Winchelsea by-election

The result was:

Richard Comotto 99
Anna Hargreaves 133

So the latter is elected until 2015. The turnour was 57%.

Winchelsea by-election

I have been asked today what I will do if not re-elected. Interestingly, in considering whether to stand again, I had weighed up the option of returning to reporting on Council meetings as a member of the public, as I used to do for the Village Voice. With the unelected Peter Turner back at the helm of the ship of fools, that would seem a promising opportunity to amuse residents.
The by-election itself will offer lots of good stories, eg the offer of a free meal for votes by a former mayor.

Parking in Pear Tree Marsh

On Monday 13 May, Icklesham Parish Council considered a request from a lady buying a house in Tanyard Lane for permission to park in the open ground next to the Council-owned allotments in Pear Tree Marsh in Winchelsea. The person she is buying from has temporary permission to park here. This request re-ignited an issue that has been festering for years.

Pear Tree Marsh is sited off Tanyard Lane, which is part of the A259(T). Most houses on Tanyard Lane do not have off-street parking and their occupiers have to park in one of the lay-bys on that road, where they are subject to burglary and vandalism. Indeed, the lay-bys  are the crime hotspot of Winchelsea.

Pear Tree Marsh was purchased many years ago by the Parish Council from the District Council, who applied a covenant to the sale that the site could only be used for allotments. However, in addition to several allotment plots, the site has a large area of open ground. Allotment-holders have always parked here. Indeed, many took on an allotment plot only to get access to parking. This resulted in derelict plots. The worst offenders included a couple of ward councillors and ex-councillors for Winchelsea, who invited friends to park in Pear Tree Marsh as well. Not unnaturally, this was seen as unfair by those without access.

Some years ago, I proposed to the Council that the situation should be regularised by opening up parking to all residents, possibly at a small charge. Should too many residents apply, priority would be given to those without off-street parking and, if necessary, places could be allotted fairly by ballot.

In the petty personality-driven politics of Icklesham Parish Council, the proposal was opposed by several councillors from other wards, ie not resident in Winchelsea, notably Cllrs Merricks, Stanford, Bronsdon and Sutton. There seems to be a fear that Winchelsea ward councillors might be allowed to do something for their electorate. Ostensible objections have centred around Rother's covenant. Of course, covenants can be varied and the Council succeeded in doing so in the case of Icklesham Recreation Ground.

Moreover, there are doubts as to whether the covenant does actually forbid parking, given that this does not interfer with the provision of allotment plots.

Eventually, the Council was persuaded to write to Rother to clarify the situation. And here, we came up against the Rother solicitor David Edwards. Those familar with the complaints under the Code of Conduct made against Winchelsea ward councillors will remember that Mr Edwards was legal adviser to the Rother Standards Committee. Mr Edwards advised the Committee that, once a parish council had made a decision, councillors were prohibited from criticising or campaigning against that decision. In the end, the judgements of the Standards Committee against the Winchelsea councillors were quashed by an Appeals Tribunal, to the profound embarrassment of the Committee (the Tribunal reasserted the democratic principle that councillors were free to engage in political activity, including campaigning against council decisions).

In the case of Pear Tree Marsh, Mr Edwards judged that, before the District Council could be asked to vary the covenant, the Parish Council would have to secure permission from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to convert the site from use as allotments, even though we do not wish to convert any plots to parking, merely to use unused and unusuable land within the site for this purpose. On this quibble, the non-Winchelsea councillors have built their objections.

However, Mr Edwards' interpretation raises the issue of the legality of allowing any parking on Pear Tree Marsh. It cannot be claimed that the existing parking is pursuant to the use of allotment plots, as it takes place overnight, when allotments are not cultivated. And some of those with access to parking are not allotment-holders, but friends. Why is one group of residents still allowed to park?

The new Clerk has undertaken to research the history of issue. For the foreseeable future, the unfair and unsatisfactory situation in Tanyard Lane will continue, perpetuated by councillors from wards other than Winchelsea. Another telling reason for a separate Parish Council.

Icklesham Annual Parish Assembly 2013

The notice for the Annual Parish Assembly went up in Winchelsea yesterday (Tuesday). There should have been seven days’ notice, so it was outside the statutory notice period here, but I am told a notice went up within the time limit elsewhere in the Parish. However, the late notice is just a symptom of a chronic problem at Icklesham Parish Council when it comes to the Annual Parish Assembly.

Icklesham Parish Council has always treated Annual Parish Assemblies as just an extra Council meeting. In fact, they are supposed to meetings of the parish, ie residents (the statutory name is Annual Parish Meeting). This is made clear in NALC and other guidance. Residents are supposed to be given the opportunity to bring items to the agenda. While the Chairman of the Parish Council reports to the meeting on the activities of the Council, the main business is supposed to be about non-Council activities in the parish.

It is not easy to get this meeting right, but many parishes try and some succeed (Sedlescombe is a local model). Icklesham have made half-hearted and unimaginative attempts in recent years but have now reverted to type.

The next Annual Parish Assembly will feature just one external speaker (from social housing association Amicus) and three councillors --- parish councillors Warren and Stanford, and County Councillor Glazier. The audience will largely be other councillors and the occasional bored spouse (plus both parish clerks, despite the fact that this is not a Parish Council meeting). Apart from listening to other councillors, they will be treated to the Chairman reading out a dull and heavily sanitised version of events over the previous year.

