March 2022 Extraordinary Parish Meeting Minutes
THEDDLETHORPE PARISH EXTRAORDINARY MEETING
Minutes of the extraordinary Parish meeting held on Thursday, 17 March 2022, 7.00pm
Theddlethorpe Village Hall, Silver Street, Theddlethorpe All Saints.
Chairman: Cllr C Richardson
Parish Clerk: Mrs S Bristow
Parishioners in attendance and confirmed against the electoral role: 49 (inclusive of the Chairman)
Unconfirmed attendee: 1
Item 01 Chairman’s Welcome
Cllr Richardson (CR) welcomed the parishioners and confirmed the extraordinary meeting was convened by six named parishioners: Sarah Goodley, Andrea Spink, Brian Swift, Sandra Nicholson, Mike Roberts, and Jane Roberts
Item 02 Meeting Guidelines
CR reminded the parishioners of his role, the Clerk’s role, and their role during this meeting
Item 03 Background information: what a GDF is, the process and timeline of siting a GDF, and Search Areas
CR asked the room if this background information needed to be reviewed and the consensus was that it did not
Item 04 Contents of a questionnaire with regard to the GDF proposal at the former gas terminal site.
CR invited parishioner A Spink (AS) to present the slides she had contributed to the presentation. AS accepted this invitation and began by stressing the questionnaire being presented was strictly a draft.
Introduction. Parishioner asked AS who the questionnaire was aimed at. AS replied, it was for the villagers. She noted the Nuclear Waste Service (NWS) had been polling villagers on the GDF plans and that this was their opportunity to try to influence ELDC and LCC councillors, who had ceased responding to emails about the GDF. The survey results are expected to supply robust evidence of villagers’ positions on the GDF. Parishioner remarked that this matter would be voted on in 15 years’ time and that the people present tonight would not necessarily be here then. AS reiterated that this was to support influence on ELDC and LCC and was to protect the next generations of residents.
Question 1. Presented without remark.
Question 2. Parishioner remarked that “Other” should be included as an option.CR suggested that another set of boxes, as an example, might clarify the ranking method. Parishioner suggested adding a header to the table with an example to ensure clarity.
Question 3. Remarks from Question 2 discussion referred to as they relate to Question 3.
Question 4. Parishioner suggestion to change wording of “booked” depending on when the questionnaire is sent.
Questions 5 and 6. Parishioner suggested a choice of “Prefer not to say” be added to keep consistency with earlier questions. CR suggested a section where Parishioners could write down their reasons for dissatisfaction could yield useful information for those analysing the questionnaire responses.
Questions 7 and 8. CR and a Parishioner remarked the comments about Questions 5 and 6 also apply to these two questions. AS suggested adding weblinks to both NWS and Guardians of the East Coast (GOTEC, the local No Campaign) to help people find more information. Parishioner asked about villagers without technology, AS and a Parishioner acknowledged NWS had been dropping leaflets through doors and that they would speak to GOTEC about doing same whilst realising there is a disparity of funding between NWS and GOTEC. AS confirmed her belief that NWS presentations and information drops should be followed up by one from GOTEC to ensure villagers have both sides of the issue. Another Parishioner suggested adding a choice of “planning to attend”.
Questions 9 and 10. AS noted the collection point for questionnaires on the draft likely needing changing and a Parishioner said an “Any other comments” section should be added.
Item 05 Mode of delivery and/or circulation of said questionnaire.
AS remained as presenter and discussion continued regarding to whom the questionnaire would be addressed: the household or individually. Suggestions were made on a variety of possibilities including a note to request more copies of the form from the Parish Clerk (Clerk) if household member’s views differed, to multiple household member’s ticking different boxes on the same form. Clerk and a Parishioner suggested one per name on the electoral roll (ER). CR said some 30-40 individuals were missing from the ER. Parishioners raised questions about costs and CR noted the Parish Council had budgeted a small fund set aside to support if that’s what Parishioners wanted. A Parishioner reiterated accuracy and concerns about fraud if households were allowed to ask for multiple forms while CR reminded the room of the scrutiny the results could come under. Parishioner said a former Councillor had volunteer to invigilate the returned questionnaires, but CR noted the Clerk is the independent point person. The Parishioners agreed the Clerk should take a role in the questionnaire process.
