The maintenance of the surface of the foorpath that runs along Church Pond is the responsibility of the Highways Department at the County Council.

As many people will be aware the work previously carried out to make the path safe, was substantially undone in the recent flooding.

Alan Kingston and Adrian Hardman were notified on the 9th of August via the following email:

Hi Alan,

Unfortunately the excellent improvements to the footpath surface have been undone by the recent severe weather, leaving the path in an unsafe condition and depositing a large quantity of stones in the Church grounds.

The recent torrential rainfall caused the level of the pond to rise and overflow, despite the recent addition of a second overflow pipe.
.
Previously an overflow of this size would have simply flowed across the path and down into our property, re-joining the natural flow of the stream.

However, on this occasion, the wooden planks that were put in along the boundary to hold the stones in place acted as a barrier and re-routed the water down the path towards the Church, lifting the stones as it went.

As you are aware, the piece of land between Church House and Church Pond, where the footpath runs, is unregistered and does not belong to us and in any event, being a public footpath, the duty to maintain it in a safe condition rests with the Council.

Currently I would suggest that it is more dangerous than it was prior to the recent work being carried out.

Regards,

James Hickman
Church House
Elmley Castle

As yet there has been no response.

If you want to chase them up click the links below and refer to footpath EC540

Alan Kingston
Adrian Hardman

I have started a new section for these questions so they don’t get lost in the irrelevant, but hopefully entertaining, joust between myself and Anna on the previous article.

Points and Comments from Brian Druce:

1. Park Cottage used to be collected on a Thursday in common with the rest of the village (with a few exceptions).  Now we are told that our day will be Wednesday; with Parkwood changed to Friday.  No alteration permitted; it is all to do with postcodes.  On how many days of the week will bin lorries be thundering up the street?
2. Previously there were up to three lorries each Thursday, i.e. Week A was brown bins/purple bags/black bags.  Week B was green bottle box/clear bags/black bags.
3. Will Hill Lane have wheelie bins?  Is there now a suitable vehicle to go up there?  Or will the residents be exempt?
4. We are told “no dirty foil” but no aluminium foil either.  This is unclear.

How are we to dispose of the new energy efficient bulbs when they wear out?  What about batteries from torches, radios etc?

5.   When the green bin is full, may the green glass collection box be used  as well?

FOOD WASTE.   The Council has provided  us with containers allowing us to dispose of 20+ litres per week!  We would have a job to eat that much in a fortnight.  As we have compost bins, access to a bonfire and neighbours with hungry animals, we expect our use of this box to be minimal.  What an astonishing indictment of our profligate Western society.

In 1960 Vance Packard published his book The Waste Makers.  His thesis that business was planning for obsolescence, in a systematic attempt to make us wasteful, has come entirely true.

As so often, society tries to cure the problem by tackling the symptoms and not the cause which I believe  is mainly

a.      Unbridled consumerism

b.     Convenience food

c.      The packaging industry.

Anyone who has been faced with, for example, one six inch nail in a blister pack, or a turnip individually shrink wrapped in high grade polythene, will understand what we have to deal with. The Victorian cottager only had to dispose of ashes, broken crockery, and unwanted bottles, which went into a pit at the end of his garden. No dustcarts and binmen in those (happier?) days!

I have now received some excellent clarification from Phil Merrick, Head of Community Services at Wychavon about the operation of the Bin Laws. (It almost restores my faith in local government!).

Here is a summary of the guidance:

1. You do not have to label wheelie bins with the labels provided at all, it is entirely optional.

2. You may leave your bins out the night before collection without fear of punishment.

3. You do not have to use the food waste caddy at all !  They are entirely optional. You are allowed to put food waste in the Grey Wheelie bin every week and ignore the food caddy entirely if you wish.

4. You will not be charged for replacing your bin unless it is lost or damaged repeatedly.

5. The Council are happy to offer telephone support to clarify if any specific item can be recycled or not.
(I still think the written guidance is full of holes and perhaps the Council could provide more extensive guidance on their website, that could be added to every time a question is asked)

6. The refuse & recycling crews who can sticker your bin do not have the power to issue fixed penalty fines. This can only be done by “Authorized Officers” of the Council, it is not automatic after any given number of “stickerings” and I am assured will only be used in “Extreme Cases”.

I think that if Mr Merrick had written the guidance that was published, many of the concerns raised could have been avoided.

