Friday 27 August 2010

YouTube Video Success

A new news report on the JPC website stated, "An early success of the tourism strategy was to see more than one thousand people viewing the podcast for Henley-in-Arden".

In fact, 1,101 people have viewed the JPC YouTube video which has been up 206 days. Therefore, it has been viewed by 5.34 people per day. There is no information on how many people, if any, actually visited Henley as a direct result of the video.

By comparison the Town Meeting video which was uploaded last Sunday (only 3 days) has been viewed by 253 people, which is an average of 84.33 people per day.

75% of Councillors Don't Support No-Confidence Motion

I attended Wednesday night’s meeting of the JPC, where the agenda included an item of interest to me, ‘To discuss arrangements regarding the proposed cattle market development and Councillor involvement’. This was my first attendance at a JPC meeting for some time and it proved to be an interesting, enlightening and entertaining experience. Having made a statement regarding the request for a parish meeting I stayed for the remainder of the meeting.

Having argued that there was no reason to discuss the exhibition proposals because there was no application, George Matheou went on to launch an attack on Cllr Leech for breaching ‘council rules’ by assisting residents to organise the Town Meeting. There was no elaboration on these’ council rules’. Cllr Matheou was not at the Town Meeting and he also was probably unaware that Cllr Leech did not speak at the Town Meeting.

Ironically there was no criticism of Cllr Haycock or Cllr Hadley who also attended the meeting and did speak. Cllr Matheou’s accusations violate the Human Rights Act 1998 and Cllr Leech reminded him that similar legislation applied in his native Greece. It was accepted by the chairman and confirmed by the parish clerk that the residents had an absolute right to hold a Town Meeting. it was therefore a legally constituted meeting and provided residents with the opportunity to effectively update their preferences in the ‘Village Design Statement’.

Cllr Matheou recommended that a working party should be set up to formulate an approach to the anticipated planning application, to be chaired by himself. The chairman stated repeatedly that such a working group could not be formed by the JPC until the planning application was submitted to Stratford District Council. Cllr Matheou continued to press the point but, to the chairman’s great credit, he did eventually succeed in silencing Cllr Matheou.

Councillor Matheou then proposed a vote of no confidence in Cllr Leech. There was a long silence and it appeared that no councillor would second the motion until, to the obvious relief of the chairman, his wife Cllr Carsina Goodman came to the rescue and, seconded the proposal. 75% of councillors did not support the proposition. After the vote of 3 to 2 in favour, Cllr Matheou told Cllr Bill Leech that he should resign. In an act that was pure theatre, Bill Leech turned to the residents and asked them if they want him to resign. There was an immediate and almost universal roar from residents of “No”.

During the previous week the Town Meeting, chaired by Mike Willmott, had demonstrated a good example of David Cameron’s Big Society in action. It had contrasted sharply with the ‘dysfunctional JPC meetings’ chaired by Cllr Les Goodman. Chairmen must be impartial and inclusive and, of course, understand the correct procedures, including the Human Rights Act. The JPC chairman’s bias is clearly illustrated by the form in which he addresses individual councillors, referring to some by their first name and those with whom he does not agree only as ‘Councillor’.

There was a confusing and humiliating scene at the end of the meeting under an agenda item ‘To consider complaint from resident regarding Cllr Leech requested by the Chairman’. The item was due to be held in private session and, after an objection, the Clerk had to advise the Chairman of the correct procedure for implementing a secret session. The item was in fact withdrawn just before it was due to be discussed. Although the chairman did not give a clear reason for the withdrawal, it appeared that it was an unsubstantiated verbal complaint and should not have been on the Agenda.

All together a most entertaining evening and well worth turning out for despite the inclement weather. I shall certainly attend again.

John Tristram - Henley NEWS Online - 26th August 2010

In support of Henley NEWS

At Wednesday night’s meeting of the Beaudesert & Henley JPC, Peter Crathorne, right, speaking in his capacity as chairman of the Hub@ Henley Youth and Community Centre Management Committee, Treasurer of Henley Men (HENMEN), a trustee of the Heritage Centre, and chairman of the Managing Trustees of the Henley War Memorial Trust, started by saying,
“I rise to speak to counter the assertion that Bill Leech does nothing for the town”.
He said that he believed that the work of running Henley NEWS Online is often taken for granted by the organisations that depend on it for their publicity. He expressed the appreciation of the many organisations and individuals who had contacted him in the 24 hours prior to the meeting of the JPC, and asked that this should be considered by the JPC when talking about the motion of no confidence in Bill Leech.
Mr Crathorne later confirmed that he spoke on behalf of 33 residents and 16 town organisations and businesses, all of whom had contacted him in the previous 24 hours.
Henley NEWS Online - 26th August 2010

Friday 13 August 2010

Wasting Our Money on Propaganda

This following article appeared in the latest edition of the JPC Magazine which is delivered to every household in Beaudesert and Henley and paid for by the parish council tax payers.

