A-barth Onan Hag Oll! Representing One and All
REPORTS FOR MARCH 2015 MEETING
AGENDA ITEMS 12.1 – 12.3
Clerk’s Reports for Meeting on
17th March 2015
Summary of Decisions Required (Details in report):
1. To note the Council’s current financial position.
2. To note information provided concerning the redemption of the Council’s War Stock.
3. To place the monies received from the redemption of the Council’s War Stock in the same
reserve as the Harold Phillips Legacy and deposit them with Scottish Widows for the time
being until a better return can be established.
Reports:
12.1 Council’s Current Financial Position:
Appendices 1, 2 and 3 to this Report show the Council’s financial position as at 10th March.
I do not propose to elaborate further on the Appendices but will be pleased to address any matters
that Members may wish to raise at the meeting.
12.2 Redemption of 3.5% War Stock:
Further to my report to the February meeting, I have now received the sum of £2159.15, the value
of the Stock. The interest due to 9th March (£20.34) was received separately and has been credited
to the Pavilion Redevelopment Fund as usual in accordance with Minute 05/10/11. It was, of course,
previously credited to the Playing Field Development Fund.
It was agreed at the last meeting, under Minute 05/02/15(2), that the monies received from the
redemption of the War Stock should be placed in the Playing Field Development Fund. I have since
ascertained, however, that the War Stock was obtained with a legacy from Albert Collins which he
wished to be invested and the interest used for the benefit of the Playing Field. It seems logical,
therefore, to place it in the same ear-marked reserve as the legacy from Harold Phillips, which is
currently deposited in the Scottish Widows account, the interest from that sum being credited to the
Pavilion Redevelopment Fund which, when all is said and done, constitutes improving the playing
field.
Standing Order 7a, states that a resolution cannot be reversed within a period of six months except
by a special motion, which requires written notice by at least four Councillors. In this case,
however, I do not consider it a reversal – it is merely amending it slightly and I see no reason
for not deciding by resolution to place the monies in the same reserve as the Harold Phillips
legacy.
Interest from Scottish Widows is currently only 0.4% and, bearing in mind that these two
legacies would be invested indefinitely, there must be a better way of investing them. It is my
intention to investigate and report to a future meeting.
JV Calvert,
Clerk and RFO
10th March 2015
The Expenditure, Income and Reconciliation Appendices can be found on the
website under “Financial Reports”.
AGENDA ITEM 13.1
This is merely a list of Planning Applications prepared for the convenience of
Councillors and is not included here. Anyone wishing to see it may do so upon
application to the Clerk.
AGENDA ITEM 13.3(a)
PA15/01361 - Mr And Mrs M Haywood - Conversion of garage and dining room to
interconnected annexe. Tregonning Lodge, Tregonning Road, Stithians, Cornwall. TR3 7DA
Decision Required:
Members are requested to consider the following report in order to reach an informed
decision regarding the above planning application.
Date of Site Inspection:
March 9th 2015.
Councillors who undertook the site inspection:
Councillors R Nicholls and P Tisdale.
REPORT:
Background:
The application is for consent to convert the current garage and dining room to form an
interconnected annexe to the current property.
The applicant contacted the Planning Department under PA15/00160/PREAPP to enquire as
to whether planning permission would be required for such alterations and was informed
that one of the conditions of the original consent, reference W2/86/00535/S02, Planning
permission removed all permitted development rights and that any external alterations to
the window/door openings would require planning consent.
The loss of the garage will make little difference to the parking provision as there is ample
space on site, along with another existing garage.
Matters of Concern:
None of note.
Cllr P. Tisdale
March 9th 2015
AGENDA ITEM 13.3(b)
PA15/00689 - Mr Douglas Bowden - Certificate of lawfulness of existing use: Dwelling
usage. The Cabin, Herniss Farm, Herniss, Penryn, Cornwall. TR10 9DS
Decision Required:
Members are requested to consider the following report in order to reach an informed
decision regarding the above planning application.
Date of Site Inspection:
March 9th 2015.
Councillors who undertook the site inspection:
Councillors R Nicholls and P Tisdale.
REPORT:
Background:
The application is for a certificate of lawfulness for a mobile home which has been used as a
dwelling. The actual date that the mobile home was placed on site is unknown, but it has
been there for at least the last 20 years.
The applicant now wishes to tidy up the site and was recommended to seek consent for a
certificate of lawfulness prior to commencing the action.
Matters of Concern:
None of note.
Cllr P. Tisdale
March 9th 2015
AGENDA ITEM 13.3(c)
PA14/03691 - Dr Toth-Feher - New pavilion for guest accommodation adjacent to
Tretheague House, Tretheague House, Stithians, Truro. TR3 7AF
Decision Required:
Members are requested to consider the following report in order to reach an informed
decision regarding the above planning application.
Date of Site Inspection:
None required.
Councillors who undertook the site inspection:
N/A
REPORT:
Background:
Members will be familiar with the site and previous applications. The current documents are
amended drawings to the application first discussed as item 13.3(a) at our meeting of May
19th 2014. (Copies of the report and two responses to CC are attached as Appendices 1, 2 &
3 respectively)
Matters of Concern:
Although the current building is now smaller than that in the original plan, the footprint
being reduced and the swimming pool remaining external, many of our concerns remain.
The vehicular access to the site remains unclear, along with intended parking areas. Section
3.5 Refuse and Servicing and Section 3.6 Access in the Design and Access Statement
appears to show this access through the neighbouring property. Should this be the case,
this would result in an increase in traffic through this property, which could be considered as
being ‘un-neighbourly development’. Several of the documents appear to be ‘rehashes’ of
previous submissions and contain mixed details from several versions.
Cllr P. Tisdale
March 9th 2015
Appendix 1 to AGENDA ITEM 13.3(c)
PA14/03691 – Dr G M Toth-Feher – New pavilion for guest accommodation,
Tretheague House.
Decision Required:
Members are requested to consider the following report in order to reach an informed
decision regarding the above planning application.
Date of Site Inspection:
May 19th 2014
Councillors who undertook the site inspection:
Councillors R Nicholls and P Tisdale
REPORT:
Background:
The application is for a ‘Guest Pavilion’ adjacent to the Grade 2* Listed building. It is
intended to consist of three bedrooms, a large dining/lounge area and a kitchen, along with
a veranda/patio. Adjacent to this is a large swimming pool. This is a revised application, in
which the swimming pool was to be originally housed. Unlike the original application, this is
intended to be a far more substantial building. It is intended to be constructed of stone with
slate roofing and wooden door and window frames with a pitched roof.
Matters of Concern:
The proposed building is larger than that in the original proposal and appears to be higher in
comparison. It also has a larger footprint and as previously stated the swimming pool is no
longer included in the building.
