Return to Blewbury Home Page   Return to List of Minutes

BLEWBURY PARISH COUNCIL

Minutes

Of the Parish Council meeting of Blewbury Parish Council.

Held on Wednesday, 10^th June 2009 in the Methodist Chapel

 

Councillors present: Mr A Cooper (Chairman), Ms S Loy, Mr C Whatmore, Ms Jane Gibson, Ms C Duckett,  Ms A Barclay-Watt, Mr R Farrell, Mr J Drew

Also present: E Smit (clerk), 14 members of the public           

 

 

1.             Apologies for absence: Martin Brassell

 

2.             Declarations of interest. JG and RF both declared an interest as members of the Recreation Ground Management committee. RF declared a prejudicial interest in the exception site as he is a chairman of the Vale Housing Association and a board member of Sovereign Housing Group. CW declared a personal interest in the Recreation Ground as his wife is a member of the Tennis Club. CD declared an interest in the Recreation Ground as her children us the Recreation Ground as members of the junior football and junior cricket clubs. AC declared an interest as a resident of Bridus Way.

 

3.             Minutes of the meeting held on the 13^th of May 2009 were accepted and signed as a true record.

 

4.             Police liaison.  (Discussed after item 8.2) PCSO Clayden reported on the speed checks which took place recently. Out of 110 cars tested, 5 vehicles were speeding. The details will be put on a speed watch database and should these vehicles speed again, more action would be taken. PCSO Clayden also reported on break-ins along London Rd and asked the public to be vigilant and report it if they saw young men in a dark coloured Audi behaving suspiciously. He also reported on criminal damage to a vehicle and several attempted break-ins. Finally he also mentioned that he would be attending the Blewbury Festival Family Fun Day on Tickers Folly Field.

 

5.             County Councillor’s report. Following Mr Lamont’s retirement, no County Councillor was present.

 

6.             Role of Vice-chairman. Following CW’s proposal at the previous meeting, SL provided a skills audit for councillors to complete. Action: Councillors to complete skills audit.

 

7.             Matters arising.

7.1.       12/12/07   Future Didcot cycle links. Nothing to report.

7.2.       10/09/08   Play area. The clerk brought along a sample of one of the two possible non-slip paints as it was unclear which one would be more suitable to use at the play area. Action: CD to investigate non-slip paints and report back to clerk.

7.3.       08/04/09   Overgrown vegetation. JG reported that some of the problems have been addressed. CD pointed out that there is a problem with the overgrown vegetation on the London Rd footpath leading to the cemetery and recreation ground. JG also asked that the hedge at the entrance of Watts Lane should be cut back, and to investigate the tree overhanging South Street outside the Load of Mischief. Action: clerk to contact OCC and residents re overgrown vegetation.

 

8.             Recreation Ground.

8.1.       28/11/06   Management Committee Structure. Nothing to report.

8.2.       09/07/08   Pavilion progress report. Following a request at the previous meeting that the Parish Council considers an alternative proposal as presented by the Cricket Club, a working group was asked to review the Scheme B2 proposals and make the appropriate recommendations. In carrying out this task, the working group felt they needed to satisfy themselves on two key points: first, that the alternative scheme stood a better, or at least equal, chance of obtaining planning consent; and second, that the existing scheme’s ability to meeting official national sporting standards really was as doubtful as some of its detractors had suggested. CW read out the report from the working group (for details, see annex 1 to the minutes). The following recommendations were made: It was recommended that a working group with interested parties in the village should look at developing a multi-use games area as a second phase of the Recreation Ground improvement project. It was recommend that the Parish Council should not take on the additional risk, cost and workload of developing Scheme B2 into a full planning application and running two planning and construction tendering processes in parallel. In conclusion it was recommended that the Parish Council proceed with the current scheme as soon as possible and make a planning application. By show of hands the report was adopted unanimously but the Council. The chairman thanked the working group for their hard work.

 

8.3.       14/01/09   Budget forecast for capital spend. CD said that it was desirable for budget forecast to be produced prior to submission of planning application or as soon as possible thereafter.  JD was investigating the VAT issues.

8.4.       12/11/08   Memorial bench. Not discussed.

8.5.       10/06/09   Consultants’ fees. CD reported that a letter re the CDMC has been received and clarification was sought from the architects.

 

9.             Open Forum.

 

A member of the public asked that overgrown vegetation close to the bus stop on London Rd be cut back.

