Thursday 15 December 2016

Mylor Planning

The Parish Council in Mylor was stormy last night. There were roughly 100 people present. I stood in for Cllr Tony Martin to hear residents' views.

A team led by a representative of Savills (Bristol Office) arrived to explain how their client's planning application (PA16/10635) in a six acre field forming part of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty was just what Mylor needed.

There was a shortage of affordable housing within the Parish, which Savills said amounted to 91 units. The Chairman of the Parish Council said it was in fact 69 units. In either case it is a significant number.

The Chairman said that the Parish are working on a plan which includes work on where homes for local need may be sited.

Residents had many concerns about the current application:

1. The noise and disruption of construction traffic.

2. The adverse impact of further traffic through the village - congestion and speed issues (Jennifer Adams, Community Speedwatch Coordinator explained the stats. on this). Bizarrely, Savills claimed that affordable homes generated less traffic movements.

3. The unsuitability of the surrounding roads, particularly with residents having to reverse out onto Saltbox Road: the Savills team offered a new bit of pavement here in mitigation.

4. Mylor School is full to capacity (147 pupils with a capacity of 140). Savills acknowledged there was more to do to resolve this issue.

5. There would be a loss of Grade 2 agricultural land.

6. On flooding, we were advised that this area is 'only' Flood Zone 1 but Savills acknowledge that there is more to do to sort out foul and surface drainage. They plan attenuation ponds on the higher ground to soak up surface water.

The crux of it is that, even if other objections can be overcome, there can be no justification for a loss of ANOB land unless there is a real overriding need to provide affordable homes for people with local connections here. Savills were very very vague on that. Their client (not present as 'had suffered a puncture en route') asks for permission for 'up to 32' homes of which 'up to 50 per cent' would be affordable (70% social rented and 30% shared ownership).

The crucial phrase is 'up to'. So far as I can tell the applicant intends to sell on the land if permission is granted. They have done no work on how many affordable homes are viable. They have no partner in place to deliver the affordable homes. A cynic might say that there has been almost no work done on this at all. It looks like a peg to hang a permission on.

The very fact that Mylor has a need for local needs homes means that vague promises which will scar the AONB and could in the end providing almost no local need homes should be given short shrift.
There seemed every possibility that if permission were granted a future owner would be back looking to increase the density of housing on the site. At the moment about 50% is open space. This application looks like classic foot in the door stuff.

The Parish Council unanimously recommended refusal. I will ask Cllr Martin to support the Parish Council.

Sunday 4 December 2016

Friday 18 November 2016

Council Numbers: An Alternative Proposal

Proposal
The Council should have between 70 and 90 councillors in 2021. The exact number will depend on getting a good fit with parish boundaries to keep communities together and the ability to deliver effective and convenient local government.
Why?
1.  The Council needs to make or, in some cases scrutinise, significant decisions for Cornwall and must be accountable in that role.
From a practical perspective it is impossible for all 123 councillors to have a meaningful input into those decisions. The result is that many councillors become frustrated and are critical of decisions they do not believe that they can influence. Consequently members do not feel ownership of, or responsibility for, many of the decisions and strategies of the council. This makes for a fragmented and dysfunctional organisation.
It also means that the process of decision making is very slow and unduly burdensome.
This is the Council's third governance review in 7 years. Despite both this administration and the previous one trying to get more members involved in decision making the same frustrations exist.
The conclusion of the Governance Review External Group (GREG) was that the current  number of councillors was 'unworkable' (as reported by the Chief Legal Officer to the Electoral Review Panel on 7th September).
I have listed the references in the GREG (see Appendix A) that support my conclusion that GREG thought that the number of councillors should be radically reduced. GREG did not suggest a new number, as that was not part of their remit. 
A large number of councillors and, importantly, stakeholders gave evidence to the GREG. It is important to take note of what they say to maintain credibility with the partners (such as the health service) with which the Council works.
2. The Council agreed a devolution deal with central government in July 2015. The current administration also wants more devolved powers, as set out in its 'Case for Cornwall'.
The Government generally requires a mayoral model of governance in order to agree devolved powers. A compromise was reached for Cornwall that it would not need to have a mayor but it would be necessary to fundamentally review its governance. It was assumed that councillor numbers would be much reduced. This was to make the responsibility for the administration of the new powers more visible and accountable.
3. The current extremely burdensome structure of committees, often with single issue agendas, called at short notice, held on different days of the week and with overlapping responsibilities makes it difficult for councillors who have work or family commitments. Councillors could operate more efficiently without sacrificing democracy.
The manner in which the Council has dealt with this latest governance/electoral review is a case study which demonstrates the point.  Its initial submission, after a great deal of work by many committees (see Appendix B) and approximately 40 meetings so far, has been politely but heavily criticised by the Commission. It has been told to go back to 'first principles'. 
And councillors have now concluded that they have not done enough work to be able to make a second submission.
4. The target date is 2021. The Council has time in that period to improve its ways of working (see criticisms of outmoded working practices in the GREG report).
5. The public expect us to reduce our numbers. They are suffering reduced services but see only that councillor numbers remain the same and their allowances are going up.
6.  There is significant devolution of assets and services to the parish and town councils, the voluntary sector and other bodies (including the transfer of most schools to academies and the transfer of leisure services to a social enterprise). Reduced service provision should mean that there is less to be done by Cornwall Councillors. 
7. The evidence of the Chief Executive to the Independent Remuneration Panel should be given weight. She said that there had to be 'more discipline in the member cohort'.  This should not be interpreted as anti democratic but that the way in which members operate causes unnecessary operational burdens.
8. There are serious issues around councillors managing large rural divisions which would be exacerbated by reduced numbers. This could be ameliorated by a system of differential allowances for councillors with large divisions (and addressed by the Independent Remuneration Panel). It could also be helped by improved ways of working to help offset additional transport costs. It is impossible, in my view, to protest that we have too much to do already while doing little or nothing to improve our own ways of working.
9. There would be a cost saving at a time of austerity both on member allowances but more significantly also in terms of officer time. This could be better targeted to preserving services.
10. If the divisions were larger they would become unequal in terms of voter numbers less often. And we would therefore minimise the frequency of undertaking the exercise of equalising the divisions. This would be good for stability and save money as the process is incredibly resource intensive.
How would it work?
a) Rather than put forward my own committee structure for 70 to 90 councillors I would use the example structure set out in Appendix 7 of the Agenda for Electoral Review Panel dated 16th November. It could be refined.  
b) More efficient ways of working.
c) Possibly differential allowances for rural members.
d) The Council would need to work with parish and town councillors to increase resource.  The parishes have already decided to grip this difficult issue.  For example the Cornish Association of Local Councils (CALC) intend to look at the merits or otherwise of Community Network Panels to help fill in any gap. There have been two reviews already of the panels and whilst some will say that they work well others say they are of no value.  There is an opportunity here to increase the influence of town and parish councils to be more in line with the responsibilities they are taking on.   It would also help to close the operational and policy gap between Cornwall Council and themselves if the ownership of the panels was devolved to the parishes together with some financial responsibility.  If the numbers of Cornwall councillors is reduced, there will be an incentive to make better use of the panels.

