Minutes of Statutory Annual Council Meeting
18 May 2011 in the Parish Church of St Mary our Lady, Sidlesham at 7.00pm

 1.       Present: Mr A Harland (Chairman), Mrs E Smart, Mrs T Tull, Mrs D Pound, Mrs C Hall and Mr P Bedford, Mrs M Whitehead (WSCC), the Clerk (Mrs T MacIntyre) and five members of the public. 

2.        Election of Chairman. Mr Harland was proposed by Mrs Tull and seconded by Mrs Smart; Mrs Pound was proposed by Mrs Hall but not seconded.  Mr Harland was elected by four votes with two abstentions.                     

3.     Election of Vice-Chairman. Mrs Tull was proposed by Mr Harland, seconded by Mrs Smart and elected unopposed.

4.     Members and Representatives.
4.1    Planning Committee. Mr Harland proposed all Parish Councillors to be members. Mr Bedford was proposed for Chairman of the Planning Committee by Mrs Pound and seconded by Mr Harland.   All Councillors agreed.   As Mr Bedford is new to the Council, Mr Bedford proposed that he wait three months before taking over the post and Mr Harland will act as Chairman during this period. This was agreed unanimously.

4.2    Mr Harland welcomed the two new Councillors, Mrs Hall and Mr Bedford, to the Council.  Mr Harland proposed that all other appointments to Committees etc be postponed until after the Co-option Meeting on 2nd June 2011 and that these should be settled at the July Meeting, when the Parish will have a full Council of 9 members.  Mrs Tull seconded the proposal and all members agreed.  Mr Bedford enquired whether there would be any meetings before the July Bi-monthly Meeting at which the Council should be represented.  Mr Harland replied that Mrs Smart would continue to attend the Pagham Harbour Local Nature Reserve Advisory Board and that Mr Harland and Mrs Tull will attend next the Peninsula Forum Meeting.

5.     Apologies for absence.  Mrs C Ranjbar

6.     Minutes of the Parish Council Meeting held 16th March 2011 to be signed as a correct record.
Mrs Tull proposed and Mrs Smart seconded that the Minutes be signed as a correct record.  All members agreed.

7.     Matters arising from the Minutes.
Mrs Tull raised the matter of the Tyre Clinic which has been served notice to tidy up the site.  Mrs Tull had visited the site and felt that little was being done to improve the site.  The Clerk was asked to write to the Enforcement Officer to ask that the matter be followed up.

8.     Declarations by Councillors of personal interests in items on this agenda.  None

The meeting was then interrupted while the Planning Committee Meeting was held.

9. Questions from the public present at the meeting on subjects other than those on the agenda.
 None.

10.    WSCC Councillor.  Mrs Whitehead reported that she had requested that she be given an opportunity to speak at the Strategic Environmental Services Select Committee Meeting on Pagham Harbour next week, which had been agreed.  Mrs Smart, Mrs Tull and Mr Harland had received the report to be presented at the meeting and Mrs Whitehead suggested that they hold a meeting to discuss matters which they would like her to raise when she speaks at the meeting.  Mrs Tull felt that the financial figures presented in the report needed to be studied.  The figures originally given for costs of the Nature Reserve to WSCC were considerably less than they are now.
Mrs Whitehead raised the matter of the water in Yeoman’s Field which is believed to come from a broken water main.  She will report this to WSCC and ask that the matter be investigated.
Mrs Whitehead reported on the reorganisation of the local bus service.  The bus service from Chichester to Selsey after 6.30 pm (which is subsidised) may be cut, with no services on Sundays.  Mrs Whitehead requested that anyone who has comments on this change to the schedule should send them to her please.
 
11.    CDC Councillor.   Mr Harland congratulated Mrs Tull on her appointment as Cabinet Member for Finance. Mrs Tull reported that the new Cabinet appointments to Chichester District Council have been announced and Mrs Heather Caird is the new Leader of the Council.

12.    Playground.
Mr Harland reported that the climbing wall, the final piece of equipment for the playground, will be installed within the next few weeks. At the same time they will correct the other minor faults which were raised when the equipment was installed.  Mr Harland has ordered the new bench and the shelter which will be installed inside the playground and the two new picnic tables.  These will be put in place as soon as they arrive.  There are plans to remove the heap and clear the old playground site of brambles. Some of the earth from the heap will be placed on the site of the old playground and the ground reseeded.  The rest of the earth from the heap will be removed.  When that has been completed, the pathway between the Clubhouse entrance and the playground will be repaired.   Mrs Pound raised expenditure on the door to the toilet and paint which had not been approved by Council.  Mr Harland pointed out that there had been no expenditure as the door had been donated and Mr Malir had overhauled the toilet etc.

13.    Hall Work Group
The Hall Work Group (HWG) has not met since March when they assessed the responses to the questionnaire.   Mrs Pound reported that the HWG would like the Village Hall project to be given priority and active support by the new Council.   Mr Bill Martin has a list of people who have volunteered to help and the HWG would like to contact those volunteers and hold a meeting with them in the near future in order not to lose their interest and support and discuss the way forward.  Mrs Hall requested that Mr Harland attend that meeting and Mrs Pound would like Parish Councillors to attend.  Mrs Louise Beaton will be invited.   Mr Harland responded that before this Council can give approval for a hall, more work needs to be done but Mr Harland supported the HWG continuing with their work on the project.  In further discussions Mr Harland suggested that the Hall Work Group draw up a rough plan for the new building and assess the size it would need to be in order to accommodate the requirements identified in the survey.  Mr Harland then suggested that they contact a builder to give a rough idea of what that would cost and investigate various sources of funding.  With that information, Mrs Pound should present it at a future Parish Council Meeting and seek approval to hold a public meeting.  Mrs Pound stressed that the Hall will not conflict with the new church rooms when seeking funding.  

13.    Pagham Harbour Local Nature Reserve Advisory Board (PHLNRAB) issues etc.
Mr Harland reported that he, Mrs Tull and Mrs Smart had sat on the Pagham Harbour Service Level Agreement work group (SLAwg)  which had set out the terms under which they felt that WSCC should negotiate with the RSPB.  The SLAwg also included representatives from Pagham Council, Pagham Residents Association, Selsey Town Council, Mrs Whitehead, Mr Mike Coleman and Mr Peter Gadd of the Friends of Pagham Harbour.  This group made suggestions concerning issues that negotiations should be based around and members were pleased that their suggestions had largely been followed.  On the 25th May, the Strategic Environmental Services Select Committee will meet to decide whether to support the recommendations being put forward to the Cabinet Minister, Deborah Urquhart who will make the decision shortly thereafter.  Mrs Hall commented on the excellent talk by Mr Adrian Thomas of the RSPB at the Parish Meeting which she felt had been helpful in putting many people’s minds at rest.  Mrs Tull agreed but felt that it did not address the hard financial decisions to be made.  There is a meeting of the PHLNRAB shortly.  However, Mrs Smart thought that once the Cabinet decision has been made, the Advisory Board will be disbanded.  Mr Bedford raised the issue of visitor numbers and suggested that numbers in the management plan may have been massaged because of the current capacity of the B2145.  If the RSPB is to make charges for certain elements, they will need to increase numbers and therefore the size of the car park and the visitors’ centre.  Mrs Smart stated that that is their plan and that the Medmerry Realignment Scheme could all become part of the Reserve.  Mr Thomas had said in his talk to the Parish Meeting that the RSPB was well aware of the road congestion problems and would keep these in mind.

15.    Highways, Footpaths and Cycleways
15.1      VAS sign on the B2145.  Mrs Whitehead had taken the matter up and the sign is now working and the hole filled in.  A member of the public did, however, point out that the sign just flashes on and off when it should stay on while the car is passing. Mr Harland will investigate.  
15.2      Flooding on the B2145 outside the petrol station.  Mrs Tull referred to her notes from the meeting with Southern Water, the Environment Agency and CDC which established that CDC should be responsible for flooding on the highway.  Mrs Tull will follow this up.
15.3     Rookery/Cow Lane signs.  The Clerk had reported that these signs needed repair and had had an acknowledgement that this would be done.  The Clerk will write again to ascertain how long this may take.
15.4     Other matters.  At the Parish Meeting a parishioner raised the matter of the footpath across the field from Littleton Barn.  The footpath has now been restored but the Clerk will write to Mr Torrance to ask him to ensure that in future his contractors re-establish the footpath after the field has been ploughed.
Mrs Smart also raised the footpath through Slip Field between Slated Barn and Hayes Barn.  The Clerk to write to Mr Monnington of Mapson Farm to ask that the path be restored after the field has been ploughed.

16.    Emergency Plan
Mrs Pound reported on progress to date. The Emergency Plan Group, following the guidance from CDC of what an emergency plan should cover, are now working on their 5th draft.    Mr Allisstone had taken all members at the Emergency Plan Meeting through the 4th draft who agreed that the format of the plan was readily understood and when complete would bring together as much information as could be determined in advance of an unknown threat.  It was agreed to label this revised plan as Version 5.   The Group will invite the CDC Emergency Planning Officer, Mr Lloyd Harris, to update the contact details of one of the appendices which are incorrect.  They will add, under Appendix 7, communications using social networking, via the internet, twitter, facebook, etc so that if everything else fails, people will be able to contact each other via these networks.  To Appendix 10 the group will ask for fluorescent jackets to identify those in authority.  The description of ‘vulnerable people’ will be altered so as not to offend those with special needs.  No confidential information about people will be in the plan.  There will be a limited use of discs or data key fobs so as not to lose all information in a crisis.  The meeting endorsed the plan and agreed that, once amended, should be forwarded to Sidlesham Parish Council.  This would enable the Emergence Planning Group to seek the support of the Parish Council for the work done and apply for advice and resources from CDC as approved in the plan.    The Group looked at accommodation, heavy plant, light plant, tools and materials and people with useful skills and Mr Allisstone agreed to incorporate these assets into version 5 before it is circulated for the Parish Council to approve.  Mrs Tull raised the directive for any District Councillor who holds information about their constituents on their computers to register with the Information Commissioner.  This could also apply to Parish Councillors and needs to be kept in mind.
17.    Finance
17.1      Income
17.1.1    Precept payment  £9,420.00
17.1.2   HM Revenue & Customs (VAT Return)  £1088.08

 Payments. The Clerk requests the following for approval and recording.
 17.2 Payments to be made
 17.2.1    Came & C0.  (Annual Insurance)  £872.97
 Mr Harland requested that the Council approve a 3 year contract which will give the Council a discount on their annual premiums.  Mrs Pound asked what this insurance would cover and Mr Harland stated that all individual assets of the Parish, PLI of £10,000,000 and legal costs related to claims would be covered.  All Councillors voted to continue the 3 year contract.  
 
 17.3. Payments made since last meeting 
 17.3.1   A Harland expenses £2.00
 17.3.2   Samaritans £75.00
 17.3.3   Sidlesham Transport Club £150.00
 17.3.4   Arun & Chichester CAB £75.00
 17.3.5   CPRE (Subscription) £29.00
 17.3.6   Trojan Timber Products (Bus Shelter) £344.40
 17.3.7   T MacIntyre (March salary) £377.50
 17.3.8   A Brand (Bus Shelter) £245.00
 17.3.9   T MacIntyre (April salary) £398.85
 17.3.10  Access by Design (Web site) £144.00
 17.3.11  A R Harland expenses £22.84
 17.3.12  M H Kennedy & Son (grass mowing March & April) £303.00
 17.3.13  Thomas Eggar Llp (Recreation Ground Legal Fees) £900.00 
 17.3.14   Action in Rural Sussex (AH attended Rural Forum) £10.00

Mrs Tull proposed that items 17.3.1 to 17.3.14 be taken en bloc and Mrs Smart seconded.  This was agreed unanimously.

A member of the public raised the insurance covering the parish.  Firstly, the parishioner asked whether the PLI covered the buildings on the football field.  At an earlier meeting it had been resolved to investigate whether the premiums could be increased so as to cover the buildings but the minutes had not reflected whether this was the case.  Secondly, the playing field is held partly by the Football Club under a licence and partly by the Parish Council.  He stated that they are joint occupiers.  Therefore the parishioner considered that the Parish would be responsible for anyone injured on any part of the playing field, including the buildings.  At present the parishioner understood that there is no liability on the Club to maintain building and lights.  Mr Harland replied that the reason why that has not been concluded is that the Council is still waiting for the Football Club to agree, or not, to the Agreement which has been drawn up.  In that Agreement it clearly states that they are responsible for maintenance and public liability to cover all their assets on the field, including the flood lights. However the Football Club now has its own Public Liability Insurance on the clubhouse and associated assets including the floodlights. The Council’s insurance brokers have confirmed that as that is the case, the Council cannot be sued additionally for those same assets.  The Council’s public liability policy states that all assets owned by the Parish are covered. The parishioner’s advice was that the Council should invite the insurer’s representative to inspect the Memorial Playing Field and its structures to ensure that the conditions of the insurance have been met.    

Mr Harland stated that he had been in touch with Mr Tony Rowland, who had advised that lease negotiations had now been taken over by Mr Les Jewiss, the Football Club Chairman, who has been consulting with the Club’s solicitors.  Mr Jewiss is currently away on holiday.  Mr Harland has written to the Club asking when the Council may expect a response to the draft agreement.

18.    School House update
18.1      New School entrance.  
The Clerk was asked to enquire when the Parish Council can expect confirmation that the original entrance will be closed up.  The building is nearing completion and the entrance issue will need to be settled.
18.2      Ditch at school entrance.  Mr Harland enquired whether the ditch on the left hand side of the entrance will be filled in and incorporated within the new development boundary.  Mrs Whitehead will request that this be done.

19.     Annual Parish Meeting matters
19.1       Advertising of local events.  Mr Harland proposed that this be put off to another meeting and Councillors agreed.
19.2      Yeoman’s Field.  Two issues were raised.  Firstly, the flooding which had been discussed under Item 10 above which Mrs Whitehead will seek to resolve with WSCC.   Secondly, the fence which looks stark at the moment will be completed and should weather in.  It will become very much more secure for keeping dogs within the field.

20.     Correspondence.  None

21.     Other reports.
21.1      Police Neighbourhood Management Panel.   Mr Harland reported on vandalism of the flint bus stop.  When police apprehend someone committing a minor offence, Mr Harland proposed that authority be given to the Chairman and Clerk to agree with the police on action which the police intend to take, ie   whether to prosecute or issue a community service task etc.  Councillors agreed.

22.     Proposed meetings for the next twelve months Wednesdays at 7:00pm: -
22.1       Parish Council bi-monthly 20 July 2011, 21 September 2011, 16 November 2011, 18 January                                         2012, 21 March 2012, 16 May 2012 (Statutory Annual Meeting )   
            Annual Parish Meeting 23 May 2012.
22.2 Planning Committee every three weeks if new applications are received, interval and dates subject to change if applications not received.
22.3      Work Groups as required.
23.     Matters of urgent public importance. Any items raised will stand deferred until the next meeting.  None
24.      Matters of Information.
Mrs Tull will inform councillors when she has more information from the Information Commissioner regarding rules governing Councillors when holding information on computer about constituents or parishioners.
Mr Harland raised the Decentralisation and Localism Bill which is progressing through Parliament and likely to be made law towards the end of this year.  Having attended a SALC meeting on the subject, it is unlikely that many of the items in this bill will affect a Parish Council of Sidlesham’s size.  Regarding Clusters, we have Clusters such as the Peninsula forum.

           Meeting closed 21:25

Held in the Church Hall, Sidlesham on Wednesday 27th April 2011 at 7:00 p.m.
(Unapproved)

Councillors present: Mr Adrian Harland (Chairman), Mr Colin Field (Vice-chairman), Mrs Patricia Tull, Mr Christopher Bond, Mrs Debbie Kennedy, Mrs Elizabeth Smart, Mrs Diana Pound, Mrs Carole Ranjbar and Mr Alastair Malir.
Also present: Seventy Sidlesham Electors, Mrs Margaret Whitehead (County Councillor) and Mrs Tessa MacIntyre (Parish Clerk)

Mr Adrian Harland as Chairman of the Parish Council opened the proceedings and welcomed all present to the meeting.

1. Parish, District and County Councillors. Mr Harland introduced the Parish Councillors and Clerk with their functions / jobs for the PC, Mrs Whitehead as the County Councillor and Mrs Tull in her additional role as the District Councillor. 

2. Parish Council report of the past year by Mr Harland.

The past year has proved to be quite taxing, particularly for myself and the vice-chairman, who has been of immense help to me in dealing with a barrage of correspondence.

The year began with a formal complaint about the Council made by one of its own councillors, as disclosed in the minutes of the Council’s July meeting. This was answered in due course by a panel of other councillors under the terms of our Complaints Procedure.

Following last year’s AGM, during which there was a reference to the possibility of breaking the covenant on the Memorial Playing Field, ie “not to use the said land ….for any purpose other than as and for a sports field or recreation ground maintained by a Local Government Authority”, one of our parishioners decided to pursue this matter, and subsequently he then raised a number of other factors covering the Field itself, and the position of the Football & Social Club from a legal stand point and together with other issues. In dealing with these matters the Council has sought advice on a number of occasions from various officers of the Sussex Association of Local Councils (SALC), whose assistance and legal advice were much appreciated. Following other issues raised by the same parishioner covering the legal status of the Football Club vis-à-vis the Memorial Playing Field and the Council, the Council felt it had no option but to take some of these matters to a solicitor for clarification – to date the bill amounts to over £2,500 excluding vat, with the distinct possibility that this will rise still further by a substantial sum, which is likely to impact on the level of the parish precept.

As always the most regular task of the Parish Council is to consider Planning Applications. During the past year the planning committee met 15 times, which was the same as in the previous year. However the number of applications considered dropped from 53 to 44, which probably reflects the reduced activity in the housing market, and people in general not wishing to take on extra expense, even supposing that they could obtain additional facilities against reducing house valuations. We raised no objection or supported 35, of which 31 were permitted, 1 was withdrawn, 2 were refused and 1 is still outstanding – in the case of one of the refusals, the applicant has appealed the decision, and the Council is inclined to support the appeal. We   objected to 9, of which 3 were refused, 1 permitted and 5 are still outstanding. The permitted item has not met with the universal approval of local residents, and 4 of the undecided matters cover Existing Lawful Development (ELD) issues – in short these are situations where the applicants are claiming that they have been living continuously in the ‘properties’ for more than 4 years in circumstances where it would have been difficult for members of the public to realise that the buildings were being domestically occupied ie hidden in barns, glasshouses, outbuildings etc – in one case the previous owner had been refused permission to develop the ‘property’ after submitting a proper application! This Council is becoming increasingly disturbed by the number of ELD applications it receives (there have been several others in recent years), and we are seeking to have the legislation covering these matters reviewed by writing both to the CDC, and in due course to our MP. Meantime we would ask all parishioners to be vigilant, and report to the council if they suspect non-standard buildings are being used for domestic purposes – we only have 4 years at present to intervene.

