Hack writer

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?

A special meeting of the conservators has been scheduled for tomorrow, 10 November, to consider proposals for the racecourse to undertake works to the Tattenham Straight and Lonsdale Stand. The report can be seen on the council’s website here.

No problem with the works. However, look at the report, para.3.1:
“The Conservators will note that the proposed location to be used as the source of ‘fill material’ for the works is within the ‘Hatched area’ at the southern end of the Downs. This area is marked on the Signed Map of the Downs (under the 1984 Epsom and Walton Downs Regulation Act) as being permitted for hack riding after noon if, in the opinion of the Training Grounds Management Board (TGMB), conditions allow. The Conservators are provided with an update regarding the TGMB’s consideration of this matter at each of their normal meetings.”

Then at the description of how the fill material will be sourced, page 7 of the report (consultant’s annexe):
“The area of land is currently sloping, and is located between routes along the Downs. Conor Morrow has suggested that the grass and soil is removed in a series of strips with grass left in between. The stripped areas will then be seeded down with Kidney Vetch from locally sourced seed. The main areas will be stripped by 500mm, with the edges graded back at gradients of 1 in 6 to ensure that the reduced areas do not create hazards for walkers.”

Now look at the photo on the last page: this shows where the sourcing will take place: immediately east of Walton Road, almost fully occupying the hatched area extending east from Walton Road except along the southern margin adjacent to the Mactrack. This would render it permanently unuseable by horse riders, which is no doubt the intention. (The racecourse tell me that this outcome wasn’t planned, but merely the result of this site being favoured by its consultants. Ed)

Needless to say, not a word of this was mentioned at the consultative committee meeting last week.

A meeting which was almost entirely dominated by issues raised by horse riders’ representatives, but even then lasted only 50 minutes. Oddly, despite a good turn out for the meeting, hardly a word was spoken by any other representative.

Bridleway 146: we reiterated that a traffic regulation order could be made to control cycling on the ‘horse margin’ adjacent to Langley Vale Road (a point we’ve made before).

TGMB hatched area: no change in position on use of hatched area. We pressed for disclosure of the criteria which will permit (or not permit) use and asked the chairman to press for an answer. The racecourse said that the eastern area suffered from rabbit damage etc and the physical ground conditions were unsuitable; the western area was maintained for use as training grounds: the TGMB’s view was that opening this area would lead to uncontrolled use and conceded that the condition of the hack sand track was critical to maintaining the hack rider facilities in good condition. We asked whether there was any possibility of maintainance of the eastern end of the hatched area? The TGMB believed it was not responsible for maintenance, but the downskeepers agreed to review what would be required, including taking account of the offer of rabbit control by a third party.

Training restrictions: the TGMB had called for greater enforcement of regulations on horses in training, which had lapsed in recent years: these covered access to the gallops, gallops in use, speeds. Horses had been straying onto the grass, for example, in place of using surfaced tracks. The TGMB will re-issue the regulations and seek to police them more actively.

We also asked for a proper balance between policing use of the gallops by hack riders, and ensuring hack riders’ safety by enforcing rules on kite flying, dogs, cycling etc. Just because the TGMB had asked for more patrols of the gallops during the afternoon should not divert resources from other legitimate enforcement duties.

Works to Tattenham Straight: there will be a display of racecourse plans for the Tattenham Straight at the Grand Stand, 1530-1930 Monday 7 November.

Ebbisham Lane: we asked why the board, at its discussion on 17 October, had failed to acknowledge the potential savings which would accrue from eliminating the need for double handling of materials delivered to the hack sand in the event of reinstatement works, by ensuring that Ebbisham Lane is kept in good repair. Those savings had not yet been identified, but a report to a previous board meeting had identified the costs as a significant element in the total costs of reinstatement. We said we were puzzled that the point had not been considered by the board. The clerk said the board had had my comments before it at the last meeting, but neither clerk nor chairman could explain why they weren’t pushing an approach which would save them money. Unless of course they don’t think that the plans for reinstatment of the hack sand track have a hope in hell of being approved.

