Icklesham Parish Council has voted for an increase of 20.6% in next year's "precept", which is the tax levied by the parish council and included in the Council Tax bill collected by Rother. Only Winchelsea councillors voted against.
The tax hike means that the last two terms of Icklesham Parish Council will have seen the tax on residents quadruple from £19,000 to almost £95,000. And this sum excludes a borrowing by the council of £40,000. It comes despite a call from government for parishes not to raise taxes this year in view of the continuing deterioration in the financial circumstances of an increasing number of tax-payers.
The tax hike comes despite the fact that Icklesham Parish Council has never managed to spend what it has taken from residents. The current council has managed to spend an average of just 71% of its budgeted expenditures and a mere 65% of its annual income. To put this another way, the parish council tax has been at least one-third higher than it needed to be. When this one pointed out to the council, one councillor objected to our use of percentages and demanded that we talk "cash". Very well! From the last financial year, Icklesham Parish Council carried over £42,000 of unspent funds. The year before, they brought forward over £55,000. The year before that, almost £40,000.
And these numbers disguise the true situation because of the switching of sums during the year from projects included in the original budgets to new projects not envisaged when the budgets were drafted (in other words, residents are often told they are being taxed for one thing, but the money is then spent on another).
We were assured that, this year, there would be no underspend. We were told the same thing last year. And Icklesham Parish Council's forecasting has never been good. The carry-overs from the three last financial years of £42,000+, £55,000+ and £40,000 compare with forecasts of £21,000, £36,000 and £15,000, respectively. We can be sure that every effort will now be made to spend as much money as possible this year in order to avoid another underspend, but the pressure to do this is a cause for concern. Among other weaknesses, Icklesham Parish Council has a predilection for spending money on itself. We have just agreed to spend £125 on a memorial plaque for a deceased former councillor, having previously spend tax-payers' money on flowers and a gift. We have also bought flowers for councillors who are unwell, presents for retiring councillors and clerk, and even lunch for a guide and his wife who took a group of councillors on a private tour. Yet, we have been advised that best practice for such personal gestures is for councillors to dip into their own pockets (which would also show genuine sentiment).
One argument in favour of next year's tax hike was that the sums involved were small when considered in terms of the bill for each household. The precept averages about £65 a year. In isolation, many people may consider such a sum to be small. But every penny of money taken from taxpayers should be necessary and should never sit idle in the bank accounts of councils. Such sums must also be considered in the context of other tax bills facing residents, the increasing cost of living and the shrinking real value of wages and pensions. For many, £65 may be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
Other arguments to justify the tax hike included the extra cost of elections next year. In fact, this adds just £6,000 to the bill. The real drivers of the tax hike are unnecessary changes such as the increase in the contingency fund to £10,000. This decision ignores the hard evidence: pattern of past expenditures show that overspending on some projects has been small and swamped by underspending on other projects. A more realistic figure for contingency fund would be about £4,000.
Then, we were told that the Sussex Association of Local Councils has been urging parishes to increase their budgets to make up for the cuts in the budgets of District and County Councils. Unfortunately, none of the planned expenditures by Icklesham Parish Council address any of the areas of reduced expenditure by other councils.
Finally, we were urged to consider the benefits of parish council spending to the lives of residents. However, despite the increase in tax, most wards will see no new projects. All new proposals for Winchelsea were rejected. We are left with projects that should have been completed in previous years.
The situation at Icklesham Parish Council is unlikely to be improved by the sudden resignation of our new clerk after just six months in post. The clerk's departure seems a real pity. In just six months, she managed to clear a huge amount of the backlog of projects and to sort out internal systems. However, at the last council meeting, the chairman refused to allow discussion of the clerk's reasons for resignation, even though the meeting was in confidential session. We have real concerns that the council, which is the clerk's employer and liable for mistakes under employment law, is not being told why the clerk's departure, which followed a meeting with the chairman and vice chairman, was so sudden and unexpected.
Cllrs Chishick, Comotto, Terry
Sunday 19 December 2010
Sunday 4 April 2010
New bench in Winchelsea
The parish council has received a letter from the Winchelsea Garden Society (signed by a Mrs Cynthia Feast) objecting to the new bench that has been installed by the council by the parish noticeboard in the centre of Winchelsea and demanding that the old bench be reinstated. The Garden Society claim that the old bench was theirs, despite having previously disclaimed all responsibility.
