STOP PRESS

Notes from CTC meeting held on 5^th July 2007 – Notes taken by E. McCormick

Present: B. Lush (BL), D. Elliott (DE), P. Clark (PC), R. Rotchell (RR), P. Lessels (PL), A. Shaw (AS), S. Morris (SM), B. Ireland (BI), M. Baber (MB).

(1) M. Stockwood rose and asked that CTC look at the issue of hatched road markings and problems with traffic lights at several places around town, the Co-op, Bike bits and the turning at College Road. He does not see how the safety of individuals can be restricted because of Camelford being a designated conservation area.

(2) B. Grills rose and stated her disgust at the Council’s handling of the suspension of Town Clerk B. Jordan. She stated also that she would refuse to call Cllr. Lush by his title of Mayor because, in her opinion, he had abused his position. She said that both Cllr. Lush and Cllr. Ireland had predetermined the issue of B. Jordan’s suspension. She had reached this conclusion because Cllr. Lush already had in his possession the letter subsequently handed to Mr. Jordan. She also said that using the term ‘suspension as a precautionary measure’ was ‘disgusting and scandalous’ – she was fully aware of the history of the issue and she believes that Cllr. Ireland is responsible for bringing the matter back before the Council. She asked that Council does not confuse the two court cases which involved Mr. Harman, Mr. Jordan and the Council. She urged that Council re-instate Mr. Jordan, partly because of the cost of employing a stand-in.

(3) J. Finch rose and stated that she understood that Mr. Harman had made a statement at the last CTC meeting about Mr. Jordan being arrested in connection with a charge of perjury. She asked what could be termed ‘precautionary’ about suspending the Clerk. She asked whether the Clerk had been given the chance to address the charge brought by Mr. Harman. She stated that the action in fact denied the clerk his human rights. She asked whether the entire Council was investigating the matter or just Cllrs. Ireland and Lush.

BL informed the meeting of the addition of an emergency item to tonight’s agenda (ticket machine maintenance) under Item 7, Items requiring a decision. (See also Item 16b below)

1 – Apologies – from A. Hearnden (ill in hospital) – BL suggested that CTC send a card, sec by ??

3 – Acceptance of Minutes of 19^th June 2007 – RH stated that because he obviously hadn’t attended that meeting he had relied on notes taken by others. He mentioned BJ and DE. He said that there were some omissions shown which hopefully could be discussed and clarified this evening. He said that he has checked with the auditors over one item and received their approval. Item 7(b) to go on the next agenda. MB spoke re Item 4(e) (re a hand-written note passed to BJ by PC at the last meeting), she said that she had also written on the same piece of paper also disassociating herself from that item and now asked if it was in the Clerk’s possession to which RH replied ‘It is’. BL re Item 8(b) – date should read 27^th not 29^th.

Acceptance of minutes with agreed amendments proposed by BI, sec by MB, 8 in favour, 1 abst.

Receive and approve the minutes of the ‘in committee’ meeting held on 19^th June 2007. Proposed for acceptance by BI, sec by PL, 7 in favour, 2 abst.

(a) Traffic monitoring – from CCC – re heavy goods vehicles in Camelford – confirmation from CCC that large vehicles will be diverted during the height of the summer season from late July on. DE asked whether Davidstow creamery had been approached. AS confirmed that it had, and on more than one occasion, but because of the costs involved with fuel and time they had never re-routed their vehicles and were very reluctant to use any alternative.

(c) Seat at Lloyds Bank – The scaffolding is still in place but the seat will be returned once the scaffolding has been removed.

