Living in Freshford‎ > ‎Parish Council‎ > ‎Council Meetings‎ > ‎Agendas‎ > ‎

PC Meeting Agenda 13th February 2017

posted 7 Feb 2017, 06:55 by Parish Council Communications


NOTICE OF MEETING (Local Government Act 1972)


MONDAY 13th February 2017 AT 7.00PM



1.     Apologies for Absence

2.     Declarations of Interest and Requests for Dispensations - Members are reminded of their obligation to declare any interest they may have on any Agenda item to be discussed.

3.     Open Forum - an opportunity for residents to address the Parish Council.

4.     Minutes of Parish Council Meeting held on the 9th January 2017 (approval & matters arising)

5.     Finance and personnel

·  Payments of invoices and notice of receipts

6.     Correspondence Received

7.     Planning Applications and Decisions

16/06132/FUL Freshford Mill - Erection of 7 no. dwellings and associated landscaping

16/06133/FUL – Freshford Mill  - Erection of 1no. dwelling following demolition of existing building.

17/00081/FUL Woodlands, High Street, Reconstruction of the garage with new bedroom accommodation above and internal alterations to the ground floor

            17/00096/FUL – The Cottage, Pipehouse Lane - Erection of first floor rear extension.            (Resubmission of 16/03538/FUL)

      17/00153/HEDGE – The Cottage, Pipehouse - Removal of part of hedgerow to make it more       manageable (Fronting Pipehouse Lane)

      17/00374/TCA Abbotsleigh Sharpstone Lane – Remove 1x Silver Birch, + remove 1 x Walnut

        8. Groundsman pay review (JH)

  9. Options and Voting for the future model for the Bathavon Forum (JA)

        10. PC Assets

        11. Upcoming external meetings.

·       Parishes Liaison Meeting – 15th February

        12. Vodafone Mast update (JA)

        13. Tyning Steps (AO)

         14. Updates to include:

·       Traffic & Transport (NS)

·       Neighbourhood planning projects update (MW,NS)

·       Roads and verges

·       Trees & Footpaths (JH)

·       Street Lighting (IMR)

·       Facilities & Funding (JA)

·       Communications (AO)

·       Bulletin (PK)

15. Exchange of information

       Date of Next Meeting: 13th MARCH 2017



Freshford Parish Council

Chairman’s Report 13th February 2017  - Andrew Orme


B&NES Parking Strategy consultation

A submission, as circulated and discussed (by email) by the PC has been sent off. A copy of the final document accompanies this Chairman’s Report.


School Parking

Among the issues highlighted in the consultation response are the parking problems that arise near the school at the times when children are dropped off or collected. The topography of the village means that it is not possible to increase the supply of parking spaces, so all we can do is reduce or at least manage the demand. I have arranged a meeting with Alex Malir, Chair of the Governors, to discuss.


Park Corner cabling and poles

Prompted by Ray Benfield, I am arranging a meeting with SSE to see if the chaotic and unsightly mess of cables and poles at Pipehouse can be improved.

