Manorbier.com
Notes of Manorbier Community Council meeting 18th January 2005
Apologies for Absence were made for Cllr Wales. Neads and Cooper.
Manorbier & District Community Association
Declaration of Interest
At the start of the discussion Councillor Calver challenged Councillor Griffiths about the possibility that she should declare an interest regarding this issue, as she was a committee member and a trustee of the association. At the previous meetings on issues relating to the Community Association Cllr's Wales and Neads had withdrawn from the council meeting following the advice provided by the monitoring officer of Pembrokeshire County Council that a conflict of interest existed through the fact that they were members of the association. Councillor Griffiths thanked Councillor Calver for reminding her that she was a member and trustee of the association but that she had considered that she was able to speak as she was the community council representative on the association. Councillor Calver challenged Councillor Griffiths that to be the community council representative she would have had to have been nominated by the community council. He added that to his recollection the council had not nominated her as their representative on the association, therefore he stated that she should consider her position carefully as undoubtedly a conflict of interest existed.
Councillor Calver asked the clerk to check the minutes of meetings to confirm by the next meeting whether or not Councillor Griffiths had been nominated on to the association.
Councillor Calver felt that it was important as he had many concerns to raise regarding the community association and that he felt these should be discussed by community councillors who did not have a vested interest. In the past the council had been hamstrung into raising issues relating to the association because of councillors dual interests in both the community council and community association. He was therefore very concerned that Cllr Griffiths had taken this stance.
Councillor Griffiths then challenged Councillor Davies that she was aware that a complaint had been made about him. She did not state who had made the complaint regarding a matter that had risen at the previous meeting but she felt he should declare an interest and leave the meeting. Councillor Davies was adamant that this item was about the community association and therefore he would not withdraw.
Councillor Calver proposed that the council remove a clause in the standing orders that stated "all councillors are automatically members of the Manorbier & District Community Association" as no council can compel an elected person to be a member of any organisation without there consent. Membership of an organisation such as the Manorbier & District Community Association or any other association would result in a conflict of interest when discussing that body, or any other similar body in the parish, at council meetings. The reason Councillor Calver had asked Councillor Griffiths to withdraw from the meeting at the start was that for the past five years he felt that members of the association had not declared their interest in the association and as a result any agreements drawn up between Manorbier Community Council and the Manorbier Community Association could now be possibly challenged on the basis of non declaration of interest by association members when discussing and voting on matters such as leases between the community association and the community council.
Councillor Coleman who had in the past intimated his concern over the issue raised the legality of such a proposal and then proposed that should be made an agenda item at the next meeting. Councillor Calver felt that it should be dealt with now, as most of the councillors absent would have to have declared an interest, as they were either members of the association or similar associations within the parish and were competing for financial support from the community council.
Several letters were received from the ex- community council chairman Mr. David Morgan, who has been for several years the chairman of the Manorbier & District Community Association, about to his concerns regarding the community centre at Skrinkle. The main point of Mr Morgan's letters were the state of the community centre and the disability rights legislation in relation to the buildings held on a deed of trust by the association.
Councillor Calver reminded members that they had a duty to comply with the Act but indicated that having visited the disabled rights commission website for advice he provided councillors with a paper providing questions and answers. It seemed that the council obligation would simply entail the provision of a disablement ramp to enter the building. He was concerned that as the lease did not cover the path to the side of the community centre the council could be placing itself in a position of liability should there be an accident relating to a facility they might provided on a path/land that was not under the community council control. On studying the plan attached to the lease agreement Councillor Coleman agreed with Cllr Calver and stated that it appeared the council was only liable for the building itself and not any area outside the building, therefore the Youth Hostel would he considered responsible for the access to the building. Councillor Calver reminded the meeting that Councillor Wales had reported back to one meeting of the council that he had inspected the building with the association chairman Mr Morgan and Mr Glennister and had given a verbal estimated that £7,000.00 was required to comply to the access requirement within the Disability Act. Councillor Calver had challenged Councillor Wales on his figures at the time, as he was asking the council to spend taxpayers' money on a project, without the council having the full details of the work required. So far as he was aware, no breakdown of costs had been provided to the council to date and rough 'guesstimates' were insufficient for any meaningful consideration by the council.
