Welcome to Sutton Parish Council - Peterborough

SUTTON

Draft Peterborough Local Plan 2016-2036

SUTTON PARISH COUNCIL'S COMMENTS ON THE A47 DUALLING PLANS

Please click here to see Sutton Parish Council's comments on the A47 Dualling Plans



Sutton is a small civil parish - population about 110 - located almost 6 miles to the west of Peterborough in north-west of Cambridgeshire.

Sutton Parish Council comprises five councillors who serve a four year term. The Council normally meets bi-monthly. It holds it’s Annual Parish Council Meeting (at which the Chairman and Vice Chairman are elected) and the Annual Parish Meeting in May.

Parish councils make all manner of decisions on issues that affect the local community. Probably the most common topics that parish councils become involved with are planning matters (they are statutory consultees), crime prevention, managing open spaces and campaigning for, and delivering, better services and facilities.

The schedule of meetings for the coming year are shown on the Agendas & Minutes page. Agendas are posted on village noticeboards and on the website at least three days before each meeting is convened. The venue for all Sutton Parish Council meetings is St. Michael’s Hall (actually the Church nave). The public is welcome, and indeed encouraged, to attend and provision is made at all meetings for public participation.


St Michael & All AngelsSt Michael & All Angels' Church: Nene Way, Sutton, Cambridgeshire, PE5 7XD
This ancient church, dates from the 12th century and was built as a chapel-of-ease to nearby St Kyneburgha’s church, Castor, for the benefit of the villagers of Sutton and to serve Peterborough Abbey’s Grange Farm and manor in the village.

 

SUTTON PARISH COUNCIL

 

 

HIRE OF PARISH LAND

 

             Grassland for grazing and a crop of hay is available to hire from

 

1 APRIL 2020 TO 30 MARCH 2022

 

Tenders are invited for the following pastures: -

 

 

North Allotment - 3 acres (approximately) at the rear of 10 Nene Way

 

South Allotment - 2.5 acres (approximately) off Graeme Road (access between 6 and 10 Graeme Road)      

 

 

Tenders in writing please, no later than 10.00 am

Monday 10th February 2020, to:

                                                      

 

Mrs D McCumiskey

Clerk to the Council

6 Hillside Gardens

Wittering

PETERBOROUGH

PE8 6DX

                                                                             

 

SUTTON PARISH COUNCIL MEETING 31st OCTOBER 2019

 

 

Report on Survey re Outdoor Gym Equipment in Recreation Ground and way forward.

 

1.     Introduction.

 

1.1   For a number of years the Parish Council has sought to enhance the utility, beauty and wildlife interest of the village Recreation Ground. To this end junior football posts and seats, tree planting, hedge planting, and peripheral path maintenance have been carried out. Work is now being undertaken towards increasing wild flower presence in the area. The increasing emphasis on health, fitness and social cohesion in recent years has led to many Local authorities, including Parish Councils, installing trim trails and/or outdoor gym equipment in their recreation grounds. Some members of the Parish Council have felt that Sutton Rec could also accommodate some equipment. The view has been expressed that we are a generally sociable village; the recent rounders match, quiz nights, coffee mornings and Sutton Sinners events demonstrate that and it can be argued that the gym equipment continues a theme of activity conducive to mental and physical health and social cohesion.

 

1.2   A survey was carried out in September 2018 seeking opinions on potential usage of outdoor gym equipment, a combination Rugby/football goal and picnic tables. It sought household rather than individual views and 22 households responded. Broadly positive responses outnumbered the negative ones, so the project has been further developed.

 

1.3   During the last year discussions with suppliers and further investigations have been carried out. These have led to the rugby post idea being abandoned (primarily due to its visual impact) and the trim trail model of dispersed equipment being dropped in favour of a concentration of equipment. Factors have included the need to avoid overhanging trees and tree roots, respect for the wooded emphasis in the northern part of the Rec, the constraints of the steeper gradients and visibility in the interests of personal safety.

 

1.4 Following a successful funding application to the Augean Community Landfill fund, the current ideas for a group of pieces of gym equipment occupying an area of approximately 5m by 25m on the south side of the Rec plus picnic tables on the higher land gradually emerged from discussion with residents and providers.

