Who owns the land?

I was struck by a comment by Town Cllr Barry Chapman. On the St Neots Community Forum Cllr Chapman pointed out the following:

"As for comments about whether it is the church car park or not - I refer to "my street" it doesn't imply I think I own it!"

How true this is. I also refer to the street where I live as my street. I do try to take care of my street. I report problems like abandoned cars and street lights out. Whilst I want my environment to be good referring to the street I live in as my street doesn't mean or imply I own it.

So what would imply that I either owned or controlled a property? Some examples:

If you saw this sign on a wall who do you think owns or controls this building? 

Answer: St Neots Town Council? And you would be right.

Another example:

If you saw the sign pictured below on fence who do you think would owns or controls the land?

Answer: St Neots Town Council? And you would be correct.

Last example.

If you saw this noticeboard in front of a car park who would you think owns or controls the land?

Answer: St Mary's Eaton Socon? Wrong! Diocese of St Albans? Wrong! or even the Church of England? Wrong! The correct answer is St Neots Town Council.

Having a large sign at the entrance to a piece of land implies to me that you own or control the land. Some Church users refer to this piece of land as the church car park. With this sign at the entrance I can see why they think so! Now the car park needs repair it changes from a church car park to a community car park which hard pressed council taxpayers is called on to pay for repairs.

Once the church car park issue is resolved I feel the church will still have this sign up implying it controls the car park.

Letter in the News and Crier 4/2/10

I'm commenting on letters in this weeks edition of the News and Crier. The letters are on Page 7.

No to car park charges - Cllr Bob Farrer has come out against the car parking charges at Riverside Car Park, St Neots. Conservative Cllr Farrer is saying that his colleagues have reneged on a previous decision to keep this Car Park free. Cllr Farrer also has a dig at the Conservatives colleagues on the set up of the Working Party. He feels the fact that a two members were married this is totally undemocratic?! This is somewhat at odds with a report which says: 3.1 The Working Party debated the proposals made and also received input from local Ward Members who attended the meeting. 

Cllr Farrer goes onto write: "Be assured, I, along with other local councillors, will not except (accept) that charges should be introduced to this car park."

The problem is how far is Councillor Farrer and his Conservative colleagues are willing to go. The question I have is if they are so against this are they going to vote against the budget at cabinet and/or Council.

In the second part of the letter Cllr Farrer goes on to attack the Liberal Democrats Town Council for not taking on the Public Conveniences. The Conservative controlled HDC tried to dump this service on the Town Council after reneging on a decision to keep this service. Cllr Farrer should be having another go at his Conservative colleagues about stopping this service rather than blaming the Liberal Democrats.

Don't stop church parking - Linda Walton writes: "I would like to say I have never used the library, the fire service, the police helicopter - I could go on - but I am paying tax too!"

None of which are services paid for by the Town Council. These services are there for the benefit of the whole community provided by public authorities as all public services are. The Church is not a public service. The church wants this car park and wants the taxpayer to fund this. Whilst I have seen many emotional reasons for the Council Taxpayer pouring money into a new car park, I don't see a case being made for taxpayer cash to prop up this church.

Biggest ward, smallest share - This letter is about the politics of envy which always costs the taxpayer loads of money. Rather than being between the envy of St Neots and Huntingdon we have the envy between The Eatons and Eynesbury. One further thought on Eynesbury Hardwicke. They paid little or zero council tax to their Parish Council. The question should not be aimed at SNTC but to the annexed residents as to why they didn't build these facilities under their old regime.

Letters in the Hunts Post 03/02/10

I have some comments on letters in this edition of the Hunts Post. These are:

Website costs will be clear - Cllr Jonathan Gray starts talking about the new website. I agree with him that the website needs to change. But my gripe with the new website has been the number of errors I found wherever I looked. These problems are still happening. After requesting some information from HDC I was told the following:

"Ordinarily this would have appeared on our website, but we are unfortunately experiencing some problems with uploading new information."

Secrecy seems to be the order of the day in HDC. As Cllr Gray says: "I authorised this information to be passed to him". So why does Cllr Gray need to authorise another District Councillor to see this information which should be made public?

