Agenda and minutes
PDF 48 KBVenue: Mytchett Canal Centre, Mytchett Place Road, Mytchett, Surrey, GU16 6DD
Contact: Victoria Lower
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN
Members of the Basingstoke Canal Joint Management Committee to elect a Chairman for the 2013/2014 council year. Minutes: Councillor Keith Chapman was proposed by Councillor Elaine Still and seconded by Councillor Linda Kemeny to be appointed the Chairman for two years. The Committee unanimously voted to appoint Councillor Keith Chapman as the Chairman of the Basingstoke Canal Joint Management Committee.
RESOLVED: That
1. Councillor Keith Chapman be appointed as the Chairman of the Basingstoke Canal Joint Management Committee for two years. |
|
|
ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIRMAN
Members of the Basingstoke Canal Joint Management Committee to elect a Vice-Chairman for the 2013/2014 council year. Minutes: Councillor Linda Kemeny was proposed by Councillor Keith Chapman and seconded by Councillors Chris Pitt and Coline Kemp to be appointed the Vice-Chairman for two years. The Committee unanimously voted to appoint Councillor Linda Kemeny as the Vice-Chairman of the Basingstoke Canal Joint Management Committee.
The Chairman and Gareth Jones proposed a vote of thanks to Councillor Linda Kemeny for her role as Chairman of the Basingstoke Canal Joint Management Committee over the last two years, and for the progress that had been made under her Chairmanship.
RESOLVED: That
1. Councillor Linda Kemeny be appointed as the Vice-Chairman of the Basingstoke Canal Joint Management Committee for two years. |
|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Minutes: Apologies were received from Ben Carasco. |
|
|
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: 5 JUNE 2013
To agree the minutes as a true record of the meeting. Minutes: The minutes of the meeting on 5 June 2013 were agreed as an accurate record of the meeting. |
|
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
To receive any declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests from Members in respect of any item to be considered at the meeting.
Notes: · In line with the Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012, declarations may relate to the interest of the member, or the member’s spouse or civil partner, or a person with whom the member is living as husband or wife, or a person with whom the member is living as if they were civil partners and the member is aware they have the interest. · Members need only disclose interests not currently listed on the Register of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests. · Members must notify the Monitoring Officer of any interests disclosed at the meeting so they may be added to the Register. · Members are reminded that they must not participate in any item where they have a disclosable pecuniary interest. Minutes: There were no declarations of interest. |
|
|
QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS
To receive either any questions or petitions.
Notes: 1. The deadline for Member’s questions is 12.00 noon four working days before the meeting (4 October 2013). 2. The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting(3 October 2013). 3. The deadline for petitions was 14 days before the meeting, and no petitions have been received. Minutes: There were no questions or petitions. |
|
|
SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS MEMBERSHIP
This report outlines the procedure for the appointment of Special Interest Group representations to the Basingstoke Canal Joint Management Committee as co-opted members. Details of requests to join the Basingstoke Canal Joint Management Committee will be available during the meeting. Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of interest:
None.
Officers:
Victoria Lower, Committee Assistant
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. Elected Members of the Committee were provided with a copy of submissions by groups who wished to be co-opted onto the Joint Management Committee as advisory Special Interest Groups. A copy of this document is attached to the minutes for information.
2. Members discussed the need to engage with all interested user groups of the Basingstoke Canal to ensure their knowledge and passion was utilised to make the Canal a successful recreational facility in the area. The Chairman and Officers assured Members that groups were welcome to attend other forums and contact the Canal Authority prior to meetings to raise concerns. Additionally, before each meeting of the Committee there was a five minute public question time during which they could speak.
3. The Committee were informed that, in line with the Memorandum of Agreement, there were eight advisory positions available on the Committee but two were permanent seats for the Basingstoke Canal Society and one for Natural England. It was felt by Members that the membership should not be increased as it would lead to the meetings being ineffective.
