Back to previous page

 

Notes on the meeting of Camelford Town Council, 5 April 2007

 

Public participation

The speaker was Paul Stephens from Poltair Homes who came to talk about the affordable housing adjacent to Victoria Gardens.  He said that, as background, when the original 8 houses had been handed over to the Housing Association, Poltair had been asked if more could be found in Camelford.  Though Poltair had originally had nothing in mind they had been able to acquire a site for 27 affordable homes.  Poltair decided to propose shared ownership, low cost and Housing Associated rented.  NCDC had now granted outline planning permission.  Mr Stephens asked for questions.  A. Shaw said that he was chair of CDCDT (Camelford and Delabole Community Development Trust) and They are looking for affordable housing and forming a community land trust which would keep down the price of housing.  P. Stephens said he thought Poltair was doing that.  A. Shaw asked what is affordable?  P. Stephens replied – that depends on whether there is a subsidy.  The cost is what it costs to build, so there is either a private or a public subsidy which involves the Chancellor of the Exchequer.  In that case the houses for rent through an RSL would get a public subsidy.  Often there was not enough money to go around.  The other two organisations are Poltair and THF.  P. Stephens said he was a director of both.  THF sells housing at cost, therefore cost is as low as it can be.  They were selling at £118,000 in Hayle without public subsidy.  A. Shaw said the average wage in Camelford was just below £14,000.  P. Stephens said they were aware of the problem, if someone could provide a subsidy it would be wonderful.  Over the last 10 years a gap had opened up in the market, - teachers, doctors etc. could not afford to buy.  THF could help some people, but not everyone.   CDCDT could generate more opportunities.  M. Williams asked if the 27 houses would follow the design and fit in with the existing estate.  P. Stephens said this was up to the planning department – it was not their wish to build ghettos.  He confirmed that they had it in mind to reflect what was there, but there were choices to be made.  They would go for short terraces and semi-detached.  The views of the community were being sought.  A. Shaw asked if Council could look at the final plans.  Mr Stephens said he would be quite happy with that.  He added that they would not allow people from a distance to be in their houses.  They would listen to Council.  J. Finch said there was a huge problem with sewage.  The system desperately needs upgrading and more houses would overload the system.  P. Stephens said that South West Water had been consulted and had raised no objections on capacity grounds.  There was only so much Poltair could do.  SWW would have a long term programme.  There was a list of people wanting houses, Camelford first, then the adjacent parishes.  He would bear in mind the wording of 106 with regard to the housing association units.  The Housing Association could then change the rules.  One third would be for rent.

 

Letter from E McCormick, Vice-Chairman of C.A.R. – read by the Chairman of Camelford Association of Residents, Mel Baber :-

 

 

 

 

Date  28th March 2007

 

Camelford Town Council

NCDC Offices

College Road

Camelford

PL32 9TL

 

Dear Councillors,

 

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (Section 50)

Case Ref:  FS50151402

Name of Public Authority: Camelford Town Council

ICO Decision Notice dated 14th March 2007

 

You will be aware that during her statement, made on 3rd August 2006 during the Town Council meeting, the Mayor categorically stated (amongst other things) that “We as a Council have also been reported to the Information Commissioner who has yet to carry out an investigation but I can assure you they will find nothing wrong.” (Mayor’s statement Page 1, para 3)

 

The Information Commissioner’s Summary (Page 1 of the Decision Notice) identifies 3 specific failures (under Sections 1, 17 and 41 of the Act).  These failures are explained more thoroughly in Paragraph 38 of the Decision Notice.

 

Paragraph 43 of the Decision Notice states “Section 77 of the Act creates a criminal offence where, in certain circumstances, information which has been requested is subsequently destroyed with the intention of preventing its disclosure.”  The Commissioner is “concerned” that the decision to destroy the Options Forms (as proposed by Councillor Pierce, see CTC minutes of 6th April 2006) was “contrary to good practice” and the Commissioner will in future “monitor” the Town Council. We note that the Commissioner does not, at this time, intend to pursue this aspect of the investigation, however the Executive of Camelford Association of Residents is to consider making an appeal against this element of the Commissioner’s decision because we do not believe that the actions of the Clerk and Council were due to “unfamiliarity with the Act”, rather that those actions were undertaken deliberately to deny full disclosure of the result of the ‘conciliation’ exercise.