But even if the old bench was theirs, why should sensible and mature people want to replace a new and well-designed all-wood bench with an old and deteriorating metal-and-wood bench that was, to be frank, out of character with the area? As ever in Winchelsea, the object of a public argument is but a cover for personality politics, and some people appear happy to cut off their nose to spite their face.
This is not the first time that the bench has caused controversy. Cllr Sutton of Winchelsea Beach (still smarting from having been reported by Winchelsea councillors for having repeatedly failed to declare conflicts of interest) tried quite recently to block the installation of the bench on the grounds that replacing the old bench was an insult to the memory of the gentleman to whom it was dedicated (notwithstanding that the dedication plaque is being transferred) and even dug up a distant relative to write an incensed letter of objection (despite the new bench having been approved by the immediate family).
But even if the old bench was theirs, why should sensible and mature people want to replace a new and well-designed all-wood bench with an old and deteriorating metal-and-wood bench that was, to be frank, out of character with the area? As ever in Winchelsea, the object of a public argument is but a cover for personality politics, and some people appear happy to cut off their nose to spite their face.
This is not the first time that the bench has caused controversy. Cllr Sutton of Winchelsea Beach (still smarting from having been reported by Winchelsea councillors for having repeatedly failed to declare conflicts of interest) tried quite recently to block the installation of the bench on the grounds that replacing the old bench was an insult to the memory of the gentleman to whom it was dedicated (notwithstanding that the dedication plaque is being transferred) and even dug up a distant relative to write an incensed letter of objection (despite the new bench having been approved by the immediate family).
Council meeting on 8 March 2010
The main event was the refusal of the Council to contribute towards a youth project in Winchelsea. The proposal was to get groups of local youngsters (of whom there are over 60) to make short films about their life in and views of Winchelsea, with the assistance of a specialist not-for-profit company and borrowed equipment. There were a number of objectives. First, the project was seen an innovative solution to the particular problems of staging a youth consultation in Winchelsea as part of the Town Plan. There are no locations (as in other wards of the parish) such as youth clubs where youngsters congregate and can be contacted in numbers; the age range of youngsters in Winchelsea is very diverse; and a high percentage of families are weekenders. Children would form groups with friends and film at any time. Film-making was also seen as an activity that would attract youngsters, and allow them to offer candid and unprompted opinions, in a way that traditional consultation techniques such as questionnaires and meetings would not. Second, the project was seen as an activity for the spring and summer for a section of the community that notably lacks their facilities. Third, it was felt that the process of film-making would usefully engage youth and old in Winchelsea.
The grant application sought to make use of an item that has been included in the budget and council tax demand for several years (ranging from £1,000 to £3,000 a year) but has been spent only twice and remains unspent this financial year.
It was clear from the start that councillors from the other wards of Icklesham Parish were predisposed to oppose the application. It appeared that many councillors had not bothered to read the carefully argued project proposal and a couple of those that did had trouble with the numbers. Various spurious arguments were dredged up. The main objection was that the project did not include all four wards. Yet, the same demand was not made when other wards (eg Rye Harbour) applied for similar funding from the Council and councillors did not seek to have the project broadened. They simply voted it down.
Cllr Bronsdon argued that a film-making project had been organised in Rye Harbour some years earlier without council funding and so Winchelsea should not get funding from the council for its film. He ignored the fact that the purpose of the two film-making projects was completely different, but rather curiously commented that the resulting film had been made available in Rye Harbour and France (but nowhere else in the parish or country)!
Cllr Merricks (Icklesham) objected that some children in Winchelsea were from families who were weekenders and argued that council tax should not be spent on such people. The fact that weekend families pay council tax cut no ice.
Clearly, Winchelsea retains its special status in Icklesham Parish as a cash cow. One wonders whether the argument that a council grant must be spent on all wards will be applied to grant applications from any other ward?
The grant application sought to make use of an item that has been included in the budget and council tax demand for several years (ranging from £1,000 to £3,000 a year) but has been spent only twice and remains unspent this financial year.
It was clear from the start that councillors from the other wards of Icklesham Parish were predisposed to oppose the application. It appeared that many councillors had not bothered to read the carefully argued project proposal and a couple of those that did had trouble with the numbers. Various spurious arguments were dredged up. The main objection was that the project did not include all four wards. Yet, the same demand was not made when other wards (eg Rye Harbour) applied for similar funding from the Council and councillors did not seek to have the project broadened. They simply voted it down.
Cllr Bronsdon argued that a film-making project had been organised in Rye Harbour some years earlier without council funding and so Winchelsea should not get funding from the council for its film. He ignored the fact that the purpose of the two film-making projects was completely different, but rather curiously commented that the resulting film had been made available in Rye Harbour and France (but nowhere else in the parish or country)!
