Draft EIA SMR and EQIA SMR consultation, July 2017 – Bramley Parish Council response


This gallery contains 1 photo.

Dear Sir I am in receipt of a wrongly addressed letter, referring to the above ‘consultation’. I eventually found the EIA SMR document of 332 pages and the EQIA SMR document of 61 pages on the hs2 website, for which … Continue reading

Bramley Dog Dirt Dispute Becomes Public

Rotherham Politics brings you this lengthy posting (Sorry) of a series of emails documenting the growing dispute between Bramley parish council and Rotherham MBC.

We can only bring you this information because of our sources public spiritedness, our eternal gratitude goes to them. Remember, our readers are our ‘eyes and ears’, please let us know if you have something that would be of interest to readers.

The exchange in full:

Dear All

As you may know, Bramley Parish Council is in dispute with Rotherham Council over its refusal to empty its dog waste bins, which it erected on the Flash Lane recreation ground and which it has maintained ever since.

As such, the Parish Council has prepared the following communication, which is issued to all enquiries relating to the matter.

Yours faithfully

Robert Foulds
Clerk to Bramley Parish Council

Dear concerned resident

Regarding the removal of dog waste bins on the Flash Lane Recreation Ground.

Up until the beginning of this year, Rotherham MBC would cut the grass on the recreation ground, set out and maintain the football pitches, pick litter from the children’s playground, empty the litter bins and empty the dog waste bins, and this had been an arrangement that Rotherham MBC instigated about 25yrs ago, in spite of the land belonging to Bramley Parish Council.

With specific regard to the dog waste bins, which served dog walkers on both the recreation ground and those using the verge on Flash Lane – these were instated approx. 5yrs ago by Rotherham MBC and thereafter emptied and maintained by them. For information, dog faeces is classed as ‘hygiene’ waste and requires specialist handling and treatment prior to disposal.

During last year however, Rotherham MBC advised that they no longer wished to continue with their arrangement and that they would no longer cut the grass and pick up litter on the playground free of charge, and they quoted a fee of £6497.80p per annum for those services – see attached quote.

The Parish Council, as it is reasonably and indeed legally obligated, consequently drew up a specification on the basis of Rotherham MBC’s quotation and sought tenders from 3no. alternative service suppliers  –  the accepted quote for the same works was approximately one third the amount that Rotherham MBC intended to charge. Therefore from last month, grass cutting, pitch marking and litter picking was to be taken over by the Parish Council and the incurred costs to residents will be approx. £2000 per annum.

A few weeks ago the litter bins and dog waste bins on the recreation ground became noticeably full and an associated incident occurred, and therefore Rotherham MBC were contacted and their response, in essence, was to advise that the PC had not responded to previous correspondence on the issue of grounds maintenance, which was wrong – see emails below, and they also claimed that bin emptying duties were included in the works that they had quoted for, which was equally wrong – see attached quotation for grounds maintenance works as prepared from Rotherham MBC.

Rotherham MBC was taken to task about their position in the matter and reminded that they still held the keys to the litter bins in the playground and that the dog waste bins had been erected by them and thereafter maintained by them, and that they had not in any way alluded to the cessation of any bin emptying services during the contract quotation process.

Rotherham MBC’s response to the dog waste bin service, was to turn up one morning, on or about 27th June, enter onto the Parish Council’s recreation ground without permission and remove them.

The dog waste bins located at the entrance to the recreation ground on Bentley Road remains in place, because that area of land belongs to Rotherham MBC and the one on Finch Gardens also remains, presumably because it is an area of land that RMBC considers public space.

Regrettably, Rotherham Council has seen it appropriate to remove dog waste bins that served areas other than the Parish Council’s recreation ground for reasons known only to themselves, but whose actions have resulted in increased health risks to the residents, and particularly children, of the parish – not that it had been a great idea to erect them adjacent children’s play areas in the first place!.

There is no way that the Parish Council can undertake the specialist removal of this kind of waste and therefore the only alternative is for dog walkers to take their dog’s waste home, or deposit it in the receptacles that Rotherham Council has chosen to leave in place.

