C.A.R. notes from CTC meeting of 3rd August 2006 by E. McCormick
In attendance : J. Finch (JF), B. Grills (BG), B. Lush (BL), B. Ireland (BI), P. Clark (PC),
D. Pierce (DP), A. Shaw (AS), M. Williams (MW), S. Elford (SE)
Minutes taken by B. Jordan (BJ)
Apologies from: L. Crockford (LC) – will be late due to work commitments. Also J Sanders.
Public Participation - 3 letters received:-
(1) from Mrs M Baber Chair of CAR re internet posting on the Talking Shop forum. JF stated that because this was part of an ongoing police investigation into the CAR website it could not be discussed at this time (but see later, part of Item 16). BJ reported that the police and the IWF were looking into the matter.
(Author’s note: The IWF investigates mainly child pornography – it specifically does not investigate ‘chat-rooms’, forums, or bulletin boards). (Additional note – on Friday August 11th 2006 Sgt. Paul Jones of Camelford Police Station confirmed that no police action would be taking place with regard to this matter).
(2) from Mr J Hough re Mayor’s and Council statement to press following the 999 call to police made by deputy Mayor (BG) and subsequent report in local press. JF stated that this was not Council business saying to Mr Hough “You managed to get your letter in the Camelford & Delabole Post – that should be enough!”. (but see below).
(3) From Mrs P Reid re Council’s efforts in cleaning up the litter etc. in town and especially in the park – Mrs Reid stated that she had also done some litter collection. She asked if something could be done each morning to tidy up. JF said the Council is aware of litter problems, the Clerk goes into the park every day and picks up upto 3 bags of rubbish, this is not the Clerk’s job.
Mr J Hough rose to his feet and asked how it can be up to the Clerk to decide whether letters addressed to Councillors are Council business or not. JF re-stated this was not Council business saying whatever had gone in the press was up to the press but Mr Hough continued his comments and referred to the reply he had received from BJ which said that Mr Hough’s witnessed observations of the police arrival and talks with Mrs Baber were ‘hearsay’. BJ said again that it was hearsay to which Mr Hough replied that, having actually witnessed the proceedings, and having overheard the conversation, his observations were 1st hand accounts. JF asked if BG would like to state again her recollections of the incident. BG reported that during her talk with the police officer he had told her that she should not be afraid to use the 999 service again in similar circumstances. Mr Hough then asked about the statement in the press which quoted JF. JF said that the Council is not responsible for what the press prints but Mr Hough referred her to a copy of the Council’s press release in which JF is quoted on matters she was not present at and could therefore not witness. Mr Hough continued by stating that, as he was a witness, he can categorically say that the police officer did not have to calm Mrs Baber down, she in fact said to the officer that he would want to have a word with her. The statement that the Council issued to the Press is clearly not true. For the Council to give that impression in its statement is biasing the whole attitude of the situation, “I feel that the matter should be brought into the open but… when it comes to the Council writing it in this form I do feel strongly that it is incorrect and would like it recording in the minutes”. Mr Hough then said that he was disappointed that the Clerk had taken it upon himself to decide what is Council business. BJ rose and said, “I’m sorry Mr Hough I didn’t”. JF stated that BJ had shown her Mr Hough’s letter. Mr Hough corrected JF by quoting from the reply BJ had sent him which said that BJ would be showing the letter to the Mayor. JF said that she had nothing further to say, the matter is “over and done with” and that if Mr Hough felt it was wrong then that was his opinion. She said what she had said and that was her opinion which she is quite entitled to. “I am entitled to say what
I want to the Press and the Press are entitled to print what they choose”. Mr Hough reminded those present that the mayor’s comments were in quotation marks and from the Press statement issued by CTC, this is clearly wrong to do because JF had not witnessed any of the proceedings on which she could base her comments, rather that she was relying on the word of the deputy mayor and making up the rest. Mr Hough then returned to the subject of BJ’s reply which stated that “It is my [BJ] opinion that this is not Council business”, i.e. before having shown or discussed the letter with JF.
BI rose to speak but was not allowed to do so by JF.