Cllr Merricks (Icklesham) objected that some children in Winchelsea were from families who were weekenders and argued that council tax should not be spent on such people. The fact that weekend families pay council tax cut no ice.
Clearly, Winchelsea retains its special status in Icklesham Parish as a cash cow. One wonders whether the argument that a council grant must be spent on all wards will be applied to grant applications from any other ward?
Friday 12 February 2010
Parish Council LAP
One logistical problem facing the Parish Council in its wish to circulate the Rother questionnaire in Winchelsea was, who would deliver? Certainly, none of the councillors from other wards would be willing to tramp the mean streets of Winchelsea (or their own wards, for that matter). The problem was solved by Jurat Michael Melvin, who told the Parish Clerk that he has a team of people who regularly deliver things around Winchelsea! In fact, the deliveries were done by various members of the unelected Corporation of Winchelsea, or at least those who are compos mentis and compos sana (still able to walk).
Parish Council meeting, 8 February 2010
Public questions
The usual brace of Jurats turned up. Jurat Melvin took umbrage at the resolution by Cllr Comotto asking for the heating in village halls to be turned on before council meetings and for the PR system to be hired for meetings at the New Hall. These requests followed complaints from councillors and members of the public about freezing conditions at a recent meeting in a village hall (the hall was just warming up when the meeting finished) and the perpetual difficulty of hearing what is being said in the New Hall. Quite why such requests should be taken as an insult to village halls is unclear. Helpfully, the village hall in which this month's council meeting was held (Winchelsea Beach) had been pre-heated.
Jurat Spencer attended but did not mention trains!
The Council has agreed to revert to its traditional practice of allowing public questions on any topic within the parish council's remit. The Council has the right to defer an answer to the following meeting and to ask for complex questions to be submitted in writing ahead of the following meeting.
Minutes
Three amendments by Cllr Comotto were agreed but to much grumbling by a couple of councillors, particularly Cllr Stanford. She objected to amendments being proposed at the meeting, despite having proposed five amendments at a recent meeting. She also seems to see amendments as something in which each ward should have its share. Thus, in response to one of Cllr Comotto's amendments, she retorted, "In that case, I what to amend..."
Of course, amendments to the minutes are boring. But the problem is that the minutes of Icklesham Parish Council read like a novellette. "Councillor X said this. Councillor Y disagreed. Councillor Z argued that..." Council minutes should record resolutions, decisions, reports and correspondence. Look at those of Rye Town Council: brief and to the point. And by eschewing a narrative of discussions, they avoid disputes about who said what and eliminate the scope for point-scoring.
Concise minutes would also reduce the burden on the Clerk. That has become an issue, with the Clerk (Derek Rosewell) resigning, because he feels he is not getting through the workload fast enough. Derek has been an efficient and very competent clerk, but has been overburdened with bureaucratic nonsense, including having to write verbose minutes.
Matters Arising
It was noted, but in the lowest possible key, that a raft of letters of protest had been received from Winchelsea residents about the Council's decision in November to refuse to spend the £165 earmarked in the budget for a noticeboard to keep residents of Tanyard Lane in the loop, and the attempt by Cllr Sutton to stop a new bench being installed in Winchelsea. All that councillors and members of the public discovered was that "around 20" letters had been received. What the letters said, and the strength of feeling, was left to the imagination. There really appears to be no point in writing to the Council to register a protest.
Local Action Plans
This was the main event of the evening and it took the form of an ambush. The ambush was set up, in the usual Icklesham Parish Council fashion, by planting a vague item on the agenda, "Local Action Plan Steering Group, Clerk to report". As the LAP Steering Group consists of councillors from Icklesham, Rye Harbour and Winchelsea Beach wards, one might have expected the focus to be a report by the Clerk on the "fast track" LAPs being created in those wards by Rother District Council. In fact, the focus was Winchelsea and the lead was taken, not by the Clerk, but by the Chairman (Jim Horsman of Icklesham ward).
