Camelford Town Council Meeting – 22nd
May 2007
Notes taken by Clare Ireland & Eddie McCormick
Present: Mayor B. Lush (BL), Dep. Mayor J. Pearce (JP), D.
Elliott (DE), R. Rotchell (RR), A. Shaw (AS), P. Lessels (PL), B. Ireland (BI),
A. Hearnden (AH), P. Clark (PC), M. Baber (MB).
Minutes taken by B. Jordan (BJ)
Public
Participation
BJ read a letter from Mr Huw Huntley (copied to local MP Dan Rogerson) re
the bus services and recent Government legislation which means that the public
are likely to miss connecting transport at Plymouth and/or Truro (copy also to
Dist. Cllr. B. Ellison).
BJ read a request from Mrs A McCormick for e-mail addresses for Town
Councillors (where possible). BJ
said in reply that he has now provided this information on the Council’s website
at www.camelford-tc.gov.uk .
1 – Apologies –
Received from S. Morris (work) – DE prop acceptance, sec by MB, all in favour.
2 – Declaration(s)
of interest – BL on 7)a (prej) & 17)a (prej), AS on 9)e (pers), BI on 17)a (pers),
MB declared on Item 14)a but was told that, as this was only a report, no
declaration was necessary.
3 - Minutes of 10th
May 2007 – BL requested that PC’s (agreed) rearrangement of sequence be
considered. BI stated this wasn’t necessary so long as the sequence of events is
mentioned. BI asked that Item 14)c
be amended from “Civic Service is
organised” to “was proposed”.
BL stated that Item 14)c)1 did not include the statement that legal
advice would be sought, (MB & BI confirmed that it was stated that legal advice
would be sought). BL re Item 17)b – request that this should read “to be
reviewed at the 1st meeting in September”. A. Hearnden asked that his
name be spelt correctly. Subject to the agreed amendments acceptance of the
minutes was proposed by MB, sec by JP, all in favour.
4 – Items carried
forward –
- Traffic monitoring – BJ stated that he has written to
Rob Constance and awaits a reply.
- Footway & Street Lighting – BJ said that no reply has
been received yet from Paul Allen. At this point AS mentioned that the
street light at No. 7 High St.
was hidden in a yew tree. BL asked that a meeting of the Amenities
Committee be arranged – AS suggested 06/06/07 at 7pm probably in the CDCDT
office.
- Enfield Park entrance – referred to the
Amenities Committee - deferred.
- Inventory of CTC properties – referred to Finance
Committee – deferred.
- Seat outside Lloyds Bank – still waiting for
scaffolding to be removed.
- Walls in Churchfield car park – BJ stated that no
permission is required from NCDC to reinstate the walls and that he had
received 2 quotes (the lowest from a local builder/stonemason).
JP proposed acceptance of the lowest bid, sec by PC, all in favour.
- Roughtor Rd. –
still awaiting reply from P. Pocket, BJ to contact.
- Suspension of parking charges – Reply received from
Sally Lloyd-Jones (Legal Dept., NCDC) – David Hooper agrees that the current
form of suspension is O.K. BJ
commented on the evaluation exercise, stating that the person originally
intended to carry out the survey was now unavailable and that perhaps some
Councillors could undertake the survey.
AS suggested that members of the public might be willing to
volunteer. BJ said this could be
done if suitable insurance cover is in place.
- CALC meeting re Unitary status – to be held at Truro – BL said he believes that NCDC
will lose financially. AS commented on the very good service currently
provided by NCDC. He added that assets could be lost to Camborne and
Redruth. He suggested that BL should attend the meeting and state that
Camelford Town Council opposes the bid for Unitary status, (BL stated that
AS need not stand up but AS stood during his comments as he believes it is
required by Standing Orders). PC
stated that NCDC do not have a bid, that he believed NCDC did not provide a
particularly good service and that NCDC had stated that local assets could
be returned to local councils before County Council can get their hands on
them. BL wondered why CCC wished to
bid for unitary status and DE asked if CCC had made a financial case to
support the bid. BL confirmed that
it was agreed that CTC is opposed to Unitary status and that a poll is to
take place commissioned by CCC. JP
proposed that BL attend the Truro meeting on
behalf of CTC and state CTC’s opposition to the bid, sec by AH, 10 in
favour, 1 against.
5 – Answers to
Public Participation – None
6 – Questions from
Councillors – None
7 – Items requiring
a decision –
1.
Request for grant for Joyce Whitehouse party – this is
for people who are over 60 and live alone – AS stated that the event is held
annually and that the cost would be in the region of £60. AH proposed approval
of the request as it was negligible compared to the pleasure it gave, sec by AS,
all in favour.
2.
To appoint rep/Governor to Primary School – AH stated
that there were already suitable candidates in the room and proposed PL.