Fiona Ferguson.
18th November 2016


Appendix A
What the experts (Cornwall Council Strategic Governance Review) said:
1. ' The Council had been given 'a once in a decade opportunity to develop and implement a new model of governance' and 'demonstrates ...that Council taken seriously challenge to undertake a fundamental review of its governance upon which the delay in implementing the electoral review in 2021 was based'. (page 5 )
2.'Within the Council, the large proportion of 'backbench' Councillors has led to an unhealthy feeling of marginalisation and disengagement from decisions made by the Executive' (page 6)
3. Councillors' ways of working were 'arguably unsustainable' and 'outmoded'.(page 7)
4. Many councillors felt 'marginalised' and 'disengaged' and this could 'severely impact the effectiveness of the organisation as well as having serious future implications for attracting and retaining councillors' (page 20)
5. On balance mayoral model was rejected (page 22).
6. Portfolio Advisory Committees created a ' significant bureaucratic burden which is a vast draw on both member and officer time whilst achieving only very limited influence' (page 24)
7. A degree of overlap between functions of committees resulting in arguments about areas of responsibility (page 24)
8. 'We support a reform...which would result in fewer committees' (page 26)
9. 'Very limited use is made of technology to reduce Member time spent travelling to meetings' (page 28)
10. Councillors' 'strategic role should have primacy ' (page 29)
11. 'As budgets are reduced and demand for services increase, ..the way Members are currently operating are arguably not sustainable' (Page 29)
12. Impact of double devolution and a more strategic role for Cornwall Council, leads us to consider that it will require substantially fewer Members to function effectively'. ( page 30)
13. The Council should 'support members to move role away from an obligation to identify and personally solve all problems to developing community resilience alongside local town and parish councils' (page 30)

Appendix B


Wednesday 2 November 2016

Advice to the Council on councillor numbers.

Yesterday there was a meeting to discuss a letter from the Local Government Boundary Electoral Commission ticking off the Council for failing to get the axe out to councillor numbers.

The Commission watched the Council's last discussion, via the webcast, on why they needed at least 105 to 115 councillors - and was none too impressed. This time the Council whinged in private!

Most councillors could see no evidence as to why fewer were needed. I acknowledge that councillor workloads are a particularly difficult issue in large rural divisions. It is also true that technology can create a lot of work as well as save it. It is much easier for residents to phone, text, email, tweet or Facebook us than have to write us a letter.

However, these are a few excerpts from the experts' report who had a close look at the Council and challenged us to be radical and reduce our numbers.

What the experts (Cornwall Council Strategic Governance Review) said:
1. ' The Council had been given 'a once in a decade opportunity to develop and implement a new model of governance' and 'demonstrates ...that Council taken seriously challenge to undertake a fundamental review of its governance upon which the delay in implementing the electoral review in 2021 was based'. (page 5 )
2.'Within the Council, the large proportion of 'backbench' Councillors has led to an unhealthy feeling of marginalisation and disengagement from decisions made by the Executive' (page 6)
3. Councillors' ways of working were 'arguably unsustainable' and 'outmoded'.(page 7)
4. Many councillors felt 'marginalised' and 'disengaged' and this could 'severely impact the effectiveness of the organisation as well as having serious future implications for attracting and retaining councillors' (page 20)
5. On balance mayoral model was rejected (page 22).
6. Portfolio Advisory Committees created a ' significant bureaucratic burden which is a vast draw on both member and officer time whilst achieving only very limited influence' (page 24)
7. A degree of overlap between functions of committees resulting in arguments about areas of responsibility (page 24)
8. 'We support a reform...which would result in fewer committees' (page 26)
9. 'Very limited use is made of technology to reduce Member time spent travelling to meetings' (page 28)
10. Councillors' 'strategic role should have primacy ' (page 29)
11. 'As budgets are reduced and demand for services increase, ..the way Members are currently operating are arguably not sustainable'   (Page 29)
12. Impact of double devolution and a more strategic role for Cornwall Council, leads us to consider that it will require substantially fewer Members to function effectively'. ( page 30)
13. The Council should 'support members to move role away from an obligation to identify and personally solve all problems to developing community resilience alongside local town and parish councils' (page 30)







Why should Cornish votes be worth less?

After strong criticism from the Conservative Group and having already burned up about £10,000, the 'no money' Council has agreed not to spend a six figure sum of Cornwall's money on a hopeless legal battle to fight sharing an MP with Devon.

However, it will still press on to attend meetings of the Boundary Commission in Devon and Cornwall next week to complain about this. Unfortunately, this is also a waste of Cornwall's money as the Boundary Commission has already explained to the Council.  The Boundary Commission has no power to address this issue.

To continue to protest about this, the Council needs to decide whether it is better to have only 5 rather than 6 MPs representing our interests at Westminster. This would make a Cornish vote worth about 17% less than votes in English counties, never mind other parts of the UK.

This is the plan the Council has currently been working on. Has it got a mandate to do this? It could also have some pretty strange effects on constituency borders within Cornwall.

Or, does it tell the Government that it cannot reduce the cost of politics by cutting MPs from 650 to 600, so that Cornwall can keep 6 MPs? Has it a mandate for what would only be a short term fix for Cornwall?

Would it be better to use the political influence of Cornish MPs to campaign for more money (or powers) for Cornwall rather than pleading a special case that Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly (total voters about 394,000) should have 6 MPs when we are only 1600 voters over the limit for 5?

So far, perhaps recognising the difficulty, the Council has not discussed it with the people of Cornwall. Consequently the Council has no mandate but is just having a general shout – at the wrong people; because The Boundary Commission has no power to address this issue.