 

A question was asked about external funding from sport bodies. The Parish Council confirmed that so far no other external funding (apart from with WREN) has been secured. It was explained that several requirements had to be met to secure the grant and that this grant was specifically for the pavilion/community facility. The Parish Council was asked about the timing to secure the WREN grant. ABW replied that it was her understanding that the deadline was December. A lively debate followed re the future of the cricket club and the positioning of the pavilion.

 

Mr Bacon spoke on behalf of the BVS and reiterated their support for the Parish Council’s scheme.

 

Members of the public pointed out that more people do not play sport than those who do, and would therefore not like anything to be built on Tickers Folly Field. It was pointed out that TFF was the only large area where outdoor events, including fireworks/bonfire night and the Festival’s family day could be held.

 

A question was asked about the safety of the trees in the KAP area.

 

The clerk was asked to provide a copy of the pre planning application notes and the Sport England letter to the cricket club.

 

10.         Risk Management.

10.1.   11/03/09   Review of insurance cover. Discussed with 10.2 below. Item closed.

10.2.   13/05/09   Review of register of physical assets and liability. RF reported on behalf of the RGMC the circumstances of the replacement of the roller which was still on the Parish Council’s asset register. (see annex 2) It was ascertained that the roller was 37 years old and could not be repaired and it was therefore traded in as a part-exchange for a new roller. It was recommended that the roller be removed from the register. Action: Clerk and finance committee to review assets and adjust values. Clerk to remove roller from asset register. CD pointed out that following the review of the asset register as well as information received from the clubs re equipment, it has become clear that the storage facility would not be able to store everything the clubs mentioned. It was recommended that the RGMC investigate and help reduce duplication of equipment in future. It was also mentioned that the management structure of the new pavilion would play an important role. It was concluded that the storage facility should be of a “reasonable” size for the available budget, and capable of extension insofar as it is possible.

 

The Parish Council returned to item 8.2 as the communication with the clubs was not discussed after the report was read. Following the decision of the Parish Council, an open letter would be published in the Bulletin but it was decided that those who responded to the exhibition should get a personal reply. It was recommended the information should be made available as soon as possible, and that it should be confirmed who in the clubs would be available to help with practical issues. Action: clerk to email those who responded to the exhibition. Clerk to email clubs a copy of the report. Clerk to confirm the representatives for the clubs to help with practical issues.

 

10.3.   13/05/09   Playclose bridges. The clerk confirmed that the bridges were reported to the OCC and Mark Sumner has arranged for an engineer to investigate.

10.4.   13/05/09   Recreation Ground risk assessment due. RF reported that there were 2 outstanding elements on the risk assessment and as a result he could not be signed off on it.

10.5.   13/05/09   Allianz Insurance renewal. Renewed. Action: clerk to have roller removed from insurance. Item closed.

10.6.   13/05/09   Allianz Insurance renewal – tractor. Renewed. The clerk reminded the Parish Council that Mr Snook would like to discuss his future with either the RGMC or the Parish Council. Action: clerk to arrange a meeting with Mr Snook. Item closed.  

10.7.   13/05/09   Review effectiveness of internal audit. Carried forward until the conclusion of the internal audit.

10.8.   10/06/09   Council document/records register to be updated. Register updated. Item closed.

10.9.        10/06/09          Tree register to be reviewed. Action: Clerk & CW to review tree register.

10.10.         10/06/09          Blewbury Festival risk assessments. The clerk confirmed that the Festival committee would provide copies of the necessary risk assessments. Item closed.

 

11.         Planning & Housing.

11.1.   02/02/06   Planning Committee Report: Refer to monthly planning report for details of applications. CW reported that there have been approvals for the work to Laurences and an extension to 4 Sheencroft Cottages. The Parish Council supported the objection from several parishioners and asked that this matter be referred to Vale’s full committee. No objections were made to the applications of  Watts Barn, The Haven, Baldon View and Witheralls, although it did point out that the latter was the property of a councillor.

11.2.   02/02/06   Exception Site. As he declared a prejudicial interest, RF left the meeting. Mr Methven sent some drawings for the consideration of the Parish Council. AC reminded the council that he has declared an interest as he is a resident of Whites Orchard. It was pointed out that the front doors were facing Bessels Way and therefore people might be tempted to park on the road, which would create a hazard. Action: Clerk to respond to exception site drawings following email debate.

