Public Lavatories update

Whilst it was agreed at the recent Parish Council meeting to open one of the Lavatories at Trevena Square, this cannot be done until the guidelines provided have been adhered to.

These include:

  • Deep clean
  • Legionnaires test
  • Cleaning measures available 3 times a day.

The Parish Council will update as soon as possible.

Response from Tintagel Parish Council to a letter posted on the “Tintagel Web”.

Dear Sir,

It was with some interest that we read the statement on your website – appertaining to Tintagel Visitor Centre. It is perhaps a pity that the author of the commentary was unwilling to add his, or her, name to the piece.

It is clear from the quotation from the Parish Council Minutes for May 2020, that the author of this statement has been rather selective in his, or her, offering to the public. He, or she, has clearly omitted the fact that the Visitor Centre has made substantial losses for a lengthy period of time, and that those losses are being met by the Parishioners of Tintagel. Nor is the fact that one suggestion under consideration is the creation of a community space for Parishioners alluded to.  The author was evidently aware of the comments raised (clearly articulated in published minutes) a month ago – yet pens his, or her, statement a few days prior to the next Parish Council Meeting. How could this individual have been so negligent? –  failing to provide adequate notice to Parishioners of his, or her, opposition and disgust and offering an early opportunity to object to any changes relating to the TVC?

Yet, in his, or her, statement, there is no cohesive argument put forward to justify why such a facility should be retained, or highlighting the perceived benefits that the facility brings to the village. Does he, or she, ask how many Parishioners use the Visitor Centre? Do they object to financing the centre? – not a bit of it!

Tintagel is an area of severe deprivation, as attested to by the Index of Multiple Deprivation. Is it fair that those who are struggling to meet their financial and social commitments should unnecessarily bear the costs of a loss making enterprise? Perhaps the author of the letter does not share the hardships of those who are struggling. The principle, that the poor should finance the wealthy, was clearly disabused at the time of the French Revolution.

Despite inferences to the contrary, the public has had a month to register any views which they hold in respect of the suggestions made about the TVC at the last Parish Council meeting. Only ONE has been received (on 29th June 2020).

The author of the statement has also provided erroneous and misleading advice to readers. Whilst the Parish Council Meetings are ‘virtual’, our published agenda clearly advises Parishioners that they can access the Meetings by requesting a link to the same.

Tintagel Parish Council 30.06.20

STATEMENT FROM TINTAGEL PARISH COUNCIL.

It has been brought to the attention of the Parish Council that adverse comments have been made, which relate to the Tintagel Social Hall, Toilets and Visitor Centre. Unfortunately, the old adage, once again, applies: ‘One side of a story holds good until the other side is told’.

We do not usually respond to Facebook chatter. However, the nature of some of the comments made in recent days do, we feel, merit our response.

Tintagel Social Hall

Tintagel Parish Council has never claimed ownership of the Social Hall. The deeds appertaining to the transfer of the building clearly state that the Parish Council is the ’Principal Trustee’.

When the former board of Trustees was dissolved, two public meetings were held – and all options permissible under the Deed of Transfer were discussed. One of those options – as stated in the Legal Deed – was that if no trustees were forthcoming, then the Social Hall would revert to the Parish Council. The onus upon the Parish Council would then be to maximise the benefit for the Parishioners – that may have involved the sale of the site and the creation of a new, purpose built, Social Hall for the Village – again, such a facility would have been owned by the Parish (as opposed to the Parish Council).

The composition of, and appointment to, the Board of Trustees is not, and never has been, the responsibility of the Parish Clerk, or the Parish Council. The Tintagel Social Hall Board of Trustees is a separate legal entity – responsible for its own administration. Therefore, there was a legal obligation, under the terms of the Deed of Transfer’ and under Charity Law, for the Trustees to ensure statutory compliance and make all Trustees aware of their obligations.

At the public meetings, referred to above, the Parish Clerk was asked to attend in order to take Minutes and, in light of her legal qualifications, ensure that the Terms of the Deed of Transfer were made known to Trustee Applicants. It is not the fault of the Clerk (either present or former) that Trustees did not understand their legal situation.

