Hack writer

Back in December 2011, I wrote about the conservators’ meeting on 5 December, which considered the racecourse’s proposal for consent to works on the Tattenham Straight, and its proposal to extract fill material from the hatched area on Six Mile Hill. I said, “The meeting then went into closed session to discuss (presumably) the contribution to the repair of the downskeepers’ hut.”

The minute of that session was, like the closed session itself, designated ‘confidential’. On 18 December, I asked for disclosure of the confidential minute under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. After some prevarication, I received the minute on 1 June.

It seems that, even as the meeting purported to grant consent for extraction of the fill material, the meeting was in closed session advised that the racecourse was unlikely to be able to obtain the consent of the freeholder to the extraction (the freehold of Six Mile Hill is vested in The Trelissick Trust as successor to the late Stanley Wootton, who granted a long lease to what is now the racecourse). It seems that the racecourse had offered to pay for the necessary consent, but no response had been received.

The racecourse proposed to source fill from elsewhere. And here’s the stunning bit: “The Council-appointed Conservators expressed concern at this possibility, in particular as it would not provide the ecological benefit that would be achieved through use of the ‘hatched area’ as a source of material. The Chairman emphasised the importance of the ecological benefits to be gained, and requested the Racecourse to continue its efforts to come to an agreement with the freeholder.”

When this proposal first surfaced (cynically revealed a few days after the meeting of the consultative committee on 31 October 2011, where not a word was said by the racecourse or the chairman — even though plans were sufficiently well advanced for local exhibitions the following week), we assumed that it was driven by the racecourse. What’s now clear from this minute is that the proposal to use specifically the hatched area for a source of fill material was viscerally supported by the chairman. When that seemed likely to fall through, the chairman pressed the racecourse to find a way to proceed with it nevertheless. Indeed, one wonders whether the chairman originated the idea in the first place? Whatever, the minute is hardly suggestive of a board of conservators reluctantly going along with the racecourse’s plans as the least worst option for extraction: quite the reverse — “The Council-appointed Conservators expressed concern” that the racecourse might source the fill from elsewhere!

Needless to say, if the conservators were serious about delivering ecological benefits, they could do that anywhere on the downs at any time. They don’t need to render a hack area permanently unfit for use to do that. Yet the board meetings rarely focus on conservation of the downs, despite the board’s statutory purpose§ of conserving the downs (apart from a spurious concern about the impact of harmless athletics and charity events — see this story for one resident’s view on that — without a word ever said on the matter of the incomparably greater impact of race days), and even the proposed extraction of fill from the hatched area, ostensibly done with conservation in mind, would have seen 250 x 20 tonne HGV movements trundling along the downs’ bridleways.

So it’s hard to see this proposal as about conservation: it’s really about its impact on the hatched area, and the board’s aspiration to wreck, once and for all, any possible future use of the hatched area for hack riding. Thanks, unexpectedly and perhaps unwittingly, to The Trelissick Trust, the proposal has gone into abeyance.

[§ Section 10 of the Epsom and Walton Downs Regulation Act 1984 sets out the primary duty of the board as follows: “It shall be the duty of the Conservators to preserve the Downs so far as possible in their natural state of beauty”.]

Training Grounds Management Board: a meeting was held at the end of March. Training numbers are showing a decline of around 20%, in common with other training grounds. The hatched area was discussed in the context of creating scrapes (though we were not told what conclusions were reached).

Beacon event on the downs: the Derby Arms had agreed to the use of toilet facilities which would, taken with others, provide sufficient to meet requirements. A decision was taken, after much officer engagement in the background, to agree to the event.

Incident on the downs: a letter from Mr Tozer, and an article from last Saturday’s Telegraph, Menacing dogs put an end to my rides, had been circulated. Since no-one else had seen either document, it was hard to discern what was referred to while at the meeting, but it emerged that it was about the long-standing dog attacks on horses. A renewed but brief discussion took place about the viability of requiring dogs to be kept on leads, but it was observed that the board had been here before. The clerk referred to a recently reported episode in Horton, where a horse had bolted after an attack, and been put down after collision with a car. The trainers’ representative was concerned that owners didn’t get a false picture of the risk to horses in training, and suggested stronger and clearer advice to dog walkers at the two key entry points to the downs; the trainers would be willing to sponsor such signs. A code of conduct was needed for downs users. There would be a report to the June meeting on dogs. It was decided not to respond to the article in the Telegraph.

