The meeting once again saw the attendance of both clerks, unnecessarily adding to the council’s cost of administration.
At the Annual Parish Assembly, the threat of a Parish Poll had focussed the minds of councillors on whether parish tax-payers would accept a proposal that the council borrow up to £100,000, on top of the £40,000 already borrowed, largely to finance additional playground equipment in Icklesham. Councillors know that the hard-pressed tax-payers of other wards, let alone Icklesham, are unlikely to be impressed. Council debt would rise to some 150% of annual revenue, close to the debt/GDP ratios of those other paragons of fiscal prudence, Iceland, Ireland and Italy. That level of debt would also mean that a chunk of about £7,500 of each year’s revenue would be committed to paying off that debt every year for the next 20 years. A Parish Poll was proposed because it was felt that such a massive change in the financial structure and obligations of the parish should be put before voters.
At the Annual Parish Assembly, the Chairman had agreed to ask the council to consult residents before borrowing through a consultation organised by the council. But with no members of the public at the council meeting to hear what they said, some councillors tried to scupper that idea. Cllr Stanford argued that, as there had been no public consultation on the first borrowing of £40,000, there should be no public consultation on borrowing further £100,000. Cllr Warren, normally the voice of commonsense, proposed that any consultation should be ignored unless the result was supported by at least 50% of the electorate. Most councillors still do not seem to accept the principle that voting should not be subject to arbitrary conditions, particularly not conditions imposed by the likely losers!
Councillors then argued that they probably would not need to borrow the whole £100,000, as they expected they would be able to get substantial grants. Neutral observers may ask why the council therefore ever proposed that borrowing figure. Cynical observers might answer that, given the council’s failure to seek grants in the past, some councillors had little intention of trying to get grants in the future.
Cllr Comotto asked why the council had not determined how much grant money it could get before proposing a number for borrowing. He suggested that the council determine how much was available in grants, then fix a borrowing figure and then hold a public consultation. The council agreed.
Winchelsea footlights
The background to this issue is that Winchelsea has 17 footlights. They are not streetlights because they only light the footway, not the road. The parish council pays the bills. In contrast, in Rye and virtually everywhere else in the country, the cost of lighting is paid by the District or County Council. A proposal has been made to turn off the lights at midnight, primarily for environmental reasons. The annual saving of £700 a year would mean that the cost of altering the timers on each footlight would be recouped in less than 18 months. The council put the proposal to Winchelsea residents last year in the form of a questionnaire.
Almost 30% of households in Winchelsea returned completed questionnaires, most in favour of the proposal. However, objections were lodged by a resident, Mr John Spencer, who opposes the proposal. He complained that residents had been allowed to return completed questionnaires via their ward councillors. The insinuation is that there was no guarantee that ward councillors would pass on questionnaires supporting an opposing view or tamper with the questionnaires. As two of the Winchelsea ward councillors (Chishick and Turner) do not support the proposal to turn off the footlights at midnight, Mr Spencer’s insinuation of dishonesty was presumably aimed at Cllr Comotto, who did support the proposal.
In response to Mr Spencer’s complaint, the council decided to ignore the results of their own questionnaire. Councillors also argued that the turnout was too low, that the public had been given too much information on the questionnaire and that those who had lost the consultation were unhappy with the result! Interestingly, the29% response rate in Winchelsea compares with response rates of 9-13% to the council’s Local Action Plan questionnaire. Yet, the council is adamant that that has given them a popular mandate to spend money on all sorts of projects, including that to borrow as much as another £100,000 to spend on extra playground equipment.
Presumably, in order to allow the losers to have a second bite at the cherry, the council decided to refer the issue to the Annual Parish Assembly on 14 May. This decision was bizarre. Annual Parish Assemblies rarely attract more than half-a-dozen residents, compared to the 60 Winchelsea households (and 120 or so residents) who returned questionnaires.
In fact, 17 residents turned up at the next Annual Parish Assembly. The vote was 10-7 in favour of turning off the footlights! This did not seem to be result that some councillors had expected. In the face of this clear restatement of public opinion, the Chairman was forced to agree to take the matter back to the council on 12 June. And he was warned that, should the council try to dodge the issue again, a Parish Poll would be called.
Ahead of the council meeting on 12 June, Mr Spencer e-mailed the parish clerk to accuse Cllr Comotto of behaviour verging on electoral fraud. He alleged that, in the original consultation, Cllr Comotto had returned a questionnaire on behalf of his youngest daughter, who is below voting age. Mr Spencer has a well-established track record of making untrue and defamatory allegations against Cllr Comotto. On this occasion, the clerk refuted Mr Spencer’s allegation (although it is questionable whether a returning officer should respond to unsubstantiated allegations of electoral fraud).
At the council meeting, councillors repeated the arguments that the first consultation had been defective because it gave too much information, that questionnaires could have been intercepted and fraudulently amended by ward councillors (or at least one of them), that the response rate was too low and (surprise surprise) that those who lost the vote were unhappy with the result! One councillor even complained that Cllr Comotto had campaigned in favour of the decision, which made the result unfair because opponents had not bothered to do the same!
The debate forced some councillors into political contortions that were a wonder to behold. Then, Cllr Stanford was unhappy that a Parish Poll would allow other wards to vote on an issue which she felt only involved Winchelsea (notwithstanding that all wards pay towards this expense). This line of argument was somewhat at odds with her usual position that Winchelsea is just a unit of Icklesham Parish and all councillors must have a say in its affairs. And in fact, she resumed her traditional line as soon as other Winchelsea matters came up.
