Index of Topic Headings

Peasedown St.John is a large village situated about 5 miles south of the centre of the city of Bath and at its highest point it is some 620 feet above sea level. The original village was built astride the A367, the Fosse Way on a plateau between the village of Dunkerton and the town of Radstock. To the east is the village of Wellow and to the west, the village of Camerton. Although part of the present site of the village had remains of an Iron Age Settlement, during the construction of the village by-pass in the last ten years, the site of a medieval settlement and farmstead was studied by archaeologists from Bristol University, who discovered that the inhabitants of Eichweke, named in Doomsday, suddenly left the settlement in the middle of the 14^th century. The translation from Saxon of this name, still carried forward today with a road, a lane and an estate called Eckweek, is "the other place". On the tithe map of Carlingcott, dated around 1830, the only reference to Peasedown was that 5 fields in the area of the present village were called by that name. It was not until 1874 that the village acquired the name of Peasedown St.John.

The village did not have its own Parish Council until 1955. The population of the village in 1901 was 1505 rising to around 6500 today.

Local government of the parish at the primary level was shared between the Parish Councils of Wellow, Dunkerton and Camerton and Peasedown St.John-elected members sat on those parish councils. In those days the whole of the present area was part of the County of Somerset, including the City of Bath.

Today Local Government is provided in Peasedown St.John on two levels - the Parish Council and the Unitary Authority, Bath & North East Somerset. The parish was formally part of the Wansdyke District, in the County of Avon and at the latest reorganisation of local government a Unitary Authority was created from Bath and Wansdyke Districts.

As with many council reorganisations, the new arrangement needs time to be accepted by the electorate, many of whom are initially opposed to any changes in administration, which usually, though not always, means a distancing of the centre of administration from the grass roots.

In the case of Peasedown St.John, the former County Authority of Avon was situated in Bristol and the District Council was in Midsomer Norton. The centre of B&NES is Bath, with Offices in Midsomer Norton, so that in this case, the centre of the Authority has moved nearer to this Parish.

In all the changes, the one constant feature has been that the Parish Council has and always will be within the Parish. Also, as a general rule, elected members of the Parish Council are residents and electors of the parish.

The parish of Peasedown St.John elects two members of B&NES every four years, and those elected have to be resident within the boundaries of the authority. The Parish Council at present has seventeen members, who are all residents of the parish and are also elected every four years.

The Unitary Authority is responsible by Statute for providing Education, Social Services, Highways, Planning, Youth Services, all of which directly affect the parish.

The Parish Council is responsible for maintaining certain public areas that it owns, overseeing the Planning applications, improving and monitoring the environment.

In the case of Peasedown St.John, the parish owns a Cemetery, are Trustees of a large Playing Field, own and maintain an area for general recreation called Eichweke Green, maintains a quantity of
non estate street lighting, maintains the Village Green.

The parish council also maintains seventeen plots for allotments, generally for residents.

Many of the responsibilities of both councils require considerable co-operation between the two authorities to ensure that maximum benefit is received by the electors, so close personal contact between the two authorities is essential, both at officer and elected member levels.

The present divisions between the Parish and the Unitary Authority have been in place now since 1995, which is considered to be a long enough period for most problems to have been rectified.

Peasedown St.John can be considered a "special" place in the context of North East Somerset in that in the past decade or so, it has been developed into a village of double the inhabitants of 1990.

This major expansion, which was implemented by the then District Council, Wansdyke, has greatly altered the village, both in size and in character.

The history of the village, which is quite short, is that it came into being through the mining industry on the North Somerset Coalfield. By far the largest part of the village is somewhat less than 100 years old and the mining industry employed the greater proportion of the male population, ahead of agriculture, so Peasedown St.John was described as a mining village. Many of the inhabitants of the older part of the village have either been employed in the mining industry in their younger days or have members of their families, both past and present, who were employed in the coal mines. It is no coincidence, therefore, that the oldest church in the village is a Methodist Church, which was closely connected with mining.