The crazy government idea that not complying with refuse collection requirements is a criminal matter, remains absurd.

Having to rely on the common sense of the local authority to ignore the letter of the law is certainly not satisfactory, but as long as they do override stupid laws with common sense it looks like the worst case scenario will be avoided.

James

I have heard a few concerns in the village about the introduction of the new Wheelie Bin Laws.

I, like many, mistakenly believed that we paid the Council, through our taxes, to deal with our rubbish. That WE were the paying customers and THEY were our contractor who simply did a job for us !

I am not sure how we allowed these Public Servants to become our Public Masters swamping us in a deluge of laws, punishable by criminal conviction, if we don’t bend over backwards and jump through hoops to make the job of collecting our rubbish as easy as possible for them?

It seems to me that we have all fallen asleep and woken up to find ourselves in the Soviet Republic of Wychavon!

I have  raised the following questions with our local Councillor:

Anna “Wheelie Bin” Mackison

who, for those who don’t know, is also the “Executive Member for the Environment”, the Council Committee responsible for imposing all this nonsense:

1) Is there a reason why only two name stickers have been provided to each household for labelling the bins ? This seems a little odd as there are three bins. The Green Bin, The Grey Bin and the Food Caddy. Are we supposed to leave one of these three unlabelled and if so which one? Will we get a knock on the door from the Bin Gestapo if we label the wrong ones?

2) The leaflet says that residents should place their bins outside by 7:00am on the day of collection. Does this mean that residents who don’t want to get up at the crack of dawn and who instead choose to leave their bins out the night before collection day will receive a visit from the Bin Gestapo ? Can you please clarify if it acceptable to leave bins out the night before collection? It would seem harsh to deprive our pensioners of their well earned rest and drag them out of bed at 6:00am solely to meet the requirements of the draconian new bin laws?

3) It appears that there is some confusion in the Council’s think tank about whether food waste recycling is cost effective or not. One week we, the taxpayers, are to be charged for a special diesel belching van that comes and collects the food waste and takes it for recycling. Presumably the wise people at the council have decided that sending this van around to collect food waste is a good way to spend taxpayers money. However, the next week, the food waste is chucked in the back of the non re-cycling van and dumped in land fill. Presumably because the wise people at the council have decided that it is not a good use of taxpayers’ money to collect and re-cycle food waste. Either it is a good use of taxpayers’ money to recycle food waste or it isn’t.  I struggle to see how it can be a good use of taxpayers’ money one week, but not the following week ?

4) On Grey Bin weeks the carefully sorted and collected food waste is to be dumped in the same landfill site as the non recyclable grey bin waste. Would it not make sense to spare the burdened council tax payers the hassle of sorting the waste on these weeks? I know that public officials generally think the citizenry exist simply to comply with their edicts but perhaps you could assure me that failure to go through the entirely pointless task of sorting food waste on grey bin weeks will not result in a knock on the door from the Bin Gestapo.

5) Under the heading of “Damaged, lost or stolen bins” we are solemnly advised that we are required to take reasonable care of the Council’s bins or we may be charged for replacements. Perhaps you could clarify the level of reasonable care expected in the prevention of having one’s bin stolen. Are we expected to keep the bin locked in a secure storage unit overnight, or perhaps deploy a private security firm to ensure that vandals do not get too close to the bin?  As far as damaging the bins, are we required to stand over the Council’s contractors when they empty the bin, in order to ensure that they do not damage it through carelessness or harsh treatment. I would certainly like to know Just how much of my life the Council requires me to dedicate to the preservation of their bins, before the Bin Gestapo reach the presumably unilateral, behind closed doors, with no right of appeal, verdict that I have failed to meet their “Reasonable Care” standard.

6) Placing the wrong type of rubbish in the bin can result in the Bin Gestapo “stickering” your bin and refusing to take it away. Since such “stickerings” can eventually result in a criminal conviction, the public damage to someone’s reputation of having their bin “stickered” is not inconsequential. Can you reassure me that In the event that the Bin Gestapo “sticker” a citizens bin in error, the Council will be paying compensation for damage to reputation, defamation of character, etc ? It would seem to me that it is quite easy to make an honest error in identifying what is or is not allowed in the sacred Green Bin.

