* Minutes of the Annual Parish Meeting 2007
Minutes of the Annual Parish Meeting 2007 Held in the Church Hall, Sidlesham on Wednesday 23 May 2007 at 7:00 p.m.
Councillors present: Mr Adrian Harland (Chairman),Mrs Patricia Tull, Mrs Debbie Kennedy, Mrs Elizabeth Smart, Mrs Diana Pound, Mrs Carole Ranjbar, Mr Chris Bond, Mr Dudley Pound.
Also present: Forty-five Sidlesham Electors, Mr Alan Chaplin (County Councillor) and Mr John Paul (Parish Clerk)
Mr Colin Field (vice Chairman) sent apologies for his absence due to being indisposed.
Mr Adrian Harland opened the proceedings and welcomed all present to the meeting.
Mr Harland was elected Chairman of the Parish Council and Mr Colin Field (vice-chairman) at the AGM on 16 May 2007
1. Minutes of the Annual Parish Meeting held on Wednesday 24 May 2006
These were proposed by Mrs Debbie Kennedy, seconded by Mrs Diana Pound and agreed by those present as being a true record to be signed by the Chairman.
2. Report of the past year by Mr A Harland (Chairman).
Introduction of Parish Councillors and the Parish Clerk.
Mr Harland introduced the newly elected Parish Councillors, in absence Colin Field (Vice-Chairman & Chairman of Planning Committee), then Chris Bond, Debbie Kennedy, Diana Pound, Dudley Pound (Chairman Amenities & Assets Sub-Committee), Carole Ranjbar, Liz Smart, & Tricia Tull and John Paul (Parish Clerk).
The Parish Council meets formally bi-monthly, with planning meetings sometimes fortnightly in between. All councillors are members of the Planning Sub-Committee, and this is one of the key functions we deal with. But there are a number of other matters that come before us on a regular basis, most of which I shall touch upon. In addition we are consulted on a large number of ‘white’ papers covering the Local Development Framework, Transport, Waste sites, Mining plans both onshore & offshore, etc.
Planning Meetings
During the last 12 months, there were 17 planning meetings covering 51 applications. Whilst not quite as busy as the preceding year, this is still a very large number compared with many other local parishes. Put another way, just over 10% of the housing stock sought permission to rebuild, alter or extend properties, or to cut down or prune trees. So in many ways this activity has to be rated as the most active function of the Council. All councillors are members of the planning committee, which is traditionally chaired by the Council’s vice-chairman, who during the preceding 12 months was Tricia Tull. Of the 51 applications, we raised ‘no objection’ to 42, of which 38 were permitted, and 3 were refused (in 2 cases we had raised comment which in part was why the applications were refused), and one has yet to be decided; we objected to 8, of which 3 were refused and 2 withdrawn, one was permitted subject to complying with overcoming the specific objections we had raised, one was permitted because the parish council misunderstood the interpretation of a 106 agreement, and one was permitted even though an identical application had in the past been refused, and the decision upheld by a government inspector! Lastly one application was in the nature of a consultation document for which no formal papers have yet been filed. So of the 49 applications decided in only 3 cases were the council’s recommendations fully overturned.
Enforcement
There remain a considerable number of enforcement matters outstanding, of which 3 are subject to submissions before a government inspector. Other matters have been given a number of months in which to comply with orders, which if not obeyed would lead to more stringent action. The Council remains concerned about the number of cases outstanding, and the lack of sufficient personnel to deal with these matters promptly and effectively. In some cases it would seem that the present attitude to abuse has gone ’soft’, which largely negates the whole process!
Finance
Comment was made in election addresses on the level of the Parish Precept, and the areas in which these funds are spent.
For the record, during the last financial year the precept was £10030, plus a grant towards the new bus shelter £480, and other sundry income £266, grand total £10776 and £10483 was spent. This creates a small excess of income over expenditure of £293. Of the expenditure sum £5282 (50%) was attributable to the Parish Clerk’s fee and general expenses such as stationery, postage etc £3671 (35%) was spent on village amenities such as the new bus shelter near Manhood Lane, and keeping the grassy areas specifically looked after by the Council cut and tidy. Subscriptions to official bodies such as SALC, and donations to organisations, where it is felt there is input into the parish daily life, totalled £821 (8%), and we are required to spend, £708 (7%) on audit and insurance.