I think it is also appropriate for me to comment on 3 major applications that were dealt with in the last 12 months. Firstly there is the School House development which I covered in some detail last year, but which had not been decided by the CDC Planning Committee at that time. It was duly approved, and building is now well under way. It is due to be completed late summer/early autumn, and the little close within the development is to be named Hardy’s Garden in honour of the last headteacher who occupied the School House. Denys is very much still with us, living in Selsey, and we hope he will attend the opening ceremony. The Council also considered the Medmerry Managed Realignment project, which, following support from our Ham residents, we endorsed, although we did raise a caveat concerning a proposed car park off Easton Lane. This scheme is due to start later this year on the assumption that government funding is in place. Lastly the Council considered the Madestein Easton Farm glasshouse development. I guess you all know something about this proposal, which covered some 50 odd acres of glasshouses on an even larger acreage when landscaping, reservoirs etc are taken into account, all on open farmland. It falls on the eastern edge of the parish boundary, and it could be argued that it only affected a ½ dozen properties within this parish. However having spoken to a resident of one of these, I know that they were not happy with the proposal. The main dissent came from the residents in Almodington, Batchmere , Earnley & Birdham, who attended our planning meeting in large numbers. The Council voted to object to the plans by 7 votes to 2. In due course at the CDC Southern Planning Committee meeting in March before a large number of local people, the large majority of which were against the proposals, the vice-chairman spoke against the proposal supported by 2 other local parish councils, 3 members of the Almodington Residents Association, and parishioner Richard Hill on behalf of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England. Councillor Diana Pound in a private capacity spoke in favour together with the applicant’s agent. Councillor Tricia Tull led off the discussion amongst CDC councillors, and after a lengthy debate the application was refused by 14 votes to none against with one abstention. This decision is almost certainly going to be appealed, so the end result is by no means certain. The Parish Council’s main objections to the proposal were firstly that the site fell outside the Horticultural Development Area, and secondly that the roads that would serve the development were totally inadequate for the proposed size of transport that was envisaged. 4 other reasons were also stated.

There is a new piece of legislation going through parliament which is due to be passed by the end of the year, the Decentralisation & Localism Bill. I expect you have all heard of this, but initial information suggests that it will have little impact on our parish, which is too small to take on board dealing with a raft of measures that only the larger authorities will have the finance and manpower to take on local responsibilities. The Council may have more to say on this next year when the full details are known.

Enforcement Matters. We continue to raise concerns about certain situations on a regular basis, some minor, some of more major significance. A longstanding item is yet to be resolved.

Council Committees and Work Groups

All members of the Council can sit on the Planning Committee. The Council meets formally every 2 months, when all remaining business is conducted. This covers the ever present concern over traffic matters on all of the parish’s roads, footpaths both alongside the roads and across fields etc, the parish amenities such as seats and bus shelters, the upkeep of the parish open spaces, such as the Paddock Straight, and ponds, and now of course the new playground. We also review the parish finances, receive reports from various other bodies on which members of the council sit, amongst which are the Peninsular Community Forum, Chichester Association of Local Councils (CALC), the Manhood Parishes Road Safety Group, the Manhood Peninsular Steering Group (MPSG) {sea defences}, the Pagham Harbour Coastal Issues Advisory Group {sea defences}, the Medmerry Stakeholders Advisory Group (MStAG) {sea defences etc}, and the Pagham Harbour Nature Reserve Advisory Board (PHNRAB). Councillors may also attend the South Chichester County Local Committee when agenda items are relevant to the parish.

Parish Playground Work Group/Parish Playground Community Group

I am pleased to report that the new playground has been installed, and was opened on 18th August last year. It has proved to be extremely popular, with many children also coming from neighbouring areas to enjoy the very latest types of equipment. The number of children visiting from Selsey is particularly notable, as Selsey has at least 3 modern playgrounds of its own. And we still have to install an exciting climbing wall, which we are hoping can be organised shortly. Briefly the original arrived from the US in a damaged state, and was rejected by our contractors. By the time a replacement arrived it was too late to install it last year because the ground had become too soft. The unit weighs 3½ tons and will need a minimum of a 40 ton crane to hoist it into position. With all the dry weather we have been experiencing during the last few weeks, I have now contacted the contractors suggesting that the ground is now hard enough, and hopefully installation will happen soon. We shall also be installing another bench within a shelter on the western edge of the playground, and two further picnic benches outside the eastern boundary – the items have been ordered and will be fixed in place once they are to hand. We intend to use part of the soil heap to tidy up the southern boundary between the old playground site and the Football Club, and the remainder will then be removed.

Meantime the Community Group has acquired a further grant of £3,500 as part of the lottery funding which is being used to put on a number of community play days, led by professionals, as it cannot be used for instance for the purchase of further equipment. The first of these events took place last Thursday, was blessed with excellent weather, and a very successful turnout of children parents and grandchildren – I have no idea how many children did come, but from the numbers I saw when my wife and I popped in to see how things were going, I am guessing that there were at least 200 in all. The next event is I believe scheduled for Sunday 5th June, and my understanding is that it will be an all day event with the opportunity to enjoy your own picnic lunch.

The creation of this new facility has in my view to be the most successful venture that has happened within our parish for many years, and all those involved in getting it built hope it will continue to cater for children, parents and grandparents for years to come. So I would like on your behalf to thank all those involved for all the work that was put in to achieve this successful venture – the Work Group of Councillors Field, Malir, Pound with Mark Scott and Bill Martin under my chairmanship, and the Community Group of Vanessa Foden, Patsy Scott, Jenny Hudson, Dan Bailey & Bill Martin under the chairmanship of Mark Scott. 

Parish Hall Work Group.

This work group, chaired by Councillor Diana Pound, with parishioners Paul Bedford, Richard & Corina Hall, Valerie Thorncroft & Bill Martin, has continued to meet on a regular basis. We thank them for their time and effort to date. In particular during January a questionnaire was circulated to all parishioners, and the results of this are posted on the parish website. There are some printed versions available from Bill Martin, who is sitting over there. You will see that this subject is covered by the next agenda item, and will be the subject of further consideration when the new Council meets in May.

Pagham Harbour Nature Reserve Advisory Board.

The question of boat permits for the use of Sidlesham residents has continued to be looked after by Liz Smart, who is our council representative on the board, ably assisted by Councillor Chris Bond, and Malcolm Davis-White, a parishioner, who has given extensive legal advice. An Appropriate Assessment has now been concluded which is summarised on two pages of the report followed by another 90 of waffle. It recommends that existing permits should continue, but be phased out as the holders either move away or pass away. However I am pleased to report that we have support to contest this decision, and we continue to hope that a compromise decision to issue a number between 6 and 10 at any one time will be made.

I have also become increasingly involved with Harbour matters, and together with Liz Smart, Tricia Tull wearing her CDC Councillor’s hat and our County Councillor Margaret Whitehead, we have all sat on a working party with other County Councillors, Selsey Town Council and Pagham councillors and residents’ associations, not forgetting the Friends of Pagham Harbour, with WSCC Councillor Bill Acraman, chairman of the Pagham Harbour Nature Reserve Advisory Board (PHNRAB), drawing up a draft Service Level Agreement (SLA) covering the proposed takeover of the Nature Reserve Management by the RSPB from WSCC. Recently those Sidlesham councillors together with County Councillor Whitehead met at Chris Bond’s house with a WSCC officer, and the WSCC chairman of the PHNRAB and our guest speaker tonight Adrian Thomas (RSPB). We were pleased to note that the ‘draft’ SLA had been used as the basis of on-going negotiations between the WSCC and the RSPB. It is our understanding that the outstanding matters should be concluded so that a report can be submitted to the WSCC Strategic Environmental Services Select Committee who meet again on 25th May to make a formal decision either to recommend or refuse the proposals for the Management takeover to the WSCC cabinet minister, who will then make a formal decision shortly thereafter. I guess Adrian Thomas will bring us up-to-date when he talks to us, as best as he can bearing in mind that negotiations are no doubt continuing.

Proposed Marine Conservation Zone.

I regret that I have to advise of yet another possible encroachment on our ability to enjoy our recreational areas. Whilst this may not affect too many people on the face of it, as I guess not many of you swim off the harbour mouth, or sail or row or even use a motor-powered boat off the shoreline, this council, along with our neighbours, recently discovered by accident that there are proposals to set up new Marine Conservation Areas under a recent Act of Parliament. Meetings have been taking place locally, but none of the local parish or district councils have been consulted. Pagham Parish Council managed to gate crash one held in early February, and is from them that we have got wind of the plans that are being considered. These cover areas from the high tide line (and possibly even higher in certain circumstances) out to sea for varying distances. From an ecological point of view such measures, it can be argued, are necessary to protect species and seabed features. However the plans could also direct that in certain circumstances natural processes such as loss of beach protection, movement of shingle and the like cannot be interfered with even if this would threaten or lead to the loss of housing stock. The area which is being looked at in our vicinity stretches from possibly west of Selsey Bill to the Pagham village shoreline. The council will keep a close eye on this possible move.
 
Sea Defences.

The council has representatives sitting on various advisory boards/committees. These are MedmerryStAG group overseeing the plans for the proposed Medmerry breach, for which as I have already stated planning proposals have been passed, the Manhood Peninsular Steering Group, which is group that has a growing reputation in formulating policies on sea defences nationally as well as locally, and the Pagham Harbour Coastal Issues Group, looking after the sea defences from the harbour mouth through to the Pagham village sea front. The Ham Residents Association continues to look after its own concerns re the Medmerry breach proposals including new footpaths, bridle paths etc, etc. With the parish at risk of encroachment from the sea on two sides, you can be sure the council continues to be active in looking after our long term interests.

The Finance Work Group meets to draw up the budget, and then recommends the precept to the full council for approval for the next financial year. The precept for the financial year ended 31st March 2011 was £17,945. The current precept was set at £18,840. That represents an increase 5%. This increase was entirely due to the cost of election expenses. For as this is an election year, we are obliged to cover the cost of any election expenses, which were estimated at £1000. As I write this report I am not sure whether we will incur any expense as there will be no election for parish councillors. I confess I am not sure whether we have to make a contribution to CDC councillor elections, and the National AV referendum, which I would remind you take place on 5th May, but my gut feeling is that we do not. Details of the Income & Expenditure for the past financial year will be posted on the Parish Noticeboards as soon as the audit has been completed.

Roads Matters

I am pleased to report that the Manhood Parishes Road Safety Group has continued to be active in their attempts to make the roads on the peninsula safer for us all. Our council representatives have been Colin Field, and Carole Ranjbar. Volunteers organised by Richard Hall have continued to man the Speed Indicator Device (SID) during the past 12 months, and if anyone else would like to join the team, please contact any councillor or the clerk who will be pleased to pass your names onto Richard. The presence of this device and the yellow jackets we wear do seem to have quite an effect on the speed of traffic whilst the machine is operating. The CASPAR equipment has unfortunately suffered several incidents of vandalism, and is no longer capable of being in operation. The Vehicle Activated Sign (VAS), at the entrance to the southern end of the parish by Manhood Lane facing the traffic entering the parish from Selsey has worked well and does I think have a calming influence on most traffic. The second outside Shotford Cottages facing north has only worked when the Football Club has its own carpark lights switched on, and despite frequent pressure to have it properly wired up to a permanent supply, we have got nowhere to date. Recently County Councillor Margaret Whitehead was able to get the large excavated hole around its base (been there for over a year) filled in; she is now attempting to get the relative authority to hook up the electricity supply. Personally I think it is important that this is done as soon as possible as it is sited by the entrance to the Memorial Playing Field, and will assist in reducing traffic speed in an area where lots of children are regularly leaving the new Playground. Additionally two new signs have been installed either side of this entrance which hopefully will also help to make the area safer.

Thanks.

I am going to start off my vote of thanks this year in, as it were, reverse order. In the interval members of the WI will be serving tea & coffee with biscuits, and I thank them for agreeing to do this.

Next I would like to pass on my thanks to all of your councillors for the time and effort they have put in, not just over the last 12 months, but for the last four years dealing with a whole host of other matters in addition to those I have highlighted. Again to John Paul who retired at the end of December from the post of Parish Clerk, not forgetting his wife Joan who no doubt answered many phone calls over nearly eight years. John proved to be a great support to Chris Bond my predecessor as chairman, as he has to me over the past 5 years. They are not here tonight as they are enjoying an extended holiday in New Zealand. His successor Tessa has settled into the job seamlessly and I am extremely grateful for her support during the past few months, and to her husband Mark who now refers to himself as her secretary!

But as this will be the last formal event, well at least for the next few years, you will see Colin Field, Debbie Kennedy & Chris Bond, all former Chairman of the Parish Council, and also John Paul even though he is not present, this seems to be an appropriate moment to ask parishioners to show your appreciation to them for all that they have done during the years that they have served the parish.

Finally I would like to show my own personal appreciation to Colin Field. For his advice and support particularly over the last two years has enabled me to remain sane.

3. Village Hall Work Group – results of questionnaire.
Mrs Pound introduced the report and thanked all members of the Village Hall Work Group for their hard work on the project.  The Group has been following a set procedure, as recommended by Action in Rural Sussex, and in order to apply for a grant, a survey was carried out.  To that end a questionnaire was distributed, completed and analysed.  The next step, should the new Council wish to proceed with the project, will be to hold a public meeting at which the Village Hall will be the only subject.  Mrs Pound then introduced Mr Bill Martin to give a summary of the results of the survey.
The questionnaire was distributed to all houses in the Parish in January 2011.  A full copy of the report can be downloaded from the web site (www.sidlesham.org under Documents) or a hard copy can be obtained from the Clerk.  A summary of the report can be found in the May edition of the Sidlesham Parishioner.  There were 74 replies (from 100 residents).  This is a 15% response and members of the Group were pleased with this result.  24 of those people made additional comments which were extremely useful and 15 people offered to help.  There was an equal number of responses from people under 60 as those over 60.  Unfortunately, it was found that the children of the parish were under represented in the responses.  One aim of the questionnaire was to establish what activities members of the parish did.  There were 25 suggestions of additional activities which people would like to have in the Parish.  However, most were single requests so not necessarily viable.  Several wanted more activities and facilities at the Recreation Ground.  Mr Martin commented on what a remarkable success the new playground had been and, in particular, congratulated Mr Harland and thanked him for all his hard work.
A Parishioner from the floor asked whether anything of particular interest had been noted from the responses received.  Mr Martin replied that many people felt that the existing facilities, of which the Church Hall is well used, the School Hall could be used more as was also the case with the Football Club.  There were many comments about the state of these facilities and that perhaps the Parish was not making the most of them.  Mrs Pound reported on a plea from the pre-school group whose facilities are very cramped and would like a larger, permanent space.  The other requirement was for more outdoor facilities and a barbeque area.  One strong impression from the survey was that many people would like a centre with more of a community feel for the village.

4.  Guest Speaker – Adrian Thomas of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.
    The projected role of the RSPB in managing the Pagham Harbour Nature Reserve.
Mr Thomas thanked Mr Harland for his invitation to speak to Sidlesham Parish and to listen to concerns of the Parish.  The decision whether to transfer management of Pagham Harbour to the RSPB has yet to be taken and that decision depends on a recommendation from the Strategic Environmental Services Select Committee (SESSC).  Mr Thomas’ role at the moment is to Project Manage the RSPB’s work with regard to Pagham Harbour and also the Medmerry realignment. 
Mr Thomas gave a brief summary of the history of the RSPB’s involvement in Pagham Harbour.  In November 2009 the WSCC approached the RSPB.  Pagham Harbour costs the WSCC approximately £150,000-£160,000 per year which is a considerable sum and this is a discretionary service.   WSCC invited the RSPB to discuss whether it would consider taking on the day to day management of the harbour.  The RSPB proceeded to do ‘due diligence’ to understand exactly what would be involved in taking on a complex site such as this.  Firstly, the RSPB investigated the bird population and Mr Thomas showed slides of many internationally important populations of species such as the pintail and Brent geese.  On migration and in winter, the harbour has an amalgamation of birds such as grey plovers, dunlin, wading birds and important breeding pairs of some very rare birds; some of the breeding pairs are becoming rare in the south east, such as terns and lapwing.  Pagham Harbour stands potentially at the forefront of birds in future coming north as they are forced north by climate change.  Mr Thomas showed a map which identified sites offering protection for birds in West Sussex of which there are only three and Pagham Harbour is one.   Mr Thomas also showed slides of important plants in the area and some of the historic sites, including the Selsey Tram, Sidlesham Mill and St Wilfrid’s, Church Norton, an important heritage site.  Pagham Harbour is a vital green space for people, particularly those living in the vicinity.  Mr Thomas stressed how important it is for the RSPB to ensure a good working relationship with the local community.  If the management is transferred, Mr Thomas stated that, in his opinion, little would change but he did anticipate that the following improvements might be made: 
.  An upgrade of facilities for the disabled.
.   Education for children and promoting an understanding of nature is a priority.  They would, therefore, aim to build on existing schemes in the Reserve.
.   Set up an active out of school youth group as well as a formal education youth scheme.  This is the Wildlife Explorer Group whose members tend to come from communities around the reserve.
.  The Visitor Centre.  A feasibility study was conducted between 2008 and 2010.  Mr Thomas recommended that parishioners read the summary of the report: http://www2.westsussex.gov.uk/environment/phlnr/PHLNR_Coastal_Visitor_Centre_Feasibility_Study_Exec_Summary.pdf.  The current Visitor Centre was in fact intended to be a temporary structure and the general view is that a new centre is required.  This is a difficult financial climate but at some stage a new centre will have to be built.  The study stated that the design of the centre should be good ecologically, it should have full recognition of the importance of the site for wildlife and it should also take note of issues relating to the road leading in and not add to the congestion problems already present. The current Visitor Centre and the area around which is fenced off is a 1960’s landfill which was never properly capped so those 11 hectares will have to be dealt with. Mr Thomas said that the RSPB recognised that the local community would prefer the new visitors’ centre to be on the existing site and the RSPB would respect that preference.
.  Some of the hide facilities may be improved/enlarged. 
.  The RSPB would be required to take on the existing staff and they would be happy to do that.
To sum up, West Sussex will put the idea to their SESSC on the 25th May.  The decision is expected from the Cabinet Member in June.  If the decision is to move to the RSPB, the transfer will take place by autumn 2011. 