4. The Chairman invited the groups who were present to speak about their interest in the Canal and their knowledge and experience. The Basingstoke Canal Canoe Club, Accessible Boating, Hart District Association of Parish & Town Councils, Inland Waterways Association and Residential Boat Owners Association spoke to the Committee reiterating their desire to be part of the Committee, as set out in their written submissions to the Committee.
5. The Chairman requested a ballot be taken, and that elected Members vote for up to five groups to join the Basingstoke Canal Joint Management Committee as Special Interest Groups. Figures from the voting can be found attached to these minutes.
RESOLVED: That
1. The Joint Management Committee appoints Special Interest Groups for four year terms which run concurrent to County Council elections.
2. The membership of the Basingstoke Canal Society and Natural England be renewed for four years.
3. That the following five groups be appointed to the Basingstoke Canal Joint Management Committee for four years, until the County Council elections in 2017:
a. Basingstoke Canal Canoe Club b. Hart District Association of Parish & Town Councils c. Inland Waterways Association d. John Cale Canal Cruises e. Residential Boat Owners Association
Recommendations:
1. That the Honorary Secretary contact those groups who were unsuccessful in being appointed to the Committee and invite them to attend alternative meetings and the Joint Management Committee meetings as a member of the public.
2. That the Committee consider the appointments of Special Interest Groups in May 2017.
Actions/further information to be provided:
None.
Committee next steps:
The Committee review the appointments of Special Interest Groups in four years. |
|
|
REVISED BUDGET 2013/14 AND FORWARD BUDGET 2014/15
The purpose of this report is to brief Members on the financial position of the Basingstoke Canal Authority. Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of interest:
None.
Officers:
Jane Lovett, Honorary Treasurer, Basingstoke Canal Authority
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Committee were provided with an update of the financial situation of the Canal Authority and anticipated situation of the Authority in the next financial year. It was noted that saving would need to be identified in both the current year and in 2014/2015 to balance the budget, and that an updated position would be presented to the Committee at its meeting in February.
2. Members queried the contribution of Surrey County Council and requested that if the contribution had gone down that it is stated clearly as such, rather than the Fibre Optic and cafe lease funds decreasing. Officers and Surrey County Councillors explained that they were in a time of severe budget restraints and that this decrease would only apply for 2013/14 financial year. Surrey further stated that it would continue to contribute revenue towards the canal, but also pointed out that Surrey is making substantial (£2m over four years) capital contributions plus the contribution to fund the feasibility for the Mytchett site which will generate substantial income.
3. The Committee additionally queried the contribution for Odiham Parish Council which stated £0. The Honorary Treasurer explained that the £0 related to the contributions due under the formula, although the budget did assume that the Parish would contribute. The Parish Councils’ representative reported that although it had not yet agreed its contribution to the Canal Authority, it was understood that they would continue to contribute.
4. Members suggested that a Business Sub-Group be created which would assist in making the Basingstoke Canal a more profitable and self-sustaining asset. Officers agreed to take this idea forward.
5. Members queried whether the budget allocated funds for dredging the canal as silt build up would cause the canal to become impassable in future. Officers confirmed that they would like to dredge sections of the canal; however the works budget was £100,000 per annum less than the Asset Management Plan recommended and that it was not allowing anything other than limited spot dredging to be carried out. Officers agreed to address this issue and update the Committee in due course.
6. The contributions from Surrey Heath Borough Council and Runnymede Borough Council were raised as a concern, though officers confirmed they had a meeting arranged to discuss the canal with senior officers from Surrey Heath. It was suggested by Members that Councillors should also attend this meeting.
RESOLVED: That
1. The revised budget for 2013/2014 be agreed.
2. The proposed forward budget for 2014/2015 be accepted.
3. The Committee urge all partner authorities to make their full contributions and to honour the agreed scale contributions for 2013/2014 and 2014/2015.
Recommendations:
1. That a Business Sub-Group be formed to utilise the business expertise of the Committee membership in order to make the Canal Authority a more profitable and sustainable facility.