The points we have raised are as follows: −

  • Park Corner is a hamlet in the civil parish of Freshford, Somerset. It is within the Cotswolds AONB and is covered by the Freshford and Limpley Stoke Neighbourhood Plan.
  • The visual attractiveness of Park Corner is marred by unsightly poles and cables. Recent actions to increase the height of some poles by adding extension brackets have made matters worse.
  • In other old parts of Freshford, particularly the historic centre and the hamlet of Sharpstone, power cables are very much less intrusive. Why? Is it because they are in the conservation area while Park Corner is not? If this is the reason, it shows that where there is a will - or a legal requirement - to provide cabling that is more sensitive to the surroundings then it can be done. Whether this is the reason or not, how can we get the same standards to apply in Park Corner?
  • If this has been achieved by putting the cables underground in other parts of Freshford, how can we help make it happen in Park Corner. We have been told that putting cables underground "is something that was considered by the depot but for various reasons including land issues, disruption to roads, pavements and cost it was not deemed appropriate at this time”.
  • Is it right that this sort of decision is taken by ‘the depot’ without reference to residents, Parish Council, the ‘made’ Neighbourhood Plan (see below) or, apparently, anyone else?
  • Had residents been consulted, we might have been able to help with land issues and could have taken a view on whether disruption to roads and pavements was acceptable.
  • While accepting that putting cabling underground might be more expensive, I should imagine that, in addition to the considerable aesthetic benefits, there are long term savings, with lower susceptibility to damage from weather, tree growth etc.
  • If this work was "not deemed appropriate at this time", when would be the right time? − SSE seems to add to the poles and cabling in a piecemeal way, the latest example being the extension brackets which, as a step too far, are what triggered this whole discussion. Can there be no local input to help decide between options - new pole or further use of existing pole, maybe, or where a new pole should be sited?
  • Is there no stage at which someone steps back from the detail to say “Hang on. All this is turning into a bit of an eyesore. Let’s rethink the whole thing”? If not, what is supposed to stop the jumble getting worse and worse over the years?
  • Is there some sort of site review programme, where poles, cables, connections get checked periodically and, if necessary, upgraded? If so, what is the process and how do residents get consulted? −One of the objectives of our Neighbourhood Plan is "To protect and enhance our natural, built and historic environment". Any local development must comply with this Plan and Bath and NorthEast Somerset Council is obliged to take note of it too. Is there no comparable obligation on utility companies to at least engage with local communities to try to find mutually acceptable courses of action?
  • We recognise that some of the poles and cables are for telephone connections rather than power. Is there no coordination between the two utilities? If not, what can be done to bring it about. There seem to be more poles than needed, often side by side. This seems unnecessarily expensive, in installation and maintenance, while contributing significantly to visual clutter. There is a stretch down Freshford Lane from Park Corner where a row of poles on one side of the lane carries power cables while a row of poles the other side of the lane carries phone cables. Is there any technical reason why one set of poles could not carry both sets of cabling? In another instance, one pole seems only to be there to act as a stay for another pole. Shouldn’t the main pole be rethought?


Hedge-laying on Freshford Lane

This project has now been completed. Sue Wingrove’s report is provided as a separate document. Our thanks go to Sue for organising and seeing through this project, which has involved a large number of residents as well as a contingent children from Freshford School. We can now go ahead and claim the grant from Cotswolds Conservation Board. A by-product of this project is that the PC has acquired a number of tools – saws, billhooks, loppers – which are available for future maintenance of the hedge. They are also available for use by, e.g., Ian, on regular work around the village. Sue will be providing a list of the tools. John Ager has kindly agreed to store them in his garage (one of The Glebe garages). We will need to work out how to get access to them when they are needed.


Street lights near entrance to Hall car park

I have reported the poor condition of these lights and followed up with photographs. I have had this reply:

“We can confirm that further to your original report we asked our contractors to attend and provide feedback/photos of the five lights in question. They have confirmed that major tree pruning is needed and that they have had trouble accessing the lights to carrying out the level of maintenance they require. “Please note that the photos from you and also our contractors have been passed onto our lighting manager Stephen Burrell, and he intends to carry out a site visit to assess what changes we might make to improve the lighting and ease of access. “He intends to visit site in a few weeks’ time and I trust when he has more information on any intended improvements we shall be in touch.”


Rose and Crown Planning Application

This has been accepted despite opposition from Limpley Stoke Parish Council and the joint chairmen of the Neighbourhood Plan. I am attempting to see if LSPC can shed any light on the thinking behind the decision.


ALCA – B&NES Area Group – 18th January 2017

I attended this meeting. Cllrs will have seen the meeting notes. I ensured that the Parish Sweeper Scheme was included in the Parish Liaison Meeting scheduled for 15th February. Another topic discussed was the future of the Bathavon Forum but I hope Cllr Adler will lead this discussion. Andrew Orme, 31st January.



Aims and success of the project

The project has been completed and is a great success. The aim was to improve the hedge for wildlife and its appearance, conserve this part of the historic environment of the village and engage local people with thinking about and caring for their environment.

The community did pull together to complete the work, both hedgelaying and infill planting, and this project would not have been achievable in a small community with limited financial resources without their help, which exceeded expectations. A project such as this also has community value above and beyond the actual project. The project succeeded in its aim to involve the local community, and especially the next generation. The schoolchildren who planted the new hedge plants had fun and educational day out. They definitely seemed to feel ownership of 'their' bit of hedge and it is hoped they will continue to play a part in future years. Freshford is very fortunate as a community to have willing volunteers for all sorts of projects, such as the Galleries community shop, and it is hoped that there may be a future for practical nature conservation projects within the village now too. Furthermore, Freshford Parish Council now has a set of legacy tools available to carry out further projects within the local community.