Walton Road: I asked what provision would be made to ensure that carriage drivers could use Walton Road across the downs, given that it is currently obstructed by various barriers. Since there was some lingering uncertainty about whether the traffic regulation order on the Walton Road did permit carriage driving, I agreed to forward a copy of it to the clerk when it was received by me from the traffic authority, Surrey County Council, who will then provide advice.

Events maps: We asked for a map of the routes to be used by events to be published on the downs website alongside the calendar, so that riders could ensure they would avoid those routes. It was agreed that officers would seek to do this.

Next meetings: 9 July 2012 and 8 November 2012 at 1800.

Training Grounds Management Board: TGMB agreed refurbishment of the Mac track and the Poly track (at the bottom and top of Six Mile Hill). This is now underway, with the Mac track already reopened. The position on use of the hatched ground was unchanged, and predictably there was no mention of the questions which we discussed at the consultative committee meeting and asked the chairman to raise at this meeting.

Dog control: no news.

Horse margin, Langley Vale Road: Signage about priority to horses in training are being prepared. There was yet another redundant discussion about the status of the horse margin as a public bridleway (this ground has been covered more than once before). It was suggested that cycling could be prohibited before noon, but the highway authority was not receptive.

Mid-year budget monitoring report: The treasurer reported that current and forecast spending levels were reducing available reserves. A deficit of £27k was forecast for 2012–13, which would reduce the working balance to around £20k. The treasurer noted that scope for further savings and opportunities to generate more income were limited, and a review of contributions was desirable. Although the council was facing an 11% budget cut, it might be possible to use contingency to fund an increase in the council’s precept. The racecourse said that new funding was not realistic, and the conservators should start exploring previously discounted options, such as charging for parking and events. Was there really no scope to reduce costs? The treasurer said that a proposal for new rotas (to reduce the staffing requirement) had been rejected three years ago, but could be revived: decisions on next year’s budget were needed by January. Central services provided by the council were generally not charged even now. The head downskeeper said that staffing had already been cut back. There was a discussion of whether charges could be made for external events held on the Downs (i.e. non-racing events), with several board members speaking in support of recovering the costs of hosting the events, and a report was commissioned from the racecourse and officers for the next meeting in January, which would need to consider the legal framework. Meanwhile, a proposal from the chairman to increase precepts by 4½% for 2012–13 was deferred until the next meeting.

Music nights: The head downskeeper reported that better racecourse stewarding and police intervention (confiscating extensive quantities of alcohol from under-age drinkers) had helped to reduce the amount anti-social behaviour. One board member reported particular problems with use of Chalk Lane. The board agreed to pass on its thanks to Surrey Police. The racecourse planned just three events next year, because of the Olympics, targeted at an older profile.

Hack posts: A number of new hack marker posts have been installed. Yellow hack ride arrows, used to identify hack rides available after noon, will be marked with a red border, to distinguish them from public footpath waymarks.

Training restrictions: The TGMB has resolved to tighten up on regulations regarding training on the downs, and the head downskeeper will consider whether increased patrolling of the gallops can be done in the afternoon.

Diamond Jubilee beacon: The event would follow the Derby weekend, organised by the scouts, and parking might be limited owing to dismantling within the Tattenham Enclosure. A question was asked about the financial implications, in terms of cleaning up and additional patrolling: however, it was expected that additional costs would fall on the council vice the conservators. The proposal was agreed in principle, with provision of food and drink (with reservations expressed about alcohol).

Events on the downs: several small events were approved.

Conservators’ downs tour: This had taken place on 7 October. No substantive discussion.

Minutes of the consultative committee: This had taken place on 4 July. No substantive discussion.

Hack sand track: A capital bid had been submitted to the council as one of the precepting bodies. The total cost would be £140k, shared between the precepting bodies. The racecourse was asked to note the capital requirements, having regard to the risks of the existing facilities.

Route to the south of Juniper Hill, designation for inclusion as authorised cycle routes: the chairman summed up by saying that the situation should be left as it is, so that the route would not be designated, but equally, there would be no enforcement. The county council would be asked to remove the route from its map of cycle routes.

