Meeting of the Parish Council 9th January 2025 Minutes
| Select the 2025 Agenda or Minutes you wish to view: | |||||||||||||
| 2025 Meetings | JAN | FEB | MAR | APR | MAY | JUN | JUL | AUG | SEP | OCT | NOV | DEC | KEY: |
| Main | ≡ 📖 | ≡ 📖 | ≡ 📖 | ≡ 📖 | ≡ 📖 | ≡ 📖 | ≡ 📖 | ≡ Agenda 📖 Minutes | |||||
| Planning | ≡ 📖 | ≡ 📖 ≡ 📖 |
≡ 📖 | ≡ 📖 | ≡ 📖 | ≡ 📖 | ≡ 📖 | ≡ 📖 | ≡ 📖 | ≡ 📖 | ≡ 📖 | ≡ 📖 | |
| EHT | ≡ 📖 | ≡ 📖 | ≡ 📖 | ≡ 📖 | ≡ 📖 | ≡ 📖 | |||||||
| Village | ≡ 📖 | ⇛ 2024 | |||||||||||
| Present: | Chair: Cllr Holt |
| Council Members: | Cllr Bingham, Cllr Bray, Cllr Collon, Cllr Coffey, Cllr French, Cllr Herbert, and Cllr Sheppard |
| In attendance: | Dawn Lacey (Parish Clerk & RFO) Five members of the public |
| 1. | To accept apologies for absence. |
| Apologies from Cllr Moon. |
| 2. | To receive Declarations of Interest in items on the agenda. |
| None. |
| 3. | Confirm the minutes of the 5th December 2024 Main Parish Council meeting | |
These were agreed to be a correct copy and were signed and dated by Cllr Holt.
|
| 4. | Review actioning of items from previous minutes and agree any further action required. |
|
| 5. | To answer any questions from the general public. |
|
There were eight questions from a member of the general public and the answers to these are attached to the minutes. (Appendix 1) |
| 6. | To receive a report of EBC’s Oversight & Scrutiny Committee and agree action as appropriate. |
| Nothing to report at this time. |
| 7. | To receive a report of EBC’s Audits and Standards. |
| Nothing to report at this time. |
| 8. | To confirm the meeting dates for the next two EBC quarterly meetings. |
| Nothing to report at this time. |
| 9. | To receive a report from the Planning Committee. |
| Nothing to report at this time. |
| 10. | To receive a report from the EHT Committee. |
Cllr Bray reported on the following:
|
| 11. | To receive a report from the Shops and Businesses Advisory Committee. | |
Leo Tye gave a very thorough presentation on the current position with the Shops and Businesses Advisory Committee. (Appendix 3). A quote has been received by Emma Curtis to carry out the work required on the shops survey and this was circulated around the Councillors.
|
| 12. | To receive a report from the Health and Wellbeing and Leisure Advisory Committee. |
Cllr French informed the councillors of the following:
|
| 13. | To discuss and agree the way forward regarding liaison with SCC and EBC regarding the Claygate Local Street Improvement Plan. |
| This was discussed under item 10. |
| 14. | To approve the Budget and set the Precept for 2025/2026. | ||
The new budget was ratified for approval.
|
| 15. | To review the current CIL funds available with CPC. |
| The councillors currently have two applications for CIL funding to be discussed at the February meeting, when they will look at and consider where the CIL monies can be allocated. The money for the Winning Horse project is still allocated but could be used if needed. |
| 16. | To review a new CIL application. | |
Claygate Primary School has applied for CIL funding for their waterlogged field.
|
| 17. | To sign off the Reconciliation for December. |
| This was approved and signed by Cllr Holt and the Clerk. |
| 18. | To discuss how the CPC will deal with the various consultations which had been forwarded by SALC regarding the English Devolution white paper, Strengthening Standards and Conduct Framework for Local Councils, and Local Audit Reform. | |
| A: English Devolution White Paper ACTION: Cllr Sheppard to organise a list of questions regarding this and send to the rest of the councillors – once approved it will be sent out to the various groups. C㉕004 ACTION: Cllr Bray to write to Sally Harman at SALC to suggest adding this to the agenda for the next SALC Clerk & Councillors Forums being held on the 20th and 21st January. C㉕005 B:Strengthening Standards and Conduct Framework for Local Councils
The Councillor’s had no comments to make on this. |
| 19. | Matter for information purposes only. |
| 1. Cllr Bingham gave an update on the current status of the new website. It was agreed that there is a lot of content on our current website where we try to fit too much into it. Cllr Bingham circulated some ideas and suggestions for the new site and confirmed that a good search function is a must. Also looking at including heat mapping. This is ongoing and will be discussed further in February. ACTION – Cllr Bingham. C㉕006 2a. To discuss a possible agenda for the Claygate Village Meeting being held on Thursday 20th March. It was discussed and agreed to invite Graham Dear from the Grace Dear Trust to come and talk about Social Media and Mental Health in young people.ACTION - Clerk to contact Graham Dear.C㉕007 2b. To invite a panel, incorporating Sally Harman (SALC), Tim Oliver (SCC) and Mike Rollings (EBCllr) to discuss the English Devolution White Paper. A letter is to be written to invite them to join us at the meeting. ACTION - Clerk to write this and send to Cllr Holt. C㉕008 |
| 20. | Date of the next meeting. |
| The next meeting will be held on Thursday 27th February at the Treetops Pavilion, Recreation Ground, Church Road, Claygate |
The meeting closed at 10pm.