The vehicle access to the site is unclear, along with intended parking areas. Section 3.5
Refuse and Servicing and Section 3.6 Access in the Design and Access Statement appears to
show this access through the neighbouring property. Should this be the case, this would
result in an increase in traffic through this property, which could be considered as being ‘unneighbourly development’. Several of the documents appear to be ‘rehashes’ of previous
submissions and contain mixed details from several versions.
The footprint of the proposed development is larger than the main Listed Building and could
well be regarded as an overbearing development in such close proximity to the main House.
Cllr P. Tisdale
May 19th 2014
Appendix 2 to AGENDA ITEM 13.3(c)
John Calvert,
You have been sent this email because you or somebody else has submitted a consultee
comment on a Planning Application to your local authority planning department using
your email address. A summary of your comments is provided below.
Comments were submitted at 9:41 AM on 23 May 2014 from stithianspc@aol.com.
Application Summary
Reference:
PA14/03691
Address:
Tretheague House Stithians Truro TR3 7AF
Proposal:
New pavilion for guest accommodation adjacent to
Tretheague House
Case Officer: Martin Jose
Click for further information
Comments Details
Comments:
Stithians Parish Council considered this application at the
meeting held on 20th May 2014 when it was resolved NOT to
support the application until such time as proposals for an
adequate system for foul and surface water drainage, including
results of percolation tests, is submitted. Upon receipt of details
of an adequate drainage system, the application will then be
supported subject to the following conditions:
1. Any parking associated with the pavilion to be accessed from
the main property, not via the shared access.
2. The use of the pavilion to be residential only and ancillary to
the main house.
3. The pavilion to be tied to the main house so that it cannot be
sold separately.
This e-mail and attachments are intended for above named only and may be
confidential. If they have come to you in error you must take no action
based on them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone; please e-mail us
immediately at enquiries@cornwall.gov.uk.
Appendix 3 to AGENDA ITEM 13.3(c)
John Calvert,
You have been sent this email because you or somebody else has submitted a consultee
comment on a Planning Application to your local authority planning department using
your email address. A summary of your comments is provided below.
Comments were submitted at 9:26 AM on 27 May 2014 from stithianspc@aol.com.
Application Summary
Reference:
PA14/03691
Address:
Tretheague House Stithians Truro TR3 7AF
Proposal:
New pavilion for guest accommodation adjacent to
Tretheague House
Case Officer: Martin Jose
Click for further information
Comments Details
Comments:
Further to the comments made on 23rd May 2014,
Stithians Parish Council wishes to make it clear that
condition 2 means that it should be for domestic purposes
only and that no commercial use whatsoever should be
permitted.
This e-mail and attachments are intended for above named only and may be
confidential. If they have come to you in error you must take no action
based on them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone; please e-mail us
immediately at enquiries@cornwall.gov.uk.
Please note that this e-mail may be subject to recording and/or monitoring
in accordance with the relevant legislation and may need to be disclosed
under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 or the Environmental Information
Regulations 2004.
Security Warning: It is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that
this e-mail and any attachments are virus free. The Authority will not
accept liability for any damage caused by a virus.
AGENDA ITEM 14
Clerk’s Reports for Meeting to be held on
17th March 2015
Decisions Required:
1.
2.
To note and accept the content of the report on Licensing Applications.
To note reforms to the Licensing Act 2003 deregulating certain entertainment activities as
detailed in the report.
Reports:
14.1 LICENSING APPLICATIONS:
As Members are aware, I receive an e-mail every week detailing all applications. Up to 9th
March there had been no applications affecting Stithians.
For Members’ information, who wish to check applications for themselves, the link to the
website is:
www.cornwall.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=21173
I receive no such assistance with details of applications received in relation to sex
establishments and so still have to do that myself. I last checked the link to their website
which is:
www.cornwall.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=28415
on 9th March and found no new applications in respect of the licensing of sex establishments
affecting Stithians or anywhere in Cornwall for that matter!
JV Calvert,
Clerk
10th March 2015
AGENDA ITEM 15.1
Clerk’s Report for Meeting to be held on
17th March 2015
New Cemetery Provision
Decision Required:
To note and accept the content of the report.
Report:
I informed the February meeting that, before matters can proceed, the solicitors acting for
the Glebe Committee require details of the proposals in respect of the three proposed water
supplies to the cemeteries, the Cricket Club and the Gluyas’s water troughs. As Members are
aware, the proposal is to route the supplies alongside the Cricket Club’s access track from
the main at Haverigg and to this end I contacted SWW on 2nd December and received the
necessary forms the same day to make an application for a water supply. The Cricket Club,
however, had not responded to my requests for completion of the necessary form for SWW
stating what taps, toilets, showers etc. they had.
I was able to inform the January meeting verbally that I had heard from the Cricket Club
that they considered the form rather complicated and that it would be completed by a
member of the club who was in the building industry. Having had no further response, I
sent a reminder on 1st February to which he replied that he would “check the situation at
our Committee meeting tomorrow evening” and get back to me. On 4th February I was
informed that “my colleague is just awaiting some technical information from SWW so he
can complete the form” and that as soon as it was completed it would be forwarded to me. I
asked again on 22nd February and was informed that there was a meeting on 2nd March
when the matter would be raised.
Without this information, I cannot obtain confirmation from SWW that it is possible to
provide the supplies we want and without that confirmation, the legal process has ground to
a halt.
On 10th March, however, having still had no response following the meeting on 2nd, I tried a
different tack suggesting that they forget the “complicated form” and merely tell me what
“water-consuming devices” there are in the Pavilion. The next day I received a list of those
very devices. As far as I am aware, that is all that SWW will need. However, with the end of
the financial year looming, I have an awful feeing that it will now be me causing the delay in
the legal process!!!!! I apologise in advance!!!!
Obviously, getting the confirmation from SWW will not happen overnight, so I hesitate to
consider when the legal process might restart.
JV Calvert,
Clerk
10th March 2015
AGENDA ITEMS 16.1 – 16.2
Footpaths, Highways & Environment Portfolio Clerk’s Reports for Meeting on 17th March 2015
Summary of Decisions Required (Details in report):
1. To note and accept the content of the notes of the meeting with the Cormac
Area Manager held on 3rd March 2015 along with the update provided.
2. To consider whether to request that the red dog bin on FP2 be relocated to
the middle entrance to Half Moon Wood.
3. To note the information provided concerning Crellow Fields Amenity Area.
Reports:
16.1 Meeting with Cormac Area Manager – 3rd March 2015:
The notes of this meeting appear as Appendix 1 to this report.
Members will observe from the notes that, although considerably less than 2014/15, the
contribution from Cornwall Council for grass cutting in the Closed Churchyard is more than I
budgeted for.
I would also bring to Members’ attention the matter of FP46 (in item 15 of the notes) which has
become boggy. I have now been informed that Cormac “hope to undertake drainage improvements
on this public right of way in the new financial year and a work ticket has been made out for this
purpose”.