Mr Harland thanked the Mr Thomas very much for an excellent presentation. 
 
6. Refreshment interval organised by Sidlesham WI.

7. Parish Heritage.
Mr Bill Martin introduced the display of photographs which belonged to Mr Charles Roe.  Mr Roe had about 450 photographs which he has now entrusted  to Mr Martin and Mr Jan Sander as a parish heritage record.  Mr Martin and Mr Sander have started to catalogue the photographs into groups: Sidlesham buildings, people, tram, etc.  These photographs date back to 1910 and Mr Martin and Mr Sander would very much like to identify as many people as possible in the photographs and, more importantly, build up a record of stories of those people.  The Primary School has a reunion in May and Mr Martin has lent them some of the photographs in the hope that they may bring back some memories of the school.  Mr Martin asked parishioners to have a look at the photographs and, if they recognise anyone, to contact him.

8. Open forum on topics of parish interest.
.    Mr Richard Hall asked what defines the difference between grass verges and Paddock Straight with regard to grass cutting.  Mr Harland replied that the Highways Department at WSCC is responsible for cutting the grass verges and this happens three or four times a year.  The Parish Council is not obliged to cut any grass but it has taken on the cutting of certain areas, such as Paddock Straight, the Old Mill Site, The Pound and the Sheep Dip.  It is not possible for the Parish Council to cut all verges but anyone can cut the grass outside their house.

.   Mr Brian Kennedy asked what could be done when one parishioner takes up an inordinate amount of time of the Parish Councillors and Clerk and can incur considerable costs to the Parish.  He asked if this could be debated at the next Council Meeting.  Mr Harland replied that the Councillors are public servants and therefore obliged, within reason, to answer questions from parishioners. 

.    Dame Jenny Trimble announced the reception for the launch of the New Church Rooms at St Mary our Lady on the 7th May at 6pm at the South Door of the church.  This first meeting is to show initial plans and consult the public.  This is an informal consultation and there will be a book for comments.  Dame Jenny hopes that parishioners will join her for the launch and support the project.

.     Mr Peter Haines  raised the problem of land between Sunnybrook House and Sunnybrook Barn (Highleigh) which looks as if it is being used as a builder’s yard.  This is agricultural land which should not be used to store builder’s machinery and rubble.  Mr Harland replied that the Clerk would investigate the matter.   Mr Haines also requested that the grass verge opposite Sidlesham School where bricks and rubble  have been dumped be reported.  Mrs Tull reported that she had raised an enforcement with CDC for the removal of the rubble and it will be cleared.

.      Mrs Gill Brunt reported on the footpath which runs from Littleton Barn, across the fields to Keynor Lane and Highleigh.  The field has been completely ploughed, leaving no path.  Mrs Smart agreed that the field had been ploughed but as she and others have now walked across, the path was returning.  Mrs Smart stated that the field was managed by contractors who do not always know where the footpaths should be.  However, the Council will endeavour not to let this happen again next year.

.    Mr Roger Higgins raised the problem of advertising signs appearing on council posts, particularly estate agent signs for houses sold several years ago.  Mr Harland replied that it is the responsibility of the estate agent to remove their signs.  There are other signs which can be removed and this depends on what is being advertised; the Council tries to allow local businesses to advertise for a short period of time.  However, the Highways Authority do not permit anyone to put posters up on their posts without permission.   

.      Mr Paul Devonshire asked whether the Council and other members of the Parish could consider communication and advertising within the village.  Mr Devonshire felt that there were several events going on in the village which many people knew nothing about.   The Sidlesham Parishioner magazine publicises many events and carries advising but Mr Devonshire felt that this was not always appropriate.  The parish notice boards also display posters publicising events.  Mr Harland responded that the parish already has six notice boards and to erect another would be expensive and, as the parish is so spread out, difficult to place.  The parish council web site carries information on some forthcoming events and Mr Harland suggested and anyone wishing to publicise an event should contact the Clerk who will put the information on the web site.

Mr Mike Allisstone suggested that the Clerk create mailing lists of parishioners who have particular interests and wish to be kept informed of coming events.  The Clerk will investigate this possibility.

.    Mr John Holloway raised the problem of the growing number of second hand cars for sale along the main road.  Mr Harland replied that individuals can sell their cars in that way, unless they are parked in areas which present a danger to passers by.  The only time one can object is if one individual is selling more than one car.   Mr Field stated that the Highways Authority had been informed of this problem often in the past and the Clerk will contact PSCO Sam Treagust to suggest that he check that these cars have valid tax  and insurance.

.     Mr Peter Driscoll announced the Open Day for the Friends of Pagham Harbour on 29th May 2011 from 10.00 am. 

.    Mrs Elizabeth Aylwin asked Mr Harland to inform the meeting where the six parish notice boards are.  Mr Harland replied that they are:  outside the Church Hall, corner of Lock Gate and B2145, the petrol station garage, Manhood Lane, outside Sidlesham School and one more in Highleigh by entrance to Critchel’s Lane.

.      Mr Harland read out the following statement from Mr Rob Carver of Pagham Harbour Local Nature Reserve about Yeoman’s Field off Mill Lane:

‘We are aware that there are concerns regarding access at Yeomans Field in relation to grazing, despite the information posted on site, so would like to reassure residents as follows:

The fencing being erected since last November along the western boundary of the field is a replacement for an old dilapidated fence that is no longer stock-proof.

The purpose of this fencing is not to provide year-round grazing land for its own sake, but merely to enable some limited grazing to take place in the autumn, as has been the case with sheep in the recent past.  This is with the sole aim of improving the grassland for wildlife.  In some years there will be no grazing at all.  Access will be maintained during any period of grazing.

The fencing/grazing will not alter the established access arrangements – use of the public footpaths and the dogs off lead but under control status of the field – as agreed with the Parish Council in 2002.

Staff would welcome the opportunity to hold an ‘event’ for the Parish Council/residents, to perhaps include a presentation at the Visitor Centre on grassland management within the Reserve and/or a visit to Yeomans Field, to further explain what we are doing and why.

In the meantime, please be assured that:

.   There is no change in use planned for Yeomans Field (sheep have grazed here periodically in the past).
.   There will be no additional enclosure of land beyond that which already exists.
.   There will be no restriction of access.

We are sorry for any misunderstanding or concern that has developed in relation to the management of this part of the Reserve.”

Mr Roger Higgins felt that this statement contradicted what some of the dog owners had been told a few weeks ago, when Mr Carver said that they might consider closing the foot paths.  Dame Jenny Trimble stated that the new fence was very high and obtrusive and not in keeping with the beauty of the harbour.  Mr Harland stated that the Council will monitor the situation.

Mr Harland drew the meeting to a conclusion, thanking the 65 people still present for their interest in raising, discussing and considering the various items.

The Mr Harland closed the Sidlesham Annual Parish Meeting 2011 at 9.15 pm.

Held in the Church Hall, Sidlesham on Wednesday 26 May 2010 at 7:00 p.m.

Councillors present: Mr Adrian Harland (Chairman), Mr Colin Field (Vice-chairman), Mrs Patricia Tull, Mrs Debbie Kennedy, Mrs Elizabeth Smart, Mrs Diana Pound, Mrs Carole Ranjbar, Mr Alastair Malir, apology for absence was received from Mr Christopher Bond.
Also present: Fifty-five Sidlesham Electors, Mrs Margaret Whitehead (County Councillor) Mr Lewes Brown (Chichester Observer) and Mr John Paul (Parish Clerk)

Mr Adrian Harland as Chairman of the Parish Council opened the proceedings and welcomed all present to the meeting.

1. Minutes of the Annual Parish Meeting held on Wednesday 27 May 2009
These were proposed by Mr Guy Borer seconded by Mrs Tricia Tull and agreed by those present as being a true record to be signed by the Chairman.

2. Parish, District and County Councillors. To the electors Mr Harland introduced the Parish Councillors and Clerk with their functions / jobs for the PC, Mrs Whitehead as the County Councillor and Mrs Tull in her addition role as the District Councillor. 

3. Parish Council report of the past year by Mr Harland.
In many ways, this has been a particularly busy year for the council, and in particular for myself and the vice-chairman, Colin Field, to whom I am indebted for his unstinting time in assisting me in dealing with a number of matters, not all of which have been straightforward. During some periods of the year I seemed to spend a week at a time dealing with these matters – every time I thought I had got to the end, my computer would ping yet again to tell me that more correspondence had arrived! Perhaps this is the moment to point out to all of you that the parish councillors, although putting themselves forward for election, are unpaid volunteers who can and do spend a lot of time looking after the interests of our widespread parish. Please also bear in mind that we are parishioners too, just like yourselves. As is often quoted, we cannot please everyone all the time, but we do our best to come up with balanced decisions for the benefit of the parish as a whole.
 
This is particularly relevant in looking at the very recent planning application to turn School House and its garden into an affordable housing project, consisting of 2 flats within the school house, and 3 ‘terraced’ 3 bedroom houses. A number of people, including governors, parents and others have raised objections to this scheme. However the Parish Council has had this building and the site on its agenda for at least the last 10 years, and during this time parishioners have also raised the unkempt and unsightly state of the building to our attention. Eventually the WSCC declared the building redundant for educational purposes, and have looked at the best way of using the building and its site bearing in mind its closeness to the school itself. A plan to convert it into keyworker accommodation was looked at in 2003, and then rejected. Plans to sell the site on the open market, to include the demolition of school house, were also considered. The parish council was not on the whole very happy with the possibility of demolition, nor were the planners when the next and current scheme was put on the table. Thus the current application came to be formulated. In all of this discussion your parish council was not pushing for one solution or another, just that the building and its site should be put to good use, and an eyesore removed. Whilst the council has a good deal of sympathy for those who would like to see the building retained within the school framework, the costs of doing this would seem to be beyond the resources of interested parties ie raising say 250k to purchase the building and its land together with refurbishment costs said to total a minimum of 50k. As such a scheme would not be covered by the school budget, future maintenance and annual rates, utilities etc would additionally have to be found. As the current affordable housing application is the only concrete proposal put forward to deal with this site, and would provide rented accommodation for 5 families with direct connections to the parish, the council has given its support. A decision is now awaited from CDC for this planning application.

As always the most regular task of the Parish Council is to consider Planning Applications. During the past year the planning committee met 15 times. The trend of the previous year has been reversed, so that again we are seeing an application on average once a week. For a parish of this size that is a high volume, as it represents about 8% of all dwellings, with a few business applications also. In fact we have looked at 53 applications, of which we raised no objection or supported 39, and objected to 14. Of the latter one refusal was later replaced by a ‘no objection’ after further information was provided, and a second was objected to on a second occasion when resubmitted. Subsequently the CDC Planning Officers or its Planning Committee permitted 37, and refused 4. One matter, the application to build a large greenhouse development on the western edge of the parish, was withdrawn before the CDC gave a formal decision – the parish council had raised a number of objections to it. Another to which we had objected was ruled to need a full application.  I think I am correct in stating that in only one case was our outright objection overturned with a straight permit by the CDC planners/committee. That leaves a further half a dozen matters on which no decision has yet been made.

I think it is also pertinent to inform you all that following recent changes to planning regulations a number of past applications would no longer require to obtain planning approval in certain circumstances, so that could lead to a reduction in number of those that come before us in future.

Enforcement Matters. We continue to raise concerns about certain situations, some minor, some of more major significance. The Enforcement Dept at CDC has undergone a review, with a new protocol laid down, and a small projected increase in staff numbers. Under this system complaints are broken down into those requiring immediate action, and so on, but all are intended to be looked at within a far shorter time span than before. Two matters brought to the officer’s attention have now been dealt with; a third longstanding item is yet to be resolved.

Appeals against planning decisions.
One application refused by both the parish council and the CDC planning dept was appealed. Subsequently the Government Inspector confirmed the decision to ‘Refuse’.

Council Committees and Work Groups
All members of the Council can sit on the Planning Committee. The Council meets formally every 2 months, when all remaining business is conducted. This covers the ever present concern over traffic matters on all of the parish’s roads, footpaths both alongside the roads and across fields etc, the parish amenities such as seats and bus shelters, the upkeep of the parish open spaces, such as the Paddock Straight, and ponds. We also review the parish finances, receive reports from various other bodies on which members of the council sit, amongst which are the Peninsular Community Forum, Chichester Association of Local Councils (CALC), the Manhood Parishes Road Safety Group, the Manhood Peninsular Steering Group (MPSG) {sea defences}, the Pagham Harbour Coastal Issues Advisory Group {sea defences}, the Medmerry Stakeholders Advisory Group (MStAG) {sea defences etc}, and the Pagham Harbour Nature Reserve Advisory Board (PHNRAB). Councillors may also attend the South Chichester County Local Committee when agenda items are relevant to the parish.

Parish Playground Work Group
I am pleased to report that the council will shortly be placing orders for equipment, having obtained grant finance totalling £110,000 towards this project. In addition there is a further £8,000 from parish resources including individuals, Natures Way, Waitrose and Marks & Spencer. The Work Group need to finalise a few details, but we hope to have the playground completed by the end of the summer. The latest plan is to locate the playground in the southwest corner of the Recreation Ground, which it is considered will give it a much more rural and sympathetic ambience, rather than putting it onto the old site on the edge of the car park with its inherent traffic dangers. A rough plan of how the site will look, and the equipment that will be available is on view on the table over there. A good deal of hard work has gone into putting this project together, and I would like to record my thanks to the Work Group Team members under my chairmanship of Councillors Colin Field, Alistair Malir, & Diana Pound, and  Mark Scott & Bill Martin from the Sidlesham Playground Community Group, which under Mark Scott’s chairmanship put together a successful Lottery Application of £50,000, (other members are Patsy Scott, Vanessa Foden, Jenny Hudson & Dan Bailey), Eleanor Scott for her petition and raising awareness through the Chichester Observer, our MP Andrew Tyrie, who together with Dame Jenny Trimble, Robert Back, our District Councillor Tricia Tull,  and our County Councillor Margaret Whitehead wrote in support of our application to the Lottery Funds. Also to Lisa Rumbold who splits her time between WSCC & CDC, and has given us valuable advice and assistance along the way in framing applications, and tender documents, and to Rebbeca Luff, the facilitator for the lottery bid. My apologies if I have omitted anyone else I should have mentioned.

Parish Hall Work Group.
This work group, chaired by Councillor Diana Pound, with parishioners Paul Bedford, Richard & Corina Hall, Valerie Thorncroft & Bill Martin, has looked at a number of options for a new hall, and has yet to come to any firm conclusions as to whether or not a viable proposition can be pursued. Their deliberations continue, and we thank them for their time and effort to date.

Pagham Harbour Nature Reserve Advisory Board.
The question of boat permits for the use of Sidlesham residents has continued to be looked after by Liz Smart, who is our council representative on the board, ably assisted by Councillor Chris Bond, and Malcolm Davis-White, a parishioner, who has given extensive legal advice. However at the time of writing this remains unresolved. A further complication is that during the year the WSCC made it known that they were negotiating with the RSPB for the latter to take over the management of the Reserve. Very limited consultation has taken place, and it would seem that even county councillors have been kept somewhat in the dark! At their insistence a re-appraisal of this policy is taking place, and a work party has been set up to look into the matter further, on which this council has a seat. In fact the first meeting was held yesterday afternoon, attended by Liz Smart and myself, as well as District Councillor Tricia Tull wearing her CDC hat, and Margaret Whitehead, our County Councillor. The RSPB is also heavily involved with the Medmerry sea breach plan, and ultimately one can only guess that the impact of decisions yet to be made could heavily influence plans to refurbish or rebuild the Nature Reserve facility on the southern edge of the parish boundary near the Ferry.

Sea Defences.
The council has representatives sitting on various advisory boards/committees. These are MedmerryStAG group overseeing the plans for the proposed Medmerry breach, for which we believe planning proposals will shortly be submitted, the Manhood Peninsular Steering Group co-chaired by our MP Andrew Tyrie, which seems to be a leading light in formulating policies on sea defences nationally as well as locally, and the Pagham Harbour Coastal Issues Group, looking after the sea defences from the harbour mouth through to the Pagham village sea front. There is also the Ham Residents Association actively looking after their own concerns re the Medmerry breach proposals including new footpaths, bridle paths etc, etc. With the parish at risk of encroachment from the sea on two sides, you can be sure the council continues to be active in looking after our long term interests.

The Finance Work Group meets to draw up the budget, and then recommends the precept for the next financial year. The precept for the year ended 31st March was £13,751. The current precept was set at £17,945. That is quite a steep increase in percentage terms (30%). But included in those figures is a lump sum contribution to the Parochial Church Council of £2,500 towards the purchase of land to enlarge the burial ground. There will be a similar sum to pay in the following year too. Also included was a sum of £1,000 to cover a survey of the Football Club, so that the council could be given professional advice as to its current state of the building. For there was some suggestion that the building could be turned into a parish hall, but I regret to advise you that the survey report has ruled that out.  The plans to install a playground also mean that there will be additional sums to pay out to cover insurance. In future years we shall also have to include a sum for maintenance and capital replacement. Details of the Income & Expenditure for the past financial year will be posted on the Parish Notice boards as soon as the audit has been completed.

Roads Matters
I am pleased to report that the Manhood Parishes Road Safety Group has continued to be active in their attempts to make the roads on the peninsula safer for us all. Our council representatives are Colin Field, and Carole Ranjbar who took over from Liz Smart during the year. Volunteers organised by Richard Hall have manned the Speed Indicator Device (SID) on a regular basis during the past 12 months, and if anyone else would like to join the team, please contact any councillor or the clerk who will be pleased to pass your names onto Richard. The presence of this device and the yellow jackets we wear does seem to have quite an effect on the speed of traffic whilst the machine is operating. The CASPAR equipment has sadly not been so evident, but we are hoping that it will be seen again before long. During the year, and out of the blue, two permanent Vehicle Activated Signs (VAS) were installed at the entrance to the southern end of the parish, one by Manhood Lane facing the traffic entering the parish from Selsey, and the second outside Shotford Cottages facing north – unfortunately the latter never seems to have worked, and we are pursuing why this is so!

