Issue - meetings

To receive questions from members of the public, of which prior notification in writing has been received (no later than noon on the Tuesday prior to the day of the meeting).

There were none.

To receive questions from members of the public, of which prior notification in writing has been received (no later than noon on the Tuesday prior to the day of the meeting).

There were none.

To receive questions from members of the public, of which prior notification in writing has been received (no later than noon on the Tuesday prior to the day of the meeting).

In accordance with Procedure Rule 1(3)(e) and the Council’s Public Question Time and Participation at Council and Committee Meetings Scheme, the Leader of the Council referred to five questions from Ms Judy Lea and four questions from Geoffrey Vale of which prior notification had been given.  A copy of the questions and prepared responses from the Leader of the Council were circulated to all Members and those in attendance at the meeting.

Ms Lea was not in attendance to read out her questions (one to five) as set out below.

“In the light of the recent Central Planning Committee decision to approve number plate recognition cameras and notice in support of Tesco’s intention to limit public parking on their site in Maldon, can the Council please confirm:

Questions One

That the Council recognises that the unlimited public use, at no apparent or proven detriment to Tescos, has for many years brought people to Maldon and increased footfall on the High Street?

Response:

The Council does not have any specific data to support this, but it is recognised that that visitors make use of the car park whilst they walk to local attractions such as local play sites and potentially the High Street. 

Question two:

That the Council will remain steadfast in fully protecting the park and ride and free parking on the site, in full accordance with the relevant S106 agreements?

Response:

The original Section 106 (S106) Legal Agreement and its subsequent modifications required that the car park for the retail store provided fifty (50) public spaces free of charge for up to 4 hours use to enable customers to visit the high street and other places by way of the park and ride facility from the site.  Charging for the remainder of the car park was under the jurisdiction of the applicant (Tesco).  The fact that Tesco has chosen to not enforce parking restrictions of any kind has led to the public perception that no parking restrictions were in place or enforceable and that unlimited public use is available throughout the day.

The S106 legal agreement and its modifications would be required to be amended should the retail store wish to apply a blanket charge for parking after a three (3) hour period.  In relation to the recent applications, the applicant and their agent have been fully apprised of the situation and supplied with all copies of the relevant Decision Notices and the associated S106 documents.  They have also been advised that whilst permission has been granted for the siting of the Automatic Number Place Recognition (ANPR) cameras and one associated advertisement sign board, they cannot be utilised in association with parking charges until such time as the existing legal agreement is either amended or complied with.    

Question three:

What potential for public involvement there will be in any attempt by Tescos to make legal amendments to the S106 agreements?

Response:

An application for a formal modification of the section 106 agreement would need to be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1152

To receive questions from members of the public, of which prior notification in writing has been received (no later than noon on the Tuesday prior to the day of the meeting).

There were none.

To receive questions from members of the public, of which prior notification in writing has been received (no later than noon on the Tuesday prior to the day of the meeting).

In accordance with Procedure Rule 1(3)(e) and the Council’s Public Question Time and Participation at Council and Committee Meetings Scheme, the Leader of the Council referred to two questions from Councillor Wendy Stamp of which prior notification had been given.  A copy of the questions and prepared responses from the Leader of the Council were circulated to all Members and those in attendance at the meeting.

Councillor Wendy Stamp read out her questions.

Question 1

“Does the leader of the Council share the Chairman’s view as expressed at the last full council meeting on the 8th September that “Town Councillors are expendable”  And do you know to what extent this view is shared by your fellow Councillors?

I think many Town and Parish Councillors would like to know how much or how little their efforts are valued and by whom.  I also wish to remind everyone sitting in this chamber that being a Town and Parish Councillor is on an unpaid and on a voluntary basis. Volunteers contribute, a massive amount of unpaid work, time, energy and effort in many areas, enhancing the District’s unique high class rural countryside for residents and visitors.

I raised this question at our own town Council meeting but Mr Elliot wasn’t in attendance and sadly he isn’t here to answer again.

Given the dire warnings re dangers of fire and physical dangers, risks to Councillor's are not a suitable subject or excuse for poor taste jokes IF this is disguised as one.”

Response:

“I consider the remark by Councillor P G L Elliott was flippant and was not meant to be taken seriously or to cause offence.  Councillor Elliott has himself been a Town Councillor for many years and knows the value of a good Town or Parish Council to the residents that they represent, as do the majority of Members here.”

Question 2

“Why wasn’t The Chairman’s comment recorded in the minute 492 when Cllr Beale’s comment of “Council should be more careful about what is put in a report” was.  Both comments are in the public interest and should be open and transparently recorded as such.”?

Response:

“Minutes are essentially an official record of decisions, and where appropriate how those decisions are arrived at.  The Council’s Minutes are not verbatim and there is no basis for any associated content to be judged according to public interest.  Individual Members’ comments are not normally recorded unless they are associated with a particular formality or inform a decision.”

To receive questions from members of the public, of which prior notification in writing has been received (no later than noon on the Tuesday prior to the day of the meeting).

In accordance with Procedure Rule 1(3)(e) and the Council’s Public Question Time and Participation at Council and Committee Meetings Scheme, the Leader of the Council referred to a question from Mr Scott Lyle and four questions from Ms Judy Lea for the Maldon Society of which prior notification had been given.  A copy of the questions and prepared responses from the Leader of the Council were circulated to all Members and those in attendance at the meeting.

From Mr Scott Lyle:

Question:

“What are Maldon District council going to do about the growing friction caused between 13+ complainants about the peafowl and the democratic majority of the village who wish to retain the peafowl?”

Response:

For the benefit of those that do not know about the issue referred to, which is within Mayland, for background fourteen residents in the Mayland area have complained that they are suffering a continuing nuisance caused by a number of peafowl being allowed to roam free onto their privately owned land.  The Council, as the local authority, has an obligation to investigate when it is in receipt of such complaints. Evidence obtained to date would suggest that these peafowl are having a detrimental effect, of a persistent or continuing nature, on the quality of life of those in the locality.

The one identified owner so far, who owns only some of the peafowl, has been served with a Warning Notice under the provisions of the Anti-social Crime and Policing Act 2014, requiring them to retain the birds within their own land.  Since serving the Warning Notice it has come to the Council’s attention that some of the peafowl may belong to other people, which has led to the siting of the Public Notices in the location.

In answer to the question raised, in respect of poor relationships between the residents within the village of Mayland, whilst the Council is very concerned to hear of this any friction between residents is a civil issue to which the Council are unable to become involved.  Any concerns may be better raised with the Parish Council, as a civil local authority, or with the owners of the peafowl themselves directly.

Whilst the Council can empathise with all parties concerned it has a statutory function to fulfil.

From Ms Judy Lea:

Questions:

“Maldon District Council decision on application 16/00862 from Essex County Council on nuclear waste imports to Bradwell from Sizewell and Dungeness

Even though Bradwell and some other power stations are now reaching the end of their life there is still no national long term safe repository for the radioactive waste they leave behind, despite many promises over recent decades.

There was a prudent stipulation on the original Bradwell planning approval to ensure that the waste stored there would only be that which had been produced there.  The recent application to receive radioactive waste from other stations breaches that principle, which is still one important to members of the public and some at least  ...  view the full minutes text for item 483