Lanteglos Parish Neighbourhood Plan

In January of this year the Parish Council held a Neighbourhood Plan Meeting to which only four members of the public attended and five Parish Councillors. The meeting was to discuss what sort of questionnaire to send out to the public regarding a Lanteglos Neighbourhood Plan.
As we are all aware, a Neighbourhood Plan questionnaire was sent out with the Lanteglos Parish News.
10% of the public replied to the questionnaire and the Parish Council analysed the comments received.
A statement was issued by the Parish Council stating that the community have agreed that a Neighbourhood Plan should be developed. This was issued because the regulations state that the Community have to agree that a Neighbourhood Plan should be developed before it can be taken forward. In fact there has been no agreement from the community regarding this. Therefore this statement was false.
The Parish Council convened a meeting and invited certain members of the community to form a steering group for what they have decided to call a Neighbourhood Development Plan. It should either be a Neighbourhood Plan or a Neighbourhood Development Order, not a mixture of both.
This meeting was held in private with the general public not being able to attend or choose the Steering Committee as should be the process.
A Neighbourhood Plan Meeting is scheduled for Wednesday 27th of July 2016. From the minutes of the original Steering Committee meeting it is not at all clear whether this is open to the General Public.
At the Parish Council meeting on 28th June Councillor Moore stated that this meeting will not be recorded and that anyone wishing to attend must apply to the Council. So is the meeting open to the public or not?

Lanteglos Parish Council meeting 28th of June 2016

A report of some of the items discussed.
The Chairman informed the Council that because Councillor Bernie Wilde has not attended a meeting for six months he is automatically removed from the Council. In fact because of this rule he should have been removed from the Council in May. Councillor Wilde actually informed the Chairman early May that he was resigning, although because it was not in writing the chairman did not seem to accept that resignation. (Councillors do not have to give their resignation in writing). The procedure when a vacancy arises on the Council is that the Council must advertise the fact and ask whether any Parishioner would like a By-Election to fill the vacancy to write to Cornwall Council and if 10 or more request a By-Election then Cornwall Council will hold one. Although this must be done by law the Council,in their wisdom, decided that they would not advertise this because they were quite happy with having three vacancies on the Council. They will in fact be told by Cornwall Council that they will have to advertise as stated above. We will wait and see if and when they do this. The question must be asked, why they do not want to fill the vacancies on the council?
The Chairman informed the Council that they held a meeting to form a Steering Group for the Neighbourhood Plan, the public were not allowed to attend this meeting. The Council appointed members to the Steering Group, although in any other Neighbourhood Plans in Cornwall it was the Members of the Public who were asked to form a Steering Group. There will be a Neighbourhood Plan meeting later this month and members of the public will be allowed to attend but they must inform the Parish Council that they would like to attend. It is not known why members of the public need to inform the council and not just decide on the day whether they would like to attend or not.
There was an application for listed building consent to install plastic windows in the Polruan Mens Reading Room. Some Councillors were confused regarding this application but in the end they resolved to recommend approval.
There was an application for some alterations to the property called ‘Sea Croft’ in West Street Polruan. Again, Councillors were again confused regarding this application but they also resolved to recommend approval.
Councillor Moore gave an update on the Neighbourhood Plan and the Steering Group meeting but there are no minutes available for the public to see. Hopefully at the next Neighbourhood Plan meeting they will inform the public of what is going on and allow the public to put any input that they wish into the Parish Neighbourhood Plan.
The Chairman then closed the meeting to the Public and again unlawfully took the Council into a private meeting, as so often happens.
The video of this meeting can be seen on YouTube, https://youtu.be/srGCDSphYj0