Sadly there have been 3 fatalities during the past year, and from what we know at this time, it would seem that no additional speed measures would have prevented these unfortunate events. Certainly in two cases speed probably paid a part, but it is impossible to legislate for motorists who ignore speed limits. In the latest incident, it would seem that a medical condition not known to hospital staff may have played a significant part in the subsequent death of the casualty, rather than the extent of his injuries. At this point in time we have no clear idea as to what exactly happened to cause this accident.

Mill Lane Fingerboard
Unless you live in this area of the parish, you may not be aware of the controversy that ensued following a change of name on this board when it was renovated. A great deal of robust correspondence took place over a period of 4 months from September to January between residents in this area both for and against the new name, and with the council. It certainly left me exhausted! At the end of the day the council agreed to restore the name on the board to Mill Lane.

Thanks.
I would like to pass on my thanks to all of your councillors for the time and effort they have put in over the last 12 months dealing with a whole host of other matters in addition to those I have highlighted. And although I do so at the risk of repeating what I have said in the past, once again a special thank you to our clerk, John Paul, without whose hard work the parish could not operate efficiently. John is also responsible for keeping our excellent website up to date – the address is www.sidlesham.org, and if you have never visited it, then I recommend you do so. For instance you will find all the records of the council minutes, as well as much else. Sadly this will be his last year as he has informed us that he wishes to retire by May of next year, possibly earlier if circumstances allow. You will probably be aware that he and Joan have now moved to Runcton, and we wish both of them every happiness in their new home. That of course means we shall be looking for a new clerk – maybe there is someone within the parish who would like to consider taking on this job. For instance it might suit a mother whose home responsibilities are leaving her with more time as the children get older!

Lastly as usual our thanks in advance to the ladies of the WI for the refreshments you will enjoy during the interval.

4. Emergency Plan. Mrs Pound introduced the topic. The plan is in addition to the ‘Emergency Refuge Centres’ already identified by the Parish Council as the Church Hall and the School. Emergency are defined by Chichester District Council as any situation the Emergency Services cannot cope with. The audience volunteered that these could be the result of snow, gales, terrorist action, trees down etc. Mrs Pound identified that the parish required emergency coordinators for four areas and that for three of these volunteers had come forward; for Ham Dee Caldwell and James Duke, for Sidlesham Common and the NW area Matthew Ede, for Street End and Church Area down to Rookery Lane Mike Allistone and Dudley Pound, volunteers were sought for other areas.
The coordinators would be required to identify people with tractors; boats etc; to draw up lists of vulnerable people and to co-opt wardens able to knock on doors etc during an emergency as usual communication systems may not be operating. These lists to be forwarded to the Parish Council and updated annually. Further organisation of the plan would be taking place.

5. Guest Speakers. FARMING DIVERSIFICATION IN SIDLESHAM. WHAT IS HAPPENING?
Mr Harland was very pleased to welcome Mr Chris Spiby and Mrs Caroline Spiby (Chalder Farm)’ and Mr Tom Monnington (Mapsons Farm) who had kindly agreed to make presentations on the subject.

5.1. Mr Tom Monnington. With a slide show the presentation covered the benefits of diversification and the process at Mapsons Farm. Some years ago the farm grew cereals and had a dairy herd; neither were present ‘in house’ now. The farming practice had moved to extensive potato production with the rotation years of cereals leased out to specialist growers able to make the best of the reduced margins (1977 cereal prices were equal to current ones). The farming industry is unstable due to supermarkets squeezing on prices plus ever increasing fuel and electricity costs. To stay competitive required farmers to keep ahead. At Mapsons Farm the latest diversifications were the growing of horse-radish and equine livery. Mr Monnington explained that as a root crop horse-radish utilised their expertise and specialist farm equipment on the growing of potatoes. The extensive (24 stable) livery facility recently installed used the buildings and hard areas formally used for the dairy business. In addition the livery contributed to local quality of life as all the horse owners enjoyed the ‘club’ atmosphere meeting each, employment was generated and the facility was totally utilised by people from south of the A27.

5.2. Mr and Mrs Chris Spiby. Mr Spiby explained that Chalder Farm was almost totally pasture land near to the harbour and the rifes draining the area. Therefore the choice was really beef, sheep or dairy. The current choice was dairy and they were increasing the stock. Previously some cereals and also roses were grown as diversification but these were discontinued. Much of the land was permanent pasture, in itself an endangered habitat.  At Chalder Farm they were involved with Countryside Stewardship this involved the care of ponds, hedges etc. As immediate neighbours of the Pagham Harbour they were involved with the Local Nature Reserve, parts of the farm were now classified as a RAMSA site. This involved fencing the edge of the Bremere Rife to protect the habitat of the water voles, also silage cutting on some field was stopped to protect ground nesting birds. As maize grows well on the land this crop had increased for cattle feed, (Mr Spiby apologised for the recent ‘pong’ of muck spreading on the maize but the wind changed and blew over Sidlesham rather than over a neighbouring parish).
Other diversifications tried and moved out of were pedigree livestock for 10 years (exports banned after national BSE problems); now moved into commercial herd milk production, first tried as organic milk production but that became non viable with the recession therefore since 2008 Chalder has had a commercial conventional dairy herd.
A current diversification was first considered many years ago but needed someone enthusiastic to organise and run it, ‘ice cream’. The enthusiast is his wife Caroline.  Mrs Spiby then gave her presentation.
Ice cream production started with the expensive conversion of the old dairy buildings to ‘food hygiene’ standards, also her attendance at several courses to learn production, hygiene and supervision. Then donning chef’s whites production started.
Mrs Spiby explained the production process and equipment needed. Of particular interest was the explanation of why ‘Caroline’s Ice Cream from Chalder Farm Sidlesham’ is different.
•It is made from very fresh ‘home grown’ milk on the day of production.
•It is made in small carefully controlled batches.
•No air is mixed in to create high volume ‘easy scoop’. Therefore weight for weight is good value. (Mrs Spiby said let it soften slightly before eating to experience the excellent taste.
•The fruit in the ice cream eg raspberries are also grown locally therefore exceptionally fresh and tasty.
Mrs Spiby concluded her presentation with the very welcome information that ice cream samples were available during the refreshment interval.

Mr Harland thanked the presenters very much and noted that the listeners had clearly enjoyed the presentations as shown by their enthusiastic applause.
 
6. Refreshment interval organised by Sidlesham WI (plus samples of ‘Caroline’s Ice Cream).

7. Open forum on topics of parish interest.
•With regret Mr Harland informed the assembly that it had been said that the current reputation of the Parish Council was as low as it could possibly be. This was received with acclaimed disbelief by the electors. Mr Harland thanked them for the reassurance and asked if anyone felt not welcome at PC meetings, none did.
•Mrs Clarke-Adams raised the topic of her recent email that the PC appeared determined to scrap its Village Hall Work Group.
Mr Martin of the WG said their interim report identified the potential of the Football Club building and asked for the views of others.
Mr Allistone considered that it was a moral of the Church Commissioners to supply facility for a Church Hall as at present and he did not consider the parish required two halls.
Mr Pound said that in ten years the parish would require a more modern building than the current church hall.
Mr Harland stated that the Football Club building was the agreed responsibility of the Football Club.
Mrs Clarke-Adams re-iterated ‘why try to get rid of the Hall Work Group?’ Mr Field said the idea was to suspend activity until probably 2016 when negotiations start (Church with Commissioners). Also is there a presumption that there will be a new hall?
Mr Harland stated he could not see that there was sufficient income to make a new village hall viable; the lottery only gives 50% at most, this would leave £500,000 required from the people of Sidlesham. He noted that recently Funtington despite having an asset to sell were turned down by the lottery.
Mrs Pound disagreed that a village hall would cost £1m, also the WG had found there was a new lottery next year for village halls but had not yet reported this to the Parish Council.

Mr Harland closed the discussion and informed the assembly that at the last PC meeting the Work Group was given another year to investigate the hall topic.

•Mr M Bond asked what was the significance of the ‘traffic counter tubes’ recently seen across Mill Lane and Rookery Lane. Mr Harland replied that the PC received no information about them from the WSCC Highways; Mr Paul agreed to seek information.
Discussion developed about the ‘single carriageway’ construction of Rookery Lane and the damage and danger generated by the increased traffic. Passing places were considered to be a possible solution. Mr Paul agreed to ask Highways if some could be constructed.

Mr Harland drew the meeting to a conclusion, thanking the 35 people still present for their interest in raising, discussing and considering the various items.

The Mr Harland closed the Sidlesham Annual Parish Meeting 2010 at 9.45 pm.

Councillors present: Mr Adrian Harland (Chairman), Mr Colin Field (Vice-chairman), Mrs Patricia Tull, Mrs Debbie Kennedy, Mrs Elizabeth Smart, Mrs Diana Pound, Mrs Carole Ranjbar, Mr Christopher Bond.
Also present: Thirty-five Sidlesham Electors, Mr Alan Chaplin (County Councillor), three observers not from Sidlesham and Mr John Paul (Parish Clerk)

Mr Adrian Harland as Chairman of the Parish Council opened the proceedings and welcomed all present to the meeting.

1. Minutes of the Annual Parish Meeting held on Wednesday 28 May 2008
These were proposed by Mrs Vivienne Vaughan-Cox seconded by Mrs Daphne Bowling and agreed by those present as being a true record to be signed by the Chairman.

2. Parish Council report of the past year by Mr Harland.
Report to Annual Parish Meeting May 2009 by the Chairman of Sidlesham Parish Council

“This year I am going to start my report on the Parish Council activities by explaining to you what we did in response to the Parish Council Consultation Exercise. We have spent the last year considering all the matters brought up as a result of this initiative. In all we received 111 comments from 36 parishioners, which after allowing for “duplications” left us to ponder over some 60 matters. Each subject was considered over three of the bi-monthly meetings we held last year, and I believe we have now responded to everyone who was kind enough to respond to our initiative. If there is anyone who feels that he or she did not get a reply to any of the points they raised, then please get in touch with me later. We broke the items down into six sectors – Parish Environment, Housing and Development, Highways, Footpaths and Cycleways, Transport, and Recreation and Amenities. As you can guess, quite a few of the usual chestnuts were mentioned, but it gave the council the opportunity to look at everything afresh. Where we could, we have tried to make improvements – for instance we wrote to Stagecoach asking for the regular Selsey Link Service 51 to divert through Highleigh say once an hour – regrettably the request was turned aside as in their view it would not be possible to keep to the 15 minute timetable without using an additional bus and driver, a cost they could not sanction.

Two important matters were raised by a number of people.

Firstly there is the question of a dedicated parish hall or community centre. For one reason or another, the council agrees in principle that there are shortcomings in each of the main centres we currently use – the Church Hall and the Sidlesham Football Clubhouse. The council has debated this point many times over the years, without coming up with any concrete proposal to take the matter forward. We have decided therefore to set up a working party, mainly drawn from those who expressed an interest in seeing such a development. Whilst there is parish councillor involvement, the majority of members are not connected to the council, so hopefully with fresh ideas and a clean sheet of paper they will come up with a viable scheme. This group will work under the umbrella of the Parish Council, and the records of its meetings will be presented to the council to keep it informed. If more council involvement is required during any step of the progress towards a final scheme, then it will of course be given.

Secondly we had eleven responses requesting playground facilities. In fact this subject was raised by nearly twice the number for any other. Again we sought to raise a Working Party to carry this forward; for the council has considered this matter several times since the old playground equipment was dismantled about eight years ago, when it became dangerous, uneconomic to repair and uninsurable – the last point would have left each parish councillor liable to be sued personally should any claim for injury or damages have arisen, which was an unacceptable risk. Unfortunately we were unable to raise sufficient numbers to form a working party. However at the beginning of April both the WSCC and the CDC advised us that there were substantial grants available, which if granted would allow us to provide facilities from toddlers to teenagers, and quite possibly adults as well! To cut a long story short, Councillor Diana Pound and I have spoken to the Sidlesham Primary School Council and a number of teenagers to obtain ideas as to what they would like, met with 3 specialist playground contractors and obtained initial quotes, spoken to the planning department at the CDC, and submitted two grant applications which had to be in by 22nd May. Inevitably because of the short notice we were given of the availability of this money, there are still a lot of “i”s to be dotted and “t”s to be crossed, but the main WSCC funding will not be released until 1st April 2010, and we shall be given time to get firmer quotes, planning permission etc. We shall also consult with a few more young people, and parents and grandparents. Now I do not want to get hopes up too high, as there are probably a lot of other parishes and towns within the county also seeking this money. There are a number of circumstances which may make our application less attractive to the panel that delivers the grants (for instance the Recreation Ground site may be considered too much of a risk from vandalism as it is not directly overlooked by nearby housing, and cannot be managed on a regular basis by a paid employee, as would be the case if a parish hall was also in the immediate area), – and yes we have chosen the Recreation Ground as the only practicable piece of land available for the playground – after all we own it! The total sum requested is £75,000, of which the lions’ share £50,000 would come from the WSCC, that sum is dedicated for 8 to 14 year olds, whilst the CDC £25,000 would cover the younger children. We should know by mid July if we have been granted these monies. Incidentally you can understand from the sums that we have requested that playground facilities do not come cheap. On the table over there I have set out examples of the kind of equipment we might get. Fingers crossed!

The most regular task of the Parish Council is to consider Planning Applications. During the past year the planning committee met 13 times. The volume of applications is down quite considerably from 53 the previous year to 35 during the last 12 months. I guess this is a reflection of the difficult financial background now prevailing. Indeed most recently we have not been required to meet since 14th April, which on past history is most unusual. We raised no objections in 24 cases and of these 1 was refused. We objected to 6 matters, of which 3 were refused, 2 permitted, and 1 after amendment, which we had sought, came back to us for a second review, to which we raised no objection, and was then permitted. 1 matter came before us twice, and was subsequently deemed to require no consent as it fell within permitted development regulations – we had in any case raised no objection. 2 matters remain undecided. So for the vast majority, the council’s recommendations were shared by the planners.

Enforcement Matters. There are still several matters outstanding. One matter that was resolved covered a large wind turbine, to which both we and the CDC planners objected. On appeal the Inspector upheld refusal. The council does recognise that green policies are now being encouraged, and in general would sympathise with any such development if it was not too large, too obtrusive, and in harmony with the surrounding area. However there were a number of aspects relating to this matter, covering an initial lack of a planning application, the size, and the closeness to a conservation area, closeness to other housing, and the fact that it was considered to be an eyesore. We continue to pester the enforcement officers to bring other matters to a conclusion, but I have to say that these officers appear to be overloaded with work, and have to prioritise on the more serious matters

All members of the Council can sit on the Planning Committee. The Council meets formally every 2 months, when all remaining business is conducted. This covers the ever present concern over traffic matters on all of the parish’s roads, footpaths both alongside the roads and across fields etc, the parish amenities such as seats and bus shelters, the upkeep of the parish open spaces, such as the Paddock Straight, and ponds. We also review the parish finances, receive reports from various other bodies on which members of the council sit, amongst which are the Peninsular Community Forum, Chichester Association of Local Councils (CALC), the Manhood Parishes Road Safety Group, the Manhood Peninsular Steering Group (sea defences), the Pagham Harbour Coastal Issues Advisory Group (sea defences), and the Pagham Harbour Nature Reserve Advisory Board. Councillors may also attend the South Chichester County Local Committee when agenda items are relevant to the parish.

Amenities and Assets Working Group

This group of councillors carried out a full review of the various public areas and assets when it met last June. A number of recommendations were made, and in particular it was felt that the Recreation Ground needed some TLC. To this end a small group of councillors have been attempting to meet with the Football Club’s officials to improve matters. Although a meeting has taken place, not much has been achieved to date, but we will continue to attempt a closer liaison. Dudley Pound chaired the group, and in particular he has personally continued in carrying out some more work to Florence Pond.
 
Pagham Harbour Nature Reserve Advisory Board.

Most of you will probably not be aware that a few residents of the parish have permits to launch small boats into the harbour from the quay near the Crab & Lobster. The number of these permits currently issued is now four following the death of Hannah Wright. The permits have been deemed not transferable either to individuals, even to another family member living in the same house, or to new owners of houses where a permit has previously existed. The Nature Reserve’s policy has been that in the fullness of time all permits will expire, so that no one will be able to put a boat into the harbour. The parish council has repeatedly objected to this policy. The rights of Sidlesham residents to use the harbour we consider must have existed for many decades, and almost certainly centuries. Since the Nature Reserve has been created, the rights of Sidlesham residents have been continually eroded, so it is felt that a stand should be made on this issue. We have therefore been trying to establish a right for up to ten licences to be available to residents, if not in perpetuity, then at least for the foreseeable future. The Advisory Board asked the parish council to submit a case to support this policy, and this was duly done by Councillor Bond with the very considerable help and expertise of Malcolm Davis-White – my public thanks to him for the time he gave up to write this document, and then to attend the meeting we had with the Chairman of PHNRAB, Councillor Acraman, and other WSCC representatives and the Manager of the Nature Reserve. As a result of that meeting, we have now an understanding of Councillor Acraman’s recommendation to the WSCC cabinet minister under whose authority this matter rests to agree that 10 licences are made available under certain conditions, which on the whole are acceptable to the parish council – there is one in particular which may need further negotiation to protect the rights of an existing permit holder. Because of the impending elections, no decision will be made until later, as the cabinet minister might well change. Assuming he/she is happy, a recommendation will then be passed to the Environment Agency which has the final say

The Finance Working Group meets to draw up the budget, and then recommends the precept for the next financial year. The current precept is £13751. If the plans to install a playground go ahead, then there will be additional sums to pay out in future years to cover maintenance, insurance and capital replacement. I will briefly summarise the Income and Expenditure for the previous 12 months. Income totalled £14433 (precept and Vat repayment), whilst Expenditure totalled £14632 (£6056 Administration including Clerk’s fee – £633 Audit & Insurance – £851 Subscriptions and Donations – £6489 Parish Maintenance & Amenities including grass cutting – Vat £603) an excess over expenditure of £199, which was met by the sums held in reserve. In due course these figures will be published on the parish notice boards once the audit is completed. I am sure you will be pleased to know in this present time of revelations in the press that our parish councillors do not have individual expenses allowances, although they are entitled to claim for travelling expenses to attend training courses, and obtain reimbursement for any special expense incurred whilst carrying out their duties. During the past 12 months the total expenditure was certainly less than £5, and probably nil!

