Bridgnorth Sewage Action Group

May Meeting

2010-04-18T16:07:00.000+01:00

The May meeting will be at Norton Village Hall at 7pm on the 14th May 2010

February 2010 Meeting

2010-01-27T14:24:00.002Z

The next meeting has been booked for 7pm at Norton Village Hall on Friday 5th Feb

Regards

Justin

Meeting 8th Jan cancelled

2010-01-06T08:43:00.003Z

The meeting booked for the 8th Jan has been cancelled because of the weather conditions. We will arrange the next meeting when we have managed to book the hall.

Cheers

Justin

Next Meeting - Change of Date

2009-10-24T17:03:00.002+01:00

The next meeting is now booked for Friday 8th Jan 2010 at Norton Village Hall and not 4th December as previously arranged (please can you try and ensure everybody knows about the changed date)

New Council quiet for awhile

2009-06-07T18:17:00.003+01:00

Assuming the new Shropshire Council remains quiet on the sewage saga, our next meeting is Friday September 11th 2009 at 7pm in Norton Village Hall. If anyone receives communication from the council in the meantime please alert someone from the group and if necessary a meeting will be arranged.

Meeting 20th Feb 2009 7pm

2009-02-15T21:23:00.001Z

Next Meeting in the village hall at Norton on Friday 20th Feb 2009 at 7pm

Update

2008-05-24T22:02:00.003+01:00

Just a quick note to say that things still going strong. Latest information is sent by email to those registered to receive that information (please contact the representative from your village who attends meetings for more information).

Next meeting 20th June at Norton village hall - 7pm

Bills for Major Works

2008-01-20T14:47:00.000Z

I understand from Neen Savage that they have received their bills for the major works done on the plants 2006/7 at the value approximately as forecast last year.

Advice from BSAG is

DO NOT PAY

but attend the meeting on the 1st February at 7pm at Norton Village Hall (behind Hundred House Hotel)

AGM - 1st Feb 2008

2008-01-11T21:53:00.000Z

The Annual General Meeting for BSAG will be held at 7pm on the 1st February at Norton Village Hall.

The Chair, Secretary and Treasurer posts are all up for election and nominations are invited for these posts, please contact either myself or John Glover, the secretary, if you wish to discuss this. Nominations may be made at the start of the AGM and voting is a straight majority of members present.

Justin White
Outgoing Chair

Jan 11th 2008 meeting - Norton Village Hall

2008-01-06T16:23:00.000Z

The next meeting of BSAG will be January 11th at 7pm at Norton Village Hall.

Meeting 21st Dec 7pm at Norton Village Hall (NB: Change of venue)

2007-12-08T11:26:00.000Z

We have found another venue for the meeting - Norton Village Hall.

Directions from Bridgnorth:-

Take A442 from Bridgnorth towards Telford for 4.9 miles
In Norton village, just past Hundred House Hotel turn left into Cheswardine Lane

http://maps.live.com/?v=2&sp=Point.ss02rbgszr5h_Untitled%20item___&encType=1

See everyone there I hope.

Regards
Justin

Chetton hall not available 21st dec

2007-12-03T21:30:00.000Z

The Chetton Village Hall is NOT available for the proposed next meeting on 21st december, therefore looking for an alternative venue and/or date. Any suggestions?

Next Meeting - Fri 19th Oct 2007 - 7pm

2007-10-07T22:09:00.000+01:00

Next Meeting - Fri 19th Oct 2007 - 7pm at Chetton Village Hall. After that I have reserved the hall for the 16th November assuming that the meeting decides that is OK.

Annual Bills have arrived

2007-09-01T13:45:00.000+01:00

I am assuming that I am not the only person to receive a bill for BDC sewage 2007/8 in the post this morning.

The advice from BSAG is

DO NOT PAY

without first discussing the matter at the next BSAG meeting on the 21st September at 7pm at Chetton Village Hall.

In the meantime I suggest you write to BDC and ask for…

a full detailed breakdown of actual labour costs including copies of operatives time sheets.
Copies of invoices paid for discharging effluent
Details of the costs of vehicles, plant and materials including invoices plus explanation of method of calculation and details of operative hours that have been taken into account within the calculation
Copies of electricity bills and any repairs that have been required.
Full details of miscellaneous costs including invoices for environment/consent to discharge

There is further advice from the solicitors that I do not wish to publish on an open forum such as this but we will discuss on the 21st.

The next meeting of BSAG is at Chetton Village Hall at 7pm on the 21st September where we will discuss the bills and what action to take.

Full General Meeting - 20th July 7pm

2007-07-06T21:38:00.000+01:00

A full General Meeting of Bridgnorth Sewage Action Group (BSAG) will take place at 7pm on Friday 20th July 2007 at Chetton Village Hall.

We have been advised by Bridgnorth District Council that they will send out the annual maintenance invoices for sewage in the first week of July. BSAG has sought legal advice regarding these invoices and also the expected invoices for the capital replacement program and this advice will be made available at this meeting. In the meantime...

DO NOT PAY

... without first getting this advice.

A map for the meeting (aerial photograph) can be found by clicking here, or here, or here.

Next Meeting THURSDAY 10th May

2007-04-30T13:41:00.000+01:00

The next meeting will be THURSDAY 10th May at 7pm in Chetton Village Hall. (Please note this is Thursday evening not our usual Friday evening).

Meeting with local councillors - April 27th

2007-04-22T10:41:00.000+01:00

The following councillors were invited, a week ago, to meet us on the 27th April to discuss the issues surrounding the charges for sewage and here are their replies to date:-

Councillor Shineton - Says that if she turns up she cannot later speak on our behalf at meetings. However offering to attend.
Councillor Yeomans - "Due to other commitments I may not be able to attend, but will do my very best."
Cllr. D M J Gibbon - "I will try to be at Chetton Village Hall on Friday"
Councillor Whiteman - Regret unable to attend
Philip Dunne MP - Unable to attend that date but offering 1st June
Councillor Tindall - No reply
Councillor Pate - No reply
Councillor Wood - No reply
Councillor Murray - No reply
Mathew Green (prospective candidate for MP) - No reply

As it looks as if at least two of the local councillors will join us on that day, may I ask that you spread the word as this is an opportunity for people affected to discuss their views with people who can make a difference.

The meeting is at Chetton Village Hall at 7pm on Friday April 27th.

To get to the village hall, from the top of the Bridgnorth bypass...

At roundabout turn onto B4364 (signposted Ludlow, Ditton Priors) for 3 miles
Go past the Punch Bowl Pub (about half a mile from roundabout)
Go past the Down Pub (about 2 and a half miles from roundabout)
Just over half a mile later at the bottom of a small valley on a left hand bend, turn right signposted CHETTON ONLY
The village hall is the first entrance on the right.

Justin

Next meeting - 27th April 2007

2007-04-14T21:35:00.000+01:00

The next meeting is confirmed as 27th April 2007 at 7pm in Chetton Village Hall.

Please note that the meeting that would usually be on the 11th May cannot be in Chetton Village Hall because of a prior booking and will therefore either be a different day or a different venue. Please check the website http://www.bsag.co.uk for update nearer the time.

Reply from David Parish DBC

2007-03-11T15:33:00.000Z

The reply received from Bridgnorth District Council dated 26th Feb 2007 is available from the following web address as a PDF file http://tinyurl.com/23ta48.

A copy of the letter sent to Chief Executive of Bridgnorth District Council available at http://tinyurl.com/ywaheu (you will need this to link the answers to the questions).

Please note the statement in paragraph 17c:-

... we have no intention of subjecting the matter to an agreement with you, your technical consultant representative or any other third party.

This seems in direct contradiction to many of the contracts that residents have which state that in the event of a dispute an independent adjudicator should be brought in.

Next Meetings 16th March, 30th March, 13th April

2007-03-03T15:49:00.000Z

The next three meetings for the group have been set as 16th March, 30th March and 13th April. All at 7pm at Chetton Village Hall.

To get to the village hall, from the top of the Bridgnorth bypass...

* At roundabout turn onto B4364 signposted Ludlow, Ditton Priors for 3 miles
* Go past the Punch Bowl Pub (about half a mile from roundabout)
* Go past the Down Pub (about 2 and a half miles from roundabout)
* Just over half a mile later at the bottom of a small valley on a left hand bend, turn right signposted CHETTON ONLY
* The village hall is the first entrance on the right.

A aerial photograph can be found by clicking here, or a street map here, or Multimap here.

Regards
Justin

Open Reply to John Harmeston (email 23/2/07)

2007-02-23T09:36:00.000Z

Dear Mr Harmeston,

Thank you for your letter of the 19th January, saying that David Parish would look into our concerns.

I have to say I was somewhat surprised to see Tom Clark quoted in the Shropshire Star yesterday saying "We need to proceed with the work to ensure all the plants are compliant with the requirements of the Environment Agency" as this seems to disregard the result of the meeting you had with your surveyors at Brick Kiln Lane where the proposed work was agreed to be unnecessary. It also effectively says that the current state of the works does not meet the requirements of the Environment Agency which is contrary to the terms of the contracts you have with the residents. I have to assume that Tom Clark has been mis-quoted and that you are considering our objections and that the plants do meet legal requirements.

I was also very concerned to hear that only two days after receipt of my last letter you started work at the Neenton plant; riding roughshod over the the wishes of local residents. I do not believe that any of our members want to take legal action, all want a fair and reasonable settlement; however the actions of your officers show that this is not also the objective of the Council.

The Bridgnorth Sewage Action Group has 55 members on the following sewage plants: Boningale, Chetton, Eudon George, Kinlet, Sutton Maddock (Vicarage Lane, Brook View and Brick Kiln Lane) , Bourton, Weston, Neen Savage, Neenton, and Shipton. According to the list BDC sent me on the 15th June these plants have 58 private properties whih means we have the support of about 95% of the people affected in those schemes.

Yours Sincerely
Justin White
Chair
Bridgnorth Sewage Action Group

Reply from John Harmeston 20/2/07

2007-02-23T08:22:00.000Z

Dear Mr White

SEWAGE TREATMENT WORKS

I acknowledge receipt of your letter, hand delivered on 19 February 2007. My first impression is that many of the matters you have raised have been addressed in previous correspondence or meetings with my officers.

I will, however, have the points you raised investigated by Mr David Parish, Director of Community Services, and you will receive a reply within 10 working days from the date of this letter. Should a meeting seem appropriate as a result of these enquiries, then one will be arranged.

I note some of your members are planning to commence proceedings to instigate an injunction.

To assist with the investigation, would you let me know how many members are in the Action Group and which sewage treatment plants are causing concern. A telephone call or email to my Personal Assistant will suffice (Jacqueline Reading on the above telephone number or email cexec@bridgnorth-dc.gov.uk).

Yours sincerely

John Harmeston
Chief Executive

Press Release 19th February 2007

2007-02-18T15:24:00.000Z

The following press release has been issued, embargo until 7am 19th February 2007. Copy may be downloaded at : http://tinyurl.com/23kpg6

Bridgnorth Sewage Action Group
www.bsag.co.uk

PRESS RELEASE
19th February 2007
EMBARGO 7AM 19 Feb 2007

---- BEGINS ----

Following a meeting of the Bridgnorth Sewage Action Group on the 16th February, they have written to the Chief Executive of Bridgnorth District Council demanding they stop further work on their sewage plants.

At a site meeting last week a BSAG member, a technical consultant employed BSAG, Bridgnorth District Council, and Telford & Wrekin (the consultants employed by BDC); the work that was being proposed was ridiculed and at the end of the meeting the Telford representative was asked by BDC to completely re-write the specification taking the work for one site from £14,000 to an estimate of £500 from the technical consultant – about 3% of the original cost.

Given that this meeting showed that the standard of work from the consultants employed by BDC had not been acceptable; BSAG demand that

Bridgnorth District Council immediately halt all work pending further investigation
That a BSAG technical consultant is given access to all the other plants before any further work is carried out to carry out a survey of each plant.
That when this survey is complete a meeting is held between BSAG, their technical consultant and Bridgnorth District Council to agree the work that is required.