To be fair, Icklesham face a fundamental problem with Annual Parish Assemblies. Being composed of four disparate and very different villages, it will always be a struggle to find items that will get residents to come out on a Monday evening, even in the village where the meeting is being held. And residents from other villages have to travel up to two miles for the pleasure of attending. Not even outrageous expenditure on refreshments has been able to tempt more than a handful. Winchelsea Town Meetings were able to get 60-80 residents to attend because they could focus of issues of relevance to residents.

However, it often appears that Icklesham do not want residents to turn up to Annual Parish Assemblies, in case they try to get involved, particularly if they are Winchelsea residents. Too many members of the public make the Council nervous. Thus, in 2010, when 14-15 Winchelsea residents turned up in response to the Council’s declared wish to consult on a proposal to turn off the streetlights in Winchelsea at midnight, the meeting rapidly fell apart. See the report on this meeting below.

Extract the blog on the Annual Parish Assembly of May 2010

'The high points of the evening were the discussions of the Council’s decision to ignore the results of a consultation on turning off the footlights in Winchelsea at midnight and its proposal to borrow up to £100,000, on top of the £40,000 that they have already borrowed.

On the question of turning off the footlights at midnight, the background is that, in November 2011, Icklesham Parish Council sent out consultation forms to all households in Winchelsea asking whether they would support, for economic and environmental reasons, turning off the 17 footlights at midnight.  The cost of fitting timers would be recouped in less than 18 months and then there would be an annual saving of some £750 a year (rising with electricity prices). Responses were received from 66 households (ie about 24% of the village). The result was 2:1 in favour of turning off the lights at midnight. However, at a subsequent Council meeting, one resident opposed to turning off the lights early attacked the consultation on the grounds that it may have been fiddled because residents had been given the option of returning their forms via ward councillors. The resident also argued that the consultation was not valid because it did not ask whether residents wanted more lights.

Councillors from other wards joined in, complaining that the consultation forms had given too much information to residents! The Chairman judged the rate of response to be too low. The Council therefore decided to ignore the results of their own consultation and bring the question to the Annual Parish Assembly.

When pressed about this decision, the Chairman simply repeated the excuse that the turnout was too low and that some residents were unhappy about the result. When he was asked whether the Council had a policy setting a threshold on the level of responses to consultations, he simply would not answer. He just kept repeating that the response was judged too low and that some residents were unhappy with the proposal. He continued in the same vein when it was pointed out to him that the response to the Local Action Plan, on which the Council are basing much of their spending, had responses from Icklesham, Rye Harbour and Winchelsea Beach of less than half the response rate to the footlights question! Nor was the Chairman any more forthcoming when the absurdity was highlighted of ignoring a consultation of all households in favour of the Annual Parish Assembly where less than a dozen residents usually turn up. 

By the time the Chairman was questioned on whether it was appropriate to ignore a clear vote in favour of a proposal because the losers objected to the result, he was sinking fast and proposed that the Council be asked to reconsider its decision to defer the question back to the Annual Parish Assembly! It had to be pointed out that, as the question had already come to the Assembly, this particular course of action could not be reconsidered.

A vote was taken and the result was 10:7 in favour of turning off the lights. At this point, I requisitioned a Parish Poll in order to ensure that the Council could not again ignore the balance of opinion among residents.  Cllr Stanford complained that this would mean that residents of other wards would have a vote on the Winchelsea lights --- putting her finger on the problem of having a parish composed of four separate villages. Cllr Bronsdon weighed in to express amazement that I was willing to have the Council spend money on a matter of principle and, for the first of many occasions during the evening, said how “sad” he was at my action.

Eventually, the Chairman agreed that the Council would be asked to accept the result of the consultation and the vote at the Annual Parish Assembly [they did not]. I therefore withdrew the requisition for a Parish Poll on the understanding that, if the Council once again tried to ignore the balance of opinion among residents, that I would convene a special Parish Meeting and requisition a Parish Poll again.’

 

Not conserving Winchelsea

Icklesham Parish Council's Planning Committee has always shown a contempt for Winchelsea's Conservation Area status. Cllr Bronsdon (Rye Harbour) famously dismissed it as 'simply' about visual appearance. Cllr Sutton (Winchelsea Beach) argued that, as far as he was concerned, Winchelsea Beach was a conservation area.

However, the current Planning Committee broke new ground recently by supporting an application (RR/2013/433/P) by JC Leisure, the motorhome sales unit near Strand Bridge, to breach the Development Boundary --- ie build in open countryside --- by extending across the Brede. If accepted, this would be a major shift in local planning policy.

The application itself may appear innocuous: a change of use to parking. But once a change of use to a business purpose has been allowed, it is simple to get further changes all the way to allowing building. This is was happened at Ferryfields Caravan Park and, more recently, at the old gasometer site. All of these developments have helped to erode the medieval landscape setting of Winchelsea --- a hilltop 'bastide' surrounded by flat marshland, with little peripheral development.