 

In light of the Information Commissioner’s decision where he has found in favour of Camelford Association of Residents in that the Town Council, acting on the guidance of the Town Clerk, has breached the Freedom of Information Act and failed in its duty on more than one instance, will the Mayor now issue a retraction of her earlier assurance?

 

It has been stated by Council in support of the Clerk that he is well aware of, and capable of, performing his duties.  We cannot agree with those sentiments and suggest that Council instigate a disciplinary hearing to address this and other shortcomings which have come to the attention of the Council over recent months.

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

E. McCormick

Vice-Chairman, Camelford Association of Residents

 

The mayor said Council was addressing the Decision Notice under 8a on the agenda.

 

Letter from Mr Finch saying that because he had received no reply to his accusation calling his wife a liar, he would ask the following:-  Would he (Cllr Clark) apologise or at least justify his accusations.  If he was still saying this how can he stand in the coming local elections as he is totally dishonest?

 

  1. APOLOGIES – from Cllr Grills saying her son was ill and she had to take him to hospital.  Acceptance proposed by A. Shaw, seconded B. Lush, all in favour.  Cllr Bass absent.

P. Clark raised a point of order under the Code of Conduct, items 7, and 9.  Regarding agenda item 7d, he reminded the Councillors of Camelford Town Council of their duties under the Code of Conduct to declare a ‘prejudicial interest’ on any agenda items where their friendship or enmity with a person might be reasonably regarded by a member of the public that it would be likely to prejudice their judgment.

He asked Councillors to look at agenda item 7d concerning Cllr Clark.

He had publicly declared himself opposed to, and the enemy of, all Councillors not elected by a vote of the public.  He was currently making his best efforts to ensure that Cllrs Finch, Grills, Williams, Pierce and Shaw lose their council seats in the May elections. He continued by saying that At the Standards Board meeting held earlier this week at NCDC offices the panel confirmed that where a person had declared themselves to be an enemy a prejudicial interest would apply (Julian Harman vs Camelford town council).

The public in Camelford is aware of the enmity that exists between those Councillors and Cllr Clark.  There would be no way they could make a decision concerning Cllr Clark without the widespread perception that their decision was biased and unfair.

