Notes taken by Clare Ireland & Eddie McCormick at the CTC meeting of 10th May 2007.
Present: J. Finch (JF), P. Clark (PC), B. Ireland (BI), D. Elliott (DE), B. Lush (BL), R. Rotchell (RR),
P. Lessels (PL), J. Pearce (JP), A. Shaw (AS), A. Hearnden (AH), S. Morris (SM), M. Baber (MB).
Minutes taken B. Jordan (BJ), (Town Clerk)
Out-going Mayor JF congratulated the incoming and newly-elected Councillors.
Public
Participation
District Councillor Bob Ellison (BE) addressed the meeting and began by also congratulating the new members of the Council. He wished to convey that during his election campaigning he became aware that there was a large amount of gratitude for out-going Councillors. He stated that the desire was that the past be put behind us and that anyone who tried to raise the past should be condemned. He especially expressed his gratitude to JF for “staying the course”.
BE then went on to explain that he would not be attending CTC meetings on
a regular basis but was available by phone or email. He asked that he be copied
in to any correspondence between the Council and NCDC/CCC.
He then went to acknowledge that the election result was a clear mandate
for free car parking to be restored, he however was concerned that there were
poorer rate-payers who can ill-afford to subsidise a completely free car park
(E.Mc’s note: ‘poorer’ residents receiving benefit do
not pay Council Tax). BE
went on to mention some people who use the car park as a ‘staging point’ and
then use free transport to out of town shops (E.Mc’s
note: The ‘free’ transport is paid for by the relevant supermarket who will
surely be incorporating the cost into the prices
every shopper pays for their shopping, i.e. if you use your own car to
travel to the supermarket you are
paying towards the cost of ‘free’ transport.)
BE asked that a “compromise” be reached regarding a period of free
parking.
JF then read out a letter from
Mrs. Ada McCormick in which she congratulated the newly-elected Councillors.
Mrs. McCormick went on to make a suggestion that the Council consider a ‘Party
in the Park’ in collaboration with other local groups/ organisations, which she
believed was a natural extension of the suggestion made by former Councillor M.
Williams for a ‘Jazz in the Park’ event.
B. Grills, after offering her
congratulations, then spoke on the issue of traffic on
(end of Public Participation)
JF asked if every new member of
the Town Council had signed the appropriate Declaration – all members answered
that they had.
1 - Nomination(s) for Mayor
MB proposed BL, seconded by AH
PC proposed JP, seconded by BI
(this meant a vote was
necessary). AS asked if voting would be by ballot or a show of hands. It was
agreed that a ballot would be the best option.
BJ issued ballot papers and said
that this would not be a secret ballot but ‘signed’. The result of the vote
was:- BL 7 votes, JP 4 votes therefore BL is elected as Mayor.
BL moved from his seat to the head of the table to take up the Chair.
JF smiled as she presented the chain of office to BL. Photographers David
Flower and Alan Burgis took photo’s of the warm handshake between JF and BL.
BL then read out and signed the
Mayoral Declaration.
2 - Nomination(s) for Deputy Mayor
MB proposed BI, seconded by BL
AS proposed JP, seconded by PC
(another vote was required using
the criteria as above)
The result of the voting was:-
JP 7 votes, BI 4 votes therefore JP is elected as Deputy Mayor and he moved to
be seated alongside the Mayor (BL).
3 – Apologies –
None.
At this point BI interjected and
requested that Council, instead of proceeding with the Agenda as shown, should,
according to Standing Orders, now consider the appointment of Councillors to
outside bodies. AS agreed and the meeting moved to Item 17 on the agenda.
17 – To appoint Councillors to Outside bodies
As with the above agenda item,
it was decided to deal with Item 16 next.
16 – To appoint Committee Members for 2007/2008
At this point PC suggested an
amendment to the running order. He recommended that members of the
Staffing/Employment Committee be appointed before those of the Disciplinary
Committee. PC’s suggestion was proposed by PL, seconded by RR and carried
unanimously.
PC then proposed that, on the
grounds of public interest, the meeting go straight to removal of the parking
charges – this didn’t happen and the meeting resumed the agenda for ‘Guest
Speaker’
BL suspended
standing orders and welcomed Charles Whitehead.
ITEMS
CARRIED FORWARD FROM THE LAST MEETING
Charles
Whitehead, presentation of the Parks for People project.
He said the Parks for People project was a joint Lottery and Heritage
Lottery programme, to enhance local facilities to make a real difference to
people’s lives. Essential to
success of towns and a measure of local pride and identity.