The Parish Council utterly abhors Rotherham Council’s irresponsibility, but it is powerless to respond to its actions.

Perhaps you might like to contact your Rotherham Ward councillors on this matter and their contact details are as follows:

Jenny Andrews      tel: 07585 795985
email:    jenny.andrews@rotherham.gov.uk

Lauren Astbury      tel: 07554 436536
email:    lauren.astbury@rotherham.gov.uk

Lynda Donaldson     tel: 07748 142715
email: lynda.donaldson@rotherham.gov.uk

Bramley Parish Council maintains an open books policy and considers all information to be available to the public unless the Data Protection Act applies. All associated correspondence between the Parish Council and Rotherham MBC is attached below  –  start at the bottom of the emails in order to read them in chronological order.

Please feel free to contact me if you require anything further.

Yours sincerely

Rob Foulds
Clerk to the Parish Council

Email from Bramley PC to Rotherham MBC, 26 June 12:

Cllrs (Akhtar and Stone)

This response is totally unacceptable.  The dog waste bins were erected on Parish Council land by RMBC and NOTBramley Parish Council.

At no time has there been any mention of not emptying either dog waste bins or litter bins in communication toBramley PC only the  of cutting grass on the playing fields was discussed.

This is a health hazard and if RMBC are not going to empty YOUR dog waste bins on parish council land please have them removed immediately.

Cllr Malcolm J Brown
Chairman Bramley Parish Council

Email from Rotherham MBC to Bramley PC, 26 June 12:

Dear Councillor Brown

Thank you for your email relating to various issues on Flash Lane Recreational Ground including the responsibility for dealing with litter and emptying of  dog waste bins which are positioned on Parish Council owned land.

The proposed changes to the arrangements were first raised (by Karl Battersby and David Burton) at the Parish Council liaison meeting on the 7th April 2011 in the context of the council’s budget savings requirements.  Parish Councils were advised that from April 2012 the council would only continue to maintain parish owned facilities if the PCs undertook to pay for Grounds Maintenance and Street Cleansing services.

Formal Notice was given to all Parish Councils in a letter sent on the 17th June 2011 (copy of letter to Bramley PC attached). This formal Notice detailed the services which would be withdrawn – “it will not be possible to continue to cut the grass, litter pick grassed areas or maintain sports fields and flower beds on land owned by Parish Councils without covering our costs. The notice also offered to meet all Parish Councils to discuss individual issues and provide an estimate – “either for continuing the current level of service or providing a varied level of service in the future”.  Three more letters were sent to all Parish Councils, the last of which included the offer of a one-year transitional support of approximately 50% of the costs to ease the financial impact and to provide time for PCs to consider future arrangements for maintenance of their land.

Bramley Parish Council did not take up the offer of a meeting to discuss the maintenance of their land and I have attached a copy of the email from Rob Foulds dated the 16th December 2011 which confirmed they did not wish to enter into a Contract with RMBC to carry out the works.  Therefore, since April 2012 Rotherham Streetpride has not cut the grass, litter pick grassed areas or maintain sports fields and flower beds on land owned by Parish Councils as detailed on the Schedule of Works (copy attached); however I can confirm that several litter and dog waste bins that are the responsibility of Bramley Parish Council have been emptied in error by Streetpride staff over the last three months; we have now re-issued an amended schedule of work to the operatives to correct this and the bins on the PC’s land will no longer be emptied by the council with immediate effect.

You also raise the issue of inspection and maintenance of Play Area equipment; the arrangements have always been managed separately from those for Grounds Maintenance and Cleansing and are as follows:

The arrangements for the annual (specialist) inspection of equipment remains unchanged, the costs are charged back to the PC.
The routine visual inspections (of equipment) continue to be undertaken by the council albeit at a reduced frequency, and the frequencies are consistent with those on council-owned Play Areas.  PCs pay for costs of materials for repairs other than minor ones which can be completed during the inspection.

These arrangements are under review and should any changes to them be proposed they will be discussed with PCs in due course.

