Footlights again!

East Sussex County Council are introducing reductions in streetlighting. This is what they say.

"We engage with the local police and they have had no specific objections to the street lighting changes that we have recently implemented. We will continue to work closely with them to ensure that any specific areas of concern are given due consideration and that existing lighting levels are maintained, or if required, reinstated in certain areas if any issues arise following the changes to the lighting.

To date we have installed part night lighting into Crowborough, Seaford, Peacehaven, Telscombe, Newhaven and are about to start work in Lewes and Hailsham. Last year we introduced similar proposals in Heathfield and Uckfield. The Heathfield scheme has been installed for over one year and the Uckfield scheme approximately ten months. Recent discussions with the Police revealed that there has been no increase in reported crime or incidents of anti-social behaviour in either area and there had not been any injuries resulting from the switch.

In the Rother District we will be proposing to change our street lighting in Battle, Rye, Hurst Green, Flimwell and Darwell Down."

And more on footlights

Just as Icklesham Parish Council decide not to go with the environmental and economic benefits of turning off footlights at midnight, the rest of the world moves on.

ESCC is proposing changes to street lighting in the Rother area as part of a wider plan being rolled out across the County in order to reduce energy bills. The process will begin over the coming months and will involve initial talks with Parish Councils, the police and community safety teams before holding a public engagement event. The works will involve installing dimming equipment on street lights along main roads so that they are dimmed between the hours of midnight and 06:00hrs and installing part-night lighting controls in all of the ESCC maintained lighting on residential roads and providing a reduced number of street lights on some of the secondary/estate feeder roads.  The part-night lighting will switch off between 03:00hrs and 05:30hrs. Town and Parish Councils will also be asked whether they wish to convert their own lighting to part-night operation at the same time. 

That footlight poll again!

The following article appeared in the Members' Bulletin produced at Rother District Council.

"Icklesham Parish Council has been considering if it should turn off footway lights in Winchelsea from 12 midnight to 5.30am for some time now. If this were to be done it would save energy costs and reduce the Parish Council's carbon footprint. But opinion varies as to whether the saving was outweighed by possible safety and security issues.

"Even the 'experts' the Parish Council consulted were not sure if this would have any impact on crime and personal safety. A survey carried out in 2011 was considered inconclusive so the Parish Council decided to conduct its own poll to find out, hopefully, more clearly what residents wanted. A few residents were proposing to call for a formal parish poll so the decision was made by the Parish Council to conduct its own 'local poll' based on the principles of a formal parish poll.

"The poll was arranged for 30 August 2012 and Rother District Council helped by providing a ballot box and set of polling booths. A flyer was delivered by the Parish Clerk to every home in the Ward of Winchelsea giving details of the poll and encouraging people to vote. Notices were also posted up and two weeks clear notice was given before the poll was conducted. In line with a formal parish poll only those registered to vote in a local election were asked to express an opinion.

"The poll was held from 4pm to 9pm at the Court Hall, Winchelsea, which again is similar to the times used for a formal parish poll with the Clerk and Deputy Clerk presiding over proceedings. 113 of the 401 registered electors turned out to vote (28% turnout) and, of those voting, 63 said they did not want the footway lights turned off. Given the result, the Parish Council has decided it will not turn the lights off and the matter has now been finally settled."

As readers of this blog will realise, there is a great deal of spin here (to put it politely).

1   The parish council consulted no "experts". The local police were asked but they are not experts (thus, their equivocal answer).
 

2   The article says, "A survey carried out in 2011 was considered inconclusive so the Parish Council decided to conduct its own poll to find out, hopefully, more clearly what residents wanted." The implication is that the survey was some casual exercise conducted by a body other than the parish council. But it was entirely a parish council exercise. In this survey, there was a clear majority in favouring of turning off the footlights but the result by the council because those who lost were "unhappy" with the result (to quote the chairman of the council), criticism of the conduct of the exercise, defamatory claims by Jurat John Spencer that Cllr Comotto had entered a vote by his underage daughter and because it was claimed that a turnout of 24% too low. The turnout in the latest poll was announced as 28%. But, as the parish council could not confirm who was a registered voter, it asked voters to confirm that they were, and only 26% did so. But 28% or 26% is insignificantly different from 24%. After the 2011 survey, the council deferred the matter to the Annual Parish Assembly. This voted to turnout the lights, but the council decided to go for a third ballot.

3 The third ballot has been heavily criticised for giving only two weeks notice, being held in the August holiday period, not being able to confirm that voters were eligible, excluding the disabled and not offering postal votes for those on holiday or the 20% of second home owners. Many felt that all residents should have been eligible to vote.

 

It is definitely not the end of the saga.