Although the mines have been closed for many decades now, there is still, nonetheless a very strong connection with the industrial past.

The new development of some 1500 houses on the eastern side of the village has been mainly occupied by office and factory workers, who are not employed close to the village but work mainly in Bath, Bristol and Norton-Radstock. Many, but not all, have no previous connection with Peasedown St.John or with its industrial past. There has been some influx of residents from the older part of the village into the new estates, but this has been quite limited and the main problem with the village now is that it is considered to be a village of two halves, connected only by a series of footpaths but by no road suitable for vehicular transport and so, in part, causing a loss of trade in the central village area, where all the shops are situated. When questioned about the availability of shopping in the village, many residents in the new estates reply that as they have to reach the centre of the village via the village by-pass, they can quite easily go on to either Bath or Radstock. The main part of the village is quite well served by shops. These include two medium sized convenience stores, with one producing bread daily, a butcher, a craft shop, an estate agent, two hairdressers, a post office, a baker, three take away food outlets, a veterinary surgery,
a dental practice, a pharmacy and a large medical practice with four doctors. There is a large coach firm situated in the middle of the village and three public houses which also serve food. There are also five churches in the parish : Church of England, Roman Catholic, two Methodist Chapels and a Christadelphian Church

In addition to the fragmentation caused by the two village halves and the difficulty in being able to access another half by car, there is an additional problem caused by the geographical situation of Carlingcott, New Buildings, Woodborough and Braysdown. Although these four settlements are part of the village of Peasedown St.John, they are all separated from the main part of the village by agricultural land and have independent identities. These settlements, as in the case of Carlingcott, are in fact older than the main village of Peasedown St.John and all of them share the same industrial heritage. Carlingcott is a mile or so from the old A367, down in the Cam Valley, served by a system of very narrow roads and is sometimes very difficult to access, especially during icy conditions. The hamlet does not have a bus service, simply because the existing roads are too narrow, which can cause considerable inconvenience for residents, especially older residents who may not have their own transport. Bus services on the A367 are out of their reach as they would have a round two mile trip every time they wanted to use a bus.

The other settlements are also served by minor roads but they all lie reasonably close to the A367, making access to bus travel a possibility.

It is evident therefore that one of the main responsibilities of local government in Peasedown St.John is to create a unified village, which has clear aims and supports those services that are at present in the village. It is most important that the heart of the village is maintained and all the village shops, together with the very large Primary School with over 500 pupils, a Youth Centre and an Adult Learning Centre, are all situated in the old village centre. Two of the churches and two of the public houses are also within this area. The question regarding additional services is always being asked and will be referred to at a later stage in this report.

It is also relevant and true that local government works best when local councils and their councillors are in touch with the local population. It is also true that where there is more than one council or where council responsibilities are shared, then the closest co-operation between those councils is paramount. Where possible, strategies have to be devised to encourage that co-operation.

At the present time, the Unitary Authority holds Parish Liaison meetings, between some senior B&NES Councillors, senior Officers and representatives of Town and Parish Councils. Whilst this type of meeting is quite useful, there is never enough time or opportunity for frank and constructive discussion. Cluster meetings are also sometimes held between B&NES Officers and one or two local Parish and Town Councils. Another avenue for co-operation is Avon Local Councils Association meetings, where a combined view of the Parish and Town Council members from the B&NES area can make approaches to B&NES Council by mail and through consultative sub committee meetings with B&NES Councillors and Officers. Peasedown St.John Parish Council uses all these meetings both for specific problems relating to this village and as part of an ALCA combined approach to B&NES on issues such as Double Taxation and Planning problems, either locally within the authority area or as part of the South West Region Strategic Plan. It is also possible to invite B&NES Officers to attend Parish Council meetings in order to discuss some particular problem or policy intention instigated by either B&NES or the Parish Council. However, with all of these methods and forums, it has to be remembered that in most cases Officers have to receive clearance from elected members so that delegated authority is sometimes not enough,
as most final decisions rest with B&NES Council and/or the Parish Council.

