Agenda item

Information on public speaking is available online

Liza McLean spoke on Minute 110 Review of free car parks and charging hours. She was a Temple Street business owner and resident. She stated the free spaces in the car park served a few of the out of town businesses adjacent to the car park whom do not benefit from an in town location. She felt the current resident car parking spaces worked well.

Sally Mynard, Chair of the Sidmouth Chamber of Commerce spoke on Minute 109 Car Parks Review. She said the car parking price increases had gone through with no consultation and little concern for the economic health of her community and businesses they support. She asked the car parking charges be lowered due to many businesses facing a challenging time as well as residents. She reported the Chamber of Commerce had received complaints from residents and visitors and a survey showed the detrimental impact this was having on them. Visitors were not spending much time in Sidmouth and trade from May to September was lower than expected.

Ian Priestley, Chair of Colyford Residents Association spoke on Minute 111 Colyford Community Governance Review. He stated Colyford had a long and rich history with strong traditions. The last 30 years had seen development increase by approximately 20% and the population was now about 800. S106 funding from these developments had helped growth and the community’s amenities. He stated this was once in a generation opportunity, the Community Governance Review would restore democracy and benefits to provide services for the village. He thanked Henry Gordon Lennox and all staff for their continued hard work on this Community Governance Review.

Andrew Parr, Chair of Colyton Parish Council spoke on Minute 111 Colyford Community Governance Review. He said that Colyford had never been a parish therefore there was no traditional parish boundary. He asked the Parish Council’s proposed parish boundary be followed. He said Colyford had said they had had under investment in their village; roads, signage and bridges were not the responsibility of the Parish Council but the County Council’s. When they had wanted financial help on issues like resurfacing their car park, repairs to their village hall and play park the Parish Council had always assisted. He was concerned that the split of the community’s assets did not reflect in the distribution of finances to support their upkeep. He asked that they be no transfer of assets and that Colyton maintain their assets.

Colin Pady, Colyton Parish Councillor spoke on Minute 111 Colyford Community Governance Review. He rejected the proposal to split Colyford from the parish of Colyton. He said Colyton was an example of a well-run parish council and to dismantle this and diminish its assets was senseless.

Councillor Paul Hayward made a statement on his EDDC’s register of interests.

For a short period of time he had carried out internal auditor work for a local Parish Council after they had approached him and asked to assist following the untimely departure of their former auditor. As it was only an annual requirement he only carried out three audits for the Parish Council whilst being an elected member of this authority. Despite the fact that he didn’t want to charge anything for carrying out the work the Parish Council insisted in paying him for the audit service; between £50 and £100 for each audit. Upon receipt of those payments he subsequently paid that same amount to a local foodbank, sometimes as a cash donation and on other occasions as a donation of goods to the same value. To that end he wanted to reassure everyone and any members of the public that he did not therefore personally financially benefit in any way, and thus at the time did not consider it as a pecuniary interest requiring registration. Not including it on his published register of interests at the time of the audit Cllr Hayward said was simply an oversight. Having now taken further advice he accepted that it should have been included and on that basis he apologised unreservedly for that omission as it should have been declared on the online form available for public scrutiny.