Apologies from  Cllr Docherty, E Hughes, V Bland, V Salvage.

T Hughes, A Anderson, R Craib, G Brown, P Copland, Cllr D Macgregor, P Shafron,

W Buchan.

The Chairman added that Fife Council have no funds available for this for the current year, and do not give much hope for other years.  (The Community Council have checked with the Council and the road has not been adopted – despite the presence of street lighting.)

A member of the public said that the Community Council had indicated that residents of Miller Terrace may want to make a contribution.  The resident said that he would not be contributing and thought it was a dangerous precedent to ask for private individuals to fund roads.

The Chairman replied that the Community Council has been given an estimated cost for these works of £30,000, and we have no identified source for this funding.The Community Council were not seeking a contribution from the residents, but merely stating that no source of funding had been ruled out prior to engagement with the community.  He added that the Community Council want to find out how we can reduce the costs without a negative impact on the quality of the solution.

A member of the public asked whether the proposed road included kerbs and pavements.  The Chairman answered that it did not.  The member of the public commented said that all residents of Miller Terrace wanted the road to be dry – one of the most important thing is the drainage – (bevelled, so that it drains to the park); and pictures were produced showing the current state of the road.

A member of the public commented that he did not want the road to be really good, because it would just encourage more people to use the road.  The Chairman replied that there had been concern expressed that upgrading could encourage more traffic, which could have an impact on safety.

However a member of the public added that the traffic from refuse vehicles resulted in the need for a much higher specification, than would otherwise be required.

It was further commented that if the road was constructed to a lower specification (even if a sign was put up saying no heavy vehicles) it would be likely to be used by some larger vehicles.

A discussion took place between members of the public and the Community Council regarding the merits of the suggestion of moving the bins to another location.             Cllr Riches asked if the residents from Miller Terrace would be happy pulling their bins for 50 yards.  A member of the public responded that he thought that the refuse vehicle should maintain the service and the road should be adequate for this purpose.

Cllr D Macgregor asked if the Community Council wanted to spend Common Good Funding.  The Chairman responded that if the Community Council were to use Common Good funding they would have to demonstrate that it was for the good of the community.  Also the Community Council would first have to make sure it is the right solution for all concerned – and make sure it is a long-term solution.

Cllr D Macgregor offered to approach the Refuse section of the Council to ask about funding, but was not very optimistic.

M Ashworth asked whether, because the road would be constructed on common ground, the Council would have to do the work, and added that, as we have costings from the Council, could we ask another contractor to do what the Council are proposing.

Cllr E Riches replied that there would be no harm in asking the Council that question.

Cllr D Macgregor offered to ask Transportation if it is possible to get a private contractor to do the work.

T Hughes commented that the contractors who put the Pavilion in place have now gone out of business which caused problems.

The Chairman added that an advantage of getting Fife Council to do the work is that, if the work is not done correctly, then Fife Council would have to fix it.

The Chairman commented that it is possible that Fife Council could give the go-ahead to use another contractor, but that in that circumstance the entire project must be managed.  P Copland suggested that if a private contractor was given the specification, they would know what was required to build the road to the required standard to meet the specification.  The Chairman asked how this could be managed.  P Copland suggested that he could do it; and said that if you employed someone to manage the project it would cost another £5,000-£10,000.

Cllr D Macgregor

Cllr D Macgregor

Ÿ   The first thing was to find out what local residents feel

Ÿ   Get a full breakdown of costs.

Ÿ   Find out if there is any funding from Environmental Health (Fiona Mitchell might be able to advise if there is funding for the local area.)

Ÿ   Look at an application from the Common Good Fund (the maximum that can be applied for is about £20,000 in any one year for all projects – it is only possible to apply for interest – not capital)

Ÿ   The Community Council will also have to consider how it will be maintained (Transportation said in their last response that they would not adopt and maintain.)  So the Community Council will need some kind of budget for ongoing repairs.

Cllr D Macgregor commented that someone will need to co-ordinate this before he approached anyone about funding.

There was discussion regarding the need to get the break-down of costs and full specification, including width of road, proposed kerbs  (and whether it includes kerbing both sides).  The Chairman commented that one of his concerns was that if we have no kerbs whether the road would break up. 

P Copland suggested that the Community Council should ask for a specific breakdown of the whole cost – including complete breakdown of costs of initial excavation, transportation and disposal of waste.

 A resident asked whether an engineer had looked at the road.  The Chairman responded that the CC will ask if an inspection has been done on site, and ask that the specification has taken into account the largest waste vehicle that will use the road.

The Chairman suggested that the Community Council try to:

Ÿ   get the information back from Fife Council;

Ÿ   then get a comparative quote based on the Council Specifications and bring that to the next meeting, so that we can get a likely cost and the likely alternative cost.;

Ÿ   check that is an acceptable solution for everyone;

Ÿ   then check again with Environmental Services and see if they can put some funds towards the final cost.

The Chairman added that he would imagine that it could take some time to get some answers from the Council.  He added that he would want the Community Council to be putting forward a final solution, with: firm costs; firm estimates and where other funding will be coming from.