Friday 28 October 2016

Devonwall

Don’t spend thousands fighting a legal battle that can’t be won
Conservatives urge Council not to continue with Devonwall legal challenge

The Conservative Group at Cornwall Council has always been opposed to the idea of the cross county Parliamentary boundary concept known as ‘Devonwall' and they remain firmly apposed to it.

However, legal advice that Cornwall Council has received from a QC is that a legal challenge is extremely unlikely to succeed as it has been an Act of Parliament since 2011. This decision was made five years ago by a coalition led Government, which at the time saw Cornwall represented in Parliament evenly by three Conservative MP’s and three Lib Dem’s.

In this instance the Conservative Group feels strongly that residents would prefer that public money were spent funding more essential services in Cornwall such as Adult Social Care, Road Maintenance and even Public Conveniences and not funding an expensive legal battle that ultimately only lawyers themselves will win.

Commenting on the issue the Conservative Group Leader, Cllr John Keeling, said: “This isn’t about whether we’re happy with the idea of Devonwall, it’s about whether we’re happy to continue spending public money on a legal battle that we as a council cannot win. We’ve already spent a significant amount of money getting Counsel Opinion so why would you go against that recommendation and start spending thousands more.”

A request by the Conservative Group for the meeting to be cancelled was overlooked by the administration. The result is that Tuesday’s extraordinary meeting scheduled for 10.30am in Truro will go ahead creating additional travel expense for all attending councillors as well as significant expenditure on more officer time.

Marsh,Baxter,Hendra Appeal

The appeal made by Marsh & Baxter Developments Limited & Hendra TC & CP Limited
against the decision of Cornwall Council has been allowed. This decision will certainly not help the enabling development for the two stadium applications. Pity!

See the full decision here:   Appeal 27th October 2016


Boundary Review Letters

Kate Kennally Chief Executive
Cornwall Council
The Exchange, County Hall
Treyew Road
Truro TR1 3AY

21 October 2016
Dear Kate,
ELECTORAL REVIEW OF CORNWALL
Thank you for the Council’s detailed first draft submission on council size along with the copy of the Cornwall Council Strategic Governance Review Report. It was helpful to receive this material in time for the Commission to consider it at its meeting on 18 October. The purpose of this note is to outline the Commission’s initial observations.
I should start by saying that the Commission has asked me to convey their appreciation for the considerable work that is being put into the exercise, both by members of the electoral review panel and by officers. From the outset, the Council and the Commission committed to working together closely in order to achieve the best outcome for the future of Cornwall and that remains our shared objective.
It is evident that much effort has gone into this initial analysis, largely by way of comparisons with other councils. Also, there is much helpful material in the survey of existing members. However, whilst such data is useful in a contextual sense, the Commission was surprised that the opportunity had not so far been taken to address fundamental issues about arrangements concerning governance, accountability, and community leadership for the new Council in order to understand the level the elected member capacity required in what will, essentially, be a very different kind of authority.
As was indicated at our initial briefings, the Commission views each authority as a distinct political entity and, consequently, regards comparisons with other councils as being of limited value. This will be particularly true in the case of Cornwall with the exciting and ambitious plans set out in your devolution deal. However, the Commission felt that the work so far has used the current council size as its starting point with relatively little apparent movement away from a ‘business as usual’ approach.
For the next submission, therefore, the Commission anticipates that the panel will wish to explore the opportunity provided by the review to go back to ‘first principles’ to suggest what number of councillors might be required under the new arrangements. Requirements to meet governance, accountability and community leadership needs are
the three aspects that inform the Commission’s judgment when setting the number of councillors.
In encouraging the panel to take this approach, the Commission notes the preface of the Council’s Strategic Governance Review Report. which observes that the Council is being presented ‘with a once in a decade opportunity to develop and implement a new model of governance over the course of the next four years……’. Also, it will be expecting to get a better understanding of how the Governance Review Report’s reflections and recommendations on the role and number of councillors has informed the panel’s view about council size.
In addition, the Commission would find it helpful to see how the proposal for a more strategic role for Cornwall Council working alongside town and parish councils under a devolution arrangement impacts on councillor numbers.
We hope that the Council will address these aspects explicitly in drawing up its next submission for December. At that point, I should stress that we are not expecting to see a fully worked up submission but rather an assessment that addresses these points and what they suggest for council size. We note that it has already observed that the next stage might point to a different range than that identified so far. The Commission can then reflect further and, informed by our comments, the detail can then be worked up for the final submission.
Finally, the Commission recognises that there are a range of views about how Cornwall could be governed going forward and it acknowledges that there may be more than a single view presented to it. Alternative submissions could come from groups of councillors, or a single councillor. It is content to accept more than one submission and none of them are required to be endorsed by full council. As with all of our electoral reviews, every submission is judged on the basis of the evidence provided, irrespective of its source. Also, the Commission can consult more widely on the most appropriate number of councillors for Cornwall, including a full public consultation if necessary.
Separately, the Commission has received a request from the Leader of the Council requesting a slight delay in the warding phase of the review in order to allow for the new Council elected in May 2017 to settle in and I am pleased to confirm that the Commission has agreed to this request. This does not change the schedule for the council size submission.
I hope that these observations are helpful and will assist the panel in taking forward their work. Needless to say, Commission officers will continue to help in any way they can. I look forward to receiving the next view on 16 December.
Yours sincerely
Jolyon Jackson Chief Executive
Local Government Boundary Commission for England
0330 500 1290
_________________________________________________________

Local Government Boundary Commission for England, 14th Floor Millbank Tower, Millbank, London, SW1P 4QP

John Pollard Leader of the Council
Cornwall Council
The Exchange, County Hall
Treyew Road
Truro TR1 3AY
21 October 2016