It is to be noted at this juncture, that the invoice submitted by the Clerk was in respect of her assistance at these meetings. The remuneration had always been earmarked for the creation of the Junior Marching Band. That is, the Clerk did not retain the monies for personal use. The fee was donated for the benefit of Tintagel Youth.

Why were these facts not to alluded to in social media discussions?

We turn now to the issue of Parish Council support for the Social Hall.

Over the past three years, the Parish Council has met many of the Social Hall’s expenses; not seeking to recover the same from the Social Hall fund because you, as Parishioners, were entitled to that support in order to ensure the longevity of the venue.

Why was that fact not alluded to in social media discussions?

This year, as in all previous years, the Parish Council has met the entire cost of insuring the Social Hall and ensuring that the Trustees are properly protected. The sum involved was in excess of £400. Further to the provision of insurance cover, the Parish Council pays to use the Social Hall for its meetings. We feel that our actions qualify as ‘support’.

Why have these facts not been alluded to in social media discussions?

A recent grant of £10,000 made to the Social Hall was initiated by the Parish Clerk, who advised the Chairperson of the Social Hall that the monies were available. The Clerk had also been asked to assist with the procurement of further funds – that work was to be undertaken by the Clerk at no cost to the Social Hall or the Parish Council.

Why was that fact not alluded to in social media discussions?

We are therefore at a loss to understand why the ‘Key Board Warriors’ are so keen to engage in wholesale criticism of the Parish Council? If Parishioners want to know the whole story – then please, just ask.

The Tintagel Visitor Centre

The Tintagel Visitor Centre does not make money for the village. Indeed, for the past few years, it has been running at a substantial loss (£38,000 over three years). That is a situation which the current Membership of the Parish Council is seeking to remedy.

Previous proposals to address the problem were always met with extreme opposition from some ex-councillors.

Three years ago, an in-depth review of the facility was carried out by the then new Clerk. Recommendations were made, for which the Clerk was lambasted. It was clearly highlighted in the report that Parishioners money was not being used wisely. Notwithstanding the evidence available, the TVC was deemed an asset by several Members and continued to operate.

The discussion was raised again a year later with the same result – some ex-members (and others) insisted on the facility remaining and then utilised their power to engage in a campaign of harassment and libel against the Clerk and those Councillors who did not share their views. Those people know who they are, and should acknowledge responsibility for their decisions, rather than criticise those who are attempting to address the chaos left behind.

Parish Council Minutes clearly show that, on many occasions, the Clerk has;

  • Advised of the dire financial situation, and;
  • Highlighted, vociferously, the facts that

a. Tintagel is an area of severe deprivation;

b. It was grossly unfair to expect the Parishioners to carry the financial burdens of insolvent facilities;

c. The need to consider what is beneficial to Parishioners, first and foremost and;

d. many of those who were making the decision to retain and maintain non-beneficial assets did not share the same depth of hardship experienced by many of those Parishioners, who were being asked to subsidise those facilities.

We believe that those comments indicate a person with a well-defined social conscience. Our current Parish Councillors share those sentiments.

We are now looking at ways to utilise the TVC space for the greater benefit of the village – what, we ask, is wrong with that? The Parish Council is for the benefit of the many – not just the few.

However, the TVC has not been closed down – nor is it being demolished. The Parish Council is merely considering options at this point. A full discussion will be held in July. Please note that the Minutes of the June 2020 Meeting have not yet been ratified.