The Recreation Ground
Whilst the ownership of this facility is invested in the Parish Council, it has for many years been let to the Sidlesham Football Club. No rent is paid, but in return the SFC is supposed to look after the ground, including keeping tidy all boundaries. All buildings on the ground belong to the SFC. Various discussions have taken place between the Council and the SFC over the years concerning this asset, but to date no satisfactory outcome has been reached to improve the tidiness etc, largely because the SFC is not over-endowed with the monies necessary to fund the upkeep. We shall continue to consult with SFC officials in the hopes of seeing an improvement in the current position.
Playground
Within the recreation ground there is an area that was set aside for a children’s playground. Regrettably the apparatus on the playground was subject to a considerable amount of vandalism, and the councillors were advised a few years back that the equipment was uninsurable, and that any claims for injury would fall on the councillors personally. The playground was therefore dismantled.
In recent discussions, the council has not been convinced that the present site is the best option, as it is only in the limited view of the public to afford a reasonable level of protection against vandalism. As an example, the facilities at Hunston are overlooked by a fair number of houses, and the main road gives passers by a good view of any potential abuse. The capital cost of a current replacement will be several tens of thousands, which might attract a grant to cover some of the cost. The remainder would have to be financed by raising the parish precept, probably threefold as a minimum, and the ongoing maintenance and insurance would add a significant annual commitment.
I have no doubt the present council will revisit this matter.
Affordable Housing
During the past year, a survey has been conducted throughout the parish. About 60 replies were received of the 500 issued, and the general consent was in favour of some cheaper housing for the children of parishioners and indeed the elderly. The actual numbers immediately requiring such accommodation is quite small. In total there were probably 14 ‘units’ needing some form of housing now and up to five years hence. The majority of the need would appear to be shared ownership rather than rented. However there are a number of problems associated with the provision of such housing.
Firstly the local plan now being drawn up by the CDC rules out any development in our parish on the grounds that it has insufficient infrastructure to support new homes, i.e. no shops, doctors & dentists, limited local transport (other than in the immediate area of the main road) etc, and is therefore ‘unsustainable’. Any new building would almost certainly require the occupants to need cars to get around, and it is just this group of the population that in theory cannot afford such assets, or may well be unable to drive due to old age.
Secondly it is a fact that although some Sidlesham residents may get any new housing stock when it first becomes available, a) rented accommodation on a change of tenant would more often than not go to people at the top of the housing list who have no direct connection with the parish. b) In the case of shared ownership, on a change of hands the property would be sold at the market rate, and although the rental proportion is protected to some degree, the cost is likely to have escalated beyond the reach of the types of ownership we ideally wish to support. And c) Key Worker Housing (there are a limited number of occupations that are covered by this description) will go to those who are on the top of the list, and they would more than likely have no existing connection with Sidlesham. It is therefore more than likely that within a few years such housing will have passed from Sidlesham connections to others who have no direct link with the parish, which would quickly defeat the objective of the building of new homes in the first place! To my way of thinking, the only way that housing could be reserved for the people of Sidlesham would be if some rich local benefactor was to invest private monies into a protected scheme, and regrettably I don’t know of one.
Thirdly there is the question of a suitable site. I have to report that progress with the possible School House site has run into considerable difficulty. The planners favour a preponderance of rented accommodation, which would not seem to fit the needs of the majority of the survey answers which sought shared ownership. A key problem has been identified in giving a safe access to the site - not just from the road aspect, but as important the maintaining of the safety of the school’s children. Currently it would appear that some officials of the WSCC, the site owners, may in any case wish to block any plans for development, and will only sanction the demolition of the house, with the ground reverting to school use. The Council will continue to pursue this matter. No alternative sites are currently on the agenda, either at parish level, or so far as I am aware any higher authority.
Roads
The ever-increasing volumes of traffic using the B2145 and the B2201 exercise all our minds. We must not lose sight also of the other routes through Highleigh and up Lockgate Road. I would suggest that the latter present more of a risk as the volumes are not as great, and therefore the traffic tends to move faster - too fast in many cases. During the daytime, the sheer volume does tend to keep overall speed down on the main roads, so the problem of getting onto the main road from the side roads, or a pedestrian crossing from one side to another, are a growing difficulty.
Over the years the council has had many meetings with officers from the Highways Authority. Progress in achieving improvements has been slow, but not for the lack of effort. The Sidlesham Traffic Action Group (STAG) has been beavering away to make a difference, but relief can only be slight as there is no room for road widening along the main road. As a result crossing points like those in Hunston are for the most part ruled out, because as I understand it the road has insufficient width to accommodate central reservations which are considered a must by the Highways Authority.