A secondary role in this little story has been played by East Sussex County Council. They owned the land. When they sold it, they were asked by Winchelsea councillors to place a covenant to stop development. They refused, apparently as it might reduce the value to them.

Icklesham Parish Council meeting 12 November 2012

A bumper turnout:  10 members of the public. However, several were there to ask the council to write in protest to East Sussex against the proposed downgrading of the Ridge Fire Station. Two others came on behalf of the Rye Harbour Nature Reserve about the Rye Harbour car park. There was also County Councillor Keith Glazier (‘see no evil’), District Councillor Nick Ramus (‘hear no evil’) and District Council Paul Osborn (‘speak no evil’) plus Malcolm Johnson from the District Council trying to offload the Rye Harbour car park and public toilets onto the parish council.
Rother has cut the grant it was making to Icklesham PC for a traffic gateway at Rye Harbour from £737 to £370. Cllr Osbourn claimed the credit for getting even this grant but Cllr Bronsdon was keen to award the credit to the Deputy Clerk (now that reminds me of an interesting story).
The council has secured its first serious grants, £23,000 and £5,000, toward the new £55,000 Icklesham playground. The council had previously been contemplating borrowing up to £100,000 to fund this and other playground projects. The first grant was the work of the departing clerk and the second was down to Cllr Warren.

The resignation of the Parish Clerk

This was the elephant in the room. Steve Foreman, clerk since 2011 has resigned. Nothing at all was said at the meeting but there was a certain tension in the room, as though certain councillors were anxious that someone would raise the issue.
Steve is the fourth clerk lost by Icklesham PC in six years. The reasons for Steve’s resignation will be the subject of a forthcomng blog. Suffice it to say for the moment that Steve, who retired from the Audit Commission before becoming clerk, proved himself to be exceptionally energetic and efficient. He has also been very conscious of proper procedure and the need for impartiality. This has not endeared him to certain councillors and he has been subject to unfair and improper criticism. His position has also been undermined by the inevitable failure of the chairman, Jim Horsman, to do his duty.
Cllr Stanford could not resist an opportunity to take a pointless pop at Steve over his report on discussions about the Rye Harbour car park and toilets, where he had referred to representatives of the residents. Cllr Stanford was keen to stress that the persons concerned had not attended at representatives. Thus a molehill became a mountain.

Parish bus service

This expensive and ill-conceived experiment has been canned, not by the council, but by Rye Community Transport, who became depressed at the low rate of use. The highest number of users was 42, in June. In October, just two people made use of the service. Of the 100 under-16s projected to use the service in the first five months, only four did so.
The last two passengers cost their fellow council tax-payers £311 each! But what is even startling is the fact that even if usage had hit the parish council’s target of 60 per month, it would still have cost council tax-payers £9.42 per person. It would have been cheaper to hire separate taxis for each person!
The report by Rye Community Transport makes for sober reading. It accuses Icklesham Parish Council of not properly researching the demand for a bus service and queries the value of the survey carried out by the Rother Voluntary Association. A sharp contrast was drawn with the way that RCT develops new services. Unfortunately, lack of solid research underlies virtually all Icklesham projects. The vast expenditure on new playgrounds has gone forward despite a complete lack of knowledge of the number and age of children in the parish.

Parish Office

The council is still determined to inflate its overheads by opening an office and appears to have approved the idea in principal. The latest suggestion is the sports pavilion at Icklesham, which the Icklesham Trust wishes to rebuild. This is rather more salubrious that the previous suggestion, which was the public toilets in Winchelsea, should they be rebuilt. Some councillors also see the pavilion at Icklesham as a way for the parish council to inject some money into that project but there may be some reluctance in the Icklesham Trust to have the council so intimately involved. However, the council’s proposal may anyway be derailed if Cllr (Peter) Turner persists in his suggestion that, if there is a parish office in the pavilion, the toilets should be open to the public. Cllr Warren doubted that Icklesham Trust would be happy with the idea. What is it about the parish office and toilets?
One cannot help but get the impression that this is just another chance for Icklesham Parish Council to waste more tax-payers’ money. Very few parishes have parish offices: why Icklesham? No good reasons have been put forward. Indeed, the idea has never been properly discussed. A parish office in Icklesham would simply serve Icklesham. How many residents are likely to travel the three miles from Rye Harbour, or even bother to come up from Winchelsea Beach or travel from Winchelsea? Most people will continue to phone or e-mail, if they need to contact the clerk (and few bother to even do that).
Something to watch if a parish office is opened: will the clerk(s) continue to receive the unusual perk of being paid to travel to work?

