Notes from the CTC meeting held on 16th October 2007.
Present: Mayor B. Lush (BL), Dep Mayor J. Pearce (JP), P. Clark (PC), R. Rotchell (RR), P. Lessels (PL), M. Baber (MB).
Minutes taken by: R. Hart (RH), Acting Town Clerk.
Public Participation – None.
1 – Apologies – A. Shaw (ill), A. Hearnden (ill), S. Morris (working), B. Ireland (holiday),
D. Elliott (holiday). JP proposed, RR seconded acceptance of apologies, all in favour.
2 – Declarations of Interest – None.
3 – Minutes –
To receive minutes of Finance Committee meeting held on 2nd October – JP prop, MB sec, 5 in favour, 1 abstention.
To receive minutes of CTC meeting held on 4th October - From PC re Page 129, PC apologised, he did not intend to say that he wouldn’t attend ‘In Committee’ meetings, merely that it was his understanding that, as a Council, there was an understanding that there would be less of those meetings. RR prop, PL sec, A.I. F.
4 – Items carried forward –
(a) Update on public survey re the use of Primary School site – RH stated that he had received 1 more return – that too advocates that a small supermarket be preferred.
(b) Clearmac resin coating at entrance to Enfield Park – RH reported that the company had said that the only solution was to dig-up the 2 metre wide by 12 metre length and use Clearmac (18mm deep). It would be useless if the stones cannot be removed. JP offered further information, saying that Health & Safety Executive had not identified the existing construction as a hazard. RR stated that there are 4 different surfaces at the moment and the slate area was relatively smooth. BL prop, JP sec, that this go to Amenities Committee, 5 in favour, 1 against (PC).
(c) Confirm proposals for Standing Orders – (Proposals made on 4th Oct 2007) – All in favour.
(d) Guest to switch on Christmas Lights – RH reported that Johnny Cowling has agreed to provide this service.
(e) Quality Council status – JP gave a report in which he advised members of the 7 criteria required. He suggested that members study their copy before making any further decisions. RH told members of the potential cost that could be incurred in order to comply. BL prop, JP sec that this be left on the table, a.i.f.
(f) “In-house” grass-cutting costs – RH suggested that this item go ‘In Committee’ because of the discussion of costs. MB prop, PL sec that this go to ‘In Committee’, 5 in favour, 1 against (PC).
(g) Ambulance Service response times – still no reply.
(h) Seat by Lloyds Bank – After some discussion BL prop that this go to Amenities Committee with a suggestion that a smaller seat (or backless bench) be sought, JP sec, 5 in favour, 1 abst (PC).
(i) Flowers at memorial in Enfield Park – RH reported that Jenny Metters will deal with this, with a cost of £30-£35.
(j) Employment Committee update – RH stated that because of the absence of members this would be difficult to discuss. PC proposed that MB join the Committee, sec by JP, 5 in favour, 1 against.
(k) Enfield Park – from RR – re Parks for People – RR said he was disappointed that the bid had failed and looked to Council for more information such as; who on Council saw the draft proposal and who approved the proposal. He felt that the Council had been “led” and that a substantial amount of money had been expended on “project management”. He felt that the Council should take the lead to ensure the future of the Park. He wanted to know where the documents are as he wanted CTC to be able to study them. The costs of maintaining the river-bank, the play area, the bandstand etc. all needed to be addressed. The ‘Friends of Enfield Park’ were seeking to keep the matter in the public eye. He proposed that CTC takes back responsibility and forms alliances with other interested groups to resurrect the bid, making sure that it is robust enough to meet the requirements. PC raised a ‘point of order’, saying that the Parks for People had been discontinued by CTC at a recent meeting and therefore could not be discussed in this format. He suggested that funding could be discussed but not under the name of Parks for People. JP stated that he had received further information. PC asked if the refusal document had been provided as requested at an earlier CTC meeting, to which RH replied that the document had not been received. RR stated that this situation “was not good enough”. BL said that 3 requests had been made and that the document had gone to CDCDT. RR stated that CTC cannot afford the possible costs of maintenance and should now be looking to take control. JP went on to explain why CDCDT was involved by saying that CTC cannot receive grants directly and a ‘holding’ body was set up. He said that CTC can take the lead but any grant must be managed by the holding group. RH explained that CDCDT are a “£1” limited company which means that individual members can only be sued for £1 rather than, like CTC, potentially responsible for the entire cost (should it prove to be a failure). PC stated that he “had a problem” with CDCDT because it appeared to him as if it was an external organisation which seems to be basically opposed to many of the principles of this Council. He said that he was unsure just who was running CDCDT and how they were appointed. MB asked if CDCDT could be used merely as a financial holding organisation and RH replied that that was exactly what they are.
