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).
Sunday 4 April 2010
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)