2. That officers consider future dredging of the canal to ensure that it remains navigable ... view the full minutes text for item 36/13 |
|
|
STRATEGY DECISION PAPER
To approve a Strategy for the Canal - an overarching document showing everyone the strategic priorities for the Canal, and how performance in achieving these will be measured. Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of interest:
None.
Officers:
James Taylor, Senior Countryside Management Officer, Surrey County Council
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The officer explained that the Strategy would replace the Strategic Plan and would set up the mission, vision, strategic priorities and key results measures for the Basingstoke Canal. The Strategy stated there were seven strategic priorities for the canal with Key Results Indicators to assist Members and senior officers in assessing the performance of the Canal Authority. There would be a dashboard of ten “broadbrush” Key Results Indicators which would be fed through officers measuring around 300 targets and goals in the operational level plans.
2. The aim of the Strategy was to assist in making the Basingstoke Canal increasingly self-supporting and would come into effect early next year. The Strategy would run for five years until 2019 though would be reviewed annually to ensure it remained current.
3. The Committee queried whether it was advisable to work towards an SSSI condition of good as it was understood it was not possible for the canal to achieve this. Officers stated that both owning authorities and the Canal Authority had a legal obligation to work towards improving the SSSI condition of the canal and that they were receiving expert advice on how best to achieve this whilst achieving the right balance of the number of boats allowed to pass along the canal. Officers also pointed out that the number of boat movements was below the limits imposed by the current Conservation Management Plan.
4. The representative from Natural England felt that the canal was a fantastic asset which should be utilised but that it was important that the wildlife was taken into consideration and conserved as it was a key part of the attraction of the canal.
RESOLVED: That
1. The Joint Management Committee approves and adopts the Strategy for a period of five years.
Recommendations:
1. Strategic Priority 1 includes the word ‘navigable’ and the wording of Strategic Priority 5 be reconsidered.
Actions/further information to be provided:
None.
Committee next steps:
The Committee to review the Strategy annually to ensure it remains effective. |
|
|
ADJUSTMENT FOR CHARGING FOR TRAIL BOATS
To approve a new tier of charging for trail boats who only want an occasional day licence during the year. Minutes: Declarations of interest:
None.
Officers:
Fiona Shipp, Canal Manager, Basingstoke Canal Authority
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Canal Manager explained that when the Committee agreed the scheme of boat charges at the February 2013 meeting there was no charge for people to bring trail boats onto the canal for one day only. Over the summer there had been a large demand for a one day licence so the Canal Authority were required to charge £3, the price for a non-powered boat, however it was felt this charge should be higher given the additional wear and tear caused by powered craft.
2. The Canal Manager informed the Committee that she had reviewed the charges on other canals and felt that £8 for a one day licence would be the most appropriate charge.
3. The Committee queried whether the public would always be charged the £15 retention fee for a one day licence. The Canal Manager explained that as it was a one off fee they would normally request it as the Canal Authority would then hold their documents for one year enabling the visitor to return without having to bring their documentation. It was felt that it was important to have a simple charging system though they would be flexible if it was felt necessary.
4. It was stated that the charges would be reviewed in future to ensure they remained competitive with other local canals.
RESOLVED: That
1. The Joint Management Committee approve the change in charge for trail boats to include a one day licence at £8/day.
Recommendations:
None.
Actions/further information to be provided:
None.
Committee next steps:
The Committee to review the trail boat charges in future to ensure they remain competitive. |
|
To approve a scheme of charges for canal side car parks within Hart District with Reading Road Car Park, Fleet being used as a trial. Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of interest:
None.
Officers:
Fiona Shipp, Canal Manager, Basingstoke Canal Authority
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Canal Manager explained that the Canal Authority and Hart District Council had received a number of complaints regarding the Reading Road car park in Fleet as there were a number of people parking for a full day which meant canal users were unable to park. It was believed that local businesses were using the car park for free.