What grounds? - Another letter having a go at the Town Council over the Church Car Park on the village green at Eaton Socon. Whilst I do feel the use of Health and Safety was over the top in relation to the stopping of the car parking, I feel the church should pay for the car park. Nigel Appleton poses this question: 

"Is this the same council that shamefully neglected to grit the completely iced over and steep exit ramp from the Riverside Car Park during the recent bad weather?". The simple answer is NO! 

The long answer is this is a car park owned by HDC and is therefore it is HDC responsibility and NOT the Town Council. Nigel should look at the car park signs before BLAMING the WRONG COUNCIL.

Invest Wisely - I see that Rosemary Cockrill has started the internal them (Eaton Socon/Ford) and us (Eynesbury) dispute. Eaton Ford gets a community centre so Eynesbury has to have a Community Centre. This is the politics of envy. Looking at the ECC there seems to be little demand for this community centre. Eynesbury would have the same problems. I don't hear of any real demand for a centre. The politics of envy invariably costs the council taxpayer money as unnecessary buildings are built and services are provided.

Letters in the News and Crier 27/01/10

Rather than doing a separate piece on each letter so I thought I would lump all I want to comment on into one article. Link to the ever excellent News and Crier.

Outrage at candidate's 'offensive remarks' - This blog started this story and the News and Crier picked this up. Bill Sinclair is right. Though whether this is slanderous is a moot point. James Clark should read the original article before firing off a letter.

Community should pay - Malcolm McColl is right to say Tesco should be asked for a contribution. The church pays the rest. As for Helen Cochrane's letter, I will repeat that it if the church wants this car park then the Church should pay. Has it got to be that everytime something is used by "the community" the taxpayer must then pick up the bill? I don't think so. Will Helen support all churches which have or want a car park get these paid for and maintained by the taxpayer? It is very easy to call for taxpayers to pick up the bill because there is no direct relationship. But one of the consequences doing something for the 'community' is in next letter.

Anger at £270k hole - St Ives Town Council is run by Independent Councillors. I think that is worth saying. The trouble is the Corn Exchange. These Independent Councillors were elected to stop the building being sold and set about refurbishing it for the 'community'. When Councils do things for the 'community' it cost money and Council tax goes up.
In answer to the letter, Parish and Town Councils are NOT included in the capping arrangements. In theory they could tax us more and more. My worry is that HDC, with all its financial problems, will look at what a Town/Parish can do and try to shift services and costs to the Towns and Parishes. This is what HDC did with the Public Conveniences.

Did they want a lap dog - A much better letter from Paul Dakers than the one printed in the Hunts Post. I can understand the frustration with the political process when you are at the bottom. The political parties/councillors/councils build up their respective roles. The reality is what Councils can do is restricted by law and many major decisions are taken by Government.
 The trouble with Cllr Monk is he is a political tramp. Started with the Conservatives, went Independent and has ended up in UKIP.  Probably not the end of his journey.

Fewer jobless than in 1992 - Labour Parliamentary candidate is again in the papers. This time with an outright political letter. What Anthea doesn't mention is the Government is likely to borrow in this current financial year at total of £180,000,000,000. That is scary! 

Letters in the Hunts Post 27/01/10

Rather than doing a separate piece on each letter so I thought I would lump all I want to comment on into one article. Link to Hunts Post.

It's time to make a stand - If all these people are using the church, why does the taxpayer have to pick up the bill for a church car park? Something that I feel the letter writer Mrs K Robertson missed.

Web of intrigue - Cllr Andy Monk's letter shows a fundamental misunderstanding of local government. In it he looks at trying to have a go at the Conservative run HDC over spending money on a new website. The Editor's note is good but doesn't go far enough.  When Monk says:

"Could not the extra money spent developing this site have been better used ensuring more roads in the district were gritted, or helping the elderly and others whose needs were great keep warm during this extended cold snap."

The simple answer is NO. As a UKIP District Councillor you should be able to come up with specific costed alternative proposals. But you didn't. This is just a very poor political attack against his former colleagues. Maybe the UKIP group leader should forego the extra £723 he gets for being a minor leader?