Roads Matters

I am pleased to report that the Manhood Parishes Road Safety Group has been successful in persuading the police and highways authorities to provide a Speed Indicator Device to those parishes on the Manhood who want to use it. Sidlesham PC completed the requirements, and we began operations earlier this month for a two week period, the first deployment manned by yours truly and the vice chairman. We have a number of volunteers amongst councillors and members of STAG, and 2 others have also since joined the list. The SID will be allocated to us in turn with other councils on the Manhood Peninsular, and at the moment it is likely we shall have it for 2 weeks every 8 weeks. More volunteers would be welcome – the duties are not onerous, mainly requiring 2 people to be on hand for 2 hours at a time at one of five positions within the parish that have been sanctioned. Richard Hall has kindly agreed to organise the teams, so any applications to join the volunteers should be made to him, or through any councillor or the parish clerk. Experience to date has been positive in that most vehicles certainly slow down, with the majority either under or close to the limit – the number of vehicles passing at excessive speed is usually just a handful per session. However the volunteers have noticed that as soon as the SID is packed away, speeds increase. Tonight PCSO Craig Vokes will show you what the machine looks like, how it works, and the benefits it can bring.

We are also hopeful that shortly a mobile more sophisticated version will also be present in the parish from time to time. This item will be purchased partly with the aid of the grant monies STAG obtained for a SID – the machine we are now using belongs to the police, and is one of a number being “loaned” to parish councils throughout the county. This new device will look more like the one stationed at the southern entrance to Hunston, but it can be fixed to street furniture, and does not have to be constantly manned. It will move around various sites for a few days at a time, and will again be shared out to other parish councils on the Manhood. Hopefully it will be up and running very shortly.

In general traffic volumes and speeding continue to be a scourge, and not just on the main B2145 and B2201. The rat runs through Highleigh/Keynor Lane, Lockgate Road, and Easton Road are a constant problem. The parish council does its best to object to any large development in Selsey, which would only exacerbate the numbers of vehicles passing through the parish – we were pleased to see that the planners recently turned down another 300 plus houses on the Pye field site, following many objections, including ours.
I would like to pass on my thanks to all of your councillors for the time and effort they have put in over the last 12 months dealing with a whole host of other matters in addition to those I have highlighted. I have to report that Dudley Pound resigned from the Council in mid-May, as his increasing involvement with the Chichester Canal did not allow him sufficient time to deal with his council duties. I thank him for what he has achieved, and in particular the transformation of Florence Pond. The procedure to co-opt or elect a replacement councillor is now in hand. Bearing in mind the average age of the remaining councillors, we do think it would be quite helpful if the new person was somewhat younger!

Once again a special thank you to our clerk, John Paul, without whose hard work the parish could not operate efficiently. John is also responsible for keeping our excellent website up to date – the address is www.sidlesham.org, and if you have never visited it, then I recommend you do so. For instance you will find all the records of the council minutes, as well as much else.

Lastly our thanks in advance to the ladies of the WI for the refreshments you will enjoy during the interval. “

3.  Craig Voke and Jason Lemm (PCSOs) Demonstration of mobile ‘SID’ (Speed Indicator Device) and local policing.
The mobile SID was set at 1mph for the demonstration, this ensured the screen was activated by the movement of people in front of it and illustrated the sensitivity of the device. For use on the roads of Sidlesham an upper limit of perhaps 40mph would be set to avoid drivers being attempting upper record speeds. The PCSOs stated that the device was to make drivers aware not to punish. Craig said he looked forward to working with the people from Sidlesham who volunteered to work the device.
On the topic of local policing Craig stated that his role was wide and included neighbours disputes, burglaries, problems of dogs, parking of cars etc In addition to Sidlesham, his area covered Donnington, Apaldram, and adjoining areas. To contact him the 0845 607999 telephone number should be used. He reminded meeting of Operation Crackdown that enabled anyone seeing a vehicle problem (abandoned, reckless driving, antisocial driving etc ) to get something done about it by  calling the telephone number 01243 642222. Further details are on the notice board page of the Parish Council website.
Mr Harland thanked PCSOs Craig and Lemm for the demonstration and the interested discussion it stimulated.

4. Refreshment break.

5. Open forum on topics of Parish interest
5.1 County Councillor Alan Chaplin reported on the Coastal Centre Project. A site assessment feasibility study was to be published in the autumn although as yet the Project Board did not have terms of reference. He considered there was a serious conflict in the demand for money and that the local communities concerns and wishes for flood prevention schemes should have priority.
5.2 Play park proposals. Mrs Gill Cook was concerned about potential vandalism and suggested CCTV would be needed. Mrs Diana Pound added that the WSCC grant proposals were to produce a challenging form of play for the early teen age group and that CDC grants were aimed at the younger childrens’ requirements. 
5.3 Dame Jeni Trimble introduced Reverend Stephan Guise who had recently become the Priest in Charge for Sidlesham.
Dame Trimble then raised the topic of the PCC Work Group that was to be formed in July to examine possibilities of a toilet facility and a new vestry / meeting room attached to the Church near the south door. It was noted that PCC was also attempting to buy a section of field from the Church Commissioners to extend the church yard.
5.4 Speed Indicator Device. Mr Colin Field stated that although the Parish Council had a nucleus of volunteers more were needed. Several members of the meeting raised their hands for inclusion.  Mrs Elizabeth Aylwin thanked the Parish Council for being successful in obtaining the SIDs for the Manhood Parishes; Mr Harland responded that a very major influence was Mr Chris Bailey (Earnley Parish Council). STAG members were thanked also for their collective input.

There were no further topics and Mr Harland thanked everyone for attending and closed the meeting at 9.00pm.
Mr Harland closed the Sidlesham Annual Parish Meeting at 9.00 pm.

Councillors present: Mr Adrian Harland (Chairman), Mr Colin Field (Vice-chairman), Mrs Patricia Tull, Mrs Debbie Kennedy, Mrs Elizabeth Smart, Mrs Diana Pound, Mrs Carole Ranjbar, Mr Dudley Pound.
Also present: Thirty-seven Sidlesham Electors, Mr Alan Chaplin (County Councillor) and Mr John Paul (Parish Clerk)

Mr Adrian Harland as Chairman of the Parish Council opened the proceedings and welcomed all present to the meeting.

1. Minutes of the Annual Parish Meeting held on Wednesday 23 May 2007
These were proposed by Dame Jeni Trimble, seconded by Mrs Kennedy and agreed by those present as being a true record to be signed by the Chairman.

2. Parish Council report of the past year by Mr Harland.
The area, which takes up the majority of the Parish Council meetings, is Planning. During the past twelve months we met on 16 occasions, and considered 53 applications, 2 more than the previous year.  An average of just over one per week, for a parish of this size is quite substantial, and represents about 11% of the total housing stock. 6 of these applications have yet to be decided by Chichester District Planning, and 4, where we raised an objection, were withdrawn before a formal decision was reached. Of the remaining 43, we raised no objection to 32 that were permitted, we objected to 4 that were refused, 2 to which we had no objection were refused but subsequently permitted after the adverse comments we had made were dealt with. We objected to 5 applications that were permitted, although 2 of these incorporated amendments we had cited as our reason for refusal. In the case of a third, a telephone mast, we did seek for it to be positioned elsewhere altogether, but it was at least moved further away from the original position sought. You can see therefore that for the most part our decisions accord with the planning authorities, but that will not stop us raising objections as appropriate where we think an application is not right for the parish.

Allied to Planning are Enforcement Matters. I have lost touch with the number of cases we raised during the past 12 months, but they were numerous. Some have resulted in retrospective planning applications, some were covered by older planning consents, and others were covered by permitted development powers. But there are still a number that are outstanding, some of which have been ruled against by the CDC, but are subject to an appeal to the Government Inspectors. We continue to follow up outstanding cases, but we are in the hands of the District Council Enforcement Team so far as speed to resolution is concerned.

All members of the Council can sit on the Planning Committee. The Council meets formally every 2 months, when all remaining business is conducted. This covers the ever-present concern over traffic matters on all of the parish’s roads, footpaths both alongside the roads and across fields etc, the parish amenities such as seats and bus shelters, the upkeep of the parish open spaces, such as the Paddock Straight, and ponds. We also review the parish finances, receive reports from various other bodies on which members of the council sit, amongst which are the Manhood Peninsular Forum, the Manhood Parishes Road Safety Group, the Manhood Peninsular Steering Group (sea defences), and the Pagham Harbour Nature Reserve Board.

Amenities and Assets Working Group
This group of councillors is tasked with looking after the various public areas and assets. Dudley Pound has acted as chairman, and I wish to record our thanks to him for the work he has done, not just with the paperwork, but with Florence Pond in particular. He and a working party of parishioners including Norman Robson, Bob Simpson, Brian Howard and his son, (with apologies to any others who helped whom I have not mentioned) have done a wonderful job in clearing the brambles etc around the pond, and as you will all be able to see the area has been opened up. The pond is full of life including at least one sizeable goldfish, and is regularly visited by kingfishers. The seat at the top end has been jet-washed, so anyone can spend a little time just sitting there, soaking up the pond scenario. My thanks also to the Frys who continue to cut the grass around the seat. The working group carried out a full inventory of the parish assets, and a number of improvements are in hand to effect repairs etc, some with the aid of grants from the WSCC and/or the CDC.

The Finance Working Group meets to draw up and recommend the precept for the next financial year. I do not wish to go into any detail, as the figures covering parish income and expenditures are covered by the accounts that are published on the parish notice boards.

Roads Matters
During the last 12 months, the Manhood Parishes Road Safety Group has been formed. Originally this was a group within Earnley, but it has now been widened to include all parishes on the Manhood, and Oving. As well as covering road safety in general, the group has been endeavouring to put in place a joint venture with our own pressure group STAG, who have obtained a grant towards the purchase of a SID (Speed Indicator Device) on the basis that the SID is shared with parishes on the Manhood Peninsular. However this can only be positioned where agreed by the police, and would have to be manned at all times. As yet the police and the highway authorities have yet to agree all the ground rules, and it can only go ahead if other parishes agree to share the total cost. The project does seem to be running into some difficulty, as many of the parishes do not seem to be supportive. A similar situation has arisen at Funtington where again a lack of co-operation from the Bourne parishes is again putting the scheme in jeopardy.

STAG continue to chip away at the authorities, and the Parish Council remains supportive of their aim ie “to curb traffic excesses”.

Children’s Playground & Parish Hall
As indicated at last year’s meeting, the council again looked at the question of a playground within the parish. A request for ideas was made in the Sidlesham Parishioner, but with little response. A working party reviewed the position, and was unable to make any firm recommendations to build a new playground. Besides the question of cost, there is also some difficulty in finding a suitable site. Clearly this remains high on the wish list of parishioners as demonstrated by the responses to the consultation letter. The way forward may be to form a working party of interested parishioners with council involvement to see what can be done. The Council will discuss the matter at our July meeting.

Likewise the question of a parish hall could be dealt with in a similar way, and although the projects could share a similar site, it may be best to keep the two separate. A new parish hall would cost in the region of at least £500,000, and would, I suggest have to be aided by substantial grants. In this respect, Funtington have put together a scheme, for which planning permission was granted, but their application for lottery funds was rejected. Their building costs are calculated to be £1,500,000! However they expect to raise about half this sum by selling off the plot of land on which the existing hall is sited. Our parish owns the Recreation Ground, but it is extremely unlikely that a sale would be allowed by the authorities bearing in mind the covenants placed on it. Raising the total sum required would be a very major project, and could probably only happen after many years of fund raising  – meantime the cost would continue to escalate with inflation. But again a fresh set of brains and enthusiasm might unlock a solution……….

Parish Plan
The newly elected council revisited this subject last November, and a meeting with a CDC officer took place in December. It transpired that a parish plan did not form part of the planning process, which took some members of the council aback. It was decided that as the production of such a plan would take a great deal of time, and as also costs were no longer supported by grants, it was not appropriate to go ahead with such a scheme at the present time. Incidentally, in case you are thinking that the councillors are just plain lazy, such plans are on the whole executed by non-councillors with Parish Council overview!

One of the items required by a parish plan is a full consultation with parishioners. The council therefore decided as an interim measure to invite the parish by way of a consultation letter to give its views on the present standing of the parish. 40 people responded resulting in the 61 items on the list you have been handed this evening. You will have the opportunity to debate these subjects after the refreshment break, and the council will then take them forward to formulate plans and responses over the next few months.
I would like to pass on my thanks to all of your councillors for the time and effort they have put in over the last 12 months dealing with a whole host of other matters in addition to those I have highlighted. A special thank you to our clerk, John Paul, without whose hard work the parish could not operate. John is also responsible for keeping our website up to date – the address is sidlesham.org.uk.

Lastly our thanks in advance to the ladies of the WI for the refreshments you will enjoy during the interval
3. Presentation by Samantha Tate on the proposed new Visitor Centre for Pagham Harbour Nature Reserve.
Samantha introduced herself as the project manager for the proposed development and also introduced two colleagues, Charlotte Murray of the Environment Agency and ………of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.
The proposals were at a very early stage of what was expected to be a long project. The project was a partnership of WSCC, EA and RSPB, all of whom ST worked for.
The vision of the project was that a study centre was required to facilitate monitoring of the effects of climate change, including sea level rise, on wild life at the reserve.
The current centre was not up to task. It is very small, old, cold and very cramped for staff and students.  The proposed new centre would enable quality studies to take place.
Around Pagham Harbour many sites were assessed and the conclusion was that Sidlesham Ferry was the preferred location. The existing facilities are at the Ferry but very close to the road (B2145) at a distance from the harbour. The whole area there is a landfill site with attendant problems of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) emissions from the substrate. Gas monitoring apparatus was installed. More detailed investigations are planned for 2008. The idea is to have a new building much closer, preferably overlooking the harbour. The preferred location to date is north of the drainage ‘channel’ in the angle of in filled land north west of the tramway and the footpath to the harbour from the existing buildings.  This is probably the highest location and at least risk from flooding. So far people and traffic assessments indicate 150,000 visitors per year.  This would increase. A consultation document will be published on 4 August 2008, responses to be in by October 2008 leading to recommendations being published in late 2008/ early 2009. Designs and plans (and costs) to be produced by 2009/2010. Fundraising would then start.
The aim would be to facilitate connection to the site for cyclists, invalids, pushchairs etc. Also to support the local community by the use of the buildings as meeting rooms in the evenings.

Questions and discussion from the floor raised several points.
An additional meeting room in the parish would be useful although the proposed site is on the parish boundary.
Doubts were raised on the validity of the 150,000 visitors, as large numbers of people are never seen at the harbour in Sidlesham. Answer that largest numbers of people visiting are mainly in Pagham; why not have the new facility there not in Sidlesham as a new facility will increase traffic on the B2145 and people to the area? Answer that visitors to the reserve in Pagham come mainly for the beach not wildlife. The new facility is for education purposes etc.
The harbour is a local, not a national nature reserve. Advertising and attracting tourists was not part of the set-up plan agreed to by local people.
Concern was expressed about a building overlooking the harbour along one of the few ‘wild’ paths in the area. Also night use would require lights where currently there are none.
A vehicular access road would be necessary across the land and a bridge across the channel plus car park area, why not replace the current buildings at the same location?
In Sidlesham development is restricted due to flood risk, would this proposal be exempt? EA representative said it would not be exempt; any proposal would be examined for risk and restrictions / requirements imposed.

Mr Harland thanked Samantha for the presentation and the interested discussion it stimulated.

4. Refreshment break.

5. Open forum on topics of Parish interest raised in the consultation letter of early April delivered to all 500 households in Sidlesham CP. A collated copy of all 61 topics received in 40 replies was handed to all present at the meeting and is attached to these minutes. Approximately twenty attendees at the meeting had responded.
Mr Harland invited discussion on any topic.
§ Mr Bailey raised topic 18, the future of School House. Some of the current school governors wished to re-visit the possible use of the house by the school rather than demolition and development of the site. Mr Harland informed the meeting that since 2003 many meetings had taken place with the Governors, the Headmaster, the Parish Council and WSCC. The latest information was that WSCC Education Department had declared the house surplus to requirements. Delays occurred due to access difficulties. Mrs Kennedy on behalf of her husband (a school Governor) responded that WSCC Highways had accepted proposals for access to a rented or affordable housing project. Mr Harland informed the meeting that he and the Vice-Chairman were invited by WSCC to attend a meeting with all concerned parties on 4 April.
§ Mr Harrison raised topic 27, restriction of lorry size on local roads. The consensus of opinion was that EU law defined lorry size. Little could be done except ‘access only’ restrictions on by-lanes.
§ Mrs Martin raised topic 34 (speed limits on B2145 too varied). Many agreed but the meeting was reminded that the current array of speed limits was developed by the WSCC road safety group in response to requests for restrictions. The majority of the road did not meet the national criteria for 30mph.
§ Discussion of topic 36 (30mph or less over whole of the Manhood Peninsula) concluded it was probably not possible although repeat requests could be made. Policing of a slow limit would be very difficult.
§ Mr Caldwell raised topic 13 (support of Social Justice with reference to coastal defence). The particular issue being compensation for property loss if Councils responsible for defences allowed properties and land to be lost to the sea. Mr Harland informed the meeting that the local MP Andrew Tyrie was leading an inter-party committee on this topic and frequently reported to the Manhood Group. Mrs Tull stated that Social Justice was not enshrined in law therefore all efforts to achieve the aims should be supported.
§ The Pagham to East Head Draft Coastal Defence Strategy paper was due for publication
29 May 2009.
§ Mr Pound raised the parish Recreation Ground as a general topic, (see 57, 49, 59), stating that a tidy-up was much needed. The football club as tenants and users of the Ground had legal responsibility for the tidiness and cleanliness. It was agreed that liaison with them was needed to ensure the attractiveness of this public open green space.
The previous discussions led on to topics 50 and 56 (Church Hall improvements and a New (village) hall). These topics were referred to in the Chairman’s report above. Dame Jeni Trimble suggested the Parochial Church Council and the Parish Council should develop a combined ‘Hall Strategy’; this was agreed.
§ Mr Dowling raised topic 20 (Local Development Framework, LDF). He considered progress reporting was poor following the refusal of the Government Inspector to accept the District Council’ Paper. Open discussion concluded that as CDC had been forced to start again the timescale was very prolonged and there was nothing yet to report.
 
