STRATFORD-UPON-AVON TOWN COUNCIL
GENERAL PURPOSES COMMITTEE MEETING
25 AUGUST, 2015
TOWN CLERK’S OPEN REPORT
1)
Warwickshire County Council Community Lengthsman Scheme

To receive a briefing from WCC who are seeking initial
expressions of interest from the Parish Sector on the
Warwickshire Community Lengthsman Scheme
At a branch meeting of the Society of Local Council Clerks (SLCC)
in 2014, the Town Clerk witnessed a presentation from Rugby
Borough Council following the commencement of the Rugby Parish
Highways Lengthsman pilot scheme.
This scheme allows a Parish/Town Council to take on prescribed
maintenance responsibilities that would usually fall to the County
Council, such as vegetation clearance, cleaning of road signs,
verge clearing and removal of illegal fly posting.
The SLCC branch members were cautiously optimistic and called
for this scheme to be introduced in Warwickshire, particularly if, as
was the case in Rugby during the pilot, the County Council would
fund the Parish Councils for taking on these activities, thereby
ensuring that it wouldn’t just end up as devolved responsibilities to
the parish sector which purely equated to double taxation.
The Town Clerk queried whether Stratford-upon-Avon Town
Council could put in a claim to the higher authority to offset the cost
of the Town Council’s Open Spaces team, who are already
undertaking some of the work which was designated as suitable for
the Lengthsman Scheme. Surprisingly, Rugby Borough Council
advised that in Rugby this would have been possible. However, it is
clear now that although Warwickshire County Council are fully
committed to supporting town and parish councils in their delivery of
these services, it is understood that the funding made available to
support the Rugby pilot would not be forthcoming from
Warwickshire.
1
It is difficult to comprehend the advantages therefore, of the Town
Council entering in to such a scheme, other than possibly to provide
these services slightly faster than being totally reliant on a higher
authority’s maintenance schedule which is no doubt affected by a
reduction in funding and available resources.
However, as the Lengthsman Scheme does involve specific
training, particularly with regard to traffic management, it may be
beneficial for the Town Council to take advantage of this training in
order to ensure that our existing operatives in the Open Spaces
team are fully versed and aware of the most up to date operational
procedures (particularly with regard to working on the highways)
which will cover them for the next three years.
To be quite clear, at this stage Warwickshire County Council would
like to receive initial expressions of interest within a set
timescale. This will enable them to have a better understanding of
the scale of interest from local councils so they can plan their
actions and workloads accordingly.
The full briefing paper which details the type of work which can be
considered as suitable for a third party to undertake is attached as
Appendix ‘A’.
2)
Matters referred from the General Purposes Committee Meeting
of 14 July, 2015
Freedom of Information
 To receive clarification on requests for information
retained on a member’s personal email account
 To determine charges for providing hard copy
information under the FOI Act contained within a
proposed FOI Charging Policy in order to bring a
recommendation to Council
2.1
Council information retained on personal email accounts
At the General Purposes Committee Meeting on 14 July,
2015 members requested clarification on whether the public
could request sight of emails retained on a Councillor’s
personal email account.
The simple answer is ‘yes’.
2
Example:
Councillor X is in correspondence with Constituent Z
regarding a bin.
Councillor X considers that Councillor Y is better placed to
give information on the most appropriate site and emails
Councillor Y.
Councillor Y conducts a survey by email of residents in the
close vicinity of the proposed bin.
Councillor Y responds to Councillor X with the results.
Councillor X responds to Constituent Z.
If Councillor X is asked to provide information regarding this
bin by anyone else, the whole email trail, including the emails
to/from the residents who were consulted by Councillor Y
need to provided.
The example is a straightforward non-controversial Council
matter, but if Councillors communicate between themselves
on issues that are Council related but may contain content
which is perhaps of a personal nature relating to a
constituent, for example, then that information would have to
be revealed, even though they considered it was said in
confidence via their personal email.
It is recommended by the ICO that each Councillor sets up a
unique email address to be used
solely
for
Council
business, being mindful that most information retained will be
subject to scrutiny under the Freedom of Information Act.