The opening shot in the ambush was an ultimatum by the Chairman to the Winchelsea ward councillors: either the Winchelsea Town Plan Steering Committee hand over all data they have collected, or the parish council would go over their heads and circulate the standard questionnaire provided to the other three wards by Rother to Winchelsea (this is a standard one-size-fits-all questionnaire for a one-off consultation somewhat removed from the original LAP model envisaged by government). The Steering Committee itself had not been invited to the meeting. Instead, the Chairman wanted the Winchelsea councillors to make a decision on behalf of the Steering Committee. However, they felt that the Steering Committee had to take that decision and would have to meet. The Chairman demanded an answer within 24 hours and, when that was ruled out as impracticable, he demand that the Winchelsea Councillors make a decision on the spot. They refused. The Chairman then proposed that the Rother questionnaire be copied to Winchelsea and that residents be given until 22 February to respond. Winchelsea councillors objected to this time scale. By the time the form was copied and distributed, they argued, residents would have a week or less to respond. They also noted that a large section of the community were weekenders, who did not visit Winchelsea frequently in the winter and would therefore not get the questionnaire in time. These objections were brushed aside and, yet again, the three elected ward councillors for Winchelsea found themselves out-voted on a Winchelsea matter by councillors for other wards.
Why the rush? The Chairman told the Council that it was the wish of Rother District Council to see a single LAP for the whole of Icklesham Parish. He claimed that, if the information was not with Rother by 22 February, Winchelsea residents will "lose out" on unspecified funding! When asked why the Winchelsea Steering Committee had not been approached earlier, the Chairman claimed that Rother had been in contact with the Steering Committee since November. He was discomfited, but not deterred, by the information that the first contact from Rother had in fact been on 4 February and that this had been only to ask for a one-page update on the Winchelsea Town Plan.
It has subsequently been discovered that Rother has not asked for a single LAP for all four wards, as the Chairman claimed! So what is going on? Could it be that the councillors from the other wards of Icklesham Parish Council are concerned that a separate LAP for Winchelsea might reinforce the case for a separate parish of Winchelsea? If that is case, these councillors may find that they have just scored an own goal. Their behaviour will only strengthen the arguments for a separate parish by demonstrating the dysfunctional nature of Icklesham Parish Council.
Whatever the arguments for or against a separate parish, the attempted take-over will mean Winchelsea ends up with two competing LAPs, one supported by the "separatists" and the other by the "unionists". The LAP based on the one-size-fits-all questionnaire will hardly stand comparison with the detailed work produced by the local Steering Committee, but the credibility of both will suffer to some extent.
Cricket Field allotment gate
This is to be re-hung to prevent cattle barging it open and getting into the allotment.
The usual brace of Jurats turned up. Jurat Melvin took umbrage at the resolution by Cllr Comotto asking for the heating in village halls to be turned on before council meetings and for the PR system to be hired for meetings at the New Hall. These requests followed complaints from councillors and members of the public about freezing conditions at a recent meeting in a village hall (the hall was just warming up when the meeting finished) and the perpetual difficulty of hearing what is being said in the New Hall. Quite why such requests should be taken as an insult to village halls is unclear. Helpfully, the village hall in which this month's council meeting was held (Winchelsea Beach) had been pre-heated.
Jurat Spencer attended but did not mention trains!
The Council has agreed to revert to its traditional practice of allowing public questions on any topic within the parish council's remit. The Council has the right to defer an answer to the following meeting and to ask for complex questions to be submitted in writing ahead of the following meeting.
Minutes
Three amendments by Cllr Comotto were agreed but to much grumbling by a couple of councillors, particularly Cllr Stanford. She objected to amendments being proposed at the meeting, despite having proposed five amendments at a recent meeting. She also seems to see amendments as something in which each ward should have its share. Thus, in response to one of Cllr Comotto's amendments, she retorted, "In that case, I what to amend..."
Of course, amendments to the minutes are boring. But the problem is that the minutes of Icklesham Parish Council read like a novellette. "Councillor X said this. Councillor Y disagreed. Councillor Z argued that..." Council minutes should record resolutions, decisions, reports and correspondence. Look at those of Rye Town Council: brief and to the point. And by eschewing a narrative of discussions, they avoid disputes about who said what and eliminate the scope for point-scoring.
Concise minutes would also reduce the burden on the Clerk. That has become an issue, with the Clerk (Derek Rosewell) resigning, because he feels he is not getting through the workload fast enough. Derek has been an efficient and very competent clerk, but has been overburdened with bureaucratic nonsense, including having to write verbose minutes.
Matters Arising
It was noted, but in the lowest possible key, that a raft of letters of protest had been received from Winchelsea residents about the Council's decision in November to refuse to spend the £165 earmarked in the budget for a noticeboard to keep residents of Tanyard Lane in the loop, and the attempt by Cllr Sutton to stop a new bench being installed in Winchelsea. All that councillors and members of the public discovered was that "around 20" letters had been received. What the letters said, and the strength of feeling, was left to the imagination. There really appears to be no point in writing to the Council to register a protest.