A reluctance to raise further topics brought the Meeting to a conclusion. Mr Harland thanked everyone for attending and taking part. He stated that discussion of the topics raised in the consultation would be discussed at subsequent Parish Council meetings.

Mr Harland closed the Sidlesham Annual Parish Meeting at 9.00 pm.

CONSULTATION LETTER REPLIES AND TOPICS                                                                                                   

Letters were delivered to all 500 household in the parish,   40 replies were received (8%)   

Featured in numbers of replies
PARISH ENVIRONMENT 
B2145 make into an environmental corridor 1
Dead elms need cutting down 1
Eyesores need control eg tyre clinic 2
Hedgerows, encourage more planting 1
Litter clearing and village tidiness 4
Manhood Lane, cut grass more often. 1
Pond maintenance budget 1
Seats along roads eg Paddock Straight 1
Shotford, control mosquitoes 1
Social Justice leadership on sea defences 5
Village plan 1
Signs, no A-boards or other advertisements for businesses 1
HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT 
Affordable housing 3
Industrial units, no more 2
School House, future 1
Food production, not bricks and mortar 1
LDF Plan (progress?) 1
HIGHWAYS 
Bypass from Selsey to A27 3
Crossing on B2145 near Manhood Lane / Keynor Lane & Anchor 2
Development control to keep traffic down on back-roads 1
Double yellow lines at the school 1
Dyers Corner off road car park. 1
Highleigh road makings 1
Lorry size weight restriction 2
Manhood Lane, increase parking. 1
Pot hole mend on roads 1
Shotford enlarge lay-by for safe parking. 2
Shotford, double yellow lines, park in recreation ground. 2
Speed camera on B2145 2
Speed limit in Rookery Lane 1
Speed limits on B2145 too varied 1
Speed reduction in Highleigh & Keynor Lane 3
Speed to be 30mph (or less) all of Manhood peninsula 2
Speed, reduce traffic speed  2
Street lighting 1
Traffic calming scheme on B2145 1
FOOTWAYS & CYCLEWAYS 
Cycle route extension to Selsey & others & more signs 7
Hedge cutting along footways & roadsides 6
Re-surface all footways 1
TRANSPORT, RECREATION & AMENITIES
Allotments 1
Annual village ball amd other community events 2
Barn dance 1
Bus service improve in Highleigh 3
Bus shelter Lockgate/Boxham 1
Businesses list  1
Children’s play area, Manhood Lane / Church Hall 11
Church Hall improvements 1
Cricket ground and club 1
Drop-in centre on some days eg hall or football club   1
Encourage Sidlesham festival 1
Farmers Market 1
Football club, help it to be more attractive 2
Hall, construct a new one somewhere 5
Recreation ground. Make more obvious it belongs to Parish not football club 1
Sailing association be formed to use licences 1
Tennis court at Recreation Ground 1
Good neighbour awards scheme 1
Police Station open 24 hours on Manhood Peninsula 1

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.

Minutes of the Annual Parish Meeting

Held in the Church Hall, Sidlesham on Wednesday 24 May 2006 at 7:00 p.m.

Councillors present: Mr Adrian Harland (Chairman), Mrs Patricia Tull (Vice-chairman), Mrs Debbie Kennedy, Mrs Moira Grice, Mrs Elizabeth Duke, Mrs Elizabeth Smart, Mrs Diana Pound, Mr Chris Bond, Dr Trevor Dobbins.
Also present: Forty-eight Sidlesham Electors, Mr Alan Chaplin (County Councillor) and Mr John Paul (Parish Clerk)

Mr Adrian Harland opened the proceedings and welcomed all present to the meeting.
Mr Harland was elected Chairman of the Parish Council and Mrs Patricia Tull (vice-chairman) at the AGM on 17 May 2006

1. Minutes of the Annual Parish Meeting held on Wednesday 25 May 2005.
These were proposed by Mrs Gill Cook, seconded by Mr David Grice and agreed by those present as being a true record to be signed by the Chairman.

2. Report of the past year by Mr C Bond (Past Chairman).

1. Thanks
Firstly, I would like to record my thanks to the members of the Parish Council who have supported its work over the past year. They give their time freely, not only to attend the bi-monthly council meetings, but also to attend:
* The more frequent meetings of the Planning Committee, under the chairmanship of Vice Chairman, Debbie Kennedy, to who also thanks. Last year, there were 21 Planning meetings.
* The Finance Committee, which sets the annual budget and precept
* Attendance at various meetings, committees and forums at District and County level, including:
1. Manhood Peninsula Forum
2. Espace
3. Pagham Harbour LNR Advisory Board
4. CDC LDF Planning meetings
5. WSCC local committees
6. Various training courses, workshops, etc.

Secondly, my thanks go to the Clerk, John Paul, without whom the Council could not operate. He deals with a mountain of correspondence, emails and reports, displays notices/information on our 6 notice boards, handles questions/suggestions/complaints from villagers, in addition to his primary role of minute-taker and scribe at all PC meetings.
2. Finance
The Council has budgeted for a slight increase in expenditure in 2006/7, but is meeting some of this increase from reserves. The 2006/7 precept has been set at £10,030 – a small increase over the previous year. However this results in a 2% reduction per household. A Band D council taxpayer will see his contribution to the precept reduce from £17.10 to £16.76 p.a.
Related to other precept-paying parishes in the District, Sidlesham stands 52nd out of 61 in terms of expensiveness. However, this is “small beer”, as the precept only represents 1.3% of the total Council Tax bill, which this year increased by 4.94%. The precept for Hunston (with the highest per capita precept in the District), for example, represents 4.7%.
3. Planning
The Planning Committee has dealt with 59 planning applications in the past year, a slight increase over the previous year (52).

The Planning Committee also liases with the District Council’s Enforcement Team, whose responsibility it is to identify breaches of planning regulations, and carry out the necessary steps of rectification or enforcement. Such steps can range from advice to submit retrospective planning applications to removal of an offending structure or eviction from a site.
This Parish provides a disproportionate load on the Enforcement Team, there being 13 enforcement cases in progress out of a total of around 200 (i.e. 6.5%) in the whole District.
The Parish Council (PC) is of the opinion that the Enforcement Team is hopelessly under-resourced, which factor, in our view, contributed directly to the District losing the Appeal in the Melita Nursery Inquiry. The PC holds the view that the Melita Inquiry result, if allowed to stand, creates a precedent which is frightening not only to the Keynor Residents, but to all the villagers of this Parish
4. Other Matters
4.1 Roads
Thanks to pressures over several years, and more recently from STAG, a road management scheme for the B2145 and B2201 was introduced in the village last autumn. Other minor safety improvements have also been carried out. At present, the PC, the School and STAG are pressing for a pedestrian crossing in the vicinity of the B2145/Keynor Lane junction.
The Chairman of STAG has provided a report on its activities and hopes.
4.2 School House
After years of pressure both by the school and its governors and the PC, and inaction by WSCC, the shuttered and derelict School House and overgrown garden adjoining the school, has emerged on a WSCC agenda for action. The garden has been cleared, and discussions are in progress, which may lead to the demolition of School House (agreed by all as the only viable option) and its replacement by a number of units of affordable housing located within the garden. If this were to be the outcome, Sidlesham’s affordable housing needs would be met.
4.3 Affordable Housing
Following the appointment of a Rural Housing Enabler at CDC, the subject appeared as an agenda item at the September 2005 PC Meeting. This drew a large attendance at the meeting, as it appears to be a subject that generates strong feelings amongst villagers, both for and against. Hence it has been included as an agenda item for debate at this meeting.
4.4 Conservation Areas Appraisal
Earlier in the year, consultants working for CDC carried out appraisals of the village’s two Conservation Areas – Sidlesham Church and Sidlesham Quay. This culminated in an exhibition in the Church Hall in March, and the publication of draft reports on the 2 areas. These were generally well received. The PC, and several individuals, submitted comments as part of the consultation process; we await the final versions.
4.5 Village Design Statement (VDS)
The VDS has, at last, been submitted to CDC for approval and, hopefully, acceptance, which is expected soon. The submission was delayed to ensure consistency with the Appraisals, referred to earlier.
When accepted by CDC, the PC will work out how best to publish and distribute the document within the village.
Moves to follow-up the VDS with the preparation of a Parish Action Plan have been put on hold, pending completion/acceptance of the VDS. Any one interested in participating in such a project is invited to contact the clerk, or any councillor.
4.6 Communications
Three new PC Notice Boards (financed in part by a donation from Nature’s Way) have been erected in the village, bringing the total to 6, with the objective of improving communications between PC and villagers. The Parish Magazine is used from time to time to publicise PC announcements.
Agreement in principal has been reached for the PC to establish its own website, taking over and maintaining that which was established as part of the VDS project.
4.7 Pagham Harbour
I have been the PC’s representative on the Pagham Harbour Local Nature Reserve Advisory Board (and Vice-Chairman), since it was established in 2004. Pressure from Sidlesham and Pagham PCs was instrumental in its establishment, replacing a somewhat autocratic and inward-looking structure.
The Nature Reserve boundaries incorporate some 20% of this Parish’s land area, and hence it is an important feature of the village, attracting many visitors.
The Advisory Board meets 3 times a year and includes a public participation session, the conduct of which, at times, has been less than satisfactory. Your representative has been influential in hopefully improving this.
The Board is in the process of agreeing revised Bylaws, introducing a new Visitor Code and bylaw enforcement protocol and finalising the Management Plan 2006-2011.
The next Meeting of the Board is tomorrow, 25th May, at St Ninian’s Church Hall, Pagham.
4.8 Recreation Ground
Consideration has been given, and some finance earmarked, to providing security fencing and gates to the Car Park, with some re-surfacing, at the Sidlesham Memorial Playing Field, as a preventative measure against vandalism and joy-riding, to which it has been prone. The PC has been unable to maintain a consistent dialogue with the representatives of the Football/Sports & Social Club, whose support is necessary. Hence, no progress has been made.
As the Parish Council’s principal asset – being 8 acres of land purchased from MAFF for £25 in 1956, with a covenant that it be dedicated in perpetuity as a sports field or recreation ground, it is sad to witness its deteriorating state and under-utilisation by villagers.
4.9 Bus Services
The increase in frequency of the 51 Bus – the Selsey Link – to 4 times per hour has unfortunately coincided with the partial collapse of the concrete bus shelter near Keynor Lane, which has had to be removed, as it was an unsafe structure. It is to be replaced with a rather more aesthetically pleasing wooden shelter in the near future.
4.10 Paddock Straight Trees
Seven deformed, damaged and missing trees along the Paddock straight were replaced this spring, one of which was almost immediately vandalised. It is hoped that it will recover.
4.11 Cycle Route
The PC supported the establishment of a cycleway through Sidlesham as part of the Selsey-Chichester cycle route, for which planning permission has now been given. The budgeted construction costs for this are just over £1/2million, of which about half relates to work within the Parish.
4.12 Local Development Framework (LDF)
The PC has contributed to CDC’s LDF consultation process, which has now reached the stage of the “Core Strategy Submission”. Amongst other things, the PC’s influence, together with input from a well-attended workshop organised by CDC held in Sidlesham in January, has resulted in the designation of “Keynor” remaining as a Horticultural Development Area (HDA), rather than becoming what is now termed a “Built Up Area” (BUA). A BUA is now defined as an area where “there will be a presumption in favour of development”. There are no plans for any BUA in Sidlesham.
Those interested in the development of CDC’s plans should obtain this document and the accompanying “Issues and Options Paper for Delivering Development Opportunities” (which discusses choices for identifying specific sites for housing).
It should be noted that Selsey is earmarked for substantial further housing development. This will undoubtedly result in increased traffic volumes on the B2145.

Mr Harland thanked Mr Bond for his informative and interesting report of the past year. From the floor it was requested that a map of the cycle route should be posted on the SPC notice boards.

3. Affordable and Social Housing. Presentation by Mr Austin Wade (CDC Rural Housing Enabler).

The average house price in Chichester is £300,000; the average income is £21,500. This makes it very difficult to start on the housing ownership ladder. Private renting of housing is also very expensive. A survey in 2004 found a shortfall of 140 rural homes per year across the District. In the rural areas there is also a need for amenity buildings.
In the Chichester District there are 3000 applications on the housing list, nine applications with local connections request Sidlesham but only two request Sidlesham as their first choice. From the current social housing in the parish it will be a long time before the needs can be met as the turn-over in Sidlesham is very slow. It is possible there are more who would like to be on the housing list, to find out a survey would be useful. The results would also be of use to the Parish Council helping to formulate views on planning. However, there is no Settlement Policy Area in Sidlesham due to low scoring on amenities and facilities (shops, doctors etc) This would have implications on building of affordable / social housing. Any development could only be on ‘H9 / exception sites’. Need would have to be established of applicants with local parish connections e.g. resident, working, direct relatives, had to leave as could not afford to stay.

There are basically two types of ‘affordable housing’. 1. Social with rents at half the market value. 2. Shared ownership / home buy where the applicant finds 40% of the cost and also pays 2.5% rent on the rest, further stakes can be purchased with time. In small developments / communities such as Sidlesham the maximum purchased could only be up to 80%, the remaining ownership being retained by the housing association. If sold on the ratios of percentage purchase / rent / ownership would be relative to the current value and controlled by the housing association.

Finding sites for rural affordable / social housing is difficult. Styles of building have to be in keeping. Once a potential site is identified a housing association has to carry out a feasibility study. Parish Councils are involved throughout the process. Development can take from three to 15 years.

Mr Austin Wade then invited questions and general discussion.
Q From the floor it was asked did the District have a social housing plan for 150 per year over a 20-year period to meet the needs of the 3000 on the list? Answer ‘no’.
Q From the floor, with shared ownership whom can it be sold on to? Answer, the sale (at current value) returns it to the housing association.
Q From the floor, how is land identified? Answer, for small rural sites, consultation for local knowledge. Must be close to sustainable features.
Q From the floor, what price does a housing association pay for land? Answer, up to £120,000 per acre.

In general discussion Mr Alan Chaplin (County Councillor and HA Director) informed the meeting that the increase in value of a house is shared between the HA and the resident seller. Also that to enable construction of affordable / social housing in less sustainable locations, land owners sometimes give land e.g. the Duke of Richmond in Singleton.
The ‘right to buy’ was raised with reference to rented social housing. AW stated that on new properties this was not available in settlements with less than 3000 population (Sidlesham has less than 1000 electors).

At the conclusion of this section Mr Harland thanked Mr Wade for the presentation.

4. Refreshments organised by Sidlesham WI.
Mr Harland thanked the WI for the refreshment.

5. Topics of general or specific interest in Sidlesham.

5.1 Sports Hall Mrs C Morris appealed for help to increase the amenity use of the hall; to make it an increasing asset for the school and community. Some uses were already well-established e.g. short mat bowls, aerobics and a badminton group. The school made very good use of it but more use was needed by families, groups and in general people of all ages outside school hours. To help young people responsible adults were wanted as enablers (Criminal Record Board checks would be required).
In general discussion the idea was raised of a Sidlesham Sports Association, not just for those who were already proficient at a sport but as a first move into sport. This would make peoples healthier and be a positive move against the increasing obesity problem.
A committee for bookings etc was to be formed, Mrs Kennedy volunteered to be on the committee, Mrs Morris accepted this offer with alacrity

5.2 Roadside hedges Each year several hedges in the parish grow out over the roadsides and footways. An e-mail request to the Clerk asked what could be done. All hedges are the responsibility of the landowner or land user / tenant. Hedge cutting can only be done out of the bird nesting season and in farm practice cutting is usually done once per year in the winter. Where this is not done approaches can be made directly to the responsible user, if not known or not approachable the Parish Council or the county Council should be informed. The County Council contractors cut back hedges if there are traffic or pedestrian problems, for any other cutting they may charge. They may approach a householder if a garden hedge is a problem but direct approach by a neighbour is more friendly. Any contractor cutting roadside field hedges or grass verges should have permission from WSCC and be insured for £10m public liability.

5.3. Scruffy Corners. Mr Allisstone raised the topic that more pride should be taken in our surroundings. That litter was increasing; properties were not kept up, some even derelict and there were an increasing number of signs on the highways. The assembly agreed and discussed what could be done.
Properties are private and only if public nuisance or risk can be proved can counsils step in, therefore friendly persuasion is the option. Litter picking was once an annual parish event but with the increase of legislation regarding liability etc is no longer organised but individuals can clean up as they wish. The county / district does employ litter pickers for the B2145 at least twice per year; the DC collects fly-tipped rubbish as required. Road side notices are almost all illegal, to erect signs or to attach them to street furniture (traffic signs etc) a County Council licence is required, large hoardings require planning permission even on private land. Anyone annoyed by illegal signs abandoned on the roadsides can remove them. The Parish Council with the District and County Councils maintains a running battle with fly-posters and sign erectors. Signs for local events, e.g. fetes, concerts, open days etc that are erected for very short periods and then removed immediately afterwards, are tolerated.

5.4 Afforable / social housing further discussion. Current position in Sidlesham? Mr Wade answered various questions. He said that each year less than one of the rented housing association houses becomes available. In Sidlesham there are still 39 rented social houses (ex District Council), local connection is not a requirement under the terms of the ex-council contracts. The ‘Right to Buy’ is only available to tenants who have lived in their accommodation from 1989. On the District Council register there are nine applicants who list Sidlesham amongst the places in which they would like to be housed. This number would suggest from experience that a development of 4 to 6 units would satisfy demand. If any new social housing was built local connection would have first priority but housing would not remain empty if there were insufficient locally qualified applicants. Large-scale development will not take place in Sidlesham. (Sidlesham is a ‘non sustainable’ settlement, i.e. facilities are less than the criteria required for normal market housing development).
What will be done with the schoolhouse site? This may be considered as an ‘exception’ site. It is available and something needs to be done with it. The house possibly to be demolished and a few social dwellings erected. Subject to agreement by District Council and West Sussex County Council, the Parish Council is involved in the discussions.