(d) From Cllr. Ireland – That meetings be recorded and that any person present may also record meetings (sec by PL at the meeting of 22/05/07) and awaiting reply from NCDC legal dept. – Reply received from NCDC stating that it is perfectly legal to record meetings and for the public to do so providing appropriate notices are displayed indicating this possibility. AS believes that recordings will ‘hinder honest debate’. He asked who would hold copies of the recordings and who would be responsible for their control and storage. BI stated that he wasn’t concerned whether recordings are made, the press are usually on hand to make notes and Councillors can take notes if they wish. PC asked for an amendment which would include the word ‘may’ so that the Clerk, the press or members of the public may make recordings if they wish. AS stated that he believed that meetings, once recorded, must be transcribed verbatim and this would take up a huge amount of the Clerk’s time. PC confirmed that his amendment would permit the Clerk to use his own notes and merely refer to the recording if he saw the need. BL said that the recordings could be used as an aid to the Clerk but he also saw the potential for ‘nit-picking’ in cases were individuals didn’t agree with the draft minutes or later challenged ratified minutes. BI reminded the meeting of the difficulty already experienced this evening when it became apparent that the seconder of a proposal had not been noted by the Clerk at an earlier meeting. He felt that having a recording available would actually preclude ‘nit-picking’ because the Clerk, if he felt that his notes were sketchy, could refer to the recording for verification. It would also eliminate spurious queries if a recording were available as a point of reference. PL wanted confirmation that the Clerk would not be required to produce verbatim minutes. RH replied that any Clerk would take notes but could utilise recordings if necessary.

BI’s proposal was seconded by PC, with his amendment, 3 in favour, 3 against, 3 abstentions. BL used his casting vote as Mayor in favour of the proposal which is now passed.

(a) - Ratification of the decision to suspend B. Jordan as Town Clerk. – RH stipulated that the decision to suspend the Clerk must be confirmed to ensure that it is not susceptible to challenge – the wording of the statement being suggested by Sally Lloyd Jones of NCDC Legal Dept., - a vote is necessary which must include the required wording. This was proposed by PC, sec by BI, 6 in favour, 3 against (named AS, DE & SM).

(b) – To approve the annual return (discussed on 19^th June but no vote taken) – PC asked whether he should abstain because of his written opposition to the entire item at that meeting. RH advised that PC should abstain and be named. AS proposed, RR sec, 5 in favour, BI against, 3 abst (PC named).

(c) – Beachcroft (Solicitors) – authorisation to request from Beachcroft copies of all the relevant documentation relating to the case of Julian Harman v Camelford Town Council. RH stated that Beachcroft could refuse to release copies unless the request is minuted and therefore official Council policy. PC asked whether the entire Beachcroft file had gone missing to which RH replied that he couldn’t possibly know – how could anyone know if something was missing unless they knew what was there in the first place? – but there were some documents in the office so clearly not all of the Beachcroft file was missing. DE asked who Beachcroft were and what had they to do with CTC. BL gave a brief history of the matter and explained that Beachcroft were the solicitors appointed by the Council’s insurers to deal with the issue raised by Mr Harman. PC asked that full disclosure of the matter should take place. RR said that he was ‘in the dark’ about the whole issue so couldn’t make an informed decision. DE said that he too was unclear on the background. PC explained that in the past there had been requests for sight of documents which had been refused to Councillors and which could have shed light on the whole matter, some documents had vanished and the only way left for Council to view them was to ask for copies from Beachcroft. MB asked if it was the case that Council should hold copies of all documents relevant to Council business to which RH replied that indeed copies should be on file in the Council office. BI expressed his belief that Beachcroft are requesting validity from full Council to the request for copies of documentation that should be in the Council’s possession anyway and he proposed that Council approve that authorisation, sec by MB, 8 in favour, 1 abst.

(d) – Beachcroft (Solicitors) – authorisation to send the requested documentation to the Clerk’s office address – Beachcroft had expressed reluctance to send official documents to any address other than the official address of the Council. MB proposed, SM sec that Beachcroft be informed that Council are happy for copies to be addressed to the Town Council via the Clerk’s office address, all in favour.

(e) – Amendment to meeting date – meeting of 3^rd Tuesday in July to be rearranged to 5^th Tuesday because of acting clerk’s absence. BL prop, sec RR, all in favour.

(f) – from BI – that all correspondence be included at the meeting after its receipt (unless expressly to do with payment(s) without having to wait the 3 days currently stipulated – AS stated that this item was not shown on his agenda for this evening so could not proceed – BI stated that this proposal had been made at the last meeting therefore Councillors were aware – AS reiterated that nevertheless it was not shown on tonight’s agenda so could not be decided by Council at this meeting – therefore to go to the next agenda. BI reluctantly conceded and BL confirmed that this item will be on the next meeting’s agenda.

9 – Approval of Payments – AS apologised and declared an interest in items f & h. RR proposed acceptance, sec by BI, all in favour

(a) from CAR – re parking difficulties being experienced when trying to rejoin traffic after parking in any of the spaces parallel to the A39. BL suggested that this be passed to Highways dept. of CCC.