Members should ensure that only this account appears in the
public domain. Setting up the new email address is the
responsibility of the member, not the authority.
All Town Council members (with the exception of ‘dual
hatters’ who are covered by SDC) are registered with the
Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) as a data controller,
which is a legal requirement and is renewed each year by
the Council at a cost of £35.00 per member.
This enables Councillors to store information on their
computers relating to their Council activity which includes
data bases.
2.2
Charging for Freedom of Information Requests
The General Purposes Committee, at its last meeting,
agreed in principle to charge for obtaining information under
3
the Freedom of Information Act, particularly with regard to
the cost of photocopying.
The Act does not specify how much a Council can charge for
information but the Council would have to publish a list of
charges indicating when there is a charge and how much.
The Council would not be able to charge if this has not been
indicated in advance.
The ICO model publication scheme requires any fee to be
justified, transparent and kept to a minimum. As a general
rule, you can only make the following charges:



for communicating the information, such as photocopying
and postage. The ICO does not consider it reasonable to
charge for providing information online;
fees permitted by other legislation; and
for information produced commercially, for example, a
book, map or similar publication that you intend to sell and
would not otherwise have produced.
The ICO strongly recommends that the level of charges
should be compatible with the principle of promoting public
access to the information held by public authorities. Having
contacted other authorities through the SLCC Clerk’s network,
it would appear that on average, the charge for photocopies is
10p per black and white sheet and 40p per colour sheet, with
postage charges at the standard second class rate. If a Clerk
spends more than eighteen hours researching or collating the
requested information, over and above the eighteen hours it is
charged at a flat rate of £25.00 per hour, regardless of the
scale of the employee. It must be noted that this applies only
when the cost to process the request exceeds £450.00.
In order to put a recommendation to Council, having
conducted research and reviewed other Councils policies, the
proposed Stratford-upon-Avon Town Council Freedom of
Information Charging Policy is attached as Appendix ‘B’ for
review by the General Purposes Committee.
Generally speaking however, most information relating to
Council’s activity, particularly in relation to financial activity
which is often the bone of contention, is already published on
the website and in the spirit of openness and transparency,
the more information Council publishes, the less likely it will be
to receive time consuming FOI requests.
4
2.3 Town Council Assets
Town Hall Sofas
 To receive additional information on the
provenance of the soiled sofas in the Ante-Room
and determine whether they should be reupholstered
The General Purposes Committee felt unable to make a
decision on whether the two sofas in the Ante-Room should
be upholstered without further information.
The two long sofas were re-upholstered soon after the Town
Clerk was incumbent and the work was undertaken at the
Manley Centre. The sofas are not inconsequential in terms
of worth and were valued by Locke and England in 2003 as
follows:
The Heppelwhite style serpentine fronted sofa,
208.5cms wide, carried on eight ogee moulded
mahogany legs united by cross-stretchers (restored)
(re-upholstered as before)
£5,800
The mid 18th century sofa, 244cms wide, with shaped
back and scroll ends, legs united by cross-stretchers,
on later castors (re-upholstered as before)
£4,800
As members saw when they inspected the sofas at the last
meeting, the plain gold brocade has been ruined by red wine
spillage. However, this has since been disguised somewhat
successfully by using the ornate antimacassar and placing it
on the seat itself rather than using it for its original purpose of
protecting the back of the sofa to prevent the fabric fading
from exposure to sunlight.
When considering this matter, there are a number of issues
that still need to be taken into account:
i)
There are two soiled sofas but they are part of a set of
five sofas. It may be beneficial to upholster the two
damaged sofas in a contrasting fabric, otherwise the
remaining three sofas will look somewhat ‘tired’.