APPENDIX 1: Questions to the Chair
The Council always welcomes questions from the public, however we have received a further eight questions from one member of the public, many not related to agenda items and in accordance with Standing Order 3(h) I have directed that they should be dealt with in writing. The answers will be annexed to the minutes of the meeting. If an answer is quoted it should be quoted in full. And of course we will send the answers to that member of the public without waiting for the minutes to be published.
1. Can the Parish Council persuade Elmbridge to print and deliver Dustbin Collection calendars for every Claygate household? If not, can CPC print and deliver these itself? In my opinion, the printed bin collection card was the most useful publication that Elmbridge produced. The calendar is available online, but not every Claygate household has access to the Internet and a printer. (And it has to be a colour printer too, because many people would have difficulty distinguishing the shaded areas of a monochrome version.)
In the view of the chair this question has some merit as it recognises a positive action that can be taken - perhaps issuing the bin schedule with the Courier and therefore allowing those who need it access to a paper copy. The council will table this question for discussion in the February meeting.
Has CPC appointed a CRGT trustee? In the Council meeting of 18th July 2024, minute 16 stated: "To consider appointing a Councillor as a trustee to the CRGT, and to defer this consideration of appointing until January 2025. Cllr French has agreed to volunteer to the CRGT as an advisor for grant applications but not a trustee and to defer appointing one until January 2025. Carried unanimously." Has CPC made this appointment?
The CPC has not made an appointment as councillors felt it was a conflict of interest and as the matter did not get full council agreement, we assigned a person to assist with grants instead. We will reconsider this question in our February agenda as planned.
3. What has happened to CPC's commitment to renew the Working Groups in January?
Working Groups will be renewed as part of the six-monthly anniversary of their inception at the February main parish meeting as required.
4. What are the terms of reference of the five working groups appointed by CPC at its meeting of 15th August?
These bodies, to use a neutral term, were appointed under Standing Order 4: see the agenda of 15 August https://www.claygateparishcouncil.gov.uk/2024_Meetings.aspx items 12 and 13. So they are Advisory Committees, appointed by the Council under SO 4(c), and their powers are set out in SO 4(d). However in law they are Sub-Committees - see section 102 of the Local Government Act 1972, and in particular s.102(4) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/70/section/102 - which is why the heading of SO 4 is COMMITTEES AND SUB-COMMITTEES, and SO 4(a), (b) and (c) are in bold type because they reproduce statutory provisions in section 102 and cannot therefore be amended by the Council. But there is nothing wrong with describing these Committees as Advisory Groups, or Working Groups, or Working Parties, so long as we remember what their formal titles and powers are when this is necessary. So, in a word: they ARE Sub-committees of the Council; their proper NAME is Advisory Committee; in practice they can be called anything useful, so long as it is clear what is being referred to. If someone refers in a Council meeting to the Working Group on Housing, those words can be used in the minutes, so long as it is clear that this is a reference to the New Development and Housing Advisory Committee set up by the Council on 15 August 2024 under SO 4.
Nor do these committees need terms of reference albeit if they wish to put some in place we can work with them to do this.
5. Is the Parish Council happy with the direction and progress of the “Claygate the Way Forward” project? Will it deliver what residents said they want?
Background to the Question: The CVA spent over £4,000 on a survey conducted and published last year to determine what Claygate residents wanted, which turned out to be—summarising from the 'Survey Highlights' of the report—something like:
| More Housing | Use of Torrington Lodge Car Park | Parking | Shopping | Travel | Healthcare | Community |
|
housing development on village brownfield sites not on Green Belt private housing with 1-3 bedrooms affordable housing |
at least partially for parking for a supermarket as a fitness centre for housing for a health centre |
first hour of use free |
an additional supermarket a hardware shop a delicatessen a village market |
Extend the K3 route to Coverts Rd and Holroyd Rd Cut speeding |
an NHS dentist |
a support hub |
- The survey report also included a series of 'recommendations' and 'emerging ideas', many of which pre-dated the report. (The Working Groups were established in the second half of the previous year.)
