6 replies
  1. Colin Wilderspin
    Colin Wilderspin says:

    Whilst I am not against this, I think timing is key, we need to make sure we are doing what we can in the village, as we approach the light at the end of the tunnel regarding COVID I think this is an unwelcome distraction.

    What are the real benefits to Tintagel right now? Why this village in Italy.

    Lets work on getting the community back together first otherwise it will not be a great experience when they come to visit, if we are divided.

    Please put this discussion on hold until we can properly discuss. There is no benefit on speeding this through.

    • A Burton
      A Burton says:

      Absolutely spot on. This is completely unnecessary at the present time. Let’s sort our village out first!
      Parking, public toilets, the playground and facilities at memorial ground all need addressing first which the Parish Council should be involved in supporting! The PC have money invested in 3 Bank accounts, yet won’t pay for the toilets to be reduced back to 20p which they voted to do months ago.

      • Clerk
        Clerk says:

        Dear Mr Burton,

        Thank you for your response.

        As has been previously discussed, on this site and in our PC Minutes, the issues relating to the public lavatories have been muddied by the occurrence of COVID 19, which has required additional precautions to be undertaken by the Parish Council. In particular, these include ;the increased cleaning requirements at the facilities, increased consumption of expensive cleaning fluids. These have increased the overall costs of provision. Consequently, it was not possible to introduce a reduced sum of 20 pence at the lavatories.

        Unfortunately, the lavatories, which were originally County Council facilities, were divested to the Parish Council – because provision of the same did not garner a profit for the County Council. The burden of provision of the lavatories now falls upon the Parish (arguably, because there was no discernible reduction in the level of Council Tax charged by County, Parishioners are paying twice for the facilities – double precepting). Is it then fair that Parishioners should be burdened with an additional cost, over and above those costs imposed by COVID 19? – the Parish Council does not think so.

        Over and above the running costs for the lavatories, the Parish Council is required to pay business rates to the County Council, this adds several more thousands of pounds to the costs – borne again by the Parishioners of Tintagel.

        The parking issues to which you refer are in hand, as is highlighted in the recent Parish Council Minutes.

        The Memorial ground is managed by an independent trust and is not, therefore, the responsibility of the Parish Council – although on occasion the PC does assist with maintenance matters – therefore the Parish Council does offer support to the same.

        The need to plan now, for the future, is a necessary part of the economic and social recovery of the Parish, and that task includes consideration of all options.

  2. Fiona Smart
    Fiona Smart says:

    We need to get our village what it needs first before spending precious time and money outside the County and Country

  3. Clerk
    Clerk says:

    Dear Colin,

    thank you for your considered comment on the issue of Town Twinning.

    Whilst any Town Twinning agreement is not a ‘done deal’, the benefits that the partnership could provide for Parishioners and businesses in the area should be given consideration.

    The opportunities offered for all age groups in the Parish are unlikely to be available indefinitely. These opportunities include training for young persons, business exchange opportunities and the chance to increase tourism (ergo income) to the Parish.

    The Parish Council is working to plan for a new future (however that may look) and to address certain problems in the village (such as parking). However, the foundations for the future have to be considered in the present, to ensure that the Parish is best placed to compete with other areas.

    Part of the overall plan is to create facilities and opportunities for parishioners, and this could feasibly be done in tandem with the Comune di Silvi.

    You asked why a town in Italy wishes to twin with Tintagel? As previously highlighted, representatives of Silvi approached the Parish Council, as several have visited the area previously. Silvi is a resort on the Adriatic coast of Italy and has an interesting history – therefore, Silvi has traits in common with Tintagel.

    The discussions with Silvi representative has been on-going for some time and have been alluded to in Council Minutes, this website and on noticeboards. Opportunities to become involved in discussions have also been offered to Parishioners.

    Whilst nothing can be undertaken at present, do Parishioners wish to lose this chance?

Comments are closed.