Local Action Plans
This was the main event of the evening and it took the form of an ambush. The ambush was set up, in the usual Icklesham Parish Council fashion, by planting a vague item on the agenda, "Local Action Plan Steering Group, Clerk to report". As the LAP Steering Group consists of councillors from Icklesham, Rye Harbour and Winchelsea Beach wards, one might have expected the focus to be a report by the Clerk on the "fast track" LAPs being created in those wards by Rother District Council. In fact, the focus was Winchelsea and the lead was taken, not by the Clerk, but by the Chairman (Jim Horsman of Icklesham ward).
The opening shot in the ambush was an ultimatum by the Chairman to the Winchelsea ward councillors: either the Winchelsea Town Plan Steering Committee hand over all data they have collected, or the parish council would go over their heads and circulate the standard questionnaire provided to the other three wards by Rother to Winchelsea (this is a standard one-size-fits-all questionnaire for a one-off consultation somewhat removed from the original LAP model envisaged by government). The Steering Committee itself had not been invited to the meeting. Instead, the Chairman wanted the Winchelsea councillors to make a decision on behalf of the Steering Committee. However, they felt that the Steering Committee had to take that decision and would have to meet. The Chairman demanded an answer within 24 hours and, when that was ruled out as impracticable, he demand that the Winchelsea Councillors make a decision on the spot. They refused. The Chairman then proposed that the Rother questionnaire be copied to Winchelsea and that residents be given until 22 February to respond. Winchelsea councillors objected to this time scale. By the time the form was copied and distributed, they argued, residents would have a week or less to respond. They also noted that a large section of the community were weekenders, who did not visit Winchelsea frequently in the winter and would therefore not get the questionnaire in time. These objections were brushed aside and, yet again, the three elected ward councillors for Winchelsea found themselves out-voted on a Winchelsea matter by councillors for other wards.
Why the rush? The Chairman told the Council that it was the wish of Rother District Council to see a single LAP for the whole of Icklesham Parish. He claimed that, if the information was not with Rother by 22 February, Winchelsea residents will "lose out" on unspecified funding! When asked why the Winchelsea Steering Committee had not been approached earlier, the Chairman claimed that Rother had been in contact with the Steering Committee since November. He was discomfited, but not deterred, by the information that the first contact from Rother had in fact been on 4 February and that this had been only to ask for a one-page update on the Winchelsea Town Plan.
It has subsequently been discovered that Rother has not asked for a single LAP for all four wards, as the Chairman claimed! So what is going on? Could it be that the councillors from the other wards of Icklesham Parish Council are concerned that a separate LAP for Winchelsea might reinforce the case for a separate parish of Winchelsea? If that is case, these councillors may find that they have just scored an own goal. Their behaviour will only strengthen the arguments for a separate parish by demonstrating the dysfunctional nature of Icklesham Parish Council.
Whatever the arguments for or against a separate parish, the attempted take-over will mean Winchelsea ends up with two competing LAPs, one supported by the "separatists" and the other by the "unionists". The LAP based on the one-size-fits-all questionnaire will hardly stand comparison with the detailed work produced by the local Steering Committee, but the credibility of both will suffer to some extent.
Cricket Field allotment gate
This is to be re-hung to prevent cattle barging it open and getting into the allotment.
Wednesday 13 January 2010
Results of 2010/11 budget consultation in Winchelsea
The following is a summary of the response to a questionnaire sent out to all residents of Winchelsea asking what they would like to see in the 2010/11 budget. 104 adults responded, by far the largest indication of public opinion in the parish. The results were studiously ignored by the parish council.
1 Unless there are really worthwhile projects, the aim should be to reduce the budget and precept.
YES 81% NO 11%
2 No new projects should be added to the budget until all previous ones are completed.
YES 64% NO 21%
3 All new projects should be programmed, so that tax is not levied until it is needed.
YES 89% NO 0%
4 No project should be included in the budget until the possibility of grants has been properly explored.
YES 87% NO 9%
5 As recommended by the Council's own Financial Regulations, budget planning should extend three years into the future.
YES 85% NO 0%
6 In line with best practice, all capital projects should be assessed when completed to check that they have been properly managed, and all recipients of grants should be required to report back on how grants were spent.
YES 96% NO 0%
7 The Contingency Fund should be cut to £5,000.
YES 70% NO 6%
8 The Chairman's Allowance (£450) should be abolished.
YES 64% NO 13%
9 The budgets for Quality Parish Council (£1,500) and youth project (£1,000) should be axed until programmes of implementation are produced.
