RESIDENTS have called for a deputy mayor to be excluded from any decision making about farmland he works on amid a row over dogs injuring sheep.

Councillor Tim Armour sits on Telscombe Town Council’s policy and resources committee which has proposed fining dog walkers who have their pets off the lead on Telscombe Tye.

Cllr Armour runs Stud Farm which is part of Telscombe Tye and has listed the site in his register of interest as a councillor.

On that register he also listed that he has grazing rights and manages the council’s community flock of sheep.

He has previously claimed the community flock he looks after on the council land is being attacked by dogs, with more than 30 sheep being killed in last year.

Residents have said he should not be involved in any future decision making regarding Telscombe Tye at the council meetings.

The Dog Walkers of Telscombe Tye group said: “It has always seemed a gross conflict of interest that somebody who grazes his flock of sheep on the Tye could be able to sit on a council which makes decisions about the management of the Tye.

“It is difficult to imagine how Mr Armour would be able to act in the best interests of the tax-paying public whilst also being concerned with his business’ profits.”

The council’s code of conduct states that where a matter arises at a meeting which relates to an interest the member shall not participate in a discussion or vote on the matter.

An interest is described as any employment, office, trade, profession or vocation carried on for profit or gain by the member or by his/her spouse or civil partner or by the person with whom the member is living as if they were spouses/civil partners.

Over the past three years, council meeting papers show Cllr Armour’s dealings with the council as its contractor:

l Cllr Armour invoices the council he sits on for community sheep upkeep.

On July 27, 2016, and January 23, 2017, Cllr Armour had handed the council invoices totalling £2,540 for the community sheep.

In addition he has also asked for £340 to be approved to replace the flock’s ram and is given permission to buy more ewes in 2016 and 2018.

But other meetings appear to show his involvement in discussions as a councillor.

l Cllr Armour gets involved in discussions regarding the Tye despite having an interest.

In January last year he reminded councillors he had an interest in Telscombe Tye but remained a part of the meeting.

He had submitted a list of fencing works for the Tye and then joined in with the meeting when he showed maps detailing the area.

The meeting minutes describe a moment where “Councillor Armour advised that if the council had the central area cleared he would maintain it.

“It was unanimously agreed that Cllr Armour get a quote for clearance work.”

In 2016, he attends a meeting on the Tye Management Plan.

Public and press were excluded due to the “confidential” nature of business.

It is not clear from the minutes if Cllr Armour was involved in discussions.

In May 8, 2017, minutes show that “Cllr Armour advised that neighbouring landowners should fence the land out and he had written information from the National Farmers’ Union”.

He was asked to provide this information to the town clerk.

At the same meeting, Cllr Armour confirmed he received regular phone calls from the public if there were any issues with sheep on the Tye.

It was therefore proposed by Cllr Armour, seconded by Cllr Job Harris, and recommended that a project was not taken forward.

l Cllr Armour is listed as the chairman of a meeting that changes Freedom of Information requests rules to stop requests made to contractors, like himself.

At a full council meeting in July this year he is listed as chairing a meeting that decided if the public and press ask for information about council contractors they could refuse to provide it on the basis it is too expensive.

Last month he was listed as attending a meeting on the community flock and Tye management.

In these last three instances it is not clear from the minutes if he is involved in discussions.

The Argus contacted the council for comment but it could not reply by the time the paper went to print.

It is possible in exceptional circumstances for councillors to have special dispensations to participate in meetings where they have an interest but the council has not confirmed whether Cllr Armour has been given any dispensation.

The Argus was unable to contact Cllr Armour for comment.