Love Parks/Parks for People – AS stated that there a re 2 organisations, Love Parks which is a national organisation (i.e. charity ‘type’ thing) and Parks for People which is part of the Lottery Heritage Fund. He continued by stating that they had failed to achieve funding for the 2^nd phase of the bid but that doesn’t preclude putting in a bid. It means that if CTC wish to have repairs done in the park they must make some form of commitment, so must residents of the town and anybody else involved. There is no guarantee that we will get any money at the end of the day – a decision must be made within the next month whether CTC ‘buy-in’ professional help as needed or not to bother. JP asked if reasons had been given for the failure of the bid. AS replied that several reasons had been given, insufficient detailed information in the preliminary bid, lack of public involvement, lack of Council involvement. AS asked if CTC should now make a decision to repair the park ‘as we go’ which would be ‘devastatingly expensive’ over the next 10 years or does CTC try to put a bid together, with expert help, (he knows ‘someone’ who can help for 2 half-days a week). PC raised 2 questions – he understood that Parks for People was a CTC project and wanted to know why the reply had gone to Cllr Shaw rather than being returned to CTC (AS replied that the reply had come to CDCDT). PC then asked that, with all the ‘extra’ money CTC was spending this year, was the figure to be raised not in the region of £50,000? Also, was anyone aware of any body/organisation which had been granted funding after failing the first stage? AS replied that he did not know. BI stated that as part of the work involved in the Broadwood bridge project he has been involved with the Environment Agency and had asked what they made of the Parks for People exercise. They knew nothing about it but advised that putting forward any plan without consulting the Agency would be very foolish. AS stated that the present proposals followed the Westcountry Rivers Authority guides. AS suggested that CTC write to Mr C. Whitehead saying that CTC is not going to continue with the project and that CTC will fund repairs as and when needed. PC proposed that CTC write to Mr Whitehead stating they would not be taking the project further, BI then commented on the budgetary constraints, he believes CTC should be very careful about committing any large amounts of funds because over this year and last a great deal of money had been drawn from reserves to maintain a ‘nice precept figure’. BI seconded PC’s proposal. JP requested that further information be sought because, as Cllr Shaw had said, the final bid need not be in before September 2008. RR said he was uncomfortable about waiting for the river-bank to collapse before doing anything, also patch-repairs were being done on an ad hoc basis. BI explained that the playground and entrance to the Park were excluded from the bid. RR maintained that if CTC is not going along with Parks for People then a plan should be in place for repairs. PC commented that he assumed all the funding designated so far for the project had been spent, i.e. Charles Whitehead’s wages, and he asked if it was legally possible to proceed if no budget figure had been set. RH stated that Council are not allowed to spend money they have not budgeted for. The vote in favour of PC’s proposal not to proceed and advise Mr Whitehead was 3 in favour, 3 against with 2 abst (BL used his casting vote to support the motion).

CTC request to Camelford Assoc. of Residents to canvas public opinion re the Primary School site – BL commented on the latest CAR Newsletter which contained a form to be filled in by residents with their suggestions. He thanked CAR for following up the CTC request. MB stated that the format of the form had been agreed at the CAR meeting.

Clearmac resin – re cobbles at entrance to Enfield Park – RH stated that no reply as yet so this item to be carried forward to the next CTC meeting.

Committee meeting dates for 2007/8 – RH has conferred with the chairmen of the committees and agreed the dates as:- Finance Comm on the last Tuesday of month, Amenities Comm on the last Thursday of month and Car Park Comm on the last Wednesday of month. Dates will be advised on the CTC website.

Positioning of ‘Fingerpost’ sign – BL asked what information would be shown and PC replied that NCDC would be stipulating. The post is made of cast aluminium. RH stated that NCDC have asked what CTC would like to see on the individual finger signs so members then discussed priorities. (1) Trefrew via Broadwood Path (2) Tourist Information Centre (3) Moors Walk (4) Toilets (5) (To be decided later). Prop by BL, sec by MB, 7 in favour, 1 against.