John Akehurst’s funeral: the chairman attended on behalf of the board, and reported a huge turnout.

Chairman’s report: noted without comment.

Hack sand track: the promised ‘report to follow’ did not, owing to other pressures on officers. An independent risk assessment was being carried out to help assess requirements for maintenance and repair. Meanwhile, the beachcomber remained in regular use. The head downskeeper said he might need to close the track owing to flooding from recent rain, and sought approval to do so. There was some discussion about the requirement in the Act to provide an alternative, although the clerk said that ‘health and safety’ could trump this requirement. The head downskeeper was asked to liaise with the hack riders’ representative.

Epsom and Walton Downs management plan: the downs strategy was published in 2006, but was now considered dated and in need of a review. It was proposed to prepare a management plan, involving stakeholders, and an associated action plan, and consider where funding might be found for the costs of implementation. The plan and action plan would link to the existing habitat management plan, but stand apart. It was suggested that engagement should be sought from the neighbouring borough of Reigate and Banstead and district of Mole Valley, as well as their councils. Progression would be dependent on resources, including officers’ time. Recommendations to take forward were approved.

Tattenham Straight update: the racecourse explained that the freeholder of the hatched area continued to withhold consent for spoil extraction, and the racecourse wanted to identify an alternative source: the project would otherwise be further delayed. Such a source would need to be verified as appropriate and clean. The board was asked to agree an alternative source subject to certification. The avoidance of routing lorries across the downs was noted, and described by the chairman as a ‘huge concern’. Plans to create scrapes on the hatched area was approved with murmurs of enthusiasm. The chairman questioned whether this was intended to be subject to agreement from all relevant stakeholders, as described in the report, and said this couldn’t be realised: it wouldn’t happen. It was questioned whether the Trelissick Trust was such a stakeholder, and whether it needed to approve. The ecological adviser said he was keen to install a ‘couple of scrapes’: asked whether creating new scrapes was in the habitat management plan, he thought so. The chairman proposed to remove the requirement for agreement from ‘all relevant stakeholders’ and this was agreed without comment. With this amendment, the recommendations were all agreed, with confirmation of the release of funding for the downskeepers’ hut. (Ed: some uncertainty remained about whether the Trelissick Trust would need to consent to the scrapes, and if so, whether the scrapes should be located outside its freehold ownership.)

Events: four events were presented for approval: Round the Borough Walk, Racing Pigeon Liberation (tiny), Tadworth 10 (10 mile athletic race), and Rotary Club of Banstead Sponsored Walk. Officers were grilled by the trainers’ representative about the Rotary Club walk, but gave assurances that the sponsors were experienced and had held the event for many years. It was suggested that the need for patrolling incurred additional costs, but it was concluded that there would be no additional staff on duty. All the events were approved. It was noted that the Cancer Research Race for Life had offered a contribution of £200 towards reinstatement costs. Advice about charging for events would be brought to a subsequent meeting.

Derby arrangements: it was agreed to authorise the chairman and clerk to approve the caravan site fee.

Close: this being the final meeting of the year, thanks were offered to the clerk and Tim Richardson, the committee clerk.

The latest press report, this time in the Daily Telegraph, about dogs and riding on the downs. Follows this report in the Epsom Guardian about a distressing episode near Epsom Common.

The saga of the racecourse’s plans to extract chalk fill material from the ‘hatched area’, ostensibly to provide a local source of fill for the Tattenham Straight improvement works, but more likely designed to render the hatched area permanently unfit for use by hack riders, continues.

The papers for Thursday’s meeting of the conservators are now available. Paper 9 is about the Tattenham Straight works. The extraction from the hatched area cannot now go ahead because the racecourse cannot obtain permission from the freeholder, The Trelissick Trust. It seems that the required material will instead be taken from another site which cannot yet be identified. Reading between the lines, it appears the contractor will identify a suitable site around the time that the extraction is to take place, because it cannot predict in advance what site will be in play this far ahead. That is likely to rule out a site on the downs, because the conservators are not being asked to authorise extraction on the downs, only to give approval in principle to sourcing from a local site (but one which can’t be identified to the meeting!).

The racecourse has also said, in regard to the hatched area, “The Racecourse would still be happy to consider assisting the Lower Mole Project to construct some scrapes subject to all stakeholders being in agreement.” How thoughtful!

The racecourse plans to extract fill material from the hatched area on Six Mile Hill, and to transport it in lorries along public bridleways, has been dropped from the planning application currently before Epsom & Ewell borough council.