Smaller villages have a distinct advantage over large villages in that most people seem to know one another. The large village has the same disadvantage in this respect as towns but without the advantages that most towns seem to enjoy. Most towns have a greater selection of council services at their disposal than large villages, e.g. there are usually no libraries, no council sporting facilities and the impression is that villages generally, and in particular large villages, lose out in the distribution of the District Council's budget spending. In the case of Peasedown St.John, although the size of the village in population and in housing stock is large and thus provides a large annual sum in Council Tax, plus an even larger sum in the proportion of council spending that it supplied by central government from general taxation, the services provided by the District Council seem sparse in comparison to the large amount of district money that, in this case, appears to be spent within the city of Bath. This situation breeds discontent and, so far, there has been no proof offered by the district council that this impression is false. It is a fact beyond dispute that in the case of B&NES, all villages and towns in North East Somerset pay more council tax, taking the same taxation band in the village and the city of Bath, than the council tax payers within that city. This is simply because whilst all the villages and towns in North East Somerset have local councils who raise precepts every year to improve their environment and pay for their clerks and other staff, Bath has no local council and Bath citizens are therefore not subject to an additional charge in the form of a parish or town precept It would appear that Bath does not want a council of its own and one can understand why. A great deal of the flower decoration that takes place in Bath every year would have to be paid for by the citizens of Bath alone and this would cost them money on their tax bills. The residents of Peasedown St.John pay an extra amount every year in their precept in order to put flowers around the village to improve the environment, yet at the same time have to pay a share of the flower displays in the city of Bath. This is what we refer to as "double taxation".

The discontent that follows an apparent unfair distribution of tax money collected and distributed by B&NES has a serious effect upon the democratic process. This is one of the several reasons why the majority of voters do not take part in local elections and why in many cases locally elected councillors are treated with suspicion at election time. Many residents think the whole affair is pre-determined and that their votes will not alter the status quo. This is, of course, exactly the wrong conclusion to draw.

The difficulty for all councils is to show that that conclusion is incorrect and to convince the electors to turn out on polling day to cast their votes and revitalise the democratic process.

It has been argued before in this report that local government works best when there is considerable
co-operation between both layers of local government. This is not as easy to achieve at the present as it would appear. There are no real mechanism in place within the electoral ward of Peasedown St.John for this to take place. It is of the utmost importance that the Parish Council is regularly briefed by the Unitary Councillors and equally important that the Unitary Councillors are regularly briefed by the Parish Council. In the past, before the re-organisation in the early 90s, this was often possible, as the District Councillors were more often than not also members of their Parish or Town Council and so briefing was an agenda item at all council meetings.

Many members of the electorate do not fully understand the division of council responsibilities between the Parish Council and the Unitary Authority, especially those that have a joint responsibility.

An example of this would be the present Planning structure, which involves both councils.

Another area of confusion is the ownership of land and buildings that are in the public domain.

Elected members from both councils have to spend considerable time in helping to deal with issues of concern from residents that may not be their direct responsibility.

In Peasedown St.John the Parish Council owns three areas of recreation and B&NES owns one, but this is not clear to the electorate. This brings into question, whether all recreational land within the parish should be owned by the parish, rather than the present split responsibility. In the case of buildings, there can be no dispute over the ownership of the Primary School and the Youth Centre. This leaves two other buildings in the village, the Adult Learning Centre, which appears to be partly owned by a local Comprehensive School in Writhlington, Radstock, and the gift to the village made by the new estate developers, of the Beacon Hall, which appears to be owned by B&NES, although the Hall's operations are run by a board of Trustees which receives no financial help or support from the supposed landlord, B&NES.

At the present time the Parish Council office is situated in the Beacon Hall and many would argue that because of the history of the hall and its importance to the village, both as a meeting place and as the administrative centre of local government in the village, that the hall should be in the custody of the Parish Council jointly with the Trustees of the Beacon Hall.