The contents of this issue were not approved at a full council meeting and many residents are outraged because they consider the article to be both party political and inaccurate. They consider the small cost of contested elections to be minimal when compared with the £20,000 the JPC is accused of wasting each year.
Elections for Parish Councillors are held every 4 years. If a vacancy occurs between that time. advertisements would be placed locally and the vacancy filled by co-option within the Parish Council. This year two such vacancies occurred but a small group of residents claimed that the normal practice of co-option was undemocratic and forced a by-election to be held by the District Council in both instances. In addition, they claimed that Parish Councillors were not doing their jobs correctly and used an ancient right in law to request a Parish Poll be taken on this matter. If ten or more electors in a Parish agree to this, then the Poll would have to be conducted by the District Council. 13 Henley electors requested this so the Poll was held in which 117 voted in favour and 102 voted against the claim. 87% of you did not turn out to vote. 
As the result of the Poll is not binding in law, the purpose of holding one is questionable. However, the cost of the Poll being conducted, and the cost of holding the two by-elections is charged to the Parish Council who will have to pass on the cost to the electors of the town in the form of Precept on the Council Tax. 
The total cost of the Poll and the by elections is £2,700 which will mean that every elector in Beaudesert and Henley will have to pay an additional £1 on their Council Tax next year whether they agree with the views of the opposers to the JPC or not. We believe that you as tax payers should be aware of this fact.
The 'ancient' law referred to is the current Local Government Act 1972. We live in a democracy and contests are the norm for both elections and by-elections. As a result of holding the first contested parish by-election in living memory Sue Osborne defeated George Atkinson, the preferred candidate of the JPC "Ruling Group". In the second contested parish by-election, the candidate nominated by one of JPC "Ruling Group" came last. In the Parish Referendum the JPC "Ruling Group" lost the vote of confidence. 

Do these comments in the latest edition of the JPC Magazine mean the "Ruling Group" considers its maxim to be:

"I do not agree with what you have to say, and I'll prevent to the death your right to vote for it"
with apologies to Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire 1694 - 1778

The JPC is increasing the number of editions of its magazine from 4 to 6 per year, a 50% increase in cost. Many residents are asking if the "Ruling Group" should be using parish council tax money and the parish clerk's time to fund their propaganda machine? In fact why does the JPC need a magazine, when they could use Henley Focus and Henley NEWS Online for FREE? The same question should be asked about the JPC's website upon which the "Ruling Group" are currently spending our money revamping. Why shouldn't they use the 'Town Website', sponsored by the Henley-in-Arden War Memorial Trust, which would be FREE and would be in line with David Cameron's 'Big Society' idea and would save the JPC a lot of money. After all, the Town Website is the one visitors look at as it is at the top of the Google listings. 

Town Meeting about the Market Site Development

imageIn 2007, Henley NEWS supported a successful campaign by 217 Henley residents, pictured below, to ensure that the Joint Parish Council publicly declared that it was opposed to the first scheme proposed by Taylor Wimpey for the redevelopment of the market site. With this experience, the residents are now having to repeat this process with another Town Meeting on 17th August 2010. Commenting at the last parish council meeting on Monday 2nd August 2010, Cllr George Matheou said, "Cllr Bill Leech has no right to organise a Town Meeting". Consequently, it is not expected that the "Ruling Group" of the JPC will attend. So far, only Cllr Osborne, Cllr Hadley and Cllr Leech have told Henley NEWS Online that they will be attending.

The parish clerk has declined to confirm that 33 Henley parish electors have written to the Chairman of the Joint Parish Council, Cllr Les Goodman, requesting that he convenes a parish meeting after the Town Meeting on the 17th. Cllr Goodman told the Stratford Herald that he would seek advice regarding the validity of using the parish poll system in this way.

Under the 1972 Local Government Act, six or more parishioners, who must all be on the electoral roll for the parish, can convene a parish meeting to consider any business, which is a matter of concern to the parish and seven clear days notice must be given for such a meeting. There is no requirement under the Act for parishioners to ask for the permission of the Parish Council.