Circulation suggestions ranged from Hand delivery to post out and hand return to post both ways. Parishioner asked again about funds for the extra postage costs and CR suggested he could ask if potential funding available from the NWS Working Group (WG). CR cautioned that 3rd party funding might lead to the 3rd party input into the process, which was vocally dissented to by the room. Parishioner asked for CR to be clear on costs and he suggested it was some £350 each way for post if delivered to individual households, after which a Parishioner re-stated the hand delivery possibility. Parishioner stated that the process needed to beyond scrutiny and as near to a Parish Poll as possible and was of the opinion that post out and post back was the only way to minimise scrutiny of the process. Parishioners agreed that the survey needed to remain as independent as possible and that outside funding would take that away. The Clerk was asked about the serialising of the forms to further shield the process from scrutiny.
Resolved: Clerk shall be engaged to print, brand, and post questionnaires with a stamped return envelope included.
Discussion moved to the address where questionnaires would be returned. The Clerk noted her discomfort at the notion of returns to her home address. The Village Hall was ruled out as the post-box is too small and it was confirmed the Postman actually delivers the Hall’s post to the Hall Chairman’s home. A Parishioner asked about getting a larger box, with the Clerk holding the key, but another Parishioner expressed concerns about the security of responses. Parishioners suggested a PO Box, with one saying it was a minimum one-year contract. This was rebutted by another Parishioner who referenced on her smartphone that a sorting office collection PO Box was available for a 3-month minimum at £35.10 per month. Parishioners stressed this was for the return of this questionnaire and AS agreed to add a return date to the questionnaire. CR confirmed the Parish Council can print the questionnaires and that they would discuss the funding at the next Council meeting on 24 March.
Resolved: The Parish Council will hire a collection PO Box from the Alford Sorting Office for 3 months at £35.10 per month.
The question of when the questionnaire would be sent was raised and discussion took place that it should follow on from the upcoming round of NWS events and a suggestion that it be within the next 6 to 8 weeks. A Parishioner enquired about who will be analysing the returned forms and a suggestion that the local Residents’ Association could support was dismissed over concerns about impartiality under scrutiny. Five Parishioners volunteered to sit with the Clerk as all returned forms were revealed and given over to them for data input and analysis.
The fact that the Electoral Register was not entirely correct was discussed by the Parishioners and it was agreed that villagers needed a reminder to ensure they’re voting records were up to date.
Resolved: The Resident’s Association will include a reminder on its upcoming newsletter to ensure villagers are aware of the upcoming questionnaire and to check their ER details are updated.
Item 05 was concluded at 20:15 and AS was re-seated in the hall.
Item 06 Lack of co-opted Parish Councillors
CR reminded Parishioners of the co-option process as published on the Parish Council’s website and that the process in in accordance with legal and customary expectations. He reiterated the basic requirements to become a councillor and that the skill sets desired by the Council at this time which were discussed and approved with Parishioners in October following criticism that the Parish Council did not have the skills necessary. CR said expressions of interest should be made to the Clerk. Several Parishioners expressed sadness that the Council had recent co-option candidates which were not voted onto the Council, saying that if local Councils were desperate for representation that it was shameful. Another Parishioner reminded the room that being a Councillor did not revolve around the GDF and CR stated that the Parish Council wanted to try to influence the bigger picture. A Parishioner said that they didn’t feel their voice was being heard to which CR reminded them that several Parishioners present attend Council meetings and share their voice in the public forum, that councillors are volunteers, and that the Council are bound by law on procedures. Another Parishioner asked about what the 12% Council tax rise pertained to if the Councillors were all volunteers, whilst another commented the only voice they heard at Council meetings was that of the Chairman, which was explained on procedural grounds.