  1. RECEIVE DECLARATION OF INTEREST :  S. Elford 12c.  B. Lush 7b, chair of NCALC; 7d P. Clark a candidate; 12e neighbour, all prejudicial.  B. Ireland 7d, candidate; 7g vice chair (prejudicial) 7f, 11c, 11d, personal, wife is Secretary.  L. Crockford asked if all were candidates should everyone declare a prejudicial interest on 7d?.  B. Jordan said that everyone is in the same boat so nobody had a prejudicial interest.  D. Pierce said he would not be standing.  B. Ireland said, “So we are not all in the same boat, then.”  J. Finch said, “If you looked at it from that public point of view the item that P Clark is talking about is a complaint from a member of the public.”  She thought Council should deal with it.  B. Ireland said that it would look to a member of the public that she was electioneering.  J. Finch said she thought it was electioneering anyway.  P. Clark said, “Those are the rules.”  B. Jordan said that council had to deal with it, are they going to brush all this under the table?  M. Williams said he had not declared himself an enemy of P. Clark who said that it was obviously true in his case.  J. Finch said ‘We will deal with it’.  P. Clark said ‘Even if it breaks the code of conduct?’.
  2. MINUTES – B. Jordan said he had not checked the CAR minutes, but had received no complaints about the minutes.  Acceptance proposed D. Pierce, seconded S. Elford, 9 in favour.
  3. ITEMS CARRIED FORWARD FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING –
    1. Traffic monitoring – ongoing.  A. Shaw said that the chaos had resumed.
    2. Seat in Victoria Road – D. Pierce said the price would be £260 plus VAT.  Acceptance proposed, from Town Maintenance Budget, proposed S. Elford, seconded A. Shaw, 9 in favour.
    3. Footway and Street lights – no further information.  Write to Highways again.
    4. Inventory of Council properties – c/f to new Council.
    5. Seat outside Lloyds Bank – B. Jordan said if the salt bin was turned around there would be room for the seat right back against the wall. 
    6. Camera for car park attendant – c/f.
    7. Walls in Churchfield Car Park – the Clerk had received an email from Cllr Clark saying it could be fixed by two hefty blokes.  The worst case scenario is that the wall has to be taken down.  B. Lush asked if we could have a proper survey.  The Clerk said that will cost you.  A. Shaw said that the wall had been patched a while ago.  Could it be replaced with a fence and would that be strong enough.  J. Finch asked what about a crash barrier in addition to the fence.  A. Shaw suggested we (CTC) contacted Cormac – the Clerk said he had already.  L. Crockford had suggested kerbstones.  P. Clark proposed Council pay for a proper survey.  B. Ireland said that a dry-stone-waller had looked at it this afternoon and he thought about £4000 to rebuild it.  The Clerk said Council needed three written quotes.  Could he have the name of the stone-waller?
    8. Roughtor Road – awaiting reply.
  4. ANSWERS TO PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 20 MARCH MEETING – none.
  5. TO ANSWER QUESTIONS OR OBSERVATIONS FROM COUNCILLORS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN –
    1. Cllr Pierce, Distributor Road – a lot of money has just been spent  regenerating the town.  We have seen how much more pleasant it has been without the lorries.  The traffic is going to come again in the summer months. St Teath and Delabole will also feel the traffic.  The alternatives have been established and should be made permanent, but pressure should still be on the distributor road as the ultimate for the town.  It has been pleasant to walk through the town.  B. Ireland asked if Council could put pressure on the County to get this diversion made permanent.  J. Finch said ‘we can try’.  Janey Comber said that she was listening, but that she also represented Slaughterbridge and Camelford Station who are not happy.  Lorries have to go somewhere else.  J. Finch said a lot of lorries were going through Slaughterbridge.  Janey Comber said that the roads are public highways.  J. Finch said Council should continue to write to Highways. 
  6. ITEMS REQUIRING A DECISION
    1. M. Williams and A. Shaw left, prejudicial interest, both members of CDCDT.  CDCDT request for a grant to maintain a presence in the community.  Letter received from A. Shaw.  B. Lush said that at the Forum AGM in October the District Councillor had asked if this could be wound up.  He was addressing the Chairman of the Forum.  Jonathan Holt decided it should be given another 6 months.  J. Finch said that her reaction was that it would not be for a capital project, but it would be for the benefit of the community.  She felt it should be left to the next meeting.  D. Pierce said that it seemed a lot of money.  CDCDT has not been successful in getting an asset base.  His feelings were that the new Council may want to have a look at it.  It would be up to this Council.  J. Finch said there should be more information because it includes Delabole.  D. Pierce said that when they were bidding for land this Council had been prepared to put money in.  That is the kind of project which should be supported at the time.  This is for a facilitator. B. Lush asked if there was any point in prolonging the agony.  J. Finch said Delabole and St Teath may be willing to put money in.  D. Pierce said that Camelford should not act unilaterally and proposed it be carried forward to the next Council, in the meantime more information should be obtained about Delabole and St Teath and how much they would contribute.  B. Ireland said it did look like a group looking for something to do.  J. Finch said it was very difficult.  Seconded B. Lush, all in favour. 
    2. B. Lush left, having declared a prejudicial interest because he is chairman of NCALC.  That Council agree the annual subscription to CALC 2007/8 of £419.59 – J. Finch said this had been paid last year – it was useful for advice, information and changes to the various laws.  Acceptance proposed by D. Pierce, seconded B. Ireland, 7 in favour, P. Clark against.
    3. Insurance, quotes from two companies – Allianz and Cornhill £1181.64, new for old replacement.  Alternative quote £1031, ‘like for like’ replacement.  The Clerk had contacted the present supplier, Allianz and Cornhill, who could not reduce the premium because of the expense in the past year.  M. Williams proposed accepting Allianz and Cornhill quote, B. Ireland seconded, all in favour.
    4. Formal complaint against Cllr Clark from a member of the public under the public complaints procedure.  S. Elford, A. Shaw, and M. Williams declared a personal interest.  L. Crockford, B. Ireland and B. Lush declared a prejudicial interest because Cllr Clark was a candidate in the local elections and left the room.  P. Clark said that Council had not complied with the complaints procedure.  He had with him the letter the clerk had sent him and he had not indicated that he had tried to settle with the complainant.  The letter states that if Cllr Clark made an apology the matter would be closed.  A. Shaw asked if this matter should be dealt with in committee.  P. Clark said that he had a right to a copy of the complaint, and he had taken legal advice.  If the complaint is between a Councillor and a member of the public libel laws come into effect.  He suggested the complaint should be investigated by a qualified investigator. He then left the room.  The Clerk said he had an opportunity to make a public apology.  J FINCH SAID “AFTER THE FARCE I ATTENDED ON TUESDAY IT IS ABSOLUTELY USELESS GOING TO THE STANDARDS BOARD”.  She said that on behalf of the Council we should tender our apology, but she did not see that they should.  M. Williams said he thought Council should apologise because a member of this Council had offended a member of the public.  He also said he was not P. Clark’s enemy.  J. Finch said ‘We should all put barbed wire up round our houses’.  M. Williams said he hoped Di Pengelly would accept an apology from the Council.  Di Pengelly said that the apology was from the wrong person.  D. Pierce said Council could not be responsible for the manners of the Councillors.  A. Shaw proposed Council offer an apology to Di Pengelly, seconded S. Elford, 4 in favour, J. Finch against.  P. Clark said there was an organisation that does independent investigations and handed the mayor a business card, she tore it into pieces without looking at it.
