Council meeting of 13 February 2012

The meeting kicked off with Public Questions. A youngster from Winchesea Beach, aged 11, asked the Council for a skate board facility in Winchelsea Beach. The Chairman asked the youngster to consult residents. Not something that elected ward councillors should be doing then!

A Mr Spencer from Winchelsea, who claimed to speak on behalf of the Church Wardens of St Thomas’s Church, said that the Church wanted a grant towards churchyard maintenance. He quoted a figure of £170,000 a year but this is for all outgoings. One hopes that the Church knows what it wants this time around. It currently gets a grant from the Council for grass cutting but used to receive more until councillors from other wards objected to splitting the grant to churches in proportion to the relative costs (they now all get different percentages of their costs). The Church made no objection to the cut. Then, when the Rector approached the Council through a ward councillor for help with the cost of new central heating and with a proposal that the Council take responsibility for the War Memorial in the churchyard, a churchwarden turned up and objected! It is also worth noting that, when the Council was asked by a Winchelsea ward councillor to contribute to a new sign for the Wesley Chapel, one of the ostensible objections was giving money to places of worship.

District Councillor Osborne read out a letter that he had received from the owners of Look Out Cottage claiming that the damaged wall by the Strand Gate belongs to ESCC. The former have just repaired the wall after a delay of over year while they argued about its ownership. The letter was critical of both ESCC and Rother. The latter had threatened to serve a notice on the owners enforcing repairs. ESCC are adamant that they are not responsible for the wall and that it belongs to Look Out Cottage.

Cllr Stanford proposed that “factual inaccuracies” in this blog be included as an item on future agendas. This was seconded by Cllr Bronsdon. Cllr Chishick voted against, Cllr P Turner abstained. On the subject of factual inaccuracies, Cllrs Stanford and Bronsdon were among the principal authors of recent complaints against fellow councilllors which alleged they had made misleading and untruthful statements. These allegations, supported by Rother District Council’s Standards Committee, were dismissed in their entirety by an appeals tribunal.

Icklesham Recreation Ground car park continues to benefit from the Council’s largesse. It was resurfaced by the Council and they will now be paying for lighting. The Council will also buy a padlock to secure the gate. In contrast, the Council refuses to do anything to bring the unofficial residents’ car park at Pear Tree Marsh up to a reasonable standard (no repairs to the surface or further clearance of rubbish and undergrowth) and it has lost interest in regularising the status of this car park (the Council is in breach of the covenant on its deed of purchase by allowing parking). Nor will the Council lock the allotment, as it used to, despite having splashed out on an expensive lock and uncopiable keys. Of course, one car park is in Icklesham, while the other is in Winchelsea.

The subject of the conduct of Council meetings was discussed. There have been complaints of poor chairmanship leading to meetings over-running. Recommended best practice is a maximum of 2 hours, because long meetings dissuade members of the public from attending and deter working people from standing for councils. The Council decided it would limit meetings to 2 hours and 15 minutes, or 2 hours and 45 minutes, if the Chairman thinks a longer meeting is necessary. The big question now is what happens during the meetings.

A proposal to hire a graphic designer at £40 an hour to maintain the Council’s newsletter was surprisingly and sensibly rejected.

The Council adopted a revised complaints procedure. It is difficult to know whether members of the public will give it much credence, since the Council acts as its own judge and jury. And Icklesham Parish Council has yet to deal with its last complaint, lodged several years ago by Mr Jasper of Winchelsea.

The Diamond Jubilee did not receive a positive response from the Council, at least as far as Winchelsea went. Cllr P Turner opposed the planting of a Jubilee oak in Winchelsea. In his opinion, “the oak is a forest tree” whereas Winchelsea is a “suburb”. But if there was little enthusiasm for a Diamond Jubilee Street oak, there was even less for the Street Party in Winchelsea. Several councillors expressed concerns about the impact of the related road closures on local businesses. These included Cllrs S Turner and Stanford (both currently or formerly employed by local businesses). Cllr P Turner on the other hand was worried about the disruption to Winchelsea’s busy bus service, even though the bus stop will be moved only about 20 yards, as it has several times in the past.