Should the Bramley Parish Council wish to discuss the future provision of services by the council (Streetpride) then please contact Richard Jackson – Streetpride Area Manager on 01709 823895 or via email on richard.jackson@rotherham.gov.uk

Yours sincerely

Liz Kemp (on behalf of Karl Battersby)

Email from Bramley PC to Rotherham MBC, 22 June 12:

Dear Mr Archer

It is a month since you last exchanged emails with the Clerk to Bramley PC in respect of the Flash Lane Recreation Ground, to recap:

Mr Foulds informed you that RMBC had previously advised the Parish Council to undertake its own playground equipment inspection arrangements, but you confirmed that RMBC had in fact carried on with the inspections and would continue to do so.

Regarding the litter bins in the playground, RMBC has always emptied these bins and indeed the keys to the bins are retained by yourselves, and at no time has the Parish Council been advised that this arrangement would cease.

Regarding the dog excrement bins, RMBC instated them and has emptied them ever since, and Mr Foulds confirmed that Bramley PC is not empowered to deal with them. And as with the playground litter bins, at no time has the Parish Council been advised that this arrangement has ceased.

We now have a situation, where the PC is receiving complaints via RMBC about the state of these bins, which are in fact a health hazard, furthermore, last night some idiots decided it would be fun to strew the contents of the overflowing dog bin across the road and play areas.

I appreciate that you have passed this issue on to another department, but as yet no response has been forthcoming.

Also, if RMBC has decided it will no longer continue the above described arrangements, I should like to be informed, in writing, why and when the decisions were taken, who took it them and a copy of the associated documentation.

Yours sincerely

Cllr Malcolm Brown
Chair of Bramley Parish Council

Email from Bramley PC to Rotherham MBC, 22 June 12:

Dear Ms Kemp

Regarding your most recent email statement:

Earlier this year all Parish Councils were contacted to say that from 1st April any grounds maintenance work that was carried out for Parish Councils would be charged for – this includes the emptying of bins.  Parish Councils were contacted with prices etc. and subsequently meetings were held between them and RMBC.  Bramley Parish did not respond back to any e-mails or letters and were not involved in any meetings.  Please see attached which gives an example of what was sent to Bramley Parish Council.

In response, I suggest that you read the emails below, from last year, and also the attached quote, which your Authority submitted and which was only in respect of grounds maintenance.

You will see that there is no reference whatsoever to the “emptying of bins” of any type, as you spuriously claim, nor is there any such reference in the letter that you have just forwarded to me.

As such, the Chair of the Parish Council has sent an email to Cllrs Stone and Akhtar and Mr Battersby requesting documentary information/evidence in this regard.

Yours sincerely

Robert Foulds
Clerk to the Parish Council

From: Richard.Malkin
Date: 14 December 2011 14:52
Subject: RE: Bramley PC.xls
To: Rob Foulds
Cc: Booth, Tony, Jackson, Richard


The area of land off Belvedere Parade has now been removed from the attached schedule as this is Borough Council owned.

If you could get back to us ASAP with your decision it would be appreciated.


From: Rob Foulds
Sent: 12 December 2011 15:40
To: Booth, Tony; Malkin, Richard
Subject: Fwd: Bramley PC.xls

Tony and Richard

I had a call from Richard Jackson this afternoon asking about Bramley PC’s response to the letter sent out by ‘The Leader’ in relation to the interim arrangements for grass cutting on our recreation ground.

Before I respond, could you please advise why the Borough Council believes that the Belvedere Parade Bramley Mini Park, as referred to on the attached spreadsheet, belongs to the Parish Council?


Rob Foulds
Clerk to the PC

On 20 October 2011 15:06, Tony Booth wrote:


Updated schedules / costs for Bramley as agreed.