5
ii)
As the Town Hall is available for hire for all sorts of
events when alcohol is served, it is unfortunate, but
there is every likelihood that similar damage will occur
again in the future.
iii)
A simpler solution may be to have purpose made loose
covers for the seats of all the sofas (similar to those
described above but made to measure), so the
furniture continues to match. If these were paired with
new cushions for the sofas, it would all co-ordinate and
look purposeful and stylish.
iv)
However, if members consider the sofas should be
recovered, a quote from the Manley Centre (who
upholstered the sofas before) has been received at
£780.00 per unit, plus the cost of fabric. A quote is
also being sought from Taylor & Brook in Stratfordupon-Avon and an upholsterer in Alcester who the
Town Clerk knew when she was previously involved in
the interior design industry. The Clerk will issue a
further update on the awaited quotations at the General
Purposes Committee Meeting.
Damaged Mace Stand in Guild Chapel
 To receive confirmation of the ownership of the
Mace Stand in the Guild Chapel and determine
whether the Town Council should pay for its repair
The Mace Stand in the Guild Chapel is recorded in the Town
Council’s Asset Register:
George I wrought iron Mace Stand originally in Holy
Trinity Church but later transferred to the Guild Chapel
£1,200 valued by Locke & England in 2003
The Council is being asked by the Chairman of the Friends
of the Guild Chapel ‘whether they feel moved to pay’ for the
restoration and that this has been ‘discussed with Helen
Munro of the Town Trust, as it owns the Chapel and has
ultimate responsibility for its care’.
Looking at this issue simplistically, the Mace Stand is on loan
to the Guild and College Estate which has ultimate
responsibility and no doubt insurance to cover eventualities
such as this. If the roles were reversed, it would be the
6
responsibility of the Town Council to ensure the safekeeping
of the artefacts loaned to them in good faith and although the
Town Trust cannot be held responsible for the mindless
damage, their insurance provision should cover any
necessary repairs to the Mace Stand.
However, the Trust could decide they no longer require the
Mace Stand to be displayed in the Guild Chapel if the Town
Council holds them accountable, but nevertheless, if that
eventuality were to occur the Mace Stand should be returned
to the Town Council in the same condition as to when it was
loaned, i.e. not in need of repair.
3)
Closed Churchyard Maintenance
 To determine the outcome of requests for churchyard
maintenance
3.1
Churchyard Gates
On 23 July, 2015 many Council members accepted an
invitation from the Vicar and his associates at Holy Trinity
Church to attend an informal reception at the Church to
receive an update on the extension and restoration project of
St Peter’s Chapel.
It was also an opportunity to hear first-hand, some of the
problems the Church is encountering, particularly relating to
the closed churchyard, the maintenance and the financial
responsibility being that of the Town Council.
Those who were present that evening will recall the Vicar,
the Reverend Patrick Taylor, thanked Council for the
refurbishment of the gates in the Garden of Remembrance
and requested that Council also looks favourably at
refurbishing the Church’s main north entrance gates which
are of ornate wrought iron.
Under the Local Government Act 1972, the Council is
required to keep the churchyard in decent order and it walls
and fences (including gates) in good repair.
The Church and Garden of Remembrance are in a
conservation area and walls, railings and gates are often
listed under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation
Areas) Act 1990. Consequently, the cost of repairs and
maintenance is likely to be high. The refurbished gates in
7
the Garden of Remembrance cost £2,300 and an estimate
by the same contractor for the Church gates is £1,800.
At this stage, the Committee is just being asked to consider
whether it agrees in principle for a provision of £1,800 to be
included in the 2016/2017 budget for the refurbishment of the
gates which can be approved, or otherwise, during the
budget deliberations. If affirmative, further quotes will be
sought in accordance with Standing Orders.
In the meantime, the Open Spaces team plan to give the
gates an extensive clean to remove the green algae,
although arguably, to some, this is part of their charm.
3.2
Pigeons
Responsibility for the churchyard does not include
responsibility for the Church or other buildings in or adjacent
to the churchyard.
Consequently, the Town Council is not responsible for
managing the damage that roosting pigeons are causing to
the fabric of the Church. However, the knock-on effect is
quite considerable as a member of the Open Spaces team
has to attend the churchyard every day to clear the pigeon
droppings which are deposited mainly on the pathway
beneath the south window.
A build-up of bird droppings are particularly hazardous when
there is a combination of wet weather and smooth
pavements, and represent a significant trip/slip hazard. Any
resultant claim would fall on the Town Council.