Members will also note that a request has been made for a dog bin at Half Moon Wood. I received
the response I expected – that they are not erecting any new ones but they are willing to relocate
one. Having consulted the operative, it is suggested that, as it is not used very much, the red bin
about 100 yards along the footpath from Foundry to Seaureaugh (FP2) be relocated.
The portfolio holder, however, disputes the assertion that the bin in question is hardly used and
does not wish to see it moved. If the PC accepts this, then it is difficult to know how an additional bin
could be provided. If one were to be provided by the PC, Cornwall Council would not empty it.
16.2 Crellow Fields Amenity Area:
I have now received a copy of the Transfer Document and have raised queries with Thurstan Hoskin
relating to whether the PC gets full or part title and the future use of the land and he will follow
them up with Cornwall Council. He will also be undertaking a land search as is usual practice.
CC are indicating that the PC would have part title and I have asked what this means and why it isn’t
full title. They have also stipulated that it shall be used solely as open space, which is fine – that is
what the PC wants, but it is possible there may come a time when the PC wishes to erect play
equipment in the area so I have asked for clarification on this.
JV Calvert,
Clerk
10th March 2015
Appendix 1 to AGENDA ITEM 16.1
NOTES OF MEETING WITH THE AREA MANAGER,
CORMAC SOLUTIONS LTD, 14.00hrs 3rd MARCH 2015
Present:
Viv Bidgood (VB), Cormac Area Manager
Pete Tisdale (PT), Chairman, SPC
Phil Blease (PCB), Assistant Portfolio Holder for Environment, SPC
John Calvert (JVC), Clerk, SPC
Apologies:
James Biscoe (JAB), Portfolio Holder for Environment, SPC
1
Closed Churchyard: VB advised that 3.72 pence per square metre ( slightly less
than previously advised) for three cuts was now the figure to be used for 2015/16.
He further advised that the total area had been checked and now found to be 5,014
sq. m, slightly more than that used in previous agreements. This now works out at
£186.52. (Not sure how the figure of £211 previously minuted was arrived at. Also
neglected to multiply by the number of cuts). Contract figure should now be
£559.56. Confirmed by Contract received on 4th March.
JVC asked about the e-mail he had sent to VB on 18th February following concerns
raised at the February PC meeting about the condition of the Churchyard wall. VB
advised that it was to be inspected by Building Control.
2 Surface Dressing Programme: VB had previously advised that Lancarrow Lane
was included in the 2015/16 programme and confirmed that this would also involve
addressing the various potholes which have appeared.
3 Gritting Routes: As reported previously, JVC had been informed by Peter Tatlow
that routes had not been revised to include Stithians in the 2015/16 programme. VB
advised that the reduction of almost 50% in the 2015/16 budget allocation had not
been agreed by full Council and that it would remain the same in 2015/16. Even so,
there was no provision for any additions as the routes had been determined.
4 Cyclical Maintenance: VB advised that, in order to maintain the budget for
gritting, the cyclical maintenance budget had been significantly reduced.
5 Coastline Boundary on Crellow Hill: JVC advised that concerns had been raised
at the February PC meeting about the condition of the boundary between Collins
Parc and Crellow Hill and that he had been informed by Mark English that it was to
be inspected.
6 Street Sweeping:
Longdowns: VB advised that a scheme to address the drainage problems had been
submitted for inclusion in the 2015/16 programme, the outcome of which was not
yet known.
7 Crellow Fields Amenity Area: The transfer of the amenity area was progressing,
the transfer document having been drawn up. VB advised that he had investigated
the complaint passed to him by JVC about the storage of building materials on the
area and the associated driving of vehicles on it. The materials had been removed
and Cormac had filled in the ruts caused by the vehicle.
8 Crane Garage: PT had advised the previous meeting that several advertising boards
had appeared here and at other locations in Longdowns. All were removed the next
day – thanks conveyed to VB.
9 Patching of Highways: VB had previously advised that the section from the
Church to Hendra Chapel had been included in the surface dressing programme and
hoped that it would be done during the coming summer. VB will confirm at the next
meeting
10 Parking at Church Mews: No problems to date.
11 Stithians Centre Signs: PB advised that the matter was to be discussed by the
Stithians Centre Management Committee at the meeting to be held on 4th March.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
PT advised that he had been approached by the Head of the School who had
informed him that they had recently employed a disabled person and, as a
consequence, one of the disabled parking spaces was now permanently occupied
during school hours. He wondered if an extra space could be added. VB advised that
a TRO would be required, which would incur considerable cost. VB agreed to note
the matter for consideration, should the occasion arise whereby a TRO was being
implemented in the area to which it could be added.
Speeding - South Road and Foundry: Following the agreement of 3 Members to
receive training following a request from Cllr John Thomas, PT advised that he was
hopeful that training would take place in March
Riparian ownership and maintenance: It was again noted that responsibility for
maintenance of riparian boundaries of roads will fall to the Highway Authority
(CC/Cormac) for practical purposes. VB confirmed that standards would not be set
for riparian maintenance other than that watercourses must be maintained so that
flow is not impeded. Problems would be addressed on a case by case basis
Longdowns Central Refuge: A Local Member’s Scheme for a refuge and a review
of speed limits in the area had been submitted and the programme was under
consideration by the transportation Department. VB to enquire about progress.
PRoWs:
FP27: PT advised that the sign at the Herniss end of Polkanuggo Lane had not been
erected. JVC to ask Catherine Szlichta to expedite.
FP32, Polkanuggo: Since the November meeting, JAB had advised that, despite a
reminder, DM had not supplied any waymarkers. Leave in abeyance for now.
FP12: New gate now in place.
FP7: PCB was concerned that the part of the footpath from Crellow Hill alongside
Tyrol was narrow and not properly surfaced. PT advised that it was a condition of the
planning application for the site next door that the footpath was adequately
reinstated when the building was finished. JVC to check and take appropriate action.
FP46: JVC advised that he had contacted Catherine Szlichta regarding the complaint
made about the boggy nature of part of this footpath and was awaiting a response.
Bus Stops: The situation remains the same. Both sites in Stithians are suitable for
bus stop markings on the road. JVC had followed up the matter with Ben Dickinson
and John Thomas and had now been informed that there was no budget in the
current financial year and that it was hoped to include them in 2015/16.
Trewithen BT Pole: BT had not yet taken any action.
Dog Bin at Half Moon Wood: PCB asked if it would be possible to provide a dog
bin at the middle entrance to Half Moon Wood. JVC to e-mail VB for him to pass on
appropriately.
Playground Inspections: JVC advised that Jody Chilton had left Cornwall Council
and that he had been in touch with VB as to whether they were still able to offer an
annual inspection service. VB advised that they could and was awaiting costings. VB
to contact JVC ASAP to confirm.