Before my time here, I understand that a bypass was considered in the 1970s, but local support was not general and the scheme fell by the wayside, if you will excuse the pun! Some people would like to see those plans resurrected, but I feel it would be dishonest of me to suggest that there is any hope of achieving that aim. The short answer is that central government is not prepared to invest in such projects - just think how difficult it is to get anything done about the Chichester ring road any time soon, and you will appreciate just how far down the list of priorities such a road is.
The Council will however continue to monitor the parish road network, and I can re-affirm that as a statutory body we will continue to support STAG in its aim “to curb traffic excesses in and around Sidlesham” wherever and whenever possible.
Consultation re Sea Defence Coastal Strategy
Following a Manhood Peninsular Forum meeting in December, at which a presentation was made to participating parish councillors, we were able to arrange for a public presentation to be made to the Parish on 17th January, as it had not been intended to have any ‘road show’ or other means of disseminating information to this parish. For the officers agreed that on reflection it would be this parish that would be most affected if the policy of retreat was put into practice. The meeting was to give the parish further information as to the details of the plans in the Consultation Document, for which all responses were required by 31st March. As yet no further information has come out following the consultation. The Parish Council responded to a questionnaire we had to the effect that the present defences should be maintained, and that all costs should be met by central government, bearing in mind the many thousands of visitors who come to the area each year to enjoy the facilities. It is my understanding that the CDC has also made a commitment to hold the line.
Could I just say that the big threat from the sea is expressed as a 1 in 200 hundred years event, and although that could be tomorrow, the probability is that it won’t happen for many years. And even when it does occur, it will be with us for a relatively short time before the sea retreats again. Clearly the real problem will be the damage that flooding causes to electrics and furnishings, should individual householders not be able to sandbag properties etc. We should be concerned, and individually make plans to counter such an event, but it should not be a case of panic measures today.
Other Matters
I can report that the village website www.sidlesham.org is now up and running this has largely been achieved by our Parish Clerk with professional input. There are areas that will be enlarged upon over the coming months, and there is space on the site to advertise local events etc. There is also a page for local businesses, and if any wish to make use of this facility, will they please get in touch with the clerk.
The Village Design Statement was finally approved by the local authority (CDC) towards the end of last summer. A text only version will be posted on the website shortly. The retiring council decided to leave the question of a Parish Plan to the newly elected council, and that will be reconsidered shortly.
The Cycle Route from Ferry Corner to Hunston, and from there to Chichester by way of the canal towpath is well under construction. Sadly the route southward into Selsey has yet to be resolved, and I fear it will be some while yet before the link is fully completed.
I have to report that yet more trees have been damaged along the Paddock Straight. We hope these will re-sprout. However I would ask you all to keep an eye open for those who wilfully damage what is your property. If it can happen along the main road in full view, you can see the difficulty we have in risking an expensive asset such as a playground with limited number of people able to keep an eye on it 24 hours a day.
And finally:
My personal thanks to all retiring councillors during the last year. Moira Grice and Lizzie Duke decided not to stand this time around, but I thank them on your behalf for their contributions over the last 4 years. Sadly Trevor Dobbins, who was co-opted to fill a casual vacancy a couple of years ago, was not re-elected, and I thank him too for his contribution to our debates, and his representation on the Manhood Peninsular Forum. With his loss, and that of Lizzie, the average age of the council will have shot up again, which is a shame. Tricia Tull as Chairman of the Planning Committee has probably been kept the busiest of all councillors, and again I pass on my thanks to her for her work. Liz Smart was our latest co-optee, and she has thrown herself into the workload, representing the council on the newly formed Manhood Parish Traffic Action Committee, and Pagham Harbour Nature Reserve Advisory Board. To those others not mentioned a vote of thanks for their support to me, but more importantly to the Parish.
I have left the most important person to the end. Our Parish Clerk is the true engine in dealing with parish affairs, whether passed on to him by parishioners, councillors or the CDC, the WSCC and central government. The parish is large in area, busy in all sorts of ways, and there is little that does not escape his attention. Now we also have a website due his efforts. Whilst the amount of the Parish precept spent on financing our clerk and his expenses is a large slice of our available funding, I know that he spends many more hours on parish business than he paid for, and on behalf of myself, my fellow councillors and you the parishioners I would ask you show your appreciation.
A Harland 2007
Mr Harland then thanked the WI in anticipation of refreshments later in the meeting.
3. Presentation by Sarah Hughes (Selsey Wildlife Project) and Joanna Brooks (Chichester District Council) on Manhood Action For Wildlife.
