Camelford Town Council meeting held on 31st July 2007… notes taken by E. McCormick.
In attendance : Mayor B. Lush, (BL), Dep. Mayor J. Pearce (JP), D. Elliott (DE), P. Clark (PC),
R. Rotchell (RR), P. Lessels (PL), A. Shaw (AS), B. Ireland (BI)
Minutes taken by: R. Hart (RH)
BL opened the meeting at 7.15 pm.
Public Participation – (i) Mark Stockwood spoke on problems being experienced over clearing the river under the bridge since the River Authority relinquished responsibility. He felt that a ‘vortex’ is created at certain times, and in view of recent flooding elsewhere, this should be a matter of concern for the Environment Agency. He also felt that the Highways dept might become involved.
(ii) David Pierce then addresses the meeting. Firstly he asked when Council intended to reinstate Town Clerk Barry Jordan. He stated that the manner of the suspension was “more akin to a Central African republic rather than a rural English town”. He commented on the Mayor’s past service but said that now the Mayor appears to have come under the influence of a ‘coterie of sycophants”, he asked how much the employment of a temporary Clerk was costing, secondly he commented that as soon as the temp was employed he went on holiday, leaving the town without administrative cover. He said that website notes expired at the end of May, he did not expect any Councillor to “fall on their sword” but he suggested that the townspeople require an explanation of costs incurred since suspension of Mr. Jordan. He said that the Council seems determined to return this town to the status of ‘rotten borough’. He then queried the proposal made by PC (at 10/05/07 meeting) for a ‘Community Impact Study’. He stated that the residents need to be canvassed on the issue of costs because Community Charge and precept ‘will rise year on year’. He felt that Camelford had the opportunity to ‘mitigate’ the rises (by imposing car park charges) but that CTC were ‘hell bent’ on an increase. He would not accept that the recent surveys (and the election) were enough to qualify as a community impact study.
(see also ‘Correspondence’ later in these notes)
(iii) M. Williams rose and spoke to the meeting. He stated that over the past few weeks he had sent several letters to Council but so far he has not “had the courtesy of a reply or acknowledgement”. He asked if all Councillors had seen the letters he had written, he said that if members had not seen the letters then they should ask themselves ‘Why?’.
(see also ‘Correspondence’ later in these notes)
(iv) Mark Windsor then addressed the meeting with regard to Planning Item 01344 (see later), he wanted CTC support for his (and local residents) objection to this application on several grounds.
1- Apologies – M. Baber (MB) – ill, A. Hearnden (AH) inpatient, S. Morris (SM) working (but will arrive later). BI prop acceptance of apologies, sec by DE, all in favour.
2- Declarations of Interest – None
3 - Minutes – (i) Receive & approve minutes of the meeting held on 5th July 2007 – BL reminded members that minutes were incomplete. RH stated that this occurred due to his absence and the minutes being sent out before he had completed them. BL gave members the opportunity to hold the minutes over. Prop for acceptance by AS, sec by BI, all in favour.
(ii) Receive & approve minutes of ‘In Committee’ meeting held on 5th July 2007 – BL stated that members had received copies of the ‘In Committee’ minutes of 5th July. Acceptance proposed by JP, sec by BI, 7 in favour, 1 abstention.
(iii) Receive & approve minutes of extraordinary meeting of 26th July 2007 – Prop by JP, sec PL, 6 in favour, 2 abst.
4 - Items carried forward –
(i) Footway & Streetlights – still awaiting reply from P. Allen (despite a further reminder).
(ii) Seat outside Lloyds Bank – still awaiting removal of scaffolding.
(iii) Beachcroft (request for files) – reply received stating that the solicitor acting (Mr Campbell Dye) was to be on holiday and would deal with this upon his return.
(iv) Correspondence – all correspondence received before the meeting to be read out at the meeting (removal of ‘3 day rule’). – BI felt that the 3 day rule imposed a restriction; he said that there were already too many of those. RH confirmed that any financial considerations within the correspondence could not be decided on the night of the meeting unless adequate notice had been given. JP expressed his agreement with BI’s sentiments and seconded BI’s proposal, all in favour.