One of the outcomes was for the project to be a catalyst for future projects. A future project has been identified, the hedge on the other side of the road, and the landowner Stephen Dawson will be contacting Sue Wingrove in September 2017 with a view to inviting the volunteers back for another project. The volunteers seemed to enjoy the training course, and several stated that they would like to or were actually intending to take part in further hedgelaying, even in a small way in their own gardens or property.

The project was well-publicised in the Parish Council's own newsletter and using the community email database. In addition a prominent temporary notice has been in place on the field gate by the hedge throughout the project, since October, telling passers-by about the hedge restoration project and acknowledging the help of the Cotswold Conservation Board and The Friends of Freshford who contributed to the project. It will be replaced with a more permanent plaque in due course. Press releases were issued to local newspapers, but unfortunately weren't taken up. The hedge has been admired by passers-by in the village, and by those from surrounding areas when collecting their children from the school, so the project has a PR benefit in the wider local area.

The appearance of the hedge is much improved. It looks cared for, and traditional. We look forward to seeing the hedge flourish come Spring. The Parish Council is planning to maintain the hedge to keep it in good condition, most probably trimming just one face each year in order that blossom and berries can form on the other two sides, and be available for wildlife.

Hedgelaying volunteers

The project had good support from local volunteers. The hedgelaying took place on a 2- day hedgelaying course run by Keith Stuffins, followed by a 1-day hedgelaying course. On the one day course, we were joined by teacher Ruth Poole and 2 colleagues plus a class of children from Freshford Primary School. They planted 100 cell-grown mixed flowering bird-friendly native hedge plants, after instruction by local horticulturalist Melanie Everard. This was preceded by a quiz from Sue Wingrove where they had to identify the several types of different plants using books and photos. After planting there was a treasure hunt to find as many different species as possible in the hedge, run by Keith Stuffins.


Below is a list of those volunteers who helped out 2-day course (all attendees came on both days) with Keith Stuffins, 20-21 October 2016:

1. Sue Wingrove 2. Andrew Orme 3. Christine Birchby 4. Roland Birchby 5. David Reeves (from SevernPlus,

6. mentoring student Connor) 7. Gary Parker 8. Helen Walker 9. Hugh Delap 10. David Martin 11. John Ager

12. Stephen Dawson 13. Tania Pascoe 14. Tony Boucher 15. Will Sturges (Friday only)

1-day hedgelaying course and planting with Keith Stuffins, 11 November 2016:

1. Sue Wingrove 2. Gez Rideout 3. Heather Rideout 4. Peter Jones 5. David Reeves from SevernPlus

6. plus Connor, a student from SevernPlus 7. Nicol Reeves from SevernPlus 8. plus Josh, a student from SevernPlus 9. Martin Walker 10. Ruth Poole plus two colleagues and a class of children from Freshford Primary School

Additional half-day session (untutored) to finish off last bit of hedge, 16 January 2017:

1. Sue Wingrove 2. Roland Birchby 3. Christine Birchby 4. Andrew Orme 5. John Ager 6. Gary Parker

7. Peter Jones 8. Stephen Dawson 9. Ian McKay 10. Hugh Delap

The volunteers worked incredibly hard and all seemed to enjoy the experience, and were very pleased with the results of their work. They were all from the local community and there is talk of getting together next year to lay the hedge on the other side of the road which borders a field owned by Stephen Dawson, one of the volunteers.

The volunteers were joined by Andrew Porter (on the 2-day course) and Laura Lyons (the 1-day course), who are young gardeners employed by a local company. Both work in many gardens within the local area and are studying for RHS qualifications. Both had some previous hedgelaying experience, and by being paid to go on the course were able to consolidate and extend their experience, which can be put to use within the local area in the future. Both enjoyed the course and are now ambassadors for hedgelaying.

David Reeves, from SevernPlus, (the organisation he runs, which aims to help those with learning difficulties to achieve their full potential) attended the hedgelaying course with a young student whom he is mentoring. Since Connor got so much out of the course, they both returned for the 1-day course, bringing with them Nicol Reeves, mentoring another student, Josh. David and Connor returned in early January for yet another stint at hedgelaying because it had proved such a valuable and enjoyable experience. Sue Wingrove, January 2017.


Sue Wingrove February 2017


Chew Valley/Rural Areas  - Parking Strategy Consultation

Which area/village/parish are your comments related to?