How would a ‘housing needs survey’ be carried out? Delivery of a questionnaire, compiled by the District Council, would be organised to be delivered throughout Sidlesham by the Parish Council. Results to be analysed to assess the needs for the parish.

There were no further questions or discussion topics, therefore Mr Harland thanked everyone for attending and taking part. He then closed the meeting.

Sidlesham Annual Parish Meeting closed at 9.35 pm.

Minutes of the Annual Parish Meeting

Held in the Church Hall, Sidlesham on Wednesday 25 May 2005 at 7:00 p.m.

Councillors present: Mr Chris Bond (Chairman), Mrs Debbie Kennedy (Vice-chairman),
Mrs Diana Pound, Mrs Moira Grice, Mrs Tricia Tull, Mr Adrian Harland, Dr Trevor Dobbins.
Also present: Fifty Sidlesham Electors, Mr Alan Chaplin (County Councillor) and Mr John Paul (Parish Clerk)

Chris Bond opened the proceedings by welcoming all present to the meeting.

1. Minutes of the Annual Parish Meeting held on Wednesday 26 May 2004.
These were proposed by Mr Dudley Pound seconded by Mrs Gill Cook and agreed by those present as being a true record to be signed by the Chairman.

2. Report of the past year by Mr C Bond (Chairman).
Mr Bond introduced the Parish Councillors to the electors and thanked them for the time and effort put in during the past year, all of which was voluntary and without payment.

Mr Bond then summarised the main responsibilities of the Parish Council with some detail of these roles were carried out in the past year. By custom Sidlesham Parish Council meets bi-monthly and all the meetings are open to public observation. In addition Councillors form a Finance Committee, a Planning Committee and are members of other inter council forums.

Finance Committee The main function of this committee was to consider and set the Precept for Sidlesham. The 2005/06 precept was set at £9950, a very small increase on last year (1.5%).

Planning Committee All members of the Parish Council form this committee and meetings are held as required. Debbie Kennedy chairs this committee. Eighteen planning meetings were held during the past year when 52 applications were examined. The Parish Council considers each application in relation to the village not just on planning regulations. The decisions arrived at were to object to 18 applications with no objection to 33. The District Council permitted ??? of the applications and refused ???.

Planning Considerations. The Parish has 65 grade two listed buildings, one grade one (the church), two conservation areas (Sidlesham Quay including all of Mill Lane and Church Lane / Church Farm Lane), two very important sites of scientific interest (Pagham Harbour and Keynor Copse) and a Nursery Development Area (Chalk Lane / Cow Lane). There is no SPA, the Parish is defined as rural in the Chichester Plan this only allows replacement house building, no new build.
The Chichester Plan is due for renewal; to be replaced by a Local Development Framework for the period 2006 to 2016. Production of this LDF started in 2004 with a district wide assessment of settlements graded by facilities e.g. doctors’ surgeries, schools, shops, public transport etc. Sidlesham was considered to be two settlements areas north and south, graded 37 and 31 out of the 49 District settlements, therefore very unlikely to be developed. Parish Councils and electors of a parish have influence on the LDF content through consultation questionnaires, Village Design Statements (how it is) and Parish Plans (how it will be) etc The final stages of the Sidlesham VDS is in hand. Shortly after the Sidlesham VDS was started in 2002 the PP system was developed. Both must be authorised and approved but not done by Parish Councils.

Consultations and concerns. During the year the PC had to deal with many local issues which concerned the people of Sidlesham e.g. illegal development in Chalk Lane, kennels in Fletchers Lane, Tetra mast at Bakers Farm, A27 junction changes, B2145 route management study for new signage and markings, recreation ground problems, etc.

For all functions of the Parish Council it was important to communicate with the people of Sidlesham, to assist with this in our very wide-spread parish in addition to the existing three notice boards three new ones would be installed this spring; at the school lay-by, by the post box at the petrol filling station and outside the Church Hall.

3. Presentations
The Chairman invited repetitive of the various parish organisations / groups to speak to the meeting for a timed five minutes each.

1. Sidlesham School, Mr Steve Rackstraw (head teacher). The school is a present safe from closure with a roll of 132 children aged from 4y 9m to 11 years old (65 boys, 67 girls) and play groups for younger ones. 45% (59) of the children live in Sidlesham, others are from Selsey (26), Hunston (7), Bracklesham / Wittering (32) and ‘others’ (8). There are 8 spaces of which 7 are in the 6-year-old group.
The school population indicates changes in the area. In 1988 half of the children lived on the smallholdings, now it is very few. Then the budget was £5000 now it is £500,000 but with many more responsibilities. The staff has increased to 18 from 6 but the head still manages to teach. The ethos of the school is to develop respectfulness and politeness in the children, that they should always do their best even without reward.
£50,000 is to be spent on the school but the now disused schoolhouse is a West Sussex County Council responsibility. The Parent Teachers Association is very strong, holds very successful fetes and supports the school very well. Next year 75% of the new intake of children will be from Sidlesham.

2. Sidlesham Women’s Institute. Mrs Margaret Roop. It is an increasingly strong organisation. This year is the 90th Anniversary of the WI; there are 135 in West Sussex and 3000 in the UK. The first WI in the UK was founded in Singleton in 1915.
In addition to the general objectives of the WI Mrs Roop spoke on the specific topical national issues where it is considered influence can be made; currently these include lobbying manufacturers to reduce wasteful packaging of food, and the ridiculously low milk prices paid to farmers.

3. Farming in Sidlesham. Mr Chris Spiby. Farms to the east of the parish as a tenant of the Church Commissioners, he is the third generation on the farm. A recent survey of children’s’ views concluded that farms were smelly and farmers were grumpy and scruffy. This may be true but farmers were very aware of the environmental issues. From his dairy herd (the last on the Manhood) some smell was produced, but when the ‘organic material’ was applied to the land it had by law to be incorporated within 24 hours which helps keep down any smell. ‘Grumpy’ the weather and finance were probably just cause. Wheat sale price was now £65 / tonne, down from £120. Milk, as referred to by the WI, now sold for 18p/l but the super markets sell it for 50p/l or more. The UK has the lowest farm gate prices in Europe. ‘Scruffy’, this was left to the audience’s opinion.
Diversification was a necessity. In Sidlesham hops, camomile and roses were some of the more unusual crops. Mr Spiby had tried organic farming but it was not profitable, therefore his flirtation with it was over. However, he was very keen on environmental issues, he farmed next to the Pagham Harbour Nature Reserve and followed the practice of 6m field margins etc for wild life.

4. Sidlesham Against TETRA. Mr David Barron reported that Airwave had won the appeal against
the District Council planning refusal for the construction of a TETRA communication mast at Bakers Farm. From the original informal appeal it was elevated to a public inquiry where costs can be levied. SAT was able to put it’s own case therefore fund raising activities were necessary. The DC officers recommended that the mast should be permitted but the Southern Area Committee of elected members refused permission. At the inquiry expert witnesses had to be produced by SAT who argued that the government guidance was not adequate. After the close of the inquiry Airwaves put in more evidence, which lengthened the proceedings. The examiner made his decision finding against CDC who must pay all costs. The decision is that the District Councillors of the committee behaved unreasonably. It is not known whether CDC will appeal. However, SAT will go no further, there is no more money. Mr Barron thanked SAT supporters for their help.

5. Pagham Harbour Local Nature Reserve. Mr Ivan Lang (conservation warden) made an
illustrated report on current projects.
1. Slipe Field was ploughed to increase plants to produce winter food for seed eating birds. This project was in its second year and increases were seen in seeds and insects.
2. Tern Island. Two issues are the plant community and bird nesting on the open shingle. It is hoped to attract Little Terns and Ringed Plovers, decoys have been put out. Plants to be nurtured are Sea Kale and the rare Chilled Pink.
3. Woodland. At Norton Priory sycamore trees are a problem, these are being cleared in favour of oak trees. Clearance will continue next winter. The area is to be protected from rabbits to allow regeneration of oaks. The cut wood will produce increased populations of invertebrates, nine nest boxes were installed, 4 were colonised by blue tits, and squirrels raided two boxes.

6. Youth Club. Mrs Gloria Jupp addressed the meeting. Sidlesham YC is in its 12 year. Meetings
are every Friday evening during term time. Thirty-seven members attended a BBQ in the vicarage garden. All youth clubs must now be affiliated to WSCC; all helpers have to be checked. At the stat of the YC there were 8 helpers, now all parents help once per term. There are 50 members representing 40 families. Activities include, football, darts, snooker, computers etc. Also night walks and canoeing. Music and drama are popular but help is need in these areas.

7. Sidlesham Traffic Action Group. Adrian Lochhead addressed the meeting. STAG is principally
concerned with the B2145 and the B2201. It was formed in March 2004 and meets every two months. Problem is the ever-increasing traffic to and from the growing town of Selsey along the only service road and through Sidlesham. STAG has formed itself to gather information, to assess environmental impact. STAG does not want to be confrontational; it has no power and must liase with the Parish Council. One suggest idea is to have village ‘gates’ to give the feeling for motorists that they are entering a village when they may lift off 5mph.

8. Sidlesham Parochial Church Council. Rev. Allan Jenkins spoke to the meeting on
responsibilities. First his own as half time in Chichester and half as the Priest in Charge of Sidlesham.
Rev Jenkins said there was some confusion about the PCC responsibilities e.g. it looked after the Church and church activities but not the glebe or vicarage. Other confusions were between the civil parish (PC) and the ecclesiastical (PCC), originally they were the same thing.
As the established church it had the right to marry and bury people etc. Sidlesham Church is 800 years old and gives continuity with the past. It brings people of Sidlesham together e.g. the fete, choir, hall activities for mothers and toddlers etc. The newcomer’s party caters for bringing into the community the annual 50 or so ‘new’ parishioners. The PCC receives reports on national debates and is concerned with local issues e.g. the opening of the south door for disabled access to the church. Another local issue is the SUSTRANS proposal that a cycle track should go through the churchyard. This is to be debated as is the finance implications of compulsory retirement of clergy at 70.

9. Sports Hall. Brian Kennedy reported that the hall was an asset for Sidlesham. The removal of
the redundant toilet block enabled the development of the sports hall and community room. The Sports Hall was primarily for use by the school and at other times by the community. Badminton and carpet bowls groups were regular users. Groups or individuals could hire the hall at £10 per hour; contact should be through the school office. The Sports Hall is probably the best on the peninsula.

10. District Council. Sidlesham and Hunston elected representative Mrs Diana Pound addressed the
meeting. Mrs Pound reported that she was on the District Council Development Control Committee. Contentious or high profile planning applications are referred to this committee rather than being decided by DC Officers if a Parish Council or several individuals file objections. Mrs Pound also spoke on her personal wish to see ‘affordable’ housing developments in Sidlesham on ‘exception sites’ and urged people to sign on to the Martlet housing list, already there were 29 entries giving our parish as their second or third choice for residence.

11. County Council. Sidlesham now forms part of ‘South Chichester’. Mr Alan Chaplin the recently
elected councillor for the ward spoke to the meeting. He is also a District Councillor and a non executive director of Martlet Homes and would be on the soon to be formed County Local Committee proposed by the County Council to help parishes liase directly with WSCC. Mr Chaplin spoke briefly on three issues:- 1. Roads. Mr Chaplin said he was getting acquainted with the concerns about the B2145, also the A27, although he did not expect any announcement on the latter from the WSCC until the end of the year. 2. Affordable / social housing. Market pressures made housing in the south ridiculously expensive. Social and ‘affordable housing’ was now the starting point for everyone not just key workers. 3. Crime Reduction Partnerships. For this the CC was confronting the problem and was achieving success.

Mr Bond then thanked all the speakers and asked that they be available to answer questions that may arise in the ‘General Discussion’ part of the meeting to follow a tea and coffee break.

4. General Discussion.
Approximately 25 electors stayed on for this session.

Q1. “Does Mr Chaplin have a conflict of interest over affordable housing being a District Councillor, a County Councillor and a director of Martlet Homes?” Mr Chaplin replies “no”, that the board was comprised of 5 District Councillors, 5 Business directors and 5 tenants.

Q2. “Last Parish Meeting it was suggested that the Parish Council should publish in the Church Magazine and have a Web site, what was the progress?” Answer that the magazine submission deadline being a long time before publication date made announcements of meetings and writing about topical issues difficult. No progress had been made on a website as it was stated last year that possibly the ‘sidlesham.org’ site could be taken over by the PC when the Village Design Statement finished with the site at publication. However, the three new notice boards and the three existing boards would make in much easier for people to make themselves aware of Parish Council matters.

Q3. Concern was expressed that social housing building designs were always so similar, were very obviously social housing and were not harmonious with the towns and villages. Mr Chaplin replies that those built in the fifties were draftsman designed now they are architect designed and often to a higher standard than private developments, e.g. those on the estate near to St Peters church in Selsey; if any were built in Sidlesham they would have to be harmonious and integrated with the existing houses.

Discussion items followed but without solutions:- What use could be made of the recreation ground; how could the recreation ground be improved ; the Social / Football clubhouse was way past its best and looks terrible, needs money spending on it; Swings etc needed for children somewhere in Sidlesham; swap the recreation ground for another field in a better situation:

At this juncture Mr Bond brought the meeting to a close after again thanking the presenters, also those who discussed questions and answers, but last and by very much no means least he thanked the ladies of the WI for providing refreshments.

The meeting closed at 9.35pm
Sidlesham Parish Council Parish Meeting 25 May 2005

1

Minutes of the Annual Parish Meeting

Held in the Church Hall, Sidlesham on Wednesday 26 May 2004 at 7:00 p.m.

Councillors present: Mr Chris Bond (Chairman), Mrs Debbie Kennedy (Vice-chairman),
Mrs Elizabeth Duke, Mrs Diana Pound, Mr Adrian Harland, Dr Trevor Dobbins.
Also present: Sixty Sidlesham Electors, Mr Peter Jones (County Councillor) and Mr John Paul (Parish Clerk)

Chris Bond opened the proceedings by welcoming all present to the meeting.

1. Minutes of the Annual Parish Meeting held on Wednesday 28 May 2003.
These were proposed by Mrs D Kennedy seconded by Mr A Harland and agreed by those present as being a true record to be signed by the Chairman.

2. Report of the past year by Mr C Bond (Chairman).
Mr Bond introduced all councillors individually to the electors and thanked all for their time and the effort put in during the past year.
He explained that the Parish Council was a statutory body and in representing the electors was bound within regulations and rules of conduct. Although many present knew much of the PC work others may not, therefore it was worthwhile briefly to explain the PC year.
The current meeting was the Annual Parish Meeting, always held in May for public discussion and participation of any matters to do with Sidlesham Civic Parish; it was not a meeting of the Parish Council.
Sidlesham Parish Council met in general session bi-monthly i.e. six times per year, in May the meeting (held this year on 19 May) being the AGM when councillors elected officers for the coming year. The PC also organised a Planning Committee and a Finance Committee that met as needed. Parish Council general and planning meetings were held in open session, members of the public could always attend to observe the meetings but not participate in the discussions unless invited by the PC. Agenda for these meetings were always published in advance on the PC notice boards in various parts of the Parish. Minutes of all open meeting were available to the public.
Other sub-committees / focus groups were organised as needed.

Finance Committee Main function was to consider and set the Precept for Sidlesham. The 2004/05 precept was set at £9,800, a reduction of 11% from last year when the Parish Council contributed towards the Sports Hall at the village school.

Planning Committee All members of the Parish Council may sit on this committee. During the last twelve months 58 applications were received for examination, to meet the timetable for replies to the District Council this necessitated a meeting almost every two weeks. When the Parish Council’s opinions of applications was compared with the District Council’s decisions a high correlation of opinions appeared.

Parish Council Assets
-Recreation Ground, the Sidlesham Sports and Social Club use this.
-Bus shelters, there are four in Sidlesham, including a new replacement one at Sidlesham Common.
-Ponds. During the past year Monica Lucas volunteered to be the Pond Warden, she sent her apologies for non-attendance at this meeting as it coincided with a training event.
-Footpaths and Land. E.g. Beggars Lane and Highleigh Pound.

Liaison. To put forward views and receive information representative Parish Councillors attended many outside meetings, i.e. Peninsular Community Forum (bi-monthly), Chichester Association of Local Councils (quarterly), Campaign to Protect Rural England (various e.g. roads, planning etc), District and County Council meetings (for training, planning, funding etc).

