Notes from CTC meeting held on 06th September 2007
Present: Mayor B. Lush (BL), Dep Mayor J. Pearce (JP), D. Elliott (DE), R. Rotchell (RR),
P. Lessels (PL), P. Clark (PC), A. Shaw (AS), B. Ireland (BI), M. Baber (MB)
Minutes taken by: R. Hart (RH), Acting Town Clerk
BL opened the meeting at 7.17pm
Public Participation – (i) Mr Huw Huntley spoke about his concerns re the changes made to how ambulance service response times are recorded. He believes that public safety is being jeopardised by the Trust’s interpretation of the regulations and asked council to write to the Ambulance Trust about response times. (ii) Mr Colin Cawdrey spoke re the planning application for the wind farm at Titch Barrow – he wants CTC to support his group’s (S.T.I.N.C.) opposition to the proposal. He explained about the historic and scientific implications of this application and the possibility of the one at Davidstow/Crowdy Reservoir. S.T.I.N.C. (Stop Turbines In North Cornwall) now has it’s own website. (iii) Mr William Arnold spoke on the same subject but highlighted the subsidence that has already occurred and would be increased if the proposals go ahead.
1 – Apologies – S. Morris (SM) will be late due to work commitments. A. Hearnden (AH) illness.
2 – Declarations of Interest – (i) AS re Item 9 Items for Payment (Expenses) (ii) BI re Broadwood Path (iii) DE re Item 9 Items for Payment (Payment to Spar). (All Personal Interest).
Gifts in excess of £25 – None.
3 – Minutes –
(i) Of 31st July 2007 –
(ii) Of 13th August 2007 –
(iii) Of 23rd August 2007 –
BI proposed acceptance of all 3 sets of minutes, sec by RR, 8 in favour (AS abstained on 23/08/07 only).
4 – Items carried forward –
(i) Footway & Streetlights – RH recommended that this be removed because it has been overtaken by the HERS scheme which will incorporate elements of this requirement. All Councillors agreed to the removal of this item. (Note: I believe the wrong thing was addressed here and it should have been about Delavue Terrace).
(ii) Seat outside Lloyds Bank – BL reported that scaffolding had now been removed. RH reported on his meeting with P. Solomon and that only one end of the seat would be usable in its current position – the disability access restricts. RR believes that a seat is a necessity half way up the hill. DE thought that the sand bin could be re-positioned. AS felt that if the seat is positioned fully on the street then it would be used but also open to abuse, he cited Friday & Saturday nights in particular. He suggested that the sand bin be pushed back and the seat placed in its original position. JP proposed and BL sec, all in favour.
(iii) Update re CAR canvassing residents to gauge opinion on possible uses for old Primary School site – BL reported that CAR would be holding a meeting on 13th September and this will be an item for discussion (Note: Information is already on the CAR website and was also published in the last issue of the CAR Newsletter – No.10 and will be in Issue 11 Sept/Oct).
(iv) Suggestions re the CTC website – BI reported that the site is now up to date and that the new method of recording data means a quick response time. He is concerned about the restrictions that are inbuilt in the site itself, and which make it difficult to make it more user-friendly. Most major changes require that NCDC be contacted. He asked for contributions for inclusion. JP proposed a vote of thanks for BI’s hard work and asked that alternatives be looked at to allow more input directly from the town. BI stated that there remains the problem over email addresses with ‘.gov’ suffixes. AS said that having a ‘.gov’ address would stop unwelcome emails going to Councillors personal email addresses. BI offered to arrange for each member to have an individual ‘.gov’ address and this was accepted.
(v) Resin coating to permit disabled access to Enfield Park (over the cobbled area) – RH stated that the product looked very suitable but that the contractor would not proceed further without dimensions. He proposed that Council refer this to the Amenities committee, but that it will be necessary to provide measurements so that the contractor can provide an estimate to the committee.
5 – Answers to Public Participation from 31st July meeting – None – (Any that were deemed as required were on the agenda).