(District Councillor Bob Ellison (BE) requested that the Mayor temporarily suspend Standing Orders – this was agreed).
BE explained that Town Forum was established to develop town aspirations – Town Councils are limited in what they can do and individual Councillors could be held responsible for ‘liabilities’ as are Forum. CDCDT was created under a limited guarantee giving the Forum protection. CTC members of the Forum were responsible for ensuring that Council was kept aware of the progress of the Parks for People process. Communication between CDCDT, Forum and CTC was necessary – if Council was still uninformed then it was due to a lack of communication. He didn’t feel it was ‘fair’ to criticise CDCDT when Council could have asked for more detailed information.
(Standing Orders were re-instated).
RR commented that the current Council had been given one brief presentation by the project manager. He still felt that something must be done, perhaps in consultation with other bodies, to safeguard the future of the Park. MB asked if an evaluation of requirements could be undertaken before deciding what way to proceed. BL commented on the fact that questions had been asked in the past but no answers were forthcoming so some Councillors became frustrated at the lack of communication. JP stated that he did have some information relating to the bid and what the options are. PC said that quite often the information heard by CTC was contradictory e.g. over the repairs to the river-bank. RR suggested that relevant bodies be invited to address CTC. JP stated that the reason the Parks for People bid failed was because the information supplied to the funders was “inadequate”, however the Park could be eligible for a grant either from Parks for People or from the Parks Scheme. He continued by saying that the Parks Scheme will take over when the Parks for People project concludes, and explained the criteria for receipt of grant. BL again asked why CTC had not seen the information that had been collected, such as public responses to questionnaires, that were part of the bid process. PC asked why CTC had paid someone £2500 to not send enough information. MB proposed that Amenities Committee draw up a schedule of exactly what needs doing in the Park, with estimated costs, so that CTC can adequately decide what course to take, sec by PC. JP suggested an amendment that would allow a sub-group of genuinely interested Councillors to deal with this. RR seconded the amendment, 5 in favour, 1 against (PC). RH recommended that this item now go to the next agenda to allow absent Councillors the opportunity to volunteer.
5 – Answers to Public Participation of 4th Oct meeting – None.
6 – Answer questions from Councillors – None.
7 – Items requiring a decision – None.
8 – Items for information – None.
9 – Approval of payments – BL stated that there were extra items (not shown on the agenda). RH stated that Cheque No. 103351 was for B. Jordan’s final payment in the sum of £257.04p. Cheque No. 103350 was for BT in the sum of £106.89p. RH commented that the final payment to B Jordan may need to be amended if some of the items Mr Jordan has applied for prove legitimate. RH stated that although he had advised CTC to make payment for some holiday entitlement the Council’s legal advisors had recommended no such payment. MB prop, sec by RR for acceptance, a.i.f.
10 – Resolutions or recommendations from Councillors – None.
11 – Correspondence –
(i) From M Williams – re Beachcroft (solicitors) – with ref to the CTC “In Committee” minutes of 18th Sept ’07 – Mr Williams wrote that the claim for repayment of an invoice from J Harman was a claim under the ‘special procedure for handling small claims’. He continued by stating the claim was never heard because it was ‘struck out’. RH recommended replying with the inclusion of the comments from Allianz (insurers).
