Agenda and Papers for next meeting

Updated a few days before each Parish Council Meeting

  • PC Agenda 12th June 2017 + Reports

    NOTICE OF MEETING (Local Government Act 1972)

    You are invited to attend the Ordinary Meeting of the Parish Council in Freshford Village Hall on Monday 12th June 2017 at 7.00pm


    1.       Welcome and Apologies for Absence

    2.       Declarations of Interest and Requests for Dispensations

    3.       Minutes of the Meeting held on 8th May

    4.       Open Forum

    5.       Finance

    6.       Correspondence Received

    7.       Planning Applications and Decisions

    17/02074/TCA Temple Court, The Hill: Prune two beech trees, remove dead wood from two Scot’s Pines and trim Leylandii.

    17/02125/FUL Rosemead, 4 The Orchard: Demolish rear flat roof dormer, replace with new two storey stone, glass and aluminium gable end extension. Construct new dormer and skylight to front; Install new timber standard shed to side of garage and replace existing fenestration.

    17/02322/LBA The Old Doctor’s House, The Hill: Internal and external alterations for the erection of a single storey extension and 17/02321/LBA (The Old Doctor’s House): Erection of single storey extension.

    17/02371/FUL Freshford Memorial Hall, Freshford Lane Replace the existing 50-year-old felt roof covering with King Span KS1000 Lo-Pitch insulated roof panels.

    8.     To consider a request for PC to consult residents of Park Corner re cabling

    9.     To agree a consultation response on the Parish Charter

    10.  To receive an update on The Hill Pedestrian Safety scheme

    11.  To receive an update on developments at FLiSCA

    12.  To consider terms of employment for street sweeper

    13.  To discuss ways of achieving greater engagement with PC by residents

    14.   External Meetings:

    ·         Parishes Liaison Meeting – 22nd June (AO)

    ·         Valley Parishes Alliance – 5th July (PK)

    ·         VPA Highways Sub Committee – 26th September (NS)

    ·         ALCA - 28th September (AO)

    ·         Bathavon South Forum – tbc (JA)

    ·         Bath Preservation Trust – tbc (RP)


    15.   Updates if appropriate

    ·         Roads & Traffic (NS)

    ·         Trees & Footpaths (JH)

    ·         Assets (MW)

    ·         Street Lighting (GSC)

    ·         Facilities & Funding (JA)

    ·         Communications (AO)

    ·         Bulletin (PK)

    ·         Planning (RP)


    16.   Exchange of Information

    17.   Date of Next Meeting: 10th July 2017



    Additional Papers for Meeting on 12th June

    Chairman’s Report

    Freshford film – ‘Becoming part of Avon’

    The film of Freshford on 31st March 1974 has now been added to YouTube with a link from the ‘Quick Links’ panel in the Parish Council pages of the village website. I don’t think we should anticipate an income from Google based on our viewing figures.


    We contacted B&NES about their responsibility for the streetlights by the stream near the entrance to the Hall car park. After some chasing, this was their response:

    I can confirm that our parks department will be cutting back the trees at the end of June/early July and following that we will be looking at making lighting improvements here, as the existing lanterns are unfortunately past cleaning.”

    I am concerned that their proposed ‘improvements’ may not be in keeping with the current period style of the streetlights and have requested that they consult with us before changes are made. Please would councillors keep an eye open for any work on the lights.

    Fallen tree – Crabtree Mead

    The large willow, from which children used to swing, has cracked and fallen into the river. Apparently, because the tree fell naturally and is potentially blocking the flow of water, it becomes the responsibility of the Environment Agency. It has been reported to them under incident number 1524699.

    Tele-marketing of council tax review service

    I notified councillors of a resident who was concerned about a sales call she had received offering a review of her council tax band for a fee. Apparently, this is an example of one of those schemes where the unwary are persuaded to pay a fee for a formal-sounding service which can in fact be obtained free. Other examples include EHIC renewals, passport renewals etc. Not technically unlawful but best avoided.

