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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)