(v) Report on NCDC Audit visit to review CTC’s accounting system – BI reported on the visit by Barry McKinley & Kirstin May of NCDC, who recommended that CTC look at a firm called RBS Systems. BI had received details of 2 packages, one for smaller and one for larger councils. He felt that the smaller would be more than adequate for CTC. It was extremely efficient, would provide VAT figures and at year end would provide the required Audit Return. RH stated that this facility would save around 15 hours. BI stated a cost of £245 which would give CTC a certain amount of technical support, thereafter £15 per year. He felt this was a ‘well-tailored’ package. Additional ‘bolt-on’ packages are available if CTC later find this would be a benefit. The ability to utilise compatibility with Microsoft Access was a considerable benefit. BI stated that the proposed package was much more suited to CTC’s needs than the present Microsoft Money program and he proposed that CTC purchase the system. BL asked if this should go before the Finance Committee, to be held next Monday. JP felt that the suggested system was so good that a decision should be made as soon as possible. RH said that the cost would be immediately offset against the 1st year’s audit. AS asked if the Clerk was happy with the proposed system to which RH replied “I think it’s brilliant”. He also stated that the present system, having been bought some 15 years ago, was no longer adequate because CTC had ‘outgrown’ its facility. DE recommended that the system be adopted, sec by JP, all in favour.
5 - Answers to Public Participation 19th June (should read 5th July ??) 2007 meeting
(i) Mrs J Finch – (also to Mrs B Grills) – CTC thanked Mrs Finch & Mrs Grills for their continued interest in Council matters, and replied that the actions of the Mayor on 19th June were due to preparation not predetermination. The Mayor believes that he would have been derelict in his duty if he had not sought advice from outside sources (in the belief that Mr Harman would be making a statement regarding Barry Jordan’s arrest). Various departments at NCDC were consulted and the advice given was used to determine both the Mayor’s and the Council’s actions. Specifically to Mrs Finch’s comment, it was stated that some Town assets had been seized by Police and that Council needed to confirm its position in respect of this and Mr Jordan’s arrest. Mr Jordan’s suspension will last as long as is considered prudent or necessary. Mr Jordan had been allowed to address the statement made by Mr Harman, and he did so against the advice of the Chairman.
(ii) Mr Stockwood – RH stated that he had contacted the Police and they were acting virtually in accord with the suggestions Mr Stockwood had made (at a previous meeting).
6 - Questions from Councillors –
(i) From PL re future of Primary School site – PL asked if the site was to be returned to Camelford from CCC. He wanted to raise public awareness about the potential uses and the needs of the town. He cited Treasury comments that said resources should be returned to towns where possible. AS stated that his understanding was that CCC would be looking for ‘best value’ from the site and mentioned a figure of £3 million which may be used to finance the new school. JP believes that CTC should have an influence in the decision. PL wants to seek public input/suggestions for uses of the site. He is aware of bodies at both NCDC and CCC who can advise on sources of funding. AS felt that making a decision now was too early in the process and that this should be looked at in a year’s time. JP thought that dealing with the issue now was actually a good idea, this was echoed by BL, BI and DE. BL proposed that C.A.R. might be approached to conduct a poll of residents’ wishes, seconded by JP, all in favour.
(ii) From PL – To co-ordinate committee meetings, minute taking – PL explained that quite a few meetings had taken place recently with full Council and sub-committees, also this put a great deal of pressure on the Clerk to prepare minutes for subsequent meetings. BI thinks a Councillor from within the committee should take the minutes (except for decisions involving financial expenditure) and typing the notes up. BL commented on the cost involved, including overtime, when the Clerk is currently required to attend all meetings. PC stated that CTC should be looking to keep costs down and one way to do this was for committees to produce their own minutes. AS stated that he believes minutes should be taken by a ‘proper officer’ who is unbiased rather than a Councillor being expected to take part in the debate and take minutes at the same time. JP confirmed that the Finance Committee would still need the Clerk present. AS would like to keep the current arrangement because of the potential for a ‘slant’ being introduced. BL asked RH for the legal position in respect of Councillors producing their own notes. RH replied that he had consulted Sally Lloyd-Jones (of NCDC Legal Dept) who had said that Councillors could take their own minutes but could not make decisions binding on the full Council, everything would need to go before Council. PC stated that this currently happens anyway (this was confirmed by BL). PC proposed that committees in future take their own minutes, with the exception of the Finance Committee, BI sec, 4 in favour, 2 against, 2 abst. Therefore the proposal is approved. The Clerk will continue to put out agenda at the appropriate interval(s). The Clerk will also provide the sequential number for minute pages to ensure continuity.