Rye Harbour car park
Rother want to shift financial responsibility for the car park at Rye Harbour (and possibly the public toilets) to the parish council. There is of course a basic economic flaw in the whole proposition. Offering the car park to the parish suggests that, either Rother is admitting that it is so incompetent that even Icklesham PC could do better (remember, this parish council felt that locking of the gates to the Pear Tree Marsh allotments was beyond it) or is Rother just trying to shift the cost from their budget to that of the parish because the latter is not subject to capping.
Parish councillors recognised that, if the council took over the car park, they would have to charge for parking, but no one raised the associated cost of ticket machines and employing staff to service the machines and enforce parking charges or also installing barriers. As Rother would also have to start charging if they were to retain control of the car park, why should Icklesham Parish Council get involved? All they will get is the flak.
Then, there are the public toilets. These cost about £20,000 a year to run and, sometime during the 99-year lease, will have to be rebuilt.
Rother have floated the idea of covering losses for the first few years on a sliding scale (eg 100% of year 1 reducing to 0% by year 5 or 10), but no mention has been made of the capital costs of installing parking infrastructure. Nevertheless, the Council agreed to the idea in principle.
A Rye Harbour resident in attendance expressed her concern about car park charges leading to parking congestion along the streets of the village. She asked for residents to be involved in any discussions, which does not suggest much faith in the representation provided by Rye Harbour councillors. But then Cllr Bronsdon of Rye Harbour believes he does not need to consult, on the grounds that, if voters don’t like what he decides, they can vote him out at the next election. There would be some logic in that, except that Rye Harbour rarely has contested elections in Rye Harbour, in part, because no resident can be bothered to stand (Cllr Bronsdon lives in Rye and Cllr Stanford in Winchelsea Beach).

Parish post boxes

Readers will recall that, during the debate over turning off the footlights in Winchelsea, a resident and member of the former corporation in Winchelsea, Mr John Spencer, questioned the integrity of Winchelsea ward councillors by implying that they would tamper with survey questionnaires (the first of the three ballots) given to them by residents to return to the council. Mr Spencer later accused Cllr Comotto of submitting a questionnaire on behalf of his under-age daughter and tried to see how other residents had voted by making a Freedom of Information request to see everyone else’s questionnaire. Cllr Stanford proposed that, because some residents (ie Mr Spencer) did not want to communicate with the council via their elected councillors, the council should set up post boxes in each ward. £400 was budgeted. The cost has turned out to be £160 per post box. Another well researched project!
Even Icklesham Parish councillors baulked at £640. The idea then rapidly unravelled. Councillors came to the conclusion post boxes were impractical. Where would they be installed, who would empty them, how often and so on? In the end, it was decided to place a box, which will be made by a councillor at no charge, inside Rye Harbour Stores to see if anyone uses it. That still means that £400 has been taken from tax-payers because councillors did not bother to think through another silly idea!
The council also missed a point of principle here. Although Mr Spencer apparently does not like the representatives who were elected to represent Winchelsea, even his personal friend and fellow jurat Cllr Turner, why should the council help him to circumvent his properly-elected representatives? Does any other elected body make special provision for voters who don’t like their elected representatives?
Cllr Stanford’s proposal for parish post boxes also begs the question as to why unhappy residents cannot phone, e-mail or send a letter to the clerk. Cllr Stanford said the post is too expensive and, of course, not everyone has e-mail. But is there someone out there who does not have a phone or e-mail, cannot afford a postage stamp, and dislikes all their elected councillors? Surely, it would have been cheaper for the council to buy Mr Spencer a book of stamps?

And yet more money wasted

Another £500 of council tax has been poured down holes in Smeatons Lane.
The council went ahead and spent £540 on allotment software (support and maintenance costs will be extra). There is a problem apparently with continuing to run a spreadsheet for some 50-60 plots.
At the insistence of Cllr Merricks, the council registered its playgrounds as part of the ‘Queen Elizabeth II Challenge Fields’, in order to stop itself building on them in the future. This is an utter waste of money. The clerk advised the council that it was unnecessary, because sufficient safeguards are already provided by the restrictive covenants on these pieces of land but he was over-ruled. No other parish in Rother has registered its playgrounds. Moreover, the council took the decision to go ahead without finding out the cost. Their decision was therefore illegal. Now, the council has discovered that its titles to Icklesham Recreation Ground and Harbour Field at Winchelsea Beach have not been registered at the Land Registry and it cannot find its deeds of ownership. Curiously, Cllr P Turner was supposed to have sorted all these out when he was chairman over 10 years ago.
The council has budgeted £2,000 to ‘refresh’ its Local Action Plan. Can £2,000 bring back something from dead? The LAP achieved response in most wards which were lower than the turnout in the election of Police and Crime Commissioners! It was of course also the cause of the complaint to Rother Standards Committee by other councillors against Winchelsea ward councillors, which the latter won earlier this year, when an appeals tribunal overturned Rother’s flawed judgement and dismissed the accusations.
On 26 November, the council will hold a special meeting to consider its budget for 2013/14. There is a question mark over the legitimacy of the meeting. Expect more whacky ideas on how to spend your money.

Cllr Sutton

The council wasted more time on a proposal by Cllr Sutton that the council should employ a maintenance man for a day a week to do small jobs around the parish at the bidding of individual councillors. The council already employs a maintenance man to do small jobs, although only as and when he is needed, and under the direction of the clerk. It is illegal for work to be commissioned by individual councillors, but why should the long-serving Cllr Sutton (proud alumni of Winchelsea primary school) know that? The reason why certain jobs in Winchelsea Beach appear not to be getting done is because Cllr Sutton does not report them to the clerk.
Ironically, Cllr Sutton is one of the reasons why councillors are no longer required to conduct monthly inspections of their ward --- a perfection occasion to report faults --- having admitted, after several years, that he did not know what he was supposed to be doing and that he therefore did not bother. This item should not have come onto the agenda.