PL said that he was willing to accept,
sec by RR, all in favour.
3.
Recommendation from the Car Park Committee – that full
Council approve the format of the survey form – BL said he believed full Council
approval wasn’t necessary and that the committee should deal with the issue.
BJ stated that the full Council
must approve so BL proposed acceptance of the form, sec by MB, all in
favour.
4.
From the Town Clerk – that Council clarify Standing
Orders Nos. 42)d and 43 – (which stipulate the maximum number of members on
committee and (43) – that the Mayor & Dep. Mayor are automatically members of
all sub-committees. BJ stated that
some of the newly appointed committees contained more than 3 members which meant
that, with the inclusion of the ‘ex-officio’ members, the committee would have a
majority over the full Council.
After due consideration of the membership of the various committees, BL
suggested that AS might find that his involvement in 4 of the 8 committees might
be too onerous. BI proposed that committees be restricted to 3 members. PC
recommended that members be restricted to a single committee. No decision could
be made on this because, due to Standing Orders, the matter must be deferred to
the next full Council meeting. No decision was made because it would need a
special resolution. BL asked BJ to
ensure the item was on the next agenda.
8 – Items for
information –
- Serco re out of hours GP cover and changes to the
service – BJ read a letter from Serco which stated that there was an
increase in the number of vehicles being used by Serco, improved I.T.
capacity and other benefits. Additional clinics have meant 100% compliance
with targets. (Full letter is available at the Clerk’s office). RR asked for
a discussion and stated that the Primary Care Trust had sold the service to
Serco purely on price which had resulted in an overall worsening of
services. BL agreed that the blame lies with the PCT.
- Tony Mogford Associates Ltd. – Play area report – the
quarterly report stated that repairs had been carried out following
vandalism.
9 – Finance – cheques for payment –
PL queried the amount being paid to Clarity Copiers. BJ explained that extra
copying had been required because of the election of new Councillors. Acceptance
of the items was proposed by AH, sec by BI, 10 in favour, 1 abst.
10 –
Resolutions/Recommendations from Councillors –
- From Cllr
Ireland
– “That, for all future meetings, the agenda clause requiring 3 days notice
for items for Public Participation be abandoned, so that any question may be
put on the night of the meeting.” – BI explained that the new Council had
made a pledge to be open in their dealings and this measure would go some
way to achieving that openness. MB asked for clarification i.e. that there
was no requirement that
questions from the public be answered on the night. It was agreed that there
would be occasions when a definitive answer would not be available without
Council giving the question due consideration.
AH supported BI, with the above proviso. DE suggested an amendment:-
that no notice be required but that the question also be in writing (for
Council records). PC recommended that the public be allowed to comment on
whatever they wished, RR agreed. BI
recommended that (especially new) Councillors read the booklet provided to
them (several Cllrs stated that they hadn’t received the booklet as yet.
BI proposed that 15 minutes of unrestricted time be allowed, with
Standing Orders suspended (if necessary), sec by PC, 10 in favour, 1 against
(AS).
- From Cllr
Ireland
– “That in future, meetings be recorded, and any person present may also
record the meeting”. – (Note: This applies to Standing Order No. 71, S.O.
No. 80 also applies) – BI proposed this amendment to Standing Orders,
seconded by PC, (because this item involves a change to Standing Orders it
must be deferred to the next
full Council meeting).
- From Cllr
Ireland
– “That Standing Order No. 33, which states that a member shall stand while
speaking, shall be deleted”. – (Note: Standing Order No. 80 applies) – BI
proposed this amendment to S.O.’s, sec by AH, (because this item involves a
change to Standing Orders it must be
deferred to the next full Council meeting).
- From Cllr
Ireland
– “That the clerk be asked to arrange Training Sessions for the new Code of
Conduct”. – Reply from Sally Lloyd-Jones (NCDC Legal Dept.) - BJ informed
the meeting that 30/05/07 was the best date as far as NCDC were concerned
but that other dates were available. BI stated that he had written to SLJ
suggesting that adoption of the new Code of Conduct be deferred.
The new code is to be arranged for July (with a deadline in October).
PC pointed out that existing Cllrs could provide instruction to new Cllrs
and proposed that this be accepted, sec by DE, all in favour.
BI wanted it stated in minutes that new Councillors should not be
brought before the Standards Board until they had adequate time to become
familiar with the requirements of the Code.
11 – Correspondence
– None
12 – Planning –
details of Applications, Approvals and Refusals are available from the Clerk’s
office.