    5. That Council agrees that the Clerk be permitted to work from home over the Easter period to prepare the minutes of this meeting – the Clerk said that he had put this on the agenda because there was Easter, because things had to be out.  Why should Council pay more to work when he could do it at home.  He would not need to remove anything from the office.  Everything would be copied onto the flash disk.  Proposed P. Clark, seconded A. Shaw, 7 in favour, B. Lush, B. Ireland abstained.
    6. Formal request from Camelford Association of Residents to supply signed copies of the Council minutes.  The Clerk said that minutes were now in the library, the signed copy.  A. Shaw asked why members could not supply their copy to CAR.  The Clerk said that he was sure that if this were under the Freedom of Information Act Council could be reported.  He suggested Council agree to copies of the minutes being sent out if CAR paid 50p a sheet plus postage.  ‘The last time I sent an invoice to CAR I got a snotty letter back’ said the Clerk.  There was also his time to be considered.  P. Clark said that CAR wanted signed minutes.  B. Ireland said that was because of the problems they have with the minutes.  D. Pierce asked why they did not take them from the website.  The Clerk said it would cost him time.  M. Williams said he understood they were asking for signed minutes, or a photocopy, perhaps the Clerk could write back … the Clerk said that you could not have two copies of the signed minutes.  D. Pierce proposed Council would supply photocopies of the minutes at 50p a sheet plus postage, paid in advance.  A. Shaw asked to add an amendment, that anyone who asked for hard copy be on the same basis, seconded D. Pierce, 8 in favour, J. Finch abstained.
    7. Request from the Town Forum to provide insurance, St John Ambulance cover and organise the road diversion for 1 December 2007 – letter received from Jonathan Holt requesting continued support from Council.  The Clerk said there was a slight problem.  J. Finch wanted the road diversion carried forward to the next Council.  B. Lush asked who asked for the road diversion last year.  J. Finch said it had been asked for the year before and Council thought it would be a good idea, but had left it too late.  St John Ambulance, the Forum to organise.  The Clerk said he had not the time to do this.    A. Shaw said, “Ask the Forum to organise the Ambulance and send the donation to the Council.  J. Finch proposed the road diversion should be left to the next Council, seconded A. Shaw, 7 in favour.  A. Shaw proposed St John Ambulance be referred back to the Forum, seconded J. Finch, all in favour.
    8. That Council appoint an employment committee to interview for the position of Maintenance Person/Car Park Attendant and the committee be given executive power to employ on a three month trial starting 16 April – P. Clark pointed out that Council should not be spending the next Council’s money.  J. Finch said this had already been allowed for.  P. Clark said he believed giving a committee executive powers to employ is against standing orders.  J. Finch said that wages had already been allowed for.  B. Ireland said that it was not a matter of spending extra money.  A future Council may want to abolish pay and display.  J. Finch said they could not work on that basis.  B. Lush said it was only 3 weeks.  J. Finch said that they had already employed a person.  P. Clark said that they should wait 3 weeks.  The Clerk said “This would cause a great deal of harm.” He added that there would be no one to collect the money from the machines during the 7 days he would be on holiday.  Two people had applied for the job, the closing date had been 5 April.  It was wrong to keep them waiting.  P. Clark asked if they were employed people.  The Clerk replied no, local and worthy.  B. Lush said that in view of the last appointment he would be loathe to give a committee executive status.  J. Finch suggested that instead of an employment committee she proposed the whole Council should interview, as a way around this, seconded P. Clark.  A. Shaw suggested that a smaller committee interview and then recommend.  B. Ireland asked what holiday period were we talking about.  The Clerk said 16 – 25 April.  B. Ireland asked what was involved.  The Clerk said it would be risky for Councillors to do it, the machines had to be emptied, tickets checked, tickets replaced, money counted, banked and entered on the computer.  11 April was agreed, but the Clerk intended to have the new employee bonded before he went on holiday on 16 April.  B. Ireland said he thought Council had left this rather late and that we could end up with nobody.  J. Finch said then we would have to deal with it.  B. Lush said that Ron Hart used to empty the machines, but was told by J Finch that Ron did not empty the parking machines.  J. Finch proposed interviews on 11 April at 7.15 and 7.45 in the committee room, the Clerk to organise, seconded P. Clark 7 in favour, B. Lush against, M. Williams abstained.
    9. Cllr Grills, dog fouling in Camelford – carried forward because Cllr Grills was unable to attend.
  7. ITEMS FOR INFORMATION
    1. Decision notice against Camelford Town Council FOI act.  Copies supplied to members.  There are no steps that the commissioner requires to be taken – the Clerk said he had used the wrong section.  When he had said CAR could have the forms with the addresses removed he could have been breaching the Data Protection Act – he had been between the devil and the deep blue sea.  B. Ireland asked if he was concerned with the letter from E McCormick.  The Clerk said there was no intention on his part or Council’s to deny information, it had been done with the best of intentions.  B. Lush said that when we (CTC) had been asked to destroy the forms he had thought Council should have taken legal advice.  Those around the table chose not to do it.  He did not think Council had come out of the report with any credit at all.  B. Ireland said he seemed to remember he had voted against destroying the forms and it had been because of Section 77 that he had been concerned because a £5000 fine could have been levied against us.  J. Finch said ‘but we haven’t had a fine’.  B. Ireland said the letter CAR sent said they would appeal.  The Clerk said that they (CAR) might appeal.  D. Pierce (who proposed destruction of the forms) said that any mistakes were due to unfamiliarity with the Act and he thought Council should move on.
    2. Burrows Guide – final proof – J. Finch said it had not yet been received. 
    3. Cornwall and Isles of Scilly PCT, the Healthy Futures Programme – available.  D. Pierce said there were plans for the new health centre in the surgery.  Same site but the building has been moved around, and the old surgery would have to be pulled down before it started.
    4. NCDC Survey of Businesses – to be done for Local Development Framework. 
    5. Easter Fayre (not on agenda).  J. Finch said the posters were out.  Balloons, face painting, the Town Band could not attend as the musical director was away, book stall, etc. etc. etc.  Any profit from Four Seasons would be given to the mayor for distribution to participants.
  8. FINANCE