2. Officers felt that a long term solution would be to implement parking charges to this car park which would make parking for a full day expensive, but inexpensive for short stay users to ensure canal visitors would be able to park.
3. Requesting a parking order amendment would cost around £6,000 so it was felt that it would be sensible to include all other canal car parks within Hart District at the same time, but it was stated that there was currently no intention to introduce charges in the more rural car park. It was felt by the Committee that it would make things easier and save on resources charges were it felt necessary at these car parks in the future. Officers suggested the next car park which could be considered is the Scotland Road Bridge car park which had similar issues as the Reading Road car park, however a separate report and an amendment would be required to Runnymede’s off-street parking order for this car park.
4. Members suggested removing recommendation (e) in the report which provided a reference to a phased implementation of parking charges across other car parks in Hart, as it was felt unnecessary at these car parks at this time, and the Committee would sanction any change in this policy. Officers agreed that this reference could be removed.
5. Members queried if the Basingstoke Canal Society were doing work to the canal in the Reading Road area whether they would be required to pay to park their vehicle. Officers suggested that the Canal Society could be given a permit which would give their works vehicle free parking.
6. One suggestion was that it may be beneficial for the charges to be simplified to £1, £3 and £7; though it was suggested that as the ticket machines were able to take cash, card or Hart District Council smart cards this would not be necessary.
RESOLVED: That the Joint Management Committee
1. Approve and authorise the Basingstoke Canal Authority (BCA) to collect the car parking fees at Reading Road Car Park in Fleet in conjunction with Hart District Council on behalf of Hampshire County Council and expend the proceeds in maintaining the Canal.
2. Authorise the BCA to apply for a change to the parking order to include other Hart District sites – Barley Mow, Crookham Wharf and Colt Hill – to save costs at a later date should it be decided to extend parking charges, but that the introduction of any new charges would first be brought ... view the full minutes text for item 39/13 |
|
|
CANAL SIGNAGE REPORT
The JMC is asked to consider the designs and vote on a preferred design which will be taken forwards for further development. A selection of designs have been commissioned and will be available to view in the meeting room during the meeting and placed on the website once available. Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of interest:
None.
Officers:
Fiona Shipp, Canal Manager, Basingstoke Canal Authority
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Canal Manager explained that the Committee had previously stated that it was necessary for the Canal to have a consistent image along the canal and that the Canal Authority were now working with Greenhouse Graphics on signage.
2. Officers and designers were in the process of creating a Branding document which detail the materials and overall look of signage for the canal. This document would enable the Canal Authority to commission consistent signage as and when funding was available in future years.
3. The Committee were provided with two overall designs and were requested to vote on which one to take on as the basis of all signs. The Committee voted five in favour of the balance beam design and 13 in favour of the swirl design.
4. Members requested that all signs include an image of a boat to ensure the connection to boating remains throughout. Additionally, they suggested that the signs were an opportunity to recognise the partnerships, and that in each area the Borough / District and Parish Council logos should be included along with the Basingstoke Canal Society logo as appropriate.
5. The Committee thanked the Canal Manager for her work in progressing this issue and looked forward to seeing future developments.
RESOLVED: That
1. The Committee endorse the design with the swirl to be the basis of future signage.
Recommendations:
1. That officers discuss with Boroughs / Districts and Parish Councils regarding their logos featuring on signage in their respective areas.
Actions / further information to be provided:
The Committee be provided with the Canal Branding report.
Committee next steps:
The Committee consider the Canal Branding report as its next meeting in February 2014. |
|
|
BRIDGE MANAGEMENT REPORT
To inform Members of the current liability to maintain bridges over the canal and the condition of bridges as at the last condition assessment in January 2010. Minutes: Declarations of interest:
None.
Officers:
James Taylor, Senior Countryside Management Officer, Surrey County Council
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Committee were provided with a short history of the canal and the liability of the County Councils to maintain the bridges over the canal, along with the condition of the bridges at the last condition assessment in 2010.