6 – Questions from Councillors – (i) From BI re ‘Love Parks Week’ future programme etc. – BI stated that this project was proposed by the previous Council as part of the Parks for People project. He is concerned that a new group called ‘Friends of Enfield Park’ is now seeking money from the amount raised from the Love Parks funds. He would like to know who ‘Friends of Enfield Park’ actually are – they are not a sub-unit of the Council – do they have a constitution? – do they have a formal committee structure? – who are the officers? – is it a registered charity? Who has authority to draw funds held by the Council? He stated that Enfield Park is administered by CTC and CTC does not presently know if the Parks for People bid will be successful and he asked what will happen to these funds if the bid is unsuccessful. He cited some sources from whom funds have already been received. AS reported that the ‘Friends of Enfield Park’ was set up at the Parks for People and the Barn Dance was designed to focus attention and encourage people to be ‘user-friendly’ on the park. He also said that there is a steering group for Parks for People and an ‘ad hoc’ committee for ‘Friends of Enfield Park’ comprising himself as a member of the Council, Mrs B Grills, Charles Whitehead and some from the Town Forum - he didn’t say who – there is no constitution and they are not a charity – he also said that until the bid is either successful or rejected they are just trying to keep the issue in the public eye and that most of the money raised during Love Parks week came from stall-holders and it was this money that was being used to promote the Barn Dance. He confirmed that none of the other donations were being used for Saturday’s event. BL asked if the money was being paid into CTC coffers. AS replied that it was paid into the separate Parks for People budget fund which is earmarked and can only be drawn upon by the Council. PC recalled that a previous Councillor (M. Williams) had stated that CTC should not be conducting negotiations with any group that does not have a proper constitution or proper officers. He asked to see the documents showing this was a properly run group. JP thought it was important that CTC see proper documentation because fund-raising was taking place.
AS stated that the intent was to raise money because CTC will have to provide a certain amount of ‘match-funding’ if the bid is successful. JP thought that there was no control. MB stated that she didn’t understand the relationship between Parks for People committee and the Town Council and that since the election there had been no discussion on the matter at Council. PC interjected that no Councillor had been designated as a member of the Parks for People committee. MB said she was uncomfortable that, however honourable their intentions, a separate body, which CTC has no control over, is running with this project. BI confirmed that her (MB’s) comments echoed his own worries and he stated that CTC should have control over funds held by them. RR proposed that there should be no opposition to the Barn Dance but that members of ‘Friends of Enfield Park’ committee attend a meeting with the Amenities Committee to agree a set of recommendations to the full Council. PC stated that he was still uncomfortable about CTC handing over money that was in the Parks for People fund to another organisation. BI sec, 8 in favour, 1 abst (AS named).
(ii) From BI re complaint against him to Standards Board by AS
(iii) From BL re complaint against him to Standards Board by AS
(iv) From PC re complaint against him to Standards Board by AS
(v) From DE re complaint against him to Standards Board by AS
BI gave brief history of the complaints made against him in the past and stated that only one had been upheld – that related to his very first CTC meeting and was put down to inexperience. He continued by saying that as well as the cost and expense to him there was also considerable cost to the tax-payer running into many thousands of pounds. He had thought that a new council would mean an end to these referrals but it seemed not. He stated that he had now been accused by AS of predetermination on the issue of car park charges. He stated that AS had never checked his facts before making his complaint and asked for an ‘unfettered’ apology. AS produced what he called a ‘full report’ from the Standards Board, plus a letter from them ref BI complaining that he had not declared a prejudicial interest on a planning application. BI firmly stated that he had not complained about AS (this was confirmed by RH) and AS withdrew his comment. But AS said he would not apologise to anyone.
With ref to the complaint against BL, BL asked that any grievance firstly be addressed to the individual and/or the Clerk. AS said that if there had been errors of judgement then so be it but he refused to apologise to anybody. BL asked that courtesy be shown in future.
With ref to the complaint against PC, PC commented that as far as he was aware only MB was a member of CAR at the time of the allegation by AS. He stated that he was in the process of complaining against AS because of predetermination because he stood to gain around £50,000 if the value of his property rose.
With ref to the complaint against DE, DE said the complaint against him was a little different – in that he took part and voted on a matter that would have an impact on his business (Spar & Post Office), also membership of CAR. DE stated that minutes showed that he had declared an interest and that AS could not have checked his facts before proceeding. He further stated that he saw no conflict with being a member of CAR and voting. AS apologised for intimating that DE might have been a member of CAR.
