proper research on parental selection criteria (how do parents choose schools, why are some of them travelling well outside catchment areas, etc) BEFORE doing any further assessments of schools for this kind of review. It should then consult schools (headteachers & governors) by area first – describing the problem and giving local data about schools to come up with viable options to put to the public.
13 November 2019 TrottonResponse_summary.docx Page 2 of 2 Drew Curran Tree Services 35 Storrington West Sussex RH20 3LZ
07540 580546 [email protected]
Quotation
Clerk at Trotton Quote Number: 971 St Mary's Church Quote Date: 31/10/2019 Chithurst Valid For: 3 Months United Kingdom Account: CLER01 Quote Ref:
VAT Registration No: 2926143
Description Total VAT Multistemmed Ash in graveyard Fell, leaving the stem cut as close to 1,600.00 320.00 ground level as possible
Chip & clear all waste generated. Ash outside graveyard Fell, leaving the stem cut as close to ground 120.00 24.00 level as possible
Chip & clear all waste generated.
Total Net Amount: £1,720.00 VAT @ 20%: £344.00 Quote Total: £2,064.00 Appendix E: Operation Watershed (see over)
Trotton Bridge Operation Watershed 2019 Scope of Works 08/11/2019
Approximate location of Gully D1448 to be replaced with new and connection made to existing culvert
Location of new gullies
Approximate location of new outfall and headwall New 300mm culvert Page 8 Quotation Landbuild Ltd
Trotton Parish Council 07-Nov-19 Operation Watershed
Ref. Description - Quantity Unit Rate Total
Preliminaries, Mobilisation, Insurances, Pedestrian and Chapter 8 Traffic Management - Two-way traffic 1 item incl. incl. signals. Switch off of existing traffic signals by Telent
1 Trotton Bridge - Drainage improvements
Replace gully D1448 with new WSCC specification precast concrete in-line gully making connection to 1 nr incl. incl. existing culvert
Replace existing culvert eastwards of Gully D1448 with new 300mm twinwall Upvc pipework with ST1 concrete 50 lin m incl. incl. bed and surround. Reinstate carriageway to HAUC specification
Install new precast concrete gully to WSCC standard detail S78/38/11 and make connection to new 300mm 2 nr incl. incl. culvert
Reinstate carriageway to HAUC specification 1 item incl. incl.
Form new outfall in bank adjacent to River Rother, concrete bag headwall to WSCC standard detail 1 item incl. incl. S278/38/23
For the sum of (excluding VAT) £ 31,155.05
Notes:
All landowner permissions to be sought by Parish Council prior to commencement of works
All arisings from excavations to be disposed of at a licensed facility
08/11/2019 Page 9 Appendix F: Clean energy generation
From: Steve Shaw
Dear Mr Ryder, I am contacting you to ask you to help our campaign for more local, clean energy generation that would benefit local communities. We are a not-for-profit organisation campaigning for the Local Electricity Bill – that we authored – to become law. The Bill is currently supported by a cross-party group of 115 MPs. The Bill aims to solve the current problem whereby local renewable energy generators, such as community energy groups, are unable to sell energy that they generate to local people. This is because of the huge setup and running costs involved in doing so. The Bill would fix this problem by establishing a Right to Local Supply that would make the costs of selling locally generated clean energy proportionate to the scale of the operation. This would benefit the existing community energy groups across the country and, even more excitingly, create the opportunity for huge growth in such groups and other local clean energy providers. If the Bill became law it would be excellent news for Parish, Town and Community Councils that wished to set up their own energy companies to sell locally generated renewable energy to local people, as the set up and running costs involved would be proportionate and thus a fraction of what they are now. The revenues received by such councils could be ploughed back into local emissions reduction schemes and other local services and facilities. Could you please help by doing the following? 1. Ask Trotton with Chithurst Parish Council to pass a motion in support of the Local Electricity Bill. A model resolution is below. 2. Sign up to the campaign as an individual which you can do here: www.powerforpeople.org.uk/sign-up Please reply if you would like to ask anything about our campaign. Yours sincerely, Steve Shaw, Director Power for People www.powerforpeople.org.uk
• Council Draft Resolution That Trotton with Chithurst Parish Council (i) acknowledges the efforts that this council has made to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote renewable energy; (ii) recognises that councils can play a central role in creating sustainable communities, particularly through the provision of locally generated renewable electricity; (iii) further recognises - that very large financial setup and running costs involved in selling locally generated renewable electricity to local customers result in it being impossible for local renewable electricity generators to do so, - that making these financial costs proportionate to the scale of a renewable electricity supplier’s operation would create significant opportunities for councils to be providers of locally generated renewable electricity directly to local people, businesses and organisations, and - that revenues received by councils that became local renewable electricity providers could be used to help fund local greenhouse gas emissions reduction measures and to help improve local services and facilities; (iv) accordingly resolves to support the Local Electricity Bill, currently supported by a cross-party group of 115 MPs, and which, if made law, would make the setup and running costs of selling renewable electricity to local customers proportionate by establishing a Right to Local Supply; and (v) further resolves to - inform the local media of this decision, - write to local MPs, asking them to support the Bill, and - write to the organisers of the campaign for the Bill, Power for People, (at 8 Delancey Passage, Camden, London NW1 7NN or [email protected]) expressing its support.
Appendix G: Motorbike speed / noise
• Emails from CANS (Campaign Against Noise and Speed From: CANS Hampshire
Dear Neil, My apologies for not getting back to you, or for that matter any other W.Sussex PC. I have had quite a few individual residents from Rogate and other villages raising their concerns to whom I have replied. Unfortunately I have been away and rather busy and not had time to contact or act on the idea of widening the campaign. At our first local meeting for six months CANS did discuss involving a wider community and this met with approval. Our RPU were very active over the summer months, prosecuting nearly 100 individuals in the months of April/May. I am waiting for figures and manpower costs for the month to October. We have also successfully (in trials) deployed acoustic cameras that can identify and distinguish between individual bikes and record registration plates. It is my impression, following discussions with the RPU Inspector, that they have suddenly appreciated the cost of the need for such frequent and high profile operations, and may well be more accepting of our idea of average speed cameras combined with the acoustic devices. We meet again in December with HCC and the RPU to find out more. I did ask our Inspector whether there was any “joined-up Policing” with Sussex but did not get an answer....I plan to raise this again with him in Dec. I would have liked to be at your PC meeting on 13th but unfortunately will be away in Wales for a few days. I believe we can start planning now and through the next 4months or so to co-ordinate our efforts across both counties. Much will depend on the outcome of elections and who is re-elected. To answer your specific question regarding parish councils - while highly supportive they are not currently united in their efforts to battle this problem....rather relying on us and providing us with a mandate to speak on their behalf! I will try and apply myself to how we can work more closely with your side of the A272 and W. Sussex area. Yours sincerely, Dr Jonathan Moore Chair Communities Against Noise and Speed