 

 2.   The survey results:

 

2.1 The survey was circulated by e-mail to those on the village e-mail list and in hard copy to those without e-mail on 30th September. Responses were requested by Wednesday 9th October. However, the sluggish response rate led to the decision prior to the end date to call on non-responders. This was due to the time pressure we were under at that time to contract with Augean (We have now had a months’ extension.) Normally follow-up would only have been done after the deadline date.

 

2.2 40 households in the village are on e-mail (49 individuals).Of the 51 houses in the Parish (including the 3 by the A47) approximately 44 were surveyed.34 households out of the village total of 44 completed the forms

 

2.3 In terms of individuals, 72 ticked the supportive box, 11 were neither supportive nor opposed and 11 were opposed. (Some of those opposed made the point that they were not opposed to picnic tables).


2.4   In terms of households, 22 were supportive, 6 were neither supportive nor opposed, 5 were opposed and one had split views

 

        13 responders added comments or letters.

 

2.5 Supportive comments.

       “Whilst a brilliant idea, we had (in all honesty) wondered about the value for money for the project. Having read this document and understanding the vast amount of funding is via the grant we fully support the proposal. Thank you for organising.”

 

         “I think this will be an amazing addition to the village. Well done everyone for making this happen”

 

        “Very supportive. Excellent idea. Thank you.”

 

2.6   Objections and concerns:

 

        These are listed below in summary. All councillors have seen the full text of the comments.  Some concerns came from supporters as well as from objectors. They clearly need to be carefully considered and mitigation proposed where appropriate to address them. The substantial level of support revealed by the survey, suggests that the negative impacts must be clear and significant for the scheme to be abandoned in its entirety.

 

Objection.

Points to consider

1. Noise. Especially now that the equipment is concentrated at the end of the rec closer to houses and gardens.

 

The nearest dwelling’s garden is some 40m away from the nearest piece of equipment. It is suggested that the noise associated with gym equipment use is minimal and of a far lower order than children’s play or football.

2. Opposition to the ‘welcome’ sign. Risk of attracting non-village people.

 

The Welcome sign can be deleted. This equipment is now common and available in many locations easier of access than Sutton e.g. Ailsworth. It is no longer a novelty. Walkers from elsewhere already use the Nene Way long distance footpath, and dog walkers not unusually come from South Bretton and elsewhere to use the Recreation ground without significant problems.

3. Attracting vandalism and anti-social behaviour. The equipment should be removed if problems arise.

 

In our inspections of gym equipment sites we have seen no signs of anti-social behaviour or vandalism. Ailsworth Parish Council has informed us that the problems there are focussed on a covered games area shelter provided largely for teenagers and being misused, and not associated with the gym equipment. Nonetheless if significant problems arise the equipment could be removed.

4. Contrary to the character of the Recreation ground. Should be sited on other Parish land.

 

As explained in the survey covering letter the proposed location of equipment was based on the intention of keeping the wooded end of the recreation ground as rural as possible, and having the equipment at the more ‘active’ end of the Rec visible from the entrance area for safety reasons but not obtrusive. Nonetheless some hedge screening could be adopted as well.

There is a synergy in locating the equipment close to other informal recreation features (i.e. in the Rec) rather than isolating it in either the north or south allotment.

5. Contrary to the character of Sutton as a quiet peaceful village with very little disturbance.

 

This is clearly a subjective matter, but it is suggested that the colour of the equipment (green with cream), the possibility of some low hedge screening and the location on the down-slope of the field combine to render it consistent with the character of the village.

6.Fire danger from barbecues

 

Notices prohibiting barbecues can be installed on or close to the picnic tables during dry spells

7.The picnic tables are superfluous and over time will be used more by non-residents than by residents

One table will be visible from Nene Way footpath, the other is within woodland and will not be so visible.

8. Some residents commented that they would like to see some children’s play equipment provided.

The current project was designed for all villagers above the age of about 11 years.  Years ago there was children’s play equipment in the field. If the village were to be supportive this could again be considered in the future.

9. Security. The point has been made that security at the entrance needs improving by installing gates at the road end of the entrance path

This can separately be investigated by the Parish Council with the aim of early implementation.