Planning

Cllr Ramus welcomed a letter from Winchelsea Heritage expressing concern about planning enforcement at Rother, which is apparently a matter of growing concern on the Planning Committee.

Youth Club

One positive piece of news. Cllr Lyward has her youth club up and running in Winchelsea Beach. However, the skate park may have been put back on the agenda by the meeting to set up the club.

Postscript

Cllrs Austen and Chishick said nothing throughout the meeting, but Cllr Chishick had the excuse that he was abroad. Cllr Moore managed one contribution.

RC

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

Council debate on a grant for "The Red Slipper" community film project

Cllr Stanford has complained that this blog quoted her as calling the Winchelsea Diamond Jubilee Committee "rude" for not having shown the parish council the film of the Jubilee year in Winchelsea, to which the council made a small grant (in fact, the film will not be finished until next year). The word was noted by several people at the meeting because it was such an odd thing to say. Cllr Stanford denies saying it. The word cannot be heard on the tape-recording of the council meeting but this is unfortunately not definitive as the quality of the recording is poor in many places due to mumbling and asides, against the background of rustling papers.
The tape-recording did provide a reminder that Cllr Bronsdon objected to the grant because it was only for Winchelsea and there was nothing in it for other wards!

Parish council ballot on the footlights in Winchelsea

The result of the ballot that was held on Thursday, 30 August, on the proposal to turn off the footlights between midnight and 5:30am was 63 against and 50 for. The turnout was 28% of registered voters or about 21% of adult residents. But if one deducts the ballot papers which failed to confirm that the voter was a resident, the turnout was 26% of registered voters and about 19% of adult residents. The first ballot by the parish council was rejected because the turnout was 24% (no reason was given for rejecting the second vote) and one non-Winchelsea councillor suggested a 75% threshold before the vote could accepted. 
So, by re-running the vote, the council eventually got what it wanted. But two can play at that game. Is this the end of the story?

Emergency contact signs

An emergency contact sign has been put up outside the Church. It is intended to ensure that emergency services can contact a keyholder out of normal hours. This is important as the building was designated in the County emergency plan as a reception centre in the event of a major local emergency such as the flooding of Winchelsea Beach. The sign will also help passers-by get hold of a responsible person if they need to report something urgently.
Emergency contact signs have also been provided to the New Hall and Court Hall. The school did not want to be involved. Indeed it did not even bother to reply to the invitation.
The signs were designed and commissioned by the Winchelsea Emergency Group (WEG) and funded by a grant obtained by the local police team at Rye from the Police Property Fund. The PPF was approached after Icklesham Parish Council refused to buy the signs on the grounds that they did not think a parish emergency plan was anything to do with the parish!
Winchelsea was the first ward in the area to produce a local emergency plan and its plan has been used as a template for other villages in the District. WEG also pressed for a local emergency plan to implemented in Rye Harbour when a chemical spillage led to suggestions that appeared likely to reinvent the wheel. However, there is no emergency plan in Winchelsea Beach, the place most at risk from flooding, because of opposition from a ward councillor.

 

Parish council ballot on the footlights in Winchelsea on 30 August 2012

First, let's make it clear that the blogs on this blog site are "definitely not the views of other councillors or the official view of the council". It actually says this at the top of the blog site. However, one councillor thinks the blog site is misleading as to its authors.
The tagline at the top of the site also says that the blogs underneath represent the views of Cllr Chishick and Comotto, but this particular blog represents the views of Cllr Comotto only, although Cllr Chishick has made many of the following points independently.

The ballot

Tomorrow --- Thursday, 30 August 2012 --- Icklesham Parish Council will hold a ballot on whether the footlights in Winchelsea should be turned off at midnight until 5:30am. This will be the third vote that the council has taken on this question. They have ignored the previous two results for various (not good) reasons which have been examined in previous blogs. This blog is only about the conduct of the latest ballot.

The problem

Tomorrow's ballot will take place between 4:00pm and 9:00pm. There will be no postal votes. Only residents registered to vote in elections in the ward of Winchelsea will be eligible to vote in the ballot. The ballot was announced on 14-15 August, when leaflets were delivered to houses in Winchelsea.
Considerable disquiet has been voiced about the ballot, particularly its timing, by Cllr Chishick and other Winchelsea residents. To summarise the criticisms:

1. The notice period of two weeks and one day was very short and insufficient to allow every resident to make arrangements to ensure they are present in Winchelsea tomorrow. Moreover, limiting the vote to registered voters makes it incumbent upon the council to give residents sufficient time to register as an elector.
2. The ballot is being held on a weekday. This means that those owning weekend homes (almost one quarter of the households of Winchelsea) and those not returning from work until late will not be able to vote, even though they pay the taxes that fund the footlighting or may feel they will be affected by its suspension after midnight.
3. The ballot is being held in August, during the summer vacation period. Many residents are likely to be on holiday and would not have been able to change their holiday arrangements.
4. It is not possible to vote by post. This also disenfranchises those owning weekend homes and those not returning from work until late will not be able to vote, as well as the house-bound.
5. The parish council does not have access to the Electoral Register, so is not in a position to verify that those persons turning up to vote are registered.They cannot exclude under-age residents and may be unable to distinguish residents of neighbouring wards.

