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.

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