YES 75% NO 4%
10 There should be no further expenditures on new playground equipment until need is assessed and a clear strategy produced. There should be a cap on annual spending on playgrounds in order to smooth out future replacement costs.
YES 75% NO 6%
11 The budgets for Playground Maintenance (£2,500) and Rye Harbour Flagpole (£1,000) should be cut back until programmes of implementation are published.
YES 74% NO 4%
12 Grants to village halls should only be made in cases of need, where the village hall applies for a particular capital project.
YES 77% NO 9%
13 The priority for next year's budget should be to bring the condition of land owned or leased by the Council, particularly its allotments, up to a high standard. The allotments need effective external fencing.
YES 66% NO 4%
14 A water supply to the Pear Tree Marsh allotments. This should be a green solution in the form of a solar-powered pump to extract water from the river.
YES 64% NO 8%
15 The derelict land next to the allotments at Pear Tree Marsh allotments, which is used for parking by just a select handful of residents, should be converted into a secure car park open to all residents of Tanyard Lane. There should be a modest charge for a parking space in order to recoup the cost.
YES 64% 6%
16 The bus shelter in The Strand is in a disgusting state and not well-designed to deter vandalism. It should be rebuilt in brick and tile, with the front open to view, and well-lit.
YES 77% No 8%
17 A programme to clean the bus shelters and benches in Winchelsea.
YES 89% NO 6%
18 The Council pays the annual recalibration fee for the Winchelsea speed gun.
YES 89% NO 4%
19 A grant towards the archaeological investigation of the new site for a public tennis court being discussed by the Winchelsea Tennis Association and Winchelsea Cricket Club, to be match-funded by a grant from Rother.
YES 75% NO 4%
20 A new sign for Wesley tree.
YES 68% NO 6%
Comments included: the Council should never borrow; the Council should renegotiate the rent for Rye Harbour flagpole; there should be no charge for the Pear Tree Marsh car park; the Chairman's Allowance should be a £100 expenses account; the Council should repair the grass verges; Winchelsea needs more footpaths in and out; there needs to be a VAS on Tanyard Lane; there should be visitor parking.
1 Unless there are really worthwhile projects, the aim should be to reduce the budget and precept.
YES 81% NO 11%
2 No new projects should be added to the budget until all previous ones are completed.
YES 64% NO 21%
3 All new projects should be programmed, so that tax is not levied until it is needed.
YES 89% NO 0%
4 No project should be included in the budget until the possibility of grants has been properly explored.
YES 87% NO 9%
5 As recommended by the Council's own Financial Regulations, budget planning should extend three years into the future.
YES 85% NO 0%
6 In line with best practice, all capital projects should be assessed when completed to check that they have been properly managed, and all recipients of grants should be required to report back on how grants were spent.
YES 96% NO 0%
7 The Contingency Fund should be cut to £5,000.
YES 70% NO 6%
8 The Chairman's Allowance (£450) should be abolished.
YES 64% NO 13%
9 The budgets for Quality Parish Council (£1,500) and youth project (£1,000) should be axed until programmes of implementation are produced.
YES 75% NO 4%
10 There should be no further expenditures on new playground equipment until need is assessed and a clear strategy produced. There should be a cap on annual spending on playgrounds in order to smooth out future replacement costs.
YES 75% NO 6%
11 The budgets for Playground Maintenance (£2,500) and Rye Harbour Flagpole (£1,000) should be cut back until programmes of implementation are published.
YES 74% NO 4%
12 Grants to village halls should only be made in cases of need, where the village hall applies for a particular capital project.
YES 77% NO 9%
13 The priority for next year's budget should be to bring the condition of land owned or leased by the Council, particularly its allotments, up to a high standard. The allotments need effective external fencing.
YES 66% NO 4%
14 A water supply to the Pear Tree Marsh allotments. This should be a green solution in the form of a solar-powered pump to extract water from the river.
YES 64% NO 8%
15 The derelict land next to the allotments at Pear Tree Marsh allotments, which is used for parking by just a select handful of residents, should be converted into a secure car park open to all residents of Tanyard Lane. There should be a modest charge for a parking space in order to recoup the cost.
YES 64% 6%
16 The bus shelter in The Strand is in a disgusting state and not well-designed to deter vandalism. It should be rebuilt in brick and tile, with the front open to view, and well-lit.
