E.23/20
It was noted that the following
public questions had been received in accordance with the Executive
Procedure Rules, for consideration at this meeting. The Chairman advised that, since all of the
questions were related to the same subject matter, then the lead
Executive Member would provide one combined response. Following this response, those members of the
public who were in attendance would each then be invited to ask a
supplementary question based upon the original response that had
been given.
Q1 from Karen
Squire:
Do the Executive Committee feel
that it is appropriate for work to start on the Marldon Play Park redevelopment when there is no
confirmed budget, no confirmed final quote, no completed project
plans and no funding streams to bridge the gap between the cost,
(at least £100,000) and the grant applied for
(£45,000), as well as no documented feasibility studies
undertaken, despite the area being well known for having hard
bedrock close to the surface? The Parish Council have stated they
will start ground works in the very near future despite none of the
above being in place.
Q2 from Andrew
Field:
(Background: I understand that
Marldon Parish Council are requesting a
grant award of £45,000 for the redevelopment of the
Marldon Play Park located in
Torfield at the Executive Committee
Meeting on Thursday 22nd. October).
Are the Executive Committee
satisfied that the bidding process for the redevelopment of the
play park has been submitted on a like for like basis bearing in
mind the large variation both in prices received and scope of
proposed works?
Q3 from Martin
Rogers:
Are the Executive Committee
aware of the confirmed budget for the Marldon Play Park and where the additional funding
streams are coming from? Sums discussed
have ranged from £173,000 - £100,000
Q4 from Linda Balster:
Are the Executive Committee
satisfied that due consideration has been given by the Parish
Council to the refurbishment and improvement to the
current amenities in the Play Park, bearing in mind that two
recent reports haven't condemned any of the current
equipment?
Q5 from Peter
Moore:
(Background: I understand that
Marldon Parish Council are requesting a
grant award of £45,000 for the redevelopment of the
Marldon Play Park located in
Torfield at the Executive Committee
Meeting on Thursday 22nd. October).
“The
neighbourhood planning group is not sitting but these costs will
affect any future plan. For eight months residents cannot speak at
parish council meetings, letters have had no response, and the
parish council has no social media presence, so how has the wider
community been consulted?”
Qs 6 and 7 from Jason
Elson:
6: Many residents aren’t aware
what’s happening. There’s a poster on the noticeboard
but no posters around the village, no signs in the park or proper
social media. The cost is significant and this could increase the
precept affecting all residents. Is it appropriate to start without
a full community consultation?
7: The information on the Parish website
regarding the proposals is spread over several pages with details
within the minutes. Do the Executive Committee consider the
information complete, clear and easy for residents to
follow?
Q8 from John
Armstrong:
(Background: the Marldon play park plans include costly groundworks
for disabled facilities).
Is the Executive Committee
satisfied that proper consideration has been given to the fact
that, despite these costs, there is no disabled access to
Torfield itself? There are steep hills, steps, no pavements and no
suitable entrances.
Response to all the
questions:
‘It is for
Marldon Parish Council to decide on how
best to manage its assets.
Marldon
Parish Council own the site in
question and it is for the Parish Council
, not the District Council to determine how best to manage
their finances, contract procedures and assets. Any
complaints that the Parish Council has failed to follow its
procedural rules should be addressed to the Parish
Council.
The Parish Council
has an arrangement with South Hams to undertake an insurance and
inspection service of play parks, something we do for many
parishes. This information has been made publically
available. Recently, we understand the Parish has been considering
what improvements and investments to make in its play park and has
made a request to South Hams Council for some section 106 money,
£45k, for works to the park and that they have published a
consultation on their website.
The District
Council receives contributions from developments within parishes
that are to be used for the purposes of sport, recreation and
community facilities. These are referred to as S106
funds. A request for S106 money in connection with
Torfield Play Park was received last
week (13th October), and officers have a meeting scheduled for
today (22nd October) to review the request.
Consideration of the request will be in line with the District
Council’s procedure rules.
An officer
recommendation, in consultation with the local ward member, will be
taken to the appropriate public meeting, which in this case is
expected to be the Executive on 3rd
December.’
Supplementary Question from
Karen Squire:
With regard to the response
given, complaints had been raised with Marldon Parish Council on a number of occasions
with regards to the play park and also with regard to many of the
questions that had been raised at this meeting. Unfortunately, the Parish Council was refusing to
respond and interact with members of the public. As had already been said, members of the public
were not allowed to speak at Parish Council meetings and emails
were not responded to. At the time when
the Executive Committee would be considering the allocation of
grant funding would Members be satisfied that the Parish Council
had followed due and proper procedures?
In reply, the lead Member
confirmed that the District Council would be looking into the
Parish Council’s procedures when we examine the eligibility
for the Section 106 funds. In addition,
the Member informed that he would provide a full and detailed
response to the question outside of this meeting.
Supplementary Question from
Peter Moore:
Mr Moore stated that the
neighbourhood planning group was not currently meeting, but these
costs would affect any future plan.
Mr Moore repeated the
previously raised concerns whereby, for eight months, residents had
been unable to speak at parish council meetings, letters have had
no response, and the parish council had no social media
presence. In questioning how the wider
community had been consulted, Mr Moore asked whether the Executive
Committee could place a rider on funds to ensure that a good (and
objective) public consultation exercise (which was published) had
been carried out?
In reply, the lead Executive
Member gave a commitment to provide a written response outside of
this meeting.
Supplementary Question from
Jason Elson:
The Parish Council state that
they have run a consultation exercise on their website but they
also state that they would not run a consultation as it is a
refurbishment of the equipment. The
consultation on the website relates to various plans and costs
which did not relate to the plans and they were not like for like
quotes and it was extremely confusing.
To date, the consultation exercise had consisted of one poster next
to the shops. As there was no community
consultation, I believe that there should be a condition to the
release of the funds that required the Parish Council to run a full
and proper community consultation.
In response, the lead Executive
Member again advised that he would provide a written response
outside of this meeting.
At the discretion of the
Chairman, some points were raised by the wider membership that
included:
(a)
Clarification that
the local Ward Member would be
consulted prior to the report being presented to a meeting of the
Executive meeting; and
(b)
Some concerns being
raised over the manner in which the Parish Council was conducting
its business.