Login
Get your free website from Spanglefish

19 July 2019Iken Parish Party Invitation

Dear fellow Ikenites, 

At the last Parish council meeting we agreed that a priority for the coming year was to increase the sense of a shared community in our village.  We agreed two initial steps :

Firstly to create a village only WhatsApp to be called Iken Ho at the recommendation of one resident at our PC meeting.  Secondly to arrange a village party this summer on the site of the village hall on a Saturday.

We have researched a suitable date for the party and, taking all into consideration, have come up with bank holiday Sunday 25th August at 1730 to 1930.  

All offers of help would be welcomed to me at tom@hugheshallett.org  - lets have tea cakes sandwiches beer and cider.  None will be for sale - all gifted.  House guests will be most welcome.

Secondly if you would be kind enough to let Lorraine have your mobile number(s) we can then set up the app. No one else will have access to the App as Lorraine will the administrator and only residents will be able to join.  Lorraine will receive mobile phone numbers in confidence and not share with others.

The app will have a few basic guidelines/etiquette which we will discuss at the next PC meeting, eg positives only!  Offers of help, surplus veg, requests for help, useful did-you-knows, recommendations of good walks, new shops locally, anyone seen my cat, handy tips to stop muntjacks eating my lettuces, lift needed to get the station this morning … and so on.  In the meantime I am researching various neighbourhood style apps which we can move to subsequently.

I do hope this meets with all of our approval but let me know if you have any concerns.  I restate the commitment I made on assuming the Chair of making this a happier and better village to live in, where we support  each other’s wellbeing and varying interests.

It will be useful to know how many people will be coming to the party from your household, but RSVP not essential if you decide you can come at the last moment.  

All best

Tom Hughes-Hallett

 

09 July 2019Alde & Ore Estuary Partnership - Minutes (27/6/19)

MINUTES OF THE ALDE AND ORE ESTUARY PARTNERSHIP MEETING HELD ON THURSDAY 27TH JUNE 2019 IN ORFORD TOWN HALL

PRESENT       

Edward Greenwell        (EG)               (Chairman, Farmer Nominee)

Tim Beach                    (TB)                 (Snape Parish Council Nominee)

Alison Andrews            (AA)                 (A&O Association Nominee)

Jane Marson                  (JM)                  (Landowner Nominee)

Brian Johnson              (BJ)                  (Bawdsey Parish Council Nominee)

Guy Heald                    (GH)                 (Finance and Business representative)

Harry Young                 (HY)                 (Business Representative)

Colin Chamberlain        (CC)                 (Iken Parish Council)

Peter Palmer                 (PP)                  (Aldeburgh TC Nominee)

Frances Barnwell           (FB)                  (Orford and Gedgrave Parish Council)

Diane Ling                    (DL)                 (Ecological nominee)   

Amanda Bettinson         (AB)                 (Partnership Secretary)

 

ADVISORS      

David Kemp                 (DK)                 (Environment Agency)

Jane Maxim                 (JMaxim)           (Funding Chairman, Estuary Trust)

 

APOLOGIES    

David McGinity            (DMcG)            (Butley Parish Council Nominee)

Edward Boyle               (EB)                 (Natural England)

 

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC                                     

Andrew McDonald, Janine Edge (JE)

                                                                                                           

ACTION

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST: There were no declarations of interest.

Frances Barnwell has now replaced Peter Smith on Orford and Gedgrave Parish Council.  Edward Boyle has replaced Emma Hay from Natural England but sent his apologies for this meeting.

 

MINUTES OF 21st March 2019 Agreed and 21st May 2019 Agreed.

The Chairman noted that a meeting with Therese Coffey MP, Anglian Water and UK Power Networks (all of whom have assets in the estuary),  LEP and possibly Sizewell is to be held at Snape Maltings (with thanks to Harry Young for hosting this) but it has not yet been possible to set a date due to the political uncertainty.