The Church has looked at various options, including culling
the birds, patrolling with a bird of prey, although the bird
would not be released and likely therefore to be somewhat
ineffectual, and trying to block nesting crannies, but on a
church as complex as Holy Trinity, this is likely to be almost
impossible.
The Town Hall, No 1 Sheep Street and Robert Lunn and
Lowth have been free from roosting pigeons for some time.
Ridding the buildings of roosting pigeons was achieved
through bird repellent gel.
There have been advances in the success of repellent gel
over the years, and one in particular, Bird Free Optical
8
Deterrent Gel claims to deter most types of unwanted birds
from buildings and adjacent structures when applied and was
voted runner up in the 2012 Pest Magazine New Products
Award.
The gel creates an illusion of fire as birds have the ability to
see ultraviolet light. It is also a multi-sensory type gel (visual,
olfactory, taste, and touch sense) which works
simultaneously to stimulate the birds to fly away.
The gel is supplied in a 250g tube and costs £36.74 per tube
which can treat up to 5.25 linear metres and is relatively long
lasting with an average life span between applications of two
years.
The Council would be best served by applying this repellent
at its own expense if it would negate the necessity for
constant vigilance by the Open Spaces team and their
almost daily attendance at the Church to remove the
very real slip hazard.
For new members who may not be aware of the extent of
responsibility to be borne by Town and Parish Councils in
maintaining closed churchyards, attached as Appendix ‘C’ is the
NALC legal topic note Closed Churchyards and Disused Burial
Grounds, which explains it all in great detail.
4)
NALC Top 30 Policies – Catchall Parish Councils’ Bill
 To respond to the e-survey on the Sector’s top 30
priorities
In February, 2015 the National Association of Local Councils
(NALC) agreed a programme of work to progress the sector’s top
30 policy positions, either in the form of a catchall Parish Councils’
Bill, or by including individual clauses within other bills during the
2015/2016 parliamentary term. In May, 2015 a themed table was
drawn up containing all 107 of NALC’s positions, which has now
been filtered down to 50 priority positions following consultation
with County Associations and the Society of Local Council Clerks
(SLCC).
Those 50 priority policy positions have now been included in an esurvey and NALC’s Task & Finish Group would like respondents to
filter the priorities still further to 30, to be included in any draft Bill
by December, 2015.
9
The e-survey is attached as Appendix ‘D’. It would be helpful if
members consider the options and list their priorities prior to the
meeting, which will speed up the process of determining a
collaborative response at the General Purposes Committee
Meeting on 25 August, 2015.
5)
Town Council’s Policy of Display in the Town Hall
 To review and determine an updated draft Policy of
Display in the Town Hall and make a recommendation
for adoption by Council
When researching agenda item 7.6, the Clerk referred to the
Council’s Policy of Display in the Town Hall and found that it had
not been reviewed since 2006 and was now outdated - referring to
rooms for example, that are no longer in commission.
Attached as Appendix ‘E’ is the draft proposal for a new Policy for
consideration by the General Purposes Committee which should
be borne in mind when considering agenda item 7.3.
6)
Location of Display and Registers in the Town Hall
 To approve the location of the Honorific Designation
Certificate and Photograph
 To approve the provision of a Display Bookcase in a
publicly accessed area of the Town Hall
 To approve a recommendation for an ‘In/Out’ board and
sign in register
6.1
Honorific Designation Certificate and Photograph
On 27 October, 2014 Honorific Designation certificates were
presented to D-Day Veterans at a special ceremony in the
Town Hall.
The Town Council holds these Veterans in very high esteem,
and it was agreed at the time that a display certificate and
photograph in commemoration of the event is displayed in
the Town Hall as a permanent reminder, in accordance with
the Town Council’s Policy of Display in the Town Hall.
In order to display work well, it is now surprisingly difficult to
find free locations in the Town Hall which are suitable and
aesthetically pleasing. However, they can be displayed
together within the main entrance hall if they are hung on the
10
vacant wall space niche immediately to the left of the display
cabinet on the ‘mirror wall’.