Pathway near 10th hole of golf course: Proposal agreed.

Surface of Ebbisham Lane: The chairman confirmed that copy of my email of 11 October had been received by board members. Comments were invited. The clerk said a site visit had taken place last year. Her report on the notice process was before the board. Costs depended on who drafted the notice: if done in-house, the costs would fall on the legal team, else counsel would cost £1k. Other organisations were at liberty to serve a notice. The chairman noted my comments that the process was intended to be straightforward. The racecourse asked whether the road fell within the conservators’ jurisdiction, as the road was in the adjoining borough: why was it of concern to the board? The conservators had a duty to maintain the car park at the foot of Ebbisham Lane. The chairman expressed reservations about spending any money on the process, however little. One member said she would change her mind if the cost was less than £1k. The clerk noted the implications of lack of repair for reinstating the hack sand track. The board agreed to take no action.

Downs strategy: The chairman asked to see the downs strategy action plan by the next meeting.

Date of next meeting: Was agreed for Thursday 19th January 2012. A meeting on the alterations to the Tattenham Flat and Lonsdale Stand was agreed for 10th November 2011 or Monday 21st November, to be decided by the racecourse.

Ebbisham Lane: The cyclists representative observed that the board at a recent meeting had duly received the clerk’s report on the procedure for serving notice on the highway authority, but had not had any opportunity for discussion on the procedure, and the chairman very reluctantly accepted that a future board would be asked for its views. (Ed: it will be interesting to see how much latitude the board is given: the chairman’s antipathy was all too apparent.)

Dog control orders: The chairman said that the difficulty of enforcing dog control orders was key: education was important with better behaviour needed from dog owners. Officers had been working hard to achieve results at Nonsuch Park. After several members expressed concern about dog control, the clerk agreed to convey the committee’s views to officers about dog control on the downs. I suggested that some form of byelaw or dog control order was necessary as a longstop to deal with egregious behaviour, even if prosecution was unlikely to occur. However, the clerk noted that byelaw 22b dealt with out-of-control dogs, and that enforcement was the issue.

Chestnut paling fencing: Commented on the chestnut paling fencing going up a fortnight before the event: the racecourse said the fencing set out a footprint for the festival, and was therefore needed as the first step in marking out the downs. However, my point that the fencing stood in splendid isolation on the downs over the bank holiday weekend, serving no purpose at all, was side-stepped.

Authorisation of early fencing: the chairman said that the clerk stood by her advice, that the board could authorise something which the 1984 Act clearly does not permit it to do (Ed: notwithstanding its absurdity). No debate. (Ed: So it’s official. The conservators and the racecourse don’t consider themselves bound to operate within the terms of the 1984 Act, so why should anyone else?)

Clean-up of the downs after the Derby: it was recognised that glass had again been left behind, and I asked why the contractors were not required to deal with it. The racecourse said that broken glass was difficult to identify, and was sometimes missed. The contractors were keen to learn from feedback. (Ed: same story every year.)

Hack sand track: Full reinstatement would be very expensive, but would be considered at a future board meeting. Alex noted that even the current maintenance programme was inadequate, and that even if nothing could be done towards reinstatement, the track should be kept safe and convenient to use. It was unacceptable to persist with the current arrangements. The head downskeeper said he had acquired a harrow with the intention of harrowing once or twice a week. Integration of council operations with the downskeepers would also assist in maintaining a more effective programme of maintenance.

Hack rider misbehaviour: Simon Dow’s report, previously not disclosed, referred to riding along the top of Six Mile Hill between the Polytrack and the woods. We said that this area needed better signposting, and proposed better markers at each end of the part which is not a hack ride. We agreed that we would inform other hack riders of the concerns expressed by the trainers regarding encroachment on this area and request them not to do so through the website. Done.

Hatched area: we asked the chairman to ask the TGMB to respond to the questions about what conditions would permit use of the hatched area. She agreed, but said she had little influence. (Ed: odd that, you’d think the chairman of the conservators would have considerable influence. Perhaps she meant that she did not wish to wield it.)