(b) from CAR – re problems following grass-cutting when debris is blown around rather than collected. BL also suggested that this go to CCC.

(c) from C. Whitehead re Parks for People – (copy available from Clerk’s office) - he believes that the Town’s bid stands a very good chance of success going forward. (see also report later).

(d) RH then requested that other letters be read which had come to his attention and which he termed as ‘old’.

(ii) a ‘thank you’ from Mrs Barnard for the continuing support of the museum.

(iii) from A Bond re unsupervised children ‘roosting in trees’ when they should be at Youth Club.

(iv) from D. Pierce re Community Impact Study – PL stated that this had been dealt with by the Car Park Committee and was shown in their report which is to be discussed later this evening.

(a) - Hill Crest, Trevilla Park, Slaughterbridge (N.A. & R. Risdon)– Erection of farm shop and formation of a new access road – AS sees no difference between this and the previous application for this development. He is concerned that the distance from the retail environment of Camelford will not be conducive to a retail outlet. He continues to oppose this development and proposes ‘no comment’ be made against this application. PC stated that because the site had/has access because of its previous role serving the chicken factory he can see no reason to object to the development. DE agreed. BI asked why CTC should necessarily agree with objections from NCDC or CCC. AS proposed refusal due to problems of access, sec by MB, 2 for, 4 against, 2 abst therefore CTC makes ‘no comment’.

(b) – (Additional item) – Dawes Meadow, Camelford (C. Lacey-Smith) – Development of 2 houses. – AS stated that he had spent time at this site on Sunday last. He believes that a preservation order is shortly to be granted on several trees located there and that 2 houses on this site would be over-development. PC suggested that this site constitutes an ‘in-fill’ and it was his understanding that CTC supported and was in favour of ‘in-fill’ developments. AS proposed objection, sec by SM with 3 in favour, 3 against, 3 abst – BL used his casting vote to support the proposal to object.

(a) Finance Committee – meeting held on 25/06/07 - It was stated that the full Council must take a vote on item 4(a) which relates to BI having use of a computer ‘memory-stick’ to verify the accounts…BI explained that accounts were with the auditors. He had identified several areas where errors had come to light and he is perturbed about the current method of record-keeping. The suggestion that he might use a memory stick was fully explained to Council.. he stated that using the accounts program in this way would allow him to manipulate figures in order that he could verify source, location, destination and status without his efforts interfering with the actual Council records… in this way he hoped to be able to provide Council with a true and full breakdown of the current condition of CTC accounts… with this in mind it had been arranged for D. Pooley (of NCDC Finance Dept.) to provide a member of his staff to help organise and arrange the accounts system. RR wished to clarify the criteria.. he wanted to guarantee that BI would not be altering any actual figures merely verifying the method of recording various items. BI gave an example, that the item ‘Car Park Salary’ should now, more properly, go under the Town Maintenance heading. BL prop, MB sec that CTC accept BI’s offer to examine the system, using a memory stick if required, and make recommendation(s) back to Council, all in favour.

PC raised the subject of possible liability by CTC for redundancy payment to P. Richards. AS stated that Mr. Richards had accepted a new contract after the old contract was rescinded and that new procedures had been incorporated which Mr Richards had failed to adhere to resulting in his dismissal. BI recommended that the Legal Dept. of NCDC be asked to look at both the contracts. PC agreed, saying that he believed that Mr Richards had been continuously employed and was therefore eligible for a redundancy payment. RR proposed, SM sec acceptance of Finance Committee report.

(b) Car Park Committee – meeting held on 04/07/07 – PL gave a detailed summary of the committee meeting and the decision to summarise the results of the Impact Survey. MB prop, sec DE acceptance of the Committee minutes, all in favour. PC stated that at Item 4, ‘Town Trust Parking’ CTC should not enforce penalties on Trust land. AS & BI confirmed that it is not necessary to police the area. MB asked about the Trust’s intentions if the land was not policed by CTC as per the agreement. An extract from the letter from MR. L. Mabson of the Trust confirmed that they would look to turn the area into a recreational space. MB then asked if this intention, if implemented, wouldn’t have a severe impact on available parking spaces in the town centre. At this point RH suggested it would be better if PL, as Chair of the Committee, could outline the recommendations being made to Council and for the benefit of press and public who may not be aware of the history behind the current situation and the survey. PL referred to the physical survey that had been undertaken and the graph he had produced detailing the responses. He reiterated the evidence that showed that the Car Park was predominantly a ‘short-stay’ facility used mainly by Camelford residents and those within a 20 mile radius. He went on to recommend that CTC consider pro rata refunds to people or businesses that had purchased permits or advertising space. With regard to the maintenance of the ticket machines, the committee recommended that the contract be cancelled… at this point RH confirmed that he had contacted the company and received their assurance that cancellation could be accommodated and would cost a maximum of £200 and probably quite a bit less. PL then explained the suggested wording which would apply to the new parking order.. this is summarised below by this author --- it requires ratification by full Town Council -----