E.g. who determines the level of cleanliness that divides the “clean food cans” allowed in the Green Bin from the “dirty cans” forbidden from the Green Bin. Just how dirty does a paper item need to be before it is forbidden from the Green Bin under the wet or dirty provisions? Is a metal jar lid with a plastic coating allowed in the Green Bin ? Is a paperback book allowed in the Green Bin. Hardbacks are forbidden, but the document is silent on paperbacks, (unless wet or dirty). What about a corrugated cardboard egg box ? Allowed under the egg box provisions, but excluded under the corrugated cardboard provision. How about an unwanted mirror, alas the guidance is silent. “Thin card” is allowed in the Green Bin but no guidance is given on when thickness crosses the thin-thick divide and leads the citizen open to a public “stickering”. One man’s thick, is another man’s, “actually quite thin”.  I am keen to recycle, but if I am struggling to make correct judgements about what is recyclable, what hope is there for the 83 year old pensioner whose mind may no longer be at its peak of sharpness.

Is there a process of appealing a public “stickering”, where experts can be called and the citizen may seek to clear his name. Surely the Waste Removal Engineer (Bin Man) cannot be judge jury and executioner, a man whose judgement is infallible and whose word alone is law ?

I will of course publish the replies from our councillor as and when I get them.

Sunday June 22nd

Present: Richard Walton (Chairman), Brian Druce, Judy & Mike Haines, James Hickman, Mary Mackenzie, Mike Taite and David Wilkes Apologies were received from Ray Haynes, Jane Moore and John Sharpe

1. The minutes of 5 May meeting were agreed as accurate

2. Actions arising

a. Press articles Richard thanked Brain and James for getting the articles into last week’s Evesham Journal and Observer. These had resulted in a donation of £10 towards the ‘fighting fund’ from a lady in Eckington (he has written to thank her) and an e-mail from Guy Stephenson, who owns 4 pubs in the county and would be interested in buying the freehold of the QE. Richard had forwarded Guy’s e-mail to group members (Richard’s e-mail of 09/05/2008 13:59). Guy’s interest was further discussed under agenda item 5 below.

b. Meeting with Wychavon Richard, with Mary and accompanied by Anna Mackison, had met 2 Wychavon officers on 7 May. He had circulated an account of this meeting to group members (e-mail of 08/05/2008 22:20). Though Wychavon is limited in what they can do, their policy (demonstrated in similar cases) is not to allow closure of the last pub in a village, a necessary community asset. They would thus put a high burden of proof of non-viability on anyone applying for change of use. Their powers in respect of listed buildings are also limited, but their Conservation Officer and Anna Mackison would make another inspection of the building within the next 2 weeks. The group agreed that using these official council channels was obviously the right approach. Secretary’s note. The inspection took place on 14 May and in consequence Wychavon would be writing to Admiral requesting action on a number of points. But they cannot tell Admiral to clean the building, which is in a filthy state (Richard’s e-mail of 14/05/2008 23:44).

c. Petitions and Pledges James had not yet researched the position and undertook to do so. Secretary’s note. He has now ascertained that there is no problem with taking a petition round door-to-door (his e-mail of 14/05/2008 08:57). If it turned out that we did need to go for a community purchase (though this might be a last resort), David suggested that it could be worth investigating the possibility of getting charitable status for a ‘community projects’ organisation, one project being purchase of the building and getting it restored. Managing and operating it as a pub would be kept entirely separate. (The Fleece at Bretforton might be some kind of model: it is owned by a charity, The National Trust, but it is run as a pub business by the tenant.) Charities Commission information is accessible on-line. Secretary’s note. For the follow-up action taken on this see the exchange of e-mails between David and Richard (latter’s 15/05/2008 16:40 refers).

d. Contact with Admiral David’s contact had said that Admiral did not really want to talk to the group until the Board had made its decision about which way to go. The paper that has gone up to them offers options and the implication is that it has recommended that the Board should choose the option to sell. They apparently believe that selling it as a pub would get them more than trying to sell for development as housing, because of all the difficulties and uncertainties involved in the latter. They have always sold their holdings individually, not in bulk, and place them with 2 agents who compete to get the highest price. They have recently been trialing selling at auction. In discussion it was noted that the market was changing at present and buyers were not going to find getting loans as easy. There was a danger that Admiral might just sit on it for the present and do nothing. However, they will have allocated it a nominal value on their books and if they had to sell at a ‘loss’, it might be to their tax advantage. It was certainly possible that our continuing pressure could persuade them to sell rather than do nothing. David had been given a ‘phone number to call for when we want access for valuation.

