2022 Minutes

Select for downloadable / printable PDF version

Minutes of Sutton Bridge Parish Meeting held 18:00hrs Tuesday, 05 July 2022 at the Curlew Centre.

Present:         
Parish Council Chair: Cllr Anne Scarlett
Parish Clerk: Mr Robert Smith
Guest speaker: Mr Roger Sandell, Ridge and Partners LLP
Parish Council Members: Cllr Michael Booth, Cllr Simon Booth, Cllr Chris Brewis, Cllr David Bruch, Cllr Kim Davies, Cllr Michelle Pitt, Cllr Colin Robinson, Cllr Terry York.
Other local electors: 7
Other non-residents: 3

1. Welcome

1.1. The chair, Cllr Anne Scarlett gave welcome.

2. Apologies for absence

2.1. Apologies were received from Cllr Rachael Goodwin and Cllr Ray Perkins.

3. Previous minutes 

3.1. It was agreed to approve the minutes of the Annual Parish Meeting held on 10 March 2020 as an accurate record.

4. Plans for a new pavilion in the Memorial Park

4.1.The chair read out a Parish Council consultation document previously published on the Parish Council’s website. The chair emphasised that whilst the consultation was not binding on the Parish Council, the Council was keen to listen and respond to parishioners’ ideas and suggestions.

4.2.The chair handed over to Mr Sandell to explain the process that was being used for the new pavilion project.

4.3.Mr Sandell introduced himself as the project manager, brought in by the Parish Council to manage the building project, to initially deal with the early stages.

4.4.Mr Sandell explained that the process would follow the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) plan of work stages. The early-stage work currently being undertaken would be up to the point of getting costs from contractors and first stage design.

4.5.The chair invited comments from the meeting.

4.6.Representatives from the Football Club appreciated the need for any new facility to be multi-use to encourage wider activities in the Village. However, better facilities were already required by the Football Club just to allow current teams to continue. The Club had come under pressure, with players moving to neighbouring clubs that had better facilities. It was hoped that a new pavilion would allow an expansion of the youth teams from the existing under-13s to include an under-10 side. It was noted that youth sides up to the age of 16 were mixed boys and girls.

4.7.The loss of the previous youth club was regretted. It was felt that facilities were needed that would support the development of children in the Village, getting them out of their bedrooms and away from excessive use of electronic games.

4.8.It was asked whether the new pavilion would provide indoor games facilities. Mr Sandell reported that the design for such a building would likely be out of reach due to the very substantial additional costs that would be required.

4.9.The chair indicated that a café in the new pavilion was being considered.

4.10.It was questioned whether pre-built units might be considered for the pavilion. Mr Sandell stated that he had no preconceptions and that all modern methods of construction would be considered. There were pros and cons with any building method, specifically regarding build vs running costs, quality of build, building longevity, and environmental impact. Due to current Building Regulations the building would be run on electricity. The use of photovoltaic (PV) cells would be considered. Lighting would be LED.

4.11.The clerk reported that the Parish Council would be seeking substantial external financing for the project, including from grant aid and support from businesses. It was likely that the Parish Council would need to adjust its budget both to include a proportion of the cost of build, and on-going running costs and maintenance.

4.12.Cllr M. Booth said that he believed that a new pavilion should be built and stated that the Parish Council could raise funds through a public works loan. The hardest money to find was for continued running and maintenance costs. The design of the building had to be built for the future and be done correctly from the start. The layout of the Memorial Park needed to be rejigged to maximise benefit.

4.13.A question was put on the likely timescale for building a new pavilion. Mr Sandell said this would to a great extent depend on the money being available. With finance in place, it would be possible to have contractors on-site within six to nine months followed by a six-month build. However, timescales needed to include best scheduling around such matters as the football season.

5. Plans for new play equipment in the Village parks.

5.1.The chair highlighted the survey questions on play equipment that had been included with the consultation document. These could be submitted to the clerk up to midday Monday 11 July. Copies were available from the Parish Council’s website for those not at the meeting, or on request from the clerk. Attendees were asked to spread the word.

5.2.Regarding equipping the other parks in the village currently under the control of South Holland District Council, a proposal had been submitted to the District Council, with a response awaited.

5.3.The chair stated that plans were being considered for moving the children’s play area to the front of the Memorial Park.

5.4.A question on whether dog walking in the Memorial Park would be affected by the plans was raised. The chair stated that confining dogs to the area currently used as the children’s play area, which could remain fenced but surfaced in sand, was a possibility.

5.5.It was suggested from the meeting that being one of the fastest growing sports, a netball court would be ideal. The clerk said that a netball and basketball court could be included within a Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA). Tennis courts were also suggested, although the clerk said that alternative space would need to be found for these. The possibility of having floodlights was asked, which would likely have curfew times imposed on their use by the planning authorities.

6. Parish Meeting’s Opinion

6.1.There was general support at the meeting for a new pavilion and new play equipment in the park, even given that there would likely be a need for an increase in the Parish Council’s Precept to finance the projects. This year’s Parish Precept stood at just over a pound a week for local electors at Band D.

7. Other matters

7.1.A question was asked about the Sutton Bridge Cinema. It was thought that posters were likely to be posted soon [also see website developments at https://www.suttonbridgecinema.com/].

8. Future Parish Meetings.

8.1.It was generally expressed by those present that quarterly Parish Meeting updates on the progress of the projects would be appropriate. There would need some flexibility on timings to consider the reporting on specific progress issues.

There being no other business, the meeting closed at 18:50hrs