    ALCA meeting 25th May

    The meeting was mainly to elect officers of the B&NES area group and to discuss the agenda for the Parishes Liaison meeting to be held on 22nd June 2017.

    ALCA is keen to get feedback on the draft Parish Charter. This is on our agenda for 12th June.

    A report on the Cotswolds AONB was given by Penny Williamson, who is Vice Chair of Hinton Charterhouse PC and also a Trustee of CAONB. In particular, she sang the praises of two initiatives from FLEWG:

    -  FLEWG are using the term ‘Starlit Skies’ rather than ‘Dark Skies’. They are working to establish a ring around Bath – the ‘Herschel Ring’ – where lighting in streets, gardens, commercial premises etc is kept as low as possible.

    -  FLEWG are also working with Cotswolds AONB on the Magnificent Meadows programme to encourage wildflower meadows. They have recruited Beeswax Dyson, the new owners of Peipards Farm, to join in the programme.


    Speeding on High Street

    At the time of writing, the idea of a Community Speedwatch seems to be going ahead under the aegis of Neighbourhood Watch. Graham Jenkinson is working with John Jenkins and they are ascertaining which residents want to be involved. Graham Jenkinson is also trying to get a response from Avon and Somerset police as to whether there are any legal constraints that need to be taken into consideration.

    New councillors

    We need to recruit people to put themselves forwards as parish councillors. It would help if we could encourage greater engagement with village affairs. An initial discussion is on the Agenda for 12th June.

    Andrew Orme


    Accompanying information for Agenda item 7: Planning Applications and Decisions

    Rosemead  4 The Orchard Freshford.  Planning Application 17/02125/FUL

    The description for this application is:

    “Demolition of existing flat roof to the rear and replace with new two storey stone, glass and aluminium gable end extension. Construct new dormer and skylight to front. Install new timber shed to side and replace existing fenestration.”

    Rosemead forms part of a development of four similar detached dwellings constructed in the 1970s. The Orchard is a private cul-de-sac off The Hill and located between St Peters Church and the Inn.

    The existing 1970’s property is generally in its original form.  The conservatory to the west may have been constructed later.  The B&NES Planning Portal records no works requiring planning permission with the exception of this application.

    Rosemead is sited in the Eastern Settlement of Freshford as defined in the Neighbourhood Plan and within the Freshford and Sharpstone Conservation Area.  Furthermore, Rosemead lies within the defined Green Belt and the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

    The proposed works have little impact to the existing front north and side elevations with the exception of replacement windows in white upvc and a roof dormer window and velux window. To the rear it is proposed to construct a new south facing two storey gable end extension to provide extended living space to the ground floor and reconfigured bedroom/bathroom space to the first floor. The proposed external materials are in keeping and sympathetic to the original 1970s construction.

    Rosemead sits on a raised site above the adjacent properties on The Hill and in particular close to the adjacent dwelling Fairclose to the south. The proposed extension may create an issue with some overlooking.

    The proposed construction works and access to the site will have an impact on properties nearby and all disturbance should be controlled and kept to a minimum. Any comments from near neighbours should be taken into account. There are no such comments to date on the B&NES Planning Portal.

    It is recommended that the Council does not object to this application but provides comments referred to in this report.

    Martin Walker


    The Old Doctors House, The Hill Freshford Planning Application: 17/02321/FUL and 17/02322/LBA                          

    Proposed Extension to create a Garden Office and Store                                                          

    1        The Old Doctors House has an important place in the history of Freshford, and the current owners are continuing with ongoing renovation and improvement works within this listed building.  These works have included The Folly, garages and the sunken garden, all of which have been subject to previously agreed Planning Applications and approved Listed Building Consent. 

