Portishead Town Council Meeting 8 June 2016 - Annette Hennessy

• Report rights infringement
• published: 24 Jun 2016
• views: 1

First topic was to discuss the matter of ensuring that councillors declared their prejudicial interests as required by their Code of Conduct. Some councillors neglect to declare their interests appropriately, particularly in meetings. One councillor hadn't completed his declaration of interests form correctly and this was posted on the council website completely blank except for his signature. Amazing that this slip up wasn't noticed by anyone involved in this important part of political administration. But after raising this with the council, he has corrected his form now and this has been confirmed in an email from the deputy clerk of Portishead Town Council. Secondly was mention of the police. More will follow on the unnecessary request by the council clerk for a police presence and emails will be circulated. The clerk has also confirmed that the ancient act regarding disruption at meetings, applies to councillors as well as the public. So why didn't she call the police every time her councillors (as she likes to refer to them) breached their Code of Conduct and treated the public with utter contempt for merely ensuring the facts were heard, instead of the lies spouted by elected representatives? Then thirdly the skatepark. The lies are still being peddled and it is important that the facts are known, irrespective of how long ago the skatepark proposal was because a new location is still being sought (although you wouldn't believe it from the inactivity by Cllr David Oyns) by the same man who actively obstructed a skatepark at the Lake Grounds and said "Not in anybody's back yard". The public's voice was not represented by the town council nor the district council. They are supposed to represent the electorate, not their personal or political agendas. Fourth issue is the Portbury Wharf Nature Reserve, the following questions are being brushed under the carpet: 1. Where is Carl Haley of Persimmon? 2. Why isn't he being held to account for what has happened within PMML? He was director before Nigel Ashton and remained for three years after. They sat very cosily on the same PMML board. 3. Why haven't any of the PMML directors communicated with the levy payers adequately on this matter? 4. Why hasn't Cllr Arthur Terry been fully open and transparent on his dealings as a director of PMML with regard to the reserve fund and land ownership? Cllr Terry supported the removal of the levy pre election. 5. Why didn't PMML directors oust Carl Haley from the PMML board along with Nigel Ashton? 6. If PMML collected the money from levy payers, why does it say it cannot give it back? Was the administration that bad under the noses of PMML directors? If so, why did they do nothing? 7. Can we believe none of the directors gained anything from their involvement with PMML? Finally, is the matter of the bench on the Royal Pier Path and Steps. A bench that Crest Nicholson promised to fully fund and install. This was agreed in a meeting with residents and NSC was kept informed at all times. A bench that North Somerset Council is obstructing for no valid reasons whatsoever. If NSC is concerned about the maintenance of that bench once the path is transferred back to NSC from Crest, then I will maintain it. Other supporters of the bench have also said they will help although NSC said that resident funding will not be necessary. No response has been received from NSC to my letter challenging its reasons for instructing Crest NOT to put in the bench. The fight will continue. We must stand up for commonsense on a matter where not putting the bench in makes no sense at all.