Dear John,
ELECTORAL REVIEW OF CORNWALL
Thank you for your letter of 14 October requesting a delay to the start of the first consultation phase on warding patterns that will form part of the electoral review of Cornwall. The Commission has considered this request and appreciates your desire to allow time for the new Council to settle and have sufficient opportunity to consider options for warding following the May 2017 elections. Like you, we want to ensure that there is full participation in the process and, therefore, recognises that this is a sensible proposal.
Accordingly, the Commission will accept your suggestion and amend its programme to the following dates:
Warding pattern consultation 25 July – 2 October 2017 Draft recommendations LGBCE meeting 21 November 2017 Draft recommendations consultation 18 December 2017 – 26 February 2018 Final recommendations LGBCE meeting 17 April 2018 Final recommendations published 15 May 2018
We anticipate that it is likely that we will receive more than one submission for warding patterns during this phase – both for the whole of Cornwall and for various localities. This is commonplace and will allow both the councillors and the people of Cornwall to give them full consideration.
Finally, you also refer to the work of the electoral review group and indicate that it would be useful to have feedback on their early thoughts on council size. It was helpful to the draft submission from the group in time for the Commission to consider at its meeting earlier this week. Jolyon Jackson will be writing to Kate Kennally in the next day or so setting out the Commission’s observations.
Local Government Boundary Commission for England, 14th Floor Millbank Tower, Millbank, London, SW1P 4QP
Tel: 0330 500 1525; reviews@lgbce.org.uk; www.lgbce.org.uk
I hope that this is helpful and, of course, fully reciprocate your view about the importance of the Council and Commission continuing to work together closely in order to achieve the best outcome for the future of Cornwall.
Best wishes
Professor Colin Mellors
Chair

Thursday 29 September 2016

Councillor Numbers

Today members of the Council meet to have a first stab at what the number of Cornwall  Councillors should be in 2021.
As an 'urban, indeed Truro,  member' I recognise the difficulties members face managing large divisions. Division size ranges from 0.7 sq kilometres in Penzance to 137 sq kilometres in Poundstock. Some rural members are looking after, perhaps, 7 parish councils.
Many members also have a very long journey into Truro and therefore spend many hours travelling.  As each division must have the same number of electors so that everybody's vote is worth the same,  I think members with large geographical divisions will need to be compensated for that.
Many people may not appreciate that members do not receive their travel costs for visits within their division - only for certain official meetings, which are mainly in Truro. 
If a councillor has to bear their own travel costs for travelling around even bigger divisions then we can assume that only well off people will be able to afford to be councillors.
With that caveat, my personal view is that the number of councillors needs to be radically reduced:
1. A lot of the meetings at Cornwall Council are laid on to involve all the councillors, rather than them being useful in themselves. That is the tail wagging the dog.
2. The external group who reviewed the Governance of the Council said that the current number of members is 'unworkable'.
3. The Council has persuaded the Boundary Commission to put off until 2021 the correction of the electoral imbalances on the basis that the Council has a fundamental review of its numbers. Tweaking them to 105 or 115 (as is proposed) is not going to cut it.
4. The administration has persuaded the Government to devolve powers to Cornwall without a mayor on the basis it would have a fundamental review to ensure visible and accountable leadership . Tweaking the numbers of members will not be acceptable.
5.  The public want the number reduced.
The Council say they have no evidence  to support a smaller number. True, but that is because they are not looking and listening. They need to start.
I suggested 100 to the Panel to show all interested parties we were moving in the right direction.   We could then work up a lower number with all the bells and whistles.
That was rejected.  So let's get serious. I think a credible case may be made for, say 70.
It could be something like this:
9 Cabinet members including the Leader
3 Planning Committees of 15 each (no Strategic planning committee)
1 Licensing / miscellaneous licensing committee of 15
4 Scrutiny Committees to cover the 4 directorates (each directorate to have 2 Cabinet members)
Audit Committee of 9 which would also have oversight of the Council's pension scheme
Constitution Committee (to incorporate the Electoral Review Panel)
Plus one or two other committees such as Cornwall Harbours Board and the Inshore Fisheries Conservation Authority
This would half the number of positions that needed filled.
As the Council is cutting services, has been told it is too big by a group of external experts and has made no effort to work more efficiently,  it is going to have to reduce the numbers.
The fact that it is making such a meal of its governance review, and is even proposing to continue this review for years, means it has not a leg to stand on.


Friday 19 August 2016

What the Council does on a nice morning in August (18th) what a shambles

A few lowlights. There were no highlights:

1. Complaints tabled about councillors not turning up to meetings to discuss how the Council is governed. Concern expressed that the process of reviewing how the Council is governed is taking place too quickly and we need more meetings! There are too many already (in my view).  4 in August alone.

2. The Steering Group held a meeting on 14th July (its role is to steer 2 committees working on this so that they are both going in the same direction) but the Chair and Vice Chair of  the Constitution and Governance Committee did not turn up to be steered.

2. Report on how the Leader got on with his public meetings on governance of the Council (Who Decides). There were seven meetings fronted by the Leader, Deputy Leader and senior officers. . Only 240 people attended in total. These were described as the 'usual suspects- Cornwall Councillors and Town/Parish Councils with very few members of the public present' .

3. Only 3 out of 200? Parish councils attended the sessions with the GREG (the external group of experts looking at governance of the Council.

4. Only 30-35% of Parish Clerks had actually opened the recent newsletter from the Council which told them about all the sessions on governance (never mind circulated to their members).

5. Complaints tabled about central government and lack of funding for the Cornish language. Fears raised that Cornish minority status endangered. However, Cllr Dolphin (Lib Dem Chair of Committee) wants to stand down from the working group dealing with this as she is too busy. No member of the Committee would volunteer to replace her. So it is mainly the Bards who are left.

6. But I imagine that the Committee did approve the 13th version of the Terms of Reference of the Health and Well Being Committee (committee established in 2012). I had to leave before that vote.

What sort of message can we learn from this and will we?


Tuesday 26 July 2016

Brexit Revisionism.

My letter to the West Briton (unpublished) re the Pro EU Rally on 1st July

Dear Sirs,

I was interested to see your article about the pro EU rally on Lemon Quay attended apparently by councillors from all parties.

I campaigned for Remain: I stood on the streets, door knocked in Daniell Road, banged on about it in my blog ('Eurosceptic Yes Brexit Delusion No'), was 'shunned' for 3 days at the (Royal Cornwall)  Show and was rubbished on the radio.

However, I saw no sign of other councillors campaigning for Remain in Truro.
They, of all people, should know that it is always best to campaign before the votes are cast.