2. The Committee were informed that the County Councils were mainly liable for the bridges as Highways Authorities rather than as owners of the canal, rail bridges were the responsibility of Network Rail, and, there was a question over the liability of private bridges. In addition the County Councils were liable for bridges which they had erected since they took over ownership of the canal.
3. At the last condition assessment the bridges were deemed to be in fair condition, and to bring them up to a good condition the cost of works would be £226,000 for Surrey County Council and £41,700 for Hampshire County Council. These works, it was stated, were being undertaken and the discrepancy appears to be down to a difference in interpretation of ‘good condition’. Surrey County Council estimates were for bringing the bridges up to ‘as new’ standard while Hampshire County Council were working towards a serviceable standard for the bridges.
4. The Committee thanked the Senior Countryside Management Officer for an interesting and informative report.
Recommendations:
That the report be noted.
Actions/further information to be provided:
None.
Committee next steps:
None. |
|
|
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
To update Members on progress with updating the Memorandum of Agreement. Minutes: Declarations of interest:
None.
Officers:
James Taylor, Senior Countryside Management Officer, Surrey County Council
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Committee were informed that the Memorandum of Agreement was last reviewed in October 2008 and the Committee, as its last meeting in June 2013, had requested that officers consider amendments to this document. A draft version of the Memorandum of Agreement had been created and was considered by the Joint Advisory Group, however it was felt that further work was needed and so it was now out to consultation.
2. Members queried whether the membership of elected Members would be considered within the amendments as it was felt the Committee was too large and there was duplication. The Chairman stated that at this time the mechanics of the Memorandum of Agreement would be considered only as any change to the membership would need the agreement of all the riparian authorities. The Chairman confirmed, however, that the membership of the Committee would be considered in the future.
Recommendations:
That the report be noted.
Actions/further information to be provided:
That the Committee be provided with suggested amendments to the Memorandum of Agreement at its next meeting in February 2014.
Committee next steps:
The Committee to consider suggested amendments to the Memorandum of Agreement in February 2014. |
|
|
WATER STRATEGY UPDATE
Minutes: Declarations of interest:
None.
Officers:
Martin Leech, Basingstoke Canal Society
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Committee were provided with an update on the work of the Water Strategy Group. In the last year there had been an increase in the amount of water being back-pumped at Woodham, surveys had been completed to find appropriate locations for boreholes and the first project by students from Southampton University had been completed, which volunteers and officers were very pleased with. The report included a water balance model showing the levels of incoming and outgoing water in the canal, and confirming that there was a daily shortage of around three million litres a day during the dry months.
2. The Water Strategy Group had put forward another project to Southampton University for students to build upon the work already undertaken and answer resolved questions posed by the first group of students. This would principally look at the way water was managed to see if the current methods could be substantiated through science. Volunteers and officers were waiting to hear if any students would be undertaking the project.
3. The Group were in the process of investigating loss of water at Whitewater aqueduct and the effect of silt in the canal in the Hampshire pound. Furthermore, together with officers they were looking at potential reservoirs along the canal and the effective use of boreholes.
4. It was important that a new abstraction licence was obtained from the Environment Agency for the back-pumping schemes as the current licence would expire in 2015.
Recommendations:
None.
Actions/further information to be provided:
None.
Committee next steps:
None. |
|
|
CANAL CENTRE REDEVELOPMENT UPDATE
Minutes: Declarations of interest:
None.
Officers:
Lisa Creaye-Griffin, Countryside Group Manager, Surrey County Council
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Canal Centre was crucial to the economic well being of the canal; being the only large area of land associated with the canal suitable for visitor use. Further to previous reports made to Committee, Surrey County Council was in the process of appointing a consultant to undertake detailed feasibility studies, draw up plans and accurate costings in preparation to a planning application.
2. Six companies had been asked to tender, with three tenders having been received. Officers had interviewed two of the consultants with the third due to be interviewed on 17 October.