Cycling on the downs: Epsom cyclists had asked for the hack ride along the south side of Juniper Hill to be authorised for cycling. We said this request had been made and refused twice in the past, on the grounds that the path was narrow and suffered from poor visibility. The clerk agreed there had been a lengthy debate on authorised cycleways, but it was a matter for the board to decide whether it wanted to review the matter. It was agreed to refer the matter back to the board, notwithstanding that there was no evidence that there had been any unfairness in past consideration. It could be a candidate for the downs tour.

Date of downs tour: 5 September 2011 at 1730.

Date of next consultative committee meeting: 31 October 2011 at 1800.

Training Grounds Management Board: Agreement was given (with no discussion) to extend the polytrack to its original intended full length.

Dog control: the promised update was that there was nothing to report. A possible dog control order could not be taken forward unless there was sufficient funding for enforcement – which there was not. There was the possibility of a roadshow on the downs to promote better education. One member said it was important to keep dog control high on the agenda, and the recent incident (see link from blog) was mentioned. But it was unclear what, if anything, was being done to keep it high on the agenda.

Epsom Downs Racecourse Family Funday: plans for a combined trainers’ open day and family funday racecourse meeting.

Kite flying: Chris Grayling MP had written with his concerns about kite fliers and model aircraft fliers being in conflict. Downs officers had gained the support of the model aircraft fliers to resolve the situation. Downskeepers are said to be vigilant to address any problems.

Integration of maintenance downskeeper: concerns expressed by the trainers’ representative about whether recent changes to staffing portended a threat to the level of support currently delivered by the downskeepers. He asked that arrangements be reviewed regularly. A member made the sensible point that pressures on the downs were increasing because of housing developments in the area, but there was no increased funding for downskeeping.

Events on the downs: approval was sought for four events on the downs – Omni Terrier Derby (28 August 2011), Cross Country League Race (12 November 2011), Tadworth Athletic Club 10 mile run (2 January 2012), and Rotary Club Sponsored Walk (13 May 2012). The racecourse said they needed to recover their costs of stewarding where this was provided, and a member asked if charges could be raised: the racecourse wanted the conservators to look at cost recovery. There was a possibility of other applications coming forward later in the spring. There was the usual criticism of excessive numbers of events (which appeared to be predicated on a misunderstanding of how many events had been approved – just three for the year not counting the four up for approval). It was agreed to review the strategy, and the limits on the number of events, at the next meeting. Meanwhile, the applications were approved. The Tadworth Athletic Club was criticised because the route adopted would encourage encroachment on the training areas and was timed to set up early in the morning: it was approved subject to set up beginning no earlier than noon. There was a lengthy discussion about the Race for Life, for which an application had only just been received. Probable numbers were above the threshold previously advised by the board. It was agreed that details submitted were too thin and too late to enable a decision to be taken by the board, but concern for the presentational implications of a refusal led to authorisation of the chairman to agree detailed plans. However, it seemed likely that the organisers would be told that the event would not be permitted subsequently. The public comments received on the refusal of the Oddballs’ Perch event were ‘noted’: one member, noted for her advocacy of refusals, said the comments were ‘valid’, which was odd.

Downskeepers’ hut: the racecourse said that they now had a proposal connected with the downskeepers’ accommodation which they wished to bring to the next meeting. This would involve some landscaping in the area to enable easier use of the land for raceday facilities, but also improve public amenity, improve fencing, and provide some funding for replacement accommodation. The works could be carried out early in the New Year. So no further action was taken on the report recommending refurbishment. However, a warning was sounded about potential planning permission issues. The chairman criticised the late announcement from the racecourse, and stressed that she wanted a detailed report for the next meeting.