Other Matters

  • The Parish Council has, in previous years, undertaken the ownership/ management of facilities that have given little, or no, benefit to the Parishioners of Tintagel. Two sets of public lavatories cost you, the Parishioner, over £15,000 in 2019/20, the income from the same was just over £400, one set raised no income at all, but incurred costs in excess of, £6000 – is that an appropriate use of your money?
  • Is it acceptable for people operating outside this Parish to make financial demands of the Parish Council (therefore Parishioners) to meet the costs of facilities that have little or no benefit to the Parish? Resistance to such demands was agreed upon – in order to preserve funds for the people of the parish. Was that wrong?
  • Is it fair to expect the Parishioners of Tintagel to meet the costs of operating Cornwall Council owned assets, when Cornwall Council gains substantial income from its car parks, but does not share that income?
  • There has been, for the past year, a concerted effort by certain persons in the Parish, to undermine the Parish Council and the Clerk. That is not the conduct of civically minded people.
  • Our Clerk has had to tolerate on-going harassment from persons within and out with the Parish, merely because she is carrying out her work efficiently and has identified a number of matters which require extensive investigation. Is that harassment fair?
  • Comments have been made relating to the dissemination of information. This is surprising as all Agendas/ Minutes are on the Parish Council website and the minutes are very detailed –  a fact well known to some of those engaging in that discussion.
  • Our Clerk has suggested and arranged for the purchase and distribution of lavatory rolls, soap and bottled water to vulnerable Parishioners, during Covid 19 and the recent water matter. She was supported in this by the Members who accepted that there was a requirement to help Parishioners where possible. Is that a bad thing?
  • The Clerk is attempting to set up a Junior Marching Band for young people in the village and has partially financed the set-up cost – is that a bad thing?
  • The Clerk and Parish Council supported the creation of the youth club for the village – Was that a bad thing?
  • The Parish Council provided grants to the Carnival Committee; The Christmas Lights Committee; Friends of Tintagel; Cornwall Air Ambulance; The Brownies; Tintangels Pre-school; Tintagel; Parochial Council (cemetery maintenance), Methodist Cemetery, Tregatta, and others. Is that unacceptable to Parishioners? Do Parishioners wish these donations to cease?

Public Lavatories

The Parish Council has received a great deal of criticism in relation to its provision of public lavatories.

Do Parishioners realise that they are paying the total costs of these facilities? The Parish Council does not receive any payment from business rates or car park income – those payments go, in their entirety, to Cornwall Council. The Parish Council even has to pay business rates on the lavatory buildings.

A large percentage of your precept payment is spent on public conveniences. Therefore, the Parish Council is not able to spend that money on the Parishioners of Tintagel. Is that fair?

The current Parish Council Membership has taken the decision to become more inward facing. That is, we intend to focus more on the needs of Parishioners. Is that a bad thing?

The current Parish Council Membership wishes to assess the financial viability of assets held, in order to determine their future value and potential – is that being financially reckless?

Conclusion

We, as the Parish Council, have now stated the facts of many matters for which we are being decried.

Parish Councillors work hard – for no remuneration.

The Clerk works hard – often for seven days a week.

The Parish Council had determined that the Parishioners of Tintagel should be at the heart of decisions made – is that wrong?

Yet – we are criticised, demonised, bullied, harassed, and slandered – often by those who should know better. Some of the most critical commentators to date appear to be those who have made their own, significant, contributions to the financial situation in which we now find ourselves.

This Parish Council wants to provide for Parishioners, not spend your money on loss making enterprises, and assets owned by others – unless that is what the Parishioners want.

TINTAGEL PARISH COUNCIL- 15th June 2020.

Message From Tintagel Carnival Committee.

Following a review by Tintagel Carnival committee, it is with much regret and sadness that we announce that the 2020 Carnival Week and Parade will NOT be taking place. We have been closely monitoring the Coronavirus situation over the past few weeks and have explored all options, however, it is becoming increasingly evident that it would be both irresponsible and unfeasible to continue with Carnival this year during these uncertain and challenging times. The decision has not been taken lightly however the safety and wellbeing of our community, visitors and Carnival participants is always our primary concern. We are also very conscious of the impact that the event would have on the NHS, emergency services and local authority who are doing an amazing job and we do not want to unnecessarily stretch their resources any further. Whilst this is a sad & disappointing decision, and we can assure you that the Tintagel Carnival Committee are equally as sad and disappointed, this is the right thing to do! Keep safe everyone, look after yourselves and see you for Tintagel Carnival 2021 (Next carnival dates will be 31st July – 7th Aug 2021 ‘Carnival Day Sat 7th Aug). Kind regards Phil Aston, Chairman, Tintagel Carnival Committee

Removal of Recycling Banks from Tintagel

NOTICE TO PARISHIONERS: 19.05.20

Removal of Recycling Banks from Tintagel

 Tintagel Parish Council has been advised by the Waste Management Team at Cornwall Council that the recycling banks, situated at the Bossiney Road Car Park, are to be removed, in the near future.