3. Design work was due to be completed by early spring 2014, with a view to a planning application for the proposed re-design being made shortly after.
Recommendations:
None.
Actions/further information to be provided:
None.
Committee next steps:
The Committee to be provided with an update on the Canal Centre redevelopment at a future meeting. |
|
|
CANAL MANAGER'S UPDATE
Minutes: Declarations of interest:
None.
Officers:
Fiona Shipp, Canal Manager, Basingstoke Canal Authority
Key points raised during discussion:
1. The Canal Manger provided an overview of the work completed by the Basingstoke Canal Authority. She informed the Committee that the canal had been open throughout the summer, which is only the second time in twenty years, with over 100 boats – 66 of which were new visitors – passing along the canal.
2. Officers were continuing to work with Hampshire engineers for a way forward at the Dogmersfield landslip and they would keep the Committee informed of any developments.
3. Boats were booked in to be on the canal over the winter though closures were planned as three sets of gates would be replaced along the canal. Locks were being cleaned, weeded and painted by volunteers which was improving the image of the canal. Campsite bookings were being taken for next year’s Farnborough Air Show, but despite no air show during 2013 bookings had been successful.
4. The Committee were informed that the dredger had been fixed and was already back working in the canal and that the Canal Society’s work on the weed cutter was almost complete.
5. The Canal Manager informed the Committee that officers were reinvesting in 200m of mooring outside the Canal Centre which was anticipated to bring in around £30,000 per year.
6. Meetings had been held with many Boroughs and Districts to discuss the canal and the importance of their contributions. Additionally meetings had been arranged with user groups to ensure they were engaged with the work of the Canal Authority and their concerns were being heard.
7. Commercial fishermen had been contracted to fish in the canal to catch the invasive non-native North-American Signal Crayfish which were burrowing into the sides of the canal causing leaks and instability and creating safety concerns. It was anticipated that they had caught in the region of one tonne of crayfish and were continuing to fish. Officers were removing independent crayfish fishing licences as it was felt commercial fishing was more effective and did not cost the Canal Authority due to a agreement to be paid by the crayfish they caught.
8. Members queried whether the Canal Authority had been in contact with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF); as they were opening new offices in Woking beside the canal and were keen to meet and engage with the local community. The Canal Manager confirmed she had not been contacted however she would contact them and try to arrange a meeting. The Canal Society stated they had had a meeting with the WWF and that they were keen to work with them.
Recommendations:
1. The Canal Manager to arrange a meeting with officers from the WWF based in Woking.
Actions/further information to be provided:
None.
Committee next steps:
None. |
|
|
CANAL SOCIETY UPDATE
Minutes: Declarations of interest:
None.
Officers:
Philip Riley, Basingstoke Canal Society
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Basingstoke Canal Society provided an update on the progress of the Waterways Recovery Group which was a group of volunteers who dedicated a week working on the canal.
2. The Canal Society had undertook work on the weedcutter and it was hoped that it would be back in service by the end of October to clear the build up of floating weed.
3. It was felt by the Canal Society that more work was needed to be done to promote the Canal as a visitor destination by Boroughs and Districts as many did not mention the Basingstoke Canal within their promotional materials on recreational facilities. The Canal Society requested that Members raise this within their Boroughs and Districts.
Recommendations:
1. That Members of the Committee request the Basingstoke Canal feature in future publications, on recreational facilities, produced by their respective Councils.
Actions/further information to be provided:
None.
Committee next steps:
None. |
|
|
DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING
Future meetings of the Basingstoke Canal Joint Management Committee will take place on the following dates:
Thursday 27 February 2014 Thursday 26 June 2014
These meetings will take place at the Mytchett Canal Centre, Mytchett Place Road, Mytchett, Surrey. GU16 6DD, and will begin at 10.05am. Minutes: The following future meeting dates were noted by the Committee.
Thursday 27 February 2014 Thursday 26 June 2014 |