The BHS will not now object to what remains of the planning application before the council. We are of course pleased that this part of the plans, which would have been hugely damaging to public use of the downs, has been abandoned. The racecourse says that it could not proceed because there were land ownership issues. More likely, it thought that permission would be refused. Not for the first time, it’s the conservators who are eager to sign up to the racecourse agenda, and the planning committee of the council which steps in to prevent abuse of the downs.

Training Grounds Management Board: the TGMB met on 5 December. The two all-weather track refurbishment projects had been delivered and were working well. Numbers of horses in training are expected to drop at Epsom (and throughout the industry), perhaps by one-fifth, following a modest reduction in late 2011. Funding of the hack sand track was discussed (to be picked up later in the agenda). On the grass gallops below the polytrack, Walton Road was reported to be causing problems because of the eroded paths created by users, and it was proposed to improve the hard base to enable woodchips or polytrack to be put down on top; the longer term aim was to improve the whole route, but in the short term, to address the top part.

Dog control: no progress to report, but expectation of a report at the June meeting.

Cycling signs: these had now been placed on the horse margin adjacent to Langley Vale Road (see here).

Hack Sand Track: Refurbishment works were included in the list of capital projects to be considered for approval by the Borough Council’s Leisure Committee at its meeting of 18 January, but the committee was not happy about the justification for the scheme, and particularly the legal requirements and whether there were lower cost solutions: the committee had proposed consideration by council in February, but this timetable was unlikely to be met. It was reported that the racecourse is prepared to consider funding over two years; the TGMB is concerned at its share and it too wishes to see a lower cost solution. Alternative surfacing would also be considered. Meanwhile, a machine which would assist in the clearance of stones has been identified.

High winds: The racecourse declined to comment on the damage to the roof.

Race for life: A proposal for this event to take place on 24 June 2012 was circulated just before the meeting. Where the route does not follow surfaced tracks, it almost entirely lies upon hack areas: and indeed, various marquees will be erected on the platform adjacent to the home straight. Comment was passed on setting-up taking place from 0600, but runners would not arrive until about 1100. The racecourse said that public relations needed careful handling, and there was an opportunity to invite a contribution to making good damage. The head downskeeper said that the main impact was clearance of rubbish, but if the weather were wet, then the impact would be much greater. Questions were asked about whether the event could be suspended at short notice if conditions were poor, or whether the route could be altered to remain on hard tracks. It was suggested that there should be a cap on numbers, a charge, or acceptance only in alternate years. A pound-a-head charge was proposed, although officers advised that the organisers might not be able to absorb the charge at this stage in arrangements, and that it might be more appropriate to warn that the charge would be imposed in future years. The organisers already put a sum aside (perhaps £1k) to deal with clean-up. So it was agreed to approve the proposal on these terms, with a voluntary contribution sought from the organisers.

Potential for charging for events on the downs: It was agreed, virtually without debate, that the TGMB and racecourse work together to produce a more detailed strategy for charging for category B, C and D events on the downs. [Ed: It’s arguable that the racecourse may be able to charge for events, but neither the board of conservators nor the council can: the Act confers no powers on the board to charge (except for admission to car parks), and the council has no power to charge for the giving of its consent to events (and otherwise has no interest which could possibly enable it to levy charges). In the paper submitted to the board, the legal advice begins by proposing that the racecourse can indeed charge, but later becomes somewhat more vague about who exactly can or will charge: whereas the annexe makes clear that it envisages that either the board or the council will charge! It looks like the legal advice has fudged the issue, so it will be interesting to see what emerges in a proposal to the next meeting.]

Budget for 2013-14: The budget was introduced by the treasurer, and as usual, approved without debate except for the usual can’t-see-the-wood-for-the-trees questions about budgeting for electricity.

Diamond jubilee beacon: some new logistical issues had been identified since the report was published, concerning parking and other matters, which had yet to be resolved, and it could not yet be said that the event was viable, particularly as the council could meet any additional costs. One councillor suggested that it would be better to have alcohol sold on site by local businesses, rather than it being brought onto site by visitors, although the chairman thought that retailers would lack the control which they exercised over their own premises. The beacon was described as built from pallets, but the precise location was not described. It was accepted that the beacon itself would go ahead, but that the community event was insufficiently well-defined. A special meeting on 1 March would be scheduled if a sufficient proposition was available.

Tattenham Straight works: the works were approved at the Leisure committee the previous day.

