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

A petition, bearing over 1,000 signatures, has been received from Mr Robert Peacey, on behalf of the ‘Stretton Pool Action Group’ requesting a debate under the Council’s Petition Scheme.

On the day, this petition will be presented by Sandra Burgess, on behalf of Mr Peacey, who is unfortunately unable to attend the meeting in person.  The wording on the petition reads;

‘Church Stretton swimming pool is essential for the community's health, enjoyment and wellbeing alongside ensuring that our children are competent swimmers by the time they leave primary school. With the funding cuts to the pool, it simply will not stay open. This would be a tragic loss for the town - and for our school children. We need to prove that there is community support for the pool.’

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

Petitions

The Speaker advised that a petition bearing more than 1,000 signatures to keep Church Stretton Pool open, had been received from Mr Robert Peacey, on behalf of the ‘Stretton Pool Action Group’ (SPA) requesting a debate under the Council’s Petition Scheme.  Unfortunately Mr Peacey was unable to attend the meeting and therefore Mrs Sandra Burgess spoke to this on the day and was given 5 minutes to open the debate and outline her case, which was briefly as follows;

·       The swimming pool was an integral part of Church Stretton and should be preserved for future generations. All generations use the pool from toddlers to the retired community.  It was a lifeline for the disabled too and it was hoped to build on this through the GP referral scheme in the future.

·       So far over £40,000 had been secured in pledges from the local community who wanted to help fund a project to improve facilities and accessibility and thereby enhance pool usage.

·       A business plan was being developed and was presented at the meeting; it was very much hoped that the SPA could work together with the Council to achieve a positive outcome.

A debate ensued and the following members spoke in support of the key points made by the petitioner; Mr L Chapman, Mr D Evans, Mr R Evans and Mrs H Fraser.  In formally responding to the petition, Mr S West Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Culture, said the Council recognised the importance of pools within communities and were looking at partnership arrangements in the future to fund such facilities.  He cited the excellent example of Bishops Castle pool and fully took on board the comments made by the SPA Group.  A strategy was currently being worked on and in the interim the Council was more than happy to work with groups to help secure grants and funding.  He therefore proposed that the Council should take no further action at this point. 

A recorded vote was requested and duly agreed.  The result was as follows;

FOR (40):  Mr P Adams, Mr N Bardsley, Mr T Barker, Mrs J Barrow, Mr T Biggins, Mr G Butler, Mrs K Calder, Mr D Carroll, Mr S Charmley, Mr P Cherrington, Mr G Dakin, Mr A Davies, Mr J Everall, Mrs A Hartley, Mr V Hunt, Mr J Hurst-Knight, Mr S Jones, Mr N Laurens, Mr C Lea, Mr D Lloyd, Mr R Macey, Mr D Minnery, Mrs C Motley, Mrs P Mullock, Mr W Parr, Mr M Pate, Mr J Price, Mr M Price, Mr K Roberts, Mrs M Shineton, Mr R Tindall, Mr D Turner, Mr A Walpole, Mr S West, Mrs C Wild, Mr B Williams, Mr L Winwood, Mr M Wood, Mrs T Woodward and Mr P Wynn.

AGAINST (20):  Mr A Bannerman, Mr A Boddington, Mr V Bushell, Mr L Chapman, Mrs P Dee, Mr D Evans, Mr R Evans, Mrs H Fraser, Mr N Hartin, Dr J Jones, Mr J Keeley, Mr M Kenny, Mr D Kerr, Mrs J Mackenzie, Mr C Mellings, Mrs P Moseley, Mr A Mosley, Mr K Pardy, Mrs V Parry and Mr J Tandy.

NO ABSTENTIONS.

It was therefore agreed by the majority, to take no further action in respect of this petition.

          Public Questions

The Speaker advised that 6 public questions had been received in accordance with Procedure rule 15 (a copy of the report containing each question and the formal responses was circulated at the meeting and a copy is attached to the signed minutes).

i)                 Received from Mr P Holden in respect of increasing Council Tax to pay for the increasing costs of providing adult social care. 

          There was no supplementary question.

ii)               Received from Mrs E Bullard in respect of introducing a 20mph speed limit in all residential areas across the county. 

By way of a supplementary question Mrs Bullard asked the Portfolio Holder if he would reconsider for the following reasons:

·       The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, in a recent report on "The State of Child Health", recommends that "all local authorities should introduce 20mph speed limits in built up areas to create safer environments for children to work, cycle and play".  This would reduce child deaths from vehicles and air pollution, and also illnesses related to physical inactivity.

·       Current Shropshire Council policy is to consider specific road safety issues individually. This is not an effective policy for considering a reduction in the default speed limit as the safety benefits of reducing to a 20mph limit are relevant in all built up areas.

·       Again, there is public support for the introduction of 20mph speed limits, including a petition in Oswestry with over 1000 signatures.

                    The Portfolio Holder undertook to look at this again after the meeting.

iii)              Received from Mr P Gilbert in respect of the lack of public consultation on the draft Shropshire Bus Strategy recently. 

The Portfolio Holder apologised for this oversight, which had now been rectified.  This was now a public document and was also available on the Council’s website.  He assured there had been no pre-determination and confirmed that the consultation exercise was underway.

iv)             Received from Mr J Dean in respect of the proposed re-development at The Barracks, Shrewsbury and the possible provision of additional school places within local primary schools. 

          There was no supplementary question.

v)               Received from Mr M Willmott regarding footpath access at Shrewsbury railway station from Abbey Foregate.

By way of a supplementary question Mr Willmott asked if in maintaining a dialogue with the rail stakeholders on this matter, shouldn’t Shropshire Council insist on the obligation to open this access path as soon as possible?

The Portfolio Holder said he would continue to work towards this end.

vi)             Received from Mrs B Phillips (not Jones as printed) in respect of investment in a sustainable travel system for Shrewsbury, enabling a huge increase in walking, cycling and public transport.

By way of a supplementary question Mrs Phillips asked if the Council could increase its knowledge about numbers and the use of the public transport system in Shrewsbury by drawing up a business case.

The Portfolio Holder thanked Mrs Phillips for her question and said that all of those issues were contained within the Local Transport Plan and would of course be considered in any future decision-making.