Issues. The Parish Council has a responsibility to represent the views and concerns of villagers. In the past year there were many significant items requiring a lot of effort.
FP102 This important footpath is along the north edge of the sea wall of Pagham Harbour leading from Sidlesham to Pagham. A minor breach occurred to the earth wall in October 2001, cutting through the path. The FP was closed for emergency repairs in January 2002. Since then the chronicle of events was: – Further closure notices issued in March 02, September 02, March 03, September 03. No repairs were made.
August 03- permissive FP by Environment Agency and WSCC well back from the harbour edge through a field.
October 03- Parish Council meeting with WSCC and ongoing communications since
April 04- PC site meeting with WSCC. Options put forward by WSCC were, bridge the gap or hard path at sea level. Both were objected to by the Environmental Agency and English Nature necessitating an ‘environmental impact assessment’ at a cost to the WSCC of £4000. Results are awaited. The Parish Council is determined that the FP must be reinstated. Indicating a thick file the chairman gave many thanks to Malcolm Davies-White for his tireless legal input to this issue during the year.
Pagham Harbour Local Nature Reserve
The reserve covers 20% of the area of Sidlesham Parish. The PC and many villagers have been concerned for some time that the Parish had no representation on the management.
During the year a ‘byelaw enforcement officer’ was appointed and subsequently a furore was caused in Sidlesham and Pagham by his aggressive approach to dog walkers (sometimes prompted by visiting bird watchers), leading to a prosecution.
Negotiations led to positive action in the setting up of an advisory board composed of 23 people including a representative of each Parish Council. (Chris Bond for Sidlesham). At the first meeting a proposed zoning system of dogs off lead on some paths was put forward. No decision yet but again the Parish Council do not intend that the subject should be forgotten.
TETRA
This is a new system of microwave radio communication for the Emergency Services to be installed over the whole country. In May 03 planning notification was issued for the erection of a 15m monopole mast at Bakers Farm. The Parish Council followed guidance and could not object to a ‘permitted development’ of a telephone mast under 15m. There were no major problems of appearance, materials or site.
However, many people had concerns that mobile phone masts pose a health risk, particularly at the wavelength transmitted for TETRA. This led to the formation of an action group by local people.
After consideration of this perceived health risk the District Council refused planning permission. The Parish Council supported the District Council. The installers of the system lodged an appeal that is to be heard as an inquiry by the Planning Inspectorate in September 2004. (Item below)
Highleigh Sewerage.
Following representation from residents the PC called a public meeting on 24 March that was attended by Southern Water and Water Voice. The problem to be addressed was surcharging in the sewers (total back-up due to ingress of rain water) during winter conditions. Many houses in Highleigh are then unable to discharge into the system for days. This had occurred every winter since installation in 1987 with 54 incidents since 1995.
The public meeting conclusions were: – Southern Water had no capital funds available due to OFWAT restrictions until the 2005 / 2010 period. Further surveys would be done during future problem times.
To maintain pressure on Southern Water all incidents must be reported immediately to Water Voice by every affected household individually not collectively.
Doctors Surgery.
The long established Sidlesham branch service from the East Wittering Practice closed in March following notification in January. In an attempt to maintain a village surgery the Sidlesham WI together with the Parish Council made representation to the National Health Service and a meeting was held in April with the Primary Care Trust. The reasons for closure were given as a combination of factors; – the new GP contract requirements, the necessity for 20 hours opening per week, two staff must be present. Also for the surgery in the football club much modification would be necessary to meet the Disability Discrimination Act also to meet requirements of the Health and Safety Regulations.
The conclusion was that no justification could be made by the attendance figures of 300 patient visits per year (i.e. 3 to 10 per twice weekly two hour surgery). (Item later)
B2145
This ‘curse’ of the village appears in some form on almost every PC meeting agenda. The most radical suggestion was a County Council proposal in 1971 for a By Pass, subsequently abandoned due to lack of funds.
In a further attempt to stimulate solutions to the traffic problems an action group was formed recently. Also the Parish Council was in communication with the WSCC Highways Department. (Item later).
Good Things in 2004
* The Sports Hall was commissioned and put to good use.
* A new bus service started across the Manhood Peninsular.
* Sidlesham qualified for BT Broadband.
* Natures Way gave a no-strings donation for the village environment of £1000.

3. Village Design Statement.
Mrs Pound gave an update of the project. A display stand of the project was on view in the hall. A major item in the Statement will be an evaluation of the housing in Sidlesham. This required special input, as the Parish did not have an overriding scheme e.g. thatch. Financial support for the publication of the Statement was being sought from the District and County Councils.

5. Open forum
.1 Parish Litter Pick. Mrs Kennedy opened the discussion. This annual PC organised event had run into problems. The District Council had issued a document detailing the regulation covering a litter pick that a Parish Council must follow. Although Sidlesham does now have the correct public liability insurance of £10m the requirements to train parishioners, supervise them on the roads, stop children assisting, have cones, yellow vests, flashing lights etc etc meant that an organised pick would not take place. This did not stop public-spirited parishioners collecting litter of their own volition. The Clerk had litter-picking implements if anyone wished to borrow one and could obtain yellow reflective vests, official polythene bags etc.

.2 TETRA masts. Mrs Vivian Barron spoke about the action group Sidlesham Against TETRA informing the meeting about the Public Inquiry against planning refusal scheduled to take place in Chichester on 24 September 2004. That the government backed system represented a £2.9 billion pound contract to Airwave O2 and that with so much at stake the Airwave were expected to appeal strongly against the refusal, that maintaining refusal in Sidlesham was important for the campaign to stop TETRA throughout the UK. The SAT group required funds to finance legal assistance to maintain their support of the refusal, the sum they needed was £25,000. Mrs Barron appealed for donations.
From the floor the suggestion was made that the SAT group should contact Radiation Research for backing. Mr Harland urged the action group to coordinate with other TETRA action groups. Another elector asked how the SAT organisation was constituted. The answer was privately not as a charity but with separate bank account.

.3 B2145. The Sidlesham Road Safety Action Group was formed during the year, separate from the Parish Council and composed of concerned residents.
Mr Bond started this discussion by outlining the problem of this overcrowded road that bisected the Parish. He informed the meeting of the outcome of the Parish Council sub-committee discussion with WSCC Highways manager, Mr Steve Johnson, when questions from the Parish were put forward. Detailed notes of the PC/WSCC meeting were already with the SRSAG.
The proposal to re-align the Anchor bends made in 1998 was not agreed and now is not in the WSCC suggested schemes or budget.
The B2145 through Sidlesham already met all calculations and no changes to speed limits or white lining were possible within current National Statutory Regulations.
Some traffic calming measures were possible and Mr Johnson had agreed to implement these during the summer of 2004 (verge marker posts, red road surface markings, white line renewal etc).
May 2004 ‘Village gates’ was a suggestion put forward to draw motorists’ attention to the start of the village. A drawing by Mrs M Grice of such a structure was on display. This was received by the meeting to be an idea worth pursuing by the Parish Council.
Michael Alisstone (Chairman of SRSAG) addressed the meeting. He stated that the group wanted to work on behalf of everyone in the village and that Mrs Corina Hall was the point of contact. He understood the issues of compliance with National Regulations but the group would explore what flexibility there was in the rules. The group knew there were no instant answers but asked that their endeavours should receive the support and interest of everyone.
Residents of Gorse Terrace asked that their road problems (B2201) should be considered with the B2145. Northbound traffic leaving the B2145 at speed at an acute angle off the slip road accelerated past Gorse Terrace at even greater speed.
Mr Colin Field stated that although there was still many problems with the B2145 traffic he considered the road to be safer now than only a few years ago, traffic was slower, the road was better marked and there was a footway. Traffic volume was now the main problem.
Richard Hill of CPRE stated that reduction of traffic should be the aim. That there was no incentive to take a bus to Chichester for the current bus fare of three times car parking cost in Chichester.
County Councillor Peter Jones informed the meeting that the B2145 has been a regular subject at WSCC for the seven years he has served. Unfortunately large sums of money were not available although there was within the CC continued examination and pressure for better marking, better signage (including electronic).
A question from the floor asked Mr Jones why planning permission for Selsey development was not refused because of the B2145. Mr Jones said that until three years ago traffic could only be taken into account for two junctions away from a development. The law has now changed and all new development has to submit to a ‘Traffic Impact Study’.

.4 Sidlesham Doctors Surgery. As outlined in the chairman’s report this was now closed. Mrs Liz Smart said transport now became the major issue for people to get to a surgery. The new bus service to Wittering was a help and a number of people used it (this was confirmed by agreement from the floor). Further enquiries were being made about assistance with transport e.g. through the Rural Business Trust. Mrs Smart also appealed for people to help their neighbours.

.5 Parish Council notice boards. Many present did not know where the three were (next to Manhood Lane PB, Highleigh Road PB and on the corner of Lockgate Road / Selsey Road). The meeting agreed that the notice boards were in positions more suitable to be seen by pedestrians although the majority of people now move around in cars, therefore positions where they get out need to be considered if notices are to be read.
Site suggestions were made for new notice boards: -
* Outside the Church Hall.
* At the Paddock Service Station.
* Outside Sidlesham School.
It was proposed also that better PC/community communications could be achieved by: -
* Regular entries in the Parish magazine (which it was stated would be welcomed by the vicar).
* The creation of a Parish Council or village website (one was initiated as part of the Design Statement project; but had not been progressed.

Mr Bond, before closing the meeting, thanked everyone for their attendance and for their contributions and discussion. He also thanked the WI for providing refreshments.

The meeting closed at 9:20p.m.
Sidlesham Parish Council Parish Meeting 26 May 2004

Minutes of the Annual Parish Meeting

Held in the Church Hall, Sidlesham on Wednesday 28 May 2003 at 7:00 p.m.

Councillors present: Mr Christopher Bond (Chairman),
Mrs Elizabeth Duke, Mrs Moira Grice, Mr Adrian Harland, Mrs Debbie Kennedy,
Mrs Diana Pound, Mrs Tricia Tull.
Also present: Twenty-four Sidlesham Electors and Mr John Paul (Parish Clerk)

Chris Bond opened the meeting by welcoming all present to the meeting. He introduced himself, the newly elected and re-elected Parish Councillors and the newly appointed Parish Clerk. He also gave sincere thanks to Debbie Kennedy for her work as the previous chairman, similarly he thanked Jill Richards, Colin Field and Chris Spiby for their years of service to Sidlesham and the Parish Council.

1. Minutes of the Annual Parish Meeting held on Wednesday 22 May 2002. These were proposed by Mrs T Tull seconded by Mr A Harland and agreed by those present as being a true record to be signed by the Chairman.

2. Report of the past year by Mr C Bond (Chairman).
Planning A main function of the Parish Council during the past year was planning. The PC is the first stage in the process within the Local Development Plan. During the last twelve months 65 applications were received from the Chichester District Council Planning Department for examination. The role of the PC was to reply to the Chichester District Council either to offer no objection, or to support, or to object with reasons. Based on for example, “out of character”, “impinges on neighbour”, “extension too large for footprint”, “access difficulties” etc.
Of the 65 applications 36 were not objected to, 26 were objected to and three are current. The District planners similarly permitted 36, but not always the same ones! The PC will examine where the differences of opinion were.

The majority of planning cases were complied with but there are two currently in dispute with need for the attention of the District Planning enforcement officer.

Sports Hall the Chairman spoke with enthusiasm about this project. (Reported in detail later by Mr Brian Kennedy). The hall was within days of completion and was the culmination of five years work by the school governing body, mainly searching for funding. The Chairman proposed a vote of thanks to the Governors’ sub committee for all their time and effort. The subcommittee was composed of Mr Steve Rackshaw (Headmaster), Mr Adrian Harland (Chairman of Governors),
Mrs Chris Morris (Former Chairman), Mr Paul Bedford and Mr Brian Kennedy (PC nominated Governor). Those present supported the proposal by acclaim.

Financial The Parish Council contributed £5,000 towards the Sports Hall. This accounted for the majority of the increase in the Precept for 2003 from £8000 to £11000, together with the changeover of Clerk and election costs. It was unfortunate that the village precept increase coincided with a Council Tax increase of 18.6% although the precept represents only 2.7% of that.

Queens Golden Jubilee Celebrations The PC contributed some funds and organisational help.
* Mill site. Three ladies of Sidlesham, Mrs Cynthia Richards, Mrs Hannah Wright and Dame Jennifer Wilson-Barnet officially declared the very attractive seat overlooking the harbour in use.
* Mason’s Field. Fun and games village style added a different type of celebration.
Both of these events were recorded as photographs by Mrs Moira Grice and will be kept with other similar records.

Village Design Statement. This was initiated at last years Parish Meeting with a talk and video from the Sussex Rural Communities Council, the PC then organised a follow up meeting, which was poorly attended, but an interim committee was formed with Diana Pound as chairman. The committee considered the project and held an inaugural meeting, this meeting was well attended and the project was launched. (See Mrs Diana Pound’s report below)

Vibrant Villages. During the year there was a national and parliamentary furore after the Department of Food and Rural Affairs published a Rural White Paper based on an Environmental Agency classification of rural parishes as vibrant, active, barely active, sleeping.
These results were based on a questionnaire, received from Parish Clerks and other responders, using the criteria of: – is there a village hall? Pub? any local traditions?, contested PC elections? Etc. Sleeping villages were where no reply was received.
Sidlesham was, of course, ‘vibrant’.

Other matters the PC engaged in;-

Footpaths (these are identified by numbers)
FP102 along the northern edge of the harbour. This was breached by the sea in October 2001 and closed in January 2002 for urgent work. It is still closed and likely to remain so until the disagreement is resolved between West Sussex County Council (who wish to repair the FP) and the Environmental Agency who wish to implement managed retreat. Possibly there will have to be at a Public Inquiry.
FP61 (Watery Lane) application to change the character of this path by surfacing with crushed concrete was objected to by the PC and refused by the CDC.
FP101 unsuitable gates, the new owner replaced them with rural barred gates.

Playground /Football Club
There have been reports by of hooliganism and antisocial joy riding of cars at the ground by non-Sidlesham youths. Discussion with the Police in the mobile station produced the suggestion of a gate. This continuing challenge may need some form of barrier and CCTV etc.

School House at Sidlesham School.
This has become an empty, boarded up, eyesore. The PC is pressing the WSCC for resolution to make the house suitable for reoccupation or to demolish it and use the area for school improvement.

Lockgate Road junction.
With the central island this is now too tight for the very large lorries coming into Sidlesham. A neighbouring garden wall and the central lighting has been repeatedly damaged. The PC has an ongoing dialogue with the Highway Authority but has made little progress so far.

Speed Limits have been established throughout the village. (Topic for the open forum later in the meeting).

Consultation process
In the past year the PC was consulted on or invited to participate in the following.

West Sussex Structure Plan (2001-2016) WSCC
South Downs National Park Designation Order EA
Manhood Parishes Community Forum CDC
County Electoral Boundaries Review Boundary Commission
Electronic Government Project CDC
Area 461, Median Deep Application DTLR
Strategy for Gypsies & Travellers in West Sussex WSCC
Chichester Police Community Forum (disbanded October 2002 without consultation)
Freedom of Information Act 2000 Publication Schemes
Draft Social Inclusion Strategy CDC
Manhood Cycle Network
West Sussex Cultural Strategy Consultation Draft WSCC
Chichester Parishes South Community Forum CDC
Proposed Alterations to Regional Planning Guidance SEERA (non elected body)
South East – Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy
- Tourism & Related Sport & Recreation

3. Sidlesham School Sports Hall report By Mr Brian Kennedy
Five years ago six people attended an inaugural meeting to consider what to do. Funding was the main concern with Lottery money the main target. At the school there was the land already and the school was in great need of facilities. On the proposed land was the old disused outside toilets, some store sheds and a dining hut long past its best.
Arguments for the sports hall were that it could be used during the school days by the children and then let for evenings, weekends and holidays to generate income.
The Government set up a New Opportunity Fund with particular emphasis for rural areas, therefore there should be a link between schools and parishes.
Over the next months / years paper was generated on the hall scheme. The NOF looked at proposals using its criteria and become interested in 30 top projects, Sidlesham was one of these. A local Emsworth Company produced plans. Other criteria were added as the WSCC had to be satisfied as the project also included an office for the school. This great need was satisfied and further money obtained from the County. The lottery fund also stipulated badminton capability, hence the height of the hall. The exciting stage of tender requests resulted in the first five being much too expensive, therefore out to more companies and finally one agreed to at £364,000 (a Hull company). They stated groundwork just before Christmas 2002, footings were in January 2003 and by mid June 2003 all is expected to be completed. The hall structure has very good insulation, has minimum maintenance requirements. There are changing rooms, full disability facilities and in addition has a community room.
The hall will be administered through the school office for bookings probably on a key holder basis.
Mr Kennedy’s presentation generated excitement for the new hall and after he concluded he was thanked warmly by the all present.

4 Village Design Statement
Mrs Pound gave an update of the project. The proposed document has been described as three divisions; the village as it was, as it is and as we want it to be. The second meeting previously referred to in the Chairman’s address established the topics of the project and formed teams each with a leader for the topics.
The Village Design Statement will cover roads, schools, footpaths, cycle ways, children’s’ needs etc. Also housing, not just planning, with a purpose to alert the District Council and be lodged with them as a supplemental planning guide. A draft document from the teams is planned by the end of May 2003.
A questionnaire proposed for the village was abandoned, as a trial of a small area produced a very poor response.
The project has consulted an architect at no cost who has agreed to look at the first draft.
Further inputs are wanted for example from the school as an area of future importance.
The design statement has established a web site www.sidlesham.org .uk.
The overall plan is to have the Design statement finished by the end of 2003.

5. Open forum
Items for discussion were invited from all present.

5.1 Main drainage. “Is there any proposal from the authorities to put in main drainage to residences currently without this amenity ?”
There was no information on this topic and the Clerk agreed to write to Southern Water to ask.

5.2 Grass cutting. “Who is responsible as many areas of the village have not been cut for some time?”
It was explained that most was the responsibility of West Sussex County Council, Chichester District Council did some and a few small areas were organised by the Parish Council. All the cutting was carried out by contractors and most were currently running late.
A major area of concern was the verge along the B2145 from the end of Mill Lane to Bird Pond. This grass verge was used by pedestrians as a footway but was so overgrown many walked in the roadway, a very dangerous place. This verge has the appearance of being outside the village and is only cut by WSCC infrequently. The Clerk agreed to take this up with WSCC.

5.3 Village precept (£11,000). “Should this be increased further to enable the Parish Council to carry out more works for the benefit of the village?”
A general discussion ensued with several points made. At 2.9% of Council Tax the Precept represented a very small tax, of the 67 parishes in the CDC area seven had no precept, 25 were lower than Sidlesham and 35 were greater. The precept is the only tax guaranteed to be spent on the village. Footpaths could be cleared more than once per year.
A vote produced 50% in favour 50% against.

5.4 Village gates. As Sidlesham is a very spread out village it was suggested that roadside structures to represent gates on entry to the village (similar to Chiddingfold) would impart a look and feeling of a cared for, tidy finite community. The meeting consensus was that it was a good idea to be left with the Parish Council to examine.

5.5 Football field / recreation area. “There is a problem of young drivers entering this parish owned area causing problems of noise and hooligans. What is the Parish Council doing about it?”
It was explained that contact had already been made with the Police who advised gating the entrance. This was not thought to be an ideal solution therefore the PC would make further contact with the Police to seek a solution.
The PC was criticised for not informing the village what it was doing. It was suggested that more information could be put in the Church magazine, or a PC newsletter could be produced.

5.6 New speed limits over the Manhood peninsular. These have now been in place for several months. The question was put to the meeting asking for opinions. Several people thought there was some beneficial effects and that the trial was worthwhile. The varying limits for different areas was thought to be detrimental to the scheme, that uniform speed would be easier to observe. It was suggested that one way of enforcing the limits would be that all villagers observe them, ensuring that all behind had to.

5.7 Broadband. A plea was made that all parishioners wanting this internet service should sign on with the providers. A difficulty was voiced that only where 350 users were signed on within a 5km radius of a telephone exchange would British Telecommunications consider installing the service. With only 400+ households in the whole of Sidlesham it indicated a poor chance at present.

The meeting closed at 9:15p.m.

Sidlesham Parish Council Parish Meeting 28 May 2003

]