YES 77% No 8%
17 A programme to clean the bus shelters and benches in Winchelsea.
YES 89% NO 6%
18 The Council pays the annual recalibration fee for the Winchelsea speed gun.
YES 89% NO 4%
19 A grant towards the archaeological investigation of the new site for a public tennis court being discussed by the Winchelsea Tennis Association and Winchelsea Cricket Club, to be match-funded by a grant from Rother.
YES 75% NO 4%
20 A new sign for Wesley tree.
YES 68% NO 6%
Comments included: the Council should never borrow; the Council should renegotiate the rent for Rye Harbour flagpole; there should be no charge for the Pear Tree Marsh car park; the Chairman's Allowance should be a £100 expenses account; the Council should repair the grass verges; Winchelsea needs more footpaths in and out; there needs to be a VAS on Tanyard Lane; there should be visitor parking.
Monday 11 January 2010
Council meeting on 11 January 2010
Public Questions opened with the now traditional contribution by a member of Winchelsea Corporation. There was only one in attendance this month and, as this was Jurat Spencer, the topic was naturally the timetable at Winchelsea station.
The big event of the night was the budget. It had been agreed, at the last meeting, that the budget would be £99,085 and the precept £77,500. But it was not to be. Cllr Bronsdon argued that it had been agreed formally in November to include £1,000 for youth projects and that the decision at the December meeting to delete this (because there is no actual youth project to be financed) had been improper. He wanted the £1,000 re-inserted. Readers will recall that Cllr Bronsdon had repeatedly challenged the Chairman at the last meeting over cuts in the budget. Despite both the Chairman and the Clerk stating that no formal decision had been made in November and despite the lack of a youth project, the rest of the Council (excluding Winchelsea councillors) reversed their December decision and reinstated the £1,000. So, the budget is now £100,084 and the precept £78,500. Of course, the increase in the precept will not worry Cllr Bronsdon personally: being a resident of Rye, he will not pay Council Tax in Ickelsham Parish.
An application was made by Icklesham School for £3,000 for a canopy and play equipment. This has apparently been required by Ofsted! Some councillors felt that such requirements should be financed from the education budget. There was also doubt about whether the Council had the power to make such a grant, given that the school is not a community facility. The school claim that the playground will be open to the community, but this seems doubtful given the restrictions on access imposed by schools these days. In the end, the Council made a grant of £1,000.
A proposal to create another plot at the Pear Tree Marsh allotment (to address the waiting list) was deferred at the insistence of non-Winchelsea councillors. One objection was from Cllr Merricks, who was convinced that there was an oak tree in the middle of the plot! And she also objected that she had not had time to visit the site and that the proposal had simply appeared on the agenda. Quite where she thinks proposals should appear, other than on the agenda, is unclear.Cllr Bronsdon objected to an additional plot on the grounds that there was no water supply at Pear Tree Marsh.
Cllr Merricks was also the author of a curious resolution insisting that nothing should appear on the Works Programme that had not been authorised by the Council. When asked for an example of such unapproved work, she cited work at the Cricket Field allotment. In fact, this had been discussed by the Council in May 2009 (Minute 09/106). In the end, the Council instructed the Clerk to add the date and minute of the meeting against each item in the Work Programme.
But Cllr Merricks is not the only one who has difficulty following Council business and is unwilling to keep her own records. Cllr Stanford, whose lapses of memory have already forced the Council to buy a recording system, proposed that the Clerk keep a book of Council policies for reference. In fact, given that the policies of the Council are adopted in the form of decisions, this record exists already in the form of the Minutes and the Council's Decision Book. However, Cllr Stanford is not prepared to read the Minutes and was unaware that a Decision Book existed. But she and other councillors were unwilling to accept a proposal that the Minutes should be made easier to consult by limiting them to recording only the essentials of a meeting, such as decisions, and that the Decisions Book should be published. Instead, the Clerk has been lumbered with another unnecessary task.
All in all, this meeting was a messy affair. The Chairman once again lost control of the meeting and his failure to enforce Standing Orders allowed incoherent, multilateral arguments to break out, as well as permitting Cllr Stanford to resume her habit of making snide asides and pulling faces whenever Winchelsea councillors spoke. In a classic performance, she moaned and griped about three amendments to the Minutes by Cllr Comotto, asking the gallery why these amendments were not sent to the Clerk in advance of the meeting, while ignoring the Clerk's reply that the amendments had been sent in advance and ignoring the fact that she is happy enough to table amendments at meetings (she tabled five as recently as November). Later on, Cllr Stanford had another pop at the Clerk, while standing in for the Chairman, for failing to have a document to hand.