Councillor Calver felt that the association had not carried out the duties in relation to the hall in a satisfactory manner. This was due to the fact that a situation now existed where some users of the hall have vandalised the ceiling and, as far as he was aware, nobody seems to have been found culpable. In fact the community association has asked the council for money to replace the ceiling when it is obvious that one of the user groups of the community centre has vandalised the ceiling and therefore responsibility to pay for any repairs to damage should rest with them. He also informed the council that only this morning he had inspected the hall after receiving complaints from various people when collecting his wife from the hall and was shocked at the state of the building. The wood pellet stove heating system, which had been installed to replace the old gas fired heating system, was obviously not a satisfactory replacement. The new heating system did not heat up quickly enough and that responsibility for the fires should rest with the users of the centre. He indicated he could not remember when authorisation had been given for the replacement of the heating system and Cllr Griffiths who is a long serving trustee of the association when questioned about the issue could not remember if the community council had ever being consulted about the replacement heating system. Councillor Tuffs questioned why an apparently inadequate system had been installed to which Cllr Davies informed the meeting that that system was chosen because firstly it was being promoted as environmentally friendly but secondly and more importantly it was the taxpayer funded grants that came with it. The users of the hall this morning informed Cllr Calver that the stoves were emitting fumes and it was necessary to light the stoves several times however he indicated that he would make further checks before contacting the association. Councillor Davies also remarked that the emergency external door had been left for approximately three weeks over the Christmas period secured only by a piece of string which was attached to the fire on the inside. Due to the unsatisfactory arrangements that seem to exist at present, council members discussed the possibility of entering into negotiations with the Youth Hostel Association to take over the lease of the building on condition that it is made available for community use. Councillor Calver remarked that perhaps this was an excellent way of providing facilities, which would be fully Disability Act compliant that could be shared by all users of the building at a premium cost.
Councillor Coleman stated that some people in the village had contacted him worried that the centre would close. Councillor Calver had also been informed that certain people were spreading rumours to this effect in the community but dismissed this as pure gossip. He remarked that those of us who where elected have a duty to all the council taxpayers of the community who pay through their community charge for this facility, even if they did not use it, to be conscious of both the costs and management of the building. If agreement could be secured with the youth hostel association in the future to run this facility to our mutual benefit it should be considered as an alternative option. The necessity of this is obvious as at present the existing arrangements are not satisfactory. It was proposed by Cllr Davies and seconded by Cllr Tuffs that the council send a letter of approach to the Youth Hostel Association over the possibility of them taking over the leasing arrangements. This proposal was agreed by all council members present including Cllr Griffiths, who agreed with the proposal, but did not vote.
A member of the public asked if it was possible for him to raise questions in relation to the agreement between the Community Council and the Association as clauses within the agreement stated that the playing fields were held on behalf of the members of the Community Association and that any surplus from the council funding to be reserved for the building of a new community centre. The member of the public requested the current standing of the fund for the new centre. Councillor Griffiths appeared not to know of the clauses mentioned. The member of the public indicated his concern that the community council had signed an agreement with the association, which in fact might have created a club for members to the exclusion of many in the area who were paying for the facilities out of their community charge.
Setting of Precept.
Councillor Calver opened the debate and asked why the council needed to raise any money out of the residents as it had enough money on deposit in the bank than it had than raised through the precept last year. He reminded councillors that the cost of providing services by Pembrokeshire County Council would rise by approximately 13% this year so he felt it would be beneficial for the members of the parish to keep their own money so that if they wished to contribute to any suggested scheme by a particular pressure group within the parish they could decide for themselves whether to contribute or not. He suggested that our precept was totally out of line with other villages of a rural nature and quoted Angle at £500 which meant a Band D cost of £4.11 and Stackpole £1,400 that meant a Band D charge of £7.65. Councillor Calver reminded councillors that £4,575 had been allocated for the completion of the village appraisal. He questioned if the results from the appraisal could be relied upon as certain campaign groups within the parish had issued extra copies of the appraisal for their members and other selected individuals to fill in over and above the original issue. The appraisal result would now be distorted because of vested interests having this undue influence on the result. Councillor Coleman reacted strongly to Councillor Calver suggestion that this had taken place, to which Cllr Calver stated he could only comment on the information he had received on this issue saying it was common knowledge that extra appraisals had been issued for completion at some association meetings including the Manorbier Community Association. Cllr Tuffs seemed to be condoning this statement by stating, "it did not matter what had taken place regarding the completion of the questionnaires" but stated that the return of money concerned in the issue should not be allowed. Councillor Griffiths admitted that she was aware that as a result of Pembrokeshire County Council printing extra copies, several residences completed extra appraisals and she stated that she felt that there was nothing wrong with doing it this way as it was a method of reaching the total that was required for the appraisal to be deemed a success and therefore allow for the total funds to be drawn down.
Due to the fact that the council would have approximately £14,000 remaining in its account at the end of the financial year it was calculated that the council would only actually have to levy a total of £7,750 for the precept this year. This included £7,000 to cover an item headed special projects and also allow for paying back the WDA £4,575 if necessary. Councillor Calver felt that as a councillor he had a duty to the charge payers to reduce the precept to the minimum that was required. Councillor Tuffs and Coleman did not agree with this and even suggested further rises despite the fact that generous increases had been allowed in excess of what was spent last year. Councillor Calver disagreed suggesting that the council should be prudent with other peoples money and proposed that £5,000 pot be set aside for emergency use only, which was seconded by Councillor Davies. An amendment was put forward by Councillor Meyrick to increase it to £6,000, which was then voted on and passed. Only Councillor Davies and Calver voting against the increase. Councillor Calver again reiterated that parishioners should not be taxed through the community charge but be allowed to keep there own money and then contribute to what they themselves decided should be supported locally.
The precept this year was set at £ 13,700.00, which would mean a 25% reduction on the local charge but it must be remembered that Pembrokeshire County Council charge would be rising by 5% and if the property has been re-banded it will mean an increase of 22%.