House, Allerby, Cumbria, CA7 2NL
of the meeting of Bridekirk Parish Council held onThursday 8th March
Dubmill (Chair); Mr R Stenson; Rev M Jackson; Mr I McCambridge; Mr W Nixon; Mr M
Rollison; Mr R Coy. Members of the public: Mr M Buckley (Dovenby Resident); Mr D
Hodgson (Dovenby Resident) and Ms C Pearson (Rivers Trust); Ms D Cosgrove
for absence received from Mrs C Fossey; Mrs N Cockbun (ABC) Mrs J Farebrother;
(ABC) Mr H Graham (CCC); PCSO A Ostle (Cumbria Constabulary)
minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 8th February 2018 were signed
as a true record.
declarations of interest in items on the agenda
were no members of the public wishing to present to the PC on this occasion.
were no accounts for payment or discussion for this period.
from outside bodies
applications – taken from Planning Portal
Land adjacent to Ellerbeck Brow Road, Bridekirk
Compliance of Condition 33 new build on application 2/2016/0045. Scheme section
10, phase 2 Harrot Hill pumping station sub phase 1D 3B
- Noted – no objections
received from Mr D Hodgson, requesting consideration for a place on the PC.
Follow up from the FOI request (covered under M-Sport
Buckley and Caitlin Pearson outlined the proposals to alleviate some of the
flooding issues in Dovenby. The PC listened with interest and have expressed
their appreciation and support for the wooden structures that are being
considered for reducing the speed of water entering into the beck. Ms Pearson
was also able to confirm that the work for Tallentire is progressing albeit
slower than some may like, but that things are happening.
is the ongoing battle with keeping on top of reporting of potholes. People are
reminded that if they have concerns that some of the potholes could be perceived
as dangerous to cyclists and vehicles they should indicate this in any complaint
Graham had sent in an email report saying that he was trying to organise a joint
meeting between the various agencies, but this was felt to be the same
information being sent in each month and some time since he had attended
meeting. Clerk was instructed to write immediately asking for a proper timeline
of expected action.
response to the request for information was received. It was felt by the PC to
be so relevant that clerk was instructed to copy the outcome in full into the
minutes. See below. It was further instructed that she write and ask for
specific dates of disclosure and to question whether the letters that had been
supposedly hand delivered had indeed been as nobody that was asked appeared to
have received one.
of request for information on noise testing at M Sport.
authorities must consider the effect of making information public, not the
effect of giving it to a particular requester, when carrying out the public
interest test. The ICO guidance states that “…disclosures under the EIR are
in effect to the world at large, not just to the individual requester. The
requester’s private interests are not in themselves the same as the public
interest, and what may serve those private interests does not necessarily serve
a wider public interest. Private interests are irrelevant to the public interest
protecting the integrity of the decision-making process, we would argue that our
officers require a ‘safe space’ in which to reach decisions away from public
scrutiny. Disclosing the material at
this stage would harm that safe space.
Council appreciates that, in most cases, the ICO does not consider ‘misleading
or giving an inaccurate impression’ as an argument for non-disclosure.
However, in this instance incomplete noise measurements could be taken out of
context and it would be difficult, time consuming and require a disproportionate
effort for our officers to correct any impression or provide further explanation
to the public. As stated above, this would hinder those officers from completing
the work of which the noise monitoring is part. We would therefore maintain
that, in this case, ‘misleading or giving an inaccurate impression’ is a
valid public interest argument.
case is further strengthened where there is an intention to publish the
information, as in this case, once the settled view has been agreed.
Allerdale Borough Council would wish to be as transparent as possible, we
maintain that disclosure at this stage would not be in the public interest.
Two applications for submission to the CCF fund for next meeting. One for a
Youth Club in Gilcrux and another for Isel Church.
Discussions around these two applications took place. Update at next
date and time of next meeting as Thursday
12th April 2018, 7.30pm at Bridekirk Dovenby School.
ended at 8.51pm.