 

MATTERS ARISING   

i) The Reliance letter between IDB/Partnership and Trust had been checked by DK and he confirmed that it covered all the legal issues from the EA perspective at present but that once the final structure was agreed it should be checked again by all bodies to ensure all parties were legally covered for risk.

ii) Saltings Projects update:  EG noted that Trudi Wakelin (MMO) had replied with no good explanation, still less an apologetic recognition that the MMO had failed us in this matter.   AA reported that she had spoken to Trudi Wakelin recently who said the MMO were rewriting the licencing rules and AA explained the difficulties with the inadequate system.  EG agreed to write to Therese Coffey MP to see what changes can be made to ensure these delays are not repeated.  

iii) Slaughden update DK said some shingle had returned but there would not be a shingle recharge this year although the EA retain the licence to do so if required.           

iv) SMP policy review phase 3 progress AA reported that there will be a public consultation during September to November on the change of policy from no active intervention after 2025 to managed resilience between 2025 and 2050 on the area between the Aldeburgh Martello Tower and the beach just north of Orford Lighthouse.   The Partnership agreed this was sensible way forward and hoped that managed resilience would come eventually.

 

GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS

i) Structure Diagram

There was considerable discussion on a number of issues with the proposed structure. 

It was agreed it was essential to show that the IDB was not under instruction

and DK confirmed that the documents supported this.Monetary contributions would come from the community via the Estuary Trust.It was essential to show that the community supported the estuary plan and it was accepted that the makeup of the Strategic Board was designed to do this.However, there needed to be a clear distinction between ‘supporting’ and ‘controlling’ and although the Estuary Plan was the domain of Strategic Board it was queried whether the IDB might actually have to be the final arbiter should there need to be a change to the plan. No particular alteration was proposed to the structure on this point.

 

GB was concerned that there was still some important terminology that doesn’t sit well in Technical Group and that confidentially and data protection issues between the IDB and Estuary Trust needed to be agreed.  

 

It was not certain yet as to the frequency of meetings for either the Strategic Board or the Technical Group (although 3 monthly and 1 monthly respectively had been mooted) as this could be determined by IDB requirements who are managing the plan as to whether they needed decisions on a change of course, e.g. due to unforeseen catastrophic event, lack of funds etc.  If the project was continuing successfully there may be little requirement to meet regularly.   GH questioned why the IDB had not been given enough time to consider the structure documents but TB assured the Partnership that the IDB had been involved in discussions from the outset, particularly when Karen Thomas was in post.  There had been considerable discussion and updates to the papers but IDB, EA and Trust were sent draft papers 8 days before the meeting for comments prior to the agenda and papers being circulated.

 

It was thought by some that the diagram looked complicated and whether there was any means of simplifying the committees, by possibly including the Technical Group and even the Key Stakeholder Group (a non-executive communications group) in with the Strategic Board, but the environmental monitoring (integral to the plan), maintenance and saltmarsh group needed to be incorporated somewhere as well.  The Technical Group was the IDB project working group and was required to coordinate on the ground works and liaison/communications with the local community as well as environmental, planning, waste issues etc.

J Maxim noted that High Net Worth donors like to see a structure and efficient business model, but the National Lottery want to see a community partnership.  No-one requires this to be over bureaucratic, but it was difficult to get the balance right.   Who was finally accountable for the whole project needed to be agreed.

Andrew McDonald stated that a streamlined structure was an advantage with community support.

ACTION: A further meeting will be arranged to discuss GB/IDB concerns as detailed above and discuss the TORs but this cannot be held before the Key Stakeholders Group meeting on 18th July (due to diary commitments) so any feedback at that meeting can be fed into the final draft for approval in September. [meeting agreed for 1 August EG, TB, AA, FB, CC, GH, GB, AB to attend]

ACTION: Trust and IDB to detail their amendments for discussion on 1st August

JE suggested that the process of how the interaction between various committees would work needed to be documented.  Draft to be agreed.

It was agreed it was important to keep the words ‘community partnership’ near the top of the structure documents because this confers a certain status on us at national level, and this partnership has been seen as a beacon site of success for community partnerships.     

It was suggested that the Strategic Board could be called the Community Board and the Technical Group could revert back to being called the Project Support Team.   These suggestions will be discussed on August 1st.