    2        The building is within the Green Belt, the Freshford Housing Development Boundary, Freshford Conservation Area and the AONB.   Pre-application advice has been sought from the Planning Officers for this application.  An original design has been suitably amended to take account of those discussions; the current proposals provide for a building with reduced size and made of traditional materials.

    3        The single storey extension will provide for office space and garden storage.  It will be built at the rear of the site, set back from the rear of the Folly, 1.5 m below ground level in the sunken garden area, grouped with existing buildings.   The roof of the extension will not extend beyond the height of the party wall with neighbouring Jasmin Cottage, and will have limited visibility from adjacent field footpaths.  Newly planted trees and hedges will form a screen, and further obscure this part of the property from longer distant views.  Only the roof of the building will be visible from a distance.

    4        There will be very limited, if any overlooking, and the volume increase calculation of the extension is about 15%, well within the guideline.

    5        The architectural style has been chosen to fit with the location, and the materials will be in keeping with the existing house and elsewhere in the Conservation Area, in line with the Villages Design Statement.

    6        It is recommended that the PC supports the application.

    Roger Paine


    Freshford Village Memorial Hall Roof Planning Application: 17/02371/FUL           

    The Village Hall roof is about 50 years old and in need of repair.     The Hall suffers from leaks, and the roofing material has been patched over the years.  It is now proposed to replace the old felt roof covering (on the main hall only) with new insulated roof panels.   This will fix the leaking roof and provide improved insulation; this is part of the ongoing renovation and development programme for the Hall. The colour of the new material will be a close match for the existing roof colouring. The Hall is a key resource for the life of the village in terms of its many users;  its ongoing maintenance and improvement is fundamental to its place as part of  the Hub for Freshford and Limpley Stoke as set out in the Neighbourhood Plan.  It is recommended that the application be supported.

    Roger Paine

    Accompanying papers for Agenda item 8: To consider a request for PC to consult residents of Park Corner re cabling


    Mr and Mrs Cohen have requested that the PC designs and circulates a questionnaire and consults with residents concerning underground cabling at Park Corner. With my apologies for the length, this paper includes copies of correspondence with Mr and Mrs Cohen and also extracts from my reports dated 13th March and 10th April which cover much the same ground.

    Dear Chairman,

    As residents of Freshford we feel the visual impact of Park Corner is iconic and historical. However, this has been marred by ungainly telegraph poles and an extensive network of overhead wiring. 

    This issue has been a recent subject for enquiry. The possibility for funding for underground electrical cabling in an AONB was noted in the Parish Council meeting of 13 March, but the Minutes 042/17 record that this would involve disruption for residents near the poles and 'councillors agreed this was not something that would be likely to be successful'. 

    Would it be possible in the first instance to put a questionnaire out to residents in and around Park Corner to find out their views about burying the cabling, or failing that, tidying up the wiring? 

    Mr and Mrs Cohen


    There is no reason at all why you should not put a questionnaire around your neighbours concerning the overhead cabling in Park Corner. That is entirely up to you.

    The note of caution I would suggest is that you should not, by so doing, build people’s hopes up too much. Even if they were unanimous you would still need to persuade both SSE Networks and BT to take action and considerable funds would need to be found.

    When it comes down to the detail, unanimous agreement may not be straightforward. Recently, Ray Benfield proposed what he thought to be an improvement in the cabling in Park Corner, SSEN accepted his suggestion and were prepared to undertake the work. However, the owners of the property concerned were not convinced, even though there would have been minimal disruption, so that was the end of it. Undergrounding would involve considerably greater disruption so unanimity would be that much harder to achieve.

    You have obviously found the PC minutes on the village website. Ray raised a further comment at the Annual Parish Meeting yesterday evening but I don’t know whether you were there.



    Dear Andrew,
    Thank you for your prompt reply. Would it be possible in the first instance for the PC to design and circulate the questionnaire especially as they took time to organise meeting with interested parties? Could the PC have further consultation with the residents concerned before making the decision regarding support for underground cabling?