 

12.         Ladycroft Park.  Nothing to report.

 

13.         Finance & Administration

13.1.   Appointment of Trustees for the United Charities. It was confirmed that all the current trustees were available for re-appointment. The Parish Council reappointed all the Trustees. JG proposed, JD seconded, all agreed. Action: Clerk to respond to United Charities.

13.2.   Access to fire proof cupboard and scout hut. The matter was referred to Tarquin May of the Oxford Scout Council.

13.3.   Small Grants. Nothing to report.

13.4.   Money received from ITV. Nothing to report

13.5.   New bond or investment. Nothing to report

13.6.   New signatory for bank account. Nothing to report. Action: Clerk to follow up with MB on signatory forms.

13.7.   Audit 2008/9. Notices will be displayed during June.

13.8.   Statement of accounts 2008/9. The clerk reported that the statement of accounts has been prepared. The figures were presented to the council by the chairman and as there were no questions or objection from the council, Section 1 and 2 including the statement of accounts were signed as a true record. JG proposed, RF seconded, all agreed.

13.9.   Accounting software. The clerk reported that due to the higher expenditure anticipated for the current financial year, the accounts would have to be presented on an income and expenditure basis. Therefore new software should be used for the Parish Council’s accounts. The OALC has provided a spreadsheet at the cost of £5 ex VAT. This would be used on a trial basis and should this prove to be insufficient, commercial software (e.g. SAGE) would be considered.

13.10.         Payments for approval to be made under ancillary powers and within budgeted amounts. The last 2 items did not appear on the agenda as these invoices were received after the agenda was finalised. All payments were approved. RF proposed, JG seconded, all agreed.

 

Description	Amount
E Smit	£489.82
K Pottle	£362.53
E Smit (for expenses)	£113.77
White Horse Horticulture	£180.00
Mrs A King	£250.00
Oxfordshire County Council	£150.00
West Garden Machinery	£409.41
Blewbury Methodist Church	£12.00
The Churn Benefice	£16.00
Oxfordshire Association of Local Councils	£5.75
Lister Wilder Ltd	£284.48
TOTAL	£2273.76

 

14.         Correspondence.

14.1. Items requesting a  reply

14.1.1.  North Berks Football League. Action: Clerk to reply that a new recreation ground project was being planned and their request would be considered in due course.

14.1.2.  South Oxfordshire LEADER funding launch. JD would be attending although Blewbury was in the North Wessex Downs area.

14.1.3.  Vale Community Safety. The Parish Council did not want the new poster to be displayed on the car park. Action: Clerk to respond to the Vale Community Safety team.

14.2. Items for information

14.2.1.  Thames Valley Police Training Centre – Open Day. Noted

14.2.2.  Harwell Decommissioning Update. Noted

14.2.3.  Home 2 School Newsletter. Noted.

 

A letter from a parishioner was discussed in which the Parish Council was asked to remove the barriers on footpaths as it prevented people on mobility scooters to use the footpaths. The clerk has referred this matter on to Lee Turner, Oxfordshire Highways.

 

15.         Cemetery Development Plan.

15.1. Quotes and project management. The clerk reported that Mrs Corderoy contacted her re a memorial for her daughter’s grave and it was explained that the memorial might have to be realigned when the footpath goes in.

 

16.         Parish Plan

16.1. Litterbin at Tickers Folly entrance. The clerk reported that the bin should be installed before the end of the week.

 

17.         Allotments. Nothing to report.

 

18.         Footways, Footpaths and rights of way.

18.1. 02/09/05        Village upkeep review. Nothing to report.

18.2. 03/03/07        Bridus Way. Nothing to report.

18.3. 09/07/08        Footpath 20 “Moreton Path”. The ditched has been filled in. Item closed.

18.4. 10/06/09        Playclose footpaths. The lengthman has been asked his opinion of the Playclose footpaths would be widened and he suggested that it could be done but that it would only be a temporary solution. He suggested that a more permanent solution should be investigated. The clerk pointed out that funding was available from TOE for these projects. The Parish Council decided to ask the lengthman to go ahead and do the initial work but would investigate a long-term solution. Action: Clerk to ask lengthman to do work on the Playclose footpaths. The Parish Council was also asked by the PCC to investigate alternative bins for the Playclose as these are currently are emptied by a volunteer. Action: clerk to contact the Vale re rubbish bins on the Playclose.

 

19.         Roads, Road safety and public transport

JG reported that she would be meeting someone re the bus stops in the village.