---- ENDS ----

---- Notes to editor ----

Copy of letter sent to Chief Executive of Bridgnorth District Council available at http://tinyurl.com/ywaheu.

Bridgnorth Sewage Action Group is a local campaign organisation whose aims are to fight the proposals by Bridgnorth District Council to charge local residents for the backlog of work on the sewage systems BDC own and manage. In addition to recharging capital costs, they are also proposing to increase annual usage charges by about 260% taking it to four times the cost of plants adopted by Severn Trent.

---- Contact Information ----
Further information available from the campaign website : http://www.bsag.co.uk
Contact information:

Chairman: Justin White 07970 080156;
Treasurer: Su Cadwallader 01746 789396

Letter to Chief Exec of BDC

2007-02-18T15:22:00.000Z

A letter will be hand delivered to John Harmeston the Chief Exec of Bridgnorth District Council on Monday 19th February demanding that Bridgnorth halt work on their sewage systems.

Download of the letter in PDF format available at : http://tinyurl.com/ywaheu

Next Meeting - Fri 2nd March 7pm

2007-02-17T17:50:00.000Z

The next meeting of the Bridgnorth Sewage Action Group is confirmed for Friday 2nd March at 7pm at Chetton Village Hall.

Letter to Local Government Ombudsman 16th Feb

2007-02-07T19:12:00.000Z

At our meeting on the 2nd February it was agreed that we would write to the Local Government Ombudsman as a group to ask them to intervene in the way in which Bridgnorth have handled this matter.

It was agreed that we would attempt to get as many signatures of involved residents and owners as possible against one letter rather than send a mountain of letters and the following letter is therefore planned to be sent on the 16th February. Please download this letter and ask people to sign the second page - this should then be brought to the next meeting on the 16th, or faxed to me on 0870 913 2453 or posted to me at the address indicated in the letter to arrive no later than the 16th February 2007.

The letter can be downloaded from:

http://tinyurl.com/2d35tk

Next Meeting - Fri 16th Feb 2007 - 7pm

2007-02-03T16:40:00.000Z

The next meeting of the Bridgnorth Sewage Action Group is confirmed for Friday 16th February at 7pm at Chetton Village Hall.

Minutes from meeting 19th Jan

2007-01-20T17:31:00.000Z

I have published some notes from the meeting on Friday 19th in a private section of this website at http://www.bdc-sewage2.blogspot.com. To gain access please email me (I will need to do some verification unless I already know you, so may be a delay in gaining access).

Justin

Meeting called for all villages - 2nd February 2007

2007-01-20T15:54:00.000Z

A third meeting has been arranged to co-ordinate a response to Bridgnorth District Council's decision to charge villagers for major repairs to the sewage systems and to double their annual charges.

The meeting is to take place at 7.00pm on Friday 2nd February 2007 at Chetton Village Hall and organisers are asking that villagers from the following places who are affected by the proposals arrange for at least two spokespersons to attend.

Boningale, Chetton, Eudon George, Honeypot, Kinlet, Monkhopton, Neen Savage, Neenton, Shipton, Sutton Maddock, Highley, Bourton, Norton and Weston.

Directions available from http://www.bdc-sewage.blogspot.com

We do not have contact names nor email addresses for many people so please can you pass the word onto anyone you know who is affected. We would appreciate an idea of numbers and would be grateful if you could email bdc.sewage@googlemail.com if you, or someone you know, plan to attend (please also tell us which village you live in).

Meeting called for all villages - 19th January 2007

2007-01-06T18:49:00.000Z

A followup meeting has been arranged to co-ordinate a response to Bridgnorth District Council's decision to charge villagers for major repairs to the sewage systems and to double their annual charges.

The meeting is to take place at 7.00pm on Friday 19th January 2007 at Chetton Village Hall and organisers are asking that villagers from the following places who are affected by the proposals arrange for at least two spokespersons to attend.

Boningale, Chetton, Eudon George, Honeypot, Kinlet, Monkhopton, Neen Savage, Neenton, Shipton, Sutton Maddock, Highley, Bourton, Norton and Weston.

To get to the village hall, from the top of the Bridgnorth bypass...

At roundabout turn onto B4364 signposted Ludlow, Ditton Priors for 3 miles
Go past the Punch Bowl Pub (about half a mile from roundabout)
Go past the Down Pub (about 2 and a half miles from roundabout)
Just over half a mile later at the bottom of a small valley on a left hand bend, turn right signposted CHETTON ONLY
The village hall is the first entrance on the right.

A map (aerial photograph) can be found by clicking here, or here, or here.

We do not have contact names nor email addresses for many people so please can you pass the word onto anyone you know who is affected. We would appreciate an idea of numbers and would be grateful if you could email bdc.sewage@googlemail.com if you, or someone you know, plan to attend (please also tell us which village you live in).

Meeting called for all villagers - 24/11/06

2006-11-09T22:43:00.000Z

A meeting has been arranged to co-ordinate a response to Bridgnorth District Council's decision to charge villagers for major repairs to the sewage systems and to double their annual charges.

The meeting is to take place at 7.30pm on Friday 24th November 2006 at Chetton Village Hall and organisers are asking that villagers from the following places who are affected by the proposals arrange for at least two spokespersons to attend.

Boningale, Chetton, Eudon George, Honeypot, Kinlet, Monkhopton, Neen Savage, Neenton, Shipton, Sutton Maddock, Highley, Bourton, Norton and Weston.

The Chetton residents, who have arranged the meeting on the 24th, have already got together and considered four options on how to proceed; these were (1) to refuse to pay anything, (2) to pay the lump sum but fight the unfair contract, (3) find an alternative supplier or take over the system themselves and (4) to agree to the demands of BDC. At this meeting one course of action was decided upon but most importantly it was agreed that support from other villages should be sought; together we are strong.

In order to make the meeting manageable it is hoped that each village will be able to discuss these and other options in advance and elect two spokespersons to attend the district meeting on the 24th; however the meeting is open to anyone affected by the BDC proposals.

To get to the village hall, from the top of the Bridgnorth bypass...

At roundabout turn onto B4364 signposted Ludlow, Ditton Priors for 3 miles
Go past the Punch Bowl Pub (about half a mile from roundabout)
Go past the Down Pub (about 2 and a half miles from roundabout)
Just over half a mile later at the bottom of a small valley on a left hand bend, turn right signposted CHETTON ONLY
The village hall is the first entrance on the right.

A map (aerial photograph) can be found by clicking here, or here, or here.

We do not have contact names nor email addresses for many people so please can you pass the word onto anyone you know who is affected. We would appreciate an idea of numbers and would be grateful if you could email bdc.sewage@googlemail.comif you, or someone you know, plan to attend (please also tell us which village you live in).

Chetton Villagers meeting on Monday

2006-11-02T23:00:00.000Z

Chetton villagers are planning to meet on Monday to try and agree as a village on the next step in the sewage saga.

BDC Housing & Environment Committee Meeting 16/10/06

2006-10-15T13:24:00.000+01:00

I have this morning emailed members of the Housing & Environment Committee the following:-

Dear Councillor

At the special committee meeting on Monday 16th October you will be presented with a report from Bridgnorth District Council regarding the position with the Sewage systems which they manage. This report has a few errors and statements which I believe should not go unchallenged and therefore I write to draw you attention to these issues.

The main issues identified are:-

Last year expenditure roughly equalled income if it is calculated properly
Residents requested a 15 year plan for the schemes - this has not been mentioned in the report and has not been provided.
Figures issued up-to-now have not taken one scheme into account let alone got the correct number of properties against each scheme.
The way in which the issue has been handled leaves much to be desired and does not meet the standard expected from a professional service.
BDC have failed to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act, and have hence failed in their legal duty.
The price for the work has reduced but so has the work being done. What guarantee has been given that further costs will not be charged next year, the year after and onwards. A 15 year plan is essential before costs of this nature can be authorised.
The data that BDC say they do not have (job labour costs for work prior to January 2006) shows a failure to properly manage a direct labour force.

I would ask that the committee...

Request that a full 15 year plan is drawn up and submitted to residents and committee members before this work is carried out or the charging regime is changed; that a full life cycle costing plan drawn up for all components within the scheme; and that a planned preventative maintenance programme is drawn up for consultation with residents and members.
That BDC officers offer every help to residents to assess the position including providing data to back up statements that have been made
That BDC bring the systems up to an acceptable standard before changes are made to the charging regime.

I have requested some background information from Bridgnorth District Council under the Freedom of Information Act such as details of work carried out on my local sewage system over the years, so that I can assess the accuracy of some of the statements that have been made. Despite their being a legal deadline of 20 working days to provide this data, the request was made 30 working days ago, I have not been sent the information and therefore this email cannot be written from an informed base.

Paragraph 3.1 - Background: 17 sewage plants
This states there are 17 schemes, however Tom Clark confirmed by email to me on 11th September that in fact the costs include Severn Cliff - therefore the costs should be spread over 18 schemes.

Paragraph 3.3 - 2005/6 Expenditure = £52,520, Income = £20,145
Despite requesting confirmation from Tom Clark on 16th Sept that this figure includes income that should have been received from properties connected to scheme but missed off the June spreadsheet which was compiled by the “revenues” section AND that it includes notional income from the council properties; I have received no answer. If assume both answers NO then this makes income of £35,314 which is a shortfall of £16,246.

On the 11th September Tom Clark confirmed that the statement of 40% of expenditure raised in income (£20,145 of £52,560) did include the Bridgnorth sheltered scheme Severn Cliff. If the notional income from these 20 properties is added to the £35,314 it gives £53,278 which is £700 more than expenditure.

£20,145 divided by 76 owner occupiers = £265.07 average per household
£265.07 multiplied by 93 owner occupiers gives total of £24,651.12 which should have been invoiced
£265.07 multiplied by (93 owners + 44 council properties) = £36,314.01 which should have been income if include the Council tenants
£265.07 multiplied by (93+44+20 for Severn Cliff) = £53,278.22 which exceeds expenditure if include Severn Cliff

Paragraph 4.1 - Letters have been issued
The way in which this was handled left much to be desired. Figures detailing expected costs were sent three months after the initial letter demanding people sign a new contract. Many occupants initially told they were not affected but late August told they would be. Owners advised by Tom Clark at the Sutton Maddock meeting not to sign the contracts he had previously asked them to sign. Owners advised that equity in their properties could be used to pay for the costs. Failure to identify number of properties using the system no only means failure to collect income for many years but also inflated the estimates residents were given.

Paragraph 4.2 - Some owners written to in June giving detailed estimates, others in August
The “explanatory letter” sent in August did not detail any of the commitments made at the meetings, figures were not adjusted for properties missing nor was a note added to this affect.

Paragraph 5.1 - A full record of public meetings is available
The minutes are not a full record of the meetings and exclude some of the commitments made. No opportunity has been given to the “public” to correct these minutes therefore they should be described as “Notes”.

Paragraph 5.2 - Meetings held to answer questions
Many of the matters raised at the meetings and in previous/subsequent letters have not been answered. I am still waiting for answers to questions posed in June.

Paragraph 5.2.1 - Revenue section did not know how many properties connected to system, since updated
Taking Chetton as an example the current total from BDC is 10 whilst I know of 11 households attached to the system.

Paragraph 5.2.2 - Alternative systems rejected on grounds of cost and practicality
Why should planning approval be a barrier to changing the system, this would not be known until approval had been sought. Each system should be assessed individually and quotes sought from suppliers, initial advise from one supplier is that systems can be installed cheaply with very low maintenance costs on existing sites without altering existing pipe runs.

Paragraph 5.2.3 - Some residents want to install their own systems, put a deadline on this
Whilst obviously BDC need to resolve this possibility quickly, until they provide people with accurate figures for the current repairs, annual charges and most importantly details of predicted costs over the next 15 years, people cannot be expected to make an informed decision.

Paragraph 5.2.4 - Negligant in maintenance of systems, not used income generated on systems
I have requested details of work over the last 30 years so I can assess whether or not this is a justified response. These details have not been provided within the statutory 20 working days and are still outstanding. If this information is not available then it is also not possible for BDC to argue that the plants have been maintained. In view of the fact that the Telford reports from 2004 required work to be done to bring the plants to an “acceptable standard” by definition they are not currently at an “acceptable standard” and therefore have not been maintained properly.