Lanteglos Parish Council meeting 23rd of May 2016

A report on some of the items discussed.
Councillor John Adams was re-elected as Chairman for the next 12 months. Councillor Bernie Wilde who was the Vice-Chairman resigned from the Council, Councillor Adrian Fisher was elected as Vice-Chairman for the next 12 months.
Public Forum: The minutes of the Annual Parish Meeting. These minutes will be resolved and signed at the next Parish Meeting and not at the next Parish Council Meeting as was mistakenly done last year. The Chairman read out the minutes of the Annual Parish Meeting, they were very limited minutes and there were a several areas of discussion from the meeting left out, as you will clearly notice if you watch the video of the meeting.
Although not an agenda item at this meeting a proposal from the Annual Parish Meeting was put forward to the Parish Council, although the Chairman failed to inform the Council of the exact proposal that was made, the Council decided not to grant the public their wishes.
The Chairman mistakenly stated that once you make a decision at a meeting that you cannot discuss it again for another six months. It would be nice if, now and again the Chairman would find the facts and identify them correctly before making statements.
Councillor Moore made a strange and totally incorrect statement, she said that the minutes of the Parish Meeting belong to the Parish Council and not the Public and it is up to the Councillors to decide the minutes and not the Public who were at the Meeting. Councillor Moore has been a Parish Councillor for a number of years and a previous Chairman for two years and such she should know that her statement is incorrect. So what was her reason to say it?
Before making these statements it would be advisable for them to seek guidance from the Clerk, who presumably will advise to the correct statements that should be made.
Planning matters: The Council discussed a pre-application planning request and although the Council realised they had consulted the wrong plans they still resolved to recommend refusal of the application. This seems a bit unfair on the planning applicant.
There was a planning application for a property in Fore Street Polruan, this item was not on the agenda but the Council still discussed and made a decision to recommend approval of the application. Considering how important planning applications are in this Parish is it fair and transparent that planning applications can be dealt with without them being on the agenda? This clearly means that no member of the public whether for or against this application would have known about it and so would not be able to show their support or objections. As well as being bad practice it is unlawful for anything to be discussed and decided upon if is not on the agenda. This has already been pointed out to the Council previously. During the discussions a Councillor actually asked for and received comments from a member of the public, the member of the public also made comments without being asked, the Chairman did not seem to mind this. What happened about the Council’s decision not to allow public comments during or after Meetings?
Highway Signage: At an earlier Council meeting we were told that Cornwall Council required £4,000 to replace some of the restricted parking signs in Polruan. It was proposed that the Council reply back to Cornwall Council stating that they would only replace the signs if Cornwall Council agreed to pay half of the required £4,000, and that if they did not then the Parish Council would do nothing regarding replacing the signs. The Chairman had earlier stated that the signs needed replacing because they were illegal. It is questionable whether in fact the Chairman was told this or whether he misheard or misinterpreted what he was told by Cornwall Council. (See the highway code). The decision was to wait for a reply from Cornwall Council.
Lenghtsman Scheme: although this was discussed it seemed that this may not be possible but the Council will wait for further information from Cornwall Council.
Neighbourhood Plan update: Councillor Moore gave an update on the Neighbourhood Plan.
Correspondence: an email was received by the Parish Council, the Chairman, in his wisdom, decided to make fun of this person’s email address and to actually question whether this was a relevant question that was being asked or a windup. Why he seemed to think that he did not explain, he obviously had made a decision not to inform the public as to what the email was about and what the question asked was concerning except to say, verbatim,
“An email received from that chap with a diko, an email address called Diko, believe it or not we do not know whether to consider a windup it’s got an email address is diko01726 gmail so if anybody knows who it is please we cannot understand whether it’s a windup or someone with a genuine question, however the answer to this question whoever this person be it on the Internet or wherever he lies the answer to the question is the signage is being looked at and Gillian (the clerk) will be forwarding a response”.
Can you understand this statement? Is this an appropriate statement for the Chairman to make regarding a question being asked of the Parish Council?
The video of this meeting can be seen on YouTube, https://youtu.be/9OLbWjTxTWI

Lanteglos Parish Council Meeting 23rd of May 2016.

