A MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENT BOARD
WAS HELD ON 19 NOVEMBER 2001
Chairman of the Policy and Organisation Board (Councillor Edgar)(ex-officio)(P); Mrs Bloodworth (P), Burgess (P), Mrs Cully (P), Hook (P)(Chairman), Kimber (P), King (P), Russell (P), Mrs Searle (P), Smith (P) and Train (P).
The Borough Secretary reported that in accordance with Standing Orders he had received notice that Councillors Mrs Cully and Russell would replace Councillors Mrs Salter and Wright on the Board.
1. MINUTES
RESOLVED: That –
(i) the Minutes of the meeting of the Health and Leisure Committee held on 3 September 2001 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a true and correct record;
(ii) the Minutes of the meetings of the Planning and Transportation Committee held on 10 and 24 September 2001 be approved and signed by the Chairman as true and correct records.
PART II
2. CREEK CLEARANCE
The Board received a video presentation by Councillors Smith and Mrs Cully in respect of the voluntary work undertaken by local people to clear local creeks of rubbish, which had been dumped. The Board was advised that work had been ongoing since 1997, a large amount of dangerous material, e.g. broken domestic appliances, metal, etc. was still being removed from areas such as Haslar Creek. However, there had been a reduction in the number of abandoned trolleys found due to better collection procedures by supermarkets and a raising of awareness in the local community as to the damage caused to the environment by such items.
It was noted that at the last meeting of the Health and Leisure Committee, a Member Working Group had been established to address the problem of abandoned trolleys across the Borough, and it was agreed that a meeting of the Working Group would be called to investigate methods of highlighting the environmental responsibilities of both residents and local supermarkets and to look at introducing improved enforcement measures to reduce the problem in the area over the long term.
RESOLVED: That a meeting of the Member Working Group be arranged to investigate methods of reducing the number of abandoned trolleys within the Gosport area.
3. GOSPORT AND FAREHAM RUGBY CLUB – PROPOSED SPORTS LOTTERY BID
The Board considered a report of the Leisure and Health Services Manager (a copy of which is affixed in the Minute Book as Appendix "A") which sought approval to draw up plans for new changing, showering and associated facilities to replace the existing outdated provision at the location.
It was noted that the Rugby Club was founded in 1946 and by 1960 was operating four Senior teams and 1 Colts Team. A Mini/Youth section was created in the 1970s, now consisting of around 230 boys and girls.
The first XV had been promoted last season to the London Division 2 South, and it was added that the club also ran two other senior teams, a veterans' team and a Ladies' team.
The changing and showering facilities were old and inadequate for the demands of an expanding, successful club with a substantial number of players of both sexes. Changing rooms were too small, showering facilities inappropriate, corridors too narrow and the layout required some revision. In addition, much of the facility was covered with a flat, felt roof, which was subject to vandalism, leakage and was unable to safely accommodate required ventilation mechanisms.
The Sport England Senior Development Manager (Facilities) had visited the club and advised that new build would be required to meet the specifications set by the Sports Lottery Fund.
It was proposed that plans be drawn up for new shower/changing facilities with associated toilets and additional toilet facilities (including disabled provision) to support the existing social facilities. The Board added that access to new disabled facilities should be extended to include disabled persons who were not necessarily using the sports facilities.
Facilities for officials, physiotherapists and for meetings were also required, as was a pitched roof to cover the whole pavilion. An estimated cost would be calculated for the scheme on completion of the plans, towards which a grant of approximately 50% would be requested from the Lottery, and the Board was advised that the Rugby Club itself would be in a position to raise £30,000itself in the near future.
RESOLVED: That –
(i) approval be given in principle to the proposal that plans be drawn up and associated costs identified for a replacement sports pavilion within Gosport Park; and
(ii) detailed information in respect of the scheme be brought back to a future meeting of the Board for approval, and match funding be identified/allocated for a Sports Lottery Bid.
4. AMENITY LIGHTING IN GOSPORT
The Board considered a report of the Director of Development and Environment (a copy of which is affixed in the Minute Book as Appendix "B"), which sought approval for the implementation of amenity lighting schemes in Gosport.
It was explained that Hampshire County Council maintained the lights on the public highway within the Borough of Gosport under their street lighting contract. They were also responsible for maintaining lights owned by Gosport Borough Council, for which the Council was recharged. Gosport Borough Council acted as agent to the County Council and therefore administered the street lighting contract on their behalf.
