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?