2. Approval of Minutes of 18th July 2006
BI said the minutes showed six items were nobody proposed and nobody seconded, he then cited the relevant items. JF replied that she was aware of this and the minutes in this format were done on the advice of Sarah Mason and that if Council didn’t like it they could change it back. BI said he would prefer that the previous way of recording minutes, showing proposer and seconder were retained. He asked why the minutes did not now show the proposer and seconder of motions made before Council. JF quoted Sarah Mason as saying the new style should be adopted because it would keep the minutes shorter and said that minutes only have to show the result of the actual proposal. AS said he had problems with the new style because it wouldn’t show who had declared an interest. BL said that the old style should be reinstated immediately to show responsibility for resolutions and motions that would be voted on. PC said there was no record (in the minutes of the 18th July) of his proposal as he had stated it. BG said that she couldn’t recall PC’s actual wording of his proposal but, in the past, if a proposer wanted their actual words recorded, they should be given to the Clerk. PC said that he had read his proposal out, word for word, three times because he had it written down. BJ said Cllr Clark had wanted descriptive words removing but he hadn’t given him [BJ] the actual words he wanted removing. PC stated that if his proposal had been recorded then there would not now be a problem. JF asked PC if he would be happy if the word ‘hurled’ and replaced with ‘made’ and also that ‘the mayor left the room’ was inserted. PC said that that accurately reflected his initial proposal. BI then asked whether this proved that it is important to record who said what and when. BJ then said that if members wanted a proposal recording accurately then they should provide him with a written version of the proposal. JF asked if there were any other problems and if not could the minutes be proposed for acceptance. AS proposed, MW seconded, that the minutes, with the changes as described above, be accepted. 7 in favour, PC against, BI abstained.
BJ requested that before moving on to the next item could he have clarification that Council wishes to return to the previous method of recording minutes. JF said “Yes”.
3. Receiving declarations of interest
BJ read out declarations as provided by councillors. Copy available at CTC office.
4. Matters arising
(a) re Council having a ‘.gov’ web address – BJ has spoken to Mike at NCDC who is happy to come to Camelford and make a presentation – carried forward to September meeting.
(b) re Chapel Street – ongoing but work not due to start until next year, carried forward.
(c) re Traffic monitoring – JF has spoken with a resident who mentioned the traffic conditions in Fore St. and Market Place. AS stated again about loading areas being mis-used and the impatience of drivers – he again suggested that bollards would ease the problem of drivers mounting the kerb instead of waiting for a safe space to pass. BG requested that loading areas be designated as ‘HGV’ but was informed that this can’t be done. BJ said that the Co-op car park was being used by people who were parking all day to avoid paying at Churchfield. JF said that the Co-op need to deal with drivers abusing their car park and loading bay and that this should be addressed in conjunction with the Highways dept. and CTC. (Letter to go to Highways and Co-op).
(d) re brown ‘tourist’ signs – ongoing.
(e) re Camelford in Bloom – BJ reported that 16 entries had been received and judging will take place in August. JF said that CTC will need to purchase a trophy or cup of some description.
(f) re Trevia – BJ read a letter from SWW regarding complaints procedure and issues raised. SWW have carried out an investigation which concluded that the ‘white water’ problem was probably due to a resident mis-using the drains. With regard to the bad odour problems, SWW would attempt to deal with this through the use of chemicals. JF stated that she was hopeful this would cure the problem.
(g) re Town Trust parking – BJ reported that he was waiting for further information and legal advice.
(h) re Clearing the river – BJ has contacted bio-diversity regulators and Environment Agency must be contacted to ensure methods used comply with pollution/protection measures. BJ also reported that toxic weeds can be removed but if it is decided to restore the level of the river bed then permission must be sought. Further information on the safe removal of the toxic Hemlock Water dropwort (Dead Mens Fingers) weeds is available from the CTC office. It was suggested that P. Solomon be asked to deal with removal of the weeds and the rubbish to make the area look tidier.
(i) re Road Closure for Candle-lit parade in December – NCDC (John Marks) has said CTC will be informed on 15th August of the outcome of NCDC’s decision. If it is intended to hold a ‘bucket’ style street collection then BJ has the necessary application form, which should be returned. BG said the form should be passed on to the Town Forum, JF agreed.
(j) re Camelford Show – CTC required volunteers to man the stand. MW offered to attend, BI stated that he would be in attendance but on the ‘memorabilia’ stand. Also BJ to ring the Show supervisor regarding ‘Exhibitors’ passes.
5 – Answers to Public Participation of 18th July 2006 meeting – None.