It would not have taken much to defer the ballot until September in order to extend the notice period and avoid the holidays. However, the council's instructions to the parish clerk did not allow this. The council's instructions also precluded the clerk from holding the ballot on a weekend and/or extend voting hours, and allowing all residents to vote, rather than just registered voters. This is not an election. It is supposed to be an attempt to measure the opinion of tax-payers. 

The result

The end result of all this is that whoever loses the ballot will have grounds for complaint. Another sorry day for democracy in Icklesham Parish.

Icklesham Parish Council meeting of 13 August 2012

Grant application for Winchelsea film

This was the main item of interest to Winchelsea. The community group Winchelsea Moving Pictures, who run Winchelsea Film Night, are producing a film (The Red Slipper) about an episode in the town’s relatively recent past. A grant of £1,000 has been made by Rother District Council from a grant it received under the Heritage Lottery Fund’s All Our Stories project . The remainder of the budget of about £2,500 is coming from funds raised by WMP itself. The parish council was asked for £200.

The proposal came under immediate attack from Cllr Bronsdon of Rye Harbour, who asserted, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, that not many locals were involved. He was also unhappy that the money was “only for Winchelsea”.

Cllr Bronsdon tried to attack the grant on the grounds that Rother District Council was not putting any of its own money into the project, only part of a grant from HLF, presumably in order to argue that the parish council should only match-fund money from Rother’s own revenue. Cllr Comotto, on behalf of WMP, explained that the money from HLF was still part of Rother’s budgetary resources. But in fact, virtually all Rother’s revenues come from grants, not least, their central government grant.

Cllr Stanford of Rye Harbour was not happy with the copy of the bank statement showing all the WMP’s transactions since it was set up and demanded to see the accounts of the WMP. Cllr S Turner pointed out that these would not be available until the end of the WMP’s first year of operation. Cllr Stanford also confused the WMP’s film with the Diamond Jubilee film, and felt it was “rude” that the council had yet to see that film, despite providing a grant. Someone had to explain that the other film was about the Diamond Jubilee year in Winchelsea, so would not be available until after the end of the Diamond Jubilee year!

To be fair to the council, there was some confusion over the source of some of the funding, although this was hardly important. Unless money-laundering is suspected, money is money wherever it comes from. But Cllr Merricks felt that the council could not believe the application form.

Cllr P Turner questioned the historical accuracy of the memoirs on which the film is being based but the Chairman pointed out that this was not relevant.

In the end, it was probably the presence of a number of Winchelsea residents that forced a positive result. Proposed by the Chairman and seconded by Cllr P Turner, the application was approved unanimously.

New playground equipment for Icklesham Recreation Ground

Tenders for the proposed new playground facilities have come in and range from about £56,400 to some £71,700. Tenders for a permanent skatepark range from some £13,900 to just over £46,500. The wide range for the skatepark is apparently due to the fact that Cllr Warren, the principal architect of the project, allowed one quoting company to diverge from the specification agreed by the council.

The proposal before the council was that the tenders should go to the Sports and Recreation Working Group to recommend which was best value for money. However, despite months of previous discussion and in the absence of Cllr Warren, the proposal rapidly went back to square one, as some councillors, led by Cllr Bronsdon, questioned the whole idea of spending so much on one playground. The permanent skatepark was particularly unpopular with some councillors and was quickly deferred. Cllr Merricks revived her call for a multi-user games area, which she felt would encourage participation in sports in the spirit of the Olympics.

In the end, an amendment was proposed to the effect that the council review its strategy. There was some considerable procedural confusion about how an amendment is handled. Cllr P Turner argued that the amendment should be voted on and then the original resolution with the amendment added. No-one really knew what they were voting on. In the end, the motion was that the strategy go back to the Working Group (not the council), who will also assess the tenders for the playground equipment. It is clear that there is no consensus on the most fundamental issue of what (if anything) is required. The project is largely driven by the Working Group and not the council as a whole.

The Chairman expressed hopes that a grant of £30,000 may be available from the Weald and Rother Rural (WARR) Partnership but the deferral of the proposal could mean the council misses WARR’s deadline. Somebody also mentioned the landfill grants scheme but Icklesham falls outside the eligible area.

Parish Council-financed bus service

The second report from Rye Community Transport showed that, over the period from 1^st June to 3^rd August, there had been 110 users (counting each child as half an adult). Given that the council is paying RCT £7,500 per annum and assuming each adult user made a £1 donation, each journey has so far cost the council £11.88. Some 113 of the 165 journeys (68%) had no passengers. Only two Winchelsea residents have used the service, which translates into a tax contribution by the town of almost £170 per resident.