e. Viability survey Judy & Mike had filled this in and circulated their draft to the group (their e-mail of 11/05/2008 22:48). Since the survey didn’t result in an obvious measure of viability, Mike had devised a simple scoring system, which he believed showed that overall it did look viable – but it all depended on the price someone had to pay for the building. Comments and amendments to the draft were put forward. It was also agreed that there was potential for various things and noted that there were local people who would appreciate opening for morning coffee and afternoon tea. Emphasis should be given to the historic building aspect – David Phillips might know how long it had been a pub. Secretary’s note The 1841 census, England’s first general census, records the resident of the building at that time describing himself as a ‘tailor and publican’. We cannot easily get further back than that date, but I have spoken to David Phillips, who will see if he can come up with any idea of further sources to check. It was agreed that Mike & Judy would make the requested revisions to the text and that the survey would be held as part of the body of evidence of viability as a pub, should we need it. Secretary’s note This has been done and circulated under their e-mail of 17/05/2008 10:50.

3. Other actions taken. Richard and Mary had had an informal meeting with Nicole Burrows, former landlady of The Mill. She had been encouraging on the viability side but thought Admiral’s price of £600K was just ridiculous not least for a building in that condition. This was more than twice the valuation of the Mill as a pub at the time it was sold for housing and it would have been ready for a purchaser to go in and start trading immediately. She said we needed a professional valuation by agents who dealt in pubs and recommended looking at The Caterer for names. Richard had acquired the latest issue of both that publication and The Publican. These gave an indication of the sorts of values put on pub businesses, though in each case we were talking about current going concerns (with available proper accounts for the past 2 or 3 years) and properties in which people could begin trading straight away – none of which was the case with the QE. Nicole further said that it must be run as a free house to be profitable, but that without being unreasonably tied, it was possible to get loans from breweries at advantageous rates.

4. Valuation: what to do next. Though both Wychavon and Nicole had recommended our getting professional valuations, because of other events (see the next agenda item), it was agreed that we should not at this point be spending money on getting our own valuation. However we should ask 2 local builders (Mark Axtell-Powell, who is accustomed to working on listed buildings, and Robin Eaton) if they would be willing to give informal estimates of the costs of the minimum essential work (roof, windows, electrics, plumbing, bringing the kitchen up to standard, replacement of toilets and general redecorating) plus, if possible, what it would additionally take for a more radical refurbishment scheme like that for which Admiral had got planning permission.

Action: Mike Taite

5. Guy Stephenson’s interest. As noted at agenda item 2a above, Guy Stephenson is interested in buying the freehold and running the QE as a pub. He was having difficulty getting any sense out of Admiral as to price. Richard had spoken to him on the ‘phone and though it was clear that food was not really part of his interest, a later call indicated that if successful in his bid to purchase, he would employ a known and respected local caterer to handle this aspect. He wanted to meet James, who was happy with this and Richard would put them in touch. Secretary’s note: action taken. It was agreed that anything the group could do to facilitate this – or any similar bids – was worthwhile.

6. CAMRA. Richard had now had contact from the local branch. Their AGM is on 20 May and the QE will be on the agenda. Richard was unable to go himself. It was agreed that he would get details of place and exact time and if CAMRA was content that another member of the group could attend in his place, Mike & Judy and possibly Mike Taite would go. Secretary’s note. Action taken, Richard’s e-mail of 14/05/2008 23:24 copied to the aforementioned.

7. Further actions to raise awareness and funds.

a. Mike Taite (his e-mail of 07/05/2008 20:23) had made a number of good suggestions, of which having an event outside the pub to which people would bring their own drinks was immediately attractive. Lunchtime on Sunday 25 May was agreed as a date (Richard had spoken to the Cricket Club to ensure that it did not tread on their toes) and actions to enable it were agreed:

· advertising it would be by word-of-mouth within the parish; Brian had also drafted a notice to go on village notice boards;

· David would investigate purchase of beer from the Battledown Brewery in Cheltenham. It would not be for sale: people could help themselves and if they then wished to make a donation to the ‘fighting fund’ they could do so. If there was a quantity left over, it would be offered to the cricket club for sale;

· James would be happy to lend his barbecue;

· Loans of gazebos would be investigated;

· Katie George would be asked to make a ‘Give Us Back Our Pub’ banner;

· James had a suitable camera for publicity shots of the event which would be provided to the local press and posted on the Web.

