MINUTES OF THE ANNUAL TOWN MEETING
THURSDAY 6 MARCH 2003
Present: Councillor Mrs A LOOKER, the Town Mayor
Councillors: D ASHWORTH, D BROWN, D BUTTERWORTH, D COMBEN, M COHEN, Mrs
HULL, E KYNOCH, R NORRIS, A SURSHAM, S SPENCER, C VANE PERCY,
Town Clerk: A J WELTON
In Attendance: Mace Bearer: M WILLIAMS
Chaplain: Rev B ATLING
Apologies: Councillors: A GOFF, Mrs B MOORE, G WILSON
Present: 14 members of the public.
Opening the meeting, the Mayor welcomed all those attending
this annual opportunity for Godmanchester people to question their Town
Councillors and introduced Mr C Jablonski, the HDC Environment Team Leader.
The Chaplain then led the gathering in prayers.
RECYCLING
Much effort was being put into the introduction of a more
robust recycling regime. This had started with the introduction of the
“Green Box” scheme; the District Council had hoped to achieve
the targets set but those targets had frequently been revised upwards.
Green sacks for the collection of garden waste had been
a limited success but it had been decided to introduce a garden waste
collection trial over a 12-month period in some parts of the District.
Some 9000 homes would be involved in a single collection round, utilising
wheel bins, collecting in alternate weeks.
The advantages of introducing a wheel bin to replace the
green sacks were that for the collector there would be fewer working days
lost through injuries and wheel bins were easier to handle. For the householder
there would be free collection rather than having to pay £1.00 per
green sack, wheel bins were a better method of containing waste and there
would be a reduction in the number of individual visits to HWRC.
Garden waste was a natural resource and was currently being
disposed of in landfill sites. Garden waste made up some 20% of waste
produced by households. Currently only 13% of all household waste is recycled
in Huntingdonshire; the targets were 25% by the year 2005 and 45% by the
year 2010. The trial had started in January 2003; all compostable garden
waste was put in the green wheel bins, collected and taken to a contractor
for use on agricultural land. The scheme had been running for about 6
weeks during which some 120 tonnes had been collected. The wheeled bins
had been well received and the recycling boxes and mini-recycling centres
were bulging.
TOWN MAYOR'S REPORT
Councillor Mrs Looker stated that it had been a privilege
to serve the Town as Mayor during what had proved to be a busy, but very
interesting year. The Mayor thanked her Deputy, Councillor S Spencer,
for his support despite his being unwell and needing back surgery. The
Mayor had so far represented the Town on 46 occasions and the Deputy on
9 occasions both in Godmanchester and at civic functions in the surrounding
area. One of the notable events had been the presentation of jubilee mugs
to the 600 primary school children in Godmanchester on behalf of the Town
Council. The Deputy Mayor had visited our twin town of Salon de Provence
in France in the Autumn.
There had been several major projects undertaken and/or
completed during the past year, notably the Judith’s Field Pavilion
had undergone major refurbishment in the Summer. Our thanks were due to
Cllr Goff for his tenacity in seeing the project through.
The wall and railings project in Church Place had been
completed and formally opened under the guidance of Cllr Sursham and works
on the lighting and re-surfacing of Church Place in conjunction with HDC
were to be undertaken in the near future.
Although it was reported at our last Annual Meeting that
we had won the battle for a circular walk around Monk’s Pit, an appeal
had been lodged by the landowner and the Town Council was represented
at a one day public inquiry last month. Cllr Comben, who had already done
a great deal of work on this matter, presented the Town Council’s
case.
The central heating faults at the Queen Elizabeth School
had been solved and the pipes re-routed above ground behind the skirting
boards. A new boiler had also been installed in the kitchen.
At the London Road Cemetery, the Garden of Remembrance
had been completed with the installation of the 2 benches.
The new Godmanchester Town Guide had been produced and printed and was
available at 50 pence a copy. This project had been undertaken by Cllr
Vane Percy with assistance from Cllr Norris and Cllr Sursham.
During the year, the Town Council had made grants and supported
many local groups, including the Cricket Club, the Bowls Club, play groups
and holiday club. For the third year running money had been allocated
for the Picnic in the Park, which had proved a wonderful sequel to Gala
Day. Despite this, the Town Council’s element of the Council Tax
had remained the same for the fourth year running.
As in other towns, Godmanchester had continued to have
problems with vandalism and the Town Council had considered how it should
address youth problems. A grant had been made to fund weekly football
evenings at the Community Primary School and the Council had met with
youth workers and police who were conducting new initiatives in the Town.
The Council had welcomed two new councillors during the
year. Cllr Ashworth had replaced former Cllr Hooker and Cllr Butterworth
had recently replaced Cllr Mrs Tyler.