19.1. Berry Lane - Traffic calming. Following the previous meeting the clerk contacted Lee Turner but no response has yet been received.

 

20.         Village Hall Management Committee report

Meeting the following week.  

 

21.         Environment

21.1. Replacement tree for Rumseys Lane. The clerk reported that utility companies would have to be contacted prior to the planting of a tree. Action: clerk to contact utility companies re a new tree for Rumseys Lane.

21.2. Methodist chapel. As the Chapel’s status was known, JG recommended that the Methodist Chapel contact the Vale. Item closed.  

21.3. Standard of rubbish collections. The clerk has reported that it was reported to the Vale. Item closed.

 

22.         District Councillors report. RF reported that a lot of work was being done into aligning the Vale and SODC’s polices and procedures. He also mentioned that he is no longer on the planning committee, but have become the chairman of the licensing committee

 

23.         Any Other Business: JG mentioned that the No Motorcycles sign at the top of the chalk pits has  been vandalised.

 

24.         Details of the next meeting. The next meeting will be the 8^th of  July 2009 at 7.30pm in the Methodist Chapel. It was mentioned that usually there was no Parish Council meeting in August but that a meeting might be necessary. The date would be agreed at the next meeting.

 

The meeting closed at 21.40

Annex 1:

“Scheme B2”: Report and Recommendations

At the Parish Council meeting on May 13^th, Councillors were asked to consider an alternative scheme known as Scheme B2, with a view to developing it into a second planning application to run in parallel with their existing scheme.

Scheme B2 involves demolishing the southernmost section of the existing tennis courts, building a pavilion and community room on the newly-created space, building four new tennis courts on Ticker’s Folly Field, creating a Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA) on the remaining original tennis court surface, and using the existing pavilion as an equipment store instead of building a new structure. It was put to us that this approach was more likely to meet the approval of national sporting bodies and would provide a superior solution both for the clubs and for the village as a whole, at a cost only fractionally above that of the Parish Council’s own scheme.

While there is insufficient information to compare the overall costs of the two schemes accurately, there is no doubt that changing horses at this late stage in the project (or attempting to ride two horses at once) would introduce new risks and represent a significant additional commitment of time and money throughout the planning and construction tendering process. To determine whether it was worth taking on these additional risks, a working group was asked to review the Scheme B2 proposals and make the appropriate recommendations.

In carrying out this task, we felt we needed to satisfy ourselves on two key points:

·        first, that the alternative scheme stood a better, or at least equal, chance of obtaining planning consent;

·        and second, that the existing scheme’s ability to meeting official national sporting standards really was as doubtful as some of its detractors had suggested.

If the response to either of these questions had been positive, then clearly a case could have been made for spending the additional time and money on developing an alternative approach.

To get as clear an answer as possible, we held a detailed pre-application discussion with a Vale planning officer to determine the relative likelihood of the two schemes receiving planning permission. We have also had a lengthy site meeting and subsequent email communications with a representative from Sport England, who as well as setting national standards for sports facilities also act as a statutory consultee in any planning application involving sports fields. In addition, we have reviewed all the key points of the Scheme B2 in the light of the relevant Parish Plan policies, and the comments received from the two public exhibitions in April and last October.

In summary, the results of these consultations were as follows:

On the planning side, we have received a clear indication that the alternative scheme is less likely to be permitted than the existing scheme. Although this opinion was given without prejudice to the final planning decision, and although support for the alternative scheme was not ruled out, we are advised that in planning terms, each of the key features of Scheme B2 is potentially more of an obstacle than an advantage.

On the Sport England side, we have received positive feedback and formal written support for the Parish Council’s existing proposals, both for the pavilion/community room itself and for the site as a whole - although, as with the Vale, they did not rule out support for a scheme based on moving the tennis courts to Tickers Folly Field. They did however state informally that it would be a “shame” to lose the current open space on Tickers Folly, which is a view we know is shared by many in the village.

In the light of the comments received from both these organisations, we make the following observations on individual Scheme B2 features:

First, the re-use of the existing pavilion. Many of Scheme B2’s cost calculations rest on using the existing pavilion as an equipment store, as opposed to our approach of building a new one. It is suggested that converting the pavilion for this purpose would be a simple matter of putting a vehicle door in the north end and removing some internal partitions.