(iii) From PC – To consider action following letters received from Mr B Jordan – DE asked if this item should be discussed ‘in camera’. PC stated that this matter pertained to a letter from Mr Jordan to JP on 04/0707 in which he accused Councillors Lush and Ireland of perjury. BL advised that it was for Council to decide whether it goes into ‘camera’ or not. AS proposed this item go to ‘camera’, sec by JP, 6 in favour, 1 against (PC), 1 abst.
7 - Items requiring a decision –
(i) New bin for play area – Details requested from manufacturer who had replied with details of recycling bins. RH had re-requested details of appropriate bins. (A suggested price of £200 was put forward and it was proposed by BL that the Clerk could order immediately, sec by RR, 6 in favour, 2 abst).
(ii) Date of any Council meeting required in August – RH stated that the next normal date for a meeting was Sept. 7th. He also stated that the payment of cheques needs to be considered. AS proposed that the Mayor, Clerk and 1 other councillor be allowed to prioritise accounts. BI said that he is unhappy about the proposed payment of cheques and cited the regulations relating to Direct Debits, Standing Orders, salaries and emergency items – no other payments are permitted without Council approval. RH was not convinced that BI had understood the regulations correctly. RH stated that he would abide by BI’s suggestion and err on the side of caution – only emergency payments would be made without full Council approval.
(iii) Audio recorder for Council – BI stated that he understood RH had been very impressed with the quality of the recording handed to him from an earlier meeting. The recorder mentioned would cost less than £100 (plus £5 approx for a pair of speakers). JP proposed that Council buy the suggested model, sec by BL, 5 in favour, 3 against (PC, AS, DE).
(iv) To approve the Car Park survey leaflet – RH had supplied all Councillors with copies of the leaflet. BL asked PL to explain the findings and format of the leaflet. PL explained the chronology, information and results – for legal purposes the survey had to comply with certain criteria for the suspension of parking charges to remain in effect. (Copies available from various outlets and the Clerk’s office). AS questioned the result of the survey saying that much of the information was ‘anecdotal’. He feels that the current situation penalises all residents. PL replied that in May 2007 the survey had consulted actual users and this showed that 85% of those who replied in the survey were from Camelford or the immediate surrounding area. PC commented that on May 5th a survey on the same thing was undertaken when everyone in Camelford had the opportunity to have their say – it was called the election. PC proposed that the leaflet be printed and distributed, sec by BI, 7 in favour, 1 against (AS). Available from public outlets and the Clerk’s office – 500 copies, also on the website when accessible. (S. Morris arrived at 8.16pm.)
(v) Council website – to obtain password from webmaster so that website can be updated – RH stated that the webmaster from NCDC would be calling at the office to train BI and the Clerk. A new password would be issued allowing outstanding updates to be made. PL said that members of the public present would not understand what this issue was about so asked for an explanation. RH said that the website could not currently be accessed to allow amendments because the password was not available. PL asked if there had been a breach of web security. RH confirmed that there had and BI explained that an unauthorised agenda had been loaded to the site calling for a meeting which had not in fact been called.
8 - Items for information – None
9 - Approval of Payments – As agenda – prop for acceptance by PL, sec by RR, all in favour.
A brief discussion took place about how Council’s broadband connection is, and will be, paid for)
10 - Resolutions or recommendations from Councillors – None
11 - Correspondence -
(i) From Clare Ireland re Planning application No. 2007/01147 )
(ii) From Julian Harman ------- ditto -------------- )
(iii) From Mrs Risdon --------- ditto ------------- )
Mrs Ireland cited the Council’s Complaints Procedure and comments made by AS in respect of the above application in which he stated that the application had been refused when in fact it had been withdrawn. Mrs Ireland queried AS’s motivation in stating ‘refused’ to which AS replied that there was no motivation and he had answered in good faith although the information may have been inaccurate….. the same reply was to be given to the other correspondents. BI suggested that an apology be given to Mrs Risdon, PL concurred with this. RH said that the wording needed to be considered, stating that Council had in fact made no objection. The proposal was carried with 6 in favour and 3 abst.