Meeting ended: 14.40.
Next Meeting: Scheduled for Tuesday 5th May 2015 at 14.00hrs at 18 Edward
Street.
JV Calvert
Clerk
Stithians Parish Council 4th March 2015
AGENDA ITEMS 17.1 – 17.3
Playing Field Portfolio
Clerk’s Reports for Meeting on 17th March 2015
Summary of Decisions Required (Details in report):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
To note and agree the content of the notes of the Playing Field Progress Meeting held on 9 th
March and the actions contained therein with particular reference to the financial implications.
To note and agree the content of the report of the New Play Equipment Working Group
meeting with suppliers on 24th February 2015.
To authorise the Clerk and the Playing Field Portfolio Holder (or his Assistant) to accept a
suitable quotation for carrying out the 2015 annual playground inspection, such inspection to
be accompanied by the Playing Field Caretaker and representatives of the PC.
To note the response from Stithians Agricultural Association to the request for assistance with
funding the replacement of play equipment.
To note and agree the content of the report on the use of the Playing Field by the Rugby Club.
Reports:
17.1 Playing Field Progress Meeting:
The notes of the Playing Field Progress Meeting held on 9th February appear as Appendix 1 to this
report. Members are requested to note the content thereof with particular reference to any
financial implications arising therefrom.
I would particularly draw Members’ attention to the following:

Annual Play Equipment Inspection – I have now been informed by the Cormac Area Manager
that they do not have the staff to carry out the 2015 Inspection but they may be able to do
so in 2016. They have suggested the Play Inspection Company who would charge £110 + £25
if an accompanied visit were required. The extra charge is for scheduling a fixed visit. The
charge of £110 is for a visit as and when they can fit it in with others and which therefore
cannot be notified beforehand. I note that RoSPA now operate a similar system. I have
another quotation in the sum of £160 (obtained in 2013) and am awaiting details from
Gwennap PC of their inspector. I also have details for an Inspector based in St Austell.
In view of the fact that the inspection is due in April, I seek Members approval to delegate
the acceptance of a suitable quotation for an accompanied visit to myself and the Playing
Field Portfolio Holder or his assistant.

Refurbishment of the memorial seat near the tennis court – I hope to be able to inform
Members at the meeting of the cost of the recycled material to be used so that approval can
be given at the meeting for my placing the order.
17.2 Provision of New Play Equipment:
The Group met with two Play Equipment Suppliers on 24th February and there is a separate report
on this matter.
Members will recall that, under Minute 18/09/14(2), it was resolved to approach the Agricultural
Association to seek a contribution towards the provision of new playground equipment. This I did
and was informed that the matter would be considered in due course. On 1st March I received the
following response:
Hello John,
As advised I did consult the Charity Commission on behalf of the Association. However, I am sorry to
say that the response was not positive.
The Trustees have suggested that the Parish Council might like to apply for one of the free charity
spaces at our 2016 Show and then get some volunteers together to run the stall and raise funds
towards replacement play equipment. The closing date for applications is 1st January, 2016.
I know how difficult it is to get volunteers but perhaps some of the parents of children who regularly
use the Playing Field could be persuaded.
I will leave it with you.
Regards.
Yvonne.
I didn’t realise that the decision rested with the Charities Commission although, on checking the
correspondence, that is what was said.
17.3 Use of Playing Field by Rugby Club:
As instructed under Minute 19/02/15(5), I sent an e-mail to the Rugby Club (actually sent to the
Chairman, Mike Dawes) instructing them not to use the old playing Field for training until further
notice and suggesting that they use part of the New Playing Field courtesy of the fact that they had
access to temporary floodlights. Also as instructed, I asked them to make arrangements for the
damaged area of the old Playing Field to be reseeded and rolled.
They have agreed not to use the Old Playing Field until told otherwise. As regards using the New
Playing Field, however, the member who could obtain the floodlights has left the Club but they may
be able to hire some. They “will see what they can do” as regards reseeding and rolling. I await a
further response on this and will send a reminder if nothing has happened by the date of your
meeting.
JV Calvert,
Clerk
10th March 2015
AGENDA ITEM 17.2
PLAY EQUIPMENT WORKING GROUP
On Tuesday 24th February, meetings were held in the playing field with Lynne Egginton of
Wicksteed Playscapes at 10.30 am and Neil Hudson of Sovereign at 1 pm. Cllr Nicholls and
Cllr Kavanagh attended the meetings.
We observed the site and existing equipment, pointed out those items of equipment which
we would possibly be looking to replace with similar but more durable items, explained our
(and the children of the parish’s) ideas for addition and enhancement to the play area on a
rolling programme basis and then left them to measure and map the existing area.
Both parties said that they would produce a plan with costings which they would forward to
the Clerk in time for the next meeting.
Cllr V Kavanagh
6th March 2015
AGENDA ITEM 18.1
CONSULTATION ON CORNWALL COUNCIL RENEWABLE
ENERGY SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT
DECISIONS REQUIRED:
A
To agree the formal response from Stithians Parish Council to the
consultation.
B
To ask the Clerk to submit the agreed response by the deadline of the 27 th
March 2015
C
To agree to share the SPC response with MVRG and CALC partners.
REPORT:
1
The consultation was launched on 22nd January 2015 and closes on 27th March so,
for a change, the time allowed is reasonable. However, the size and weight of the
content of the documents consulted upon is considerable, so much so that they were
circulated on a CD. The documents can, however, be viewed at:
http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/renewablespd?altTemplate=_Standard
This is a supplementary planning document, so it is in addition to all the other stuff,
not in place of any of it.
Cornwall Council confirmed that there is no questionnaire or list of issues they want
comments on; they just seek feedback from Parish and Town Councils on the
proposals.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
What follows is a series of comments and queries on the content of the document
and its three appendices. This is followed at the end (paragraph 71 to 71.11) by a
synthesis of analysis and recommendations as to how the management of planning
for renewable energy production could be better handled for Cornwall. I regret the
number of pages but, compared to the documents consulted on, it is a microcosm.
Introduction: Surely this would better say:” The UK is committed to producing at
least 20% of energy supply from renewable and low carbon sources by 2020”?
“…. without harming these valuable assets.” How much harm has been done
already? Too much. What benefit has arisen? For the people and economy of
Cornwall, higher electricity prices, a lot of farm land lost and a lot of wind turbines
reducing the benefit of the landscape!
“once adopted…. become material consideration in determination of wind turbine
planning applications.” Why not for all types of energy?
At last Anaerobic Digestion is included.
Advanced energy from waste is included, presumably an incinerator? Locking the
stable door after the horse has bolted?
Para 2.3. seeks to improve the security of supply. If this is really the case then solar
and wind should be low on the list of priorities as they are inherently insecure
supplies?