Tony Booth

Senior Technician
Grounds Maintenance/Landscape/Cleansing
Community Delivery
Rotherham MBC

Email from Rotherham MBC to Bramley PC, 22 June 12:

Dear Mr. Foulds

Earlier this year all Parish Councils were contacted to say that from 1st April any grounds maintenance work that was carried out for Parish Councils would be charged for – this includes the emptying of bins.  Parish Councils were contacted with prices etc. and subsequently meetings were held between them and RMBC.  Bramley Parish did not respond back to any e-mails or letters and were not involved in any meetings.  Please see attached which gives an example of what was sent to Bramley Parish Council.

Yours sincerely

Liz Kemp
PA to Strategic Director

Email from Bramley PC to Rotherham MBC, 22 June 12:

Dear Ms Kemp

Can you provide me with the documentation which defines your claim that the Parish Council “opted out” of a contract which included the emptying of the dog excrement bin on Flash Lane.

Yours sincerely

Robert Foulds
Clerk to Bramley Parish Council

Email from Rotherham MBC to Bramley PC, 22 June 12:

Dear Rob

I have been advised that  a team has been sent to go and have a look at the issues on Flash Lane on the road itself. However photographs 2 and 3 of the multiple use play area are now out of our remit as the Parish Council opted out of the contract and as such becomes their responsibility.

Kind regards

(on behalf of Karl Battersby)

From: Battersby, Karl
Sent: 22 June 2012 11:34
To: ‘Rob Foulds’
Cc: Malcolm Brown; Cllr Dennis Hardwick; Kemp, Liz
Subject: RE: Dog Excrement – Bramley

Many thanks Rob. I ask the appropriate officers to deal with it.


Karl Battersby
Strategic Director
Environment and Development Services
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

From: Rob Foulds
Sent: 22 June 2012 10:46
To: Battersby, Karl
Cc: Malcolm Brown; Cllr Dennis Hardwick
Subject: Dog Excrement – Bramley

Dear Karl

The Chair of the Parish Council has asked me to forward these photographs to you. (NB these were photos of dog excrement scattered around the play area and road)

Rob Foulds

cc Chair and Vice Chair

Downloadable Documents:

Adjusted Bramley PC Costs 14-12-11 and Notice to ParishCouncil_GM_Bramley Parish Council..

Breaking News from Bramley!

From Trambuster, more on the abuse of power by the private monopoly, Severn Trent:

It can now be reported that Severn Trent Water and its lackie sycophant contractors Mbonka, or whatever they call themselves, has now invaded the Parish Council’s allotments.

It can also be reported that the resident, whose garden will be destroyed by these thugs, was overtly lied to – they told him how they would tunnel under his hedge at the bottom of his garden and cause the least amount of disruption. Yeah, yeah, yeah, not heard that bull***t before!

And guess what, the scumbags are now going to roll in with their great big tonka toys.

See previous post: Bramley Parish Council vs Severn Trent Water Ltd and The sewer that does not exist?

Some photos of the situation would add enormously to readers understanding?

Our appreciation to Trambuster for this important update.

From the Advertiser website: Bully boy tactics by Severn Trent.

The sewer that does not exist?

When a private company has the apparently untrammelled powers on display, in the David vs Goliath struggle that is developing in Bramley, it behoves it to make sure it is in full possession of the facts before exercising it’s draconian powers!

Rotherham Politics previously brought you, Bramley Parish Council vs Severn Trent Water Ltd.

Severn Trent is blissfully unaware of a viable alternative to their wanton destruction, or are they?

We bring you photographic evidence confirming that they do know! Click on image to enlarge, use your browsers back button to return…..

This photograph shows a Severn Trent contractor, discharging sewage into the sewer that does not apparently exist!

Bramley Parish Council vs Severn Trent Water Ltd

Press release from Bramley Parish Council, 11 May 2012

Severn Trent Water Ltd has instructed Bramley Parish Council that they will dig up and lay a sewer across our Wadsworth Road allotments on Monday, 14th May.

Severn Trent has powers under the Water Industries Act to lay drains wherever it likes and this gross injustice to our allotment holders is what happens when large private companies are given powers to ride roughshod over communities.

The Parish Council would like to defend the allotment holders in court, but it cannot simply
use public money to defend against Severn Trent’s reprehensible actions, when there is a
chance of losing the case and the costs could run into several thousand pounds.