Controversy over third parish council consultation over footlights

Icklesham Parish Council decided, at its meeting in July, to go ahead with a third consultation on whether the footlights in Winchelsea should be turned off at midnight, having decided to ignore the results of both previous consultations. The council is proceeding despite the fact that Cllr Comotto has convened a Parish Meeting on 23^rd August which will see a Parish Poll called on the same issue.
Cllr Comotto is proposing a Parish Poll because of accusations of electoral impropriety against Cllr Comotto, and criticism of the competence of the parish clerk in the conduct of the first consultation, by a Winchelsea resident, Mr John Spencer. Cllr Comotto argues that Mr Spencer’s accusations are likely to have undermined public confidence in the ability of the council to conduct a fair poll, as have attempts by Mr Spencer to view and check the questionnaires from the original consultation so that he could confirm his allegations against Cllr Comotto. Despite the assurances from the parish clerk that these allegations were untrue, Mr Spencer served a Freedom of Information request on the parish council seeking access to the returned questionnaires. A Parish Poll, which will be conducted by the District Council, will ensure that no mud can be thrown at the conduct of the next consultation and that there will be no breach of voting confidentiality.
The parish council’s third attempt at consultation has been called for 30^th August, with a ballot box at the Court Hall between 4:00pm and 9:00pm (originally 5:00pm to 9:00pm).
However, Cllr Chishick of Winchelsea, who is an opponent of the proposal to turn off the footlights at midnight, has criticised the parish council’s new consultation for the very short notice, the shortness of the period for which the voting station will be open and for not allowing postal votes by absent residents.
It is also unclear whether the parish council will once again retrospectively impose a threshold for turnout. On the first consultation, they decided that a turnout of almost 30% was inadequate, even though it exceed the 9-13% turnouts accepted in most LAP consultations.
Cllr Comotto has asked that the Parish Poll be conducted at the same time as the election of the Police and Crime Commissioner, on 15^th November, in order to reduce costs.

Cllr Comotto

Icklesham Parish Council meeting 11 June 2012

This was the first council meeting after the Annual Parish Assembly on 14 May. Three issues from that event came onto the agenda of this meeting: whether the council should borrow as much as another £100,000; whether the council should turn off the footlights in Winchelsea at midnight; and whether there should be a re-organised parking scheme at the Pear Tree Marsh allotment site in Winchelsea open to all residents of Tanyard Lane.

The meeting once again saw the attendance of both clerks, unnecessarily adding to the council’s cost of administration.

 Council borrowing

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

Icklesham Parish Annual Parish Assembly

On Monday 21 May, Icklesham Parish held its Annual Parish Assembly. This year, it was in Winchelsea.

The Annual Parish Assembly is an event that the Parish Council has never understood and so has never been able explain to residents. Consequently, it tends to degenerate into an ersatz Council meeting and, as at proper Council meetings, few residents turn up.

On this occasion, 16, possibly 17, residents appeared. All but one or two came from Winchelsea. There were none from Icklesham or Winchelsea Beach, reflecting the fundamental problem of having a parish of separate and diverse villages.

Of those residents who did turn up, 10 came along at my request to register their disquiet against a Council proposal to borrow up to £100,000 and a Council decision to ignore the results of their own consultation on the question of an early cut-off time for the footlights in Winchelsea. But even with these reinforcements, residents were outnumbered almost 2:1 by Councillors, officials, the two Clerks (why two?) and those hapless souls who were persuaded to set up stalls to promote their activities to residents (including two understandably very grumpy chaps from Rother District Council).

The Assembly started with the Chairman’s Annual Report. This was a recitation from a written speech. It would difficult to describe either the content or the presentation as riveting.

It was no surprise that the speech failed to mention one of the major events affecting the Council last year. This was the utter and complete dismissal by an appeals tribunal of the accusations made to the Standards Board by councillors from Icklesham, Rye Harbour and Winchelsea Beach (including the Chairman but orchestrated by Cllrs Bronsdon, Merricks and Stanford) against the three Winchelsea ward councillors. The judgement of the appeals tribunal was of national significance in that it demolished an attempt by a posse of Icklesham Parish Councillors and Rother District Council’s Standards Committee to restrict councillors’ freedom of speech and suppress their right to conduct legitimate political activity. Apart from questioning the competence of Rother, the judgement also made it clear that the complaints by Icklesham Parish Councillors were vexatious and implicitly posed questions about the complainants. They had alleged that the Winchelsea councillors had made “untrue and misleading” statements. The tribunal said not. So, who was untrue and misleading? It would have taken a big man to admit that he had been so egregiously wrong but the Chairman did not.

It is also worth noting that even Rother had dismissed most of the complaints made by Cllrs Bronsdon, Merricks, Stanford et al. These ranged from being “very offensive” to bullying and intimidation of councillors and the parish clerk (who denied this). However, this little slice of history was airbrushed by the Chairman.

One puzzling part of the evening was why there was a presentation by Rye Police about Community Speed Watch. It was only in January that Icklesham Parish Council rejected the attempt by the former PCSO to extend the scheme to Icklesham and Winchelsea Beach. At that meeting, Cllr Stanford claimed to support Community Speed Watch but not community involvement, and Cllr Bronsdon claimed to support Community Speed Watch but not the use of speed guns.  In other words, they supported Community Speed Watch but not the community or speed watch bits! 

Cllr Horsman reiterated his fears that volunteers would be assaulted but, when yet again confronted with overwhelming contrary evidence, simply went into denial. Interestingly, his concern for the safety of volunteers did not stop him originally asking if Winchelsea volunteers would agree to do Speed Watch in Icklesham!

The one useful thing that Rye Police could have done at the meeting would have been to introduce the new PCSO for the Parish, Andrew Smith, but he remained an anonymous presence.