How realistic is community energy? Do communities have the resources to engage in
such investments? Probably only as minority shareholders which means that the
majority of benefits go elsewhere. Same as a landowner providing the site for a
turbine, they get ground rent and the proprietor gets the serious money, while the
local populace get the benefit of a big turbine whizzing round noisily when the wind
blows enough and higher electricity prices? Making such projects a community
enterprise implies that communities buy some land and make it available and then
share out the ground rent. Because ‘the community’ propose the project it is difficult
for objections to be raised? How transparent is that?
Having an asset lock in case the Community Benefit Society gives up is all very well
but who would take it over? Another community benefit society? HMG? Parish
Council?
Cooperative societies have a long history of difficulties.
What is needed here is not to substitute some community enterprise entity for
commercial enterprises but rather to enable communities to have a greater and more
effective influence on what renewable energy projects are brought into their areas.
To make this effective, Parish Councils (elected by the people to represent them)
need to have greater transparent influence and authority on planning matters. Let it
not be the case that the sun doesn’t shine and the wind does not blow in certain
parishes seemingly by mystical methods!
To make the renewable energy industry work in the interests of the economy as a
whole, the forced subsidisation by price setting by HMG needs to be eliminated. They
are already in a pickle having promoted solar and wind beyond their value and now
find that oil and gas prices are falling because shale gas has come online while the
economy is crawling along at a very slow rate of growth. The prices paid for solar
and wind generated power under existing, 20 year contracts are foolishly high
because they were set by the Government not by the market.
On the other hand there is a strong need to consider economics when selecting
between a range of alternatives. Let the return per £ invested over the life time of a
project be an important comparator when deciding on the allocation of natural
resources to a scheme!
Para 3.2 renewable energy developments will be supported where they maximise the
use of available resource….” Surely this should be minimise the use of available
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
resource? Do we want to maximise the use of land or maximise the impact on the
landscape?
Para 3.2 Consolidation of renewable energy developments into fewer sites. So where
we have wind turbines lets have solar panels as well? This foolish policy is already
being promoted. Cornwall has a distributed pattern of settlement and development.
Distribute the development so that the impact on the environment is minimised don’t
blob it all together like a conurbation which is the last thing we want.
Para 3.3 Colocation. Very good. Let’s have incinerators near every town. That is
where the waste mostly comes from and where heat could usefully be sold! That
might also concentrate some minds on the availability of contaminants in the exhaust
from incinerators!
Better if this colocation principle were applied to sewage works which in many cases
are located near settlements and they were converted to anaerobic digestion. Then
the putrescible wastes from the settlements could be channelled there by grinding it
up at the sink side and sending it down the sewers and the water could be recycled
to the same settlements. Making sink side waste disposal machines required in all
new build and rehab buildings is easily done by including it in the building
regulations.
Para 3.5 making the availability of a grid connection not a material planning
consideration seems foolish. The applicants need either to show that a connection is
available or to factor in the costs of establishing one. A planning permission must not
be used to leverage permission for connection infrastructure, pylons, transformers
and the like. If houses are to be built they either have to show that there is a sewer
or provide a septic tank or other alternative. Apply the same principle to renewable
energy.
Section 4. The approach is back to front. The proposers must be required to
demonstrate that what they are proposing is the best alternative from the available
range. This, in the end, comes down the rate of return per £ invested and, arising
from that, the benefits which accrue to the community.
Agricultural land. The basis upon which that is presently evaluated is wrong. The
slope and soil classification give a very poor indication of the economic value of land.
Class 3B land in Cornwall may well produce greater value of produce than Class 1A in
say, Lincolnshire. A long season of vegetables and flowers is more valuable than one
crop of potatoes for instance. The alternatives need to be considered on the basis of
what returns they produce over the lifetime of the project, inclusive of start up and
decommissioning costs.
The attention given to Public Rights of Way in planning matters continues to be
inadequate. When the policy of CC is de facto to get rid of a large proportion of the
existing network it is difficult for planners to make strong cases for reducing damage.
Para 4.15 restoration. The proposals are vary laudable. Will they be honoured? How
many companies will conveniently go bankrupt just before the end of their planning
consents? The restoration bonds need to be paid annually by the proprietors as a
percentage of their revenue into an escrow account held by some independent
trustees so that they accumulate as time passes and the company generates (sorry
for the pun!) revenue.
Restoration; A condition needs to be imposed on all such sites that having served for
renewable energy production they will not then be considered brownfield sites up for
redevelopment by building houses and the like on them. If this is what is meant by
renewable and restoration put it in writing from the outset.
Solar photovoltaic. It is possible to install these things such that no concrete footings
are required. This must be made the norm. If a site is such that this approach cannot
be applied, then it is unsuitable.
27 The same comments about value of agricultural land and returns per £ invested as
comparators apply to this and every other use of land.
28 Preference must be accorded to sites where the panels are mounted other than on
the ground; roofs and over car parks for instance. There, additional benefits are
conferred while, if they are put on the ground they generate negative benefits.
29 Hedgerows and hedges need to be maintained. Fences round the panels should be
discouraged as should CCTV. If theft is a significant security risk, generate some
employment by taking on watchmen.
30 Hydro; why is water wheel hydro not included in the range of renewable energy
sources in Cornwall? CC did not even know how many existing mill sites there are in
the county last time they were asked. They have also not looked at the potential for
powering wind turbines (particularly the direct drive type) with water wheels. They
go round about the same speed as one another so why not? Their makers praise the
low wind speed needed to start them, suggesting a small torque requirement. This
would produce more energy as water runs 24x7 while wind only works 30%, and
would also reduce the negative effect on the landscape by not needing wind turbines
on high land blotting the landscape.
In addition, the water is capable of use, and in many cases was previously, reuse
many times along the course of a river. Thus, in the distance of less than three
miles on one river the water operated more than thirty water wheels and, in this
particular case because of the design of many of the mills, a wheel operated two
mills. Reusing water mill sites could bring them back to life and obviate much civil
works as they already exist. Kennall Vale has a series of derelict mills and already
has cabling and sewage running in ducts through its length. Bringing the water
wheels back to life would also be compatible with the nature reserve status.
31 Using water turbines on run of river schemes produces very little energy. That is why
water wheels were used to run mills. The water wheel is a machine which magnifies
the available energy and concentrates it to provide torque at the required point. The
same physics apply to wind turbines. Massive blades collect the wind energy and
concentrate the torque where it is required.
32 Archimedes screw systems suffer from problems with fish damage. Waterwheels do
not have this issue.
33 Biomass; Why does this not include wastes arising from settlements such as rubbish,
sewage etc? Production of biomass as fuel needs to consider the opportunity cost of
the material produced. If Miscanthus is produced for instance what is not produced?