6 – To answer questions or observations from Councillors of which notice has been given –
(a) – From Cllr B Lush – “Why is it that recently more and more of the Council’s business is being conducted in private session, and is the Council lawfully obliged to publish publicly the resolutions passed at such meetings? – JF replied that after receiving advice from Sarah Mason all previous “In Committee” minutes are now released and available (where necessary with private individual’s details removed). BL then read from a leaflet issued to all councillors, who should have copies, in respect of “In Committee” meetings. He said that currently things are “back to front” in that the resolution to go into private session is taken after the Press and public have left i.e. before the Council has confirmed that the items are indeed “In Committee”. JF replied that at present, as soon as she begins to read the clause, the Press and public leave, it would therefore be necessary to ask them to stay until the Council has voted on the issue of exclusion. BI stated that the reason for secrecy should be given - he cited the example from this evening’s agenda ‘Parks for People’ and said this indicated no reason for being included in a private session. JF replied that the item concerned interviews for posts connected with the project so should properly be discussed in private. BI suggested that in future the reason for inclusion in private session should be stated on the agenda but should omit personal details. JF then stated that “in Committee” meetings had discussed parking tickets to which BL said that parking tickets should be discussed by the Car Park sub-committee.
(b) Cllr B Lush, personal statement – BL said he must reluctantly, and in the public interest, make a statement about the treatment he had received at the last “In Committee” session from several other councillors. He stated that he did not side with any political party, lobby group or other individual councillor(s) and that his decisions were made independently. He asked for “no more hassle”. DP commented that BL’s remarks “smacked of an electioneering speech”. BL remonstrated immediately, “How dare you Councillor Pierce!”. DP apologised but continued by saying that this Council “is not a single issue committee, unlike some of our detractors”. DP went on to say that it would be interesting to see how many volunteers came forward to help with clearing the pond or driving (community) buses in the town.
7 – Items requiring a decision
(a) re Grant for St. Thomas’s Church – request from Mrs B Oliver for £85 for help with a short-fall in income against costs. MW stated that he was delighted with the renovation of the stained glass window at the church and recommended approval of the £85. DP also approved. MW then proposed that the amount be increased to £100. JF commented that the amount should remain at £85 for this request but to leave the option to increase it when next year’s precept is set. MW’s proposal for £100 went forward with the suggestion that Mrs Oliver be asked what amount the church would like for next year. This was seconded by BL, with 8 in favour, BG against, AS abstained.
(b) re Camelford Hall – request for grant - BJ suggested that this item be carried forward to the September meeting due to issues over dispensations/voting accountabilities but Councillors decided to discuss tonight. BJ read from a list of requirements which mentioned the ‘Camel Club’ and included the need for the current cookers to be up-graded to commercial quality as part of the larger project. AS asked what the cost would be and was provided with a figure of £3271.10p, this would need to be supplemented to cover installation costs so a further £500 was mentioned. BL commented on a suggestion from NCDC re the ‘Community Chest fund and that they would be willing to help towards the project if CTC showed support. DP asked how much NCDC would be putting in to which BL replied that he had no firm figure but possibly 10% would be close. BL also stated that a ‘statement of intent’ to back the scheme from CTC and NCDC would be sufficient to enable other grant awarding bodies to become involved. BJ quoted from and handed BL information about possible Lottery funding. The subject of dispensation was then discussed. AS made a statement, the content of which was agreed by BI, as a true reflection of the advice from Sally Lloyd-Jones (NCDC Legal Dept.) and the Standards Board. JF stated that each councillor apart from the Chairman of the Hall Committee (B Lush) would need to apply for dispensation to vote on matters relating to the finance of the Hall. JF proposed that this issue be carried forward until clarification is received in writing from NCDC Legal, this was seconded by AS, 6 in favour, BL and BI abstained.
(LC arrived at 8.08p.m.)
MW commented that this had all come about because of ‘cooking classes’ but JF replied that the ‘Camel Club’ was a local club, one activity of which was to prepare a lunch for 20 people, and that the existing cookers were not up to the demands placed on them.
BL said he has a meeting scheduled for 11th October with NCDC and Health Standards agency.
BJ stated that he has advised Sally Lloyd-Jones of each councillors role and was awaiting clarification but that if dispensation was necessary then CTC would get it. BL abstained from the vote.
(c) – Celebrity switch-on of Christmas Lights – BG reported from the Lights Committee that Geoff Kay has said that this will be his last year so it might be appropriate if Geoff’s wife Hazel were to be asked to switch on the lights, perhaps with a celebrity, to ensure media coverage, a large turn-out and sufficient advertising. BG suggested Lawrence Reed. JF suggested Teresa Driscoll, a former presenter of BBC Spotlight who has connections with the area. MW thought that Martin Clunes might be willing because of his professed interest in North Cornwall. BG proposed that several invitations be sent and that CTC accept the first to respond positively. JF proposed that the Carnival Queen present a floral bouquet to Hazel Kay as she switched on the lights. This was seconded by SE with 8 in favour, PC abstained. Letters to go to the named celebrities.