Race Meetings 2012: there would be 12 race days in 2012, as none was feasible during Olympic fortnight, and the first three Thursdays were likely to be music nights, with the possibility of an operatic night. It was agreed to delegate approval of applications from the racecourse to the clerk.

Dates of meetings: 19 April, 28 June, 18 October.

The planning application for the works to the Tattenham Straight, and the procurement of fill material from Six Mile Hill, has been validated and went live on 4 January 2012. All the papers are available on-line. The closing date for comments on the application is 27 January 2012. See below for our concerns.

See the Epsom Guardian

Edit: and subsequent story.

Here’s a copy of the BHS’ email to Jean Smith, chairman of the board of conservators, about the works approved at its meeting on 5 December 2011, and the acknowledgement from the chairman, explaining that she has asked Frances Rutter, the clerk to the conservators, to respond.

The works have yet to be the subject of an application for planning permission, and must also be approved by the council (we understand approval has been delegated to the Leisure Committee).

This meeting had been called (the second such meeting) to approve the racecourse plans for works to level and raise the Tattenham Straight enclosure — and more relevantly, to extract part of the fill required for the works from an area of land at the foot of Six Mile Hill. See here for the agenda, the ecological assessment and design and access statement including map showing routes for transport of the fill, and report by Nick Owen.

Receipt was confirmed of the Epsom Equestrian forum email.

The ecological appraisal was put forward first for discussion. The chairman identified the pages of the report, but no-one had any comments to make. The board went on to Nick Owen’s report: again, no comments. Then the design and access statement appended to the ecological appraisal: none again. And the soil contamination report (not available on the website): none. (Goodness knows if anybody had read them: you’d think that someone would have at least one question on 29 pages of technical appraisal? Ed)

A question was asked about the measurement of vehicle movements. The racecourse said they would use reputable contractors who would comply with requirements, although it wasn’t quite clear what requirements. It was suggested that the downskeepers should not have to enforce adherence to requirements: there should be confidence that the requirements would be met regardless. Signs would be needed to explain what was going on and the reasons for it.

The chairman said that the proposals should improve the downs — certainly, biodiversity should be improved.

There was then no debate on approving the works: this seemed to be a foregone conclusion. A discussion took place on whether there should be a debate about the payment to be made to the board for works to the downkeepers’ hut, and it was agreed that this was not relevant. (I think what was really meant was that they wanted to discuss that aspect behind closed doors: see below.)

It was noted that the council’s leisure committee would need to approve the demolition of the Lonsdale Standard. (The 1984 Act requires the council’s approval to all the works to the Tattenham Straight enclosure.)

The chairman imposed further conditions: works subject to the approval of the owners of the land, and compliance with all conditions imposed.

The meeting then went into closed session to discuss (presumably) the contribution to the repair of the downskeepers’ hut.

Editorial: So after about 20 minutes’ discussion (hardly debate) the works had been approved. No questions about the impact (beneficial or otherwise) on the extraction site at Six Mile Hill, or the compatibility of the fill sources from Ashtead Park, or the impact of around 250 20 tonne HGV movements around the downs, or the effect of the extraction on equestrian use of the hatched area, or indeed on any other downs users. Remember: this is the same board which last October refused permission for an event for 165 runners because of impact on the downs. Presumably, one runner is perceived to have a greater impact than one 20 tonne lorry carting away the very fabric of the downs.

There are three questions which we will ask the board:

1/ Does the board consider the use of the hatched area to extract fill will render it permanently inaccessible to hack riders? If so, does the board consider this outcome lawful in respect of land designated for the purposes of the Act as a part-time hack area? If so, please say what advice was tendered to the board in this respect, and how the consequences were made clear to the board?

2/ Does the board agree that the use of the hard track at the foot of Six Mile Hill for 113 HGV movements (in each direction) is capable of constituting a public nuisance in a designated public bridleway? Moreover, given that movements could alternatively take place along Walton Road (north across Six Mile Hill), a public road, or south along Ebbisham Lane and via other local roads, the use of a public bridleway for this purpose cannot be justified.

3/ Access to the hatched area will require HGVs to cross the sand track in the vicinity of Walton Road. What powers will the board exercise to restrict use of the sand track and the adjacent linear hack area to enable a suitable crossing to be put in place? Does the board intend to grant a specific consent for that undefined purpose? Will the crossing be removed at the close of business each day (as it must be removed from the Mac track), or will it be left in place across the sand track while excavation continues: if so, for how long?