The Board was advised that Gosport was a local public lighting authority and had duties and powers in respect of public lighting provision. The Authority was permitted to erect lighting both on and off the public highway but once provided, it had a duty to maintain the lights. A maintenance regime was necessary to demonstrate that inspection and maintenance was being carried out.
Hampshire County Council had agreed that any new lights erected in public areas could be included under their normal maintenance regime, provided that they were in accordance with the County standard. In the past Gosport Borough Council had made some financial provision for the installation of amenity lighting following requests received via the Gosport Community Safety Working Group. Public perceptions of the benefits of lighting had been heightened and consequently pressure to provide new or enhanced lighting in public areas had also increased. The County Council had developed a street lighting community safety initiative, which required a combined approach with local District and Borough Councils. The County would allocate 50% of the total costs of a scheme that would need to be matched by the Borough Council involved. In general, it was intended that the new lighting should conform to the current County standards in order for it to be adopted by the County Council. Lighting falling below these standards would remain the responsibility of the Borough Council.
The main principle behind the County's initiative was that it should promote schemes that were on public highway and were substantially justified on grounds other than highway safety. The total cost of such a scheme was normally limited to a maximum of £10k in order to ensure a reasonable spread across the County.
It was desirable to light public areas used by a large number of people, e.g. car parks, housing areas, footpaths. Lighting of private areas would also be considered, e.g. doctors' surgeries, social and sports clubs, etc. Where lights were installed in private areas then contributions from the landowner or those benefiting, could be sought in respect of installation and future maintenance costs.
It was suggested that rear accessways would only be considered for amenity lighting where they were a primary means of access. A criteria and weighting assessment for the prioritisation of amenity lighting in Gosport was approved at the meeting of the Planning and Transportation Committee on 10 June 1996, and had been recently reviewed, with requests from Councillors and members of the public being taken into account.
The cost of the installation of the lights was only the initial outlay, and would typically be in the region of £700-£1000 per light. There would also be ongoing revenue costs of inspection, maintenance and energy of the order of £60 per light. New lighting on private land could be included within the County's maintenance regime, the cost of which would then be charged to the landowner. This would require negotiations prior to the installation of the lighting.
The current budget identified in the GBC Highways as footpath lighting incorporated all the Borough Council's (private) lighting but only covered maintenance and energy costs. In order to take advantage of the County Council joint initiative it would be appropriate to include an initial budget of £2000 in 2001/2002.
It was proposed to vire this money from the pedestrian facilities budget. In following years a budget of £5000 would enable schemes to be carried out up to the maximum permitted by the County Council, and it was agreed that, in future, a review of scheme priorities would be carried out on an annual basis.
RESOLVED: That –
(i) subject to available finance, and including possible contributions from Hampshire County Council, the Amenity Lighting schemes be implemented in order of priority as set out in Appendix 2 of the report; and
(ii) a review of priorities for Amenity Lighting schemes be carried out on an annual basis.
5. PROPOSED CYCLETRACK – ANGLESEY GARDENS
Consideration was given to a report of the Director of Development and Environment (a copy of which is affixed in the Minute Book as Appendix "C"), which sought approval for the widening of sections of the existing footpath within the gardens to facilitate shared use by pedestrians and cyclists in line with the Council's Cycle Strategy.
In 1997 the Planning and Transportation Committee approved the Gosport Cycle Strategy including a proposal for the provision of a cycleway through Anglesey Gardens. The proposed route was to share the existing path from Anglesey Road to the current cycleway on the old railway line near Workhouse Lake. Access to the path from Anglesey Road was proposed via the existing entrance and exit of the Bowling Club car park.
Funding of £10K for the proposed cycleway was available through the South East Hampshire Transportation Strategy (SEHTS) Capital Programme 2001/2, which was approved by the SEHTS Members Panel and had been reported to the Planning and Transportation Committee.
The proposed route would provide cycle links to Stoke Road and the Town Centre and would be particularly convenient for trips originating in, or passing through, residential areas lying on the northern part of Anglesey Road. It would allow cyclists to avoid the detour imposed by the Foster Road / Bury Road one-way system.
The existing path through the gardens was used by cyclists of all ages, including school children, despite the restrictions imposed by Borough of Gosport Byelaws and the present No Cycling signs. Observations of the route indicated that its current use did not cause significant conflict with others users or prejudice their enjoyment of the gardens. However the existing path did vary in width between 2.0m and 3.0m, and to facilitate improved, shared use, it was proposed that this should be widened to 3.0m throughout, as set out in Appendix A of the report.