The high points of the evening were the discussions of the Council’s decision to ignore the results of a consultation on turning off the footlights in Winchelsea at midnight and its proposal to borrow up to £100,000, on top of the £40,000 that they have already borrowed.

On the question of turning off the footlights at midnight, the background is that, in November 2011, Icklesham Parish Council sent out consultation forms to all households in Winchelsea asking whether they would support, for economic and environmental reasons, turning off the 17 footlights at midnight.  The cost of fitting timers would be recouped in less than 18 months and then there would be an annual saving of some £750 a year (rising with electricity prices). Responses were received from 66 households (ie about 24% of the village). The result was 2:1 in favour of turning off the lights at midnight. However, at a subsequent Council meeting, one resident opposed to turning off the lights early attacked the consultation on the grounds that it may have been fiddled because residents had been given the option of returning their forms via ward councillors. The resident also argued that the consultation was not valid because it did not ask whether residents wanted more lights.

Councillors from other wards joined in, complaining that the consultation forms had given too much information to residents! The Chairman judged the rate of response to be too low. The Council therefore decided to ignore the results of their own consultation and bring the question to the Annual Parish Assembly.

When pressed about this decision, the Chairman simply repeated the excuse that the turnout was too low and that some residents were unhappy about the result. When he was asked whether the Council had a policy setting a threshold on the level of responses to consultations, he simply would not answer. He just kept repeating that the response was judged too low and that some residents were unhappy with the proposal. He continued in the same vein when it was pointed out to him that the response to the Local Action Plan, on which the Council are basing much of their spending, had responses from Icklesham , Rye Harbour and Winchelsea Beach of less than half the response rate to the footlights question! Nor was the Chairman any more forthcoming when the absurdity was highlighted of ignoring a consultation of all households in favour of the Annual Parish Assembly where less than a dozen residents usually turn up.  

By the time the Chairman was questioned on whether it was appropriate to ignore a clear vote in favour of a proposal because the losers objected to the result, he was sinking fast and proposed that the Council be asked to reconsider its decision to defer the question back to the Annual Parish Assembly! It had to be pointed out that, as the question had already come to the Assembly, this particular course of action could not be reconsidered.

A vote was taken and the result was 10:7 in favour of turning off the lights. At this point, I requisitioned a Parish Poll in order to ensure that the Council could not again ignore the balance of opinion among residents.  Cllr Stanford complained that this would mean that residents of other wards would have a vote on the Winchelsea lights --- putting her figure on the problem of having a parish composed of four separate villages. Cllr Bronsdon weighed in to express amazement that I was willing to have the Council spend money on a matter of principle and, for the first of many occasions during the evening, said how “sad” he was at my action.

The comic turn of the evening was the suggestion from one resident that the saving from turning off the lights early would be illusory because, without the lights, traffic signs in Winchelsea would have be illuminated or replaced by expensive reflective versions, and that the Strand Gate would have to be illuminated to stop cars crashing into it in the dark! It was explained that the lights in Winchelsea are footlights, designed to illuminate the pavement, not the road, so would not affect traffic. It was also questioned as to why the Strand Gate would need to be illuminated if the footlights were turned off early. There is currently no footlight anywhere near the Strand Gate and cars do have headlights.

Eventually, the Chairman agreed that the Council would be asked to accept the result of the consultation and the vote at the Annual Parish Assembly. I therefore withdrew the requisition for a Parish Poll on the understanding that, if the Council once again tried to ignore the balance of opinion among residents, that I would convene a special Parish Meeting and requisition a Parish Poll again.

And so to the question of the Council’s proposal to borrow up to £100,000 in order to buy more playground equipment. Icklesham Parish Council has already borrowed £40,000 in order to make a grant towards the repair of Icklesham Memorial Hall. It is the only parish council in Rother to have borrowed and one of the few in the county. Another £100,000 would bring its debt ratio to a level higher than Italy, Ireland and Iceland, and fairly close to that of Greece.

Cllr Stanford assured everyone that the Council would be getting grants of at least £25,000. One can have confidence that Cllr Warren and the Clerk will try, but Icklesham Parish Council has never bothered with grants before (missing out on at least one grant schemes for playgrounds) and would still add up to £75,000 to the council’s debt.

It was suggested that the annual borrowing cost of several thousand pounds a year was insignificant. But add that to the £3,000 plus already being paid to service the previous £40,000 borrowing and you start automatically taking out a significant chunk of the annual budget.

I indicated that, in view of the major impact of the proposed borrowing on Council finances, I believed that residents should be consulted and so wished to call a Parish Poll. It was claimed that residents had already been consulted and reference was made to an article in the Icklesham newsletter. Unfortunately, this did not explain that the cost or that the money was to be borrowed. Nor did it reveal how much tens of thousands of pounds has already been spent on playground equipment.

At the mention of a Parish Poll, Cllr Bronsdon again expressed his “sadness” and indulged himself in accusations that I was proposing to blight local youth by refusing to buy them extra playground equipment, missing the point that the question is how this should be financed. But I did offer to withhold my request if the Parish Council agreed to conduct a fair poll themselves. This will be discussed at the next Council meeting.