The amount can be between £250,000 and £5,000,000.
It is to improve the quality of the park.
You [CTC] are expected to raise 25% from other sources as cash or non
cash. 5% must be cash.
On £250,000 12.5% must be from council funds.
There are 5 criteria – getting people involved, serve and improve
heritage value, increase the range of volunteers, improve skills through
training, management and maintenance of the park, plan, manage and deliver the
project and the quality of the work, manage the risk, value for money.
There is a guidance pack and application form and up to £50,000 is
available with this plan, the application and aspects of what you [CTC] want to
do. What can be included : a)
Repair and restore landscapes, for example the river bank which is in danger of
erosion. b) Remove unsightly
buildings and planting. c) Include
wildlife. d) The leat, river and
pond. e) Improve access.
CW said that these are just some examples and other things might be
considered:- Some seats are very high and unsuitable for the disabled.
No facility for wheelchair users which need a seat beside them.
Project planning for this.
Buy land to improve facilities and re-unite landscapes, build decorative
features. Repair boundaries and
services. Improve security,
professional fees for people to design and improve the management and
environment. The project is in two
stages with a single window of opportunity.
Planning grants cease after submission of 30 March.
No further planning grants.
Grants are being cut back. More
people are applying. Less people
are successful since funds are going to the 2012 Olympics.
Does the Clerk meet the criteria?
Are we improving facilities, turnover, volunteers and do we have a
sensible plan for stage 2? Pulling
together the final application for the project planning grant which may get us
up to about £50,000. Enable
Camelford to move into phase 1 and ultimately into phase 2.
P Clark
asked, if it were £250,000, we [CTC] would have to find 12½%
-
another 20% in time. Where from?
C Whitehead – we would be looking for volunteers.
Four people at the moment, 50 hours of their time.
P Clark asked Mr Whitehead how many members of the public had attended
your last meeting. C Whitehead –
none. But we did have a stall at
the Easter Fayre – 75 people filled in a form.
P Clark asked if the Chamber of Commerce and Town Forum had been
involved. There doesn’t seem to be
much public support. C Whitehead
said he would not say that. The
comments back from people and the questionnaire showed a degree of interest from
the residents of Camelford. B
Ireland said that the guidance notes said that the priority one is that the park
project involves local people. A
strong working partnership between the community and the authority.
Would it not be more appropriate to go to the CDCDT?
If we cannot involve them I am a bit alarmed that you cannot find the
support. C Whitehead said it was
not for the want of trying. People
so far have not stepped forward. D
Elliott asked what proportion of applications was successful.
C Whitehead said he had worked for a charity in
R Rotchell
asked about the 75 people at the Easter Fayre who had filled out questionnaires.
C Whitehead said he had not had time to review the forms, he had only
received them this morning. P Clark
said that there was little or no interest and it had already cost quite a lot of
money. A Shaw said that some of the
expenditure, the estimated repair of the river bank, would be a 10 year project
and cost many thousand of pounds.
Like for like one estimate had been for £300 per metre and there were 150
metres. “It must be repaired” he
said. B Lush said that some people
were saying it should be left to erode naturally.
C Whitehead said that the South West Regional River Authority was not
saying that. The bank is part of
the park. B Lush said that whatever
you do, nothing is going to stay there when the river is in full flood.
P Lessels asked about wheelchair access – what would the position be if
someone were not following the Act.
As a grandparent he [PL] knew what is was like pushing his grandchildren.
“The park is wonderful, a gem, it really is.” he said.
C Whitehead said you [CTC] had to use all reasonable effort.
If you had tried and failed you would not be held responsible.
There was a need to assess the risk.
P Lessels said that on financial grounds we had not been successful.
B Ireland said that the biggest problem was the actual entrance to the
park, and the problem was that you cannot make changes to the park through the
lottery fund. Things that are
already done cannot be changed, for example the bridge to Trefrew.
Improving the management and maintenance through the management plan, for
the ten year period. C Whitehead
said that the lottery would fund this.
B Ireland asked, “- and afterwards?”
B Lush said most people he’d spoken to had said, ‘leave our park alone’.
He added, “I think the front of it is quite good”.
A Shaw said we needed to fund C Whitehead until the end of June.
To enable him to produce the project planning grant.
D Elliott said that then everything would stop until September.
It was decided that, because of the money already spent on this, CTC
would continue to fund Mr Whitehead until the end of June.
BL reinstated Standing Orders.