Cutting back of the brambles and shrubs in the vicinity of the eastern bowling green would be required. However, sufficient planting would remain to maintain the existing screen to adjoining properties throughout the route. The proposal would improve access for maintenance vehicles, which presently damaged the grass by over-running the edges of the path at a number of locations.
A planning consent would be required to implement the works and would be one means by which public consultation would be achieved. Consultation would also be undertaken with local residents directly by Leisure Services.
Anglesey Gardens was subject to the provisions of the Gosport Borough Council Byelaws with Respect to Pleasure Grounds, 1993 Clause 5, prohibiting the riding of bicycles, except in the exercise of any lawful right or privilege or in a space set apart for the purpose. It was proposed that permission to ride bicycles upon the path be granted and indicated by the provision of the appropriate blue signs (as used on the public highway) with symbols indicating that the route was for use by bicycles and pedestrians.
The scheme was currently progressing with a view to establishing an unlit cycle track. However, it was agreed that the issue of lighting the cycle track would form part of the consultation process.
RESOLVED: That –
(i) the widening of the existing path in Anglesey Gardens, as set out in Appendix A to the report, be approved, and that the riding of bicycles upon that path be permitted, pursuant to the provisions of the Borough of Gosport Byelaws with Respect to Pleasure Grounds 1963; and
(ii) that submission of a planning application for the widening of the path and associated works be authorised.
6. BROWNDOWN TO MARINE PARADE EAST CYCLEWAY – CONVERSION OF EXISTING FOOTWAYS TO CYCLEWAYS
The Board considered a report of the Director of Development and Environment (a copy of which is affixed in the Minute Book as Appendix "D"), which sought approval to convert existing footways to cycleways between Browndown and Marine Parade East.
It was explained that Hampshire County Council's Local Transport Plan Programme for 2001/2002 included the sum of £200,000 for the provision of a cycleway on the south side of Privett Road and Portsmouth Road, from the existing cycleway opposite Browndown Road to Marine Parade East opposite the western junction of Portsmouth Road. The proposed scheme would comprise a 2.5m-shared use cycleway at the eastern end, a new dedicated cycleway in the centre section (to be dealt with by Hampshire County Council) and a 3m shared use cycleway at the western end.
In order to convert a footway to a cycleway, Section 66 of the Highways Act 1980 enabled a Local Authority to 'remove' a footway and Section 65(1) of the Highways Act enabled a local authority to construct a new cycle track. Before making such a resolution the Local Authority would be required to consult with frontages, user groups and any organisation appearing to represent users of the footway in question.
It was proposed that the cycleway widths/land dedication would be:
South side Privett Road/Portsmouth Road – Browndown Road to Chester Crescent
A 2.5m wide shared cycleway had been proposed as this footway had only very light pedestrian use and was flanked on both sides by grass verge. The existing footway here was approximately 1.8m wide.
Although no formal pedestrian surveys had been undertaken on this section, general observations indicated that the numbers of pedestrians and cyclists using the length of Privett Road/Portsmouth Road did not demand a 3m standard.
South side of Portsmouth Road – Chester Crescent to South Place
A 2m dedicated cycleway had been proposed here with the existing footway remaining for sole pedestrian use. The cycleway would be constructed predominantly within land currently managed by Hampshire County Council, which currently adjoins the nature reserve. The County Council would deal with the transfer of land for highway usage. A short section was within Leisure Services land along the northern edge of Elmore Car Park, and would be dedicated as Public Highway to regularise the cycleway throughout the scheme.
South side of Portsmouth Road – South Place to the western junction of Portsmouth Road
A 3m wide shared cycleway had been proposed here as the existing footway was bounded on one side by a fence line, which would mean that anything less would be inadequate. The footway was already approximately 2.5m wide and therefore only minor widening was required. The fence line, which was to the Sailing and Angling Clubs, had only recently been realigned to accommodate the cycleway and involved land exchanges within both clubs. A small amount of Leisure land would be necessary for dedication as Public Highway in order to construct the local widening and refuge point near to Woburn Court.
The Board was advised that in addition, the possibility of providing a crossing point at Wootton Road was being investigated, and that funding would be made available from the Local Transport Plan to fund the refuge point.
It was also noted that extensive public consultation had been carried out from 3-7 September 2001 and had shown that there was overwhelming support for the scheme.