At the Sutton Maddock meeting one resident specifically asked that the following comment be made to the committee:- “Can you clarify will go to meeting and make the point overcharging me hugely for the past 12 years and these points are put to Committee.” The minutes show he didn’t get an answer.

Paragraph 5.2.5 - Standing charge avoids effort of keeping proper records
In order to manage a labour force it is necessary to keep time and cost records for all work carried out and to benchmark these against industry standard costs and local contractor charges. If this information has not been collected the service has not been managed properly. To say that collecting this information is “unproductive” shows a failure to understand the requirement to control costs and to work to a best value regime.

Paragraph 5.2 - Details of Meetings
The following additional points were raised at the meetings:

According to the Boningale Minutes when they asked for the report they were refused as it was “exempt”. The reports however have been released under the Freedom of Information act by Telford & Wrekin so why were Boningale residents told this?
Boningale Minutes: question was asked “You failed in the past and now you are asking us to pay?” and the answer was “That question will get back to committee Mrs Pate will be there and Mr Murray will be able to speak on the matter.” I cannot see any mention of this question specifically in this report.
The Kinlet meeting argued that as owners and operators of the systems to costs for major repair and replacement if necessary was the responsibility of the owner who would then be entitled to recoup the cost over the expected life of the provision. Therefore these major works should be added to the charges for the expected life of the work.
The Kinlet meeting asked if the council had taken note of the recent Government White paper on rural services and protection against high charges – the answer given was that they did not know of this paper.
Much of the work in the 2004 reports was down to Health and Safety matters and this was the responsibility of the employer not the users of the system.
There were a number of comments that rural householders do not get a fair share of Council Tax expenditure to which Councillor Shineton agreed.
A gentleman from a local Housing Association suggested at Kinlet, according to the minutes, that the “if the Council accepts that the plants are in their ownership it would fairer for the cost of that upgrading to be paid by the Council and for there to be a sinking fund in future for them to recoup the money over the next few years, this would be a better way forward.” It was agreed that this would “be put to the Committee for them to look at at their meeting.” The gentleman actually said that the Council should pay for the works, a 15 year plan be created to maintain and repair the plants and that this should be funded using a sinking fund. It was generally agreed by residents that this was a sensible approach.
At Kinlet it was said that Bridgnorth District Council have new plants in other places the home owners have had to pay nothing, they are brand new plants and they have been taken over by Severn Trent at Shifnal and Beckbury. None of the Officers were aware of any plants in Shifnal and Beckbury or any plants being taken over by Severn Trent. Councillor Shineton said Officers would be asked to find out. There is no mention of this in the report.
It was accepted by BDC staff at the meetings that things were “not right in the past”, “Cannot justify distant past. We are trying to put the position right.” It was asked should the Council not put things to “an acceptable standard and then residents pay thereafter” and one person from BDC said “As an individual can identify with what you are saying.”
There was a lot of concern that council workmen do not always work as efficiently as they could and examples of time wasting were given (Kinlet and Sutton Maddock). It was confirmed that staff would be monitored.
Many residents made the point that they were unable to put their own system in because of the size or layout of their properties, they were therefore being bullied by a monopoly supplier with no alternative.
Many residents are pensioners who are being asked for a 300% increase in annual charges and on top of that thousands of pounds for the repair work. How are they supposed to fund these bills.
Residents asked what was the life expectancy of the plants but were told “Don’t know sorry at this moment in time”.

Paragraph 6.1 - Only economic solution
It is not necessary to implement the same solution at all the plants.

I have asked for the costs of the alternative solutions considered but over than being told work to have the system adopted would cost 5 times the money this has not been forthcoming. Given this vague statement I estimate that it would take 13 years to recoup this extra expenditure simply by the saving in annual maintenance charge it would obviously be less when further repairs are factored in.

Without a detailed plan for the repair and maintenance of these schemes for the next 15 or more years it is not possible to show that this is the most economic solution in the long term.

Paragraph 6.2 - Public Consultation raised no issues, BDC can make decision to go ahead
It has been stated that BDC have the right to decide the solution put in place for schemes as they have a “substantial interest” – in the Chetton scheme it is 10% of the total so why should their view take precedence over any other owner.

Paragraph 6.4 - Tenders are within budget
One reason it is within budget may be that not all the work identified in the 2004 reports has found its way to the tender. Whilst it may be that the work has already been done (without the details requested I cannot tell) there is an alternative possibility that it has been put off for now. Without seeing a plan for the repairs and maintenance over the next 15 or more years we cannot tell what the position is.

Paragraph 7.5 - Estimated costs in Light Green Appendix
The current estimate spreadsheet has a number of issues which prevent the end figures being used as much of a basis for estimating the actual charges. For instance Severn Cliff is missing, the plant, material and admin costs are apportioned evenly across schemes which is unlikely to reflect the actual costs when they are produced; the effluent disposal costs seem to be charged twice (in Admin and in the tanker costs) etc.

Paragraph 7.6 - Sinking Fund
I do not understand why having to pay for work before it is recharged affects whether a sinking fund is agreed with the owners. However it would be very helpful if BDC do advise the expected costs of similar repairs over the next 30 years as this is the future maintenance and repair plan that has been requested.

Paragraph 7.7 - Installments
I don’t think there are many people who can afford thousands of pounds in addition to a three fold increase in the annual charge. These “long-term instalments” (as indicated in Tom Clarks letter of 11th September) should be offered to everyone equally.

Paragraph 8.1 - £83,000 to be recharged to owners
There is no column which adds up to £83,000 on the report but if you exclude the costs as recommended in 8.3 and 8.4 below this does come to £88,766

Paragraph 8.3 - Health and Safety work already been done
The details of all work have been requested under the Freedom of Information Act so this statement can be verified but has not been forthcoming.

Many thanks for taking the not inconsiderable time to read this email. I hope that it will prove useful in your meeting on Monday and that some progress can be made towards meeting my concerns.

Justin White
============================

Shropshire Star 6/10/06

2006-10-07T09:22:00.000+01:00

£83,000 for sewage plant repairs

Repair work to Bridgnorth District Council’s crumbling sewage treatment is due to start next month - and residents will be hit with a bill of £83,000 towards the cost.

The council’s decision to repair its sewage works and charge the users for some of the cost has caused a storm of controversy.

There are 17 treatment works across the district which serve 137 former council-owned properties, many of which have been bought by residents.

The property owners pay an annual fee for maintenance of around £150, but the council says the plants now need to be repaired.

In a report to a special meeting of the housing and environment committee, next week, David Parish, director of community services, said the work was essential.

Residents have accused the council of allowing the treatment works to slip into disrepair, but Mr Parish said that was wrong.

“This allegation is unjustified and untrue,” he said. “As with any property asset, there is a need to carry out substantial repair or replacement at the end of its serviceable life.”

The first site to undergo maintenance work will be the Park Close plant at Kinlet, with work planned to start next month.

Mr Parish said work for all 17 plants would cost around £300,000, with residents meeting up to £83,000 of the cost between them.

Bridgnorth mayor, Councillor Iain Seivewright, has written to the council about the situation. He said: “I have expressed my concerns.”

Eleanor Harris, for the district council, said there was no alternative but to charge property owners for the repairs.

Committee Reports for meeting 16th October

2006-10-05T21:07:00.000+01:00

BDC have tonight published the committee report for the meeting on the 16th and included amended charges for the "repair" work and annual charges.

The comments below assume the committee approve the recommendations.

From a quick study the estimated cost per household has significantly reduced on some schemes but have been exceeded on three - however as promised these have been capped.

The proposed annual charge estimate has only changed to reflect the extra properties they have "found".

There is no 15 year forward plan as requested and no mention of this request in the report.

From a check on the original work proposed for Chetton and the tender that has been costed a significant amount has been removed - hence perhaps the reduced cost. However as there is no planned maintenance programme published we cannot tell whether this work has not simply been shuffled to a future year. I have requested under the freedom of information act details of work carried out at Chetton for the last 30 or so years, but even though it is over the maximum 20 days to reply these details have not been forthcoming. One can only wonder why!

I shall analyse this data over the weekend and publish my thoughts here. Copies of the documents are available here http://tinyurl.com/hs5zn.

Please remember that the deadline for questions to be asked at the committee meeting in Thursday 12th at 12 noon.

Justin

ITT for Sewage Systems Aug/Sept 2006

2006-09-23T14:25:00.000+01:00

I now have a copy of the Specification issued to tenders for the sewage works. The ITT closed on 15th September (I do not have any prices or knowledge of who won the contract or even if that has yet been decided).

I thought it interesting to compare the Chetton list of items in the 2004 report as requiring work compared to the 2006 specification. It is a little difficult to get an exact match as I wasn't sent the plans that accompany the ITT but I believe the following:

Item	2004	2006
Replace pump in reed bed	Yes	Yes
Replace pump in sediment tank	Yes	Yes
Proper lifting for pumps	Yes	Yes
Mechanical protection to cables	Yes	No
Repair elect panel door	Yes	No
provide & install lockable cabinet	No	Yes
Warning signs at gate	Yes	No
Replace Grills	Yes	Yes
No Climbing Notice	Yes	No
Replace manhole covers	Yes x2	Yes x1
Provide safe sampling point	Yes	No
Regrade around filter bed	Yes	?
Excavation & removal 9m3	?	Yes
Provide hardstanding for vehicle	Yes	Yes
Erect handrail	Yes	No
Raise lamp	Yes	No
Provide water supply	Yes	No
Reppointing of block work	Yes	Yes
Rebed concrete copings	Yes	Yes
Reform brickwork round support beam	Yes	Yes

If anyone want the details of the tender for their works please let me know.

Justin

Reply to Tom Clark 16 September

2006-09-17T10:47:00.000+01:00

I am today replying to Tom Clark's letter of the 11th as follows:-

Re: FOI response - Sewage Services – Chetton (Your Ref: TJC/MM)

1) Thank you for your letter of the 11th September regarding my FOI request and my letter of the 28th June, I am dissatisfied with the response and request a formal internal review of the decision.

2) In your letter you say that I requested a "breakdown of financial information" however as most of the information was not financial this seems a strange interpretation. It seems a pity that you did not provide as much of the information as possible, therefore may I please formally ask you to detail as much of the request as is available. Your minutes of the Kinlet meeting on the 31st of July confirm that your staff think that you probably have records of the repairs and other work done on the plants over the last 30 years even if you do not have individual costs. I would expect that as a minimum this information would provide the date and description of work carried out since the last time you replaced your computer systems (earlier information should be available from your archive) and you have already said that you do have individual job costings since January this year so I would expect to see that information included in the details of the work from this year.

3) You did not answer the third paragraph request for 'a detailed breakdown of costs that are covered by the "Miscellaneous Costs"'.

4) I am disappointed that you are not able to release the current specification of work which went to tender closing last Friday even though you said on the 3rd August at the Kinlet meeting that you saw no reason why this could not be released at the same time as tenders were invited but without the quoted values. As this date has now passed please would you treat this as a request for that information.

a. I note that your refusal to provide the information is based on section 41 of the FOI act but you fail to provide an informative response explaining clearly why it is that the information that I have requested cannot be provided. My understanding of Section 41 is that this is a “breach of confidence” but I fail to see how this could apply to an invitation to tender (although I accept that the responses may fall into Section 43). If there is confidential information this could have been redacted. As the specifications have been sent to potential contractors it is already in the public domain. I am dissatisfied with the response and request a formal internal review of the decision.

5) With regard to your statement that income was 40% of actual expenditure in the last two financial years, please could you confirm that this also takes into account notional income from council owned properties AND that this includes notional income from properties that were on the sewage system but seemed to have escaped your attention. For instance Chetton is quoted as 7 properties but you now think this is 10 (I think it is 11) - have you adjusted the income figures to take account of the extra three properties that you presumably did not charge as otherwise you would have known there were 10. It would have made the information clearer if you had included the Bridgnorth Cliff plant in the spreadsheet especially as you will need to include the plant and properties when it comes to apportioning administration costs between the schemes.