Reconstitution of the Estuary Trust

The Trust would like the Partnership to relinquish their ‘share’ in the Trust so that the Trust is managed completely independently.  The Trust constitution would require amending however, as the Partnership is the sole member of The Trust, only the Partnership can agree to changes.   Although the Trust has already sought lawyer’s advice, the Partnership has not yet agreed to this change as this needs to be discussed by parish councils, AO Association trustees etc for their views, although EG thought that in principle this was a possibility.  

AA made the point that today’s discussion was about getting the right relationship between the Strategic Board and the IDB as the Board was responsible for the strategic management of the project should there be no funds or a catastrophic surge during works and a new direction was called for.  However, there was nothing in the papers about the change of relationship between the Partnership as the member of the Trust and there was a concern that if the Trust were independent in years ahead Trustees could go down a divergent path.  The Partnership needed to be fully informed of all the issues and it should be fully discussed.    JE noted it was a complicated constitution at present, which was off putting to prospective trustees, but there could be a range of controls or letters of understanding between the Strategic Board and Trustees which might make joining as a trustee more appealing.

ACTION: Awaiting responses from KSG, parish councils, Association.   The Trust agreed that when/if required, a draft letter of instruction to redraft the constitution would be agreed by the Partnership before being sent to lawyers.

The draft programme was discussed and a date will be set for a September Strategic Board briefing once agreement had been reached on the structure and people to attend but the date of Thursday 14th November (2pm venue to be agreed) was provisionally set for the first Strategic Board Meeting.

 

IMPLEMENTATION GROUP REPORT

i) Update on IDB draft business case submission                                           

GB reported that the IDB had completed the assessments for the economics and that there had been further positive guidance from the Treasury on health & wellbeing and sense of place which was linked to the 25-year plan.  Jacobs had completed the environment assessment and NE had agreed to send a letter of comfort supporting the business case.  As there were protected species in Iken (avocets and march harriers) there needed to be a programme of stage 1 habitats assessments.  Discussions were currently underway to decide if it was necessary to make a planning application.   GB estimated he was 3 weeks away from submission to the EA, which was a month behind schedule.   However, the second business case for the lower estuary should be less complicated as a considerable amount of the work (economics etc) has already been completed for the upper estuary business case which would still be relevant for the lower estuary.   Climate change and sea level rise and consequent coastal squeeze could be an issue for the lower estuary but potentially work at Boyton could be re-engineered but any coastal squeeze issues were some way off.

ii) EA/RFCC Annual Review - National Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy for England

DK briefly discussed the RFCC annual review – where the EA go nationally in the next 5-30 years.   The public consultation ends on 4th July.   If you have views please ensure they are sent to the EA on : https://consult.environment-agency.gov.uk/fcrm/national-strategy-public/

iii) Draft response to EA Annual Review

AA explained that her draft response (as attached in the agenda papers) focused on AOEP views within the Alde and Ore estuary.   The Estuary Plan already has a strategy of resilience and adaptation, but we need the money!   AA also thought it would be worth mentioning the shingle engine for Aldeburgh under innovations so that it was not lost.  Other Partnerships had agreed to confer on responses to get a common message.  There will be an amends as below:

‘’Flood defence is a public good. The strategy should be used as an opportunity to look at new, additional or less constrained methods of funding including contributions from developments. There should also be legislation facilitating particular local taxes, in particular, as well as a local Council Tax or levy, a visitors’ tax, in areas where tourism is a major part of the economy and managing flooding and erosion is in the interest of residents and visitors alike.

The national budget should be increased to meet the £1billion a year needed in traditional and coastal defences to ensure that adaptation and resilience are built in positively and there are not simply projects patching over the cracks.’’

It was agreed the draft was supported by the Partnership and AA was asked to send it.

Precept – although some parishes had legal difficulties JMarson thought this was much more possible now with a new structure at East Suffolk Council and it would be worthwhile discussing this further as 70% of the residents at Snape had supported an increase in the precept for flood defences.  AA agreed to send to JM draft.