RESOLVED: That –
(i) pursuant to Section 66 of the Highways Act 1980 and Section 65(1) of the Highways Act 1980, approval be given for:
a) the provision of a shared use footway/cycle track along the line of the existing footway on the south side of Privett Road/Portsmouth Road between Browndown Road and Chester Crescent;
b) the provision of a shared use footway/cycle track along the line of the existing footway on the south side of Portsmouth Road between South Place and opposite the western junction of Portsmouth Road with Marine Parade East; and
(ii) The Committee dedicate two areas of Leisure land as Public Highway for the purpose of constructing a small part of the cycleway namely:
a) the area of land north of the tarmac car park surface at Elmore Car Park; and
b) the small area near to Woburn Court on the north side of Marine Parade East.
7. BEST VALUE CAR PARKING REVIEW – ONE HOUR CAR PARKING
The Board considered a report of the Director of Development and Environment (a copy of which is affixed in the Minute Book as Appendix "E), which investigated the possibility of introducing another one-hour short stay car park within Gosport Town Centre, following the Best Value review of car parking.
It was explained that the Best Value review of the car parking service was undertaken between 1 April 2000 and 31 March 2001. Consultation with the public was undertaken to complete the review, through the use of a Residents Panel survey and a survey of car park users. One of the outcomes of the review was to proceed with the introduction of an additional one-hour short stay car park.
Part of the survey asked whether there was support for changing one small Town Centre car park to a 'quick turnaround' one-hour car park. The creation of such a car park in the town centre was supported by 59% in the residents' survey with 35% against. The car park users survey indicated 48% in favour and 52% against.
It was apparent that there was support for the facility from residents but not from car park users. The reason for this could have been that the car park users' survey was undertaken in the long stay car park where comments might have been made due to a perception that implementation of the scheme would result in less long stay parking.
It was expected that the conversion of a small area of 3-hour car park to one-hour short stay parking would assist in increasing parking capacity especially on market days, but only if restrictions were enforced effectively. It was proposed that the small car park west of the George and Dragon Public House be changed to one-hour parking, involving a total of 36 car spaces and 2 motorcycle bays.
RESOLVED: That approval be given to change the small 3 hour car park west of the George and Dragon to a one-hour car park, subject to the statutory consultation to amend the Off Street Parking Places Order.
8. ITEMS FROM THE PRE-AGENDA LIST IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE HAD DETERMINED NOT TO UNDERTAKE PRE-SCRUTINY
It was noted that five further items of business had been referred back from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and would therefore require consideration by the Board, namely:
i) Fluoridation of Drinking Water
ii) Proposed Adventure Golf Facility, Stokes Bay
iii) St Vincent Swimming Pool – Refurbishment Proposals
iv) St Vincent College – Provision of Artificial Turf Pitch
v) Proposed Installation of Telecommunications Equipment, Privett Park Enclosure
9. FLUORIDATION OF DRINKING WATER
Consideration was given to a report of the Leisure and Health Services Manager (a copy of which is affixed in the Minute Book as Appendix "F"), which provided a technical update regarding the fluoridation of drinking water and sought approval to a policy for adoption by the Board.
In September 1996, the Health and Leisure Committee received the report of the Environmental Health Services Manager regarding the work of Southern Councils Against Fluoridation, a pressure group which was campaigning against the addition of fluoride to drinking water. The Committee agreed not to express any opinion on the fluoride debate. There had been no subsequent report on this subject and the Council's position therefore remained undefined.
The Government's 1998 enquiry into inequalities in health examined the widening gap in health between those at the top and bottom of the social scale in England. Policies which improved the health and nutrition of women of childbearing age and their children were recommended including, inter alia, fluoridation of water supplies.
In 1999 the White Paper "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation" laid out the Government's approach to improving public health and set improvement targets in the areas of cancer, coronary heart disease, accidents and mental illness. In addition to concentrating on its key targets, the Government described its aim of tackling other major health issues, including water fluoridation.
Water UK represented English and Welsh companies and Scottish and Northern Irish water operators. The association did not support the Government's approach, albeit not on health grounds. It considered that the Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985 should be replaced because, although it made Health Authorities responsible for deciding if water supplies should be fluoridated, it gave water operators discretion on whether to accept an Authority's application to proceed. In most cases, water companies were reluctant to proceed because of fears over litigation by customers who opposed the idea. Water UK believed that decisions on whether to fluoridate a water supply should rest entirely with the Health Authority. They called for the law to be changed to remove discretion from the water industry and for it to be replaced with a nationally agreed public consultation process and indemnity cover trusted by the industry.