6) Regarding your reply to my letter of the 28th June, I was unable to attend the Chetton meeting and therefore had very limited opportunity to ask questions at the meeting I did attend as the chair usually accepted questions only from residents of that village; however I would have still expected a reply to my letter especially as it said that your team were taking instructions. I now have that reply so many thanks but this prompts a few further questions.

7) I do now have copies of the 2004 reports under a FOI request to Telford & Wrekin but these only arrived in full this week, I note that my FOI request for the same from BDC has not been completed despite it being made on the 1st August - I now have this information from another source so you may cancel the request.

8) I asked at what cost level authorisation to do the works would be sought from those who have to pay and you answered "We will notify future major repairs…". Please will you answer the question asked.

9) I asked whether you will provide a breakdown of the invoices and costs making up a charge and you answered "We will seek to provide bills"; please will you give a commitment to provide this information.

10) I asked how the costs for work being done by the Direct Labour Organisation are calculated, and at what estimate does a requirement to go to tender kick in; you did not answer this question.

11) I asked why the Council considered themselves to be the sole decision maker on whether the plants should be improved to a standard where Severn Trent would adopt and you answered that "The Council do have a substantial interest in which proposal is accepted given that it is responsible for the cost of these repairs for its own properties"; however on the Chetton system you are responsible for only 10% (or less because I think there are 11 properties not 10) of the costs equal to any other party involved and therefore your argument does not stand up.

Yours sincerely

2004 Condition Reports

2006-09-16T11:53:00.000+01:00

Following my Freedom of Information request to Telford & Wrekin for the 2004 condition reports on the sewage system which I published here on the 31st August, I now have the various appendices and drawings which were missing.

I have been asked to make clear, by BDC the copyright holders, that these are 2004 reports and that they may be out of date and are being updated. Tom Clark said...

I now understand you have e-mailed copies of the 2004 reports from Telford and the Wrekin and they have confirmed that they consider this Council to have the copyright to these reports.I am happy for the reports to be reused provided that it is made clear that the information they contain on particular sites may be out of date and is being updated.

The documents I have are:-

Alveley Test results - July 2004

Alveley Discharge Consent - 1974

Alverley Schematic Drawing 2004

Boningale Discharge Consent - 1978

Bonningdale Schematic Drawing 2004

Bourton Schematic Drawing 2004

Chetton Test results - July 2004

Chetton Discharge Consent - 1971

Chetton Schematic Drawing 2004

Darley-The Honeypot Schematic Drawing 2004

Eudon George Test results July 2004

Eudon George Schematic Drawing 2004

Highley Schematic Drawing 2004

Kinlet Test results - July 2004

Kinlet Discharge Consent - 2000

Kinlet Schematic Drawing 2004

Kinlet Meaton Lane Schematic Drawing 2004

Monkhopton Schematic Drawing 2004

Neen Savage Barbrook Test results - July 2004

Neen Savage Barbrook Discharge Consent - 1969

Neen Savage Schematic Drawing 2004

Neenton Test results - July 2004

Neenton Discharge Consent - 2000

Neenton Schematic Drawing 2004

Norton Schematic Drawing 2004

Severn Cliff Pumping Station Schematic Drawing 2004

Shipton Discharge Consent - 1969

Shipton Schematic Drawing 2004

Sutton Maddock Brick Kiln Lane Test results - July 2004

Sutton Maddock Brick Kiln Lane Discharge Consent - 1995

Sutton Maddock Brick Kiln Lane Schematic Drawing 2004

Sutton Maddock Brook View Schematic Drawing 2004

Sutton Maddock Vicarage Lane Test results - July 2004

Sutton Maddock Vicarage Lane Discharge Consent - 1994

Sutton Maddock Vicarage Lane Schematic Drawing 2004

Weston Schematic Drawing 2004

The Schematic Drawings are not going to be easy to copy in a format that can be published on the web without better scanning equipment than I have but I'll do my best if you want a particular drawing please let me know.

The Test Results and Discharge Consents are all A4 so much easier, again let me know of you want a copy.

Justin

Letter from Tom Clark 11th September 2006

2006-09-15T19:39:00.000+01:00

I today received the following letter from Tom Clark which I thought may be of interest to others...

Your FOl request of the 1st September 2006 and your earlier letter of the 28 June 2006.

In your FOl request of the 1st September 2006 you ask for a breakdown of financial information relating to the Chetton system from the 9th September 1988. As explained at the local meetings the Council did not keep individual financial accounts for individual plants until January 2006 and, therefore, we are unable to provide the breakdown you ask for. Owner occupied properties were charged on the basis of the rateable value times the Severn Trent figure times one and a half, which was a contribution towards the maintenance of the plant but provided nothing towards major repair or replacement. As you are aware the income figures in the last two financial years are some 40% of the actual expenditure figures. I confirm that these figures are based on the actual monies received for the seventeen plants listed in the schedule supplied on the 15th June 2006 and the Bridgnorth Cliff plant which serves elderly persons council accommodation where the right to buy does not apply. The Alveley plant serves a small industrial estate and is not included in the quoted figures at all and will be the subject of a future report to the Resources and Finance Committee.

Given the above I am unable to detail any particular work done to the Chetton plant save to say that it has been maintained in a properly functioning way for many years and now needs major refurbishment. In accordance with the provisions of the Conveyances between the homeowners and the Council the homeowners are liable to pay a fair proportion of the cost of carrying out these repairs and future maintenance. Given that once these repairs have been done we suspect that less maintenance will be required the maintenance figure in future year’s post 2007/2008 should be less. There will come a time, however, when some further repairs are required to the system.

To date we have identified a total of 10 properties connected to the Chetton sewage system but our checks on connections to all the plants are continuing.

Specifications for the precise work at the various plants has been provided by Telford and the Wrekin to potential contractors on a private and confidential basis pending closure of the period for submitting tenders on the 15 September at 12 noon and therefore the information is exempt from disclosure until that date and time pursuant to section 41 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

In relation to your letter of the 28 June 2006 we were expecting such questions to be picked up at the various local meetings some of which you attended.

As stated above we have identified ten properties currently attached to the Chetton system.

You have a copy of the 2004 Report relating to the Chetton system and the specification for the system will be available shortly. As explained above we expect this to put the plant in repair for a number of years with only maintenance required.

We will notify future major repairs in advance but day-to-day maintenance will continue to be billed on an actual cost basis from the previous year.

We will seek to provide bills that give a breakdown of how the maintenance charge and any repairs are made up.

You are being asked to pay the cost of maintenance and repair in accordance with the right to buy Conveyances.

The right to buy Conveyances envisage payments to be made once costs are expended and there is a considerable cost in maintaining the details of a sinking fund. One of the matters to be looked at by the Housing and Environment Committee on the 16th October 2006 is the possibility of payment by long-term instalments, which will effectively be a sinking fund in reverse.

Fencing work is part of the repair and maintenance of the plant.

We have asked all users of the various plants to indicate whether they are making their own arrangements. If in a particular locality a lot of properties are making their own arrangements we will need to look again at the work that needs to be carried out in a particular area. We do, however, expect that the estimates given for repair costs in particular localities in the schedule of the 15th June 2006 will represent maximum figures. This is a subject for consideration by the Housing and Environment Committee at their meeting on the 16th October 2006.

The exact number of visits that each plant will need after the repair work has been done will depend on advice from Telford and the Wrekin.As mentioned above if the number of visits is reduced the future maintenance charge will also be reduced since plants will now be charged on an actual cost basis rather than on the rateable value times Severn Trent times one and half calculation of previous years.

The options considered by the Committee in March 2006 were proprietary systems the
difficulties with which were outlined in my letter to you of the 29 August 2006. The second option was the one put forward to repair the existing plant. The third option was to bring these plants up to adoption standard required by Severn Trent but as explained at the meetings the cost of this proposal was some five times greater than the cost of what is now proposed. The Council do have a substantial interest in which proposal is accepted given that it is responsible for the cost of these repairs for its own properties and in some areas these still remain the majority of the properties connected to the system.

If you are dissatisfied with this response please identify further matters you wish me to consider. If you are dissatisfied with this second response you may complain to the information commissioner pursuant to section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act.

Yours sincerely,

Tom Clark
Head of Legal & Democratic Services

BDC Housing & Environment Committee Meeting

2006-09-05T10:26:00.000+01:00

I believe the agenda for the next BDC Housing & Environment Committee Meeting on the 13th September which was published yesterday, confirms that they will not be discussing the Sewage situation as had been previously announced.

Tom Clark's letter of the 29th August announced that it would be discussed on 16th October at a special meeting.

Agenda for the 13th September available here: http://tinyurl.com/edcpt
Agenda for the 16th October will be published here on 5th October: http://tinyurl.com/hs5zn

Letter to Bridgnorth Journal, 1 Sept 2006

2006-09-03T10:26:00.000+01:00

Will the council pay us?
SIR,
It appears that the district council’s sewerage saga still lingers on.

I am in complete agreement with your last week’s correspondent J. Tuer.

We, as council tax payers, are already paying through the nose (please excuse the pun) for sewerage services to Severn Trent, and we do not intend to “boil our cabbages twice”.

To suggest that equity could be used to fund this is an utter disgrace. Equity, I understand, is only available usually to more senior members of us who you know are already struggling with council tax demands.

Most of us have tried to take care of our properties and accesses over the years. When the need for refurbishment arises, will the district council ask the rest of the district council taxpayers to chip in?

I already know the answer to that!

CLIVE F. BRAY
Bridgnorth

BDC Letter 29th August 2006

2006-09-01T19:10:00.000+01:00

I have received a letter from BDC this morning and I believe similar letters have been sent to all households using the various systems in the District. My letter attached a second version of a new contract suggesting that we should sign the new agreement but noting that we can be charged anyway according to the original conveyance by the council to the first purchaser.

May I urge again that nobody sign these contracts without taking legal advice and perhaps as importantly may I urge everyone to act together to fight the proposal.

Further to the local meetings held at the end of July/early August I enclose a copy of the original Conveyance by the Council to the first purchaser of your property.
You will see in the Schedule at the back of the document that in paragraph iv the property enjoys a right of disposal of water sewage in return for a payment by the property holder of the cost of keeping such matters in good repair and working order. If you wish to retain a connection to the Council’s private sewage system after the 1st April 2007 it will be on the basis of the Conveyance provisions that in return for using the system you will be required to pay the cost of maintenance and repairs.
If you are considering a private solution please advise the Council as soon as possible so that it knows the likely number of properties still to remain connected to the Chetton sewage system.
A meeting has been arranged for the 16th October 2006 of the Housing & Environment Committee to consider the matter further in the light of the local meetings. It will be explained to members why proprietary systems are unlikely to provide a solution because, following the initial survey carried out in late 2004 and with the assistance of our external Consulting Engineer, the Council carried out an assessment of the various options which may provide effective solutions to address the defects and deficiencies identified in the survey report. This included the possibility of using a proprietary system such as the one suggested at the recent Public Meetings .The significant advantages and disadvantages of using a proprietary system were reported to the Housing and Environment Committee on 20th March 2006. After
comparison with alternative solutions this option was not considered to be the most appropriate on the grounds of cost associated with installation, the decommissioning of the existing plant, probable costs arising from the need to acquire land on an alternative site, need for a new planning approval, need for a new Environment Agency consent, new electrical supplies and alterations to drainage connections. In order to comply with a suppliers warranty conditions it may also be necessary in some cases for the supplier to undertake servicing/maintenance of the unit and this is another additional expense. Over and above these considerations there is also a potential problem with the suitability of ground conditions at some and possibly all of the sites where the percolation qualities of the ground may not be conducive for the efficient operation of this type of solution.
The members will also be looking at the question of instalments payments over a relatively long period for the repair charge. By the time of the meeting they should have details of the actual tender for the works at Chetton.
It would be helpful if all parties were signed up to the same Agreement and I enclose a slightly revised sewage Agreement for you to sign and return if you wish to stay with the Council’s system. You will appreciate, however, that given the terms of the original Conveyance the Council can seek the costs of repairs and maintenance from you under the Conveyance provisions whether or not there is a current sewage Agreement in place.
You may wish to take your own legal advice on this matter.
Yours sincerely,

Tom Clark
Head of Legal & Democratic Services

2004 Asset Condition reports

2006-08-31T20:55:00.000+01:00

Please find below a link to the various reports produced in 2004 by Telford & Wrekin for Bridgnorth District Council on their sewage systems. These reports were released by Telford & Wrekin after a request under the Freedom of Information Act. They did not include the appendices - this has been taken up with them and these will also be made available here if possible.