All local authorities at any level suffer from a lack of public participation both at election times and also during the life of a council. This has been studied in depth but no clear reasons have been given for the disaffection. It is therefore necessary for all local authorities to attempt to involve the electorate both in decision making and in the implementation of agreed policies. Although some electors complain that the almost total involvment of political parties is to blame, political involvment is here to stay. This however does not rule out cross-party co-operation and in nearly all rural parish councils this is the order of the day. In most towns and villages, there are other interest groups who play an important role in the life of the community. Groups such as the W.I., the Churches, Sports Clubs, Resident and Tenant Associations, Scouts and Guides and sometimes many others. All these groups represent a proportion of the community in which they exist and their members, young and old, have aims and ambitions for their groups and for their community and should be brought into the decision making process.

At the present time in Peasedown St.John hardly any of these groups and associations are represented on the parish council and none is represented on the unitary council. How do the present authorities know what these groups are thinking or what they are hoping for ? The groups consider the council to be remote at best and disinterested at worst.

All local authorities, both town councils and parish councils, experience problems with some of the youth who live in the towns and villages. The usual answer is that these problems should be dealt with by the police service, and whilst it is the responsibility of the police to maintain law and order and to protect the community, it is impossible for them to carry out this responsibility without the full and active support of the community, either expressed through the parish or town council or through a community safety action group. The split in responsibility between the council and a CSAG can cause problems of duplication or omission, especially if there is little or no contact between the two bodies.

Peasedown St.John Parish Council has a nominated representative who attends CSAG meetings and reports back to the council. Other members of the parish council are frequent attendees to CSAG meetings. However two problems remain. One is that although the unitary authority has a major input into the CSAG, it does not fund the organisation and over the past few years since its creation, the CSAG in Peasedown St.John has existed on £5 and a considerable financial expense by the Chairman of the group. This is unacceptable. It is usual that the police attend these meetings and as a result well over 50% of the time is spent on crime and fear of crime, and the presence of the police is the main reason why members of the public attend. These meetings therefore become somewhat repetitive and

less productive. B&NES ward councillors regularly attend these meetings together with one or two Officers. What is not clear however is what delegated authority these officers have, if any, so the results of the discussions do not always appear to materialize. The group is either not pro-active enough or is not allowed to be pro-active, and in either case its credibility is brought into question.

Peasedown St.John Parish Council continues to be concerned with youth matters.

This falls into two main sub headings :

--the vast majority of the youth in the village, who are constructive, active, and are an important part of the community, and

--the very few, who are disaffected and appear to have no desire to work within the accepted rules of a civilised society.

In regard to the majority, some years ago a Youth Parish Council was set up, with its own budget,
to shadow the Parish Council, but for a series of reasons, in part through the fault of the Parish Council, this body folded. The Parish Council has now made a fresh approach to this section of the youth, through the Youth Centre in the village and there appears to be a good chance that the youth parish council will be

re-constituted in the very near future. Discussions will take place between the youth, the youth leader and the leaders of the parish council to assist in the setting up of a youth parish council that will work on youth interests for the future.

The smaller group of youth have to be divided into two sections. There are those who do not wish to play any kind of constructive and active life in the community and there are those who are actively trying to destroy the community, with planned actions that cause considerable expense to the community, both materially and in wasting police time. There also appears to be a major problem in this regard with the attitude of the Magistrates’ bench in Bath, who, in many people's opinion, do not take low level crime seriously enough for the average householder and older people in this village. The question of illegal use of mini-motor-bikes has not yet been sorted out. The question of groups of youths hanging around in the centre of the village has still not been resolved. Illegal under age drinking is a major problem, which in this instance seems to be fuelled by older young adults either purchasing alcohol or stealing alcohol for very young teenagers. The illegal use of drugs is also a major problem. The police service are doing their very best to bring these related problems under control but in some cases, through intimidation,
the young criminals are getting away with their crimes and anti social behaviour because members of the public are unwilling to identify those causing the problem. In fact householders in some parts of the village are being threatened with physical violence should they report incidents to the police. The Parish Council is seriously concerned with the present state of affairs and is actively taking the lead in trying to bring all authorities together to deal with the matter.