Portsmouth Water indicated that it would be perfectly willing to introduce water fluoridation if the health authority requested them to do so. This had not occurred so far and there would, in any case, be practical difficulties unless the whole of their water supply area could be treated in the same way. Some of the water they supply contained fluoride quite naturally but at a lower level than would be recommended for dental purposes.
According to the British Dental Association, a member of the National Alliance for Equity in Dental Health, over 50 health authorities were unable to implement their fluoridation policies because the water companies had vetoed their requests. The Association claimed that independent opinion polls consistently demonstrated that around 70% of people thought fluoride should be added to water if it was able to reduce tooth decay.
In October 2000 York University published a detailed report reviewing existing research into the health effects of water fluoridation. The report also responded to concerns about the health effects of water fluoridation. It concluded that no association had been shown between water fluoridation and cancer, bone fracture or other alleged health problems. Responding to the report, the Government announced that it intended to encourage health authorities in areas with particular dental health problems to consider adding fluoride to their water to help reduce tooth decay.
The Government would be setting up further talks with water companies and local authorities about water fluoridation in their areas. According to Portsmouth Water Company representatives no such talks had yet taken place. In the UK, water fluoridation costs were borne by the NHS.
With reference to the case against fluoridation, it was noted that as long ago as 1994 the World Health Organisation Expert Committee on Oral Health Status and Fluoride Use stated that -
"Experience has shown that it is not possible to achieve effective fluoride-based caries [tooth decay] prevention without the development of some degree of dental fluorosis, a defect of enamel caused by excess fluoride disrupting the developing enamel prior to tooth eruption [see 6.4]. This means that whatever methods are chosen to maintain the low level of fluoride in the mouth, the results will be accompanied by some degree of dental fluorosis."
The National Pure Water Association (NPWA) was a non-profit company pledged to fight against fluoridation of drinking water supplies. This would be the Association's position even if it agreed that fluoride were shown to be harmless, but it did not believe that fluoride was benign. It referred to research, which, they claimed, demonstrated that fluoride had many serious adverse effects such as cancer, deaths, osteoporosis, dental fluorosis, genetic abnormalities and brain damage in children.
Ten per cent of the UK had been fluoridated since 1964 (as set out in Appendix A to the report). The National Pure Water Association had been campaigning for 40 years, and claimed to have successfully prevented any further fluoridation schemes in the UK. They claimed that fluorosis (discoloration and occasional mottling of the teeth) was more than just a cosmetic problem. They stated that it was a visible sign of damage to bones throughout the body and, in children, was indicative of thyroid dysfunction. Furthermore, they highlighted a study which demonstrated that the very children whom dentistry claimed would benefit from ingesting fluoride, i.e. poor children, were the ones who were most affected by fluoride's toxic effects because of inadequate nutrition. They claimed that this was true wherever dental fluorosis was seen.
Various commentators had complained that the York review was not thorough enough and had ignored major sources of data. They explained that the Government's White Paper on health specifically stated that this Review would examine the effects of fluoride on health but that it had failed to consider the effect of fluoride exposure from all sources. The Review had also been severely criticised by numerous international scientists and other bodies.
Fluoridation of water was clearly a complex and emotive issue. Technical experts were arrayed on both sides of the fence and it would be impossible, within the available resources, to conduct the exhaustive research necessary to confirm or refute either point of view. Further research was considered necessary. It was therefore considered appropriate to err on the side of caution with regard to the Council's position on the subject.
RESOLVED: That, until the technical arguments were clearer, the fluoridation of drinking water be opposed.
10. PROPOSED ADVENTURE GOLF FACILITY: STOKES BAY
The Board considered a report of the Leisure and Health Services Manager (a copy of which is affixed in the Minute Book as Appendix "F"), which sought agreement on the proposed provision and location of an adventure golf facility at Stokes Bay.
It was noted that a report had been presented to the Health & Leisure Committee in March of this year seeking Councillors' views on the provision of an Adventure Golf Facility replacing three of the existing grass tennis courts.
The Committee heard that the existing grass putting and tennis court facilities were expensive to maintain / provide in relation to the levels of usage and income achieved and the limited period of time they were able to be used. The Committee resolved that the development of such a facility should be approved in principle but agreed that approval of a detailed scheme would be deferred to allow for consultation to be undertaken, and for the identification of a suitable location for the facility. Eleven tennis courts were presently provided (seven grass and four tarmacadam) this summer providing a total of approximately 7810 court hours of which only 12% was used.