Grass and thereby milk or beef or sheep? Potatoes, cabbage, beet? The application
needs to demonstrate that the proposed use is the best in terms of the use of the
natural resources not just generating most income for some proprietor because of
temporary subsidies applied for whatever political reason. What are the costs of
producing the biomass other than the opportunity costs? Fertiliser, fuel for tillage,
harvesting, transport to the site of combustion etc?
34 Ground source heat pumps (shallow geothermal) work and are in use. Their use
needs to be promoted. CC planning could require that all buildings of greater than a
particular floor area be fitted with ground source heat pump technology as part of
their heat system.
35 Air and water source heat pumps are less well established technology.
36 Geothermal: How much hot sedimentary rock is available in Cornwall?
37 The amount of land required for a deep geothermal plant considering the quantity of
energy which it can deliver is small. The eminently sensible scheme proposed for
United Downs stalled because HMG priorities shifted and the money was not
available. How many schemes would be needed to make Cornwall an energy
exporter without any wind turbines or solar panels? The amount of geothermal
energy potentially available in Cornwall is huge, and renewable. Have strategic
planning not looked into this and the other potential sites? Wheal Jane for instance?
Geevor?
38 Incinerators; Para 11.12 makes no reference to toxic inclusions in the air emitted by
such plants. This is a serious omission which needs to be remedied! Smell can be a
problem, toxic waste does not necessarily smell and yet can be much more
deleterious to the health of the people living in the vicinity.
39 Anaerobic Digestion; why is digestate described as a low level fertiliser? What is the
nutrient loss percent difference between putrescible matter entering and leaving a
digester?
40 Why is sewage not included as potential digestate? It is widely used elsewhere in the
UK and enhanced by the addition of other putrescible wastes, derived from municipal
arisings, FYM, abattoirs, fish markets and the like.
41 An important aspect of the case in regard to AD plants is to incorporate the value of
all the products (gas, fertiliser, recycled water, recovered heavy metals and
aggregates) as well as the value of these things not being disposed of by other
means. Thus, the savings in landfill tax, savings in beach cleaning by nothing being
discharged to the sea or rivers, savings in transport by the waste being delivered by
the sewage system to the AD plant and not by road to landfill or other processing
plant. If these are all taken into account they affect the return per £ invested
positively
42 The best location for AD plants is as an adjunct of sewage works. These are usually
out of town and have room for expansion, in all probability even sufficient for sorting
incoming materials to extract non putrescible recyclates, thereby adding a further
revenue stream.
43 Much of the infrastructure can be built into the land and so not mar the landscape.
44 AD can improve agricultural land by providing a source of cheap fertiliser derived
from waste. Digestate has no smell. If raw material is kept in the open it will smell
but if it is delivered to the works via sewage piping there will be little, if any, smell or
flies.
45 Much of the information provided in the consultation document for each of the
technologies addressed is repeated for each technology.
46 Appendix 1 considers the landscape sensitivity to on shore wind and large scale
photovoltaic electricity generation systems.
47 It starts well by stating that the landscape of Cornwall has an economic value.
Hooray!
48 It then goes on to say that Cornwall has some of the best conditions for photovoltaic
and wind energy generation. While that may well be true it does not say that it has
probably the best conditions for geothermal energy generation and good conditions
for hydroelectric power generation as well as good conditions for agriculture such
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
that even class 3B land can produce good returns due to its being in Cornwall. Either
nobody has done the comparative analysis or if they have, chose to ignore it because
HMG has focussed on solar and wind for whatever reasons they might have used.
The analysis presented seems very much the familiar system which has been
presented with various planning applications. A lot of subjective criteria which can be
applied more or less subjectively to suit any case and made to say whatever the
Planning Authority wants it to say. That can be good or bad depending upon where
you are standing.
Appendix 2 applies the model developed in Appendix 1 to section of Cornwall area by
area. While most have significant sensitivity to turbines and solar farms there is
commonly a let out. That is to say there is sensitivity to Band C and D or clusters of
turbines. This negates the whole previous analysis. A landscape sensitive to a wind
turbine is sensitive to a wind turbine bigger than would be placed on an individual
house. What HMG consider big is what ordinary human would consider gigantic. For
instance the one proposed for a site near Stithians was only medium on the HMG
scale. It was so big it would have dominated the whole village. Thus, by a little bit of
jiggling with meanings and scale the model which seems to exclude wind turbines
and solar farms in fact lets them in in droves.
It is helpful to recall that for turbines Band A is 18 to 25 metres to blade tip, B 2660m, C 61-99 metres D100 to 150m to blade tip.
A small cluster is 5, medium 6 to 10, large 11 to 25 and very large 26+.
Meanwhile for solar farms Band A is up to 1 hectare, B 1 to 5, C 5 to 10 and D 10 to
15 hectares.
Thus, saying a landscape would be sensitive to Band C and D turbines is anything
from 61 metres to 150 metres tall!
Stithians falls under the area designated as Carnmenellis Landscape Area. The
overall sensitivity analysis is as follows; “Although the relatively large scale landform
of the plateau, relatively simple land cover, presence of simple rectilinear field
patterns, and strong human influence in parts could indicate a lower sensitivity to
wind energy development, the presence of rough ground and the significant remains
of mining and quarrying industry on the skyline (particularly around Carn Brea to the
north and around Porkellis) increase sensitivity to wind energy development. Overall
this LCA is considered to have a moderate sensitivity to wind energy development
and a moderate-high sensitivity within the AONB.
The distinctive hill summit of Carn Brea would be particularly sensitive.”
Although the scale of the landform is relatively large, the presence of varied small
medium scale landscape patterns and many mining heritage features means that this
landscape is likely to be particularly sensitive to turbines within the upper end of the
‘Band D’ category. (Remember Band D is 100 to 150 metres high)
56 Regarding cluster sizes; Although the scale of the landform is relatively large, the
scale of the undulations and the presence of varied small-medium scale landscape
patterns means that this landscape would be particularly sensitive to ‘medium’,
‘large’ and ‘very large’ cluster sizes. (Medium clusters are 6 to 10.)
57 What this means is that groups of up to five turbines up to 99 metres high would be
acceptable in this Landscape Area! The fact that it includes the Camborne and
Redruth conurbation negatively affects the analysis of the remaining rural areas.
58 Meanwhile, for solar farms; “The general openness of this LCA and presence of small
scale, historic field patterns
means that this landscape would be particularly sensitive to '‘Band D’ solar PV
developments. Band D is 10 to 15 hectares so anything up to 10 hectares is OK it
seems?
59 The interactive map was in fact much less clear than the poor resolution one in the
document.
60 Redruth Camborne and Gwennap are rolled into one. The opening statement is; “A
well populated landscape containing Cornwall’s largest built up area. Many built
structures giving the landscape a cluttered appearance.” This seems not a very fair
representation of Gwennap? Did they mean Lanner and make a mistake?