BI felt that the cost implication was appalling, especially when AS could have checked before making his complaints. PL stated that he was finding it depressing to hear of the ongoing animosity despite the election of a mainly new council. He too would like to see complaints initially addressed within the CTC through the Disciplinary Committee. RH confirmed that this was always the case previously and that if a resolution could not be reached then it could proceed to Standards Board. He also stated that the (suspended) Clerk encouraged this type of action i.e. complain direct to Standards. DE said that PL’s suggestion was clear cut but that the option for a complainant to go directly to Standards should remain. RH stated that had he been consulted prior to the complaints being made by AS then the matter could have been dealt with, the facts checked and no complaint would in fact have been necessary to Standards. JP commented that all present should be aware that Camelford is recognised nationally as a place where Standards Board complaints occur and is used as an example of just how wrong it can get. He also said that Camelford was a laughing stock because of this.
7 – Items requiring a decision –
(i) One full Council meeting per month – BL believes that at the moment this would be impossible and proposed that this item be left on the table, sec by MB. 8 in favour, 1 against.
(ii) Review of Standing Orders – BL proposed that this item go to the next full Council meeting because of the time required to discuss. DE sec, RH confirmed that no vote was required.
(iii) Adoption of new Code of Conduct – BL stated that this must happen or will by default be adopted in October. BI mentioned two areas where ‘opting’, either in or out, would be necessary. BL proposed acceptance of the Code, sec by PC, all in favour. (iiia) From BI - To opt out of ‘Monitoring Officer’ requirement, sec by RR, all in favour. (iiib) From BL - to opt in to Item 2, sec by DE, 7 in favour, 1 against (PC), 1 abst. (iiic) MB prop, sec by BL that CTC use the encompassing advert of NCDC to notify the electorate, all in favour.
(iv) Committee meeting dates – PL proposed that he would be happy for the Clerk to set dates in advance, sec MB, 9 in favour, 1 abst.
(SM arrived at 8.20)
(v) Directional ‘Finger-post’ at Enfield Park – BL stated that in Feb the Council allocated £1000 for this. RH confirmed this would be done in accordance with the previous instruction. It was proposed by RR, sec by MB, to ask Amenities Committee to determine the site of the post (no ratification will be necessary), all in favour.
(vi) Plants at Victoria Road – BL had received several complaints about the state of the existing plants. AS said that some replacement had taken place and the new plants would need time to become established.
(vii) Blockage under Camelford bridge – RH had contacted the Environment Agency who refused permission for the blockage to be cleared. RR believes that the problem will prove itself if there is a flood. BI proposed writing to James Burke, sec by BL, all in favour.
(viii) Christmas Lighting (guest to switch on) –RH stated that the Lighting Committee had asked for either Martin Clunes or Johnny Cowling. MB proposed asking Martin Clunes, sec by JP, all in favour.
(ix) Christmas Lighting (2 members of CTC to join the committee) – BL explained why this has been found necessary and proposed that the 2 members who currently serve on the Fireworks Committee also serve on the Lighting Committee, sec JP, all in favour.
(x) Request from Record Office asking if CTC would be interested in a ‘Tithe’ map of the area – RH explained that 1 copy would be £150 or £200 for 1 copy and a discount of 10% on further copies. BL prop that this be left on the table, sec by AS, all in favour.
(xi) 3 planters held by CTC – request from a resident to purchase – Offer of £10 each was prop for acceptance by AS, sec by BI, all in favour.
(xii) Name for Wainhomes development at Inns Park – BL has had a suggestion that it be called ‘Lark’s Meadow’. JP would like to have something specifically local. PL suggested asking the Records Office what the original name was. The difficulty with using ‘Inns Park’ is that the vet practise uses the name. PL to investigate original maps.
(xiii) C.C.C. Family Services – request for council rep on inter-agency group – MB prop, sec by BI that JP be appointed, all in favour.
(xiv) Request that Marie Curie Cancer Care be chosen charity for this year – BL prop this be left on the table, sec by AS, 9 in favour, 1 abst.