I have been asked to make clear that these are 2004 reports and that they may be out of date and are being updated. Tom Clark said...

I now understand you have e-mailed copies of the 2004 reports from Telford and the Wrekin and they have confirmed that they consider this Council to have the copyright to these reports.I am happy for the reports to be reused provided that it is made clear that the information they contain on particular sites may be out of date and is being updated.

List of these reports available at

http://tinyurl.com/rsm8m

BDC Minutes

2006-08-29T20:53:00.000+01:00

I shall reproduce the minutes of the BDC meetings from Chetton, Skipton, Boningale, Kinlet and Sutton Maddock on the forum at http://ccgi.justinwhite.plus.com/forum/index.php. I can email a copy if you wish - just say which meeting(s) and give me an email address.

Justin

Email from Tom Clark

2006-08-29T20:45:00.000+01:00

Please note that I have received the following email from Tom Clark at Bridgnorth District Council. I take it from this email that the meeting on the 13th September has not got the Sewage systems on the agenda in favour of the new meeting in October but we shall be able to tell when the agenda is published next week.

Dear Mr White,
I attach the notes from the five local meetings held at the end of July and the beginning of August.
I now understand you have e-mailed copies of the 2004 reports from Telford and the Wrekin and they have confirmed that they consider this Council to have the copyright to these reports.I am happy for the reports to be reused provided that it is made clear that the information they contain on particular sites may be out of date and is being updated.
I await the 2006 specifications from colleagues who are also checking the properties connected to each plant.In order to ensure the Housing and Environment Committee have all the relevant information when they look at this matter again, a special meeting of the Housing and Environment Committee has been arranged for Monday 16th October at 6.30pm at Westgate when the Committee and relevant ward councillors will consider an open report in the light of the feedback from the local meetings and the further information then available.Monies expended on the systems in 2005/06 was £52,560 and monies collected towards this cost was £20,145.
In the meantime we will be writing individually to all owner-occupiers whose sewerage drains to these systems.
Please acknowledge receipt of this e-mail.
Yours sincerely, Tom Clark.

Letter 3 to Bridgnorth Journal, 25th August 2006

2006-08-25T22:23:00.000+01:00

Villagers urged to fight over bills

SIR,
Over the last several weeks I have been reading about the sewage battle mounting between Bridgnorth District Council and several villages in the area.

Then in last week’s Journal I read with interest the article on page five regarding Severn Trent’s work schedule to update parts of the sewage systems in the town and all they are asking from their customers is that they need to be patient and co-operative. No bifis or conflict!

So if all these properties in these villages have been paying all these years, why haven’t BDC got the money to do the same?

Strike one for BDC Dirty Tricks, by saying the cost will be going on all council taxpayers’ bills, trying to turn the majority against the minority.

As a council taxpayer, I will not be paying the cost on my bill, but can wholeheartedly understand why these people are so angry over this issue.

Will BDC be subsidising Severn-Trent and paying for the council-owned properties involved in this work in town?

I think it is time we asked ourselves: ‘Do BDC work on the side of the residents of this town?’

Several issues have recently made me question this. The battle with Conduit Lane residents over the building of those oversized apartments, the proposed unit at Oldbury Wells School and the battle with local residents there and now these sewage charges, are to name but a few.

I do hope BDC have a rethink as to what they are doing to all these people involved and if they don’t, I hope these villagers will come together and get themselves a top legal representative to fight it.

J. TUER
Conduit Lane,
Bridgnorth

Letter 2 to Bridgnorth Journal, 25th August 2006

2006-08-25T21:52:00.000+01:00

Twists and turns in sewerage saga

SIR,
The sewage saga still continues around the parishes of Bridgnorth District Council.

There are only a few residents at Neen Savage who are facing improvement costs of around £20,000 and an estimated annual maintenance cost of MOO a year — but only selected houses, when we all use the same service, but could be charged different rates.

There are problems that involve the electricity supply and storm water that goes into the plant when it shouldn’t. There could be a lot of gardens dug up to sort out the storm water.

Kinlet residents also have serious problems with their sewage plant.

The residents of Kinlet have two sites with problems, with an estimated £45,000 for the first site and £8,000 for the second site, with estimated annual costs of £200 for the first site and £600 for the second site.

The larger site was originally built for ten houses, but it now it has nearly 30 houses, plus other various establishments that the council was unaware of.

No wonder the plant cannot cope. It has to have tanker visits every two to three weeks because it just cannot cope with all the residents and other establishments that are on it.

There has been a lot of questions asked, but many affected residents ask one particular question: “Why haven’t they been kept up to an acceptable standard and repaired and improved every two or three years?”

Smiles

Some plants haven’t been touched for ten years and now the residents who have received these estimated cost schedules are asked to pay for repairs when they don’t own it and never will.

There was a meeting at Boningale which affects 45 residents, with estimated repair costs of £15,400 and an annual maintenance cost estimated at £600. It’s a very large bill.

Again, they were asked why hadn’t any work been done in the last ten years and could both the plant and Bridgnorth District Council come into the 21st century. This did bring a few smiles and giggles to the meeting.

There has also been a meeting at Sutton Maddock where they discussed five sites all needing major work and bills running into thousands of pounds.

Where do Bridgnorth District Council think that people find this money? ‘At the bottom of the garden, growing on a tree?’

At one of the meetings it was mentioned by a member of the council that if someone had difficulty in paying, that every home owner can use the equity within their home if they wish to.

This caused a few minutes silence until a rather angry resident fired back, as she had recently purchased her home and had all pipes underground replaced, but at no point did the council inform her that there was a problem at the plant, even when she had permission to• make changes to the drainage.

It seems that no-one at the council knows about the sewage plants or septic tanks, as to how many are using them, with or without permission, where all the pipes go and if storm water has a separate drainage, or if it goes straight into the sewage plants.

It’s a bit like a rabbit warren — it just keeps going.

RESIDENT OF
NEEN SAVAGE
(Name and
address supplied).

Letter 1 to Bridgnorth Journal, 25th August 2006

2006-08-25T21:45:00.000+01:00

What’s that smell from Westgate?

SIR,
Thank you for your comments in last week’s Journal, Eleanor Harris, who ever you are, as you obviously attended no meetings or read any notes on the sewage charges.

‘Sewage plants require substantial repair and replacement every 20 or 30 years or so, in addition to the regular regime of inspection and routine maintenance.’

After I had collapsed with laughter, I realised you had just helped our cause no end.

Our plant at The Honeypot is 50 years old and has never received any maintenance, only emptying once a year.

Where was the regular regime of inspection and routine maintenance? I quote from the 2004 condition report. The immediate vicinity is overgrown with stinging nettles, though BDC operatives indicate this is a deliberate policy to deter young intruders.

What do they do in the winter when the nettles have died down — place a large bull in the field?

BDC say council taxpayers will have to foot the bill. It’s a disgrace and you are now trying to turn the public against us when it is you who are at fault.

You used the same excuse to remove the free pest control service. You reel it out whenever your backs are against the wall.

You never tell the public the real reason BDC are up to their necks in the contents of the sewage plants.

Could it be the stench of incompetence we smell wafting from the corridors of Westgate?

HELEN GALLOWAY
Broseley

Letter to Editor, Bridgnorth Journal, 18th August 2006

2006-08-18T19:17:00.000+01:00

Put pressure on your councillors

Sir,

Further to the ongoing saga of sewage charges in areas around Bridgnorth, I would like to add further comment following a meeting held in Sutton Maddock on August 3. The atmosphere of the meeting, I am reliably informed, was as negative as all the other meetings, where residents had their chance to express their concerns over the pressure to sign agreements that would be like signing open cheques.

Bridgnorth District Council are pressuring residents to pay large sums of money to bring neglected sewage plants up to safe standards.

Residents are, not surprisingly, angry that they have been paying annual charges and have not seen this money spent on the purpose for which it was intended.

In a copy of a survey carried out by Telford & Wrekin Council back in November 2004, it was highlighted that a sampling point at the Brick Kiln Lane plant was recommended and approved by the Environment Agency back in 1995.

Nine years later, in 2004 when the survey was carried out, this sampling point had not been constructed and BDC employees, too, confirmed this.

Why have BDC sat on a problem that can only escalate for so long and then feel they can charge private home-owners for their neglect and obvious mismanagement?

Any residents affected are advised to attend the housing committee meeting on September 13, 2006 at 6.3Opm at Bridgnorth District Council, so that our united presence is felt and see if OUR councillors represent US as passionately as we feel about this issue.

R W. TEAGUE
Sutton Maddock.

Letter to Editor, Bridgnorth Journal, 18th August 2006

Bridgnorth Journal, Front Page, 18th August 2006

2006-08-18T18:51:00.000+01:00

Taxpayers ‘could foot sewers bill’
by Rachael Lowe

BRIDGNORTH district council taxpayers could be made to pay for repairs to council-owned sewerage treatment plants around the area if residents don’t pay up.

The sewage saga is still not resolved and people in 13 different villages say they still don’t have any answers even after a series of meetings with council representatives.

Su Cadwallader, of Chetton, said: “Between myself and Helen Galloway of Honeypot, near Broseley, we have been to every meeting and everybody is still asking the same question. Why have we got to pay again?

“The council have said that if those affected don’t pay then it will be left to council tax payers to cover the cost but this doesn’t make any sense.

“We have been paying a service charge for as long as we have been living in the properties so where has that money gone?”

Action group

A committee meeting is being held at the council offices on September 13 when the council will decide what is going to happen with the sewerage plants.

Mrs Cadwallader said depending on the outcome they will decide whether an action group would be set up.

Council spokesperson Eleanor Harris said: “The council has responsibility for providing and maintaining a number of sewage treatment plants in its district, which were originally built to service the council’s own houses.

“These facilities are many years old and, as would be expected with any property of any extended age, they require substantial repair and replacement work to be undertaken every 20 to 30 years or so in addition to the regular regime of inspection and routine maintenance.

“The council will meet the cost of the work in proportion to the existing council housing being served by the systems and it is proposed to recover costs from the owner occupiers who derive benefit from disposing of their sewage into these treatment facilities, where it is appropriate to do so.

“If the council does not recover the relevant costs from these private owner occupiers then the implication of this would be to pass the costs to all council tax payers across the district. This would be plainly unfair, not least because they do not use the facilities and they already pay Severn Trent to take away their sewage.”

Bridgnorth Journal, Front Page, 18th August 2006

Philip Dunne

2006-08-17T20:38:00.000+01:00

Hi Justin

I am trying to post a new topic on the sewage forum but with no luck. I could not attend the meeting on July 31st as we were away on holiday. However, I have seen Philip Dunne and he is getting involved; initially on my behalf but he is happy to have a public meeting. I am happy to organise this but need feedback on whether people feel it is a good idea.

Any thoughts?

KF Kinlet

[Posted on behalf of KF]

Letter to BDC Chief Exec from Liberal Democrat & Progressive Independent Group

2006-08-14T20:46:00.000+01:00

Please find below the text from a letter being sent by the leader of the Liberal Democrat and Progressive Independent group.

John Harmeston,
Chief Executive,
Bridgnorth District Council
Westgate,
Bridgnorth

14th August 2006

Dear John,

I am writing because, I and the rest of the Liberal Democrat and Progressive Independent Group are growing concerned about the issue that has arisen out of proposed sewage charges to private houses on the Council owned systems.

We hope that the Council act with caution and sensitivity on this issue as it would appear that the Council is effectively in the position of being a monopoly supplier. There stems from this the following concerns:

Is the Council putting some individuals in a position of hardship as a result of this policy?
Is the Council being sufficiently open with the affected homeowners? Has all available information been supplied at an early stage?
Has the Council through a lack of action in the past, placed these people in a position where they may now face higher bills as a result?
Do councillors have accurate information as the number of properties affected and others on the same systems to be able to take an informed decision?