Sunday 24 July 2016

Governance Review Submission

Representations to the GREG (Governance Review External Group)
Background
I am a member of the Conservative Group. I was group leader from the time that the previous Leader of the Council stood down towards the end of 2012 after a vote of no confidence in him (relating to the proposed strategic partnership with BT) until June 2014.
I stood down as I found the role of Leader of the Opposition too large and time consuming a responsibility with my family and other commitments. My position was made more acute by the lack of any officer or administrative support for someone in my position. I also felt that the job would become even more challenging in the light of the call by the Council for more devolved powers.
I am a lawyer by background. I was first elected in 2009 and re-elected in 2013. But have no other local government experience.
The cost of democracy
Democracy is, of course, very important but also expensive. I think that the single thing that would make the most difference to the efficient operation of the Council, an increase in public confidence in its work and value for public money would be for the Council to recognise that officer resource is expensive and valuable. In contrast it is considered to be free. This results in a culture of endless and often pointless meetings which do not really advance public services in Cornwall.
A diagram produced by the Council to explain which committees will take which role in the current Governance and Electoral Review makes this point perfectly.
The number of meetings, often called at short notice or with single item agendas on different days of the week make it difficult for a member who has other commitments to participate. We squander our own time as well as that of officers. It is also more difficult to keep an eye on important things that are happening because we are wading through treacle with so much paperwork.
I understand that the totality of agenda pages produced per year is around 3,000,000. Very many papers (understandably) go largely unread by most councillors.
The fact that the Council has so many independent members makes the scope for team working, whereby likeminded members can spread their resource between different issues, very limited. A council with less members would reduce this issue.  It would make members less local but I think it wd also make members more accountable. They would then mainly  have political labels and the public would know who was in charge.
Pragmatically, I do not see the Council being prepared to alter the way it does business in a material way. They did not take the advice of the previous GREG.
So against that backdrop I would like to make the following observations:
Council
This can be a rather unedifying grand standing occasion (assuming anyone is watching). It would be interesting to know the numbers watching the webcast, provided these exclude officers and members.
Members go to some trouble to think up motions so that there is something to grand stand about. This often simply results in a letter to the Government but the impact on officer resource from dealing with these motions should be examined to see whether it is really worthwhile. The estimated hourly rate of officers sitting through these occasions would be interesting.
Cabinet
With the benefit of only a few months in the Cabinet at the end of the last administration, I wd say that this works reasonably well.
However, there is a problem where, as now, there is a dual party administration. This is because the Leader is given a list of nominees by the groups which form part of the administration and he then has to find those nominees a portfolio that suits their expertise.
And it is only in very unusual circumstances (such as, in this administration, where there were allegations of child pornography) that he can require those nominees to stand down. From an outsider's perspective the current portfolios have to be looked at with that in mind. I wonder how they work in terms of organisational effectiveness.
Informal  Briefings
These can be very useful but there are a lot of them on different days. I have to wonder whether a podcast would not work better in many cases. It wd be interesting to know the attendance rate.
Policy Advisory Committees
There are too many of these. They often have very thin agendas. The fact that they are not on the same day of the week makes it difficult for working members to participate.
As a member of the opposition they seem to be pretty ineffectual in some cases. We do not chair them. They have no power to commission work (unlike Scrutiny).  Therefore, you end up trying to advise the portfolio holder on something about which you are unlikely to know more about than they do.
They were introduced so that we all felt involved in policy formation (so 10 committees with 10 seats each).  That appears a little like the tail wagging the dog. I am sure that there are honourable exceptions such as the Planning PAC.
The Scrutiny Committees would probably work better if they were opposition led.
I have no knowledge of licensing. Planning seems to work reasonably well but I know members of the public find these committees very remote and would criticise them for not listening to locals' views.
Strategic Boards
I have no direct knowledge of the LEP but the idea of it and the fact that it is private sector led seems sound, as it aims to promote the economy. 
There are so many other boards now, with the advent of devolution, that it is very difficult to keep a track of them. However, partnership working is the future and I would suggest that the Council needs to pull back and perform more of a scrutiny role on these rather than duplicating their work.
Community Network Panels
I would say that these were a sop to localism to obtain Government agreement for the formation of the unitary council. I have reservations about them as they have no democratic mandate being a mix of, Cornwall councillors and parish councillors. But I recognise that some see them as a useful bridge across the gulf between Cornwall Council and the 200+ parishes. There are often initiatives to try to find them a role.
Local member role
 This is variable but it is an all hours service. If there are to be less members (and I can see a case for that on grounds of organisational effectiveness) , there would need to be more support for members especially those with large divisions - for example, a recognition in the allowances scheme of their need to travel within their divisions.
Conclusion
 With devolution, we are going to need to feel our way. I cannot see public support for a mayor in Cornwall. I would certainly not wish to return to the committee system as it wd not be organisationally effective. The Cabinet model is probably our best hope but my comments above are designed to make it more effective.

Wednesday 20 July 2016

Is it any wonder people do not trust the Council?

It was a bad day at Cornwall Council on Tuesday and not just for the wasted time and personal attacks coordinated by the LibDems.

It showed, and not for the first time, that media manipulation and political spin are more favoured than honest admittance of failure. And it indicates a rottenness at the core of the LibDem/Indy administration at County Hall.

In 2014, with much publicity, the Council became a 'Living Wage' employer. I expressed reservations about this; it was an exercise in tokenism as the Council did not propose to do it for indirect staff such as Cormac and carers.

Secondly, I was worried about its affordability when there would be a need to preserve other staff's differentials. These concerns were brushed aside.

However, apparently the Council quietly capped its obligations to pay the Living Wage at 3 per cent per year.

In October 2015 they were told the Living Wage would involve a 5.1 per cent increase.

Naturally, you would assume that the Council would pay 3 per cent (assuming you knew of the cap).  But no. The Council did not offer to pay anything at all. They took the view that the wording of the 'cap' was such that, if the increment exceeded 3 per cent, staff got nothing at all under this formula.

If there was a drafting error then the Council should not have sought to rely on it. It was a clear breach of good faith, cutting across the staff ballot, whereby better paid staff had given up some of their rights to allow lower paid staff the Living Wage.

The Council need to ask themselves some very serious questions about the manner in which they deal with staff and their union representatives in the future.

This represents a fundamental breach of trust.

The Council also sought to cover it up. They only finally told members what had occurred on the Saturday of a Bank Holiday weekend.

So yesterday, in a fit of embarrassment, the Council voted to pay the Living Wage (uncapped) for one year and think again next year.

Friday 8 July 2016

Can Leadsom lead?