With 33 parish electors, which is far in excess of the 6 required by law, having written to the JPC Chairman requesting a parish meeting, many residents believe the JPC chairman has no option but to convene a parish meeting so that the residents can inform the JPC of their concerns about the proposals which Taylor Wimpey displayed at their exhibition last month. If the chairman fails to hold a parish meeting, this will be a violation of the 1972 Act and the residents can go ahead and call on Stratford District Council to hold a parish referendum on the acceptability of the proposed development.

Taylor Wimpey has declined to speak at the Town Meeting, saying that they have "already carried out a public consultation exercise and have received representations from the members of the public who attended the recent event [exhibition]." A spokesman for the developers told Henley NEWS Online that the developers had already met Cllr Les Goodman and some of the parish councillors as part of their local consultation programme required by Stratford District Council.

Mr John Stott Chairman of the Beaudesert and Henley Society, Mr Paul Wright Head of Henley High School, County Councillor Mike Perry, District Councillor Stephen Thirlwell, the Flood Risk Officer for this area from the Environment Agency and a significant number of residents are expected to speak.


We MUST be prepared to take responsibility for the community in which we live!
Simon Halsey - High Street


The proposals, as they stand, seem to be solely for the financial benefit of the developer and will have a long term detrimental impact on the residents of Henley.
John Tristram - Prince Harry Road


It seems all our concerns from the first planning proposals have been ignored. School safety and the increased risk of flooding are also of major concern.
Steve Aston - Warwick Road

Parish Spending to be brought under control?


The Coalition Government has issued a consultation document on “Local referendums to veto excessive council tax increases”. The introduction states:

image
Band D council tax has more than doubled since 1997-98 and high increases in the past have led to various measures designed to constrain local discretion, including council tax capping. Often these measures appeared to be based on the presumption that Government ministers and their civil servants knew better than local communities what was in their best interest. The Coalition Government is determined to reverse this presumption and to rebalance the role of the central state and local communities. This will see the Government playing a much smaller role, with powers and responsibilities being devolved to the most appropriate level, wherever possible empowering local people so that they have a direct say in important decisions that affect their lives. In relation to council tax, this means abolishing capping and giving local people a stronger role in determining annual increases. The Government intends to introduce legislation to achieve this at the earliest opportunity.
The control of excessive parish council precepts, which the Henley-in-Arden Reform Association has been advocating, has been included. In 2009/10, our Joint Parish Council increased the Parish Precept (Band F) by 37.6%.
Parish precepts 
There has been a growing awareness in recent years of the council tax increases set by local precepting authorities, and of the very high precept increases set by some town and parish councils in particular. Increases in council tax revenue from town and parish councils have outstripped those for England in each of the last five years. The average town and parish precept set in some billing authorities (around £100) is larger than that of the smallest shire district of Breckland (£68). It is right that local precepting authorities should have the resources they need to support neighbourhoods and local communities. However it is also right that council taxpayers are protected from excessive increases.
 In fact, it is the very first question to be asked in the consultation.
Question 1.
Do you agree that local precepting authorities, such as town and parish councils, should be included within the provisions for council tax referendums? If so,
  • are there details about the budget setting process for local precepting authorities which need to be taken into account?
  • will the ‘double lock’ mechanism work to protect the majority of town and parish councils.



Observations on the consultation document
Our Joint Parish Council, which sets the parish precept (parish council tax), will discuss this proposed curtailment of their spending powers at their next meeting on 25th August. The Reform Association will be making a response to the Government's consultation, welcoming the cap on parish councils, which the Reform Association has been advocating to local MPs. The Association believes that the JPC should spend more money on supporting local voluntary organisations and £20,000 less on unnecessary admin and propaganda.
Clearly the Joint Parish Council will need to be mindful of this and seek to reverse the large increases that have taken place over the previous years
Henley NEWS Online asked Bob Ayling, a very experienced business manager and resident of Henley, to comment on the Government's proposals and he reports:
  • image
    I would like to see the proposal extended to include referendums on whether the precept is excessive – not just on whether the increase is excessive. Ultimately the real value in a ‘Big Society’ comes down to whether the residents consider the local taxes  deliver value for money.
  • The double lock mechanism appears to be contrary to the principle of putting the power with the residents – small values should not be outside of a democracy.



As a starter towards a ‘Big Society’ this seems to be a useful first step.  It would be an even bigger step if my observations were enacted too.  To truly bring about a ‘Big Society’ the people need to see that they have real power to influence local politics.  Councillors are elected to represent the residents not to become an oligarchy for its own ends.

Bob Ayling - Reform Association