(d) re Cale Briparc - Tickets for parking machines – Advertising – BJ reported that the original quote for ‘sticky’ tickets had been amended by Cale Briparc which means the new cost would be prohibitive. JF proposed retention of non-adhesive tickets with advertising, which will make them cheaper to buy, on the reverse, seconded by BG, 6 in favour, BL, PC & DP abstained.
(e) – Camelford Sports Hall Management committee – the Sports Hall management committee are seeking a Councillor to attend as a non-voting member. BG asked if DP would be willing to add this to his current role, DP agreed. BG proposed, JF seconded, all in favour except DP and PC who abstained.
(f) – Trophy for Camelford in Bloom (Garden in a Boot) – JF stated that she had investigated costs and sizes of various trophies but thought that the cost this year would be too expensive, she therefore proposed a wooden plaque (for just this year). MW suggested a small decorated boot while AS suggested a small trophy. BG asked if winners would get to keep the trophy or a smaller version, a cup perhaps, which a local craftsman could help with. Proposer MW, seconded by AS, 9 in favour, PC abstained. (JF will investigate costs of various types and styles of trophy tomorrow 4th August).
(g) – New Surgery – BJ reported a letter from John Craig in which it is proposed that this new surgery be built on land adjacent to he existing medical centre, the diocese has sold land behind St. Thomas’s, with a request for provision of 6 parking places on a long-term basis. There is to be a meeting at 10a.m. on 15th August in the Car Park to allow councillors to discuss these proposals with the developers. AS said he was disgusted that the original planning application was “piggy-backed” on to the issue of the planned medical centre/residential home nearer to Valley Truckle. The meeting to be held on 15th August with the developers is, JF said, to discuss access. PC asked if this meant that the original plan for the medical centre had one for good. AS said that Camelford is now going to get 50 houses and no medical centre at the previously approved site and that this will “overflow” the town. BG said that CTC had to look at the benefit to the town and the newly proposed medical centre would be a benefit and that CTC should look on it favourably, but building work should not jeopardise residents. BJ said that eventually there would be in the region of 30 people working at the new medical centre and that during building work they would need to use the car park and that any damage done should be repaired at the cost of the developer, he also suggested that they should be asked to resurface and ‘white-line’ the car park. JF said that more information was required before CTC could make a recommendation.
8 – Items for information
(a) – Dan Rogerson MP – report on meeting of 31st May regarding Bowithick tip – available in CTC office.
(b) – Road markings at the school – to read “School – Keep Clear” – BG said people currently ignore yellow lines and she felt that just adding new words to the markings would achieve nothing. JF agreed as did BL.
(c) – Rural Transport Partnership – new bus links from Camelford to Launceston and via Okehampton to Exeter. The report in the press recently is already subject to some dispute. BL had said that the ‘through’ fare would be free to card-holders but there is a proviso which states that if the bus (because of scheduling) was due to terminate at Okehampton then the rest of the journey on to Exeter would incur a charge. BG requested information about the Launceston to Exeter service and BL replied that this had been stopped by First Western but that at least there is a bus service now. BG commented, “They give with one hand and take away with the other”. SE stated that she had been told that the new service was going to be reviewed in September rather than after 2 years as stated by Janey Comber. JF reported on her conversation with the Managing Director of Western Greyhound and stated that September had not been mentioned. BG asked that Council write to the bus companies to clarify the position.
(d) – Road Closure – Trefrew Road to Victoria Road – CCC order for closure from 29/08/06 for 2 weeks for re-surfacing.
9 – Approval of Payments (as per agenda and available at CTC office)
BI asked if the Council were allowed to use funds from the previous year for this year’s projects. BJ replied that the payment BI was talking about was the Forum grant and was made before CTC had adopted the new financial standards, therefore no irregularity had in fact occurred. AS proposed acceptance, seconded by MW, 8 in favour, PC and BI abstained.