10. Inaccuracy in the plan intending to show the extent of the Recreation Ground.

This has been corrected on the attached plan and an apology conveyed.

 

3.      The Equipment

3.1     Meetings have been held with the representatives of four companies and the equipment mix and locations have evolved as a response to this and to general discussions. Sites with each of these manufacturers equipment have been visited. The scheme has been modified to take account of advice and the matters referred to in the introduction above.

 

3.2  Of the 4 potential suppliers:

 

Company A: Can provide 4 pieces of equipment for £12,340 excluding VAT (including one multi-purpose large item). On visiting other sites it became clear that the equipment is especially large and heavily engineered to sustain intensive use. Visually rather intrusive.

 

Company B: Can provide 4 pieces for £9,642 (excluding VAT) including one significant multi-function station. Unable to produce a good combination of moving and fixed equipment.

 

Company C: Can provide 6 pieces for £9,226 (excluding VAT). Would need to buy in equipment from a third party. Not felt to be sufficient value for money. Also some quality concerns.

 

Company D: Can provide 9 pieces for £11,676 (excluding VAT) or 8 pieces for £11,383 (excluding VAT). A major player in the market, but still keen to supply us. Good variety of matching equipment, not too conspicuous. Simple installation.

 

It is recommended that Company D be the preferred provider. (Sutton Parish Council is able to reclaim the VAT).

 

None of the suppliers could supply picnic tables at a competitive price. They can be sourced separately for under £500 each

 

4.0 Financial Implications.

 

4.1 The capital and installation costs of the equipment and tables can be met from the £12,000 grant from Augean plus the £1000 contribution from Sutton Parish Council (the residue of a former grant from the A.P.Fogarty Trust). £1338 is required from a Third Party funder to release the Augean grant and Sutton 49s have agreed to provide this.

 

4.2 Annual Inspections are expected to cost about £100 each

 

4.3 Our insurers have confirmed that our present premium will cover the equipment.

 

4.4 On-going maintenance costs will depend on the guarantee applying (different parts of the equipment have different guarantee periods), the intensity of use and any damage occurring, and the attitude of the village to retaining the equipment.

 

4.5 Grounds maintenance implications. The effect on our annual grass cutting bill are being sought and if available will be reported at the meeting on the 31st October.

 

5.0 Recommendations

 

5.1. That Councillors acknowledge that a significant majority of respondents are supportive of the scheme.

5.2  That the scheme delete the welcome signs

5.3  That the scheme include ‘No Barbecues’ signs on or near the picnic tables either permanently or just during dry spells

5.4 That some hedging be incorporated within the scheme.

5.5 That Councillors consider the other grounds of objection

5.6 That the Council commit to exploring the possibility of placing entrance gates closer to the road in the interests of security.

5.7. That Councillors:

 

a) Consider whether any significant mitigation of the objections will be achieved by resiting the equipment in some way or

b) Decide to go ahead with the scheme subject of the survey (subject to 2, 3 and 4 above)

 

5.8. That Company D be adopted as the preferred supplier with a mix of equipment drawn from those illustrated in the survey. 

Peter Lee and Antony Eager

 


 

 

 

 

Results of Sutton Parish Council’s village opinion survey on Peterborough Cycle West Cycleway.

 

The survey.

A survey questionnaire was distributed in hard copy to all the houses within the village of Sutton on 15th January. It was circulated electronically the same day to all on the village group managed by the Parish Clerk.

Peterborough Cycle West circulated its information sheet and map on 17th January

Councillor Grange circulated a supplementary information sheet on 19th January

A public meeting was held on Wednesday 22nd

Forms were returned by Sunday 26th

 

The numbers.

 

There were 45 occupied dwellings in the village at the time of the survey (one house vacant)

It is estimated from a combination of electoral roll information and local knowledge that 100 adults either are or consider themselves to be residents of the village.

 

The survey returns.

 

40 Households returned forms or letters (ie 89% of households)

They expressed the views of 90 adults (90% of the adult population)

 

The survey results

 

View

 

Households responding

% of respondents

% of all households

Individuals responding

% of respondents

% of all adults

Strongly opposed

22

55

49

57

63

57

Opposed

7

18

16

14

16

14

Neither opposed nor

supportive

0

0

0

1

1

1

Supportive

5

11

11

11

12

11

Strongly supportive

4

10

22

7

8

7

Split views

2

5

4

 

 

 

Total

40

100

 

90

100

 

 

 

The following issues were raised by those opposed:

 

Loss of tranquillity.