My many doubts about Andrea Leadsom:
1. Her lack of experience in Government, particularly at a time of great uncertainty and challenge. It is one thing to suddenly become the Leader of the Opposition; quite another to immediately become PM.
2. She has limited support from MPs. We need a candidate who can unite the party and the country, Leavers and Remainers.
3. She has spent 20+ years in the City of London but is happy to front a campaign which has ignored and belittled the advice of the independent Governor of the Bank of England. Astonishing.
4. She has spent 20+ years in the City of London but she does not appreciate the importance of confidence, market certainty, passporting rights and influence over financial regulation to the financial services industry, which is one of our most important exports.  Incredible.
5. She has so far failed to answer the questions raised by Pascal Lamy, the former head of the World Trade Organisation, about her strategy in negotiating new trade deals. This is a key part of the way forward.
6. She has led us down a path with no fair warning as to the great challenges we will face. As an MP her job is safe for now.  Others are not.

Saturday 2 July 2016

Residents' Parking Schemes : proposals go to Transport Committee this Friday

 This item goes to Transport Portfolio Advisory Committee on Friday 4th July 10am at County Hall (open to the public).
A few headlines from draft proposals for Committee to consider:
Schemes proposed for Trehaverne Terrace and Rosedale area and Hendra areas.
 Residents parking permits at between £50 and £80 per year. Additional permits may be more expensive.
 On street parking charges may be introduced in Truro. Likely to be city centre. 
Estimated (Cormac) costs of introducing all proposed schemes across Cornwall £3.6m including 20% contingency.
Schemes to allow carers to have permits.
Agenda available on line  CLICK
Please contact me with comments or if you want further information. 
Fiona Ferguson CC
Blog : www.trehaverne.com
Twitter : @fionaferguson13
07731 548 139

Newbridge Field - fill in a survey on improvements for the field

There is still a week left to have your say on the Newbridge Lane proposals.  The consultation day last week was well attended but please make sure your views are known. The deadline is 18th July.

 More at  CLICK


Thursday 30 June 2016

Poor, poor Cornwall

Around the world from Washington to California to New Zealand and including the Muslim Times Cornwall Council is being made to look ridiculous by the story that it is asking for reassurances about EU money AFTER Cornwall voted to leave the EU.  


 CLICK    



Tuesday 28 June 2016

Referendum Results for Cornwall


Results by Parliamentary Division



The Falmouth Packet is reporting that a council spokesperson said the results only reflected those votes which had been cast on the day at polling stations.

They said: “The postal votes, which came from all areas of Cornwall, were distributed evenly across all six parliamentary constituencies. So this means that we can’t say how individual constituencies voted as such.”

This is my previous post on leaving the EU

Eurosceptic Yes: Brexit Delusion No

I don't like the waste, bureaucracy and remoteness of the European Union. I am also concerned about the effect of immigration on our country.

I have always been against the UK joining the Euro.

BUT I am voting In. Here is why:

1. Angela Merkel, who comes up for re - election next year, can't and won't offer us a better deal than Germany has. We will need all sorts of deals with the EU post Brexit. We will not get anything significant at all without a substantial budget contribution to the EU and our agreement to the continuation of freedom of movement.

2. We all hate regulation but many of the costly regulations are those that guarantee workers' rights. Are we really going to junk these? Do we really want to have two sets of regulations- for those who trade with the EU and those who do not. The reality is that we would probably argue for 10 years post Brexit and our new regulations would not look a lot different.

3. Leaving will destabilise the UK by encouraging another Scottish Referendum and making life incredibly difficult for Northern Ireland (the Republic of Ireland joined the EU when we did and it is not proposing to leave). A call for an all Ireland referendum could be the starting point for the dissolution of the UK , new borders would then have to be created and our status in the world would be diminished.

4. If we are In, our veto over new joiners gives us some leverage in the EU that we would not have if we had to accept freedom of movement post Brexit.

5. If we vote to leave we will act against the advice and without the support of 19 of the G20 countries. The only country that actively wants us to leave is Russia. This is a country which has just announced the creation of three divisions (30,000 men) to "defend" its western border with Estonia, Latvia and Finland and is run by a former member of the KGB. A country that could have stopped the Syrian refugee crisis years ago but chose to make it worse.

6. It is a myth that new trade deals would be easy to negotiate. Places like India and China want us to agree to allow them to do more outsourcing and to bring in guest workers to the UK to work in their businesses. How would that help our immigration statistics?

7. The City of London is a huge part of our economy. Why knock it for a very uncertain gain?

8. In an uncertain world the EU helps knit us together. Yes, it is fragile but that is no reason to be reckless as to whether Brexit will smash it up. The US is increasingly isolationist. NATO is very important but in the EU we should also help ourselves.

9. The EU remaining 27 members decide our exit terms. Any marriage or business partnership dissolved in that way would not end well. There is no certainty that we would even get our territorial fishing rights back if we wanted to continue to export fish tariff free to the EU. We would also have to agree quotas with the EU to conserve fish stocks and because of transitory fish movements.

10. Being in the EU has been brilliant for inward investment to the UK and has helped us to be the world's 5th biggest economy. A strong economy helps fund our public services.

Brexit is a dangerous delusion.




Wednesday 22 June 2016

Newbridge Lane - Have Your Say


Newbridge Lane Playing Fields, Truro - Public Consultation       CLICK

Leaflet         CLICK




Monday 6 June 2016

Eurosceptic Yes: Brexit Delusion No

I don't like the waste, bureaucracy and remoteness of the European Union. I am also concerned about the effect of immigration on our country. 

I have always been against the UK joining the Euro.

BUT I am voting In. Here is why:

1. Angela Merkel, who comes up for re - election next year, can't and won't offer us a better deal than Germany has. We will need all sorts of deals with the EU post Brexit. We will not get anything significant at all without a substantial budget contribution to the EU and our agreement to the continuation of freedom of movement.

2. We all hate regulation but many of the costly regulations are those that guarantee workers' rights. Are we really going to junk these? Do we really want to have two sets of regulations- for those who trade with the EU and those who do not.  The reality is that we would probably argue for 10 years post Brexit and our new regulations would not look a lot different.

3. Leaving will destabilise the UK by encouraging another Scottish Referendum and making life incredibly difficult for Northern Ireland  (the Republic of Ireland joined the EU when we did and it is not proposing to leave). A call for an all Ireland referendum could be the starting point for the dissolution of the UK , new borders would then have to be created and our status in the world would be diminished.

4. If we are In, our veto over new joiners gives us some leverage in the EU that we would not have if we had to accept freedom of movement post Brexit.

5.  If we vote to leave we will act against the advice and without the support of 19 of the G20 countries. The only country that actively wants us to leave is Russia.  This is a country which has just announced the creation of three divisions (30,000 men) to "defend" its western border with Estonia, Latvia and Finland and is run by a former member of the KGB.  A country that could have stopped the Syrian refugee crisis years ago but chose to make it worse.

