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.
Wednesday 13 January 2010
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)