Our Questions To Council

We are asking the following questions at next weeks full council meeting (it’s going to be a bit like parliamentary question time….)

A).From Councillor Chris Black:

According to the Daily Telegraph on the 13th October:

“Statutory instruments allow the Government to alter laws without a full act of Parliament, ie by ministerial fiat. The 795 organisations now privy to your telephone records include the tax authorities, the Food Standards Agency, the Department of Health, the Immigration Service, the Gaming Board and your local authority. ”

Is it true that this council now has the power to access individual’s telephone records? If true, in what circumstances would this power be used and who has the authority to use it?

B) From Councillor Jackie Dillnutt:

According to the District Council Website:

“The main role of local ward Councillors is to represent the area covered by their ward and the people who live there. They provide a voice for and help to all members of the community and are involved in making decisions on behalf of residents and contributing to the Council’s policies.”

In what way did the council involve the ward members in the decision-making process regarding the Grange Community Centre?

C) From Councillor Chris Black

The Inspector’s decision letter for the planning appeal at 89 Down Hall Road (“The Pond House”) contained the following extraordinary statement:

“The Council has referred to policies HP3, HP6 and HP11 of the Rochford District
Replacement Local Plan (LP), adopted in 2006. However, as I have not been provided with information to indicate whether these policies have been saved, I propose to deal with the appeal on the basis of Planning Policy Statement 1 Delivering Sustainable Development (PPS1) and Planning Policy Statement 3 Housing (PPS3).”

What has gone wrong here?

D).From Councillor Chris Black

According to the report on Sweyne Park to the recent Executive Board meeting:

“3.1 Following the completion of the leisure centre, an arrangement was made with Wimpey Homes, who are building on the opposite side of the site, for them to locate their compound on the ?pitches site? on a temporary basis. In return, Wimpey agreed not only to remove all their equipment/rubble etc., but also to reinstate the area of land that they occupied, undertaking ground works which left the area in a state ready for seeding”

On whose authority was this decision made? Who has benefited from it?

About the author, admin

  • Chris / Jackie, Good questions and the residents will expect a full and truthful answer to them. If the council are over stepping their authority then they need to be brought back down to earth again. The question regarding Jackie is the one I am most interested in. The council will need a water tight explanation as to why they effectively barred Jackie from representing the people she actually does represent and no feeble reasons will suffice.

  • Good points have been made by Chris and Jackie, why does the council allow such incompetance to occur surley these sort of things cost the council money, it must cost even more to repair the damage that is made!

    Why is the council not holding Wimpy Homes accountable for the state of the land I hope they are not expecting us tax payers to pay for this.

    Chris/Jackie and all other councillors should of been informed of these things why are the council intent on not listerning to the people who represent thier local community. All I can say is its a disgrace!

  • I believe that the cost of making the land good is to be funded from the £50K set aside for the Sweyne Park Extension.
    As has been pointed out, if Wimpey hadn’t been allowed to use the land in the first place, this additional cost would not have been incurred. What vision. What great forward planning.

  • Alsion / Dee / Mike

    I genuinely don’t know the answers to (d) and I’m hoping to hear something satisfactory. But this is just about the only way I can publicly ask the question.

    A year ago I could have asked it in a committee meeting – even if I wasn’t an actual member of the committee- and got an immediate answer. Nowadays ‘ordinary’ councillors like myself can’t even ask questions at cabinet meetings.

    Go back some years and all decisions made at committees (except on planning applications) had to come to full council for ratification, so all members had an extra chance to propose amendments or just ask questions. It may have slowed the decision making process down – a little – but I think councillors were better informed across a wide range of issues and felt more involved.

  • {"email":"Email address invalid","url":"Website address invalid","required":"Required field missing"}