 

FUNDING GROUP REPORT          

The Flotilla was 2/3rds full and sponsorships had covered the costs.   Match funding of £20,000 had been obtained which was extra to Garfield Weston’s £100,000 which is time limited to 2 years.

Pub Quiz on 22nd November:  more sponsors are required – and group of people to match fund – If you would like to donate please discuss with Jane Maxim at the Estuary Trust.

There will be a Trust presence at the Aldeburgh Carnival and Orford Flower Show and TB suggested the Snape Village Fete on 3rd August.

JM also reported that there had been a preliminary meeting with the National Lottery Fund and also with the RSPB who now viewed the Estuary Plan more positively and were keen to collaborate with the HLF application as their Boyton applications was unsuccessful.

 

7.

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

Coastal Path

AA understood that NE would be talking to landowners until next spring, but NE had agreed to come to Snape Maltings on 17th July at 6.30 to explain progress so far and their future plans. It will be a presentation and questions evening.  

8.

DATE OF NEXT MEETING:        

Thursday 19th September 2pm OTH

Thursday 14th November        First Strategic Board Meeting 2pm venue to be agreed (provisional date)

 

02 June 2019Minutes of the Iken Parish Council meeting held on Thursday 7th February 2019

The meeting took place at Snape Village Hall commencing at 6pm

Present

Cllrs Dr Norman Johnson (Chair), Loulou Cooke, Kate Kilburn and Colin Chamberlain.
Annabel Chamberlain (deputising for the Clerk)

Also in attendance: - David and Sue Spindler, Paul Davis, Jonathan and Audrey Rutherford

Apologies
Cllr Hugh Waterer, Cllr Sir Thomas Hughes-Hallett, Lorraine Lloyd (Clerk), Lady Gieve and Karen Thomas (IDB)

The Chairman welcomed Kate Kilburn to the council.

Councillors’ Declarations of Interest
All have an interest in the river walls and the Chairman stated that he and Colin Chamberlain had met Mr Luigi Beltrandi who is mentioned in connection with the Village Hall.

Minutes of the Previous Meeting and Matters Arising
The Minutes of the meeting held on Friday 9th November were agreed a true record.  They were duly signed and dated by the Chairman.

River Defences
Colin Chamberlain had attended his first meeting as Iken representative on the AOEP.  He updated the meeting with the news that there would be a drop-in session on Wednesday, 27th February 2019, 2–8pm at the Trask Café, Snape Maltings with a presentation at 6pm where the costs of the works will be revealed for the first time.  The Upper Estuary costs are £8.4m which includes £4.8m at Iken.  The Business Case will be agreed this year with mitigation and construction starting in Snape in about one year followed by Iken and Aldeburgh soon after.  The Upper Estuary works will take some four years then the Lower Estuary (including Orford) another four years after that. In the meantime some £300k of the £650k David Andren fund may well be used to upgrade the walls around Orford Quay. 

All walls will be constructed to a high standard – three metres wide which will allow vehicles to move along the length of the wall.  There is no need for any more clay deliveries at Iken although, owing to the quantities involved, it is thought some may need to be moved around the estuary.  The costs have risen substantially but then so has the projected amount to be made available by the government (FDGIA – Flood Defences Grant in Aid) – in the region of some £10m. There has been a large donation from the Garfield Weston Foundation which might be topped up with match funding. Fundraising will begin again in earnest soon and with it, the need to revisit Enabling Development.

Karen Thomas had nothing new to report about the enquiry into the clay deliveries, she sent her apologies but she has plans to be at our AGM in May and update us with further news then.

Letters to Households Surveyed
Norman Johnson said that the seven households considered at greater risk of flooding as a result of the construction works in the Upper Estuary, ie not those already at risk, will be receiving letters the week beginning 10th February outlining what steps will be taken to mitigate the risk to their homes.   The aim is for these houses to be at no greater risk of flooding than if the works on the Upper Estuary did not take place.