A report on some of the items discussed.
Councillor John Adams was re-elected as Chairman for the next 12 months. Councillor Bernie Wilde who was the Vice-Chairman resigned from the Council, Councillor Adrian Fisher was elected as Vice-Chairman for the next 12 months.
Public Forum: The minutes of the Annual Parish Meeting, these minutes will be resolved and signed at the next Parish Meeting and not at the next Parish Council Meeting as was mistakenly done last year. The Chairman read out the minutes of the Annual Parish Meeting, they were very limited minutes and there were a several areas of discussion from the meeting left out, as you will notice if you watch the video of the meeting.
Although not an agenda item at this meeting a proposal from the Annual Parish Meeting was put forward to the Parish Council, although the Chairman failed to inform the Council of the exact proposal that was made, the Council decided not to grant the public their wishes.
The Chairman mistakenly said that once you make a decision at a meeting that you cannot discuss it again for another six months. It would be nice if, now and again the Chairman would find the facts and identify them correctly before making statements. The fact is that the Chairman can allow the public to make statements or comments or ask questions at the end of meetings, it is in the Councils own Standing Orders.
Councillor Moore made a strange and totally incorrect statement, she said that the minutes of the Parish Meeting belong to the Parish Council and not the Public and it is up to the Councillors to decide the minutes and not the Public who were at the Meeting. Councillor Moore has been a Parish Councillor for a number of years and a previous Chairman for two years and such she should know that her statement is incorrect.
Before making these statements it would be advisable for them to seek guidance from the Clerk, who presumably will advise to the correct statements that should be made.
Planning matters: The Council discussed a pre-application planning request, although the Council realised they had consulted the wrong plans they still resolved to recommend refusal of the application. This seems a bit unfair on the planning applicant.
There was a planning application for a property in Fore Street Polruan, this item was not on the agenda but the Council still discussed and made a decision to recommend approval of the application. Considering how important planning applications are in this Parish is it fair and transparent that planning applications can be dealt with without them being on the agenda. This clearly means that no member of the public whether for or against this application would have known about it and so would not show their support or objections.
As well as being bad practice it is unlawful for anything to be discussed and decided upon if is not on the agenda. This has already been pointed out to the Council previously. During the discussions a Councillor actually asked for and received comments from a member of the public, the member of the public also made comments without being asked, the Chairman did not seem to mind this. What happened about the Council’s decision not to allow public comments during or after meeting?
Highway Signage: At an earlier Council meeting we were told that Cornwall Council required £4,000 to replace some of the restricted parking signs in Polruan. It was proposed that the Council reply back to Cornwall Council stating that they would only replace the signs if Cornwall Council agreed to pay half of the required £4,000, and that if they did not then the Parish Council would do nothing regarding replacing the signs. The Chairman had earlier stated that the signs needed replacing because they were illegal. It is questionable whether in fact the Chairman was told this or whether he misheard or misinterpreted what he was told by Cornwall Council. (See the highway code). The decision was to wait for a reply from Cornwall Council.
Lenghtsman Scheme: although this was discussed it seemed that this may not be possible but the Council will wait for further information from Cornwall Council.
Neighbourhood Plan update: Councillor Moore gave an update on the Neighbourhood Plan.
Correspondence: an email was received by the Parish Council, the Chairman, in his wisdom, decided to make fun of this person’s email address and to actually question whether this was a relevant question that was being asked or a windup. Why he seemed to think that he did not explain, he obviously had made a decision not to inform the public as to what the email was about and what the question asked was for except to say, verbatim,
“An email received from that chap with a diko, an email address called Diko, believe it or not we do not know whether to consider a windup it’s got an email address is diko01726 gmail so if anybody knows who it is please we cannot understand whether it’s a windup or someone with a genuine question, however the answer to this question whoever this person be it on the Internet or wherever he lies the answer to the question is the signage is being looked at and Gillian (the clerk) will be forwarding a response”.
Can you understand this statement? Is this an appropriate statement for the Chairman to make regarding a question being asked of the Parish Council?
The video of this meeting can be seen on YouTube, https://youtu.be/9OLbWjTxTWI