No change - Cllr Peter Bucknell has a go at Cllr Monk about becoming a UKIP Councillor. Whilst this wouldn't cost much money as there is an election in 2010 in Ramsey anyway, I have to say Cllr Monk was elected by the people of Ramsey and he is not bound to do so by political convention. Otherwise all those Councillors who defect from other parties to the Conservatives in other parts of the country would have to do the same.

Air of resignation - Paul Dakers has a go at his former colleagues over their response to his resignation. Well DUH! Politics moves on. You have resigned. That is it. I feel your resignation has embarrassed the Conservatives and HDC so they ain't going to send you letters of sympathy.

The trouble with letters to the weekly press is they can be out of date when printed. This is the case. As I reported in an article on this blog dated 21st January 2010 a by-election has been called in Fenstanton.
Obviously the Hunts Post is behind the times.

Whilst HDC has gotten round to editing Dakers out of its website the same can't be said for the Conservatives. As found on the HCCA website today!

Council Tax reduction is a ploy - Cllr Bird reiterates her problems with the Town Council budget for not having enough contingencies. But no proposals on how much these contingencies should be! I agree with Cllr Bird the newly annexed residents are paying for this cut in Council Tax. As for the ECC estimates, I do have a degree of agreement. But the budget is ONE BIG ESTIMATE. Full of small estimates.

Again, Cllr Bird blames the Liberal Democrats for closing the public loos when it is the Conservative run HDC that decided to do this. This is a dreadful misrepresentation.

As for Rodney Bird (her husband) weighing in accusing Hunts Post of being pro Liberal Democrats I feel this is wrong. I feel the Hunts Post is pro Djanogly/pro Conservative newspaper. That is probably why the Hunts Post publishes Cllr Bird's dreadful letter.

When does a church car park become a community car park?

Answer: When the church wants to the Town Council to pay for it!

In an article in this weeks Hunts Post, Richard De Fraine, a church council member is quoted as saying:

"I think it is incredibly short-sighted of the council to revert this space to village green all for the sake of a relatively small sum of money, in the scheme of things, which would allow it to be maintained as a community facility." snrednek says: If it is such a small amount of money for 'their'* car park why doesn't the church pay for this?

 "I am concerned for the young families who use the church in the week having to find alternative safe locations to load and unload their children." snrednek says: If you have such 'concerns' why didn't the church bring forward a plan to provide and pay for a car park.

"It is a well-used community car park, used by visitors to the village, the Tesco store and the church." snrednek says: In a previous article I showed the Church considered this unofficial car park as their own church car park. Obviously when it comes to paying for this it is a church car park until it has to be paid for.

"The council just seems to making its decision on costs alone and not looking at the long-term benefit to the community." snrednek says: But what of the Church? Isn't the Church looking at the cost rather than providing a car park  which would of a long term benefit to the church and maybe the community!

* In an earlier post I showed the church viewed the car park as their car park. http://snrednek.blogspot.com/2009/12/another-subsidy-for-church.html

More on Eaton Socon Church Car Park.

The Town Council decided on 6th January 2010 to stop parking on this area. This decision will mean the land will be returned to the village green. The area will be grassed over and access will be provided for the church which has a right of vehicle access.

But I still don't see why the Town Council (therefore the council taxpayer) is paying for all this? I can understand that the Town Council has been compliant in this "church car park". They have from time to time maintained this "Church Car Park". As I pointed out in a previous post the Church has a right of way over the village green. In exercising that right the Church has to reinstate the ground it uses. I don't see why the Council taxpayers have to foot the bill for users of this church to use of this "church car park".

At the Council meeting (6/1/10) the Conservative Town Councillors seemed to want to go for the grasscrete of option. This would have meant the a large cost for someone. Guess what? Most of the cost would fall on the Town Council!

Grasscrete blocks

There were some vague noises about asking Tesco for a contribution to the cost. But hold on my a minute. Where is the contribution from the church for something they consider as "their car park"? The Conservative Councillors have had months to come up with alternative proposals and costings.

I don't care whether this piece of land is a green or a car park. I just don't see why the burden has to fall on the Council taxpayer!

And they didn't discuss the budget!