(iv) From Eddie McCormick re item on CTC’s website – RH stated that Mr McCormick had first brought the Employment Committee agenda item on the website to his attention. This was an addition made to the website although B. Jordan is suspended. RH said that an investigation had begun but the aid of the webmaster was required. As the webmaster is visiting next week (06/08/07) this will be checked further.
(v) From C.A.R. (signed by E. McCormick, Vice Chairman) re his views on Council matters - RH stated that this was a ‘strong’ letter, RR checked that this was the same document Councillors had received by email and it was confirmed that it was. BL said he couldn’t have received a copy as he does not have email facilities. RH read from the letter and questioned whether the entire content should be put in the public domain or some of it should be heard ‘in camera’. (Note - A copy of E. McCormick’s letter is available on the CAR website – click to view). JP proposed that CTC reply stating that Mr McCormick’s comments had been noted, sec by SM, all in favour.
(vi) From Mrs Hancock re disabled access to Enfield Park – Mrs Hancock said that CTC had promised in the past to rectify the difficulty being experienced by handicapped visitors to the park. She asked what and when the Council intended to do to provide disabled access. Various suggestions were presented, AS suggested a resin-based filler (no cost presently available). RR described the area he felt could be the quickest solution was to the right of the bandstand that could be suitable for the resin-based solution (AS recalled a figure of £1000 being suggested a cost). JP asked that AS investigate the actual cost before a decision is made. A reply to be sent to Mrs Hancock stating that various options are being considered.
(vii) From Mr D Pierce – 3 letters (dated from 13th July to 21st July) – comments re website needing update, re seat at bus stop in Victoria Road asking when this would be replaced, re finding out the cost of employing a temporary Clerk. Mr Pierce stated that he had written several times and had received neither a reply nor acknowledgement. Some CTC meetings and their minutes had not been uploaded to the website. RH replied that certain of the dates mentioned by Mr Pierce had occurred before the suspension of B Jordan and the site would have been accessible then but had not been updated. RH has not got the password to allow him to make any amendments. BL had replied on writing (23/07/07) stating his regret at being unable to find one of the letters and explaining that he couldn’t discuss the employment issue, also thanking Mr Pierce for his involvement with the design and purchase of the seat. AS then spoke regarding the seat, explaining that the seat had not been installed because various and numerous contractors had been working in the vicinity and more recently, because of the adverse weather. PC suggested that all future correspondence should go before full Council rather than, in the case of these letters, being addressed to and read by any single councillor. BI suggested that in addition an acknowledgement be sent before the item is discussed at Council. RR proposed that all correspondence should be for the attention of Council and be acknowledged prior to it going on the agenda, sec by PC, all in favour.
(viii) From Mr D Pierce re Community Impact Study – He stated that the Residents Association (CAR) was a “lobby group” and cannot be regarded as a definitive recorder of town Council or committee meetings. He felt that the survey on the car park was inadequate and wanted to know what the increase in the precept would be. DE reminded those present about the unambiguous result of the election in which 8 Councillors had been elected on a Free Car Park ticket. Re a Civic Church service – he asked would this be an ongoing tradition. BI asked how a ‘one-off’ event could be classed as a tradition. Mr Pierce’s final (6th) letter was again about the website. RH referred to the previous response to this question. PL then read out notes from the Car Park committee meeting (of 5th June) which showed that B Jordan had been instructed to reply to Mr Pierce but had failed to do so. The same instruction had applied to a letter from M Williams regarding revenue.
(ix) From M Williams – re various committee meetings, minutes and lack of their publication. RH replied on the frequency of meetings but also referred to earlier reply re website. Letter to go to Mr Williams with the facts available. A second letter referred to the suspension of Mr Jordan and was referred to the reply made to Mrs Finch & Mrs Grills, plus RH’s comments re his temporary employment.
(x) From M Williams – re the holding of an extraordinary meeting – he quoted regulations re how and when it could be held. RH replied that no meeting had taken place as such.
(xi) From M Williams re pavement obstruction – he had made enquiries and found the vehicle in question belonged to a councillor. PC suggested that whoever was responsible might use the ‘Grills’ defence and say that it was their partner who had parked. BL asked if any councillor would admit to being the owner and SM volunteered his name while also saying that Mr Williams had never complained about SM’s parking while he (MW) was a Councillor, also that the deeds of sale show that the area mentioned is designated as a parking space for his property, finally that it was indeed his partner who had parked.