Council Tax Precept
Colin Chamberlain noted that while Ray Herring had suggested at last year’s AGM the village explore the possibility of fundraising through raising the precept, the East Suffolk Legal Affairs and Monitoring Officer, Hilary Slater, says this should not be done unless the qualifying conditions under the 2011 Representation of the People Act are satisfied.

Village Hall
Andrew Dennis and Liz Stevens had been paid £200 to clear the brambles and ivy from the walls of the village hall.  It was agreed that they had done a very good job.

Norman Johnson had received an enquiry from Mr Luigi Beltrandi of Friston about the possible purchase of the village hall and surrounding land.  Having received permission from the other councillors, Norman had sent Mr Beltrandi the letter the council had received from Suffolk Coastal District Council of 13 June 2017 regarding the possibility of change of use and development.  Mr Beltrandi was to update Norman Johnson in time for the meeting but had not done so, thus there was nothing to report.   Colin Chamberlain who also knows Mr Beltrandi spoke about the need to speak to the Charity Commission as at present the village hall is held by the Parish Council in charitable trust for the villagers of Iken.  A change to allow for the sale of the property would need to be approved by the Charity Commission so that any monies (from bids obtained on the open market) could be paid to the AOET for the river defences.  Colin Chamberlain had mentioned to Mr Beltrandi that some while ago John Hailes had spoken about contributing (at agricultural value) a piece of land alongside which would make a more attractive package for sale and put greater distance between any new dwelling and the nearest neighbours.  However it is not known if this offer still stood.

Broadband
Loulou Cooke gave an update about the offer Iken PCC had received from Fram Broadband to pay £200 per annum to install an aerial on the church tower which will provide broadband for an estimated five houses currently without serviceable broadband access at the moment and enhance speeds for current customers.  She was concerned that having agreed to the aerial it might be excess to requirements should BT’s Superfast system be rolled out soon. The Parish Council indicated they were in favour of this new aerial despite the fact that BT have laid trunking through the village although as yet there is no sign of cabling.  Norman Johnson has been in contact with Wil Gibson about this rollout but has not received a response.   BT broadband may suddenly become tomorrow at short notice but this could be years ahead.  The feeling of the meeting was that Fram Broadband was a good intermediate measure despite concerns raised about contractual commitments. 

Roads/Potholes
There was an acknowledgement that the worst pothole at the crossroads had been filled but that the infilling on the road to the church was degrading again as were several areas on the LH side opposite Decoy Cottage.

Noticeboard
Lorraine’s carpenter friend, Kevin Smith, had repaired the noticeboard which had blown off its hinges and was damaged.  All expressed gratitude for the promptness of the repair.  However, Kevin had said that he could not totally guarantee the repair because he had glued a section on site rather than take the noticeboard away to replace the worst part of a damaged section.   The expensive pin board could not be left uncovered so an instant decision had needed to be made.  Kevin had invoiced a nominal charge of £60 to cover his material costs.   It was agreed that for the time being we should do nothing further.  We were grateful for Lorraine’s speedy help in this matter.

Resuscitation Training
Norman Johnson reported that Carl Carrington would give a refresher course on the defibrillator at 5pm on Thursday, May 16th at the Hill Farm Office (entrance via the cattle yard) courtesy of Richard and Natasha Mann.  Norman had replaced the pad in the defibrillator which had expired.

Public Forum
Annabel Chamberlain told the meeting that the final date for responses to the Stage 3 of the Sizewell C consultation was Friday, 29th March.  She has the summary document and USB but villagers could also view the information online and receive hard copies on request.

Friston Substation.  Snape Parish Council has invited those concerned about the potential heavy traffic which may be caused – supposedly hundreds of lorries per day for years - to a meeting at Snape Village Hall on Friday, 8th March.  Two representatives of Scottish Renewables will be in attendance.

Parish Council Elections
These will take place on Thursday, 3rd May 2019 at Sudbourne Village Hall.

All places on the council are up for election.

Date of Next Meeting
Friday 17th May - AGM  Iken Village Hall

Finish time  6.52pm

View All Stories




Click for Map
site map | cookie policy | privacy policy