(xv) Chapel Street – order to regulate traffic – because this includes Anvil Road MB declared a personal interest. AS also declared a personal interest. BL explained that this would involve 6 speed humps and a ‘No Entry’ from the town end although the road would remain 2-way. PL called for relaxation of yellow-line restrictions on one side of Chapel St. AS prop acceptance and review the access implications after a few months, PC sec, 9 in favour, 1 abst.
(xvi) Victim Support – request for financial assistance – AS proposed leaving this on the table, sec by ,
8 in favour, 2 abst.
(xvii) From CAR – request for a ‘link’ from CTC website – RR prop approval, JP sec, 7 in favour, 3 abst.
(xviii) From 1st Camelford Scout Group – request for urgent financial assistance for repairs to hut – BI said the Council cannot give donations but can give a grant. The grant must also be conditional. RH will write asking for more information prop by RR, sec by JP, 9 in favour, 1 abst.
(xix) Method of disposal, if required, of Pay & Display machines – BI suggested that this be referred to the Finance Committee and the Car Park Committee, sec by JP, all in favour.
(xx) Confirm findings of the Disciplinary Committee ref B Jordan – BL prop, sec by AS that this go to the ‘In Committee’ meeting later – 9 in favour, 1 against (PC).
8 – Items for Information –
(i) Camelford in Bloom – RH read out the list of winners.
(ii) Bridge (at rear of flower shop)– belongs to Riverside and more information will be sought.
(iii) North Cornwall Local Development Group – to be wound up.
(iv) Grass cutting contract for 2008/9 – To be discussed on the agenda of the 18th and ‘In Committee’. BI requested that the specification be reviewed by Amenities and Finance Committees before taking this further. An earlier request that training and certification of John Gilbert take place had not been progressed by the (suspended) Clerk.
(v) Enfield Park play area Safety Inspection and Risk Assessment – carried out on 12th August 2007 – The report was read by out by RH, most items are identified as small repairs apart from the damage to the gate and large hole in the safety surface which appears to be due to vandalism. RH to ask about a repair kit and get John Gilbert to do the repair.
(vi) SWPE membership – Update – CTC is now accepted as a member and a bill for £75 will be on the accounts.
(vii) List of services which may be devolved due to Unitary status – BL commented that the list appears to be entirely made up of ‘loss-making’ services. RH read out the list and agreed with BL. JP stated that some opportunities were evident and CTC should not immediately dismiss the possibility of taking over some of these services.
(viii) Land off Daws Meadow, tree preservation order August 2007 – RH read out the report. AS prop no objection sec by BI, 8 in favour, 2 abst.
(ix) Clean Cornwall Week 15th to 23rd September – NCDC request for CTC support.
BL called a short break before moving on to:-
9 – Approval of Payments - Full details available from Town Clerk.
RH thanked and commended BI for all his hard work on the accounts. He stated that it had been necessary to contact the V.A.T. authorities to declare that CTC had illegally taken £890. By doing so he had covered CTC but would have to make payment very soon. PC asked how the discrepancy had occurred. RH replied that it was mainly in respect of the Beachcroft file and was very complicated. He suggested that the matter should be discussed ‘In Committee’ later. Several issues had arisen which would be explained in closed session. Also involved were problems with National Insurance which the (suspended) Clerk had misunderstood. RH believes that by the time of the next CTC meeting all outstanding discrepancies will have been dealt with and the accounts will be fully up to date. BI stated that the Petty Cash account also needs to be resolved along with the Invoice file. RH quoted the separate amount in respect of the Broadwood Bridge which is immediately reclaimable from CDCDT and V.A.T. RR prop acceptance of Payments, sec by AS, 8 in favour, PC against, SM abst.
JP expressed thanks on behalf of CTC to BI for the immense amount of work he had put in to get the accounts right.
10 – Resolutions or recommendations from Councillors –
(i) From JP – that CTC seek to gain ‘Quality Council’ status – JP had met with Mark Hall (of NCDC) to discuss this possibility. RH stated that this will be included on the next agenda.
11 – Correspondence –
(i) From Mrs P Reid – She regrets the sniping and back-biting that she heard from past and present Councillors. She hopes that the negative attitude will be replaced and that Camelford as a whole will benefit.
(ii) From Mr M Williams – re County Primary School – he states that CCC already have plans and these do not include handing over the old school to the Town Council. He also provided several web addresses so that CTC could view work done, progress so far etc.