Leaving aside the fact that the overall visual appearance of the building would not be improved by this approach, our preliminary examination of its structure suggests that modifications for use as a store are unlikely to be as inexpensive or straightforward as the Scheme B2 proposals claim. This is especially true in the light of the Vale planner’s advice that the size of the existing pavilion is likely to be seen as excessive for its new function as an equipment store. Taken together with the other proposed elements of Scheme B2, re-using this building in its current state is likely to create an unacceptably large total footprint for the site’s built elements. While this in itself does not necessarily rule out its re-use, it does imply that the size of the building will need to be reduced, which in turn implies that its conversion will need substantially more work than is envisaged in the Scheme B2 proposal.

The second feature of the alternative scheme is the MUGA. While in principle we welcome the idea of a multi-use games area for young people, there are three reasons why we believe it should not be included in a planning application at this stage.

First, unlike the skate ramp and BMX track, there has been no clear demand for it from the target age group. Even last year, when the BVS explicitly appealed to Blewbury’s young people for ideas on the best way of spending money earmarked for youth-related activities, the demand for a MUGA was minimal. Second, the Parish Plan clearly states that “Additional provision for sport is to be welcomed provided there is a suitable group or club who will sponsor and oversee the provision. The community should not develop such provisions speculatively without such sponsorship.” To date no one has offered to act as sponsor for a MUGA, so to incorporate the provision of this facility into our proposals now would run directly contrary to agreed village policy. Finally, as a consequence of there being no clear user demand or sponsorship, there has been no indication of what kind of MUGA might be required. Depending on which particular sports are to be catered for, a MUGA can come in a variety of different sizes, surfaces and specifications. Until this preparatory work has been done, it cannot be considered as a practical proposition.

In planning terms, a MUGA in the suggested Scheme B2 position would again make the overall planning application less likely to succeed, rather than more likely. Not for the first time, the Vale has stated its opinion that in conjunction with an upgraded car park, the MUGA is likely to create an unacceptably large area of hardstanding surface. In addition, the indicated location would contravene the standard MUGA guideline of not building under trees.

In short, there is clearly more thinking to be done on the whole MUGA concept than has so far been the case. While we agree that the idea is worth taking further, we believe it would be an unjustifiable risk to incorporate it in a planning application before such thinking is done, when it is known to be a likely planning obstacle.

The third feature of the alternative scheme is increased parking space. Setting aside the risk that this additional hardstanding poses in planning terms, as outlined above, we do not regard this as an advantage. Of all the possible outcomes of an improved Recreation Ground, we believe that an increase in vehicle traffic in and around the village is among the last that the Parish Council would want to encourage. Aside from the problems caused by large puddles, which the current scheme already addresses, we would submit that the current parking provision, both on the Recreation Ground and on Tickers Folly Field, is perfectly adequate.

The fourth feature of the alternative scheme is the partial demolition of the existing tennis courts and the erection of new courts on Tickers Folly Field. This would remove the risk of footballs hitting tennis players, or the tennis court fencing being damaged by people climbing over it to retrieve footballs. While both these outcomes are clearly desirable, we believe a comparable level of risk reduction could be achieved with the existing scheme through sensible scheduling of tennis and football activity, and by installing gates in the fencing so that if stray balls do end up on the courts, people can walk in and retrieve them.

From the planning point of view, the construction of four tennis courts on Tickers Folly Field would clearly constitute a significant risk in terms of incursion into the countryside, and would run counter to the clearly expressed views of many in the village who do not want to see this open space, or its view of the Downs, compromised by a structure of this scale. While we acknowledge that wire fencing will create less of a visual intrusion than a solid building, there is in our opinion no question that it will have a major impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and an overall negative effect on the rural nature of this part of the village. As noted previously, Sport England has also specifically recognised this point.

The fifth feature of the alternative scheme is the siting of the pavilion/community room in the south-eastern corner of the Recreation Ground in order to improve its orientation to the sun for spectators watching matches from it. Although there is no ideal orientation for this purpose as long as the building is positioned along the eastern edge of the site, we have always acknowledged that a northerly orientation such as that proposed in Scheme B2 provides a better overall solution to sun glare than the existing scheme.

However, once again we are advised that in planning terms Scheme B2’s proposed position for this structure will decrease rather than increase its chances of getting built. It is simply a fundamental planning principle that all new structures in the countryside should be built as closely as possible to existing buildings, and ideally should be as close to existing settlements as possible. The further they move away from these baselines, the less likely they are to be approved. So while it is true that a Vale planning officer last year confirmed that a building in roughly the position now proposed by Scheme B2 ‘could be’ acceptable, there is no question that a building in the currently proposed position will still be preferable.