 

RC

Agenda for Icklesham Parish Council meeting on 8 October

Freedom of speech on Icklesham parish council
The council plans to waste more time trying to control the reporting of its activities, particularly on this blog. Cllr Merricks has proposed that the council “introduce a policy for councillors that recommends how a councillor should manage an internet blog”. Quite what Cllr Merricks believes this will achieve, other than wasting more of the council’s time on futile attempts to constrain other councillors’ freedom of speech, is unclear. It seems that the lessons of the recent complaints to the Standards Committee made against Winchelsea councillors by Cllr Merricks and others have not been understood. The Tribunal which threw out the flawed judgement of Rother’s poorly-advised Standard Committee was clear (see the blog of 22 December 2011). Councillors have the right to express their views. And Cllr Merricks received a similar rebuff from the Standards Board in response to an earlier complaint about the author. She once proposed stopping the Rye Observer Village Voice reporting on council meetings.
Another angle of attack on freedom of speech in Icklesham Parish Council may have been launched in the form of an item in the agenda about what constitutes confidential business. Members of the public cannot listen to discussions of confidential business by the council and councillors are constrained from discussing such matters in public.
Meanwhile, councillors will learn that its recording equipment is of limited use. Cllr Stanford had disputed that she used the word “rude” to describe the behaviour of the Winchelsea Diamond Jubilee Committee (see the blog of 20 August 2012). The tape of the meeting is not of sufficient quality to prove or disprove the report. The recording equipment was bought at the instigation of Cllr Stanford, after she disputed a council decision. However, she told the Standards Committee another story about the purpose of the equipment: that it was needed to hold the author to account.

Delegation to the Clerk

Another waste of time on the council’s agenda is the product of Cllr P Turner’s desire to restrict what the Clerk can do without seeking the specific permission of the council. When Cllr Turner was chairman of Icklesham Parish Council some years ago, the council he led was famous for being unable to get anything done.

 Parking at Pear Tree Marsh

This issue continues to haunt the council.
The background is that the council bought Pear Tree Marsh from Rother some years ago. The deed of sale contains a covenant that prohibits the parish council from using the land for anything other than allotments without Rother’s permission. But, for as long as anyone can remember, the derelict area between the allotment plots has been used as a car park. In theory, cars should only be parked there by allotment-holders when they are tending their allotments. In practice, it has been used by allotment-holders and their friends for overnight parking. Not only is this unfair on residents without allotments but it has led to a history of people taking plots merely to get access to parking and then allowing their plots to become overgrown.
It was proposed by Winchelsea councillors that parking at Pear Tree Marsh be opened up to all residents of Tanyard Lane who do not have offstreet parking. This has been opposed by councillors from other wards. They argue that, as the council’s solicitor has advised that parking breaches the covenant, a car park for all residents is not possible. However, they refuse to acknowledge that the current parking also breaches the covenant.
When Rother was approached about varying the covenant, their solicitor (David Edwards --- who was legal counsel to the Rother Standards Committee on the complaint against Winchelsea councillors) insisted that the parish council seek the permission of central government to convert the land from allotments. This ignores the fact that no allotment plots are to be converted to car parking. It also insinuates that Rother cannot move without government permission. This is wrong. Rother’s covenant is a private contract. They have no obligation to control the use of the land. That is the responsibility of the parish council (should they in fact want to convert plots --- which they do not).
There are numerous other unresolved questions. The covenant says the land can only be used for the “purpose of allotments” or “for such other activities not inconsistent therewith”. Is car parking on that part of the land that has never been used as allotments inconsistent with the “purpose of allotments”? If it is, then how can the council allow the existing parking, especially by residents without allotments and non-residents? Do Rother consider existing overnight parking to be a breach of their covenant. If they do not, then how can the proposed “re-organisation” of parking be a breach.

Spending money

The council is ploughing ahead with the proposal for an additional playground at Icklesham Recreation Ground at a cost of £46,043 plus VAT. The council hopes to get a grant of 50% from the Weald and Rother Rural Partnership (WARR) and something from the Land Fill Trust.
The council is also considering a Multi-Use Games Area and a skateboard park still appears to be on the cards. These facilities will be extra. The council has budgeted to borrow up to £100,000 for recreation facilities at Icklesham and other wards. This would be on top of the £40,000 already borrowed by the council (for the Icklesham Memorial Hall).
A rather better idea that appears on the council’s agenda is for a youth club. However, the council thinks that one youth club could serve the whole parish.
There is £1,800 in the budget to extend the council’s noticeboards. Why? For example, there were 13 pages to be posted on noticeboards for the forthcoming meeting plus the planning committee meeting that precedes it. The two cabinets available for notices can take 18. There are no other urgent notices that need to be displayed at the same time. So why do we need to spend money on noticeboards? The council has only recently bought community noticeboards for some wards.
It is proposed to spend £344 on another newsletter. The council needs to take a serious look at this expenditure.
But possibly the barmiest idea on the agenda is the proposal to spend some £540 on allotment management software (plus unspecified support and maintenance costs in future years). This seems like overkill. The council’s four small allotments merely require it to maintain a list of allotment-holders and a waiting list, and to send out annual bills and occasional leases.

 RC