Freshford CP

Is access to local services (shops/doctors surgery/schools) in your area affected by any parking issues? Please describe the issue.

Yes – access to most village services is seriously affected by the limited availability of parking.

The most serious problems are with Freshford Primary School, when parents deliver or collect their children. The School has a small car park for staff but no parking or drop-off capacity for parents. There are c. 6 parking places about 150m along Freshford Lane, some limited roadside parking in High Street, next to the school, and in Freshford Lane passing the front of the school. Both these roads are narrow, so roadside parking reduces the flow traffic to a single lane – or none at all when car doors are open. This causes serious congestion every school day, often to the extent of obstructing buses and other vehicles. It would be almost impossible for emergency services – fire, ambulance – to get through without significant delays. To make matters worse, these roads are also used by commuters as a ‘rat run’. Some parents are able to use the Hall car park, see below, while others park unlawfully on the Tyning – the village green – damaging the grass verges and causing friction with residents.


Freshford Village Memorial Hall has its own car park with space for 30 vehicles. The Hall’s parking requirements during the day are primarily for staff of the Pre-school and parents delivering and collecting children. The parking capacity is adequate for this use but can be inadequate when functions are held at the Hall, when parking spills over on to the nearby roadside. The nearby road is not wide, so roadside parking can cause serious congestion.

The Galleries Shop and Café share the Hall’s car park, for customer and staff parking and for access by delivery vehicles. Because most Hall events, other than the Pre-school, do not coincide with shop opening hours, there is usually sufficient parking for Shop use. However, when a daytime event at the Hall clashes with busy times in the Shop there can be a shortage of parking capacity.

The doctors’ surgery is close to the primary school. It has no dedicated parking, apart from one space for a doctor. Most users park on the roadside nearby. This is not ideal, particularly for those with mobility difficulties, but because the demand is phased through the day this is not a major concern.

St Peter’s Church has no parking at all. Churchgoers, some of whom have mobility difficulties, tend to park half up on the pavement on nearby High Street and Church Hill, causing friction with residents, many of whom have no alternative to on-street parking themselves.

The Inn at Freshford has its own car park which is usually adequate for its needs. Freshford Station has a small car park. Cars are often parked without consideration resulting in difficulties for Network Rail staff and for Water Board staff when trying to access the treatment plant which lies beyond the station.

What improvements/changes would resolve this issue?

The impact of parents delivering and collecting children at Freshford Primary School is the main issue that needs to be tackled. There is no way of increasing the supply of parking in the locality, so ways must be found to reduce, or at least spread, the demand.

What challenges are there within your area/village/parish relating to residential parking?

The local topography in Freshford severely limits parking capacity. We have narrow streets and pavements, often with properties opening directly on to the pavement or street. Many older properties have no off-street parking so residents park on the street.

Residents generally arrive at a workable compromise among themselves, though this can lead to clashes when individuals prove uncooperative. However there are definitely problems when space has to be found for additional vehicles. For example, there are currently 11 properties in Freshford listed on AirBnB. These result in demand from visitors for additional parking capacity which is often not available.

Any overspill parking tends to be in nearby rural lanes. These are narrow and, when used for roadside parking, can cater for only a single lane of traffic.

Sometimes inconsiderate roadside parking can actually be dangerous. One example is at the junction of Rosemary Lane with Abbey Lane. Roadside parking at this point narrows the flow to a single lane and forces traffic heading for the A36 on to the ‘wrong’ side of the road as it enters the blind bend. Another example is at the lower end of The Hill. Cars are usually parked on the pavements on either side of the entrance to The Orchard. This forces pedestrians into the road and narrows the road at a particularly dangerous point, where it is impossible for drivers to see vehicles coming in the opposite direction – or pedestrians in the middle of the road. In both these instances buses and other large vehicles – including, potentially, emergency vehicles – often have difficulty negotiating the bends as a result of inconsiderately parked cars.

What challenges are there within your area/village/parish relating to off-street parking? (if offstreet parking is provided.

No general off-street parking other than mentioned above.

Are there any other comments you would like to make about parking in your area?

Reduced investment in rural bus services will increase demand for parking capacity in Bath as many will have to drive into Bath instead of travelling by bus. If this demand for parking is not met, shoppers and other visitors will have to go elsewhere – and Bath’s economy will suffer. It would be more sensible to invest in an improved rural bus service.

