Page 1 of 3 18th March 2014

Over Parish Council

7.30pm Minutes of the meeting of Over Parish Council

Over Parish Council Meeting, held in the Town Hall, Tuesday 18th March 2014

PRESENT

Chair: Mr G Fenn

Councillors : Mr G Twiss, Mr J Lewis, Mr T Sutton, Mr B Burling and Mr R Robinson.

Clerk : Mrs L Poulter

In attendance

Parishioners : Six Parishioners were in attendance

County Councillor: None in attendance

District Councillors: Cllr Burling

Item
1 /

TO RECEIVE AND ACCEPT APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Received from Cllr Manning and Mrs Bidwell
2 / TO SIGN AND APPROVE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING MEETING HELD ON 28th FEBRUARY 2014
Duly signed.
2.1 /

Matters of accuracy arising from the previous minutes-for information

None arising
3 / PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Six members of the public were in attendance but none had any comments to make on any agenda items
4 / CO-OPTION OF COUNCILLORS
Applications from eight candidates had been received. Following prescribed voting procedure the following candidates were elected:
Vacancy one Dr Frank Wilkinson
Vacancy two Mrs Pat Scrivener
Vacancy three Mr Peter Mason
Vacancy four Mr Mark Oxley
Mr Burling proposed a vote of thanks to Mr Twiss, Mr Fenn and the Clerk for the smooth running of the voting procedure.
5 / VISITING SPEAKER-IAN DEWAR FROM CAMBRIDGESHIRE AND PETERBOROUGH ASSOCIATION OF LOCAL COUNCILS IN RELATION TO THE LEGAL POSITION REGARDING THE OVER COMMUNITY CENTRE
Mr Dewar introduced himself and stated that he had been asked by the Parish Council to come and advise them on the legal position surrounding the possibility of their offering financial assistance to the Community Association.
He stated that he had studied the lease agreement between OCA and the Parish Council (OPC) and in his opinion it was a sound document. He expressed concern over the fact that OCA had effectively sub let the running of the Centre to a limited company, Over Community Enterprises (OCE) without apparently seeking permission from OPC as required in the lease. He stated that prior to this OCA should have consulted OPC to obtain permission.
He explained that as the lease was for more than 7 years OPC had, although they own the freehold, effectively disposed of the property to OCA and under the terms of the lease it was OCA’s responsibility to maintain the land and buildings and OPC could not contribute to this. Mr Sutton pointed out that part of the land had been given back to OPC by OCA, Mr Dewar stated this could not be the case as any such return of a previously disposed asset would necessitate the express agreement from the Charity Commission and this had not been sought or given.
He also explained that by OCA setting up a commercial enterprise (OCE) to run the Centre this meant that OPC had no legal power to assist financially in any way. Mr White and Mr Nicholas from OCA were present and it was noted that this was the advice they had received from the District Council. Mr Nicholas also asked why the District Council could grant monies to OCE/OCA but OPC could not. Mr Dewar stated that the District Council has an economic role as a Council but OPC does not. This would mean the District Council could offer grants where OPC could not.
He noted that OCE is making trading losses according to the latest set of audited accounts, it was noted that the accounts were consolidated and showed both entities as one. He asked the OCA representatives what they had done to reduce OCE’s operating costs to try to mitigate this. Mr Nicholas stated that OCA had suffered with the reduction of funding to local bodies resulting in a reduced income from conferences, he also noted that bar takings were disappointing. Mr Dewar noted that, in his opinion given his past experience in advising companies, there was scope for reduction in operating costs which are more easily addressed sometimes than increasing income. He also asked if he was right in assuming that the trading arm OCE was in deficit but OCA was not, this was correct. He asked if there was a balanced current year budget, Mr Nicholas and Mr White stated that there was. They stated that for the present the Centre could fund itself and it was planned that OCE pay OCA £500pcm under the licence agreement but there were concerns over what would happen at some point in the future financial difficulties were encountered again.
Mr Dewar stated that, in accordance with the lease a representative from OPC along with one from OCA and an independent agent should inspect the premises and grounds annually and draw up a list of maintenance issues requiring addressing. He also advised that there should be some provision each year in OCA’s
accounts whereby a sum for building maintenance is put aside perhaps equivalent to the depreciation charge each year perhaps from the license fee which OCE should pay each year to OCA in respect of the sub lease. Mr Twiss stated that OCA had come to OPC for a loan to assist with the purchase of a new boiler as, although they did have some reserves, these were tied up and they were unable to access them. Under the terms of the lease this is a cost of building maintenance and as such is the responsibility of OCA.
Mr Burling asked what could be done to find a way forward. Mr Dewar advised that firstly OCA’s and OCE’s financial relationship be separated so both stood alone. Secondly OCA should draw up a new licence agreement with OCE and obtain OPC’s permission for this, he offered to look over this for OCA . This financial separation would allow OPC to assist OCA with some financial assistance say to cover the annual insurance premium however they would still be unable to assist with maintenance costs for the land and buildings. It would also allow OCA to obtain funding from other bodies and he was happy to assist to put them in touch with the relevant organisations. He also suggested that a reserve level for OCE be agreed and that all surplus trading profits be transferred to OCA and these reserves then be ploughed back into the facility. He stressed that OCE should be self funding and could not drain OCA.
The Chairman and Councillors thanked Mr Dewar for his attendance and his very informative briefing. Mr Dewar then left the meeting.
6 / VILLAGE MATTERS
6.1 / To receive report relating to the Green and Village issues-This was read to Councillors and comments noted. It was agreed Mr Bridgman be asked to go ahead with the levelling of the area around the edge of the Green abutting the hedge. The basketball hoop needs replacing, this will be addressed as soon as possible.
6.2 / To review amended Green and Pavilion users agreement-This had been circulated to Councillors prior to the meeting. Mr Burling asked if a stronger provision relating to the use of bad language could be put into the agreement. Mr Twiss will amend. It was agreed this be issued once amended.
6.3 / Cutting of the Green hedge-Parishioners who raised concerns over the hedge cutting had been visited by Mr Twiss and it was agreed that, as we no longer maintain the hedge by hand we could let it grow slightly higher to allow residents more privacy. It was agreed we let the hedge grow to about seven foot over the next couple of seasons and we will also look at using a cutter rather than a flail. Residents of surrounding properties who we have email addresses for will be emailed prior to the actual cutting.
7 / REPORTS FROM COUNTY AND DISTRICT COUNCILLORS
7.1 / County Council-Cllr Manning had sent his apologies as he was unable to attend.
7.2 / District Council-Cllr Burling reported that the five year housing plan has now been passed to the Inspector for review. It is planned that an additional 22,000 houses be built in the District during that period.
7.3 / PCSO-Nothing to report
8 / PLANNING
8.1 / S/0381/14/NM-Non material amendment for information only regarding insertion of five windows on land at Haden Way for Flack and Chapman.
S/0474/14/NM-Non material amendment for information only regarding alterations to front porch side elevation panel materials at 2 Papworths Close for Mr & Mrs Sprawson.
S/0046/14/FL-Change of use from B2 to D2 assembly and leisure for gym/studio and martial arts classes at 19 Norman Way for Mr A Herbert. Some concerns were raised over the possible impact on the security of the site as the main gate would need to be kept open during evenings and possibly weekends, and Mr Twiss proposed refusal on these grounds he also suggested we recommend to the District Council that all occupants on this site be notified of this proposal in the light of the security implications. Seconded by Mr Lewis, 5 in favour, Mr Burling abstaining from voting.
Piggery-Haden Way- we have been asked by the planning officer at the District Council to re-consider our comments in respect of the proposal to site a mobile home on this land for security reasons. This was discussed and it was agreed we saw no need to revise our recommendation.
8.2 / Permissions-Permission has been granted by the District Council for erection of gates and fencing at 2 West Street, side, rear and front extensions at 11 Mill Road and for the non-material amendment at 2 Papworths Close.
8.3 / Refusals-None notified
8.4 / Appeals-None received.
9.1 /