Hack sand track: the report suggested that works costing £34k would be wasted in the long term and adequate structural works costing around £140k were needed to preserve the equine sand. The chairman said the report was clear, and the board didn’t need to go through it. It might be possible to spend capital savings from the downskeepers’ hut on the £140k works, and it was agreed to prepare a scheme for capital funding (but don’t hold your breath). The treasurer said that the issue around health and safety was critical, and a case should address the board’s responsibilities. The trainers’ representative said that only spending the full £140k would protect the investment; recent maintenance had increased, and he suggested that summer maintenance should be adequately continued throughout the entire year. The head downskeeper said that maintenance couldn’t be done during the racing season, as they didn’t have time to do this, although they had done a good deal of flint picking by hand during the winter months. Officers said they would look at providing additional resource from grounds maintenance. Stone picking machines had difficulty collecting variable sized stones, and a membrane was needed to exclude stones. Spreading the sand around did not necessarily improve conditions for riders, even though the appearance was better. Option 1 was approved (care and maintenance – except during the summer it seems), and the contractors would be approached to refine their costings of the full £140k option.

Gypsy caravan site (Derby): the proposal was to adopt and construct a new entrance onto Langley Vale Road to better manage access to the gypsy caravan site, which was agreed.

Lower Mole Countryside Management Project: it was strongly agreed to “note the proposal made by Surrey County Council with regard to the level of support and financial contribution it provides the Lower Mole Countryside Management Project†and “That the Conservators express their views on the proposal and request the Clerk to respond to Surrey County Council appropriately.â€

Date of next meeting: 27 June 2011.

Commenting on the conservators’ decision not to allow the Epsom Oddballs
‘Perch run’ to be held on the Downs in January 2011, an ‘OAP’ has said:

“Do you honestly believe that a bunch of runners, once a year, are going to do lasting damage to the Downs? If my memory serves me right the majority of the course was on existing well walked paths!! No matter, I will look to you to apply the same logic behind your decision to Derby Day and the hordes of spectators, not to mention buses, helicopters and assortment of funfair rides.”

Couldn’t have put it better myself.

Another dog attack on the downs, again helpfully reported by the Epsom Guardian. Sadly, the borough council seems to have lost interest in its initiative to improve dog control in the borough’s open spaces, as reported in the report of the last conservators’ meeting.

Pedestrian access across the five furlong spur on Tattenham Corner Road: it was agreed that nothing could be done: it was all too difficult.

Dog control on the downs: it now seemed unlikely that the council would appoint an enforcement officer, and it’s clear that, beyond seeking a new byelaw, the head of steam behind a new initiative to influence dog walkers’ behaviour on the downs (or indeed anywhere else in the borough) has dissipated.

Hack sand track: more quotations for work are to be obtained for remedial works (inspections due next week), and advice will be given to the chairman and vice-chairman to reach a decision on approving tenders for the works. The vice-chairman confirmed that no contribution would be forthcoming from the Horse Race Levy Board.

Simon Dow’s report on hack riders’ misbehaviour: the report had not been circulated outside the board, but it was said that a leaflet would be produced to be given out by the downskeepers in the circumstances described.

Budget: expenditure of £353k forecast in 2011–12 (of which the council meets 60% of the contributions). Delivery of the habitat management plan is one of the risks identified from potential shortfalls in future years’ funding. The council undercharges for the provision of officer services to the conservators, which in effect subsidises the racecourse. Funding for the downs had not been identified by the council as a target for cuts at present.

Charging for car parking on the downs: a discussion booted off with a member suggesting that the public should not be charged for visiting open spaces (Ed: presumably, it’s OK to charge if they want to go shopping or visit the cinema — and compare with, say, National Trust car parks). Any charges would need to be recycled into maintenance of the car parks. It was thought the car parks were adequately maintained at present (Ed: do any members use them, I wonder?), and the analysis of options was agreed to be discontinued.

Filming on the downs: filming for Wade In (apparently starring Bob Hoskins) was done on the downs last week, bringing in a fee (apparently, ‘half the fee’) of £1,000 to the conservators (Ed: presumably, the other half went to the racecourse).