Severn Trent could have used several other routes, but they chose the cheapest option and
said to hell with the destruction of the allotments, and the utter devastation of Mr and Mrs
Suter’s garden at their home on Coquet Avenue.

Severn Trent assured us that they had carried out what they said was an exhaustive
“optioneering” exercise to explore all the sewer route options open to them, the Parish
Council has demanded this information under the Environmental Information Regulations,
but Severn Trent has not complied with the Regulations.

To give an indication as to the quality of people we are dealing with at Severn Trent; when
we asked why they hadn’t used the large sewer that had been serving the same site for at
least 40 years, they told us that they didn’t know about it!! – so much for their exhaustive
“optioneering” exercise.

In the same vein, Severn Trent told Mr Suter that they would tunnel under the mature hedge at the bottom of his garden when they came through with their sewer, but we have got hold of emails that states how they are going to dig the hedge up and remove it. And unbelievably, Severn Trent’s contractor has more recently said how they will then plant this hedge elsewhere and when they’ve finished their work in Mr Suter’s garden, they will bring the hedge back and replant it – this must be one the most bizarre horticultural procedures ever heard of.

Ofwat told us how they are unable to pursue our complaint yet, due to the legislation that
controls them, but they did advise how they would have expected Severn Trent to have
taken the Parish Council’s “views into account before coming to a final decision especially
where an alternative route is suggested and available” Well, seeing as how Severn Trent decided on their route without even telling us, or Mr and Mrs Suter, that they intended to impose their scheme upon our respective properties, Ofwat’s expectations of Severn Trent are sorely misplaced.

Bramley Parish Council

Neil Fulcher, farce ends in slap on wrist! Comment.

Neil Fulcher a Bramley resident and parish council member has been suspended for 6 months from holding elected office.

After well in excess of £160,000 has been spent trying to pursue this community activist for simply trying to perform his elected duties on behalf of his fellow constituents.

What were his crimes that merited such vast expenditure in bringing him to book?

He is on record as using the following terms when attempting to hold our slippery and opaque council to account:

“Numpty, incompetent, inept, pathetic, stupid, arrogant, conceited and misconceived”

Hardly the most pejorative terms to have used when commenting upon the poor performance of our Council! Much, much worse has been said in these columns and if this were a libel case,  ‘fair comment’ would surely win out as a defence. The Advertiser would also have found it self subject to litigation on a regular basis if words such as these were to be genuinely derogatory and libellous!

These words do not adequately cover the situation at RMBC, indeed Labour members, councillors and the odd MP have used much more direct and far cruder language than this when describing me in the past!


Scottish usage: a) Someone who (sometimes unwittingly) by speech or action demonstrates a lack of knowledge or misconception of a particular subject or situation to the amusement of others. b) A good humoured admonition, a term of endearment c) A reckless, absent minded or unwise person.


Being useless or very bad at your job or task.



1. without skill or aptitude for a particular task or assignment; maladroit: He is inept at mechanical tasks. She is inept at dealing with people.
2. generally awkward or clumsy; haplessly incompetent.
3. inappropriate; unsuitable; out of place.
4. absurd or foolish: an inept remark.



1. causing or evoking pity, sympathetic sadness, sorrow, etc.; pitiful; pitiable: a pathetic letter; a pathetic sight.
2. affecting or moving the feelings.
3. pertaining to or caused by the feelings.
4. miserably or contemptibly inadequate: In return for our investment we get a pathetic three percent interest.
1. lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind; dull.
2. characterized by or proceeding from mental dullness; foolish; senseless: a stupid question.
3. tediously dull, esp. due to lack of meaning or sense; inane; pointless: a stupid party.



1. making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; overbearingly assuming; insolently proud: an arrogant public official.



1. having an excessively favourable opinion of one’s abilities, appearance, etc.



Badly planned because of a failure to understand a situation and therefore unsuitable or unlikely to succeed.

As I said, fair comment, if not too mild and understated in my opinion!

Hope Neil appeals, that should be fun!