The topic of last month’s cancelled Council meeting was raised, with the question asked by a Parishioner of how many had to be cancelled previously due to lack of quorum and shouldn’t that prompt co-options? CR reminded again that co-option is part of a democratic process and subject to a majority vote and that it is not to be taken personally if a majority vote is not achieved. A Parishioner asked for the specific skill sets desired, which were read out from the Council website by the Clerk. The Parishioner challenged when these were discussed and was assured the minutes of the meeting, held in Autumn 2021, were online for inspection. AS asked to speak to the co-option point directly and was allowed by CR. She told the room that, although her co-option attempt had been unsuccessful namely in that the Council didn’t value her application at that time, that councillors should be respected and, if you felt you could offer something, to put yourself forward for co-option. If you don’t stick your neck out, don’t make excuses and complain, adding she may or may not put herself forward for election in 2023 so voters can decide if they want a person like her on the council. AS then stated, that the Co-option issue had been raised by her for clarity to all Parishioners. CR stated that he thought the issues raised on the evening had come from Parishioners via the Residents Association. AS confirmed that this was not the case, the views were hers. The Clerk confirmed to AS that AS had identified the issues were raised by Parishioners at Residents Association meetings and not her own personal issues. CR further challenged statements made by AS and that the PC had offered her other opportunities to work with the PC which AS had turned down as was her right to do so. AS reiterated her desire to be a trustee of the Rook Foundation and she hadn’t heard anything back about that. CR said that issue would need to be resolved by that foundation and not in this forum.
Item 07 Standing Item about the GDF
CR said the standing item about the GDF was removed in January as there were no updates. Parishioner suggested with the ongoing nature of the process, wasn’t it worth leaving on going forward. CR said it wasn’t up to him, rather the Council would have to make the decision. CR said the GDF had been raised in the public forums while another Parishioner remarked the GDF questions were taking up the public forum time and other issues were not being heard, another suggested lengthening the 15-minute forum. CR said the time to be asking questions was once the process moved to Community Partnership (CP) and reminded the room that individuals could apply to join the CP process. A Parishioner wanted to ask Councillors seating in the room if they wanted a standing item added but was reminded their opinion in this matter would have no legal standing for the Council meetings. CR agreed to put forward the idea of Item 07 to the Councillors at the next meeting.
CR informed the room that, although the PC have no legal standing on the GDF matter, being on the Working Group is a good thing and he is trying to influence those who do. In addition, he reminded the Parishioners that if the PC left the process, that it still would not end. He was asked directly for his personal view on the GDF with several Parishioners stating that they needed to know what side he was on. A Parishioner asked what power or voting rights does CR have? CR confirmed has the same single vote as everyone else at time that a test of public support is carried out. The Parishioner then commented that CR’s personal point of view is irrelevant to the process and people need to get off his back. CR was then accused of not being empathetic to concerned residents, but it was noted he took a lot of dissension over the past several months.
CR stated that he made himself available right at the start to attend residents and No Campaign meetings but this was rejected on multiple occasions. Another Parishioner asked if the village said “no” right now, what would it do. CR replied it would do not stop the process at this time and he thought it would be unlikely to prevent a Community Partnership being formed, to which the Parishioner disagreed as CR was standing for the villagers’ interests. A Parishioner shouted out that they didn’t want to get to CP and wanted the process to stop now. It was suggested CR take the questionnaire results to the WG/CP. CR agreed that he would do so. CR stressed the WG isn’t about saying yes or no to the proposal but working through a national process, A Yes or No vote is the Test of Public Support and he would work to ensure that a vote takes place. A Parishioner stated that the questionnaire could be used to influence ELDC and LCC to withdraw from the process. Parishioner asked why CR had not told the WG the community were not willing to have the GDF which he replied that he’d had consistently shared & represented all views and all voices as in line with the Parish Council statement in December.
A Parishioner asked about timelines and a discussion about 10+ years ensued. The Clerk showed a diagram of the process. Parishioners remarked they didn’t want this hanging over them and emotional statements were made about how this looming GDF was affecting people. CR noted it was an upsetting issue for all which Parishioners were relieved to hear as they’d been unaware of his feelings until this point.