6.2
Display Bookcase
The incumbency of a new Mayor presents an ideal
opportunity to take stock of what is in the Parlour and do a
‘bit of a spring clean’.
Mayor Bates has removed some artefacts from the Parlour
and placed them into temporary storage which are primarily
gifts received by other Mayors and do not relate to her
Mayoralty.
The acceptance of Mayoral Gifts should be considered by
the Mayoral & Protocol Committee on an annual basis. This
Committee will determine what is deemed a personal gift, a
civic gift to be retained and/or displayed, and where it should
be displayed. The Mayoral & Protocol Committee will
therefore have to take account of the Town Council Policy for
Display in the Town Hall when determining these issues.
However, many of the gifts received each year are books
which are likely to be of interest to members, staff and
visitors to the Town Hall and are totally inaccessible if they
are just kept within the realms of the Parlour. There is now
quite a selection of books piling up in the Mayor’s Parlour
and as there isn’t a bookcase in the Parlour, they are being
stored inappropriately.
It has been suggested that a display bookcase is obtained or
purpose built to fit into the now redundant doorway which
used to lead from the Magistrates Room into the Council
Chamber by the dais. This is not a fire exit and has been
blocked off to provide shelving in the adjacent office.
6.3
Members and Staff Town Hall Occupancy Register
The Council’s Human Resources Committee has been
reviewing a number of issues relating to the wellbeing of its
staff and members, particularly with regard to lone working
regulations and identifying which members and staff are in
the Town Hall at any one time.
Following a health and safety recommendation from the
Human Resources Committee, members are requested to
approve the siting of an ‘in/out’ board for Town Hall officers
11
and certain auxiliary personnel, in the entrance lobby adjacent
to Councillor’s pigeon holes.
It was further recommended by the HR Committee that a
Councillors sign in/out register is required and it is suggested
that this is located on the radiator shelf in the entrance hall.
Both these controls will assist in ensuring staff/members are
accounted for in the event of a fire or another emergency.
The HR Committee initially proposed that there should be a
Town Hall Visitors Book for everyone entering the Town
Hall, but in practice, bearing in mind that the Town Hall is a
public building available to hire, this would add an unworkable
administrative burden on the staff. This is more of a security
issue, not a legal requirement, but staff are aware that their
offices can be accessed by members of the public and are
charged with being vigilant in terms of safety for
themselves and their belongings when the Town Hall is
occupied by outside bodies.
7)
Provision of Street Furniture and Amenities
 To review ward amenities by the next General Purposes
Committee Meeting on 27 October
When Council operated under a four ward system, ward members
appointed a Lead Ward Member who represented the views of
their contemporaries in that ward at a meeting to consider future
ward amenities.
These were discussed at a meeting held immediately before the
General Purposes Committee Meeting in August, and were then
put forward as an agenda item for consideration at the General
Purposes Committee Meeting which followed thereafter.
The purpose of this amenities meeting was to ensure that the
Council was pro-active in determining what facilities and amenities
were required for each ward, rather than just being reactive to
requests for additional street furniture.
If the General Purposes Committee agreed the provision, they
were either sanctioned immediately if there was sufficient budget
provision, or factored into the budget for the following year.
However, installation of ward amenities is subject to the necessary
checks and public consultation and Councillor Ian Fradgley or the
12
General Purposes Clerk will assist any new member in explaining
the procedure which is primarily done online.
As there are now only two members per ward, the Lead Ward
Members concept would appear somewhat untenable. However,
determining amenities for each ward is not, and it is therefore
suggested that the two members from each ward get together
before the next General Purposes Committee Meeting on 27
October to ascertain what amenities are required and where they
should be located.
8)
Stratford District Digital Inclusion Fund 2015 – VASA
 For information, or action if appropriate
Attached as Appendix ‘F’ is a self-explanatory letter from the lead
Officer at VASA.
If members have constituents in their wards who are suffering
digital exclusion, you are requested to pass this information on to
the relevant voluntary or community organisation, or assist them in
formulating a grant application. Members are requested to contact
Charles Barlow direct if this is the case.
Town Clerk
25 August, 2015
13