61 The weasel words continue for 190 pages. What sets out as a reasonable system for
analysing sensitivity in fact lays most of the county open to what ordinary human
being would consider monstrously large numbers of monstrously large wind turbines
and solar panel farms.
62 And yet nobody has done the comparative analysis asking whether the use of
landscape for wind turbines or solar panels is more valuable economically than the
use of landscape for tourism or agriculture. The system does not look beyond wind
turbines and solar panels and whether they are Band B or Band something else. It is,
in other words, entirely inadequate.
63 Omitted from the materials circulated is any reference to the targets which the
Government set some time ago for the capacity of wind turbines to be installed.
Memory says that the target in terms of Megawatts of Generation capacity for
Cornwall was exceeded some time ago. If this is the case why are they still pressing
to install more? Perhaps the cumulative impact assessment described in Appendix 3
will provide an answer.
64 APPENDIX 3
65 First note that the cumulative impact guidance presented here only applies to solar
farms not to wind turbines. Previously there was cumulative impact of wind turbines.
As this is supplementary guidance presumably that still applies?
66 The model proposed only looks at the landscape and visual effects. Noise, glint and
glare, water run off seem not to be considered. If so, the mechanism is inadequate.
67 What about the combined effect of solar and wind emplacements together?
68 Several options are proposed. For Cornwall it is recommended that the density of
solar farms should never be more than “landscape with occasional solar farm
development.”
69 The process is one of aggregation and thereby diffusion. Thus, for instance LCA 10
Carnmenellis sensitivity to solar farms is reduced to “Moderate-high (areas of
rough ground would be particularly sensitive)” Sensitivity to wind turbines is reduced
to; “Moderate Moderate-high within AONB (the distinctive hill summit of Carn
Brea would be particularly sensitive)” How helpful is that when a Parish Council
comes to considering whether to support a proposal or not?
70 The landscape strategies for wind and solar in LCA 10 Carnmenellis are expressed
as; “Moderate (Moderate-high within AONB) The landscape strategy is for a
landscape with occasional single turbines or small clusters of turbines, comprising
turbines up to the smaller end of Band D. Within the AONB development limited to
occasional Band A scale single turbines linked to existing buildings (e.g. farm
buildings).
Remember what a small cluster is, 5 turbines. Band D are those 100m to 150m to
height of the tip of the blade.
Meanwhile for solar farms the landscape strategy is; “Moderate-high The
landscape strategy is for a landscape with occasional Band B to Band C size solar PV
developments located in sheltered folds in the landscape (scale of development
should relate to landscape scale which varies across the LCA). Within the AONB
development limited to very occasional Band A scale PV development.
Band B is 1 to 5 hectares, C is 5 to 10 hectares.
71
Analysis and Recommendations
71.1
The scheme set out in these supplementary guidance documents is essentially
duplicating the approaches already used for other developments and applying them
to renewable energy.
71.2
The proposals are severely flawed in that they focus principally upon wind turbines
and solar farms. Other renewable energy options are paid lip service but only lip
service.
71.3
This error needs to be remedied so that when considering the allocation of that most
vital non renewable resource, land, the full range of options is taken into account
before making a decision.
71.4
The most effective mechanism for making rational, objective decisions on land
allocation is to look at the returns per Pound invested in the alternatives over the
lifetime of each option through Gross Margin Analysis. The analysis needs to include
agricultural options, tourism, doing nothing (leaving the land and landscape alone),
and the full range of renewable energy options where they apply.
71.5
An equivalence rating needs to be established whereby the impact of each
technology on landscape is calculated. Thus, for instance, it may be that 10MW
capacity of anaerobic digestion equates to 2MW of wind turbine. This needs to take
into account not only the landscape impact but the rate of return per Pound invested
and the positive or negative impacts in other directions, for instance disposal of
wastes with less environmental impact, reuse of existing sites as with water wheels,
impact on fisheries with tide mills or barrages, 1MW of incinerator equals 20MW of
solar panel and so on. As always these will be only guidance as no such system can
cater for the full range of variations between sites.
71.6
No solar farm or wind turbine beyond domestic scale should be allowed in AONB or
AGLV areas and none beyond single Band A scale within one and a half miles of their
boundaries. If CC is to be serious about these classifications it must not allow them
to be watered down.
71.7
For the other landscape classifications a table must be developed showing the
minimum distance required between installations of the various scales. Thus, for
instance, in LCA 10, Carnmenellis, no turbine bigger than Band B should be allowed
and the minimum distance between each turbine should be one mile. Similarly no
solar farm bigger than Band B should be allowed and the distance between them
should be a minimum of one mile. The minimum distance between a solar farm and
any wind turbine or solar farm should be one mile.
71.8
This simplifies the whole process and makes it much less subjective. Not completely,
so that there is scope for arguing individual cases, but with some firm guidelines.
71.9
Lastly once the HMG target for installed capacity is achieved no additional planning
consents can be granted unless either HMG changes the target or consents are
revoked or revised on a pro rata basis. Add 1MW here, remove 1MW there.
71.10 Where renewable energy developments are proposed, rather than seeking local
cooperative societies to implement them, a more sensible proposal would be to
require that specific proportions of the voting equity in such ventures be allocated
free of charge to the local community. It is proposed that this be between ten and
20% of the value of the equity. These shares would be held in trust by Parish
Councils on behalf of the community. The shares would have no market value as the
trustees would be forbidden from selling them. However, as voting shares this would
give the community a direct say in the management of the enterprise in their area.
Any income arising could either be ring fenced for specific uses (eg upkeep of a
playing field or village hall owned by the community through the Parish Council) or
be pooled into the revenue fund of the Parish Council to offset some proportion of
the rates precept. A condition would need to be placed on the company owning the
enterprise that the community shareholding could not be diluted by further issues of
shares or debentures or mergers or takeovers or sales of the original company with
others.
71.11 A difficult issue would be how to deal with the existing renewable power
installations. It is proposed that the same measures be applied to existing
installations retrospectively but that the dividend revenue payments would only begin
once the shares were in the ownership of the trustees, not retrospectively.
Thank you
Cllr James Biscoe
FOOTPATHS HIGHWAYS AND ENVIRONMENT PORTFOLIO
AGENDA ITEM 22
Clerk’s Report for Meeting to be Held on
17th March 2015
Correspondence Received
SUMMARY OF DECISIONS REQUIRED (Details in Report):

To note receipt from CALC of “The Week” dated 30th January 2015 along
with NALC Briefing Notes on the Electronic Summons and Automatic Precept
Referendums.
To agree to the Rugby Club’s request to erect a memorial seat in the new
playing field provided that details are submitted for approval by the Clerk
and Portfolio Holder prior to its installation.
To note receipt from the Police & Crime Commissioner of his March 2015
Report.
To note receipt from Cornwall Council of their comments on the Parish
Council’s recent submission in response to Cornwall Council’s consultation
on the revision of their Car Parking Order.