These facilities are not being replaced

 

The following statement has been made by Cornwall Council Waste Management Team:

 

‘We are currently working on the programme to remove the recycling banks from various sites and will be in touch again, nearer the time of the planned removal.  We will ensure you are aware of the date of removal and any actions that we will be taken around this period of time.

 

The new Waste Contract that commences in October 2020 will see the cessation of this service and therefore there are no discussions being undertaken to reimburse Council Tax payers for removal of this service. ‘

 

 

DART FRESH FOOD & SUPPLIES

Grant funding scheme for vulnerable supply chains.

Grant funding scheme for vulnerable supply chains

COVID-19: Government financial support for garment and agricultural businesses with vulnerable supply chains in developing countries.

In response to the Coronavirus, Covid-19, the Government has set up COVID-19 Vulnerable Supply Chains Facility (VSCF).

This initiative has been set up by the Department for International Development (DFID) in partnership with the Department for International Trade to offer grants and/or technical assistance of the value between £200,000 and £600,000.

The support is intended to ensure vulnerable workers and suppliers are prepared for the economic and social shocks of COVID-19.

VSCF will support proposals that focus on the garment and agriculture sectors in at least one of the following countries: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Chad, DRC, Ethiopia, Ghana, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Lebanon, Libya, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Myanmar, Niger, Nigeria, OPTs, Pakistan, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Uganda, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Eligibility

Applications of support from VSCF are welcome from:

  • businesses facing industry challenges and looking for advisory/ facilitation support
  • businesses looking to support the livelihoods of poor and vulnerable workers and suppliers in their supply chains
  • not-for-profit organisations supporting MNCs/SMEs and their suppliers in specific sectors/ geographies
  • not-for-profit organisations supporting transparency and accountability mechanisms within/across specific supply chains
  • not-for-profit organisations supporting informal workers and smallholder farmers that are part of global supply chains
READ MORE
UKFT is in constant dialogue with the government and is outlining the latest support available for businesses on our website. We will update the details as and when the situation changes. 
UKFT CORONAVIRUS GUIDANCE
Click here to discover more on the UKFT website
Cornwall Council Logo

Maintaining our community infrastructure.

Cornwall Council, through its service provider Cormac is embarking on a programme of works to help maintain essential community infrastructure – such as parks, amenity areas, rights of way and the coast path. These all benefit people’s daily exercise regimes and help their social well-being.

Cormac will ensure the teams maintain social distancing. We are asking residents in the affected areas to observe any diversions or security fencing that they see and respect the teams during these works.

Yesterday, grass cutting works were carried out in and around Penzance, Redruth, Falmouth, Penryn, Portreath, North Country, Torpoint, Bodmin, Saltash, Newquay and St Columb Minor. Works were carried out on the coast path (cutting back of vegetation) in the following areas: Porth and Mawgan Porth; and Perranuthnoe and Prussia Cove. Watering was carried out in Redruth, Falmouth, Penzance, Pool and St Austell areas.

Today, teams are due to carry out grass cutting in and around Penzance, Camborne, Four Lanes, Scorrier, Falmouth, Torpoint, Saltash, Porth and St Columb Minor areas: plus coast path works in Perranuthnoe, Trebarwith and Tintagel areas; and watering in the Redruth, Falmouth, Penzance and Pool areas. Planned works are subject to operational issues and pressures.

ROAD CLOSURE – from Rockhead Street to Hendra, Delabole 11th to 15th May 2020

Cornwall Streetworks Team.

Road From Rockhead Street To Hendra, Delabole – order

Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 S.14: Temporary Prohibition of Traffic on the road from Rockhead Street To Hendra, Delabole
11th to 15th May 2020 (09:30 to 15:30). Contact: A Plant Lux for BT, Tel: 03700 500792
The above closure has been approved. Please click the following link to view a map and associated documents:
https://one.network/?tm=116834430
Applicants are reminded that they have undertaken to notify all interested parties known to be directly affected by the closure including, if appropriate, bus companies and all frontagers on the length of the road such as local residents and businesses as well as other traders who may have to make deliveries and/or collections in the area.Applicants and contractors are also reminded that they are responsible for the provision, erection, maintenance and removal of all necessary signing.