Lanteglos Annual Parish Meeting 9th May 2016

A report of some of the items discussed.
Councillor John Adams chaired the meeting, no other Councillors were present to support him. There were only three members of the public present. Almost certainly this was because the meeting was not advertised in the way that it should have been, either on the Parish notice boards or on the Parish website.
The Chairman did not have anyone organised to take the minutes and the even asked the members of the public if they would care to take the minutes.
The Chairman asked the public if they would like the minutes read out or for him to give his annual report as Chairman of the Parish Council, the public said they would like to hear the minutes and his annual report not just one or the other. The Chairman only read out the minutes when asked to do so.
Although a question raised at the previous meeting was regarding ensuring fully advertising and inviting other local organisations to this meeting, this was still not put in place for this meeting.
At the previous meeting the public had asked if the Parish Council could reinstate the period of public participation at the end of meetings, the council refused to do so.
The Chairman also failed to mention that he abandoned the previous meeting halfway through because he did not approve of some of the questions, therefore the vast majority of the agenda items were never discussed.
The members of the public pointed out some corrections that needed to be made to the minutes.
The Chairman did admit, that although at the previous meeting they were asked to invite other Local Organisations to the Annual Parish meetings, that he completely failed to do so.
A question was raised regarding the Parish Council’s recent discussions about legality of the No Parking signs in Polruan. The Chairman stated that some of the signs need replacing and that the cost to the Parish Council would be £4,000. He did say if the signs are to be fixed to the existing poles then the ground would have to be inspected and surveyed before this can be done. Why this is needed is not known, because there are already signs on the poles which were put there by Cornwall Council.
The Chairman stated that Polperro had a 50% discount on the cost of their no parking signage, it was pointed out to the Chairman that in Polperro it was as a result of a new traffic order which is a completely different scenario and is not just new signs, as it would be in Polruan.
The Chairman said that the public should speak to Cornwall Councillor Edwina Hannaford regarding the parking signs because she is the one that is been doing all the negotiating!
The Chairman was asked if all the signs are faulty or just some of them. He stated that of the ones in Fore Street, the majority are legal, of the ones on the Quay he is not sure of. The ones which are not legal and are unenforceable are on the west side of Polruan, the ones in West Street and Battery Park (the Chairman seemed unaware that Battery Park is a private estate which does not have restricted parking). It was pointed out to the Chairman that no one would park in West Street because it is a single track road.
A question from a member of the public was: Has the Council ever issued any guidelines on broadcasting/recording or using social media at council meetings? The answer from the Chairman was “Yes, it is on our Website and in Standing Orders”.
In fact the guidelines are not in the Parish Council’s Standing Orders, it is a separate document which is on the website and it became apparent that the public were unsure whether the Chairman and Councillors had actually read the guidelines, as the guidelines have never been implemented by the Parish Council (those guidelines/policies have in fact been on their website for two years).
The Chairman then stated the guidelines are being reviewed because of a letter which had been sent to the Council and reference the regulations regarding social media broadcasting, he stated “As you, the public, well know, people like yourselves can drive a coach and horses through the regulations”, (whatever that means). A Member of the Public suggested that the Chairman doesn’t know what he is talking about. The Chairman then stated that the Parish Council guidelines are not worth the paper that they are printed on. (The question has to be, why were those guidelines/policies on their website for the past two years, and still are, if as he stated, ‘they are not worth the paper they are printed on’ – how professional).
The Chairman stated that there are new guidelines out, but did not say what they were. He then stated that “The Local Government Act UK (whatever that is) clearly states there are three types of persons that are not allowed to be electronically recorded and by electronically recording I mean film or sound recording. They are vulnerable people, children or people who actively object to being filmed or recorded”. The Chairman has obviously totally misunderstood and misinterpreted the Act.
When asked why they have never adhered to their own guidelines the Chairman asked, “In what way have we not adhered to our guidelines?” By making this statement and not knowing what they have not adhered to in their own guidelines it is virtually an admission that he, or other Councillors have not read the guidelines.
A member of the public then read out items from the Parish Council guidelines which were,
1. The right to record, film and broadcast meetings of the Council is established following the Local Government Audit and Accountability Act 2014.
2. The Council will display the requirements as to filming, recording and broadcasting at its meeting venues and those undertaking these activities will be deemed to have accepted them whether they have read them or not.
3. Notice to be displayed at all meetings of the Council. ‘This meeting has been advertised as a public meeting and as such could be filmed or recorded by broadcasters the media or members of the public. Please be aware that that whilst every effort is taken to ensure that members of the public are not filmed we cannot guarantee this, especially if you are speaking or taking an active role’.
The Chairman then, instead of saying they have never put any notices in the meeting rooms, asked the public if they would like any notices to be placed in the meeting rooms. The answer from the public was it is not what we want it is what you should be doing according to your own guidelines.
The Chairman was of the impression that the regulations have been changed, but the regulations are exactly as when they were first promulgated.
It will be interesting to see what, if anything, will be changed in the new guidelines the Parish Council are proposing to issue.
The public then stated to the Chairman that he is making statements that are incorrect, his answer to that was “if any statements are incorrect, they are incorrect, let’s move on”.
A member of the public questioned the legality of Councillor Bernie Wilde being Councillor whilst not living or working within the Parish. The Chairman replied that the matter is being looked into.
The proposal was made and carried regarding reinstating the public participation at the end of Parish Council meetings. The Chairman stated that the Parish Council would look into it to see whether they would accept the proposal by the public. (This proposal was also asked for at last Annual Parish Meeting but the Parish Council refused to implement it).
Part of the reason for asking for this was that during Parish Council meetings there may be some questions or comments raised that members of the public may have the answers to and it will give them a chance to give the Parish Council relevant information or answers. For example, when the Chairman stated at a previous meeting that there was a weight limit on the road coming from Lanreath to Polruan, he was wrong in making that false statement and a member of the public would have been able to correct him.
When asked if the Chairman was going to present his Annual Report he asked “what report would you like?” He then gave a brief report on the progress of the Parish over the last year.
All toilets are now open. With reference to the repair of potholes in the road, this is ongoing by Cornwall Council. Clearing of the drain at Pont, this is being done by Cornwall Council. Cornwall Council are looking into implementing a lenghtsman scheme, this is clearing the drains hedges and general repairs on highways. Cornwall Council are assisting the Parish Council and looking at the signage in Polruan. The Chairman was politely informed that although he still calls it Cornwall County Council, Cornwall County Council was disbanded and Cornwall Council took its place, although it is not sure that the Chairman actually appreciated being put right on this technicality.
The Chairman thanked the three members of the public for attending and their input and they were very grateful that this was a full meeting and not abandoned by the Chairman as was the Annual Parish Meeting last year. When the minutes are published, it will be interesting to see if they agree with this report.
A video of this meeting is on YouTube: LanteglosPC