No one could accuse Cllrs Moore, Sutton and Thompson of any rudeness. They once again contributed absolutely nothing to the meeting. How can they suffer in silence?
Postscript. It was revealed that the Chairman had tapped his allowance for £80 for flowers for the widow of the late former councillor, Michael Alford, and two donations to charities. Once again, councillors have chosen to ignore the advice of SALC, that such donations should come out of the pockets of councillors, rather than be passed onto to tax-payers.
The big event of the night was the budget. It had been agreed, at the last meeting, that the budget would be £99,085 and the precept £77,500. But it was not to be. Cllr Bronsdon argued that it had been agreed formally in November to include £1,000 for youth projects and that the decision at the December meeting to delete this (because there is no actual youth project to be financed) had been improper. He wanted the £1,000 re-inserted. Readers will recall that Cllr Bronsdon had repeatedly challenged the Chairman at the last meeting over cuts in the budget. Despite both the Chairman and the Clerk stating that no formal decision had been made in November and despite the lack of a youth project, the rest of the Council (excluding Winchelsea councillors) reversed their December decision and reinstated the £1,000. So, the budget is now £100,084 and the precept £78,500. Of course, the increase in the precept will not worry Cllr Bronsdon personally: being a resident of Rye, he will not pay Council Tax in Ickelsham Parish.
An application was made by Icklesham School for £3,000 for a canopy and play equipment. This has apparently been required by Ofsted! Some councillors felt that such requirements should be financed from the education budget. There was also doubt about whether the Council had the power to make such a grant, given that the school is not a community facility. The school claim that the playground will be open to the community, but this seems doubtful given the restrictions on access imposed by schools these days. In the end, the Council made a grant of £1,000.
A proposal to create another plot at the Pear Tree Marsh allotment (to address the waiting list) was deferred at the insistence of non-Winchelsea councillors. One objection was from Cllr Merricks, who was convinced that there was an oak tree in the middle of the plot! And she also objected that she had not had time to visit the site and that the proposal had simply appeared on the agenda. Quite where she thinks proposals should appear, other than on the agenda, is unclear.Cllr Bronsdon objected to an additional plot on the grounds that there was no water supply at Pear Tree Marsh.
Cllr Merricks was also the author of a curious resolution insisting that nothing should appear on the Works Programme that had not been authorised by the Council. When asked for an example of such unapproved work, she cited work at the Cricket Field allotment. In fact, this had been discussed by the Council in May 2009 (Minute 09/106). In the end, the Council instructed the Clerk to add the date and minute of the meeting against each item in the Work Programme.
But Cllr Merricks is not the only one who has difficulty following Council business and is unwilling to keep her own records. Cllr Stanford, whose lapses of memory have already forced the Council to buy a recording system, proposed that the Clerk keep a book of Council policies for reference. In fact, given that the policies of the Council are adopted in the form of decisions, this record exists already in the form of the Minutes and the Council's Decision Book. However, Cllr Stanford is not prepared to read the Minutes and was unaware that a Decision Book existed. But she and other councillors were unwilling to accept a proposal that the Minutes should be made easier to consult by limiting them to recording only the essentials of a meeting, such as decisions, and that the Decisions Book should be published. Instead, the Clerk has been lumbered with another unnecessary task.
All in all, this meeting was a messy affair. The Chairman once again lost control of the meeting and his failure to enforce Standing Orders allowed incoherent, multilateral arguments to break out, as well as permitting Cllr Stanford to resume her habit of making snide asides and pulling faces whenever Winchelsea councillors spoke. In a classic performance, she moaned and griped about three amendments to the Minutes by Cllr Comotto, asking the gallery why these amendments were not sent to the Clerk in advance of the meeting, while ignoring the Clerk's reply that the amendments had been sent in advance and ignoring the fact that she is happy enough to table amendments at meetings (she tabled five as recently as November). Later on, Cllr Stanford had another pop at the Clerk, while standing in for the Chairman, for failing to have a document to hand.
No one could accuse Cllrs Moore, Sutton and Thompson of any rudeness. They once again contributed absolutely nothing to the meeting. How can they suffer in silence?
Postscript. It was revealed that the Chairman had tapped his allowance for £80 for flowers for the widow of the late former councillor, Michael Alford, and two donations to charities. Once again, councillors have chosen to ignore the advice of SALC, that such donations should come out of the pockets of councillors, rather than be passed onto to tax-payers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)