Flowers/Shrubs at entrance to town at Victoria Road – to be considered in November for planting of bulbs. Prop by PC, sec by MB, all in favour.

Ideas for CTC website – BI informed Council that it actually hadn’t been necessary to purchase the ‘.gov’ site in order for Councillors to have individual email accounts. Addresses will be provided free. PC stated that he was led to believe that the site must be purchased to accommodate this. BI confirmed that the money had been spent unnecessarily. PL prop that individual email addresses be supplied, RR sec, 7 in favour, 1 abst.

Review of Standing Orders – BL noted that there were few copies in evidence on the table and proposed that this be deferred to the next meeting. Sec by MB, all in favour.

Christmas Lights – guest to switch on – no reply as yet.

Wainhomes development at Inns Park – name search – PL thanked all the library staff and Sally Holden for their help. Suggestions include ‘Pencarrow View’ and ‘Treclegoe View’, both being deemed as ‘old’ names. MB prop ‘Treclegoe View’, sec by JP, 7 in favour, BL against.

1^st Camelford Scout group – grant request – carried forward.

Pay & Display machines – re Finance Comm report – wait until new Parking Orders are in place – PL offered some background information – he had spoken to the Manager of car parking at NCDC who were in the process of removing machines and would be happy to advertise the Camelford machines on the national publication. No price is currently known for possible sale of the machines. Item carried forward.

Grass-cutting for 2008/9 – 2 tenders have been received and these will be discussed ‘In Committee’ later this evening. BL prop, MB sec , 6 in favour, PC against, 1 abst. PC then reported on the Finance Comm & Amenities Comm meetings – no prices to allow Amenities to make a decision. AS stated that he totally disagreed with the report because he said it hadn’t been in front of the Amenities Comm anyway. RH advised that this matter be held over until later under the agenda item.

Quality Council status – JP suggested that this be deferred to 2^nd meeting in October.

From M. Williams – re Standards Board – He commented on the reported comments of BI by saying that BI was subject to ‘selective memory’ and ‘hypocrisy’. Mr Williams stated that he had records which showed that over 40% of referrals in a specific period were from Cllr Ireland or his wife. BL cautioned BI to be aware of the Standards Board before making a reply. BI asked that Mr Williams be advised that some people do learn and do not repeat the same mistakes over again, also that he (BI) is not responsible for his wife’s actions, a comment that Mr Williams has made in similar circumstances in the past.

Amenities Committee – report by PC – a meeting had been held with Francis Thomas re the possibility of making a considerable saving if CTC take over ‘in house’ the grass-cutting and maintenance of footpaths. Some areas could present a slight logistical problem but the priority is to achieve an overall cost-cutting exercise. Year One would cost about £4,000 compared with current price of £5,400 then £2,000 to £2,500 in Year Two and thereafter thus saving around £3,000 per year. RH suggested that this item could be discussed ‘In Committee’. PC had spoken to John Gilbert (current maintenance man) who is happy to increase his hours to comply and this cost is incorporated in the overall savings potential. PL believed he had identified some items which still needed to be considered before agreeing the actual savings potential. AS stated that ‘in house’ maintenance had proven a problem previously, especially renewal of equipment as it becomes broken or obsolete. BL commented that the meeting with Mr Thomas had indicated that the machinery under discussion would be serviceable for several years before replacement needed, also that the strimmer to be bought would last for many years. BI commented that any perceived problems are not insurmountable, the priority is to begin saving money. PL had concerns over Health & Safety aspects. RH stated that ‘risk assessments’ are the remit of the Clerk and that John Gilbert is covered by the Council’s Public Liability insurance. RH recommended that because tenders had already been received this item could now go to the ‘In Committee’ section of tonight’s meeting. PC (reluctantly) proposed that this be done, MB sec, 7 in favour, 1 abst.

