Just an update for anyone who is interested.

While I was left with the impression at the last Main Council meeting that the decision was final It appears it was not.  The matter was referred to the Finance Committee who imposed a lease term of 7 years with a financial review after that, this pretty much overuled the Main Council decision.

For these reasons I attended the meeting this evening and asked the following questions :

Nowhere in the allotment recommendations put forward last month and nowhere within the discussions and decisions agreed does it state that the financial aspects of this matter be referred to the finances committee.  The standing orders state that this will only happen if the Chairman sees fit and this did not happen as confirmed by the minutes.  The skate park is in the same position with funding as we are and this has not been referred to finance.
At the time of the postcard ballot the clerk advised that a committee could not overturn the decision of main council.  This is documented in the minutes of the Property meeting of the 24 March 2010.  I quote

“The Clerk had raised her concerns with the Chairman of the Council about the Property Committee over-ruling a decision made by the full Council, and the Property Committee failing to suspend Standing Orders to alter a decision it had made the month before.”

So could I ask why the matter was referred and the Finance Committee was allowed to overturn a main council decision three weeks after the decision was made.

Also, on the matter of the lease.  I cannot understand why we have been restricted to a 7 year lease.  The council voted for a 25 year lease, or the maximum permitted under law. The 1972 Local Government Act deals with these matters and there is quite clearly a set of general consents that give permission for any length of lease, in addition to this Circular 06/03 translates these consents into plain English. 

I am somewhat confused as this matter has been discussed before in relation to a question raised by a Cllr Rands on the 05 Sept 2007 regarding the C4C lease and the matter was researched thoroughly by the clerk who, with the advice of the Sussex Association of Local Councils who in turn enlisted the advice of Hedley’s Solicitors of Surrey confirmed, with reference to, and using, the legislation I have already mentioned, the land could be disposed of legally. 
I fail to understand why this matter is being viewed in a different light and the council is insisting a 7 year maximum lease can be granted.

Advice is now going to be sought from a solicitor on the matter of 7 years, surely this should have been done before a decision was made, or more sensibly, refer to the advice given when the lease was granted to C4C as this matter falls into exactly the same category.  I have now passed 2 copies of the legislation to the clerk.

It may seem a petty matter, but the council UNANIMOUSLY agreed the proposed lease length, now 7 years may seem a long time but it will take at least 3 seasons to get the soil right on the site and after all the work that is needed it seems unreasonable to grant such a short lease.  It also calls into question the granting of the lease to Wakoos and Jubilee fields.  If the lease is illegal for us, it must be illegal for them as well.  Now I know that this is NOT the case as I have done the research, but it is hugely frustrating when a decision is made by the council based on outdated information

Lesley. wrote on Jul 7^th, 2010 at 10:57pm:


I do not know how Carl saved us (not the PC, please Lesley) money but nevertheless, well done Carl.

As has become clear over the past few years, our PC is practised at wasting taxpayers money: for example, charging us £10k for the annual maintenance of a non-existent facility - the moribund Station Road Gardens project - and paying the District Valuer £300+ for his professional opinion that £3,100 p.a. is a reasonable ground rent for C4C/Wakoos only to set the rent at the ludicrously low figure of £250 p.a. for no discernible reason whatsoever. After all, it's only taxpayers money they're p*55*ng away.

The sooner someone with a tad of business acumen is on the PC the better; preferably as Chairman.

Have you considered standing at the next election, Carl?

MD wrote:
I do not know how Carl saved us (not the PC, please Lesley) money but nevertheless, well done Carl.

Sorry, missed your post.
I believe the PC had put funds of £1,000 aside to produce a Land Registry compliant plan which Carl had already produced. Indeed, well done.

Hear, hear, Sally.

As many will be aware, there is an agreement from the full Parish Council to have allotments on Manor fields. It is the intention to have a 25 year lease with the Billingshurst Allotment Society set up by CarlW and other residents. There has been a question with regard to the length of the lease that can be granted because of the peppercorn payments which are inevitably involved with regard to allotments.  Our PC granted a 25 year lease with a peppercorn rent (for the first 5 years?) to Wakoos/C4C, which was apparently in their remit. So why the hold up for the Allotment Society?

Manor fields were offered by the PC Chairman (on this Forum) to those who wanted to apply for allotments.  We had a postcard consultation – the vote was clear. Under our legislation there is “a statutory obligation” to supply allotments if enough people want them. CarlW and his group applied; the full Council agreed. Carl supplied a Land Registry compliant plan to the Clerk of the Council saving the precept a considerable sum. The PC asked that a licence agreement be drawn up to enable the Allotment Association to commence work on the site whilst waiting for confirmation of a 25 year lease and change of use planning application (if this was deemed necessary). At a previous meeting I was shown an email dated October 2009 in which HDC planning seemed to be advising that “planning permission would not be required for allotments created on PC owned land”. To all intents and purposes this land is now a statutory site.

Last night’s discussion on the interim licence document brought comments of “rubbish” from many Councillors. The map given to Councillors was way out of date (didn’t even include the bypass!) it seems the Solicitor had not been instructed correctly, from what was discussed he had been given no facts with reference utilities etc. The document was a generic example and gave the allotment society no right to make any alteration to the land.  This would prohibit them from fencing the designated allotment land, erect sheds to keep their tools in whilst preparing the land etc. They would be able to do nothing on the land.  What a complete waste of time and possibly money – solicitors do not work for free!! Now this is an example of incompetence and made the PC look as though they haven’t been properly advised. The Allotments Act 1908 gives provision for the “improvement and adaptation of land for allotments”… it is statutory law and as such provisions are absolute.

Sensibly the PC voted that the first available committee should ratify a lease agreement. (I trust that this is of the 25 year variety which other Local Authorities find no problem in introducing for Allotments.) Whatever or whoever has caused such a problem seem not to be carrying out the wishes of the PC and has delayed an admirable project which will be of untold benefit to this community.