The context for this consultation states that “Bath and North East Somerset Council is in the early stages of developing a Parking Strategy for the whole B&NES authority area”. It is surprising then that B&NES Council is pushing ahead with plans for a Park and Ride on Bathampton Meadows. Surely the strategy development should have come first. Only in an ‘Alice in Wonderland’ world do you develop your strategy after making large infrastructure decisions


Agenda Item 7 – Planning Matters – Roger Paine

Planning Applications    16/06132/FUL and   16/06133/FUL – Freshford Mill

In the context of increasing costs, Environ has been reviewing its overall development at Freshford Mill, and  further changes are now being proposed.  There have been steadily increasing costs arising from works on  the ground, and in dealing with site contamination. Because of building faults, one house is to be demolished and rebuilt. 

As currently approved, the whole development provides for 21 homes; this is the  basis upon which the amended scheme  was approved in 2014.  The Parish Council supported this at its meeting in December 2014, as a way of moving the development forward and completing the overall scheme.

To recover their increased costs and ensure overall financial viability, Environ now want to increase the overall number of dwellings from 21 to 24, in these two new applications. This increase of three homes covers a number of changes in respect of newly built homes, and the use of existing buildings in different conversion styles.    

On entering the site, the proposed large detached house on the left,  Rackham Court, will not be built.   Instead, there will be five 2 bedroom cottages, and two 2 bedroom apartments, built in an L-shaped design  (net change +6).

Towards the rear of the site nearer the river,  one conversion, Carding Mill,  providing three apartments, will be replaced by one 2 bedroom apartment and one 3 bedroom duplex (net change  -1).

A further conversion, Fulling Mill, will replace six apartments with four of a different design (net change -2).

Millmans House will be demolished, and rebuilt exactly as before.

The overall change in the number of homes is an additional three dwellings.  These changes are likely to produce around six extra vehicles on site. 

The developers set out their new proposals in an open exhibition in the Memorial Hall on 19 October 2016, which was well attended.   In discussion with many of those attending, the overall response was positive.   There is a clear view that the development should be completed, but in the most sensitive way possible, having regard to the effects on the village, traffic and other consequences.

The applications cover a number of other issues. Car Ports are now being built and some will have green roofs with planting to better fit with the environment.  All outstanding flooding issues have been agreed with the Environment Agency.  Work required in respect of contamination has been addressed in terms of planning agreements and previous permissions.   A landscaping strategy has now been formulated and will be implemented.

In supporting the amended scheme in 2014, the Parish Council welcomed progress towards completing this development.  It is recommended that these two current applications should be similarly supported.  At that earlier stage further comments were submitted, which are summarised in the following paragraphs.

These current applications provide for additional building in the Green Belt, which would normally be opposed as inappropriate.    In this case it is considered that the circumstances are such that the benefits of the application, and completion of the overall scheme, outweigh any adverse effects.  The Council would not wish to see any further development on the site.

Lighting should be as limited as possible, as this is an area with a significant wildlife habitat which should not be compromised.

On transport there will be a need for a nearer bus stop for residents. Car parking spaces are limited and visitors may park on nearby narrow roads or lanes.  This will cause safety and congestion problems.

A management company will be formed to oversee communal aspects of the development.  This could change in the future which may jeopardise current site arrangements.

Contractors’ access and timing is important and should be carefully controlled. The Council welcomes the right turn only exit from the site into Rosemary Lane,  but its implementation and control could be problematic.

River walkway – the Council is of the view that this seems a high structure when set against the development as a whole.

Overall, the Council will expect the Villages Design Statement in the Neighbourhood Plan to be followed, and all planning conditions to be followed precisely.

It is recommended that the Council supports the two applications together with the comments in this report.


The Cottage    Pipehouse Lane

Planning Application 17/00096/FUL  (resubmission of 16/03538/FUL - July 2016)

This application repeats that submitted in July 2016 (16/03538/FUL), which was considered by the Parish Council in August 2016.   It provides for a bathroom extension on the first floor, over a previously built single storey extension at the rear of the property.  As a response, in August, the Council gave comments  in three areas.  

In terms of past extensions, not quantified in the application, the level of volume increase arising from this application could mean that overall, total volume increases for this property will be greater than the guideline of about one third.

This is a semidetached property and this first floor extension would overlook and adversely affect the amenity of the attached property, creating overlooking and casting a shadow over the neighbour’s garden.

Any work undertaken must comply with the Villages Design Statement in the Neighbourhood Plan.