Joanna opened this session with a reference to the biodiversity issues of the district with emphasis on Chichester harbour, bat protection and the very rare coastal vegetation shingle growth, Her areas of work are with the local communities. Very recently the District Council has published a document the Local Biodiversity Action Plan 2007-2008. Joanna is keen to receive ideas for projects (via the Parish Clerk). Some grant funding is available on a cost-matching basis.
Sarah then presented her areas of interest and work. Agreeing that she was an enthusiast particularly about ponds. Initially she worked with the Selsey Map Project that was the first in the country. The particular success in Selsey has been and continues to be the restoration of East Beach pond as a viable wild life habitat and area of social interest. Sarah accompanied her presentation with many photographs both before and after the work carried out by her group of volunteers.
A regrettable feature of this town pond is the overpopulation of ducks, attracted by the laudable but misguided habit over many years of daily feeding with very large amounts of bread. Bread not being a healthy food for ducks and the excess attracts brown rats. The volunteer group formed cleared the pond of dumped rubbish, planted marginal plants (reeds etc), removed abandoned turtles, planted a hedgerow as a wildlife corridor, sowed a wildflower seed mix, coppice willow growth used for basket making, bat and bird boxes put up etc. The photographs showed that the pond was no longer boring in appearance although bank protection needed increasing to counter the duck problem. The pond has become an education area for local school projects. The volunteer group had successfully integrated people of all ages. Information boards were installed and personality publicity obtained by a visit from the TV ‘water feature’ gardener Charlie Dimmock. The true success of developing the pond as a wildlife habitat was that water voles were now present.
Sarah was interested to consider extending her area of work over the Manhood Peninsula. As Sidlesham has several ponds this particularly interested her. The Parish Council has statutory responsibility for Bird Pond and Florence’s Pond. (Bird Pond was cleared of the fallen and dangerous marginal trees in March, the coppiced stools were now being allowed to re-grow and the pond balance to re-establish, Florence’s Pond was in balance). It was agreed that a visit around the ponds would be arranged with the Parish Council. If later a volunteer group was required Sarah asked who would be interested, Gill Cook, Guy Borer, Val Gatehouse, Alison Binns, Gina Carrington, Jan and Julia Sanders expressed interest.
Mr Harland thanked Sara and Joanna for the presentation and the interested discussion it stimulated.
4. Refreshment break.
5. Open forum on topics of Parish interest.
5.1 Coastal Defence Strategy. As a flat low lying Parish this was of concern following recent publications and meetings organised by Chichester District Council and the Environment Agency detailing the current and future flood risk to some areas from the sea. The District Council and Parish Council supported the hold the current defence line option. However, this option was dependent on obtaining central government funding and a higher priority rating for some coastal sections. District Councillor Tricia Tull as a member of the CDC Executive Board was in an advantageous position to further the concerns of Sidlesham.
5.2 The B2145 and B2201. As in many years previously discussion took place on the traffic situation. With the current County Council financial constraints large-scale road works expenditure cannot be expected in the foreseeable future. (This was also reported from a meeting between STAG and WSCC). Other suggestions raised were speed cameras and SIDS (signs that light up when a speeding vehicle is detected). A joint Manhood Peninsula Parish Council group is investigating this possibility. As the cost of SIDS is very high occasional hiring of a mobile type may be a possibility.
Speeding vehicles are more of a problem at off peak times when not constrained by traffic volume, if a vehicle is observed regularly moving at very excessive speed on a particular section of road details should be reported to the police who will take action.
5.3 Litter. What can be done? The clerk replied that fly tipping is a particular problem on the back-roads of the parish. The District Council runs an excellent clearing service, he has contacted CDC on very many occasions and the offending rubbish is always cleared within a very few days, often the next day. The District Council also has the B2145 and B2201 litter picked by hand four times per year.
To organise teams of volunteers for litter picking by the Parish Council on roads, is currently a very difficult option, requiring training, road signs, insurance, high visibility yellow clothing etc. On the minor roads most householders on seeing small quantities of litter near their homes pick it up.
5.3 Parish Plan. Some parishes have produced these documents as suggestion for future development. The Chairman informed the meeting that now that the Village Design Statement was published and a newly elected Parish Council in office, he would have the possible production of a Parish Plan and its organisation on the agenda of the next Parish Council meeting.
Mr Harland thanked everyone for attending and taking part. He then closed the meeting.
Sidlesham Annual Parish Meeting 2007 closed at 9.15 pm.