(ii) From D Rogerson M.P. – he is happy to talk with CTC in the New Year with the opportunity for questions. JP commented that this was a generous offer that should be accepted. MB prop 3rd Tuesday in January but BL stated that Parliament would be sitting. Therefore 1st meeting in February at 6.30pm. BL sec, 5 in favour, 1 abst (PC).
(iii) Re a Planning application at Greenhills – several letters requesting that this application be turned down had been sent to Planning Department and were copied to CTC. RH gave a précis of the various concerns and objections the correspondents had raised. BL asked to reply, especially to Mr Gosling’s letter, by stating that this Council has had time to reflect and listen to public opinion, hence the change to CTC’s original decision.
12 – Planning Applications – RH stated that as the Planning Officers were absent from this meeting a short break would allow Councillors to view the applications.
(Break)
(Continued) Application (i) 2007/01920 – St Juliot’s Well Holiday Park – for Mrs K Boundy. JP saw no reason to object, sec by MB, a.i.f.
(ii) 2007/01986 – Kings Acre – MB prop, JP sec, a.i.f.
13 – Planning approval notices – None.
14 – Planning refusal notices – None.
15 – Planning applications withdrawn – Wainhomes withdrawn application for use of foul-water pumping station.
16 – Committee Reports –
Finance Committee report of 2nd Oct 2007 – JP reported on a ‘very positive’ meeting he had attended with Cllr Shaw at NCDC Offices with David Pooley. The reason for the visit was because the budget to be set for next year would incorporate the loss of income from the Car Park and other expenses recently incurred, also the possible changes due to Unitary status. Mr Pooley will hopefully make positive suggestions on the management of income. A further meeting is planned for Friday 19th Oct.
17 – Reports from outside bodies –
(i) Town Forum – AGM being held tomorrow (17th Oct). BL reported that Peter Sainsbury will give a presentation on the Regeneration Scheme and asked all Councillors to attend if possible.
(ii) CDCDT – No report.
(iii) HERS project – awaiting final report from Tim Yeomans.
(iv) Mayor’s report – On 14th Oct BL attended Civic Service of the Mayor of Wadebridge.
(v) Other reports – None.
(vi) Parks for People – Now off the agenda, however MB to ask Forum for a copy of the relevant documentation.
(vii) Clerk’s report – RH has now arranged for RR’s name to be substituted as CTC’s representative on the Sports Hall Committee – next meeting to be arranged. Bridge opening ceremony is 30th Oct at either 10.30am or noon (to be confirmed). Community Network meeting with other local parishes, awaiting a list of dates - JP recommended that CTC improve their contact with other Councils to allay prevailing fears about the perceived ‘negativity’ of Camelford Town Council as a body. Invite to Bodmin for an educational religious display on 27th Nov. Revised SPG Consultation period – re community benefits of planning awareness – to go to A Shaw & S Morris. Remembrance Sunday (BL will be on holiday) JP was asked to attend rehearsal. Complaint re barbed wire on the fence at the new bridge – Mr Wood has agreed to removal – replacement approved with ‘friendly’ fencing. Re ‘non-adoption’ of opeway in Fore Street – if CTC wish to adopt then there will be a cost involvement, NCDC will assist in the legal aspects if necessary – this item to go on next agenda to ensure the uniqueness of opeways is addressed.
18 – Newsletters & Circulars – (i) NCDC Hotline Newsletter Oct 2007 – available in Clerk’s office.
(ii) Signpost – bi-monthly East Cornwall newsletter – available in Clerk’s office.
19 – Items for 1st November meeting – As above.
20 – Exempt information –
(i) B Jordan’s appeal date to be set
(ii) Beachcroft – copy correspondence received.
(iii) Advice from SWPE.
(iv) Email from E McCormick re Freedom of Information request.
-------------------------- End of notes -----------------------------------------