Lanteglos Parish Council Meeting 25th April 2016

A report on some of the items discussed.
Public participation: the main question concerned potholes within the parish. Although Councillors had an informal discussion about the ongoing problems there was no real decisions, except “Wait and see what Cornwall Council will do about it”. This was all within the item of public participation. (Again, although public participation it was taken over by Councillors asking questions and making comments).
The Chairman was unsure as to the borders of Lanteglos Parish but he stated that he will endeavour to find out.
Update on the Parking restriction signs in Polruan. Again, there is confusion, the inference from the council is that all the signs are illegal and that no one can receive a parking ticket in Polruan. If that is what the council do actually think, then that is completely wrong. It is also not the statement that they should be making to the public. The Council stated that Cornwall Council want £4,000 to replace the signs in the village (the Chairman has not stated which signs or whether all the signs need replacing). The Council proposed to write to Cornwall Council stating that if they do not agree to pay half of the cost then the Parish Council will do nothing more regarding replacing the signs.
An update on the progress of the Neighbourhood plan. Again it is questionable whether the Parish Council are confusing a Neighbourhood Plan with a Parish Plan. Councillor Pat Moore gave a verbal update on the plan.
Recording of meetings.
Previously the Parish Council had objected to the Council Meetings being recorded by the public and had written to their MP Sheryl Murray to see if it can be stopped, a reply had been received which stated that, “Openness and Transparency is essential for local accountability for all local government bodies. Parish Councils are required to allow any member of the public to record the proceedings and all public meetings. This legislative requirement was introduced in the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014.”
“The Government currently have no plans to change the legalisation requirement, I appreciate this may not be the response that you were hoping for but hope that you will find useful.”
The Chairman (unlawfully) then took the Council into private session.
The present Clerk of the Council has now resigned, so once again the Council will be looking for a new Clerk.
The video of the meeting is on YouTube LanteglosPC

Lanteglos Parish Council meeting 22 March 2016.