10 – Resolutions or recommendations from councillors – None
11 – Correspondence – None
(JF adjourned the meeting for 10 minutes to allow councillors to view plans for Item 12)
BI invoked Standing Order 16, ‘Urgent Business’, regarding the service of a 7 day notice received from the Information Commissioner’s Office and because the Council will not be meeting again until September. He said that all councillors will possibly be affected. BJ stated that he had today replied to the ICO and that 14 days was allowed. JF stated that BJ had supplied the information requested by the ICO but requested the letter BI had quoted from which referred to a possible £5000 fine for each councillor found to be in breach of Section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act. BI replied that he would be happy to supply an e-mail copy. BJ stated that he had replied to Mr Moss of the ICO that he had never received an official request for information. BG requested that Council return to the agenda, i.e. Item 12, and that the ICO issue be discussed before the “In Committee” meeting later.
12 – Planning applications (as per agenda)
(a) Proposed ‘no objection’ by AS seconded by BG, all in favour.
(b) ---------- ditto -------------------------------------------------------
(c) Proposed ‘no objection’ by DP, seconded by MW, all in favour
(d) BG, BI, PC and BL (having declared a prejudicial interest) left the room. AS proposed ‘no comment’, seconded by JF, 5 in favour, LC abstained.
(e) Proposed ‘no objection’ by AS, seconded by BG, all in favour.
(f) Proposed ‘no objection’ by BG seconded by AS, 9 in favour, JF abstained.
13 – Planning approval notices – (as per agenda) available in CTC office.
14 – Planning refusal notices – (as per agenda) available in CTC office.
15 – Committee reports – None.
16 – Reports
(a) Town Forum – JF gave a report of the recent meeting held on 21st July.
(b) CDCDT – AS had nothing to report.
(c) Youth Club – MW reported that the Youth Club is to open 2 days a week during the summer.
(d) HERS – no report.
(e) Mayor’s report – JF gave a report on the primary school, the state of the river, the recent remembrance service for the late Bob Stratfield. She then thanked Janey Comber, BL and SE for their work on getting the bus service back. After making a request for volunteers to help at the Camelford Show she stated that a new mayoral civic service would be held on 6th August.
JF then read out an additional personal statement which she said exercised her right to free speech. Copies of her statement were handed to the Press (copy to Western Morning News and C & D Post) and one had been sent to the Standards Board for England. A copy of the Mayor’s statement can be viewed on the C.A.R. website (extracts have already appeared in the Cornish Guardian).
As she finished her personal statement BL stated that he wished to be disassociated with her remarks. BI then stated that, despite what some people had implied, for some months he had not had any involvement in maintaining the C.A.R. website or the forum on which the original posting had been made, he continued by saying he would now be willing to offer help with the website if requested. He had seen the posting and stated that, although it wasn’t his type of humour, he understood immediately that it was intended to be humorous and that he was surprised at any councillor who took umbrage. MW said that he would be writing to the Standards Board in support of JF’s stance.
(f) Cornwall Assoc. of Local Councils – BL had recently attended a meeting of CALC and they are looking for a Vice-Chair and Secretary. The AGM will take place on 11th October 2006.
At a meeting with Dan Rogerson MP it was asked that local Parish Council contribute ideas relating to the proposed restructuring of local government.
(g) Trefrew Bridge – BI had a meeting with J Burke who had said that work on the river can only take place between 1st April and 30th September and, because the grant application would not be back in time, it will be next April before work can start. JF asked if the grant people are happy with this and BI replied that they were. BG asked if the information regarding the grant was in writing because “they are very good at asking for it back”. BI replied that he would check with NCDC and once the grant is approved then CTC can put out tenders for the work involved.
17 – Newsletters and Circulars
(a) English Nature – Sitelines
(b) Journal of Westcountry Trust
18 – Items for 7th September meeting
(a) BG – town infrastructure.
(b) BI – Press reports
(c) BL – ‘dog bin’ missing from the top of High St.
(d) DP – get some information re the new Chief Constable for Devon & Cornwall Constabulary.
(e) BG – Traffic warden and policing in town.
(f) MW and LC apologised in advance of their absence for the September meeting.
The meeting returned to the subject of the letter from the ICO and the Freedom of Information Act. BI said that he wasn’t asking that the matter be dealt with tonight but hat the Council need to discuss the issue urgently. BJ said that tomorrow all councillors would receive a photocopy of the ICO letter and the information provided by BI.
19 – Exempt information
(a) Court summons – nothing to report.
(b) Parks for People – update.
AS proposed and DP seconded that Press and public be excluded from the discussions on the topics above. BI and PC against, rest in favour.
------------------------------ End of Notes ---------------------------