(xii) From M Williams re website – RH referred to his earlier answer.
(xiii) From M Williams re Impact Study – Mr Williams wrote that because some Councillors had stood on a ticket of ‘Free Parking’ this should be understood to mean that no-one has to pay in any form for the car park. His interpretation was that only those using the car park were getting a free car park while all residents of Camelford were actually having to pay via an increased precept. RH referred to his earlier answer and stated that all legal requirements had been met. BL had replied by letter.
(xiv) From M Williams re Impact Study – requesting a reply to his earlier letters and stating that he and others had not been consulted about making the car park free. Once again the results of various surveys and the election were given in reply. PC commented on the recent Code of Conduct training session in which mention was made regarding dealing with ‘obsessive’ people. He referred to the amount of letters from certain people as a ‘paper storm’ which Council could, if it wished, term obsessive and dismiss. PL then commented on the brief of the Car Park Committee which was to find best use of this asset, not necessarily as merely a financial exercise.
(xv) From Camelford Football Club – inviting CTC to the official hand over at Trefrew Park on Aug 12th.
(xvi) From J & C Rickwood re HGV diversion past Weeks Rise (B3266) – copy of complaint re amount of traffic passing their home (copied to Highways and D Rogerson).
(xvii) From Office of Judicial Complaints – B Jordan had written to this body (in a personal capacity) but had used CTC’s official address as return contact. RH had contacted them and supplied Mr Jordan’s home address for future correspondence.
(xviii) 4 letters which RH recommended be dealt with ‘in camera’ as they related to legal, police and employment matters re B Jordan. PC asked where the letters were from to which RH replied that the first was from Inspector Innes, one was re suspension, then a copy of letter which was also sent to the Press and finally an email sent to RH. On reflection it was decided that these letters could be made public. B Jordan had informed CTC that the CPS was taking no further action following his arrest. BL & JP had replied stating that CTC was seeking further legal advice and the suspension remained in place. B Jordan emailed RH in which he stated he had been cleared of all charges, he also enclosed a copy of a pass certificate in Local Council administration (yet to be verified) and which he stated would entitle him to a wage rise back-dated to the pass date. DE said that this would need checking in the ‘Green Book’ (Employment contract(s)). Finally, he wished to correct CTC by saying that he had not been arrested for perjury but because he had refused to hand his personal computer to the police when asked to do so. He also said that the police investigation didn’t only involve Camelford but also St Genny’s (he had been dismissed from the post of Clerk by the Council at St Genny’s), when ‘disgruntled ex-Councillors who had been booted out at the last election’ made that decision. He referred to a letter from the Police, (Sgt Alvsaker), in which a statement has been made that Julian Harman did assault Mr Jordan so must have lied when interviewed by police, also that a parking ticket had been legally issued and placed on Mr Harman’s vehicle, meaning that Mr Harman must have lied twice. He implied that this brought into doubt the statements made by those who had supported Mr Harman. He then confirmed that he holds copies of all relevant statements. He continued by stating that he had told the truth throughout and wished to put all this behind him. He queried what CTC hoped to find during its investigation stating that whatever it was “didn’t exist yet”. He also stated that he had been cleared of any wrong-doing and was aware that the police would not be taking any action against BL, BI or Mr Harman. He offered to accept a payment of 5 years salary to allow him to retire early.
That ends correspondence.
(Session break)
12 - Planning Application(s) – As agenda (except (vi) below) :-
(i) – 2007/01259 - PC prop no objection, sec by BI, all in favour
(ii) – 2007/01344 – AS felt this was over-development and explained about ‘encroachment’, building over a drain and prop objection, sec by PC, 8 in favour, 1 abst.
(iii) – 2007/01345 – AS said he could see no difference between this and the applicants’ previous application – AS prop refusal, sec by RR, 7 in favour, 2 abst.
(v) – 2007/01357 – AS prop no objection, sec by BL, all in favour.
(vi) - 2007/01408 – (Does not appear on the agenda – rec’d on 24th July) – The number of options expressed in this application made it difficult to assess exactly what the proposal was. Following discussion AS prop refusal until the issue of access is resolved. Sec by BL, 7 in favour, 2 abst.
