7
MARLDON PARISH COUNCIL
Minutes of meeting of Marldon Parish Council held on Monday 14th January 2008 at 7.15pm
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Cllrs: Pennington; Benney; Palk; Veasey; Joinson; Danby;Mrs Cox; Mrs Clarke;
Also: Clerk to the Council: David Eeles
ALSO PRESENT: 18 members of the public
The Chairman invited members of the public to speak before the meeting opened. Their queries and comments were duly noted, these would be taken into account in the Council’s deliberations of the matters raised.
1(1.08) APOLOGIES
Cllrs. Thorp and Webber gave apologies.
2(1.08) APPROVAL OF MINUTES DEC. MEETING: Unanimously approved.
3(1.08) MATTERS ARISING
5(12.07) Cllr Mrs Clarke reported that she had been unable to fix a date for the Recreation Committee meeting, but would pursue it this month.
6(12.07) The Chairman reported that he had attended the Parish Cluster meeting, as agreed at the last meeting, but no other representatives had turned up so the meeting was abandoned
4. (1.08) POLICE
The Clerk reported that PC Pearce had responded to the request for a lollipop person by informing him of the person to whom such requests must be directed, and members AGREED to pursue this accordingly. Several members acknowledged that the police had often been in attendance at the school, but Cllr. Benney wanted to know if the police were actually issuing any tickets as there were still dangerous situations occurring; members AGREED to ask what actual action the police were taking.
5. (1.08) CHURCH HILL
1. Downalong: Cllr Pennington reported the response of Cassandra Hopkins, Contaminated Land Officer, Environmental Health, SHDC, to the effect that from their point of view where the property is vacant there is no risk of asbestos exposure to occupants of the property or neighbours. However, if in the future the property is once again occupied, or the soil is disturbed, then there will be a potential health risk to occupiers and neighbours which will be unacceptable. Mrs Nie has been informed that if the situation at the property changes an appropriate licenced waste contractor should be employed.
Members expressed their disappointment at this response, wanting to know if the contractor could be sued for not properly dealing with it, and it was proposed by Cllr Benney, seconded by Cllr Cox, that the Council should demand action now for the material to be removed.
Cllr Joinson noted that it was white not blue asbestos. The motion was PASSED unanimously.
2. Surface: members noted the Highway Superintendents response that she has inspected the surface and that while there is some deterioration it is not enough for it to be top priority, but will be added to programme for future maintenance works and will monitor the site as part of routine inspections.
3. Sign at Top of Hill: the Chairman read out the letter from DCC Traffic Engineer Chris Rook which effectively said that nothing could be done as the problem of HGV’s being misdirected was being dealt with through liaison with operators and that HGV’s were already forbidden to enter the area.
Cllr Benney said that DCC had not addressed or recognised the problem, which was with smaller vehicles than HGV’s. Cllr Danby proposed, and Cllr Cox seconded, that DCC be requested to urgently reconsider and erect a sign banning vehicles of over 6ft in width. The motion was PASSED unanimously and it was agreed that with Mr Osborne’s permission his wife’s testimonial illustrating the problem would also be passed on to the authorities.
4. Drainage: DCC are also going to investigate the blocked pipes and gullies at the top of Church Hill, and it was understood that these have been attended to.
6 (1.08) Residents Association Letters
Since the first letter from the Residents Association seemed to contain what were regarded as unjustified and untrue comments about the work that the Council does, the Chairman began by reading out a statement in which the hours of unpaid work and varied responsibilities shouldered by each Councillor were highlighted. He then went on to deal with the points made in the letter one by one.
In response to the second paragraph, Cllr Pennington said that all points raised by the public prior to the meeting were always taken up and dealt with, but that standing orders and the need to conduct an orderly meeting with appropriate records meant that these had to be dealt with under the appropriate agenda items. Standing orders also meant that the public could not participate once the meeting had begun, and this was the same in all Councils across the country. He stressed that issues were not allowed to “drift”, as had been alleged, with members making it their business to see the contentious items and follow up letters of complaint, as had happened three times with the issue of the vehicles in Church Hill, for example.
In response to the comment that lines of communication could become more efficient and responsive, the Chairman emphasised once again that not only was his door always open, but other Councillors were also available. Names and contact details were on the notice boards, minutes were posted on the website and available in the village stores. Cllr Pennington contributes to the monthly parish magazine and has sent numerous letters to parishioners. Cllr Danby commented that the most efficient method of communication was to attend and stay for the duration of meetings.
With regard to the request that the comments of the public before the meeting be included in the minutes of the meeting, the Chairman reiterated that since this period did not form part of the meeting, it could not be included in the minutes without breaching standing orders.
The request for matters raised before the meeting to be discussed immediately the meeting started, the Chairman said that these had to discussed under the relevant agenda items of the meeting would descend into chaos, and moreover that if this was done for one body, it would have to be done for them all. Members could not understand the assertion that the Council discussed matters that were of concern to themselves and of very little interest to residents, when in fact all the issues discussed by Councillors were of concern to all Marldon residents. Cllr Cox was angered and saddened by the letter, said that this was the first time in 20 years she had ever seen such a letter implying criticism of the Council, and questioned whether the title of the Residents Association gave them the right to make such sweeping statements on behalf of all residents.
The Chairman and members regarded the statement that the “Council seems to take no greater interest in the matters that concern local residents than a Regional Council would do” as totally unacceptable. Cllr Danby said it was insulting and hurtful, and was amazed that the Residents Association would put their name to it.