The Mayor expressed her gratitude to Mr Alan Welton, the
Town Clerk, who was approaching completion of his first year in the post;
to the Town Clerk’s assistant, Christine Hakimi, who last year had
taken on the additional duty of administering the Cemetery, and to Mr
Martin Williams, the Mace Bearer, for his support to the office of Mayor,
especially on Remembrance Sunday and at the Civic Service.
The Mayor also expressed her thanks to all the Town Councillors
for their hard work during the year, especially those who had chaired
working parties.
The Mayor gave a reminder that the Town would be taking
part in a county-wide spring clean campaign that usually takes place on
a Saturday in April. She also mentioned that the Mayor’s Charity
Ball would take place on 2nd May in aid of Macmillan Nurses and the Ophthalmic
Department of Hinchingbrooke Hospital.
WORKING PARTY REPORTS
Finance. In the absence of Councillor Mrs MOORE,
the Town Clerk summarised the major financial events. The Town’s
finances were sound and had allowed the Council to maintain the precept
for 2003/2004 at £99,000, unchanged for 4 years. In the year 2002/2003
there had been major extra expenditure on refurbishment of Judith’s
Field, on replacement of the Churchyard railings, walls and gates, on
heating repairs in Queen Elizabeth School and on developing a Memorial
garden in the town cemetery. The financial policy was to ensure that the
Town’s reserves were kept to a sensible minimum and that the money
contributed by the Town’s taxpayers was used to the benefit of the
maximum number of people in the Town. The projected balance to carry forward
to 2003/2004 was £146,000; this was a gradual reduction from £177,000
for the year 2001/2002 and £158,000 for 2002/2003.
Planning. The chair of the Planning Working Party,
Councillor BROWN, explained that the primary function of the Planning
Working Party was to advise the full Town Council on planning applications
issues consistent with current regulations and guidance documentation
and to maintain the balance between preserving the character of the Town
whilst encouraging development. Huntingdonshire District Council consulted
the Town Council on all planning applications in Godmanchester and during
2002/2003 the District Council had consulted on 63 applications. By the
end of February 2003 HDC had determined 35 of those applications, of which
27 were approved and 8 refused. The Town Council had recommended refusal
on 6 applications that were subsequently approved by HDC. The Town Council
is awaiting HDC deliberation on 17 proposed recommended and 10 proposed
refusal applications. The Planning WP had supported the Town Council on
many initiatives including the Huntingdon Local Plan and Cambridgeshire
County Council Structure Plan Review, the Government Planning Green Paper,
Monks Pit public footpath, currently awaiting judgement following appeal,
the Sustrans Cycle Route and, more recently, the Huntingdon and Godmanchester
Transport Strategy Consultation. This latter item sought to address traffic
congestion issues ranging from the Spittals interchange to the North,
the London Road/A1198 junction to the Southeast and the Huntingdon ring
road between. The proposed modification to the Local Plan Alterations
introduced 3 potential residential developments within the confines of
Godmanchester that would, if completed, add approximately 260 dwellings
to the Town. The Town Council had challenged the proposal to build 70
dwellings on Wigmore Farm and had requested its removal until 2006 on
the basis that 132 dwellings had been built in recent years, 109 of which
were unplanned windfall sites, not in accordance with the principles of
sustainable development, a line that was supported by Huntingdonshire
District Council.
Environment. Councillor NORRIS took over the chair
of the Environment Working Party in July 2002. With the completion of
the upgrade to the play area adjacent to Queens Walk, the Town Council
had directed that there was no longer a need for a Recreation Working
Party and that any matters relating to Recreation should be covered by
the Environment WP. He explained that the WP remained active in a wide
range of areas. However, the last year had been one of consolidation rather
than one of any major advance. Councillor NORRIS went on to explain that
the first part of his report would deal with what had been accomplished
or was yet to be completed and the second part would cover what the Town
Council anticipated would be worthy of consideration over the next 12
months. The most significant event had been providing support for Councillor
COMBEN who had represented the Town Council at the Public Inquiry concerning
access to the footpath around Monks Pit. A decision was yet to be released
by the Planning Inspectorate. The contribution by Councillor COMBEN to
that event could not be underestimated. The Town Council had previously
approved the purchase of two new decorative town signs; one for Cambridge
Road and one for London Road. The signs would reflect the towns twinning
connections. The sign on the Offord Road had been refurbished and the
intention was to carry out similar work on the sign at Riverside Mill.