Training Grounds Management Board (TGMB): the racecourse held a press morning in early January to highlight trainers’ performance in Epsom during 2010, with just short of £1m in prize money. Two articles appeared in The Guardian about training on the downs. Last year, there were an average 171 horses per month using the training grounds (200 in May), at the highest level for a decade. A new trainer, Olivia Maylam, has moved into Chalk Pit Stables in Headley Road. At the December meeting, the TGMB considered use of the hatched area (no change of course), and considered that improving facilities for hack riders on the downs, by restoring the hack sand track, should be addressed as soon as possible. The vice-chairman, as secretary to the TGMB, was in direct discussion with the hack riders about use of the hatched area (see here).

Byelaws and cycling: the recommendation to submit the byelaws for approval was agreed without any discussion, as was the recommendation not to consider any other proposals for changes to byelaws.

Habitat management plan for the golf course: the management recommendations were agreed without substantive comment (i.e. someone drew attention to the length of the plan), as was the need for a further meeting with the golf course to identify responsibilities for delivering the actions.

Extending the fencing period for the Derby: the clerk said she had received representations from the consultative committee and the Epsom Protection Society about the powers to grant an extension, but had set out her view in the report that the extension could be permitted. She acknowledged that the Act conveyed no specific powers to vary the fencing periods, she had concluded that it nevertheless had the power to do so. A member asked why the fencing needed to go up so early, and was told there was a huge amount to do, so that the fencing provided a secure area for additional works coming on site, and because it took time to put up the fencing. Health and safety requirements were now more onerous and the work could not be done in the time stipulated in the Act. An assurance was given that, during the build up period, the fencing would not exclude the public (Ed: though it was not clear how this was reconciled with the earlier stated need to provide a secure area. Meanwhile, it seems that the clerk’s view is that the framework of the Act can be dispensed with when it doesn’t suit any party, a handy principle which we will need to bear in mind).

Barbecues on the downs: the racecourse said it was not clear whether the byelaws, which prohibit the lighting of fires, applied to barbecues, which were part of the Derby event and Derby ‘culture’. It was suggested that the conservators could decide to allow barbecues during racing events (but not on music evenings), but the clerk said that the Act only enabled the conservators to make byelaws, and byelaw 2(i)(g) simply prohibited lighting of fires, although that left open the question of enforcement. A member suggested that allowing barbecues at certain times would lead to abuse at other times. The racecourse said that barbecues on music evenings would be quickly clamped down on. The chairman was reluctant to ‘consent’ to barbecues on specific days only, but thought that it might be sensible to continue to turn a blind eye during events. That approach was endorsed after a heated discussion. (Ed: quite how the conservators could consent or not consent to a breach of the byelaws remained unclear, particularly since any aggrieved party may prosecute).

Ebbisham Lane: the clerk reported on the possibility of a repair notice to be served on the highway authority, under section 56 of the Highways Act 1980 (as we had previously suggested), and described the procedure. Following which, the chairman immediately moved on the discussion to the next item.

Reseeding of Tattenham straight: Nick Owen had asked that native species should be used, preferably seeded from other areas of the downs (regrettably, Nick Owen will be leaving the Lower Mole Countryside Project in March). The request was agreed, taking Nick Owen’s advice into consideration.

Management of staff: overtime payments needed to be reduced. It was proposed to integrate the maintenance downskeeper into the Streetcare section of the council’s operation services. A report was circulated at the start of the meeting, and although the agenda item was described as ‘confidential’, the public was permitted to remain, even though the discussion related to a particular member of staff. That person was reported content with the new arrangements (thought it was apparent this wasn’t the whole story). Agreed.

Downskeeper’s hut: bizarrely, we were then asked to leave while the conservators discussed the future of the downskeeper’s hut, even though this item hadn’t been branded as confidential: an odd sense of what is and is not confidential. So the outcome is unknown for now.

Date of next meeting: 11 April 2011.

The saga of the hatched area continues. An email

sent today to the secretary of the Training Grounds Management Board, at the invitation of the last meeting of the consultative committee, asking about what ‘conditions’ (the word used under the 1984 Act) would permit hack riding on the hatched area (seeing as it’s never been permitted anytime since 1984).