6. It is a myth that new trade deals would be easy to negotiate. Places like India and China want us to agree to allow them to do more outsourcing and to bring in guest workers to the UK to work in their businesses. How would that help our immigration statistics?

7. The City of London is a huge part of our economy. Why knock it for a very uncertain gain?

8. In an uncertain world the EU helps knit us together. Yes, it is fragile but that is no reason to be reckless as to whether Brexit will smash it up. The US is increasingly isolationist. NATO is very important but in the EU we should also help ourselves.

9. The EU remaining 27 members decide our exit terms. Any marriage or business partnership dissolved in that way would not end well. There is no certainty that we would even get our territorial fishing rights back if we wanted to continue to export fish tariff free to the EU.   We would also have to agree quotas with the EU to conserve fish stocks and because of transitory fish movements. 

10. Being in the EU has been brilliant for inward investment to the UK and has helped us to be the world's 5th biggest economy. A strong economy helps fund our public services.

Brexit is a dangerous delusion.      

Wednesday 1 June 2016

Parking Survey


Click here for PARKING SURVEY

These were the results of the Council's Parking Survey. They were discussed at a meeting of the Transport Portfolio Advisory Committee in May. I suggested that we look first at what might help the three towns most badly affected by parking problems, rather than the Council working up proposals for all nine towns at the same time at great expense and which may suit nobody. But this was rejected.

Proposals are now being worked up for all nine towns. On 29th June Truro councillors will be told what are the proposals for Truro.

The total exercise, including working up these initial proposals, but not implementing is to cost £250,000.

Tuesday 31 May 2016

What went wrong if the Council has a high risk due to very poor contract tendering procedure

Questions that need answered:

1. Why did the position get worse rather than better if it was flagged by Audit as a concern in 2014?

2. Is there a pattern to the problem, a specific department, contractor etc

3. Has an assessment been made about the likely risk to the Council?

4. As EU thresholds have not been complied with, could this cause collateral damage in other areas that the Council deals with the EU?

5. How confident should members feel that the situation is now being remedied?

6. When will the Audit Committee look at this to ensure the problem is fixed.


If the Council has 'no money' it would be a complete dereliction of duty to spend money contesting legal challenges of its processes for awarding contracts.

Thursday 26 May 2016

Malabar Community Litterpick and BBQ


Malabar residents of all ages helping out!  Thanks to all who helped with the Litterpick last Saturday and also to Laurence Reed of Radio Cornwall who gave up his Saturday morning to help too.

Thanks to the County Arms for providing the bacon butties and to Laurence Reed

Wednesday 18 May 2016

Council with 'no money' decides to find £250,000 to give councillors a payrise

It was the quickest decision I have ever seen the Council make by a very long way. It resembled a bank robbery. Councillors stood around, some shouting and others in shock. Cllr Wallis called for a vote without debate and more than half the councillors supported him. They did not want to hear anyone speak a few home truths. For example, why allow anyone to refer to the Chief Executive's evidence which implied that we were a lot less efficient as members of a Council than Barnet.

The rises (which do not take effect until the next Council in 2017) range between approximately  4% and 28%. For example, backbenchers will receive 13.6%, the Leader of the Council, 15.1% and the Deputy Leader, 21.2%.

Some councillors (mainly the Chairmen of Portfolio Advisory Committees) were considered to receive too much as 'an extra responsibility allowance' as they did not have much extra responsibility, so the overall rise for a councillor receiving that allowance (assuming he remains in post after the next election) , is smaller.

There now appear to be another 12 councillors who are to receive special responsibility allowances - a combination of introducing allowances to help all those chairmen mentioned above who have not much responsibility and the formation of a new committee.

New committees unfortunately seem to be a bit of a growth sector for this Council (see previous blog).

The Panel recommended these increases to help make standing for the Council more accessible to people who do not have other means of supporting themselves. This is a good ambition, although difficult to achieve, as many candidates will be put off by the fact that they can be thrown out at the next election. So, it is best not to be too dependent on the money.

 If councillors actually shared that ambition, and did not think it was just a good excuse for a pay rise,  they would respond to my challenge to make the Council more efficient. Members who are trying to hold down a job or look after children are seriously disadvantaged as against retired councillors who do not have the same pressures on their time - and therefore appear to be happy to take up endless time sitting in meetings, productive or otherwise.


Tuesday 10 May 2016

Cornwall Council: A bureaucrat's dream

This is how Cornwall Council will select how many members it wants in the forthcoming boundary review.  This diagram excludes the consultants who will also provide evidence.  


Wednesday 6 April 2016

Council Toilet U Turn

My first reaction on hearing (from the Cornish Guardian) that the Council's public toilets would not, after all, be closed, was delight.
After that I think we are all entitled to ask:
1.  What took the Council, which is supposed to represent Cornwall, so long to listen to public opinion?
2. How is the new decision being funded as the Council say they have 'no money'?
3. What does it say for democracy if decisions of the Council are changed behind closed doors and then members just find out about them from the Cornish Guardian ?
4. Does the Council know what it is doing? On Monday lunchtime the Leader tells Laurence Reed 'no money'. On Tuesday morning he tells Cornish Guardian toilets are saved.
5. Won't the parishes who took over their public toilets feel conned?
6.Surely this must be good news for other services such as leisure centres which the Council has threatened to close.  How much money are the Council wasting on working up 'local solutions/alternative delivery models' etc only to back down?
7. Will anyone believe what the Council say ever again?

Wednesday 23 March 2016

Cornwall Council should get real: the number of councillors is going down

Although Cornwall was right at the top of the Boundary Commission's list for falling foul of its principle that every person's vote is worth the same, the Council has persuaded the Boundary Commission to put off reviewing this in time for 2017 local elections.

But the Commission still intends to sort it out in time for 2021 local elections.

The first stage is for the Council to express a view on what number of councillors Cornwall should have in 2021.

The Panel working on this first met yesterday.

Their first step was to go through the paperwork studiously crossing out any implication, express or implied, that the number of councillors would be reduced.

Apart from the public's views on this, there are at least two reasons why this approach is totally unrealistic.

First, committing to a smaller number of councillors was part of the Devolution Deal for Cornwall (which the Council approved last July).  It was a compromise to avoid having a mayor for Cornwall.