REPORT:
Since the last meeting, the following correspondence has been received:
Type
From
20/02
E-mail
CALC
Newsletter & Other
Documents – 20th February
See Section 1 of Report
05/03
E-mail
Rugby Club
Erection of Memorial Seat
See Section 2 of Report
06/03
E-mail
Police & Crime
Commissioner
Monthly Report
See Section 3 of Report
06/03
E-mail
Cornwall Council
Response to Parking
Consultation
See Section 4 of Report
Date
1.
Subject
Action
Taken/Requested
I circulated this Newsletter to Members for information on 22nd February. Relevant
Documents also included were NALC Briefing Notes on the Electronic Summons and
Automatic Precept Referendums. Members will be aware that the recently adopted
Standing Orders make provision for receipt of agendas only by e-mail and quite
honestly, with the way the PC now operates, this is the only practical way of doing so.
All Members, on joining the PC, sign a declaration that they are willing to accept
agendas by e-mail – that is the necessary record.
It is somewhat disappointing that HMG have decided that exemption from referendums
(I seem to be in the minority in wanting to use the term “referenda” for the plural. I
failed O level Latin but did learn that the plural of “-um” is “-a”) will be decided annually
– it had been anticipated that exemption would be granted completely. This doesn’t
help at budget-setting time – a point that has been made to HMG. Never mind – the
goal posts will probably be in a totally different place after May!!!!
2.
3.
4.
The Rugby Club wish to erect a park bench in memory of one of their members, Craig
Pledger who tragically died at the end of February. It would be in front of the car park
fence looking down the rugby pitch. I see no reason not to accede to this request as
long as details of it are submitted for approval prior to its installation.
I circulated this report to Members for information on 6th March.
Members are aware of the response sent to Cornwall Council pursuant to their
consultation on the Parking Policy and I have now received their response to that
submission which is included as Appendix 1 to this report and was also circulated to
Members for information on 6th March.
JV Calvert,
Clerk
12th March 2015
The Appendix to this report may be seen upon application to the Clerk.
AGENDA ITEM 24
Authorisation of Payments – March 2015
Decisions Required:
1. To approve payment of the sums shown in the report totalling £7,355.51
along with sums in any additional report which may be tabled at the
meeting.
2. To approve payment of any additional expenditure agreed by resolution
during the meeting.
Report:
The table below shows, as usual, invoices received since the last meeting as well as the
usual monthly and other payments to be made. Figures in parentheses relate to the
explanatory notes below the table.
Invoices received between the date of circulation of this report and the date of the meeting will be
reported at the meeting as appropriate in a report tabled at the meeting.
Type
Date
Due
Payee
For
VAT
Total
Amount
E
17/03
Clerk
March Salary
E
17/03
Clerk
February Expenses (Appendix1)
17.61
E
17/03
HMRC
Clerk’s Tax under PAYE - March
409.60
1121.56
See
Note
(1)
E
17/03
Toilet Cleaning - March
M White
E
17/03
80.20
Litter Picking - March
M White
E
17/03
E
17/03
130.80
Tyrone Martin
Playing Field Caretaker - March
Tyrone Martin
Lower Churchyard - March
591.25
68.28
E
17/03
Tyrone Martin
Cemetery Maintenance – March
E
17/03
Tyrone Martin
Repairs to Toddler PA Corner Fencepost
73.52
(2)
19.50
E
17/03
SWW
Water Supply for Toilets - February
11.03
E
E
17/03
17/03
Office Smart
M Rashleigh
Box of A4 Paper
2.75
16.50
130.00
780.00
th
Playing Field Grass Cutting – 4 Quarter
E
17/03
Ray Helmer
Verge Maintenance – 2015/16
E
17/03
Ray Helmer
Granite on verges o/s Church
1793.98
(3)
240.00
E
E
E
17/03
17/03
17/03
CALC
CALC
Savills
Audit & Finance Conference – Chair & Clerk
(4)
14.00
84.00
12.00
72.00
Being a Better Cllr Training – Cllr Blease
(5)
Lease of Playing Field 25/03 – 28/09
300.00
Ch
17/03
RBL Poppy Appeal
Wreath for St Nazaire Parade
(6)
18.00
DD
23/02
EDF Energy
Electricity Supply - Toilets
(7)
2.37
DD
02/04
PWLB
Repayment - Playing Field Loan 2
DD
02/04
PWLB
Repayment – Stithians Centre Loan 3
49.69
£694.63
£783.36
(8)
(8)
TOTALS
£161.12
£7,355.51
Notes:
1. This is the Clerk’s gross salary (£1,531.16) less Income Tax due from the Clerk under PAYE for
the month of March.
2. The quotation for this work was accepted at the February Meeting under Minute
19/02/15(2).
3. Members accepted a quotation of £125 for this work under Minute 16/09/14(3).
Subsequently, it was agreed under Minute 19/11/14(1) to move one of the pieces of granite
to the other side of the road and add three more. The cost of this work was £115, making a
total of £240.
4. This was authorised under minute 18/01/15(3).
5. This was authorised under minute 18/01/15(4).
6. This is payment for the wreath as agreed under Minute 25/02/15(3).
7. This payment should have been reported to the February meeting but I didn’t receive an
invoice. It wasn’t until I was checking the bank accounts on-line on 3rd March that I realised
the Direct Debit had gone through. I have obtained an invoice.
8. Although presented for approval at this meeting, these payments will be included in the
2015/16 financial year, the direct debits being due on 2nd April.
JV Calvert,
Clerk & RFO
10th March 2015
The Appendix to this report may be seen upon application to the Clerk.
AGENDA ITEM 24(A)
Additional Authorisation of Payments – March 2015
Decision Required:
Members are requested to approve the additional payments shown in the table
below in the sum of £147.99.
Report:
Since the Agenda was circulated, the following invoices have been received:
Type
Date
Due
E
17/03
E
17/03
E
17/03
E
17/03
E
17/03
Payee
Tyrone Martin
Tyrone Martin
Tyrone Martin
LA Phillips
LA Phillips
For
VAT
Total
Amount
Climbing Wall Rope
20.00
1
26.00
1
25.00
1
9.56
57.36
2
3.27
19.63
3
£12.83
£147.99
Car Park Fence
Repairs to Small Slide
Materials for Bowling Club
Paint for Bus Shelter
Totals
See
Note
Notes:
Quotations for these items were accepted under Minute 19/02/15(2).
These are further materials used in connection with edging the bowling green which are
invoiced to the PC so that VAT can be reclaimed in the usual way. I have received a cheque
from the Bowling Club in the sum of £47.80 (the value of the invoice less the VAT).
3. Payment to Tyrone Martin for painting the bus shelter was agreed at the February meeting.
This is for the paint he used.
1.
2.
JV Calvert,
Clerk & RFO
17th March 2015