CR commented that the PC had planned a questionnaire of their own which was to accompany the December Parish Post, but this was deferred out of respect for Parishioners following the Parishioners desire to create their own for the meeting planned to be held on 20 January. A dissenting noise was forthcoming that the CR could not be believed. A convening Parishioner agreed, this meeting was delayed from January to March over COVID-19 concerns by the convening Parishioners and the delay was not on account of the PC. It was acknowledged in the room that there is a lack of trust on both sides now and that no one is here to be bullied or insulted, despite these things taking place in the past. It should not be seen as an us versus them culture. A Parishioner said she felt humiliated at being told to sit down at the conclusion of December’s public forum as the time was up. CR remarked that it was not his intent to humiliate anyone but explained about his deafness and difficulty in hearing multiple people talking in the echo of the Village Hall & he can be loud, but bringing the public forum to a close was due to the abuse shouted by some Parishioners which is in line with processes the PC has to follow.
Item 09 Any other business
Brought forward by a Parishioner who concerned NWS was avoiding questions from the media recently about GDF safety and admitted it should be safe. He also asked why cemeteries below sea level were being closed but this GDF was still being discussed - are the dead more polluting than nuclear waste? The Parishioner also raised security concerns over the material within the GDF.
A Parishioner asked about Carbon Capture schemes being discussed at PC meetings. CR said Harbour Energy planned to visit end of Q1/start of Q2, so he’d chase them up.
CR added that he’d contacted Neptune Energy about their DelPhynus proposal (Hydrogen Production). The reply stated that the project proposal was in its infancy and they had only applied for offshore disposal licenses. Any firm proposal & engineering studies would take many years. If they do go ahead with the project proposal then they are more than happy to come and talk to Parishioners once they’re in a position to do so. Parishioners remarked they thought the GDF was a rouse, and these exercises were a waste of taxpayer money. CR said our area is far behind in funding and we should consider all incoming funding opportunities. A Parishioner asked what the CP money would be used for, and CR noted he raised concerns in the WG that this Parish might not have applicants for this money & it is a real concern. So, consider what vison could we have because other communities will no doubt be making plans.
Asked by a Parishioner about his vision for the funding, CR remarked that he’s glad he’s not a teenager in the area, with limited prospects as there isn’t anything to look forward and speculated the funding could go to a specialist STEM school, or perhaps to fund solar panels on private homes; Parishioners need to formulate a vision of their own, feedback to the Council, and engage in the process. Parishioners offered different thoughts about the morality of taking the CP funding, saying other funding already exists, and two disagreed with the idea of there being nothing here for the young people. He reiterated that compensation is part of large infrastructure packages and to look at it that way, CR asked people to think about what the funds should be used for and to feedback to the PC.
He also reassured a Parishioner that the funds would not need paying back in the event we exited the process. He then added that the Council need to ensure they are influencing all the while during the process. A Parishioner remarked that if the GDF is such a great idea it should sell itself and another about child poverty and deprivation in Cumbria being worse than ours.
Item 08 Provision for Questions from the floor during Parish Council meetings
Clerk addressed the room reminding them the public forum is 15 minutes and going forward it is asked that questions be sent in advance, which can be which can be sent to councillors for their responses or noted for further consideration. The forum is best practice, not statutory. Exchanges such as those in December cannot be borne again. Questions being asked are not spontaneously and some are repetitive. Parishioner asked if we could have meetings such as this one going forward, perhaps twice annually. Clerk replied about the upcoming AGM and CR remarked that these types of meetings might even need to be more frequent given the proposals made for the site. Parishioner asked about having the proposers come to the meetings and CR agreed. A Parishioner asked about the ownership of the TGT site & remarked that National Grid own the site and Conoco lease the site, CR confirmed that is his understanding. The Parishioner questioned the names used, CR explained that ConocoPhillips were sold out to Chrysaor UK Ltd and in turn form part of Harbour Energy.
Meeting adjourned at 9.45pm