(iii) From Mr M Williams – referring to BL’s letter in reply – he states the inadequacy of the Mayor’s reply and suggested that he should consult professionals before putting pen to paper. BL replied that when B Jordan was suspended and the acting clerk was on holiday he had written 5 replies to the numerous letters sent by Mr Williams. It was his intention to be helpful and honest. If the quality of his replies was insufficient for Mr Williams then he apologised.
(iv) From Mr D Pierce – re loss of revenue from Churchfield car park – RH had seen Mr Pierce and resolved this issue.
(v) From Mr D Pierce – re support for the distributor road (did CTC still support) – DE stated that by default the Council still supports as there had not been a subsequent vote changing the earlier stance.
(vi) From Mr D Pierce – ref Finance Committee 4th June – Mr Pierce recalled BI stating that the Chamber of Commerce would be approached re a financial contribution towards the cost of the Car Park. RH stated that no assistance had been promised. PL commented on the meeting he attended with CoC and that their Chairman was disappointed with the response from his members and had stood down as the Chairman.
(vii) From a resident of Clovelly, Devon complaining about the traffic problems and suggesting that a traffic warden be instructed to allow a certain number of vehicles through at a time to end the frustration being experienced by numerous visitors and drivers passing through Camelford.
RR thought that the PCSO’s be asked to undertake some element of this to ease the problems of inconsiderate parking and lack of courtesy.
(viii) From Vivienne Arnott – complaint re possible increase of £20 on the precept because of the withdrawal of parking charges. She also complained about the gradient at the entrance to the car park. BL read from the report in respect of the demise of town centres due to the imposition of parking charges.
(ix) From Mrs S Elford – she complained about BI’s comments at an earlier CTC meeting (she had also written on the same subject to the local press) – she stated that she found his comments distasteful and unbecoming of a Town Councillor.
BI rose to reply – he stated that had regretted receiving this complaint but thankfully was able to refer to the audio recording made at the meeting. The comments she (Mrs Elford) supposedly heard were not made and must therefore be an incorrect recollection on her part. BI however offered his ‘unqualified apology’ if Mrs Elford remains offended.
(x) From Mrs S Jasper – re the reply from Cllr Morris re parking outside his house.
RH had received a written reply from Nicola Salsbury in which she stated her apology for involving the Council in a private matter. She explained that the property belonged to her, was sold with the disputed area designated as a parking space. She stated that Cllr Morris does not own a vehicle or the property so therefore no complaint against him on this matter should be an issue for the Council. RH said he would forward that reply to Mrs Jasper.
(xi) From Jim & Carol Rickwood (copied to CTC) – original to Highways Dept. RH to write apologising for failing to reply but state that this is the remit of Highways not CTC.
(xii) From a resident of Bush House re drainage problems – a new sewer pipe is required but Bush House residents refuse to allow this and which would permit Raval’s to install new sewer. The lady concerned also complained about the potential kebab shop, parking by builders etc. RR asked which of these complaints could be dealt with by CTC and was informed that none were under the remit of CTC. RH to reply in this vein.
(xiii) From CAR re Oasis Dental Practise – apparent discrepancies over the provision of NHS dental services in Camelford.
(xiv) From Mr J Harman (to DE personally but copied to CTC) – DE stated that this should not be discussed in open forum as it related to a personnel matter which was not relevant to Council. RH advised that this item should go to ‘In Committee’, prop by BL, sec by AS, 9 in favour, 1 against (PC).
12 – Planning Applications –
Full details available from the Town Clerk. AS declared a personal interest on Item 01533.
(i) 20 Mill Lane - No objection
(ii) Titch Barrow wind farm – BL, supported by AS consider this proposal will be highly unsightly. AS commented on the recent radio programme which criticised the efficiency of turbines. He suggested that planners should be looking at sea power rather than more land-based turbines. He added that the proposal would be unsightly from many areas of the town. PL commented on the amount of subsidy that power companies receive. RR proposed objection, sec by MB, 8 in favour, 2 abst.
(iii) Rear of Culloden, Victoria Road – erection of 2 dwellings with new access – AS stated that the land was within the build zone but the road isn’t. Also there was what appeared to be a typographical error showing 3 dwellings. Objection on the grounds that the development is outside the area, prop by AS sec by DE, 8 in favour, 2 abst.