Cheques for payment – B. Lush asked if cheques 231 and 232 had been paid because of the end of the financial year.  It was normally agreed to pay, but it had to come before the next meeting before payment.  It had always been done that way.  B. Ireland agreed.  A. Shaw said that at one meeting there had been a cheque for St John Ambulance and it was paid there and then.  B. Ireland said he was alarmed that Charles Whitehead was to be paid from Reserves.  Would this money be repaid.  P. Clark asked what if the next Council decided not to go ahead.  J. Finch said in that event it would cost the taxpayer a lot of money.  This had been started over a year ago.  P. Clark pointed out that it had always been said that it was not going to cost Council anything.  The Clerk said that the chances of getting the preliminary stage grant was good.  P. Clark asked if the decision would be in September.  B. Ireland said he had no idea what was going on with Parks for People.  The write-up does not tell him anything.  B. Ireland asked, “Why can’t we have a presentation to Council”.  A. Shaw said they had a meeting last month.  Consultation is going ahead.  B. Ireland said he had seen figures of up to £1,000,000.  J. Finch said that we have to get the public involved.  A. Shaw said he suggested that he (? B Ireland) read the manifesto which had been written.  P. Clark said that Council had been moved from a position when it was not going to cost anything to £625 per month.  If nothing comes back we are in for £6,000.  We are not allowed to write blank cheques.  The Clerk said that most Councillors had been keeping up with this.  Nobody knows what is going to come out.  P. Clark added, --or what it is going to cost us.  A. Shaw said,- or the significant gain – there is a good chance a grant will be awarded.  B. Ireland said, so we are going to the public with …  A. Shaw said, with what they want to see in the park.  He would show him the document which had been produced.  P. Clark said they were taking an 8:1 bet with public money.  S. Elford said she did not remember agreeing to pay £625 to Charles Whitehead.  B. Lush said neither did he.  Acceptance of payments proposed M. Williams, seconded D. Pierce, 6 in favour, B. Lush against, B. Ireland and P. Clark abstained.  J. Finch added that we could still have a presentation.