FINANCE-To approve payment of outstanding accounts

It was proposed, seconded and carried unanimously to approve the invoices and cheques as listed:
Clerk’s Salary 500.50
D Bridgman- Green/village etc 317.30
Cambridgeshire County Council-streetlighting costs 153.88
Mr Twiss asked if we could, out of our training budget purchase one or perhaps two copies of the up to date Butterworths “Local Councils Administration Book” as the one the Clerk has is several years out of date. It was agreed one copy be purchased
9.2 /

Receipts-None received.

10 /

RISK ASSESSMENTS

10.1
10.2 /

To review revised forms, these had not yet been circulated.

To allocate areas of responsibility. It was agreed this entire agenda item be held over until the next meeting when we will have a full complement of Councillors.
11 / REPORTS FROM PC REPRESENTATIVES ON OTHER BODIES
Hanson-Mr Lewis reported on the amount of aggregate which had been dug during 2014 so far, he also reported on the various wildlife which had been spotted in the area of the reserve.
12 / OTHER CORRESPONDENCE
SBFWF-This pressure group write to ask for our support in their opposition for the proposed wind turbine development close to Haddenham and Aldreth. It was agreed this information be published on our website so Parishioners can comment if they wish.
Inspection pit cover-Mr Finch has asked to come to the next Parish Council meeting to address this issue of the inspection pit cover at Willingham Road/Mill Road. We have repeatedly referred this to the County Council who have informed us it is not dangerous but they have contacted the service provider whose cover it is and passed on our comments. The service provider has inspected the cover and has informed the County Council it is not defective. Mr Robinson had visited Mr Finch, ascertained the problem and has photographed the cover, he offered to liaise with Cllr Manning to see if anything can be done to alleviate the nuisance factor of the cover and we will inform Mr Finch of this.
13 / REQUESTS FOR AGENDA ITEMS FOR COMING MEETINGS
Signing of declarations of acceptance of office by new Councillors and Declarations of interest forms by all.
Risk Assessments, Sandpit Pond, gating of byways etc, Fen End Bollards(possibly May)

Next meeting dates: Full Council – 22nd April 2014

The meeting closed at 9.38pm

Chairman