So SNTC held a Special Council Meeting to discuss the two budget options. Our Town Councillors decided to defer this decision to a meeting on 6th January 2010. But why are they trying to get this budget passed so quickly? I don't know the answer to my question. SNTC doesn't have to pass the budget until late January 2010. There seems to me to be much confusion over amongst our Town Councillors over their budget process.

The Town Council also voted to defer the decision over providing a free car park for St Mary's Church, Eaton Socon. Apart from a decision to appoint a set of internal auditors, the Town Councillors decided not to take on the Public Toilets. The Conservative Group voted for taking on the toilets.

-----------------------------

As for the Council Meeting itself, in my opinion SNTC is running the wrong system. I have advocated, somewhere on the St Neots Community Forum, the Town Council changes the system to a properly delegated committee system. This has the advantage that the vast majority of decisions are taken at Committee level leaving Council Meetings as being rubber stamp meetings.

To me the Town Council seems to be modelled on Dibley Parish Council. This is where all decisions are taken at the Council Meeting. This model works well in a small village. In a large town this system doesn't work.

The budget process should be simple. It should be:

1. Officers produce a budget.
2. Officers and the ruling group leaders/committee chairmen discuss the budget and make changes.
3. The ruling group discuss the budget
4. The revised budget goes to the Leisure Committee and is issued to all Councillors.
5. The Opposition leadership is briefed by officers about the budget.
6. The budget is discussed at the Leisure Committee and an approved budget is sent to the Policy and Resources Committee.
7. The P and R Committee discusses the budget and approves the budget totals. This Committee makes a recommendation to Council on the Precept only.
8. The Council therefore has only to approve the Precept. That should take no more than 10 minutes.

At the last Policy and Resources meeting held on 18/11/09  the four Liberal Democrat Councillors that attended (the Conservatives felt it was that important they didn't attend) spent 3 hours and 30 minutes discussing a budget. Why?

The budget is a reflection of the policy decisions already taken and forthcoming policy decisions. Unless Councillors are going to change policies and cut staff there isn't much they can do the effect massive changes in the budget.

I said this was Council was being "Simply Complicated". After attending this meeting I stand by what I said. This Council seems dedicated to making the simple decisions thoroughly complicated.

Another subsidy for a Church?

On the Town Council draft budget for 2010/11 there is a sentence which says:

"There is no Provision in this budget for public toilets or the Eaton Socon Car Park"


So the Town Council is thinking about doing something to the "Car Park" outside St Mary's Church, Eaton Socon! But why?

The land is owned by SNTC and is part of the Eaton Socon Village Green. As council taxpayers we pay for the upkeep of this piece of land. The church has a right of way from the public highway to the entrance gate of the church lands. But there is no right to park cars on this land. So the only use of this land is as public open space.

The church and church members seem to think otherwise. On their Facebook wall page they say the following:
"Unfortunately the council think the pot holesin our car park have become a heath and safty issue and have asked us to close it."

"Please be aware that the Town Council have today, Wednesday, closed the church car park "until further notice". This is in response to a written complaint on health and safety grounds over the condition of the surface. The issue will be discussed at a Town Council meeting next week when perhaps a less draconian option may emerge. Meanwhile, we have no car park."

Hold on there. This is public land the church members are claiming as "their car park". And they seem to expect the Town Council has to maintain this car park for their exclusive use.

And so does at least one Town Councillor in this Hunts Post article. In it Cllr Ursell is quoted as saying:

"I think it is wrong that the church should be put to inconvenience because we (SNTC) have failed to maintain a car park. We should get the access reopened immediately and carry out maintenance work on the car park as soon as possible. This is an emergency and we must not delay." 

But this website says something different. What it says is the Church has a vehicular right of way and should pay to maintain the land it uses. It further tells me that car parking is not a right! So it is up to the church to pay for the upkeep of the car park and vehicular right of way! So why is the Town Council yet again subsidising a church? I don't know but I will ask this question in the future.

The church must pay for the maintenance of the car park and right of way. Not the Town Council!

Websites and documents
St Mary's Church
St Mary's Church Facebook page
Copy of Facebook page
Boundary Problems Website