Tranquility of village being gambled for circa £500k differential between a Station Road Ailsworth route and one through Sutton.

Not responsible to assume the best possible impact. So assume fast cyclists will want to use it.

Road safety- cyclists approaching blind corners are more difficult to see than vehicles.

As NVR and NPT are supportive their land could have been used for a route bypassing Sutton. PCW not convincing as to why an Ailsworth Station Road route not pursued.

The purpose of the scheme is to benefit cyclists not from Sutton who will be able to use the parallel route planned beside the dualled A47. Little evidence of Sutton cyclist activity to justify over-riding negative impacts.

Residents choose Sutton because of its peace and safety and cul-de-sac nature for vehicles. This would be endangered / destroyed. Sutton would become just a way point between Peterborough and all destinations westward.

 

Scheme shows lack of consideration or understanding for horses. Enough equestrians in the village for this to be a major issue and one deserving priority over cyclists from outside the village. Scheme will increase likelihood of rider injury caused by a cyclist.

Increased use of Sutton Crossways bridleway as shortcut by cyclists would prevent safe use by horse-riders.

Render Lovers Lane manege (used for concentrated horse and rider practice) unusable due to disturbance.

Cattle grid close by a danger to any spooked horse

 

Danger that parallel route beside the dualled A47 or the Highways England Leisure route will be jettisoned if this goes ahead due to diversion of funds.

The proposed HE parallel route will provide the western link PCW require so a route through Sutton is unnecessary or at least premature.

Last published design by Highways England shows main route using Nene Way and the Drift to connect to the main scheme so worst case scenario could see both local and fast road cyclists drawn into the village.

Final routing could change impacting other village roads.

Undermining the huge amount of work undertaken to protect the village from the A47 dualling.

 

PCW appear intransigent and unprepared to consider alternatives. Not convincing that they now need to focus on NVR rather than a Wansford link.

 

Increased litter and picnicking in the village.

Erosion of personal and home safety needs to be considered.

Risk to walkers and cyclists from cows in Sutton Meadows beside the route.

 

Mix of pedestrians, horse-riders, cars, vans, lorries and more cyclists a recipe for increased accidents, confrontation and road rage.

Some cyclists have little regard for other road users.

Danger of infiltration into fields by ‘off-road motor- cross brigade’.

Majority of cyclists using The Nene Way footpath are rude, arrogant and not respectful of the rules of the countryside.

 

There are 4 junctions on Nene Way with poor visibility, more than PCW state. Manor Road right turn out particularly dangerous.

Whatever the formal route cyclists likely to use all village roads.

Don’t want more street signs.

Alternative routes are safer than the PCW proposal.

PCW does not have the support of Wansford Parish Council

 

Lack of research on likely usage.

 

Increased vulnerability to crime  anti-social behaviour.

 

Risk of attracting car parking by cycleway users. And urbanising the village. ’The reason Sutton works is its left alone’

Sutton could become an alternative free car park for NVR visitors.

The village would be a better place without it.

 

Alternative leisure route north of the dualling is proposed will connect westwards and so achieve PCW’s goal.

 

Re health concerns about parallel A47 route- 6m-12m distance from carriageway and separation barriers would mitigate.

 

Stopping the PCW scheme even more relevant than the routing of the A47 Dualling which many have worked so tirelessly to alter.

 

Inconsistent survey methods used by Sutton Parish Council.

 

 

The following issues were raised by those supportive:

Excellent, enabling cyclists to cross the A1 without having to use the very busy A47

 

 Route good but surfacing material should be more rural eg hardcore/ granite chippings or crushed limestone, rather than tarmac.

 

Lovely for children/teens to get out of the village on a safe cycle route and access the station and Stibbington.

 

Re concern about clubs with many members- few join each regular ride, chose a different route most weeks and are reasonably responsible and non-antagonistic.

 

Road cyclists would not take this route, leaving it for leisure cyclists and walkers.

 

Cannot see any major issues. This would improve access to Nene Valley Railway and beyond.