The Chairman asked if everyone was happy with what was proposed.  A member of the public replied that it was important to engage with the Residents.

The Chairman added that when the work is agreed there is the planning aspect to be dealt with and Fife Council, or whoever is involved, will have to liaise with the residents.

P Copland

V Salvage

A Anderson

Cllr E Riches added that they were impressed that it had been noticed that the A roads and B roads had different chips, and said that the reason why the roads that had had top dressing were chosen was not because of potholes.  The roads chosen have been picked following a survey by the Scottish Government to do with skid resistance.

The Chairman reported that loose stones were still coming up and hitting car windscreens.  Cllr E Riches said that she will report this to Transportation, and will ask them to go back to have another look.

M Ashworth said that all accidents were reported to the police and said she would continue noting and reporting accidents on the corner at Abercrombie.

Cllr Riches reported that, as regards the resurfacing being value for money, Transportation said that it cost £2 per square metre.

Cllr E Riches

M Ashworth

He said that a salvage company has been given the task of completing a Barracuda (the Barracuda Project) and the only parts they have for this task are from crash sites.

He said that there were quite a few Barracudas which came down off St Monans, and hopefully the salvage company will be able to raise some of the wreckage to help them build a Barracuda.

The salvage company got in touch with Billy Morris to ask if he had any connection between him and John Morris who had helped rescue the woman airline pilot.  (John Morris turned out to be Billy Morris’  grandfather’s brother).

Billy Morris asked if the Community Council would consider a plaque to commemorate the crewmen’s action in saving the pilot’s life.   (The fishing boat sailed from St Monans.)

The Chairman replied that the Community Council could look into how much this would cost.

R Craib commented that one of the ideas for the Community Arts Festival was to link the Festival with the history of St Monans, and suggested that perhaps we could have the unveiling of the plaque at the Arts Festival. 

The Chairman asked who the Community Council should ask to get permission to install a plaque.  T Hughes replied that it could go into the Heritage Centre.  The Chairman said that it would be nice to have a plaque that everyone could see and suggested that the Community Council could liaise with Ian Reekie.

Ian Reekie

P Copland                                             G Brown

The Chairman had received a letter from the Chief Superintendent of Police Scotland regarding changes to the Public Counter Service Provision which stated that he is keen to hear our views regarding the proposed changes by email to PublicCounterReview@scotland.pnn.police.uk or to Public Counter Review Team, Business Change Office, Police Scotland, Pitt Street, Glasgow G2 4JS (by 31 October 2013). 

Ÿ   St Andrews provides a public counter service 24 hours a day, 7 days a week – the proposal is to change this to Monday to Friday from 9 am to 5 pm

Ÿ   Anstruther currently has 9 am-5 pm coverage and the proposal is to close this.

Ÿ   Cupar currently provides a public counter service 24 hours per day, 7 days per week – and the proposal is to change this to 7  am to midnight, 7 days a week.

The Chairman pointed out that it is hard for people to go to Cupar – it is not on a direct bus route.  Also in St Andrews the police station is where the Health Centre is and anyone travelling by bus from St Monans would need to take 2 buses.

He went on to say that when counter service is moved this is likely to result in less coverage and despite local police doing their best, it can take up to 2 or 3 days before the police can come out to take a statement.

The Chairman stated that he would encourage everyone to make their own representation about this, as if people do not say anything it will go ahead.

Cllr E Riches added that it is worth saying that at the moment there are 2 Chief Inspectors for Fife, but they are now saying there may only be one Chief Inspector; and also reiterated what the Chairman had stated – that it is not just the Community Council who need to respond to this, it is also everyone’s responsibility.

R Craib asked if she should write a response on behalf of the Community Council.

Cllr E Riches responded that if the decision is made on the basis of numbers they will look at our population.  But if we think that every single village has a caravan park and holiday accommodation it means that during part of the year our population doubles.

Community Council;

Members of the Public

R Craib

As Community Council Members who are also Members of the Community Trust had declared an interest in the above application, the rest of the Community Council Members and members of the public were asked if there were any objections to the proposed planning application for tennis courts plus multi games area.

A member of the public stated that it had been a fish shed in the past and stated that she had seen the plans and was quite happy with the proposed building. 

G Brown replied that the Community Council had no objection to the building, the Community Council were objecting to the materials.  T Hughes added that this was because it is in the conservation area.  P Copland agreed that it was the materials the Community Council were concerned about and stated that if the materials were in keeping with the rest of the village then the Community Council would not have a problem.  The Chairman added that if we make an exception in this case, then it could be difficult to ask new applicants to adhere to the restrictions required in a conservation area.  He added that as we have said many times, we try to take into account the view of the local residents and also the regulations.  Anybody can put forward any viewpoint they want.  You can log on to the website or write to Planning.

The member of the public also pointed out that it would bring work to the village.  The Chairman replied that the Community Council has always objected to changing use from industrial to residential.

All Community Council Members agreed that the objection should be put forward.

V Salvage

Cllr D Macgregor