- Some of these recommendations and emerging ideas—for example, 'develop a collective website for Claygate'—have not been put to the residents of Claygate. Nor is there any certainty that implementing the recommendations and emerging ideas will lead to the fulfilment of what residents said they wanted.
- Given what has happened since, the general impression is that CPC and its working groups have focussed largely on the 'recommendations' and 'emerging ideas', and achieved very little of what respondents actually said they wanted. Indeed the only clear victory from the list above has been the village market, which was organised by someone from outside those groups.
- So is the purpose of Claygate the Way Forward to give residents what they said they want, or is it to implement the 'recommendations' and 'emerging ideas' in the report?
CPC Answer: Yes, the council is happy with progress and the initiative will deliver the recommendations in the report as was the intention of the project. Updates come into the council via the working groups and progress is therefore transparent through the council minutes. Progress is however subject to many dependencies and it will take time to implement many of the recommendations in the report. Especially as a consultation is due this first half of 2025. Please note that it is the recommendations in the report that will be implemented, not what was voted for in the survey as the most popular choice of shop. Many of the points this question makes focus on the types of shops wanted by people responding to the survey however local councils have no powers to implement specific types of shop that residents wish for.
6. Should CPC be spending £2,000 on a Shops survey when what residents said they want is shops that aren't currently here: i.e. a hardware shop, a delicatessen and another supermarket? Should the public sector be funding a survey (and indeed a website) run for the private sector?
As already discussed above. None of these types of shop will be able to be implemented as part of the project recommendations and nor was that the aim. It’s not the place of the initiative to try and engineer what types of shop open in Claygate.
The CtWF shops and businesses group and councillors have been approached by a number of shop holders unhappy about a lack of consultation with them in particular. So yes - in the same way that money was spent on consulting residents with the original survey it was felt by the CtWF shops and businesses group and the Council that the shop owners community also needed to be consulted and that commitment is proceeding.
7. Why are the Salary and NI for the Clerk increasing so dramatically (from £16,000 to £23,000) in 25/26 when the number of Parish Council meetings is being cut from 13 in previous years to eight this year?
It became clear following the departure of the previous Clerk that the role required more hours than the hours we had allocated. Our first clerk had managed this by taking time off in lieu instead but we viewed that approach to not be sustainable. In addition the salary for clerks rose in line with national pay scales in October 2023. NI is actually not a factor give the clerk is our only employee we should be able to claim relief for part if not all of the additional NI under the new rules.
8. Surely the proposal to introduce a Chairman's Allowance of £500 is a highly retrograde step?
Background to the Question: The Parish Council has never paid an allowance to the chairman in the past. It does not need to pay an allowance to attract residents to the role of chairman. Taking the period from May of last year (when the four new councillors were elected) to the present date, the current chairman attended only 75% of the eight parish council meetings, the four EHT meetings and the eight planning meetings. My belief is that such an allowance would be taxable under the PAYE system. It makes sense to stick instead to a reimbursement scheme for councillor's allowable expenses.
CPC Answer: There seems to be a misunderstanding of the uses and purpose of a chairman’s allowance. The chairman’s allowance is a recognised tool to allow for contingency budget to be set aside for a spend that the chair and council think is appropriate and has been used by the CPC in the past for these purposes. The council vote on its allocation and it certainly is not a payment TO the chairman but a piece of budget set aside for discretionary purposes for the council to spend on whatever project that they view has a benefit to Claygate.
In terms of repeated comments on appointment of a locum clerk in 2023. The clerk was paid a standard rate that is the going rate in the market for locum clerks. The chair of staffing has no right to act on their own and every member of the staffing committee was consulted on that appointment. Ron’s appointment was made by the Council as a whole on 29th June 2023, not just by every member of the staffing committee, the staffing committee simply recommended his appointment. It is 18 months since this matter was dealt with and also having been discussed in questions before it is being brought up yet again so it has now been dealt with exhaustively.
In terms of comments regarding the Chair’s attendance in 2024 we have no comment other than to say that the Chair was not aware of the new considerable responsibility that she would need to take on in 2024 before she booked a number of personal commitments, so she does find the comment on her attendance throughout 2024 somewhat offensive. Especially as this is an entirely voluntary role.