 

Important to provide local population with alternatives to motor vehicles at every opportunity from a health and environmental perspective and in addressing climate change. Its our children’s future.

 

Re safety in the village, cars and vans pose the greatest risk, not cycles.

 

The disused rail embankment (the PCW cycleway which is proposed) is protected by a covenant defining its future use as for ‘non-motorised cycle-route only’.

 

Survey Bias.

 

It has been stated that the Parish Council has not acted in an appropriately objective manner:

Many of the statements in the survey lack veracity when closely examined. The pros and cons in the survey have been engineered to get an outcome that some members of the Parish Council want.

They should have been balanced and based on evidence rather than anecdote.

 

Examples are quoted from the ‘points against’ bullet points in the survey:

 

Bullets 1 and 2. Increasing cycle traffic leading to safety concerns: Evidence in the Royal Society for Prevention of Accidents paper (see htpps://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-services/road-safety/cyclists/cycling-policy-paper.pdf page 20) says that in the medium and longer term increased cycle use in combination with reduced vehicle use will improve safety and reduce accident rates.

 

Bullet 3: There is no evidence that cyclists are more likely to be anti-social than any other population group. The cul-de-sac objection ignores current cycle patterns; Sutton is already a through route for walkers on the Nene Way long distance footpath and for those cyclists who already ride over the Meadow to Nene Valley Railway when weather permits.

 

Bullet 4: There is no evidence to support increased risk to horse -riders on Sutton crossways. Cycling was linked to only 1% of all horse riding related incidents in 2014 (see: https://www.roadsafetyobservatory.com/Evidence/Details/11457

Horse riders are about 15-20 times more likely than motorists to die in a road related accident. The statistics are similar for cyclists. Both are officially classified as vulnerable, equally so. See: htpps://www.britishcycling.org.uk/knowledge/skills/article.izn20150106-horses-on-the-road-0

Statistical evidence had been put before the Parish Council in December 2019 re horse riding/cycling conflict, but not referred to in the survey. 

 

Bullet 5: Jon Donlevy of HE stated in writing to PCW in a 15 January 2020 e-mail “HE would not use your WCHR (Walkers, Cyclists, Horse Riders) route as justification not to include any additional WCHR routes in our main scheme. Where possible we would look to compliment any existing or planned schemes.”

 

Bullet 6: The statement is misleading. The schemes have not been agreed or accepted subject to funding. They are at feasibility stage.

 

The views of children should also have been sought as they were for the gym equipment survey.

Some councillors made very negative comments at the public meeting with no attempt at balance.

Lack of consistency, lack of due process, biased and and misleading construction of the survey invalidates any results from it.

 

Conclusion.

 

Clear majorities of both households and individual adults in the village have now stated that they are either opposed or strongly opposed to the PCW scheme. It is not possible to enumerate exactly which issues most concerned residents because only 15 opposing households and 7 supportive households offered any comments beyond ticking a box. However road and equestrian safety, issues of lost tranquillity, objection to increased connectivity of Sutton and issues concerned with the availability of planned alternative provision seem to be particularly strong.

 

Was the questionairre survey biased? The points in favour and against were for consideration. Most are considered fair points which a recipient would be quite capable of assessing as either significant concerns or scaremongering. One which, in retrospect, is misleading is bullet 6 which refers to an alternative leisure route but did not make clear that it is at feasibility stage only and is not of a comparable nature or approved currently. Your chairman apologises for his misunderstanding of the situation and takes full responsibility for not having researched the current position fully before inserting that point. Clarification will be provided at your meeting.

 

On the matter of evidence, clearly national research gives an authoritative, albeit generalised, picture of accident statistics etc. However the local characteristics of Sutton’s geography will distort the applicability of national statistics to our situation and it is suggested that it is not unreasonable in this situation for personal experience and anecdote to colour a perception of reality.

 

The strength and volume of local objection to the PCW proposal suggests that Sutton Parish Council has little option but to oppose it.

 

Peter Lee

27 January 2020


 

 Here is an 8 minute film that was sent to all 60 Peterborough City Councillors on behalf of Protect Rural Peterborough

 

Click the heading about to access to film 

 

VILLAGE STREET PARTY

 

Queen’s 90th birthday street party