Tags

Polruan Lanteglos Parish Council

A report of some of the items discussed.
Public participation, watching the recording or being present, it is quite clear that the public may be forgiven for thinking that public participation is an excuse for Councillors to talk freely about any issues they wish.
The Chairman did concede that he was wrong in deciding at the previous meeting that the minutes could not be adopted, he mistakenly thought that because there was only three Councillors that voted on adopting the minutes that that meant it was inquorate. Because there were at least four members of the Council at the meeting the minutes could have been adopted.The Chairman did declare an interest in the agenda item regarding a payment to Lanteglos Church, because money is involved and then proceeded to request dispensation to be part of the discussion and decision of that payment to the Church. Although the Chairman had no reason for requesting dispensation, the Councillors agreed to allow it. It is quite obvious that all Councillors need to look into the whole process of requesting and allowing dispensations and the reasons for doing so.
The Chairman reported to the meeting that he had met in Polruan with a representative of Cornwall Council regarding parking signs in the village. He stated that the Parish Council needed to pay £4,000 to replace the parking signs in Polruan. He clearly stated that the present parking signs were illegal. One would suggest that he misunderstood or was given the wrong information by Cornwall Council. The parking signs are not illegal, some of the signs are faded by the
weather so much that if someone received a parking ticket that it may be possible to challenge the validity of the ticket. He also stated that the signs were out dated, again it is probable that this was misinformation.
Neighbourhood Plan update. Councillor Moore and Councillor Fisher gave an update on the Neighbourhood Plan. The report published by the Parish Council in the April/May Lanteglos News provides details of responses received from the questionnaire. However, a full synopsis of the reports provided at these Parish Council meetings and the reports, said by the chairman, to be given to the public at the forthcoming Annual Parish Meeting will be produced after the next Parish Council meeting.

Lanteglos Parish Council meeting 23rd of February 2016

Tags

Parish Council

A report of some of the items discussed.

Public participation – surely by correct historical process this is not a general chat with councillors, many of the councillors join in with the public participation rather than through the Chairman.

Complaint about Meadow Walk, the Chairman asked the complainant to write a letter, is this necessary? The Council also did not seem to know where Meadow Walk was. There has been numerous complaints about Bones Meadow public footpath, why don’t the councillors go and see the problems.

Only four of eleven Councillors present, that is only 36% of the councillors, where are the other 64% of councillors? Councillor Wilde has left the village, why is he is still a Councillor?

For some reason, because only three councillors voted on accepting the minutes the Chairman said it was inquorate and so the minutes were not accepted, so this will come up at the next meeting. (These minutes should have been decided on at the last meeting).

It seems that the Chairman thinks that every vote must be taken by at least four councillors. The four councillors present agreed with this, surely this means that councillors need training, or perhaps they should have asked the clerk for guidance.

Yet again, much talk about drains but again no outcome.

Again, a lot of talk about weed spraying, this has been going on for 3½ years and still no weed spraying has been undertaken. A proposal was made, seconded and voted on although the person making the proposal did not state what the proposal was, so we will have to wait to find out what the proposal was until they decide on what they will put in the minutes. They seem to forget that the proposal and another proposal was made “we either get a fixed price for the whole of the green area (marked on the map) plus if they would provide an hourly rate to do it because you may not want it all”. After a further discussion there was a vote, not sure what the proposal was but the proposal was carried.

A proposal was made to register the Neighbourhood Plan application. With the declaration set out below. Although there has been absolutely no agreement from the Community at a Public Meeting that the Neighbourhood Plan should be developed.

The declaration was “The community has agreed that a Neighbourhood Plan should be developed a public meeting has been held on (appropriate date) we consider the Parish of Lanteglos by Fowey is the most appropriate area to be covered by the plan. The Parish Council as a relevant body for the purpose of the section 61g of the 1990 Town & Country planning Act”.

Invitation to receive copies of Polruan and Lanteglos Parish Council News. The chairman stated that “this online newspaper and blog appears to be run by a noted journalist ghostwriting, as far as anybody knows this person doesn’t exist and he is the original ghostwriter”, he also said that he would like to invite the journalist to a Parish Council Meeting.