CHURCHFIELD CAR PARK. Times: Between 0800 and 1700 hrs. Monday to Saturday except Bank Holidays.

Lorries and service vehicles prohibited except by permission from the Town Clerk.

TOWN TRUST CAR PARK. Times: Between 0800 and 1800 hrs. Monday to Saturday except Bank Holidays.

After discussion of the above it was decided to defer acceptance of the publicity aspect of the survey results until viewed by Council. The recommendation that part of the Coach Park be designated for car parking was proposed by PL, sec by BI, all in favour. The recommendation to nominate some spaces to the left of the surgery was discussed.. it was proposed by PC, sec by SM that 2 spaces in this area be designated as ‘disabled bays’. The recommendation that pro rata refunds for parking permits be made was proposed by BL, sec by BI, 8 in favour, 1 abst (PC named). The recommendation that the maintenance contract be cancelled was proposed by BL, sec by PC, 8 in favour, 1 against (AS named).

The £25 penalty at Churchfield was proposed for acceptance by PC, sec by MB, all in favour.

The recommendation in respect of Town Trust regulation was proposed by SM, sec by AS, 8 in favour, 1 against (PC named).

The Car Park committee had dealt with 3 items of correspondence (2 from Mr. D Pierce, 1 from Mr. M Williams) in respect of difficulty finding a parking space and the scope of the Impact Survey. RH was asked to reply stating that the results of the survey would be published along with the recommendations made in the light of those results.

(a) Town Forum – MB gave a brief report and apologised for a typographical error in the advert for the Fireworks’ ‘Bubbles & Berries’ event – this should read 14^th July (not June).

(e) Mayor’s report – (Copy available from Clerk’s office) – A feasibility study will take place on the stretch of highway B3266 between Valley Truckle and Sportsmans. Works in Chapel Street (speed humps and ‘No Right Turn’) to be carried out after the school holidays (in October).

(f) Broadwood Path – BI was pleased to report that the necessary funding was all in place.. that the work is due to start on 16^th July..the only difficulty now was ensuring that the work was completed in time to satisfy some of the funders – this involved consultation with local school and Youth Club and bodies further afield in Cornwall. BL congratulated BI on the success of the project and thanked him for all his efforts in bringing the plan to fruition.

(g) Parks for People – BL read a report from Mr. C. Whitehead on the scope of the project, the efforts made thus far (including several fund-raising events) and expressed Mr. Whitehead’s thanks to those people who had provided time, energy and finance to get the bid ready to go to the Lottery funders. AS then expressed his thanks to the project team and to all those who attended the Party in the Park (it is hoped that another event will be held (yet to be arranged).

(a) PL would like a discussion on CTC’s views on the likely usage of the land currently occupied by the Primary School which is owned by CCC.

(b) PL asks that meetings be co-ordinated and to decide whether it is necessary for the clerk to be in attendance to take minutes. RH confirmed that any member of the committee (or approved person) could take minutes with the proviso that only recommendations can be made i.e. the relevant committee cannot make decisions on behalf of the Council, merely that Council should consider making a decision.

(c) BI wants to ensure that his proposal re correspondence being read/heard at the meeting (see earlier notes) be included on the agenda.

(d) That CTC make a decision re the method of publicising the results of the Impact Survey.

(a) To continue employing R Hart as acting town clerk on a temporary basis, wages, hours, conditions of employment.

(b) Correspondence from B. Jordan reference his suspension and other letters reference the council.

The motion to exclude the press & public was proposed by MB, sec by AS, 7 in favour, 1 against (PC named) and 1 abstention.