To receive any questions from the public, notice of which has been given in accordance with Procedure Rule 14.

Two petitions each bearing over 1,000 signatures have been received as follows, requesting a debate under the Council’s Petition Scheme:

·       Petition Against the Cuts in Arts Funding – Mike Layward, DASH

·       Petition calling for Shropshire Council to work with Teme Leisure and Community Groups to develop a sustainable future for the Sparc Centre, Bishops Castle – Ms S J Walls

Each petitioner will be allowed 5 minutes to outline their case, after which there may be a debate of up to 15 minutes maximum.

71.1    Petitions

The Speaker advised that two petitions, each bearing more than 1,000 signatures had been received requesting a debate under the Council’s Petition Scheme.  Each petitioner was given 5 minutes to open the debate and outline their case, after which there was a debate by Members;

a.     Petition Against the Cuts in Arts Funding – this was introduced and amplified by Mr Mike Layward of Disability Arts in Shropshire (DASH).  He started by thanking the Council for not cutting funding for arts services completely, unlike some local authorities.  He stressed the economic, social and cultural benefits that arts funding created and urged the Council to support the arts in Shropshire which in turn gave them more leverage to seek financial support from other organisations. 

The matter was then debated with contributions from Mrs C Motley, Mr A Bannerman, Mrs M Shineton, Mrs H Kidd and Mr G Butler who all supported the petition and the many benefits the arts brought not only to the economy but to the quality of people’s lives; young and old and those with learning and special needs.

In response Mr S Charmley, Portfolio Holder for Business Growth, ip&e, Culture and Commissioning thanked Mr Layward for his contribution and praised the way the various arts organisations worked with the Council for the benefit of the community and he very much hoped this collaborative way of working would continue.  There was no doubt there were difficult times ahead for all and accordingly he proposed that the Council should take no further action.

b.     Petition calling for Shropshire Council to work with Teme Leisure and Community Groups to develop a sustainable future for the SpArC Centre, Bishops Castle – Ms S J Walls.

This petition was introduced and amplified by Ms Kate Evans of Sparc.  Ms Evans was passionate about the centre which had been in existence since 1974; it was a small facility, but it was a flagship for the local community and greatly valued.  Its membership continued to grow and it was widely used by local people.  The next nearest pool was over 15 miles away.  The centre provided health benefits, afterschool swimming lessons, a meeting place and it was even used for shows.  In conclusion Ms Evans stressed the importance of the centre and urged the Council to work with others to keep the centre open.

The matter was then debated with contributions from Mrs C Barnes and Mrs H Kidd who both supported the petition.

In response, Mr S Charmley, Portfolio Holder for Business Growth, ip&e, Culture and Commissioning thanked Ms Evans and said it was in everyone’s interests to develop a sustainable future for this facility.  Various options would be looked at such as the Community option or transferring to the Town Council, and therefore at this stage he proposed that the Council should take no further action.

71.2    Public Questions

The Speaker advised that eight public questions had been received in accordance with Procedure Rule 15 (a copy of the report containing the detail of the questions and the relevant formal responses is attached to the signed minutes);

Public Question 1

Received from Mrs J Brand and answered by Mr S Charmley, Portfolio Holder for Business Growth, ip&e, Culture and Commissioning regarding the work of ip&e and its future.

By way of a supplementary question Mrs Brand asked what the Council intended to do about the misuse of money that had been put into ip&e and the reported police investigations.

The Portfolio Holder replied that there were no police investigations into ip&e.  A cross party Working Group had been set up to review ip&e and this was hoped to conclude relatively quickly.

          Public Question 2

Received from Mr D Kilby, Secretary of The Shropshire Playing Fields Association and answered by Mr S Jones, Portfolio Holder for Highways and Transport, concerning river safety measures on the towpath between the Greyfriars Bridge and the Weir at Sydney Avenue, Castlefields, Shrewsbury.