Again, as has become normal, the Chairman is making statements which seemed to make no sense at all. Does he know what a ghostwriter is? Because he says he doesn’t personally know the Editor, why does he think nobody knows whether this person exists?

The Clerk pointed out to the Chairman that the issue to discuss was only whether Councillors wanted to receive copies of the newsletter or not, nothing else. A proposal was made and carried, that they did not want to receive copies of the newsletter. The Chairman seem to think that the journalist should attend the meetings. What a strange world he lives in.

The Council do not want to read the reports of council meetings in the Polruan and Lanteglos Parish Council News, is it because they do not care what people think about their meetings, or are the content so clear and correct object to them.

Why does the Chairman invite the Editor of the newsletter to the meeting when they do not want to read the newsletter and as a member of the public, he would not be able to speak at the end of meetings because of council practice.

‘Transparency and openness in local government’.

The Annual Parish Meeting this year is to be held at Whitecross. Could it be because the Annual Parish Meeting last year was attended by some members of the public who asked for public participation at the end of meetings and that the Chairman would not agree with this and so cancelled the meeting. With the meeting at Whitecross there are likely to be less attendees and so there will be less likelihood of the public asking the Chairman things that he does not agree with. The Council want the next discussion about the Neighbourhood Plan to be at the Annual Parish Meeting, would it be The Annual Parish Meeting or just about discussing the Neighbourhood Plan. Any important meeting like the Annual Parish Meeting and the Neighbourhood Plan Meeting should be held in Polruan where the vast majority of the electorate live. If held at Whitecross it would limit the number of public attendance. Maybe that’s why they are holding it there.

‘Transparency and openness in local government’.

The council have at numerous times mentioned that they do not agree with video recording of the meetings and for it to be made available for the general public to view.

Why not, what have they got to hide?

The Council also do not agree with any written reports or comments about the meetings from members of the public and for these reports/comments to be available for the public to read.

Why not, what are they got to hide?

If the Council question the validity of any of those reports/comments they can reasonably do this at meetings or in the press.

Why therefore, after it being the accepted practice for many years and many requests do they not allow public to speak with comments at the end of Parish Council Meetings?

If comments were allowed at the end of the meetings many of the comments that are in the newsletter that they apparently do not agree with, would be made at the meetings and would not need to be put in the newsletter.

Geothermal Energy – the Hot Rocks Solution to Our Energy Needs

Deep geothermal energy uses the unimaginable heat source of the Earth’s core to generate power. The centuries-old granite rock that forms the base geological structure underlying Cornwall could make our county the leading geothermal energy provider for the United Kingdom.

Estimates from the geothermal research project running in Cornwall between 1976 and 1991 estimated that up to 20% of the United Kingdom energy needs could be met by Cornish geothermal output, but despite thriving development of the technology in the US, Germany, Australia, New Zealand and Iceland there was no further commercial development of the technology in the United Kingdom as successive governments chose to support and subsidise wind power and inefficient solar power solutions.

But all this may be about to change. Planning permission had been granted to two sites in Cornwall, one of these was at the Eden Project and they have now announced the start of the £36 million scheme.

So what is the technology? E. G. S. – Enhanced Geothermal Systems are based on pumping millions of gallons of water into mostly vertical wells 4 to 5 km deep at a relatively high pressure. This ‘cold’ meets ‘hot’ shears the deep, hot rock and this creates networks of fractures through which the water is pumped, becomes heated and is then sent back to the surface to generate power, with between 24% to 30% of the power generated being used to operate the system, so the system would be at least 70% efficient overall, running 24 hours a day, over 300 days a year, forever.

The Eden Deep Geothermal Plant will only cover an area about the size of a rugby pitch and the buildings will be no more than 10 metres tall and it will generate sufficient energy to provide 4,000 homes with power via the National Grid. So please, let us say goodbye to subsidised inefficient wind turbines.

 

Lanteglos Parish Council meeting 8th of February 2016

Tags

Parish Council

A report of some of the items discussed.

The Council did not resolve to accept the minutes of the previous meeting as they should, presumably this was an oversight, because it is quite clear that minutes must be approved and signed at the end of a meeting or at the start of the next meeting.