    SSEB has issued a public proposal on 24th April  'SSEN asks communities to nominate  power lines for under grounding' in central southern England. 

    Lastly, there is historic precedence in Freshford where cables have been made less unsightly or hidden.  How was that achieved?

    We were unable to attend the meeting on 27th April.


    Mr and Mrs Cohen 

    Mr and Mrs Cohen

    We have a full agenda for the next PC meeting, on 8th May, so I’ll put your request on the agenda for the following meeting on 12th June and I and my colleagues will discuss it at that time.

    We looked at the SSEN offer for undergrounding 90 Km of overhead cables when we met SSEN earlier this year. The scheme seemed specifically for single cables rather than networks.

    Central Freshford and Sharpstone are in a Conservation Area, designated back in 1975 which may account for the less obtrusive cabling.


    Andrew Orme


    From Chairman’s Report 13th March 2017

    Park Corner cabling and poles

    Ray Benfield had raised concerns about the proliferation of power and telephone cables over Park Corner and in particular at recent additions of extension brackets to the tops of some poles to meet new height requirements.

    On 1st March I had a site meeting with SSE Networks managers – John Fleet, Network Construction Manager; Matt Anderson, Network Design Manager; Kelly Murray-Fagan, Customer and Community Advisor. The two managers, in particular, had travelled a considerable distance to be here and their attendance was appreciated. Ray joined the meeting at a later stage.

    They recognised our concern about the way the cabling detracts from the visual amenity of Park Corner but explained that, for various reasons, there was often little they could do.

    -  Telephone and power cables must, by law, be carried on separate poles. This is relatively recent and some old poles do carry both services. If these old poles are replaced in exactly the same position they are allowed to continue to do so, but if there is any change in position the new rules must apply.

    -  There are several different types of power cable, each with their own set of regulations.

    -  The recent change in height requirements – to 5.2 m for service cables – has created a huge amount of extra work so the teams on the ground are mostly sub-contractors and operate according to strict instructions. They have to find the cheapest solution for each job. They have no authority to negotiate with residents.

    -  There is no stage at which a locality is reviewed as a whole. Each individual job is tackled incrementally and on its own merits.

    -  It costs about £7,000-£12,000 to install a single pole.

    -  Poles on the public highway do not need permission though SSEN do need permission to put poles on private land (BT do not). Planning permission is not needed – consent is granted by the Secretary of State – and no consent is needed if the nominal voltage is 20 kilovolts or less (i.e. domestic supply).


    They did offer to look into replacing the poles that had been extended with taller poles. Ray did not think this would achieve much. Ray also pointed out an instance where the cabling might have been better planned. SSEN offered to modify the arrangements  for this particular property – taking the service cable from a different pole. However the owners of the property, who happened to come along, had obviously not been consulted on the issue.

    It has been agreed, however, that Kelly is aware of our concerns and will try to improve communication.

    There is one remote possibility, because we are in an AONB. SSEN have a fund available for ‘undergrounding’ overhead cables -

    This could be worth following up, but:

    ·         The scheme is intended for single cables rather than an entire locality, though the SSEN people thought it worth a try.

    ·         We would need to demonstrate local support.

    ·         Residents would have to accept that they might need to give approval for their drives, gardens etc to be dug up.

    ·         It would only apply to power cables. If successful, we would then have to persuade BT to put their cables underground too. If they accepted, the trenches would have to be bigger because there must be at least 30 cm between power cables and any others – more disruption, more cost.


    From Chairman’s Report 10th April 2017-05-30

    Brief follow-up to last month’s note on discussions with SSE Networks about unsightly power cables

    Ray Benfield chased SSEN about two particular extension girders that have been troubling him.

    Park Corner

    The girder on the pole in Pipehouse Lane is not now being removed. The owners of the affected house have advised SSEN that they would prefer to keep the existing cable, rather than a new cable arriving at their house from a different direction.