Actions: group members as agreed

b. Brian had a cutting about the Live and Let Live in Herefordshire, which had recently been re-opened following local opposition to 4 successive applications for change of use. He was away during the coming week, but would contact them on his return to see what we might learn.

Action: Brian

8. Community project ? Given the interest already being shown by at least one independent purchaser and the difficulties inherent in purchase by the community, it was agreed that the latter should be our action of ‘last resort’ and specific actions relating to community purchase should be put on hold until it was clear that this would be the only way forward.

9. Communication with parish residents. A further meeting dealing specifically with the QE would be needed at some point, but at this stage an extra sheet summarising activity to date should go out with The Link. James was also happy for a section of his website to be used and Nick Moss who runs the parish website would be kept in the picture.

Action: Mary to write summary for the July Link

10. Date of next meeting. A date would be set after the event on the 25^th.

Last Friday, I had a meeting with Clive Clinton, Operations Director for Admiral Taverns and Kate Powell, the local Business Development Manager.

We discussed the planned renovations and the business plan that I submitted. They told me that the previous interested party in the Queen Elizabeth was a TV celebrity chef, who had intended to run a cookery school as well as a high quality Gastro Pub / Restaurant.

The refurbishment plans have been costed at £650,000 by Admiral Taverns.

Such a  high level of investment means that the rent required by Admiral Taverns is £60,000 in the first year, rising to £80,000 in the second year. In order for a pub to work financially at such a high rent level Admiral Taverns say it needs to be taking in the region of £10,000+ a week. 

(This ties in with the business plan that I submitted, which shows that on a turnover of £600,000 a year and a rent of £60,000 you would make £14,000 profit, before tax)

Admiral Taverns consider that this is a very big turnover for a county pub and the original proposal had to be specially approved by their main board. It was only because of the involvement of the celebrity chef (They wouldn’t tell me who) that the deal was approved.

Without the involvement of a well know celebrity chef, it is doubtful that the turnover could get to the level required to cover the rent, leaving the pub operating at a loss.

Whilst making a small operating loss might not be the end of the world, Admiral are also looking for a guarantee on the lease. This means that if the pub fails the leasee is still responsible for the payments of £60,000 in year one and £80,000 a year in years 2 to 20.

With a worst case risk of nearly £1.6 Million and a best case reward of just over £1,000 a month, the lease option is a non starter.
(Unless of course you are a celebrity chef !) 

I think that Admiral Taverns are aware that you would have to be slightly insane to take on the Queen Elizabeth at the rent levels they require to carry out their original refurbishment plans. They did say that they had three other potential tenants to interview, but I got the impression they may have been bluffing !

However, they have said that they would now consider selling the freehold. (This is something that previously they have refused to consider)

If they are prepared to take a sensible price, reflecting the current condition of the building, then it may be possible to buy the pub outright and carry out less extensive refurbishment works.

This would make the pub financially viable at a more realistic level of turnover. (Being freehold it would not be tied for the purchase of beers, so you would also need to sell fewer pints to cover the costs)

I will be getting a firm of specialist pub valuers to take a look at the Queen Elizabeth as soon as possible with a view to making an offer to buy the pub outright.

I won’t pay over the odds for it, but if Admiral Taverns are realistic then a deal can be done.

 James Hickman
Elmley Castle

We have seen with interest (and just a small amount of envy!) the new and improved village halls now owned and operated by our neighbouring villages of Elmley Castle and Little Comberton. So we have decided that it is time to bring our Village Hall into the 21^st Century as well.

Our village hall committee chairman, Colin Cummins, has planned an extensive renovation project for us which includes: re-roofing, including roof insulation, double glazing units for hall windows and complete new double glazed windows in kitchen, wall insulation, new heating with condensing boiler, a revised lighting scheme to cater for day activities and mood lighting for evening ‘do’s, new chairs, floor revamping and overall re-decoration.

None of this comes cheap of course; we need to raise circa £50,000 and Colin is now hard at work with Grant Applications to see if this can be achieved. We welcome the support of everyone around us and if you have a good idea for raising funds, please let us know as soon as possible! I can be contacted on: shelaghi@hotmail.com

In the meantime, our thanks go to everyone who uses the village hall at present – this enables our hall to support itself, whilst providing a useful function room for local villagers and activities.

Shelagh Inglis