  1. RESOLUTIONS OR RECOMMENDATIONS FROM COUNCILLORS – none.
  2. CORRESPONDENCE
    1. Unitary Authority for Cornwall, letter from Communities and Local Government – the Secretary of State’s decision to allow the Cornwall County Council bid to go forward.  The Town Council’s views have been noted and will be considered together with any other representations.
    2. Letter from Mrs Hancock about the state of the entrance to Enfield Park – who said that since alterations to the park entrance her friend could not get around the park because of the unevenness of the surfaces.  The Clerk said he had replied.  B. Lush said they had been told that Health and Safety had no problems.  P. Clark said that he had also had reports that the cobbles are difficult to walk on and for disabled people.  He suggested we (CTC) tarmac over it.  We have a duty to disabled people.  A. Shaw said we also had a duty to the taxpayer and that thousands of pounds had been spent on the surface.  J. Finch asked if the stones could be made more level.  Could grout not be put around them.  P. Clark said the surface needs to be smooth.  The Clerk said Council has a duty under the DDA.  P. Clark said he would change his suggestion to smooth it over in some way.  A. Shaw said he thought we would be wasting our time.  J. Finch asked if a builder would come and look at it.  Both the wall and the cobbles.  Proposed S. Elford, seconded B. Lush, 7 in favour, A. Shaw, D. Pierce abstained.
    3. Letter from CAR re Inns Park development – the Clerk said he had received a copy of John Hough’s letter to NCDC, he assumed for information only.  He (the clerk) did not know what CAR wanted him to do.
    4. Letter from CAR re Town Council minutes – the Clerk said this was a resolved item.  This Council could do nothing about it for a further 6 months. 
  3. PLANNING APPLICATION :
    1. 2007/00496 – A. Shaw proposed no objection, seconded M. Williams, all in favour.