The Chairman appears not to have had confidence in the previous accounts for the Council and so paid for advice from Cornwall Council to audit them, although they (and local ratepayers) had to pay the District Auditor as well.

The Chairman stated that three Freedom of Information requests were made to the Council and the Information Commissioner had stated that they were vexatious complaints. This is completely untrue, as anyone can find out if they contact the Information Commissioner website on Freedom of Information requests are made when a public body initially declines to make available information to the public. The Council clearly appears to want to disregard any requests that are made for information about Council matters.

The Chairman also suggested that “the Public take the Council to judicial review”. Why he made this statement was not elaborated on or any contextual relevancy provided.

Some Councillors made comments regarding money that the Council unnecessarily spent which could have been spent on better things such as the toilets. Presumably some of this money was the £45,000 spent on advice from Cornwall Council when the advice could have been received from the Cornwall Association of Local Councils at no charge.

The Council spent a long time discussing updating Standing Orders. The Chairman wanted to include an item regarding what to do if there is disruptive behaviour at meetings. The Clerk informed him that this was already covered in standing orders, obviously the chairman and councillors had failed to notice this!

The Council spent a long time discussing recording of meetings. As they have stated many times they do not approve of the Council meetings being recorded and put on the Internet. They discussed if they could stop this and wondered how they could. They decided to write to their MP Sheryl Murray to see if she can assist them. A Councillor made the statement that some of the public do not come to the meetings because they feel intimidated by the meetings being recorded. If some of the Councillors had bothered to attend meetings before they become Councillors they would realise that it is extremely rare to have more than a few members of the public at meetings. One major reason for members of the public attending meetings is so that they can speak at the end of the meetings about comments, mis-information or statements made during the meeting, or about any local issues not discussed during the meeting. May I suggest that because the Council will not allow this participation by the public at the end of meetings that is most likely the reason that they do not bother to attend!

Meetings have been visually recorded for two years now and put on the Internet and the average viewing figures for each meeting is now in excess of 100. This shows that quite a few people watch the recordings of the meetings and that may be because they do not have to sit through long boring meetings, with no recourse to raise issues or questions and they can watch the meeting in the comfort of their own home at their leisure, with their own control over the content they watch.

The Council has a policy on their website concerning the recording of meetings, if you read the policy it would seem that Councillors are not aware of their own policy.

The Chairman said that “because the Public can see the meetings online that if they do not like what is said by Councillors then the Councillors may feel intimidated.” (The reason for this statement is not understood, as are many similar statements by the Chairman!).

The legislation of allowing recording, filming and broadcasting of meetings was to allow Members of the Public greater opportunity to see how Parish Councils operate and monitor their ‘performance’.

It will also allow Members of the Public who are either too busy to attend meetings or they are not in the Parish when the meetings take place to see what is happening at the meetings and recognising the lack of regularity of location and timing of meetings that the public can plan to attend this is understandable.

Apologies to Councillor Truman who did not agree with the statement made previously in the Polruan News regarding the report of the Neighbourhood Plan meeting. He stated that he was there as a Member of the Public and should not have been reported as being a Councillor.

The fact is that he is a Councillor, whether he is sitting at the Council meeting, attending a meeting as a Member of the Public or even outside of a meeting. This statement that he disagreed with can be evidenced as being made by watching the video of the Neighbourhood Plan meeting.

The council spent over 40 minutes discussing drains, signs and weeds in the village. At the end of all those discussions the decision was to inform Cornwall Councillor Edwina Hannaford of all of these problems.

A Councillor was concerned that some of the meetings were edited before they went on the Internet and asked whether they could stop the editing. The meetings are most likely edited because they go on for so long and if unedited, no one would watch them!

If you watched the video of this latest meeting you will notice that it has not been edited, this is because, as reported in the previous paragraph, a Councillor was concerned that the public may miss things on edited versions of meetings.

In fact I think the opinion of the public will be that much of what is discussed is either irrelevant or boring and as such most people would rather watch an edited version.

By watching the unedited version of this meeting you may be forgiven for thinking that it is just random conversations by Councillors and not an official Council Meeting.