With this as with other issues, it is a question of weighing up the relative merits - and in our view, risking the likelihood of obtaining planning permission of this new facility for the sake of its orientation to the sun is not a sensible course of action. Since Sport England is happy to support our proposed building and its siting, it is clearly not unfit for sporting use as has been suggested. And for many other users of the facility, the opportunity to sit out in the sun will of course be seen as an advantage rather than a disadvantage. Any danger to health that sun glare might pose to children and others with sensitive skin can easily be dealt with by normal skincare precautions and by the use of the building’s integral covered veranda or free-standing sunshades.

The sixth feature of the alternative scheme is that it does not involve making any changes to the current pitch layout or landscaping, whereas the existing scheme involves several such changes. In planning terms, this does not give either scheme a particular advantage over the other. But while we acknowledge that most of our proposed changes will cause some degree of temporary inconvenience, we also believe that the end result will provide a better use of the available space for both cricketers and footballers. Again, we are encouraged in this belief by Sport England, one of whose emails gave a particularly positive response to our pitch layout and landscaping proposals.

Taking all these points into account, and with the benefit of this formal and informal feedback from both the key organisations involved in the planning process, we therefore make the following recommendations.

First, that the Parish Council should set up a working group with interested parties in the village to look at developing a multi-use games area as a second phase of the Recreation Ground improvement project. The remit of this group would include seeking the views of likely users, agreeing a sponsoring organisation as required by the Parish Plan, determining which sports should be catered for, recommending a suitable location and sourcing appropriate levels of funding. If the Council is agreeable, we would further recommend that this group be launched in September of this year, when everyone has returned from their summer break and when the results of the main planning application will be known.

Second, we recommend that the Parish Council should NOT take on the additional risk, cost and workload of developing Scheme B2 into a full planning application and running two planning and construction tendering processes in parallel. Since we already know that the alternative scheme is less likely to succeed; since we already know that our current proposals are strong enough to secure Sport England approval; and since we already know that our existing scheme has support from the village and is consistent with the Village Plan, we believe that no reasonable person would expect us to shoulder these additional burdens at this late stage in the project.

Finally, we recommend that the Parish Council get on with the job in hand without further delay. To stand a fighting chance of delivering this scheme in time for next year’s summer sporting season, it must submit its full application within the next week or two, with a view to obtaining planning consent by mid-August and signing a binding contract with WREN in time to start construction work in the early autumn. If it can do that, we believe the Parish Council can still deliver a solution that takes a rounded view of sporting and non-sporting needs, that is achievable within reasonable cost limits, that stands the best chance of succeeding within the constraints of the site and current planning policy - and most importantly of all, that takes a quantum leap forward from where we are now.

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­Annex 2:

 

Report compiled by Richard Farrell, RGMC

 

Recreation Ground roller

 

It became apparent recently that the Stothert and Pitt Vibro roller, which is mentioned on the Council’s register of assets and had been insured by the Council, was no longer on the recreation ground.  It was suggested that the roller had been traded in by the cricket club when buying a new roller.  The Clerk asked me to investigate.

 

Having spoken to Alan Wagner and exchanged emails with Simon Barrett I have established what happened.  The roller, which appears to have been bought second hand about 17 years ago, had come to the end of its useful life and was beyond repair.  When buying a replacement, the cricket club arranged to have the old one taken away as part of the deal, which would otherwise have been expensive to do.  Members of the football club, who also used the roller in the past, have also confirmed that it was no longer functioning and could not be rehabilitated.  The registration number suggests that it must be about 37 years old so this is, I suggest, quite plausible.

 

In Simon Barrett’s email he said that the cricket club had bought the mower, although he did acknowledge that it had probably passed through the Council’s books.  What happened in those days was that a club made a donation to the PC which funded the purchase of equipment.  It was always made clear to the clubs that when this happened the item became the property of the Recreation Ground.

 

Obviously this has been most unsatisfactory from a control point of view that the cricket club overlooked the true ownership and had failed to mention this to the PC or RGMC.  However, it is most unlikely to happen again.  First, the VAT rules have changed, making it no longer advantageous to purchase equipment in this way.  Also, clubs have been reminded that any remaining equipment which had been purchased through the PC remains the property of the Recreation Ground Management Committee. 

 

Finally, I suggest that the roller is removed from both the list of insured items and asset schedule forthwith.