The earlier July 2016 Application was withdrawn.

Planning Application 17/00081/FUL      Woodlands    High Street

Woodlands is a modern two storey detached house, next to The Tyning on the corner of The High Street.   The house is connected to the single storey garage alongside  - this consists of one garage and one open car port. The applicants wish to build over the garage, to provide a bedroom and bathroom, and to convert the ground floor into a garage and kitchen.   The building structure will be connected on both levels to the main house, with a new entrance lobby on the ground floor. It is unlikely that this level of increase would exceed the volume guideline of about one third.

The application states that it is not proposed to change the residential usage of the dwelling house, but rather, the use is reinforced by making it a larger family home.

The house is in the Green Belt, Conservation Area, and AONB; it is within the Settlement Area defined in the Neighbourhood Plan.  

The Council will expect the Villages Design Statement to be followed, with the style and materials being appropriate to the existing building and location.   The  impact of building work and access should be kept to a minimum during construction.  The building is fairly low lying on the site, and overlooking should be minimal, but any comments from near neighbours should be taken into account and will be reported to the meeting.


Agenda Item 10Freshford PC Assets and other Items – Martin Walker


Memorial Benches

Instructions placed to repair and recoat the three benches adjacent the Village Hall and on the Tyning. Work to be carried out in the Spring of 2017.

Street sign Clutter

Photographic record and survey has been completed.  Proposed de-cluttering works now need to be considered as part of the NP Gateway works

War Memorial.

Martin Walker met with British Legion on 6th January 2017 to discuss further work. Proposals to be designed, costed and approved.

Street Lighting.

MW to liaise with Martin Laker at BANES to update Parish Online locations of Street Lighting including the new Cemetery footpath lighting, the footpath lights down from the Village Hall and others in Church Hill, Station Road and adjacent the School.

Other Assets generally.

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

Martin Walker, 3rd February 2017.


Agenda Item 13 - Possible steps as a safety measure on the Tyning – Andrew Orme

Many residents and others are crossing the Tyning diagonally from the Tyning Lane/High Street corner to the field gate on to Freshford Lane. This is a pleasant local amenity, especially as an alternative to walking along Freshford Lane which is, at times, busy with traffic. However there is a steep section, which can be difficult to negotiate, particularly when wet or icy.

The proposal is to put some simple steps at this section, to facilitate safe passage. The step facers would be 900 x 200 x 47mm pressure treated timber held in place by two wooden stakes hammered in to the ground (no concrete). The steps – 12 in total - would be back-filled with Type 1 sub-base and topped off with some of the soil and turf that had been removed when cutting out the steps. Because of wear, the centre of the steps would probably be bare soil but grass would grow from the sides so that the steps would soon blend into the surroundings.

Similar steps – 4 in total - could be constructed over the bank near the postbox.

Ingrid has obtained a quotation for this work at £600.


Agenda Item 14 – Roads and Traffic – Nick Stevens

A meeting has been fixed with Stefan Chiffers, Highways Engineer, B&NES for Friday 24th February to discuss road traffic matters. I have asked him to find out how the plans are progressing for The Hill and we would also like to gauge his views on road signs and street clutter, village gateways, parking, white lines and disability parking bays. Are there any other matters, which councillors would wish raised?


Hugh Delap and I attended the Heart of Wessex meeting at Trowbridge on the 26th January. We acknowledged and thanked HOW for their support in completing the recent projects undertaken at the station – a new customer shelter, a new heritage style seat, and the hoggin laid in the area in front of the running in board which has also been renovated. GWR has given permission for Friends of Freshford to lay the hedge along the station boundary. Other issues being taken forward include: more cycle storage, Help point only working intermittently, timetables on each platform need to show also return journey times. It is also planned to meet with Network Rail to discuss the platform extension work.

The meeting heard also from Andy McRae of GWR on the Bath Spa station modernisation. The Parish Council has advised residents of the disruption in April to the rail service to and from Freshford via the Community Database, The Bulletin and The Galleries Notice Board.


Agenda Item 15 - Exchange of Information.

The Council’s Community Awards 2016/2017 are to be presented on the 9th February at the Guildhall, Bath by the Chairman of Council. I will be attending in company with Hugh Delap who has been nominated for the Peter Duppa Miller Lifetime Achievement Award.

The Parish Charter - The working party are due to meet again this week (Wednesday 8th February) and I will give a brief report on progress at the PC meeting.