During the year handrails had been fitted to both sides of the Chinese
Bridge to accommodate the handicapped and the elderly. With the co-operation
of Lafarge, a stile had been installed to complete a circular walk between
the left turn at the bottom of Cow Lane and the Ouse Valley Way towards
West Side Common. Associated with this activity, the Town Council had
retained its active membership of the Parish Paths Partnership scheme
run by Cambridgeshire County Council. The dedicated cycle path along Post
Street had been downgraded to an advisory cycle route because of safety
constraints and insufficient road space. The marking would be carried
out in the near future. In addition, the Town Council continued to make
good the vandal damage. The memorial seat at the slipway had been replaced
and the second seat from the same location was undergoing repairs. Frequent
checks of lifebuoys were made to ensure Godmanchester maintains its full
complement. The Town Council was in the process of drawing up a new Grounds
Maintenance contract. A number of other areas in which the Town Council
intended to be involved included improving the footpath between the Chinese
Bridge and the lock, improving the safety measures proposed for the mill
sluice, a proper paved footpath between Stuart Close and White Hart Lane
and to resurrect the proposal for off street parking, particularly for
Cambridge Road and the Toll Cottages. Finally the Town Council had indicated
that it intended to take part in the consultation process for delivering
traffic calming measures.
Property. Councillor SURSHAM reported that the main
expenditure in the past year had been the rebuilding of the Church Place
walls, gates and railings. There had been some minor extra expenditure
on a commemorative bronze plaque to be fixed to one of the gate piers
during the joint HDC/Town Council upgrading of Church Place, which should
take place within the next two months. The upgrading would also include
the replacement of the street lamp by a lantern over the double gates,
a feature evident from an old photograph, which had also been a casualty
of the last War. Following a report by the architect to the Queen Elizabeth
School, an estimate had been received for a new heating system, necessitated
by the corrosion of the original water pipes from the boiler passing under
the large hall floor. The estimate had been considered excessive and an
alternate, simpler scheme that had entailed replacing the pipes with over-floor
piping behind the skirting boards. Some radiators had been moved and a
new boiler had been installed in the kitchen. The Chairman of the Friends
of Queen Elizabeth School had agreed to supervise the casing of the pipes
passing through the walls and under the door to the Porch Museum to a
standard worthy of a Listed 1573 building and its funding by the Friends.
Redecoration of both halls, the kitchen and toilets had gone out to tender
and it was hoped that work would begin during the school Easter holidays.
Repairs to the leaking roof over the Town Office in the Town Hall had
also gone out to tender and would be effected as soon as approved.
Judith’s Field. In the absence of the chair
of the Judith’s Field Working Party, the Mayor read a short report
submitted by Councillor GOFF. Since the previous Town Meeting the building
at Judith’s Field had been extensively refurbished. Having been unsuccessful
in the project to replace the building with a brand new facility and,
given the poor state of the existing building, the options had been either
to demolish or to carry out extensive repairs. The Town Council chose
to refurbish and modernise the existing building. The main hall was now
larger and brighter, there was a fully equipped kitchen with an additional
serving hatch to the outside, all the toilet fittings had been replaced
and the building had been redecorated throughout. However, the building
had been subjected to repeated vandalism and bona fide users had been
driven away. This had prompted the Town Council to examine all aspects
of physical security and, given the remote location, radical steps were
taken to provide the building and its patrons with a measure of security.
This had involved the installation of security grilles and gates all round.
The grilles had blended well with the building and had enhanced the appearance.
There had been very little vandalism since. The total cost of all that
work had been £19,000 and only local tradesmen had been used. The
next project was to provide proper lighting for the skate park, building
and car park with the aim of making it a much safer place and unattractive
to those intent on anti social behaviour. This was subject to support
and funding from various agencies and it was hoped that the project would
be completed in the near future.
Flood Defences. The Flood Defence Working Party
had been newly formed in response to issues arising from the country-wide
Flood Forum run by WaterVoice in September 2002. Councillor Mrs HULL had
volunteered to chair the Working Party. She informed the meeting that
there were two issues affecting Godmanchester. The first was that the
Environment Agency was currently evaluating plans for new flood defences
for Godmanchester following surveys of Huntingdon and Godmanchester carried
out in the aftermath of the Easter 1998 floods. These surveys had pin-pointed
low-lying land in Godmanchester and identified as many as 700 households
that were deemed to be in an area of flood risk. The Godmanchester flood
defences plans were expected to be the subject of public consultation
in June 2003, with a view to carrying out the required works starting
in 2004. The other issue that the Town Council was focussing on was to
help those 700 households deemed at risk by assisting the Environment
Agency to disseminate flood warning information in Godmanchester. In order
to achieve this, the Town Council had been in discussion with the Environment
Agency flood warning personnel and the officers at Huntingdonshire District
Council responsible for emergency planning and action in the event of
flooding. The Town Council was investigating the possibility of adopting
the role of “flood warden” for Godmanchester and was looking
into the legal liabilities that would result from the flood warning responsibility.