Members felt similarly about the penultimate paragraph with its assertion that matters of interest to the Association were dealt with at the end of the meeting, and that the Council had business of its own it could discuss. Once again it was reiterated that matters are discussed in agenda order and that all matters discussed are village business.
Cllr Clarke felt that the letter was born of frustration that matters raised were not being dealt with quickly enough, and that it was not meant with real malice. Cllr Cox appreciated that it was written on behalf of the Association so was not personal, but that her initial reaction had been to walk out.
With regard to the second letter, about the signs on Church Hill and the hedge cutting, the Chairman refuted the suggestion that the issue of vehicles on Church Hill had been raised for years before. Rather than ignoring the issue as alleged in the letter, he showed that the Council had responded by writing to the County highways authorities as soon as the matter was raised, and had continued to monitor the situation and write again at every meeting since, culminating in the response which has recently received when the writer apologised for his delay in replying.
With regard to the mess left by the hedge cutting contractor, and the incident on the 21st December, Cllr Pennington said that he was not informed of the mess until 3rd January, when he immediately took steps to have the debris cleared up which happened straight away.
Members took exception to the allegation that they had been inattentive to the concerns raised by local residents, and were also at pains to point out that all problems were given equal priority. Tenders for the hedge cutting would shortly be called for again, and the concerns raised would be taken into account.
7. (1.08) REPORTS
COUNTY COUNCILLORS REPORT- C. Councillor Pennington reported
1. The government has rejected on economic grounds the bid for Unitary status for Exeter, but has instructed the Boundaries Commission to examine yet again the existing structure of local government. He outlined the various possibilities that might emerge, including the incorporation of Marldon into an enlarged Torbay, and quoted expert views that such a restructuring would be both costly and inefficient, as well as unnecessary.
2. The Central government Revenue Grant for 08/9 is well below the RPI leading to great problems for the DCC budget
3. The loss of possible data discs made undesireable the impending participation of DCC in Contact Point, a database that will contain addresses, medical records and school details of all schoolchildren, which if it fell into the wrong hands could be disastrous.
DISTRICT COUNCIL REPORT- D. Councillor Pennington reported
1. He and Cllr. Squire proposed and seconded a resolution that “This Council will not support the incorporation of South Hams parishes which have common borders with Torbay or Plymouth, into either Torbay Borough or the City of Plymouth”. This was carried by 28 votes, 9 abstentions.
2. Similarly they succeeded in getting the following resolution carried by 28 votes with 8 abstentions: “This Council will mount a democratic consultation if necessary across the district of South Hams to ascertain the people’s views on any geographic boundary changes”
MEG REPORT- Cllr. Mrs Cox reported:
She was grateful for the help of Mr Harrington regarding the trees at Oak End, and although Mr Hopkins is worried about the trees in Brockhurst Park these are low risk. The survey of footpaths was proceeding and volunteers had enjoyed their usual annual social “thank-you” event at the Smokey. The inside of the boundary hedge at Peters Field needs attention and volunteers will take the matter in hand.
Cllr Cox also wished to note regret at the closure of the Bungalow stores, and members AGREED that their thanks to the owners of the stores for their service over the years should be minuted.
Members also expressed concern at the future of the Post Office under the forthcoming review.
COMPTON REPORT- Cllr Park reported:
There had been a meeting on Dec. 12th between Mr King, of DCC Highways, the National Trust, and about 8 residents, at which it was agreed that the hump outside Ridgeway Cottage would be removed to alleviate problems when the road was flooded. The National Trust have cleared the brook, at a cost of about £10,000, but didn’t feel they could afford to do it again for another 5 years, and asked for any help with the cost that could be found locally. Local residents have been clearing the drains and Highways had arranged for this to be done that morning. The possibility of a holding dam to regulate the water flow that concentrates from the whole valley up to Marldon and the Ring Road in the small area near the centre of the village was discussed.
8(1.08) CORRESPONDENCE
Clerk advised members of correspondence received.
Cllr Pennington agreed to respond to a questionnaire about rural retailers on behalf of the Council
9(1.08) PLANNING
9, Marldon Cross Hill- rear extension and conservatory- APPROVED
10(1.08) HIGHWAYS AND MAINTENANCE
1) The potholes in Churscombe Road have been dealt with
2) The road in Lower Westerland will be jetted and cleared.
3) The hedge in Moorview has been cut back over the Xmas Tree Farm section but not yet the Midas section
4) The road marking in Compton is due to be renewed
5) DCC Lighting Engineers have agreed to provide additional street lighting in the cut-through between Parkfield Close and Village Road.
6) The pipes at the top of Church Hill will cleaned and the drainage in Village Road opposite Oak Cottage where water drains onto the Meadow through the gate investigated
Members discussed the need for a flood alleviation scheme at Compton, it was proposed by Cllr Pennington, seconded by Cllr Palk and carried unanimously that the Council should request the SWW, NT, DCC and SHDC to consider this possibility as was suggested at the meeting on 14th Dec. The Chairman agreed to take up the matter with SHDC, including their non-attendance at the 14th Dec. meeting.
Members were concerned that the National Trust had implied that the brook would not be cleared for another 5 years, and AGREED that the clerk should write to them expressing this concern.
Cllr Cox raised the deplorable state that Belfield Avenue had been left in following the works by Avent, and members AGREED to ask DCC Highways to resurface this road as soon as possible.
It was reported that Higher Churscombe Road and Meadow Park near Vicarage Hill were breaking up very badly, and Cllr Pennington said he had already taken up this matter.