From our Reporter at the Parish Council Meeting
OUR PARISH COUNCIL REALLY DOES EXCEL THESE DAYS. Apart from all the necessary
business it provides a show which could rival our very own Variety Show - and
it's free. On the very day of the February meeting Ruth Kelly chose to
appear on 'News at One' and, as is her wont, declared that too many
local councillors are "WHITE, MALE, MIDDLE CLASS, AND OLD".
With Ruth very much in mind I took a good look at our Parish Councillors, and to some extent she was right. They were all white, all male that night (our two lady representatives couldn't make it), they all looked as if they might be middle class, and while no-one was young I wouldn't have said they were all old. I thought the same as the interviewer of Ruth Kelly who asked "What does it matter if the job is done well?" Indeed!! Maybe we should get rid of all this racism, sexism, classism and ageism, and just get the best council possible.
The opening performance began in "Matters Arising" when Geoffrey Woollard took the stage with the interesting remark that people at ECDC "either had too much money or too little brains." In case anyone missed his drift he went on to say that "some officers were either illiterate idiots or idiotic illiterates." Well, that's a good start for any debate!
The reason for the outburst was the rash of new "High Street" signs
which had suddenly appeared in the region of Swaffham Prior House. Over the
last few months or so Michael Marshall had been debating whether the House was
part of the High Street and querying where the High Street started. ECDC seem
to have decided to settle the issue with a commando type raid. Overnight there
appeared a new sign at the beginning of the slip road, another sign was placed
to the left of the House gates so that there was a High Street sign on both
sides. Having done this they moved up the road towards Bulbeck and another High
Street sign was placed this side of Abbey Lane, while on the other side of the
Lane was a sign saying Green Bank Road, Swaffam Bulbeck (this is not a Crier
spelling error).
Geoffrey presented this with his usual verve and colour, aided by 5 photographs and the meeting was highly amused. If he had had an overhead projector to show the pictures to everyone at the same time the whole house would have collapsed with laughter.
Then the laughter faded away, "Who is responsible?" came the cry, and the answer was Karen Gough of Street Signs and IT at ECDC. There is of course sympathy for anyone so pilloried; Hazel said the workman may have misunderstood, Andrew Camps was sore that money could be found for the four new signs but they won't restore the broken sign at the top of Rogers Road, and Alan Alderson said that he had already asked for the costs of the four signs and the separate costs for putting them up.
That's where it stood at the end of the meeting on the 8th. Either on the 12th or 13th it became a game of musical chairs and all change. The original sign to the right of the House gates moved to the other side of the road, the signs each side of Abbey Lane moved to each side of the entrance to the Cambridge Deer Company. To keep Andrew Camps happy the sign at the top of Rogers Road was also replaced And that's how it stands at the time of writing. At the end of this report is a chart recording the changes.
Some normality returned to the meeting with Hazel Williams' clear account of the difficulties CCC are having with a rate increase which is too low to meet inflation let alone the cost of new houses. But surely new houses bring in more money - yes, eventually, but not for some years as no extra money is provided during building when more staff and services are required. Something has to be cut at the edges, and this could include £50,000 off the bus subsidy, the loss of two mobile libraries etc. Hazel also explained how the cross party Scrutiny Committee worked and it is to be hoped she does so in her Crier report, (WHAT CRIER REPORT!? Eds)
Alan Alderson has had a triumph with BT over the supply of a free Cambridge Phone Book available to all BT subscribers living in CB25 0LD. This is something people have been wanting for years. All you do is ring 0800 833400 and ask. The ECDC budget is to have a 2.5% increase and there will be no cuts. This has been achieved by greater efficiency and by both parties working together rather than trying to score points. Both Alan and Hazel, politically apart, were delighted how well everyone had worked together
Burwell Tigers' plans have been accepted though there was one objector to the small wind-generator supplying power to the new sports pavilion. The Tigers have decided not to waste time fighting it. Steve Kent-Phillips was discretion itself about the objector but he made clear it did not come from the Allix Arms area.
In the middle of this occurred a debate as amusing as the High Street signs, but at the other end of the scale. The High Street sign issue is a one off, a possibly extremely eccentric way of resolving a problem, with elements of a small town farce which makes it very human and quite refreshing..
The other happening is more sinister - I think. During the previous month's meeting Hazel, and maybe Karen, had raised some doubts about some parts of the Parish Council's Agenda. It seems there will need to be changes if we want to become a Quality PC. It is deemed to be "GOOD PRACTICE" if "Declaration of Interests" appears as an Agenda item immediately after "Apologies". Our Pc asked why, as any interests are declared as the meeting proceeds - the answer was that having it second on the Agenda concentrates the mind and reminds people that there are conflicts of interest. Ok, that seems a bit picky, but no great harm done, and if it keeps those above happy so be it.
Then the Agenda item "Any Other Business" came up again. You can't have that said Hazel and gave as one reason that 5 years ago Burwell passed through the expensive drainage of the football field under AOB. Our PC said "Let's add "(for information only)" and this would prevent anything like the Burwell crime. "Nope" said Hazel, "You can't have that. What you must put is 'Items for the next agenda'". ITEMS FOR THE NEXT AGENDA! What bureaucrat thought that up, and why? Hazel did not give any reason for this requirement, not even an anecdote about some wayward council.
BUT, the Crier appears to be open to all kinds of debate and Hazel will I hope respond and say why "Any other business (for information only)"is disallowed and why "Items for the next agenda" has to be used. Or, why can't there be both? Bulbeck it seems used to end with "Village Business" (which appears to be a wonderful agenda item) but they had to remove that, said Hazel, with what appeared to be a little pride.
The sinister part of all this is that at the meeting our PC just lost patience, wanted to push the meeting forward, gave in, and accepted the wording passed down from on high. Not one (as far as I know) of the councillors agreed or understood the reason for the change. As red tape slowly uncoils to encircle our PC I begin to hear more and more phrases like "If you do that you can't become a Quality Clerk" and "if the PC doesn't do this it cannot be a Quality Parish Council". Is the day approaching when councils are told "Sorry, that funding is only available to Quality PCs"?
In about 1757 Dr Jonhson was overheard to say that "insanity has grown more frequent since smoking had gone out of fashion." Is there a link between H & S, PC awareness, Insanity and the smoking ban?