What we are proposing is that as a way forward the following steps are taken.

No steps are taken to seek payment until the Council is confident that its information as to which properties are actually connected to the systems is accurate.
Full information is provided to those being asked to pay the costs as to the nature of the works to be undertaken, including job sheets and timesheets, so that they can be confident they are only paying for work that is necessary and has actually been carried out. The Council would not expect to pay bills without this sort of information being available so it should apply the same standards to those it is billing.
The Council should look sympathetically at cases of hardship caused by these changes. The properties affected may well include pensioners who bought their council houses whilst they were working but are now on low fixed incomes.
Consideration is given by the Council to using some money from reserves as a means of reducing the costs of up-grading that individuals might face. This would be in recognition that the Council may not have been as vigorous as they might have been with regards to maintenance in the past. It does seem probable that this would have contributed to the need for major work now.

I should stress that we are not suggesting that the Council does not charge a realistic rate for maintenance of these systems, just that it goes about this in as fair and open a manner it can. It is clear from the complaints we have received that the actions of the Council, particularly in the provision of information to the owners of the properties affected, would appear to fall well short of the standards hoped for from an accountable public body.

I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely

Cllr Iain Seivewright,
Leader, Liberal Democrat and Progressive Independent Group

Shropshire Star Article 11/8/06

2006-08-11T18:51:00.000+01:00

Villagers join battle over sewer charges

By Simon Alton

Shropshire villagers have joined a fight against controversial plans to introduce sewer charges in rural areas.

Mr Bob Teague, of Sutton Maddock, has urged as many people as possible to attend a Bridgnorth District Council committee meeting next month to register their disgust at plans to charge residents to upgrade ageing sewage works. The council says some of the cost must be met by residents.

These residents own former council houses connected to council sewage treatment plants.

Those affected by the plans are outraged and claim it is the mismanagement of the council that has allowed treatment plants to get into a poor state in the first place.

Mr Teague said: “The council is pressurising residents to pay large sums of money to bring neglected sewage plants up to safe standards.

“Residents are not surprisingly angry that have been paying annual charges and have not seen this money spent on the purpose for which it was intended.

Mr Teague said the upgrading of the treatment plant serving Sutton Maddock would cost him around £1,800.

Council spokeswoman Eleanor Harris said there was no alternative.

She said: “The council will meet the cost of the work in proportion to the existing council housing being served by the systems.

“It is proposed to recover costs from the owner occupiers who derive benefit . from disposing of their sewage into these treatment facilities where it is appropriate to do so.

“If the council does not recover the relevant costs from these private owner occupiers then the implication of this would be to pass to all council tax payers across the district.

“This would be plainly unfair, not least because they do not use the facilities and already pay Severn Trent to take away sewage.”

Mr Teague urged residents to attend the meeting on September 13.

Chetton Sewage Treatment Works Condition Report August 2004

2006-08-05T13:49:00.000+01:00

Please find below a link to a copy of this document.

I have permission to share this document with other residents using the Chetton system therefore you should only click on the links below if you meet this requirement.

Scanned image of document 3.5Mb : Click Here (Best Quality)
OCR into Microsoft Word 908k: Click Here
PDF version of the OCR'ed document 962k: Click Here (Best version to download)

If other people have copies of their report and would like me to make them available to other residents on their system in this way then please email me.

Housing & Environment Committee

2006-08-04T20:59:00.000+01:00

I thought it may be useful to list the members of the Housing and Environment Committee...

Mr I R F Seivewright, Chez Nous, 1 The Croft, Bridgnorth, Shropshire.WV15 5AE cllr.iseivewright@bridgnorth-dc.gov.uk. Leader of the “Liberal Democratic with Progressing Independents” group (LDPI).

Mr R Lane MBE, 107 Bridgnorth Road, Broseley, Shropshire TF12 5DT. (No email address). Chair. (I&CA)

Mr R S Tindall, Mill Farm, Cleobury North, Bridgnorth, Shropshire. WV16 6RP. (No email address). Vice-Chair (I&CA)

Mr C D Bache, 8 Blything Court, Highley, Bridgnorth, Shropshire WV16 6JQ
cllr.dbache@bridgnorth-dc.gov.uk (I&CA)

Mrs R E A Honeybourne, Hick Sticks, Netherfield, Highley, Bridgnorth, WV16 6EZ. cllr.rhoneybourne@bridgnorth-dc.gov.uk (LDPI)

Mr J Hurst-Knight, 5 Westgate Villas, Bridgnorth, Shropshire WV16 4QX
cllr.jhurst-knight@bridgnorth-dc.gov.uk (CWI)

Dr C J A Jephcott, 79 Cartway, Bridgnorth, Shropshire WV16 4BW cllr.cjephcott@bridgnorth-dc.gov.uk (LDPI)

Mr T D Jones, 8 Brookdale, Shifnal, Shropshire TF11 8AS (No email) (I&CA)

Mrs S J Pate, Peel Cottage, Holyhead Rd, Albrighton, WV7 3BT (No email) (CWI)

Mr K Turley, 8 Laburnum Close, Shifnal, Shropshire TF11 8EZ cllr.kturley@bridgnorth-dc.gov.uk Leader of the Labour Group

Mrs T Woodward 48 Bridge Road, Alveley, Bridgnorth, Shropshire WV15 6JU cllr.twoodward@bridgnorth-dc.gov.uk (I&CA)

If you want telephone numbers then these are available from the Bridgnorth District Council website (Click Here)

I&CA = Independent and Conservative Alliance
CWA = Conservative with Independents
LDPI = Liberal Democratic with Progressive Independents.

What Happens Now?

2006-08-04T00:18:00.000+01:00

There is a meeting of the Bridgnorth District Council - Housing and Environment Committee on 13th September at Westgate and they will be given a report of all the points raised at these meetings and will be asked to make a decision as to how to procede. This report will be made publically available 5 days in advance - I would guess from their website (click here) but I will post a link to it when it becomes available (if I can find it). It is possible to seek permission to ask a question and the information on how to do this is here, please note that this must be done by the 10th September.

I believe that depending on what comes out of the meeting on the 13th we should all meet somewhere to discuss what we should do now. I'm happy to try and organise this but would need contact names and email addresses and phone numbers to be able to get in touch with everyone, so please send them to me (see links at http://www.bdc-sewage.blogspot.com)

In the meantime please keep the heat on.

Write to your local councillor, your MP (Philip Dunne) and also

Local Government Ombudsman
The Oaks
No. 2 Westwood Way
Westwood Business Park
Coventry
CV4 8JB

Report from Sutton Maddock Meeting

2006-08-03T23:15:00.000+01:00

A report from the Sutton Maddock meeting on the 3rd August. Three important points:-

Don't sign the agreements, Tom Clark said to hold off until after 13th September
Most pre-1994 purchasers will have to pay the lump sum and increased annual charges
The esitmated for the annual charge have been equal'ed out amongst the systems, this will be actual costs so may be very different.

Once again the meeting was full of negative talk regarding the proposals from Bridgnorth District Council and the way in which they have managed the sewage systems for the last 50 years and managed the communication over the changes they now want to make.

Most of the matters discussed were the same as at previous meetings for instance why has no maintenance been done in the past few years? why should we pay for essential health and safety requirements of BDC's assett? etc.

A few new points did come out however. Alan Workman said that the Plant and Admin costs (which were calculated as equal per system on his estimate) would be actual costs per scheme when the actual annual bills are calculated. In other words the costs of plant maintenance would not be even as now but would be actual expenditure. I would guess this means good news for Highley and Honeypot but bad news for Kinlet and Monkhopton (see my suggestion here).

There was a little more clarification regarding the pre-1994 agreements. Tom Clark explained that those people with a post-1994 agreement had been written to because there was a six month termination clause and therefore BDC had decided to terminate the agreements and make everyone sign a new one. He said that "most" of the pre-1994 that they had checked so far used the wording "maintenance and repair" and therefore these people would also be charged the increased service charge and the lump sum for major repair, they have not been written to yet. He went on to say that some pre-1994 agreements only allowed for maintenance charges to be raised and therefore the lump sum could not apply to them - but the increased service charge would apply. The position with pre-1973 purchasers was not clear. This is an important point as it means that there are a large number of further households who are soon going to get a shock.

Tom Clark said that the conveyancing agreement on house purchase did offer householders a "right" to obtain an agreement from BDC to make use of the sewage system. This was in response to a householder saying that BDC were removing the "right" she had and substituting a "licence". The answer sounded double speak to me but I'm not a lawyer.

I asked whether we would have a right to authorise (or not) any work on the schemes as we were the ones paying for it. This was rejected out of hand with the answer "you will be told what work needs to be done, the Council will decide what is done"..."will seek to notify people in advance". In other words they are asking for a blank cheque and refusing any say as to how this is spent. In all the systems I have heard of elsewhere there is always a cut off point after which the authority must seek majority approval before work is carried out; the difference being that in most of these the householders have some equity in the assett being managed!

BDC were once again asked to consider bringing the system up to this acceptable standard and then bringing in the new charging system including a 10-15 year plan for maintaining the system with a sinking fund. The answer as usual is that all points raised will be considered.

Importantly Tom Clark told people at the meeting they did not need to sign the agreements by 17th August and indeed they should hold off until after 13th September's HOUSING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE meeting at Westgate (all invited but not allowed to speak).

One person raised the question of who was liable if there was an environmental regulation breach such as a leak into a watercourse, Tom Clark assured the meeting that this would be the full responsibility of the Council as owners of the system.

The 2004 report that formed the backbone of the proposal was partially made available at the meeting - in that a copy of the relevent part was given to one representative from each system in the Sutton Maddock area. I would recommend writing to Tom Clark asking for the report as it applies to your area - I have written asking for the whole report and asking for permission to make this publically available (that was delivered Tuesday morning but no reply by Thursday post); assuming I'm allowed to make it available I will otherwise I will say that I can't.

BDC made it clear that they were now looking for houses connected to the systems that have not paid - this was after the Kinlet meeting where they were told the school, village hall and some houses were using it, more houses at Chetton and Sutton Maddock. Tom Clark said that they would be trying to recoup costs going back in time where they were able to do so for those properties that had never been charged.

There is a meeting late next week with Telford and Wrekin who are managing the major works on behalf of BDC and a number of questions will be asked of them following this meeting... Can the work be done for less by using bio technology (one person said he had built such a system for £9,000 for six houses compared to the £24,000 that BDC are estimating for major works on the existing system).

T&W have also been asked to provide a maintenance regime to follow and Roger Mullard said that this would be made available.

Meeting Wednesday Evening - Boningale?

2006-08-03T23:05:00.000+01:00

I understand there was a meeting somewhere last night (Wednesday 2nd August) and that there was someone who recorded the meeting. I would very much like to hear a copy of the meeting (or read a transcript) - it was reported to me that Tom Clark pointed out to one householder that he would have equity in his property - obviously implying that he could take out a second mortgage to pay for the sewage system repairs.

Cartoon

2006-08-03T13:01:00.000+01:00

Kinlet Meeting - Report

2006-08-01T10:54:00.000+01:00

The meeting at Kinlet apparently followed much the same lines as the other meetings and the questions and points raised were the same as others. The meeting was full of questions but very short of answers.

A couple of quotes:

"...upgrade them so that they are operating sufficient to manage the sewage" - Alan Workman.

Costs given are only an estimate..."the estimate will be the highest cost, if it comes beyond this will not be expected to pay" - Alan Workman.

"...people using the plant will pay"... not certain that the pre-1994 people will not pay - Tom Clark

"invest" in the system - Tom Clark

A gentleman from Shropshire Rural Housing who own a number of houses on the Kinlet system paid £14,000 to upgrade the Kinlet system in 2000; Tom clarke said that they had discussed the matter with the Director of SRH and these works were in addition to that money. This gentlemen also proposed that BDC pay to bring the systems upto an acceptable standard and then charge householders sufficient to include running costs and a sinking fund to operate a full planned preventative maintenance programme.

One person attending pointed out that there did not seem to be a long term plan for the systems and asked for a 10-15 year plan as would be required if the system were regulated by Ofwat.