Another volte face was performed by Cllr S Turner, who argued that he had been elected to represent Winchelsea, whereas his normal claim is that he has been elected to represent the whole parish (even though councillors are elected only by the voters of their own wards). On the basis of his new-found attachment to Winchelsea voters, Cllr Turner felt he should be making the decision on behalf of his electorate.
But the best was yet to come. Cllr Stanford criticised the fact the Winchelsea residents who came to the Annual Parish Assembly included members of Cllr Comotto’s family (both registered voters). Then, she criticised Winchelsea residents for their “apathy” in failing to come to the Annual Parish Assembly and for failing to respond in greater numbers to the questionnaire. Presumably, what Cllr Stanford actually wanted was fewer Winchelsea residents who were likely to vote in favour of the footlight proposal less and more Winchelsea residents who were likely to vote against.
Cllr Stanford’s complaint about apathy in Winchelsea was also remarkable for its display of selective amnesia. She seemed to have forgotten that residents of the ward she represents (Rye Harbour) have been unwilling to provide a candidate for the council for many years (Cllr Stanford lives in Winchelsea Beach and the other Rye Harbour councillor, Cllr Bronsdon, does not even live in the parish). And Winchelsea Beach has only been able to fill its seats with two Winchelsea residents who cannot get elected in Winchelsea. She also seemed to have forgotten that, of the 17 residents who attended the Annual Parish Assembly, all but two were residents of Winchelsea!
Cllr Stanford’s complaints were supported by the Chairman, Cllr Horsman (Icklesham), who felt that more Winchelsea residents should have turned up as the meeting was in Winchelsea and there were Winchelsea issues on the agenda. He conveniently ignored the fact that, when the Assembly has been held in other wards, the turnout rarely exceeds half a dozen, even when there are issues on the agenda concerning those wards.
The council rejected a suggestion by Cllr P Turner for a pilot test and, in the end, voted to run a third consultation using a second questionnaire. This will be circulated only to registered electors.
However, this
consultation is unlikely to happen as Cllr Comotto has decided to call a Parish
Poll. Mr Spencer’s accusation of electoral impropriety by Cllr Comotto is
likely to have tainted public confidence in the ability of the council to
conduct a fair poll. Moreover, and perhaps more seriously, it has been
suggested that Mr Spencer should be able to view and check the questionnaires
from the original consultation so that he confirm that his allegations against
Cllr Comotto are untrue. Despite the assurances received from the parish clerk that his allegations are untrue, Mr Spencer has served a Freedom of Information request
on the parish council seeking access to returned questionnaires. Giving public access to voting forms of
any sort would be an extraordinary breach of the basic principle that democratic
votes and polls should be confidential, in order to prevent the bullying and intimidation of
voters. A Parish Poll will ensure that that there is no breach of voter
confidentiality and that no mud can be thrown at the conduct of the next
consultation.
More largesse to Icklesham
In addition to debating whether to spend £60-80,000 of borrowed money on Icklesham (on top of the £40,000 of borrowed money already spent on that ward), the council decided to hire a temporary skatepark in Icklesham for three months over the summer holidays. A figure of £5,000 had been earmarked.
Cllr Chishick asked whether this proposal, or indeed any of the plans for new playground equipment, were based on information about how many children lived in each ward, and what age groups they were in. Cllr Warren explained that the decision for the temporary skatepark was based on a meeting attended by 40 children of various ages, of whom, 38 wanted the skatepark.
The council suggested that the temporary skatepark might be a way of judging whether a permanent one would be used. When asked if the council was therefore going to monitor usage, the reply was no.
The council approved the proposal, despite having secured only one quote, which is contrary to its own Financial Regulations, which requires competitive quotes. The quote the accepted, which was only for 8 weeks, was for £3,800. This means that Icklesham Parish Council will be spending £100 per child in Icklesham for the summer holidays!
Pear Tree Marsh parking
At the Annual Parish Assembly, a resident of Tanyard Lane lobbied for fair access to parking in the allotment site, complaining that, at the moment, it is limited to allotment-holders and their friends.
Cllr Comotto explained
that attempts to open parking on a fair basis to all residents of Tanyard Lane
who did not have off-street parking had been obstructed by the refusal of the
parish council to tackle the covenant which Rother District Council had placed on
the site. The covenant says that the site can only be used for allotments.
Rother’s solicitor insists that, before Rother will vary the covenant, the
parish council will have to get permission from central government for a change
of use from allotments to parking. He simply refuses to understand that no
allotment plots are to be given up and that the proposal merely seeks to
regularise parking that has been taking place for years.
At the Annual Parish Assembly, Cllr Comotto argued that the parish council should simply inform Rother that they intended to re-organise parking at Pear Tree Marsh. It was unlikely that Rother would bother to enforce the covenant, given that their objection was unsound. If Rother did object, then at least it would get them to the table for a serious discussion.
Cllr Merricks was clearly not paying attention. She announced that Rother had imposed a covenant on the allotment! Cllr Merricks also seemed to have forgotten that a covenant on the use of Icklesham Recreation Ground had been removed with very little problem.
Publication of council documents
The council agreed to a proposal by Cllr Comotto that all council documents, excluding only confidential documents, should be posted on the council’s website.
Richard Comotto