P. Clark apologised and left the meeting.

    1. 2007/00497 – A. Shaw proposed no objection, seconded J. Finch, all in favour.
    2. 2007/00498 – S. Elford had a prejudicial interest and left – A. Shaw objected on the grounds that it was no different from the last application, seconded B. Lush 6 in favour, J. Finch abstained.
    3. 2007/00502 – A. Shaw proposed no objection, but for one season only, seconded B. Lush, all in favour. 
    4. 2007/00514 – B. Lush left the room, having declared a prejudicial interest.  No objection proposed by A. Shaw, seconded B. Ireland, 5 in favour, A. Shaw, M. Williams against.
    5. 2007/00518 – A. Shaw proposed no objection, seconded M. Williams, 6 in favour, B. Lush abstained.
    6. 2007/00535 – No objection proposed by A. Shaw, seconded B. Lush, 7 in favour, J Finch abstained  
    7. 2007/00557 – A. Shaw proposed no objection, seconded B. Lush, all in favour.
  1. COMMITTEE REPORTS – none.
  2. REPORTS –
    1. Camelford Town Forum – next Wednesday week.
    2. CDCDT – next week.
    3. Youth Club – M. Williams said he had received a cheque for £515.33 from Cornwall County Council.  He did not have a clue what it was for.
    4. HERS – no report.
    5. Mayor’s report – she had attended the Sir James Smith’s School certificate presentation.  Civic Ball, 30 March.  Regarding January 16 – she had been in correspondence with B. Lush, but now felt it had come to the point it should be made public.  She had been accused of using spin.  In the last letter she had received he felt he had little or no faith in the Council being impartial.  B. Lush had been on Council for some years.  He had become distrustful of these members.  A disciplinary hearing would enable B. Lush and B. Jordan to air their differences.  The words had been taken out of context.  The Clerk and she had read them thoroughly.  Had the case gone to a hearing everyone could have studied them.  “I have asked the Clerk to make a public apology, but he has refused and stands by what he said.”   She asked Councillor Lush if he wished his colleagues hold a disciplinary hearing or did he wish it to be held over, hoping a different council would find in his favour?  B. Lush replied that this was obviously because members of the public had complained, but he had no wish to complain – all he asked for was an apology.  If that is not to be made I have to accept that and I do not see the point of having a slanging match.
    6. Other reports from outside bodies – A. Shaw reported on a meeting at Kingsley Village about the County Council bid for unitary status.  He said the budget was £150,000,000 short.  230 staff jobs were on the line.  All district councils would have a shortfall.  CCC staff would have to apply for their own jobs as soon as the decision was known.  The meeting had decided to call for a referendum, to be independently written.  Central government will not let local government remain unchanged.  D. Pierce said the first thing he wanted to say was that this would be a big thing for the next Council.  There would be tremendous fiscal worries.  This town has one asset which none of the others has – a car park.  If the district council goes we are going to have to provide services.  There will be a rise in taxes.  The mayor of Wadebridge says he has car parks.  Unless we retain our revenues it will be expensive.  The assets that used to belong to the RDC will be reserved.  Central government will send more money out but the rest will have to be raised locally.  We will have to pull together.  We have an asset and will have to use it to pay for services.  For the next Council, you are going to have to work together.  I am not standing but unless you get your act together it will be mayhem. 

M. Williams said he had been told this is already on the County Council website – the all through learning centre and it was his understanding that the County Council is about to put in a bid to start this process by re-building the primary school at Sir James Smith’s innovative approach to primary education.

    1. Parks for people – recent report circulated to members.
  1. NEWSLETTERS AND CIRCULARS – none.
  2. ITEMS FOR 17 April meeting – Camelford Crier.
  3. EXEMPT INFORMATION – acceptance proposed A. Shaw, seconded M. Williams.  Cllrs Lush and Ireland made their apologies and left.
    1. Minutes of the meeting held in committee on 20 February 2007.
    2. Staffing matters, Clerk to report.
End of notes taken by Clare Ireland and Ada McCormick

 

Back to previous page