Second, as the divisions currently have so few voters that relatively small population changes make them unequal to a significant degree, the current number of councillors is not viable.  It means that the Council will for ever be spending time and public money reviewing and reworking the boundaries of its electoral divisions.
The last boundary review for Cornwall Council was described by the Boundary Commission as 'appalling' and 'the worst ever seen'. 

The recommendations from the panel will be influential in determining the outcome of the review but with public toilets, libraries, leisure centres and public spaces being devolved to other local organisations can Cornwall councillors reasonably resist reducing their own numbers?



Report to Truro City Council

Please give my apologies for this evening.   I am attending a school drugs awareness talk.

New junction into Penn An Dre, Highertown
I am told this should now be finished by 4th April. It has run over its schedule due to problems with SW Water relocation of equipment, where the Council's trial pit did not reveal the true depth of SW Water equipment (which varies).
The interim arrangements for pedestrians crossing the road outside All Saints Church have been very unsatisfactory .

Parking Survey : Next steps
The results of the survey in Truro and other towns will be reported to the Transport PAC in May.
Proposals will be considered by the Transport PAC at their meeting in July.
The Cabinet will make a decision on what proposals to implement in September.
Disappointing that progress is so slow.

Stadiums etc
I am concerned that the fact that too many permissions have been granted for retail in Truro will mean that that those applications granted will end up not having the wherewithal to provide the infrastructure promised. For example, Peter Masters of Truro City Football Club) is reported last week as saying that there are arguments just now about what goods can be sold at Treyew Road Retail Park. This is a sure sign that there are issues with getting tenants.  All these applications should have been brought back to Committee and not given another 6 months to sort out their Section 106 agreements.  Members would then have had the opportunity to look at this again, given that the retail market has further contracted since they were granted.

Bus station public conveniences
I had a complaint that these were not in an acceptable state. Cllr Wells kindly agreed to follow this up.

Pine Needles, 12 Higher Trehaverne
I doubt that this application will be referred to the Central Planning Committee as it is very similar to that approved already for No 11.

8 St Keyne Close
I have asked for this application for an  extension to be referred to Committee as over development/unneighbourly.

Tree cut down recently behind Trehaverne House
The tree was in fact in the garden of the Dingle and not protected by a TPO or in the Conservation Area.

Friday 18 March 2016

Residents' Parking Survey Update

Cornwall Council plan to analyse the results of their recent survey on parking and report to Council's Transport Portfolio Advisory Committee (PAC) in May.

They say a draft parking policy will then be considered by the PAC in July.

Recommendations will then go to the Cabinet in September.

Members of the public may ask questions at the beginning of each of these meetings. Procedures for doing so are on Cornwall Council website.

Nearly 6000 responses were received from accross Cornwall.

Monday 22 February 2016

Cornwall Council find £600,000

We know about the £60,000 'bus lane' but what about £600,000 recently found 'left over' by the Council, which communities are now being invited to bid for new projects?  

Management time at the Council will be found, in addition, to administer the bidding process for new money.

Lovely to have new money for new projects. But how can the Council explain it in a year in which it intends to dump the libraries on the parish councils, walk away from its leisure centres (apart from Penzance, where it cannot, as it is funded by PFI) and cut to nil its budget for public toilets?

The most annoying aspect is that the applications for money that members were invited to make (by February 2014) for their priorities for highway  problems in their divisions have all been rejected.

Is this the Council's version of localism in action; reject what local people want and ask them to bid for money for something completely different?

Saturday 20 February 2016

Why so slow: the Stadiums and other applications to the west of Truro

When the large applications for the west side of Truro were granted last year, the Head of Planning was given three months to negotiate the 'planning gain' (Section 106) agreements. There has been an understandable delay due to the need to refer the applications to the Secretary of State.

But in all cases that process ended 3 months or more ago. Under pressure from another developer (miffed having submitted the only retail application turned down for the corridor) , officers took the applications back to the Strategic Planning Committee to get an extension of time.

They blamed the Government, as Cornwall Council are wont to do. But the new rules complained off, by the Council's own admission, came in last April, so not that new.

The Council also said that the Section 106 agreements were now concluded but, bizarrely, they asked for an indefinite extension of time to complete the agreements. And for future occasions they said they would draft reports for the Committee so that they could take as long as they wanted and not come back to Committee.The Committee granted them a 6 month extension.

So, in summary, the Council claimed that 3 months was adequate but when it came to it, needed at least an extra 6 months.

This looks incompetent.

But the Chairman did not allow me to speak. I have been asked what can anyone do.  I can only suggest that you get in touch with Cllr Nolan, the Chairman of the Committee or take the Council's decision to judicial review.


Reply to comment below:

Try the Cornwall Council planning application comment link. Search for "Langarth". On the right hand side you can enlarge a map of the area until you see the areas surrounded by red (lots of it!). Filter on 5 years and zoom in to a specific area. Double click and it should bring a pop-up of all the relevant applications in the last 5 years.

It should look something like this:





Tuesday 19 January 2016

Malabar Bus Timetable

Bus timetable information is available from the following sources.

The timetable can be downloaded here for the 47 BUS

Information is available at
the First Kernow website at http://www.firstkernow.co.uk or telephone 01872 305950

at the Traveline website of http://www.travelinesw.com or telephone 0871 200 22 33

or the Cornwall Council webpage of www.cornwallpublictransport.info or telephone the Passenger Transport Unit on 0300 1234 222.


Plus of course, the timetables have been attached to local bus stops. 


Monday 18 January 2016

Cornwall Parking Problems

Cornwall Council are now formally consulting on parking problems.  This survey has now started and I understand local residents will all get a letter explaining how to respond to the survey.  This is what the council say.

"This questionnaire focuses on parking in a number of locations across Cornwall. You should only complete it if you ever park in at least one of the following town/city centres:

• Bude • Falmouth and Penryn  • Newquay • Penzance/Newlyn  • St Ives • Truro
• Wadebridge

We would like to understand the views about on-street parking and parking conditions of people who do not live in these towns but visit them (either for leisure or work). Please read each question carefully and select the relevant box or write your answer in the space provided.
WSP Parsons Brinckerhoff will be collating and analysing the survey responses on behalf of Cornwall Council. Your responses will remain confidential - please see the Fair Processing Notice, about how the information we collect will be used, at the end of the survey.
Please complete one questionnaire per household, by midnight 28 February 2016."

However, if residents would like to complete the survey online it can be completed from here:

RESIDENTS                             BUSINESS                               NON-RESIDENTS