(vii) Special Resolution re 2007/00498 – Penclease House – RH confirmed that procedures in respect of this special resolution had been followed. BI had been contacted by the owner/applicant who felt he had been treated unfairly and showed members the plans for the development. PC stated that the reason this was again before Council was because two previous Councillors failed to declare an interest. BI gave a brief outline of the history of the property and the proposal. AS and PC maintain that this application would amount to over-development. BI described the plans and showed photographs he had taken which he believed showed that no other property would be over-looked. PC reminded those present that 11 properties in this space had previously been objected to. AS commented on the ‘concrete and cream teas’ scenario of some years ago when certain individuals had inside information and people were coerced into developing sites. He said that deep concerns had been expressed by residents. BL stated that he hadn’t realised how far away the development would actually be from existing properties. AS asked if ‘personal interest’ should be declared by anybody, stating that BI had been inside the building taking photographs. BI replied that he was responding to an approach by an elector, he hadn’t met the person before. RR asked what basis CTC’s refusal would be on and AS replied that a lack of recreational space was a serious consideration. PC agreed with AS that garden space should be greater than a single car length. PL asked if there was a communal recreation area. BI said that by crossing the road children would have a play area. JP stated that CTC should not be encouraging the ‘slums of the future’ and families should be able to enjoy space. AS proposed rejection of this reconsideration and for decision to stand, sec by SM, 5 in favour, 2 against, 2 abst.
13 – Planning Approval Notices – None
14 – Planning Refusal Notices – None
15 – Planning Applications withdrawn – None
16 – Committee Reports – Finance Committee report of 9th July meeting – JP prop acceptance of report, sec by RR, all in favour. Repairs to Churchfield Car Park were discussed and a specification described by RH – cost £500. RR proposed acceptance of this, sec by BL, 8 in favour, 1 abst (PC).
Car Park Committee – next meeting will be 5th Sept. The process of arranging new parking orders had been begun by RH. PL suggested that the Car Park committee be amalgamated with the Amenities committee.
17 – Reports from outside bodies –
(i) Town Forum – None
(ii) CDCDT – None
(iii) Youth Club – None
(iv) HERS – None
(vi) Mayor’s Report – BL wished to thank his Deputy and Councillors for their support during a ‘difficult period’; he also wanted to thank Marion Sedgwick for performing the duties of Clerk at the meeting on 26th (letter of thanks to go). The “Camelford in Bloom” judging will be taking place tomorrow (1st Aug). Camelford Show next week (8th).
(vii) (a) - PL had attended a meeting of Chamber of Commerce who were pleased that they could now reinstate relations with Council and it was reported that they were experiencing a positive feedback from the removal of parking charges, trade was improving. A query had been raised re possible permanent re-routing of HGV vehicles (to go on next agenda). C of C is considering some (ring-fenced) funding for improvements to Enfield Park. (b) – AS had attended a meeting at County Hall on 16th July re affordable housing. He is awaiting a disk and documentation and would like a presentation at a later date.
(viii) Parks for People – AS stated that the report had gone in, there had been a slight difficulty with the computer, a decision on the first stage should be known within 3 months.
(ix) (Not on agenda) - Broadwood Path in Enfield Park – BI reported that progress was being made. PC pointed out that some damage had occurred; BI confirmed that the contractor was obliged to make good any damage. He also stated that CDCDT should shortly be receiving various amounts of funding from numerous sources in respect of the Broadwood project. BI will provide accounts to CDCDT to comply.
18 - Clerk’s report - Closure (3 days) of Trefrew Road from 21st Aug (water works). RH has also received a copy of a letter sent to Mr Tapley re old football ground utility bills. RH to write to Mark Tapley requesting clarification. A meeting of the Sports Hall committee is to be held. Re Community First – offering to give CTC a presentation on the proposed medical centre. Re diesel fumes near Broadwood bridge – this appears to be due to a leak from a private property.
19 – Newsletters and Circulars –
(i) Urbanscape
(ii) NCDC Building Control/ Economic significance of the village shop
20 – Items for next meeting – None
Date of next meeting – 6th September 2007. ----------- End of E. McCormick’s notes