It was generally felt that the Health and Safety items of the major repair work should be funded by BDC as the owner and employer and it was asked that these be removed from the costs.

One householder asked if the rent for council tenants would reflect these extra charges - i.e. would they also have to pay.

The Housing and Environment Committee will be meeting on 13th September at Westgate to discuss these suggestions. The meeting is open to the public but the public are not allowed to speak.

I asked that the 2004 report, the specification currently being written for the work (to be finished in the next couple of weeks) and the minutes of these meetings be made available. Tom Clark agreed to send these upon request (that request was hand delivered on the 1st August).

Shipton Meeting - Report

2006-07-29T09:35:00.000+01:00

Please can someone who attended the Shipton meeting post a report

Bridgnorth Journal 28th July

2006-07-28T18:26:00.000+01:00

Bridgnorth Journal:

Residents of 13 villages face bills for thousands
Sewerage row grows

Rachael Lowe

A row over sewerage charges in the Bridgnorth district is escalating with some residents in 13 villages facing costs of more than £4,000 per household.

A series of meetings have been organised for affected people to find out why they have been sent bills ranging from £1,055 to £4,260 for repairs to their sewerage systems.

Households in Boningale, Chetton, Eudon George, the Honeypot near Broseley, Kinlet, Monkhopton, Neen Savage, Neenton, Shipton, Sutton Maddock, Weston, Bourton and Norton have all been sent bills from Bridgnorth District Council to pay for the annual maintenance cost and the full cost of improvements to council-owned sewage treatment plants.

Helen Galloway, of The Honeypot, said: “In my road there are only four houses and my house is the only one that has been sent a bill because the others have a pre-1994 agreement, which means they will be subsidised by the council. We have only lived there for two-and-a-half years.”

Mrs Galloway said she had had a bill of £408 for annual maintenance and asked to pay £1,987 up-front for the major repair costs.

“I would like to see the sewage plants bought up to acceptable standards. The council have failed with their maintenance, nothing has been done for 10 years and now they are expecting us to foot the bill for it.

“If nothing is sorted we will be looking to form an action group.”

Mrs Galloway said she attended the meeting which was held for residents of Chetton on July 20.

“During the meeting the head of the legal works at one point implied that residents would be cut off if they did not pay the full figure within 12 months. This was totally unacceptable as under environmental health regulations Bridgnorth District Council are not allowed to do this,” she added.

Eileen Reynolds, clerk of Chetton Parish Council, said: “From the meeting it soon became evident that the residents had several individual problems which must be considered with the district council.

Individual

“Many of the technical questions could not be answered as the representative from Telford and Wrekin consultancy service had withdrawn from the meeting due to illness.”

Eleanor Harris. of Bridgnorth District Council said: “The bill for repairs to the sewerage systems is based on the actual cost of works to each individual plant and so will vary. The cost per household will depend on the number of people currently using the system.”

Tom Clark, head of legal and democratic services at Bridgnorth District Council said: “We are hoping to discuss particular issues affecting individual plants at the meetings.

“But we would like to stress we will only be discussing plants affecting residents who have been invited to the specific meeting and will not be providing information on plants in other villages.”

A meeting at Shipton Village Hall took place last night and other meetings are due to take place at Kinlet Village Hall on July 31 at 7pm and at Sutton Maddock Village Hall on August 3 at 7pm.

Bridgnorth Journal 28th July 2006

Shropshire Star 26/7

2006-07-28T17:28:00.000+01:00

Sewage charges in village spotlight

Residents in a village near Bridgnorth will gather tomorrow to find out how controversial plans to introduce sewage charges will affect them.

A select number of Shipton villagers have been invited to the village hall at 7pm to discuss Bridgnorth District Council’s plans.

The council claims that the cost of maintaining private sewerage systems has been higher than charges previously made to owner occupiers who live in former council properties. And now it needs to upgrade the system, it is asking owners to make a contribution.

Tom Clark, head of legal and democratic services at Bridgnorth District Council, said: “Existing council tenants across the district have been subsidising owner occupiers and the council has now decided these householders should now contribute more fully to the cost of the service received.”

A meeting for those affected in Kinlet is at their village hall on Monday.

Council spokesman Eleanor Harris said: “We will be discussing how the scheme would work and would affect those specific residents.”

The authority’s improvement plans could see some residents’ water bills more than double, according Chetton resident Justin White. He claims the council is passing on the cost to certain affected households and set up a website to fight the plans. Visit www.bdc-sewage.blogspot.com

Shropshire Star 26th July 2006

Forum

2006-07-24T22:58:00.000+01:00

I have set up a forum at http://ccgi.justinwhite.plus.com/forum/as this should be the easiest way for people to comment and add their thoughts and information.

Received Email re: Contracts

2006-07-22T12:39:00.000+01:00

Hi we live in Kinlet.

Please be careful if and when you sign new contracts our neighbour has been informed by their solicitor that the council are changing the usage of the sewage system in the new contract to a licence those who already have a contract have a right of use which is entirley different. Under a licence they can stop you using the sewage system easly whereas a right of use is as it says a right of use and difficult to change.

Dawn Jordan

Report from Chetton Meeting

2006-07-21T21:25:00.000+01:00

As many know I was unable to attend the Chetton meeting last night but luckily others did and I am told there was a good turnout. I would appreciate reports/comments from other people there but what follows is as it was told to me.

Tom Clark and his colleague Catherine Wilson were there, a surveyor and someone called Mr Mullard who I think might be a Property Manager or some such position. Mrs Yeomans was also there very much siding with the Council, although I would expect that as she and her team run the council and hence are the people ultimately making this happen.

It seems that those people who purchased the property pre-1994 would have signed an agreement that does not allow BDC to end the contract until they sell and hence cannot be forced to sign a new agreement and hence pay for the major works. However when they do sell the new owners will have to sign new agreements and whilst it was not actually stated the impression was given that they would be required to make a significant payment to join the scheme - in other words every owner will pay either in cash now or in reduction of purchase price when they sell. On that basis I would recommend that even owners pre-1994 should be very concerned about these changes.

The actual charges suggested in the paperwork are apparently from a survey by a Consulting Engineering Firm in 2004 and of course are estimates - the final figures will NOT be available before the deadline for signing. It was stated that the Council would pay any costs over the estimate.

The work, at least for Chetton and Eudon George is for "major works" not "maintenance" some of it Health and Safety requirements and include an open mesh, heavy duty man hole covers, railings, reed bed, stone media and cutting back trees. This was estimated at £16,000 for Chetton with the rest being contingency and admin fees bringing the total to £24,000. They pointed out that the system had done a good job for the last 50 years.

Chetton is showing on the Council paperwork as 7 properties but as far as I can tell has 11 properties attached. BDC admitted that they didn't know how many properties were attached and believed that some had never been charged. They also accepted that some post-1994 owners had never been sent a contract! They suggested that they would like to put a dye down the manhole in each property to determine if that property is attached to the system.

One person who attended had obtained a quote from a contractor to replace the plant, this quote was in the region of £15k as oppose to the £20+ to do the major works. BDC would like to encourage owners making alternative arrangements and at first said that if this happened their costs would be lower in maintaining the existing system and then said perhaps they could join the new system - the suggestion was that they would not be allowed to or that the "joining" fee might be rather high. However in many cases the costs of creating a new system given that nobody owns enough land would be high and given that only purchasers since 1994 actually have to find the cash now I suspect this is not viable.

One item on the agenda was "The Schedule of future costs" but Mrs Yeomans tried to end the meeting without covering this item. When this was pointed out BDC squirmed a bit and waffled but didn't actually give any details.

It was noted that a payment plan might be available (as mentioned in the Journal) but Tom Clark said that this would only be to those who could demonstrate they couldn't pay it all in one go and would only be spread over one year. He said that the Courts would agree that that was reasonable. To me that sounds like a threat; and when challenged he said what else could the Council do if people refused to pay.

No real information was given to the meeting, no firm figures and no real commitments (other than the ceiling cost for the major works).

They were asked why the admin etc costs were divided equally per scheme rather that per household but gave no answer.

I'm told that they were very defensive and on the back foot, that nobody had done any preparation other than the surveyor who seemed to know the systems; they seemed taken aback by the strength of feeling. I expect they may be better prepared at the next meeting.

There is a meeting on Thursday at Shipton I believe and one at Kinlet village hall on the 31st and at Sutton Maddock on the 3rd August. I think BDC rather want to keep these meetings to residents of that village but I really don't think that is reasonable. A number of people who went to Chetton will also attend Shipley and again at Kinlet and Sutton Maddock - I would urge as many people as possible to attend all of them.

My personal stance at the moment is that I am not yet in a position to make an informed judgement as to the way forward and until the questions I have asked and were asked at these meetings have all been answered in full I am not prepared to sign anything or agree to anything. If the work is not maintenance and the systems are all working well then there is no hurry for it to be done so the only reason for the pressure is the bully-boy tactics of the hard-sell salesman. I would hope that all people affected stick together on this, we have more power as a group than if they divide and rule.

Email from Cllr. D. R. V. Murray

2006-07-18T21:05:00.000+01:00

The following email was received from Cllr Murray on the 9th July, he has kindly given permission to publish it...

Hi Justin, I had a similar complaint from ... [a Boningale resident] ..., and went to see Tom Clark at BDC and was provided with information and FAQs relating to the proposal. My concern is that the systems have not been adequately maintained in the past , and BDC is trying to transfer the cost of "improving" them (not even to a standard acceptable for Severn Trent to adopt!).

Perhaps BDC should pay the householders to relieve BDC of any future liability for the systems, and leave the users to take the necessary action to install a private system or if space does not allow (as in your case?) to share the cost and maintenance once the existing systems are in a satisfactory condition. When BDC did away with the communal TV aerial systems for council houses, they compensated tenants towards the cost of installing their own individual TV aerials.

Let me know how you get on with trying to achieve a fair and equitable solution.

David Murray.

Bridgnorth Journal (Front Page) Article

2006-07-14T17:50:00.000+01:00

Article published Friday 14th July 2006:

Villagers cry foul over £3,500 sewerage charge
RESIDENTS' BILLS SHOCK
by Rachael Lowe

RESIDENTS of a village near Bridgnorth have been sent bills for almost £3,500 each by the district council to pay for sewage maintenance.

The Westgate authority is proposing changes to the contracts of 120 properties. Householders connected to the system will now be expected to pay the actual annual maintenance cost, and the full cost of improvement works.

Su Cadwallader, of Chetton, said a lot of villages are being affected by the proposed new charges.

Monthly water bills could more than double due to the authority’s improvement plans for 19-council owned sewage treatment plans.

“Bridgnorth District Council have sent bills for £3,479 per household. A meeting has been organised for Thursday next week for residents to find out why the council haven’t been maintaining the sewage system and why they have let it go into such disrepair,” Mrs Cadwallader said:

“Only some households have been billed. I, for one, haven’t been sent anything and I have had to find out from my neighbours what is happening. £3,000 is a lot of money and there are many elderly residents in the areas who just can’t afford this.

Questions

“Once we have the answers to our questions we will be looking at setting up an action group to campaign against it.”

Eileen Reynolds, clerk of Chetton Parish Council, said: “The parish council is aware of the situation but there will be more to say after the meeting next week when questions have been answered.”

Tom Clark, Head of Legal and Democratic Services at Bridgnorth District Council, said: “The cost of maintaining the private sewerage systems have been higher than the charges previously made to owner-occupiers who live in former council properties. “But many of the sewerage systems now need major investment to bring them up to current environmental standards.

“Severn Trent has said it will not adopt the systems until they are bought up to a very high standard. The council’s housing and environment committee has concluded that it could not justify spending taxpayers money on that level of upgrade and has opted for a more affordable option. Alternatively some residents may wish to make their own arrangements.

“Existing council tenants across the district have been subsidising owner occupiers and the council has now decided these householders should now contribute more fully to the cost of the service receive.”

Residents may be allowed to pay by installments to help them spread the cost.

A website — www.bdc-sewage.blogspot.com — has been set up by Chetton resident Justin White to get people in other rural areas to post their views.