By way of a supplementary question, Mr Kilby asked if the Portfolio Holder was still confident that safety measures along the river were being applied efficiently and effectively at all times.  He had great concerns along this particular stretch of river and asked the Portfolio Holder to work with him to remedy this and provide safe passage for young children to access the Castle Walk play area from their new homes as a matter of urgency.

The Portfolio Holder replied that officers worked closely with the Environment Agency and monitored this area regularly.  They were currently liaising with landowners about the gates on their land.  He also stated that he could not stop people climbing over locked gates.  He understood the 106 agreement had been signed and he knew of no further action the Council could take at this stage.

Public Question 3

Received from Mr P Phillips and answered by Mrs A Hartley, Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services, regarding the withdrawal of joint-use funding and the knock on effect this would have on primary schools.

By way of a supplementary question Mr Phillips acknowledged that the funding had been withdrawn by central government and not the Council.  He urged the Council to look at locality responses bearing in mind that schools were all different in nature and size and that different areas had different priorities and required different facilities.

The Portfolio Holder noted Mr Phillips’ request and replied that the ‘Big Conversation’ was currently underway and was open to all localities to feed into.  She also said that it had been the Forum’s decision to put the funding into education services rather than leisure facilities.

Public Questions 4, 5, 6 and 7 were taken together by the Speaker as they all related to the SAMDev and the Old Oswestry Hillfort site.  Supplementary questions were asked as follows;

Public Question 4

By way of a supplementary question Mr J Waine, HOOH, said that in his view, the process was characterised by a lack of transparency and disregard.  He asked if this was the standard of localism spirit that the Council wanted and would things be done differently in future.

Public Question 5

By way of a supplementary question Dr R Pope, whose specialism was hillforts and the wider heritage sector, asked if the Council was confident, given the amount of publicity, that damage could be done to the hillfort.

Public Question 6

By way of a supplementary question Mr T Malim asked if Council was confident that the Inspector’s report was sound.

Public Question 7

By way of a supplementary question Dr G Nash asked if the Council was happy to build housing on the hillfort area, where the landscape was recognised as a World War 1 trench area.

The Portfolio Holder thanked everyone for their supplementary questions (questions 4,5,6 and 7) and assured that the Council would not want to do anything to the detriment of the Oswestry Hillfort; this had been reflected in an original decision to remove two sites from the Plan.  He referred to an aerial photograph, courtesy of the local press, on the screen in the Council Chamber, to explain where the two sites had been removed and the location of OSW004 and confirmed that no development would be allowed on the area shown within the photograph.

The Portfolio Holder was disappointed that the objectors had never acknowledged the action taken by the Council.  In relation to the SAMDev inspection process he stated that the Inspector had had a full session on Oswestry including the Hillfort.  The objectors, applicant and the Council were all given an opportunity to provide their evidence.  The Inspector had also attended site visits to see for herself and understand the landscape and visual impact.

Following this, the Inspector had confirmed the removal of two of the sites retaining OSW004.  He referred to page 4 of the SAMDev Report (5.6 vi).  The Inspector had endorsed the development strategy for Oswestry and in particular supported the Council’s position that, subject to the incorporation of the design principles agreed between Historic England and the Council that the development of site OSW004, north of Whittington Road would lead to less than substantial harm to the Old Oswestry Hillfort.

The Portfolio Holder referred to correspondence from Richard Buxton Solicitors received that week, which had been circulated to all Council Members for their information.  He explained that the Council was in an awkward position; if it removed the code OSW004 at this stage then the Council would be legally challenged by the landowner whose site had been through the formal process.  He would therefore be recommending to Council later in the meeting that the recommendations in the Report be approved and agreed with the Inspector.

Public Question 8

Received from Mr D Cooper and answered by Mr M Pate, Leader, regarding a possible Community Governance Review involving Bridgnorth Town and Tasley Parish.

By way of a supplementary question Mr Cooper, Mayor of Bridgnorth, asked Council to take into account the fact that Bridgnorth Town Council had asked to meet with Tasley Parish Council 3 months before submitting their formal application.

Mr Pate noted this and replied that this matter would be discussed in more detail, later in the agenda (item 14).