7 – Declaration(s) of Interest – DE 14)c)i, (prej, business interest), MB 18)a (prej, friend) & 12)b (prej, involved in submission), BI 12)b (pers, relative) & 18)a (pers, acquaintance)
PC then asked again if the meeting could move to Item 14)c)1 – “To suspend car parking charges”
He said the election result indicated exactly what the public want, that 8 new members of Council had been elected to put forward the removal of parking charges was a clear mandate and an indication of the strength of feeling on the issue. He then proposed that the charges be suspended (temporarily) until the existing Parking Order can be removed and the financial implications of this measure can be investigated.
He also suggested that the committees now elected look at ways of keeping it free on a permanent basis and financing it. BL stated that he would rely on expert advice.
MB asked for a definition of how the suspension would work. BJ said that Council could suspend charges “if you want”.
AH said that he fully supported PC’s explanation and suggested that the period of suspension be 3 months adding, “I cannot morally support it going on the precept and want to investigate”.
BI stated that he had been in touch with the Legal Dept. of NCDC (David Hooper) who had told him that charges could not be removed as easily as some people might think, there is a process that must be adhered to if the removal of charges is to be legal.
The Town Clerk said he had sought some advice and that charges could be suspended immediately if the Council chose to. BI was sure that Mr. Hooper’s advice was sound and asked that the Clerk contact the Legal Dept. for a ruling to be given in writing. The Clerk said he would contact Sally Lloyd-Jones at NCDC or the legal people at Cornwall County Council but at this stage he was sure that charges could be suspended and that he would remove the large signs and provide laminated notices on the parking machines explaining that charges were temporarily removed. BJ added that he must write to people who bought permits and advertised on tickets.
AH agreed with this measure and again suggested that the period be 3 rather than 2 months. BI then commented in relation to this debate and the Dist. Cllr. Bob Ellison’s earlier statement by saying that various bodies had provided the previous Council with information – he specifically cited the Atlantic Consultants report which said that Churchfield car park was a town asset and that the imposition of charges would lead to a down-turn in ‘foot falls’ i.e. reduce the number of people actually using the town. He continued by saying that the report had proven to be entirely correct.
BI continued by explaining that Cllr. Ellison’s request for compromise would mean the need to monitor the car park would remain and this would cost time and money – money that could be used to alleviate any possible increase to the precept although at this stage it could not be stated categorically that an increase would be needed. BI went on to state that the people of Camelford have spoken, they want charges removed from the car park but he was convinced that this should not be done today but that new Parking Orders be applied for because David Hooper (NCDC) “did not like the idea of us doing it out of hand”. BJ said that it would take 42 days to process any new Parking Order(s).
AS said, “This has been an emotive subject for a long time, but there is a finance committee and I propose it looks at the cost implications of suspending charges for about 2 months. We [CTC] are coming up to the summer season so the figure may fluctuate and we have to find £10,000 a year to pay for the loan. (Clare’s note – the people of Camelford were doing that before the introduction of charges in Churchfield car park.) AS continued by saying, “With insurance and maintenance it is a lot more than that.” He added that he had received a phone call from a lady who purchased a permit – would she be getting her money back he asked. He had also been contacted by advertisers (adverts on the reverse of the machine tickets) asking if charges were rescinded would they be entitled to a percentage refund. He quoted someone who had paid £179.50 saying that the finance committee needed to consult the figures and “We need to go through the accounts”.
BL said that would be done at a later date.
RR asked that it be stipulated that the 3 months would be the maximum suspension period and that firm proposals for the new Parking Orders be in place.
BI wanted to propose an amendment but PC believed that this would be contrary to Standing Orders in the form BI proposed. PC stated that BJ is the Council’s legal advisor and if he (BJ) says we can suspend charges then we should go ahead.
AS said that the issue was being driven by town traders.
PC proposed a 2 month suspension period to assess the financial impact, seconded by AH, this was carried with 9 in favour, BI against (DE had left the room having declared a prejudicial interest). BJ said, “That is the best way forward”.
The meeting then returned to the agenda.