13 – Committee
reports –
- Finance Committee (which met on 14/05/07) – Committee
has put forward proposals re the future financing of Churchfield Car Park –
PC recommended refusing approval of the Committee’s proposals because 8
Councillors were elected on a ‘Free Parking for Camelford’ ticket. JP
explained that the committee had attempted to ‘focus’ and were offering the
suggestions to Council. In respect of Item 3 of the report, BI said his
concerns were to look at the ‘control systems’ – he had checked with the
accountants because he didn’t want or wish to duplicate their work. In
respect of Item 4, BL said he was “unhappy because [the matter] was not in
the remit” of the Finance Committee. AH confirmed that the report was merely
a ‘reference point’. As proposed
acceptance of the report, sec by MB, 6 in favour, PC against, 2 abst.
Next meeting arranged for June 4th, CDCDT office, 7.30.
- Car Park Committee (which met on 15/05/07) – PL
explained that this committee was not in place to look at any financial
aspects of the car park. He mentioned that the Coach Park could be better
utilised while still allowing a facility to coaches, also that Disabled bays
could be moved nearer to the medical centre.
With regard to the survey BL recalled that the survey must be
completed by the 5th of June 2007.
PL asked for volunteers from the Council to assist in conducting the
survey over 3 sessions each day (from 23/05/07).
AH proposed amendment to let Cllrs conduct the survey as and when
they could, rather than having set hours which their other duties would
conflict. BL asked that the Town
Trust land be incorporated in the exercise.
BJ replied that Trust land was different because of the commitment
CTC had given to the Trust. BJ is to
provide DE with a copy of the contract between CTC and the Trust to see how
a smooth transition can be achieved.
BL commented that he had visited 2 outlets in the town and they had
expressed their view that trade had improved considerably since the removal
of the roadworks and the suspension of parking charges.
PL proposed acceptance of the report, sec by AH, all in favour. Next
meeting 5 June, CDCDT office, 7pm.
- Planning Committee (which also met on 15/05/07) – BL
proposed acceptance of the report, sec by PL, 9 in favour, 1 abst.
14 – Reports –
- Town Forum – MB reported on the meeting of 16/05/07 –
‘Love Parks’ was mentioned (17 – 24 June) when concerns were raised over the
lack of contact with other organisations within the town. AS added that
‘Jazz in the Park’ had been arranged for 23/06/07 and he suggested that
those attending “bring a picnic”. MB
continued by saying that the Fireworks committee had contacted suppliers for
the event on 1st December and some fund-raising events were
planned along with the regular quizzes being held at the Lib Club. (A copy
of the full report is available from the Clerk’s office).
BI then spoke regarding the Broadwood Bridge project which now faced a
considerable cash shortfall (£10,000) due to changes in design required by
various statutory bodies. AS stated
that CTC should consider “match funding”, support the project and provide
some funds from resources. BI is to write to NCDC requesting assistance, he
asked that CTC provide £2,000 (of the £10,000) as a sign to NCDC that
Camelford is committed to this project.
It was agreed that in principle the Council will support the project
and that this item be put on the agenda for the next full Council meeting,
proposed by AS, sec by MB 9 in favour, 1 abst.
- CDCDT – Nothing to report at present.
- Youth Club – JP said he has spoken to the headmaster
and the vicar who are both very supportive of the suggestion that a ‘Youth
Council’ be established to discover how the Council works. BL recalled that
there was already a Youth Council for North Cornwall
but he was unsure if it is still operating (to be verified).
- HERS – meeting to take place on 06/06/07 at CDCDT
office.
- Mayor’s report – None
- Other reports – None
- Parks for People – None
15 – Newsletters &
Circulars –
Received Building Control newsletter from NCDC.
16 – Items for 7th
June meeting –
17 – Exempt
Information – Complaint received from Mrs C. Ireland against the Clerk
regarding Cllr Lush.
DE said Standing Order No. 38 applied which meant that no discussion
regarding an employee of the Council should take place in front of the public
because Council have to consider because of possible contract of employment
issues. PC said he had received an
e-mail from the Clerk saying he was quite happy for this to be dealt with in
public. AH suggested that the
discussion of the complaint could take place in public but if Council would then
be asked to consider disciplinary action it’s position would be jeopardised.
DE stated that he had consulted the relevant law and it stated that no
discussion should take place in public.
RR asked for clarification of the nature of the complaint but could not
receive an answer due to what had gone before.
BI said that if the complaint is not to be heard in public then Council
must change the Complaints
Procedure. AH said that he was
“puzzled” because if it was only a complaint then there is no need for it to be
heard ‘in camera’. DE again stated
S.O. No. 38, stressing that if Council later found it necessary to refer the
matter to the Disciplinary Committee then Council’s position would be severely
weakened if such action ever got to a tribunal.
He then proposed that the matter be heard ‘in committee, sec by AS, 5 in
favour, 2 against (PC & BI), 3 abst (BL, MB,
AH). Press and public were asked to
leave the room.
----------- End of notes -------------
Back to previous page