Car Park Committee – RH read a letter from D. Pierce opposing the new Car Park parking order – this was the only objection received. Mr Pierce objected on numerous grounds (i) reduction in revenue to CTC, a shortfall which must be met by the precept-payers of Camelford. Mr Pierce then wrote that CTC had said there would be no increase in precept – (Note: this is not the case – before and since the election it has been stated that a rise would probably be necessary and a figure of 40p per week for a Band D property has been mooted). (ii) Mr Pierce then stated that he believed no Impact Study had taken place, merely a ‘random survey of car park users. He felt that ‘these omissions’ were sufficient to delay implementation of the new order. BI, MB & PL then stated that there had been previous surveys, including the last election, which confirmed that the electorate of Camelford desired that Churchfield car park be free at the point of use. RH then read a letter from L. Mabson – re Parking order – He stated that Town Trust is generally happy with the change to the parking order but requested that the change to the time allowance at the disabled spaces be rigorously monitored. Finally RH read a letter from CCC – confirming that the new order complied with the ethos of current regulations. RH will now place an advert in the necessary paper(s) and contact the Secretary of State.

Finance Committee meeting – JP reported on the meeting of 10^th September – the committee are keen to pursue savings potential and get a better deal from District Council (a meeting is to be held on 1^st October at NCDC office).

Town Forum - meeting later this week but RH had a copy of the Forum accounts. BI stated that all tickets for the Greek Night (22^nd Sep) had been sold. MB commented that she would also be mentioning this in the report for CAR.

CDCDT – AS reported on a meeting with David Chadwick & Joe Talbot re Atlantic Consultants which looks very promising.

Youth Club – AGM 8^th Oct 7pm with wine & cheese.

HERS – Invitation to training seminar 27^th Sept 6.30 – 7.30 at Camelford Hall.

Mayor’s report – given by BL.

CAR – report by MB – (a) Primary School site (flyer in latest CAR Newsletter). (b) Letters of Thanks re ‘Bubbles & Berries’ event held during the summer. (c) Dental service in Camelford – a reply had been received from Mr Tyas of PCT (copy in latest Newsletter). (d) Letter re Clean Cornwall – too late to be dealt with by CAR. (e) Greek Night for Fireworks Committee – sold out but a Curry Night will be held on 17^th Nov. (f) Next CAR meeting 31^st January.

Broadwood Path – BI reported that he had received an interim certificate and the certificate of practical completion. There are still issues to be addressed and finished, scaffolding left on site, vandalism, insurance etc. He had noticed that the bridge was being used for skateboarders. PL was surprised that the scaffolding boards had been removed but not the poles. PC reported that the contractor’s vehicle had suffered an hydraulics failure which may have contributed to the delay. £19,276 needed from CDCDT to CTC for payment. AS stated that he needed to see what it was first. PC asked if that would be the final payment to which BI replied ‘No, another amount would be required.’ £33,250 will be the total to date with a grand total of over £40,000. RH commented on the excess that CTC may need to pay to the insurance company to provide cover.

Parks for People – AS said "It has been sorted by the sounds of it." BI wanted clarification on the monies already held. AS stated that he would see Charles (Whitehead) to find out who has got what. RH to put this item on next agenda under ‘Refunds, Info & membership of Parks for People’. AS warned that both amounts should not be combined. RR asked about the status of ‘Friends of Enfield Park’ now that Parks for People is not to be progressed. PC stated that NCDC had stated that CTC have a right to repair the riverbank without prior approval from Environment Agency – this to be checked.

Code of Conduct – to be returned by BI, JP return their Code of Conduct documentation (or they will not be able to attend further CTC meetings). This also applies to Cllr Hearnden but his illness provides some leeway.

Complaint from Mrs Ireland re JP discussing matters from an ‘In Committee’ meeting with members of the public.

Allianz (insurers) re J Harman claim.

B Jordan suspension update.

Beachcroft correspondence.

Tenders re grass-cutting etc.