4 – Minutes of 11th April 2007 – prop MB, sec AH, 8 in favour, 3 abst
5 – Minutes of 17th April 2007 – AS asked re Item 14)b that name be changed to ‘David Chadwick’. BJ said this was his error and would change as requested, prop ??, sec ??, 8 in favour, 3 abst
6 – Minutes of 23rd April 2007 – prop AS, sec BI, 9 in favour, 2 abst
(Declaration of Interest was dealt with earlier)
8 – Items carried from last meeting
a) Charles Whitehead – Parks for People – see earlier notes.
b) Traffic Monitoring – no reply to previous letter. BJ said he hasn’t done anything about this issue since then because of the roadworks.
c) Footway & Streetlights – awaiting report from Paul Allen.
d) Inventory of Council property – BI proposed that this item should be dealt with by the Finance Committee, sec by MB, 10 in favour, 1 abst.
e) Wall in Churchfield car park – the survey already carried out suggests that NCDC be contacted, however quotes have been received – these to go on the agenda for Tuesday’s Car Park Committee meeting.
f) Christmas Parade – nothing received as yet.
g)
h) Unitary Status – BL stated that he believed that Mr. Whalley (who addressed the Parish meeting in April) was fully aware of the strength of local feeling against going ‘Unitary’. BJ stated that a letter had been received asking a Councillor to attend, with voting rights – this will be on the agenda for the CTC meeting of 22/05/07. Prop AS, sec AH, 6 in favour, 1 against, 3 abst.
9 – Answers to Public Participation – None
10 – Questions from Councillors – None
11 – Items requiring a decision
a) Civic Service – BL proposed that no Civic Service be held, sec by BI, 9 in favour, 2 abst.
b) Camelford in Bloom – AS proposed continuation of this and to take place on 1st August with an anticipated expenditure in the region of £25. This was seconded by MB, all in favour.
c) Adoption of new Code of Conduct – this is carried forward to the meeting of 7th June.
d) Hanging baskets & flower tubs – AS proposed that CTC purchase these, sec JP, all in favour.
e) Bus for Camelford Show – to be on 08/08/07 at a cost for the bus of £175, prop AS, sec AH, all in favour.
f) Bank mandate – BJ explained that Cllrs need to go to a Barclays branch to sign the mandate (within 2 weeks). MB prop, sec by BL, all in favour.
g) Request from PCSO Sam Smith for a bag dispenser at Enfield - It was felt that this would be a ‘magnet’ and attract misuse, BI prop refusal, sec AH, 9 in favour, 2 abst.
Members were reminded that the Finance Committee will take place on Monday 14th May at 7.30pm in the CDCDT office and that the Car Park Committee will be held at 8pm on Tuesday next in the same venue (SM had asked for a later start due to his work commitments so 8pm was agreed).
12 – Items for information –
a) Notification of changes to the Highways Network Management team.
b) Information Commissioner’s Office – Appeal withdrawn by C.A.R. purely because of cost implications.
c) NCDC Parish & Ward profiles – available from the Clerk’s office.
d) No Smoking ban (from 1st July) – examples of signage shown by BJ (also available in Clerk’s office).
e)
f) Parks for People – dealt with earlier.
13 – Approval of payments
BI queried why payments had been made since the last CTC meeting and PC proposed that the bill for BT should in future be itemised and available in electronic version, sec JP, 10 in favour, 1 abst.
14 – Resolutions or recommendations from Councillors
a) From B. Ireland – “That the council take note of the decisions of the Standards Board for case No. SBE16668.06 and implement all the recommendations contained in Clause 8”. Proposed by AH, sec by RR, all in favour.
b) From B. Lush – That Town Council reduce by half the number of full Council meetings to the first Thursday in each month. After discussion in which it was decided that new Councillors might need time to get up to speed on Council issues so it was proposed by BL that this item be left on the table until 1st September, sec by AS, all in favour.
c) From P. Clark –
1) To suspend car parking charges – dealt with earlier
2) Cllr Clark withdrew this item.
d)
From (ex) Cllr. Grills – Road humps in
15 – Correspondence
a)
Letter of thanks for the grant of £1500 towards the
upkeep of
b) Letter from David Whalley (CCC) re Bowithick tip – new opening hours will operate with effect from 1st July.
c) Letter from E. McCormick – Mr. McCormick addressed the Mayor and asked that “in the spirit of reconciliation my letter be withdrawn”. This was accepted.
Items 16 & 17 are dealt with earlier in these notes.
Items 18, 19, 20 & 21 refer to Planning – details can be found in the Clerk’s office.
22 – Committee reports – None
23 – Reports from outside bodies
24 – Newsletters & Circulars
NALC Local Council Review – available from Clerk’s office.
25 – Items for 7th June meeting
From JP – a) he suggests a Youth representative on Council.
From BI – a) he suggests suspension of 3 day notice requirement for Public Participation.
b) he suggests the introduction of audio recording of CTC and Committee meetings.
c) he suggests that training be arranged for new Councillors.
BL closed the meeting at 10.44pm.
----- End of notes ----------