    Near school crossroads

    After looking more closely at the photographs provided, SSEN concluded they would not be able to move the cable to the proposed position.

    They wrote:

     “In its current location, if there is a fault on the cable/cable damage we are able to use a ladder (which all engineers carry on their vans) to gain access and fix the fault.  If we were to move the cable higher on the building in order to reach regulation height, we would then not have access to the cable without a mobile elevated work platform (mewp), as the cable would be over a roof.  We cannot guarantee we can always have use of a mewp during a fault, and we have to ensure we have full access at all times. Unfortunately, we cannot see another way of removing the girder and keeping the regulation height, with the exception of replacing the pole.”


    Accompanying information for Agenda item 10: To receive an update on The Hill Pedestrian Safety scheme


    Council is asked to further review the decisions made at its last meeting and to decide whether or not the scheme as outlined in Option 2 should be implemented in whole or in part or not at all.

    1. Following the decisions made at last month’s meeting of the Parish Council I wrote as agreed to all residents who had responded to the consultation process and advised them of the PC’s position – to recognise that the scheme could only be progressed within the available budget and that the Option 2 proposal would help improve road safety for pedestrians both by upgrading the pavement and by extending it. Further, that a Traffic Regulation Order be sought to apply a restriction of a single yellow line along this stretch of The Hill (on the right-hand side of the road proceeding towards the village centre and High Street.)

    2. Simultaneously I advised the Highways Department of the PC’s views.

    3. The PC then received responses expressing concern that the PC’s decision fails to recognise the importance of preserving the long-established practice of providing some on road parking space for local residents and, further, making clear that any move to apply yellow line restrictions will be opposed.

    4. I then contacted Stefan Chiffers of the Highways Department who agreed to a site meeting in a bid to resolve the conflicting issues.

    6. Councillors will recall that in my initial report to the Council I expressed the hope that we could find and share common areas of agreement, namely;

    ·         Pedestrians should be able to walk freely on the pavement without obstruction.

    ·         Motorists should be deterred from either driving or parking on the pavements.

    ·         The pavements should be of sufficient width to accommodate a double buggy.

    ·         Unobstructed road access for the emergency services and bus service should be secured at all times.

    ·         On road parking for local residents should be explored further and secured if possible and if consistent with the above terms.

    7. While there is broad agreement on the first four points the final point is proving to be difficult to resolve. Those residents most closely affected think it imperative that on-road parking continues to be possible particularly for local residents (though it is acknowledged that there can be no formal and exclusive agreement to that effect) and that they would rather see the position remain as at present than have a scheme implemented which makes it difficult or impossible for them to continue to park their vehicles on the Hill road/pavement close to their properties. They see this as an aim which should be of equal importance and not subservient to, the other four points.

    8. The site meeting took place on the 31st May. Present were Stefan Chiffers of B&NES Highways Department, District Councillor Neil Butters, Andrew Orme and Nick Stevens on behalf of the Parish Council and for the residents, Merlin Hyman. We were then joined by Mark Crowther of Fairclose Farm and at a later point by Tom Maddicott of Cleeve Cottage and by Emma Crowther. Amongst the matters discussed were:

    ·         The green grass verge outside Fairclose Farm. From the Searches undertaken by the Local Authority it appears that the grass verge forms part of the highway. However, the Crowthers are currently taking their own legal advice and say that the matter is not free from doubt and that the verge may come within the title to their property. Also, the Crowthers advised that work on the new vehicular access to their property was due to commence within the next month or so.

    ·         There was discussion on applying double yellow lines rather than a single yellow line along this stretch of road and in a way that would allow some unrestricted but limited parking space closest to the private road of The Orchard. Stefan Chiffers (SC) advised that this would not be possible and that if double yellow lines were to be applied they would extend fully to the private road and on both sides of the road. This applied equally to the application of a single yellow line.