(iv) Deer Park, Helstone – Bl prop no objection, sec by AS, all in favour.
(v) Old Post Office, Helstone – AS prop no objection, sec by BL, all in favour.
(vi) Trewalder Chapel – AS prop no objection, sec by BL, all in favour.
13 – Planning approval notices – Available from the Town Clerk
14 – Planning refusal notices – None
15 – Planning applications withdrawn – Hillcrest, Slaughterbridge.
16 – Committee Reports – provided to Cllrs and available from the Town Clerk
17 – Reports from outside bodies –
(i) Town Forum – MB reported on PCT, Chapel Street on target.
(ii) CDCDT – meeting next Wednesday. AS reported.
(iii) Youth Club – meeting on 10th
(iv) HERS project – P Sainsbury would like to arrange a meeting (with Forum).
(v) Mayor’s report – BL spoke re Camelford in Bloom, 101st Camelford Agricultural Show, SWPE meeting at Taunton, RAF museum at Davidstow, Mr & Mrs Davey’s 50th wedding anniversary, service for Diana 10th anniversary of her death.
(vi) Other reports from outside bodies – AS spoke re traffic monitoring and the fact that the town was at a complete standstill following the accident on the A30 at Temple, he stated that it was totally unacceptable for Camelford to suffer in this way each time traffic is diverted. BL spoke to Highways Dept and asked that Friday & Saturday diversions be instigated immediately. This was agreed. RH commented that this was not a report from an outside body but AS insisted that CTC write to Highways Dept.
(vii) Re Parks for People, AS stated that confirmation of the future of the bid should be known by the end of September and the Barn Dance would take place on Saturday.
(vii) Dist. Cllr B Ellison ref Standards Board complaint not upheld – BL stated that Cllr Ellison had written a letter which he wanted read out – RH said he would précis the letter – this stated that Standards Board had received a complaint about Cllr Ellison from B Jordan. The allegation concerns court action being taken by CTC against a local resident. B Jordan stated in the complaint that the Council lost the case because “the resident produced a false witness”. He further stated that Cllr Ellison has never tried to ascertain the truth but has merely ‘jumped on the bandwagon’. He referred to a statement Cllr Ellison had made which said that B Jordan had issued a false penalty notice which could incur a significant cost to the ratepayer. Cllr Ellison’s reply to the Standards Board referred to the fact that he (Cllr Ellison) had attended the court’s second hearing of 21st November and clearly recalls the judge’s summing up which said that the judge was not persuaded that Mr Harman’s vehicle was in the car park at the time stated, this can only mean one thing, that the time and date details on the penalty notice were falsified. Because Mr Harman is self-employed his expenses aren’t claimable – had this been so, as well as embarrassing Council, Mr Jordan’s falsification could have incurred significant cost to the ratepayer. The whole episode has been shameful from beginning to end. Also related Mr Jordan made false and malicious allegations of assault but, because Mr Harman had poor legal advice, costs were awarded to the Council. He recommended that Mr Jordan be removed from office. The Standards Board said that Cllr Ellison was permitted to say this as a private individual but not as a Councillor. It was understood that Cllr Ellison’s comments were made known to the Car Park Committee of the previous Council but may not have been minuted.
(viii) Broadwood Path – BI stated that construction of the bridge should be completed by tomorrow (07/09/07). Repairs have been made known to the contractors and will be done. BI added that the bridge and land need to be handed over officially.
(ix) Clerk’s report – Nil
18 – Newsletters & Circulars – Available from the Town Clerk
(i) Cornwall Enterprise Projects Consultancy
(ii) Archaeology Alive
(iii) CALC County Bulletin
(iv) Unitary Structure Consultation Team
19 – Items for 18th September meeting –
BL said he had an item, i.e. flowers for the War Memorial.
In Committee –
“That the Press and Public be excluded” etc.
(i) Confirm findings of the Disciplinary Committee ref B Jordan.
(ii) Letter from J. Harman
MB prop, sec by RR, 9 in favour, 1 against (PC)
----------------- End of E. McCormick’s notes -----------------------------------------