In addition, the Town Council was obtaining maps and details of contact
information to post on notice boards.
Cemetery. Councillor COHEN reported that this had
been the first full year of operation for the Town Council’s running
of the Cemetery. He said that the decision had been taken that, on take
over, the Cemetery would be returned to its Lawned status but that, for
a variety of reasons, that was taking some time to deliver. Action had
been taken to start the clean up and ground levelling and was ongoing.
Drainage continued to be a problem but there was little that could be
done due to the nature of the soil. However, it was planned to continue
to plant trees in an attempt to soak up some of the water, at the same
time taking care not to intrude too much into the areas required for graves
in the future. Excess soil was also a problem and it was intended to require
the gravedigger to remove it on each occasion. It was intended to cover
the car parking area with gravel and continue to build on it as layers
were driven into the surface. Health and Safety matters remained important
in the infrastructure of the cemetery and it had been discovered that
a number of the headstones had been so loose that it had been necessary
to lay them flat to prevent accidents. The water tap in the car park had
been repaired following the car fire that had caused the damage. The previous
year it had been suggested that a small Garden of Remembrance would offer
an area of tranquillity for people to sit in when visiting the Cemetery.
This had been constructed and now provided a pleasant area for contemplation.
Alconbury Airfield Consultation. Councillor ASHWORTH
had volunteered to take on the chairmanship of this new Working Party
shortly after being co-opted onto the Town Council. He reported that,
following the release in July 2002 of the report entitled “The Future
Development of Air Transport in the UK”, by the Department of Transport,
the proposal to re-open Alconbury for both passenger and freight flights
had come as a surprise to most residents. There would be many disadvantages
to the environment and in an increase in traffic levels. He said that
the Town Council had felt that the issue was sufficiently important that
it created a separate Working Party to review the proposals and to prepare
a response on behalf of the Town. The response had been considered in
November and concluded that the DoT assumptions on growth in passenger
flights were probably excessive, especially if the Government enforced
its policy of the polluter paying for the full cost of his actions. The
response went on to say that it was felt that other methods of transporting
freight should be investigated and encouraged; development at the major
airports in the SE should be constrained and airports in other regions
and at Norwich and Southampton should be encouraged to grow in order to
provide a greater variety of destinations for the people of those areas.
The Town Council was opposed to the development of Alconbury as an airport
that it considered unnecessary. If it was to be developed later then the
Town Council would oppose night flying between the hours of 11.00pm and
7.00am and insist that the necessary infrastructure was put in place well
before the airport was opened. Since the response had been made, the Government
had been forced to reconsider its decision not to develop a second runway
at Gatwick. When the Government had produced its revised plans, the consultation
period would run for a further four months from the date of publication.
Until the final proposals were announced some comfort could be taken from
the fact that most of the local authorities in the area had opposed the
development of Alconbury. It appeared that Alconbury was likely only to
see major development if operators were severely constrained elsewhere.
At other airports in the SE area there was a growing voice for development
of airports in their area in order to provide much needed employment,
for example at Luton and at Cliffe. The Town council had also made representation
to the Secretary of State for Transport suggesting that the proposal in
the CHUMMS report to realign the A14 to the South of Godmanchester needed
to be reconsidered as a realignment to the North of Huntingdon would best
serve any new airport at Alconbury. The Town Council would continue to
monitor the situation at Alconbury and act in the best interests of the
local residents.
PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
A summary of the questions and answers is at Annex A below.
TOWN MAYOR
ANNEX A TO THE MINUTES OF THE TOWN MEETING
HELD ON 6 MARCH 2003
QUESTION. Now that the project to renovate Church Place
had been completed and work on tidying up the Cemetery was well under
way, what did the Town Council propose to do about the broken fence and
gate at the back of the church in East Chadley Lane?
ANSWER. It was acknowledged that parts of the old gate
were still in existence but the cost of replacement was likely to be expensive
because it was a listed structure and any replacement had to be on a like
for like basis. The refurbishment of the church walls, gates and railings
had only been made possible by an extensive grant from SITA and any further
works would have to await affordability.
QUESTION. Were there any plans to plant more trees in the
Cemetery?
ANSWER. There were already some 60 trees in the West and
South sides of the Cemetery but there may be more once building began.
It was possible that the developers would introduce more to screen the
housing from the Cemetery.
QUESTION. Would any new traffic calming measures include
the bend on London Road/Street?
ANSWER. The Town Council had indicated that it wanted to
be involved actively in any discussions about traffic calming measures.
Back to Town Council Page
|