    ·         The section of new footway identified in the Option 2 scheme is substantially to the green grass verge in front of Fairclose Farm. Up from that point the existing kerb stones are to be renewed and the footway to be overlaid to a new level. At the Orchard junction there is a slight re-alignment of the pavement kerb to ease pedestrian access. SC says that the Highways Department recognises that bollards may need to be installed along this stretch of pavement or at key points to ensure that the pavement is not blocked by parked vehicles. Incidentally, the bollards at the entrance to The Orchard were not placed there by the Highways Department but probably by the then owners/ occupiers of the properties in The Orchard.

    ·         SC made clear that the Highways Department has responded to the wishes of the Parish Council to improve pedestrian safety and access along this stretch of The Hill. They are not seeking to impose a scheme which does not have general support. It is now some 10 years since the scheme was first put forward by the Parish Council for consideration and it has taken until now for funding by Bath and North East Somerset Council to be put in place. He reiterated that a priority in any pedestrian scheme advanced by B&NES was to ensure that vulnerable road users came first.

    ·         The improvements to the pavement can be effected as a first stage of the proposal and subsequently and as a second stage a Road Traffic Regulation Order could be sought for yellow lines to be applied – either double or single. If the first stage work is effected there is no absolute requirement for the second stage to be pursued. Instead of yellow lines being applied it might be that the pavement could be secured for pedestrians by, for example, bollards being placed at intervals along its length. 

    ·         There was general discussion about the speed and volume of passing traffic and on what measures might be taken to further reduce traffic speed and make the road safer.

    At the close of the meeting there was a discussion with all present lead by Andrew Orme as Chairman of the PC. The consensus of view expressed was:

    ·         The green grass verge is a distinctive and welcome feature of the entrance to the village and should be retained. The footpath proposed by B&NES would mean that a significant proportion, but not all of the grass verge would be lost.

    ·         The present ‘informal’ parking arrangements work reasonably most of the time and have operated for many years. There is no adequate parking provided by the Option 2 scheme and particularly so if either single or double yellow lines become an integral part of the scheme.

    ·         The improvements to pedestrian safety are minimal and call into question whether the PC should not call a halt to the scheme now before any more public money is spent.

    SC will wait to hear from the PC following its meeting in June. He indicated that were the funds not to be spent on this project they might be allocated to other approved schemes within Freshford. It will be for the Parish Council to identify and inform the Highways Department of any alternative proposals.

    Subsequently Councillors will have received the email to the PC sent by Ann and Pete Forbes residents of The Orchard which as well as reminding the PC of its key aim of ‘enabling pedestrians to walk on the pavement free from obstruction and to have safe access going to and from the village and the Inn' seeks reassurance that  if this scheme is to be implemented, then it will include the suggested bollards placed at appropriate points along the footpath preventing any pavement parking and that cars will be discouraged to park at key pinch points along the road and at the junction with The Orchard with double yellow lines.

    Nick Stevens


    Accompanying papers for Agenda item 12: To consider terms of employment for street sweeper

    I recently received a telephone call from Des Wighton, Chairman of the Monkton Coombe Parish Council.

    Monkton, with the agreement of Ian Crocker, have decided to employ Ian as an employee rather than his present status of self-employed.  Their decision has been made from trying to mitigate any cuts which may be coming down the line from B&NES in the near future.

    Having searched the Government website regarding employment status I contacted the relevant person who was happy to advise as to how we, the Freshford Parish council, stand in our present position of employing Ian as self-employed whilst Monkton was regarding Ian as an employee.

    We worked through a questionnaire as to how Ian was paid etc. and the work he did.  The end result came up as “This engagement should be classed as employed for tax.”

    Should, we, as a PC wish to follow Monkton Coombe and regard Ian as an employee there is no reason, with Monkton`s agreement, that we could combine with them, using them as the Lead PC to pay all disbursements ie. paye, NI contributions etc. and for us to then reimburse them on say a monthly basis.