• The meeting at Chetton Village Hall on Thursday at 7pm is for Chetton and Millfields residents only.

- - -

[May I urge people to ignore the suggestion that the meeting is for Chetton and Millfields only - there is no reason why this restriction should be imposed by BDC - Justin]

Kinlet Meeting

2006-07-14T15:08:00.000+01:00

One contributor has been told by BDC that there is a meeting at the Kinlet village hall 31st July at 7pm. See here for posting

I still urge people to attend the Chetton one so that through our numbers we can persuade BDC to take notice of our views.

Confirmation of Chetton Meeting

2006-07-14T08:21:00.000+01:00

I have had a letter confirming this meeting from Catherine Wilson (Assistant Solicitor at BDC).

At the request of Councillor Yeoman’s a meeting has been arranged for an opportunity for residents affected by the changes to the Drainage Agreements to meet with Officers of the Council and raise with them any concerns they may have.

The date for the meeting is the 20th July 2006 at 7.00 at the Chetton Village Hall.

It is important to note here that there is no suggestion that this meeting is just for Chetton (as Councillor Yeomans felt was the case) and I would urge as many people as possible to attend at Chetton so that we can apply more pressure by force of numbers. Of course attendance at another meeting later could be used to get answers to questions that BDC answer with a "get back to you on that" type response.

(Holding) Letter from BDC - 10th July 2006

2006-07-14T08:04:00.000+01:00

I received the following letter from Catherine Wilson, Assistant Solicitor, at Bridgnorth District Council.

Thank you for your letter of the 28th June 2006.

As you will appreciate your letter contains a number of technical questions on which I am taking instructions.

I can, however, advise that the Council is looking into the number of properties that use the Chetton system and if it finds out that there are more properties who use the system who should be paying into the service, then your proportion may decrease. It is my understanding that your proportion will not increase even if eventually a lower number seek to use the system than are doing so at present.

I can also advise that the Council has decided to extend its deadline for you needing to make a decision as to whether you are going to continue with the service or make your own arrangements to the 17th August 2006 and a public meeting has been arranged at Chetton Village Hall at 7.00 p.m. on 2Oth July 2006 to discuss the matter further.

I hope this is of assistance to you.

It somewhat surprises me that they do not know how many properties use the Chetton system, and that two weeks is not long enough to read the detailed survey of the system that suggested all this work needs doing - or perhaps the survey was not that detailed!

I also note that the letter includes the expression "my understanding" which I think is important to note given that it is an assistant solicitor writing, this allows for them to change their mind later and claim it was a mis-understanding. At some point these sort of committments must be made and incorporated into any contract that we are asked to sign.

Local Meetings - Chetton

2006-07-10T08:30:00.000+01:00

As highlighted by Tom Clark in the Shropshire Star article BDC have suggested holding some local public meetings to discuss the proposals.

A meeting has been arranged for 7pm 20th July at Chetton Village Hall (Click here for street map). I understand BDC are sending a "technical" person, and a solicitor.

I would urge people to attend if there is no other meeting arranged nearer your village. If you know of any other meetings please let me know by commenting on this post, signing the guestbook or sending me an email.

Shropshire Star Article

2006-07-08T20:56:00.000+01:00

Website launch in sewer charge fight

By Steve Todd

A Shropshire man has set up a website for people to join the fight against controversial Bridgnorth District Council plans to introduce sewer charges in rural areas.
Justin White, of Chetton, is outraged that his monthly water bill could more than double due to the authority’s improvement plans for 19 council owned sewage treatment plants. He claims the council is passing on the cost to certain affected households. He says everyone in his village is trying to fight the plans.
Now Mr White has set up the website www.bdc-sewage.blogspot.com to get people in other rural areas to post their views.
He said: “We received letters saying our bills will rise from about £15 per month to £35 and we had to sign the new contracts or else. We are holding onto see what the ‘or else’ bit is.
“Everyone in Chetton is up in arms about it so I’ve set up the website to see what other people in rural areas think about it - if they want to fight it like us or not.”
Tom Clark, head of legal and democratic services at Bridgnorth District Council, said: “The cost of maintaining the private sewerage systems have been higher than the charges previously made to owner-occupiers who live in former council properties.
“But many of the sewerage systems now need major investment to bring them up to current environmental standards.
“Severn Treat has said it will not adopt the systems until they are brought up to a very high standard. Bridgnorth District Council’s housing and environment committee has concluded that it could not justify spending tax-payers money on that level of upgrade and has opted for a more affordable option. Alternatively some residents may wish to make their own arrangements.
“Existing council tenants across the district have been subsidising owner occupiers and the council has now decided these householders should now contribute more fully to the cost of the service receive. Letters containing details of the likely costs have been sent to affected home owners and meetings are being arranged locally for those who have questions or queries.”

Shropshire Star
8th July 2006

Breakdown of Charges for Proposed Work

2006-07-08T15:39:00.000+01:00

The following table comes from the letter issued to some households dated 15th June 2006 from Tom Clark (Head of Legal & Democratic Services) at Bridgnorth District Council.

Scheme	No. Private Houses	Forecast Annual Maint. Cost p/h	Estimated Major Repair Costs p/h
Boningale	4	£611.69	£3092.20
Chetton	5	£461.94	£3479.29
Eudon George	5	£423.48	£3636.00
Honeypot	3	£408.88	£1987.25
Kinlet (Park Close)	21	£218.57	£1827.60
Kinlet (Meaton Lane)	3	£604.76	£1976.25
Monkhopton	7	£262.20	£1055.90
Neen Savage	5	£442.01	£1925.80
Neenton	1	£464.41	£3888.88
Shipton	3	£702.46	£3533.33
Sutton Maddock (Brook View)	3	£258.55	£4260.75
Sutton Maddock (Brick Kiln Lane)	4	£361.18	£1832.50
Sutton Maddock (Vicarage Lane)	4	£565.31	£3111.50
Highley	2	£1170.95	£2691.00
Bourton	2	£541.30	£2245.00
Norton	3	£390.28	£1555.60
Weston	1	£659.62	£2410.00

The Annual Maintenance fee seems a little unfair to me in that many of the costs are assumed equal per scheme rather than equal per property - thus the Admin and effluent disposal costs are £10 per household in Kinlet and £135 in Highley. If this were divided by household you would get the following costs per household...

Scheme	Amended Cost p.a.	Extra per household (red=saving)
BONINGALE Church Lane	£532.21	-£79.48
CHETTON St Giles Terrace	£458.78	-£3.16
EUDON GEORGE Millfields Lane	£388.52	-£34.96
HONEYPOT Rudgwood	£262.60	-£146.28
KINLET Park Close & Area	£352.81	£134.24
MONKHOPTON Beacon Hill	£316.29	£54.09
NEEN SAVAGE Barbrook	£496.10	£54.09
NEENTON Meadow View	£485.11	£20.70
SHIPTON Mytton Close	£667.50	-£34.96
SUTTON MADDOCK1 Brook View	£279.25	£20.70
SUTTON MADDOCK2 Brick Kiln Lane	£381.88	£20.70
SUTTON MADDOCK3 Vicarage Lane	£530.35	-£34.96
HIGHLEY Station Road	£690.74	-£480.21
BOURTON Manor View	£395.03	-£146.27
KINLET1 Meaton Lane	£458.48	-£146.28
NORTON Cheswardine Lane	£310.80	-£79.48
WESTON Corvelands	£402.03	-£257.59

This gives a range of £262 to £690 as oppose to £218 to £1171

Information disclosure

2006-07-08T14:14:00.000+01:00

I'm not a lawyer but I note that on the delibrations over this matter at BDC they kept information from the public based on the information being exempt from disclosure under Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. As the meeting was 20/3/06 ithe provisions of that act were changed by Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006 which allows for exemptions under the following grounds (link here). I wonder which item the upgrade of sewage proposals came under?

1. Information relating to any individual.
2. Information which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual.
3. Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).
4. Information relating to any consultations or negotiations, or contemplated consultations or negotiations, in connection with any labour relations matter arising between the authority or a Minister of the Crown and employees of, or office holders under, the authority.
5. Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings.
6. Information which reveals that the authority proposes—
(a) to give under any enactment a notice under or by virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person; or
(b) to make an order or direction under any enactment.
7. Information relating to any action taken or to be taken in connection with the prevention, investigation or prosecution of crime.

Who is to pay?

2006-07-07T11:57:00.000+01:00

I got a phonecall this week from Elizabeth Yeomans and she said that ex-council houses where they were purchased before 1994 were exempt from these charges because of their contracts and that is why many people have had no letters. The next day she confirmed this to a neighbour. Another neighbour phoned BDC legal department and they said everyone connected to the system must pay.

I wonder what the truth is?

BDC Committee meeting 20 March 2006

2006-07-01T10:05:00.000+01:00

I have found this on the Bridgnorth District web site which seems to say that the council agreed in March to meet the cost from their budget.

A Meeting of the HOUSING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
held at Westgate, Bridgnorth on Monday, 20th March 2006

Present: Mr J Hurst-Knight (Chairman)

Messrs C D Bache, P G L Drabble, Mrs R E A Honeybourne, Dr C J A Jephcott, Messrs T D Jones, R S Tindall, K Turley and P M Whiteman OBE.

In Attendance: Director of Community Services, Head of Housing and Property Services, Head of Finance, Head of Leisure and Amenity Services, Property Manager, Temporary Senior Building Surveyor, Principal Solicitor and Democratic Services Officer (LJ).

Also Present: Mr M L Wood and Mesdames T Woodward and R E J Yeomans

...

(b) Upgrade of Council-owned Sewage Treatment Plants

It was noted that this item was exempt under Paragraphs 2 and 3, Schedule 12A, Local Government 1972.

RESOLVED:

1.
that Option 1 as detailed in the report, to bring all sites up to an “acceptable” standard be confirmed as the preferred solution to ensure the upgrade of Council-owned Sewage Treatment Plants, at an estimated Capital Cost of £302,067, and future estimated revenue costs of £56,301 per year.

2.
that the initial Capital Cost of £302,067 being met from the Housing Revenue Account Planned Maintenance Budget for the years 2006/07 and 2007/08 be approved, and that this work be phased over that period.

3.
that the proposed changes to the “post 1994” style Agreements (as detailed in Appendix 3 to the report) be approved, and that this be implemented using the proposed Legal and Communication/Consultation Strategies as detailed in the report.

There is also a note of a report (link here)to the committee from 20th March 2006 which said...

Sewage Treatment Plants:

Essential provision to bring the 19 sewage treatment plants in the Council’s ownership up to an acceptable standard.

The provision will enable the completion of the first phase of a two-year programme of work, with priorities being established in consultation with the appointed consultant engineer.

Wherever possible, costs will be recovered from the owners of privately owned properties that derive benefit from the sewage treatment plants.

See separate report to this Committee.

Reasons: Health and Safety/Statutory Obligation.

There is also a note of a report (link here)to the committee from 14th March 2005 (notice - well over a year ago - why did we not get a letter when they first decided to charge everyone?) which said...

BDC Sewage Treatment Plants:

Essential provision to maintain the 19 sewage treatment plants in the Council’s ownership to Environment Agency’s requirements. A report recently produced by the Borough of Telford and Wrekin Council, under the existing arrangements for the procurement of engineering services, has advised that the estimated cost of work to bring all plants up to an acceptable standard is £430,639 (including professional fees).

The provision is intended to enable the completion of the first phase of a 5-year programme of work with priorities being established in consultation with Telford and Wrekin’s engineer.

The annual charges paid by the owners of any privately owned properties that derive benefit from the sewage treatment plants concerned will be reviewed to seek to recover appropriate costs.

Reasons: Health and Safety/Statutory Obligation.

Is anyone fighting this?

2006-07-01T09:35:00.000+01:00

I am keen to find out if anyone is fighting the proposal to charge households the full cost of improvement works to the sewage system at a cost of between £1,000 and £4,200 per household much of it during this financial year.

Mt present thoughts are that I have not had sufficient information and that there are significant errors in the estimated cost spreadsheet sent on the 15th June. I am also in the situation of not having an alternative solution due to the size of my property.

If you are thinking of fighting this proposal please let me know by commenting here.