Out of 31 responses to a questionnaire on the issue, almost total support was given to the introduction of a new adventure golf facility in the area. It also appeared that such a facility was likely to attract greater usage than experienced by the putting green in recent years. There did however seem to be mixed views on whether the Adventure Golf should replace some of the grass tennis courts.
Members expressed concern that no other options for the siting of the proposed adventure golf facility had been investigated thoroughly, and requested that further examination of the options was undertaken prior to the Board taking a decision on the issue. It was therefore decided that the issue be referred back to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for consideration.
RESOLVED: That –
(i) the usage statistics and results of public consultation undertaken during the summer be noted;
(ii) support be re-affirmed for the project and that approval be given for the pursuit of detailed plans for an Adventure Golf Facility, planning permission, tenders and the identification/allocation of Council funds to provide such a facility; and
(iii) the Community and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee be requested, in consultation with Officers, to look at all locations for the proposed Adventure Golf Facility and report their findings to the Board in due course.
11. ST VINCENT SWIMMING POOL – REFURBISHMENT PROPOSALS
The Board gave consideration to a report of the Leisure and Health Services Manager, which sought approval for financial contributions to be made by the Borough Council towards the cost of refurbishing the swimming pool at St Vincent College in order to safeguard the continued availability of swimming facilities for the community.
It was noted that the College swimming pool was the original pool facility that used to serve the requirements of the former Services training establishment. Despite various repairs and maintenance over the years, it was now in a poor condition and had been the subject of a recent survey. The Survey had identified a range of works that were essential to maintaining the continuing availability of the pool for a variety of users that included schools, senior citizens, various groups and casual users.
Attention was drawn to the fact that the Rowner Recreation Centre pool had recently been closed due to significant plant and equipment problems, and that the pool at Brune Park was also closed at present. Therefore, swimming pool provision within the Borough was already straining to cope with demand.
The College pool was mainly used by the community and supported a wide range of sporting activities. These included the successful Youth Programme that catered for nearly 500 children per week, a number of groups with special needs, public and club swimming sessions. Due to financial regulations the College was not able to support the community leisure programme from educational sources of funding.
Apart from Holbrook, the pool at St Vincent provided the other main swimming facility in the Borough and its continuing availability was seen as essential.
It was proposed that the Council should make some financial provision available to support the work required to refurbish the St Vincent pool. In discussion with the College, they had identified that an approximate sum of between £150,000-£200,000 would be required, although this could be phased over a period of up to 5 years. The College indicated that they would be able to meet some of the cost, and based on the evidence of community use of the pool it was considered appropriate that the costs of the work would justify a contribution of £100,000 over 5 years, the annual cost to the Council being £20,000.
RESOLVED: That a series of five annual contributions, each at £20,000, towards the refurbishment of the Community Swimming Pool at St Vincent College, be approved.
12. EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC
RESOLVED: That under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the undermentioned items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 8 and 9 of Part I of Schedule 12A of the Act.
13. ST VINCENT COLLEGE – PROVISION OF ARTIFICIAL TURF PITCH
The Board considered an exempt report of the Leisure and Health Services Manager (a copy of which is affixed in the Minute Book as Appendix "G") which proposed financial contributions to be made by the Borough Council to the provision of a new All Weather 'Artificial Turf Pitch' (ATP) at St Vincent College.
RESOLVED: That, subject to the receipt of monies as set out in paragraph 2.4 of the report, approval be given to the use of £250,000 of Commuted Sums as match funding towards the provision of an Artificial Turf Pitch at St Vincent College.
14. PROPOSED INSTALLATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT, PRIVETT PARK ENCLOSURE
The Board considered an exempt report of the Leisure and Health Services Manager (a copy of which is affixed in the Minute Book as Appendix "H") which considered a request for the installation of a base station (an equipment cabin and telecommunications aerials) within the Enclosure at Privett Park.
RESOLVED: That –
(i) the siting of the telecommunications equipment and base station within Privett Park
Enclosure be approved;
(ii) subject to planning permission being granted, the Borough Secretary be authorised to enter into such legal documentation as was necessary to effect the above decision and on terms and conditions recommended by the Council's Consultant Valuer;
(iii) a single cash payment be accepted in preference to an annual sum and that it be used as match funding for a Football Foundation bid for facility improvements on the site; and
(iv) the Community and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee be requested to investigate the formulation of a standard policy for the Council, with regard to the installation of telecommunications equipment within the Borough.
CHAIRMAN
|
|