    This would leave a paper trail should the auditing of our books ever be questioned by the powers that be.

    We would therefore not have to `hire` Ian, we would just carry on as before, Monkton paying Ian for his work for them and for us and we transferring monies to them when agreed.

    We do not necessarily need to draw up a contract for Ian apparently a verbal agreement is more than acceptable to the Inland Revenue.

    I asked the question how we stand should we wish to carry on as we are at present, Ian being a self-employed person as far as we are concerned.  It is acceptable that the likes of Ian can be an employee for one job and self-employed for another. This usually occurs if for instance, you are employed for a day job but carry on another job at a different time in the day for which your status can be self-employed, a bit of a grey area regarding Ian`s work I feel.

    To carry on employing Ian as we now do would seem reasonably acceptable as it is down to Ian as to how he sees his employment status.   The problem we could have is if in the future we decided to replace Ian on our own initiative Ian could ask for redundancy pay and all that goes with it.  Then we could find ourselves in a bit of a dilemma and could be answerable to the Inland Revenue for not investigating the true employment status of Ian.

    We need to decide whether we carry on paying Ian as a self-employed person


    We communicate with Monkton Coombe to see if we can combine with them


    We change Ian`s employment status with us and pay him ourselves as an employee with all that involves.

    Jean Hawker

    Accompanying papers for Agenda item 15: Updates


    Memorial Benches

    Two new benches are proposed for the Tyning. Discussions with the Horticultural Society and Alison Brooks are ongoing.

    Street sign Clutter

    Following meeting with B&NES Highways Nick Stevens and Martin Walker to organise working party to remove certain signs that are not required.

    War Memorial.

    Martin Walker to finalise proposals, design and costs to improve the approach to the War Memorial.

    Morris’s Lion.

    Awaiting further estimates from the owners of Manor Barn for repair of the stone plinth on which the Lion sits.

    Other Assets generally.

    Further maintenance work for 2017/2018 to be considered, discussed and agreed.

    Martin Walker


    Structure and Responsibilities


    Andrew Orme, 723606

    - Policy

    - Village website

    - Community database

    - ALCA/B&NES Parishes Liaison


    Parish Clerk

    Ghika Savva-Coyle, 07503 186801

    - Records and accounts

    - Minutes and agendas

    - Cemetery enquiries

    - Street lighting

    - Tyning management


    Vice Chairman

    Nick Stevens, 722264

    - Neighbourhood Plan projects

    - Highways and Maintenance

    - Speed limits and Road Safety

    - Potholes and gritting

    - Rail and bus services

    - Community Rail Partnership


    Village facilities

    John Adler, 722439

    - IT and broadband

    - Mobile phone reception

    - Memorial Hall trustee

    - FLiSCA trustee

    - B&NES Bathavon Forum


    Natural Environment

    Jean Hawker, 722473

    - Tree felling and lopping

    - Hedges, walls, footpaths, public rights of way

    - Street cleaning and maintenance


    Bulletin Editor

    Peter King, 723765

    - The Bulletin

    - Galleries Shop

    - Valley Parishes Alliance


    Built environment

    Roger Paine, 723391

    - Planning applications

    - Planning policy

    - PCC

    - Bath Preservation Trust


    PC Assets Management

    Martin Walker, 723842

    - Neighbourhood Plan projects

    - Notice boards

    - Heritage and fixed assets

    - Freshford War Memorial

    - Planning applications



    Malcolm Shirley

    - B&NES Flood Management Committee

    Graham Jenkinson

    - Neighbourhood Watch

    Neil Butters, 832256

    - District Councillor

    Jacob Rees-Mogg, 01179872313

    - Member of Parliament




    If residents are aware of an issue that needs attention, please visit the Report It page of the village website - - for guidance.


    Posted 7 Jun 2017, 05:24 by Parish Council Communications
Showing posts 1 - 1 of 14. View more »

Parish Council Communications,
4 Aug 2016, 08:50