Spooner Row Message Board

copy of letter delivered by hand today

Dear Mrs Tovey-Galey

As a ward councillor for Spooner row Wattlefield and Suton which is included within Cromwells ward I am bound by the electorate to offer an alternative view to that presented by Wymondham Town Council. ( WTC) It was a vote held when I was not present and was not fairly debated as no one spoke for the formation of the new council. I will be very brief

• At the initial survey 97% of those who responded expressed a view that a new Council be formed (308 of 316) - not disputed

• The subsequent second consultation, by WTC with a much smaller response ALSO voted in favour of the new council formation , 62% in favour and 38% against (70 of 113)

• Whilst the short consultation time revealed a possible bias within Suton to stay , 28 of the 43 who wanted to remain , I do not believe that this is the current position , many of whom have chosen to respond directly to yourself initially, and now subsequently

• No one at WTC has asked the residents of Suton about the proposed change to the boundary line.

• Councillor Lee Hornby , as the principal speaker at WTC against this split away is clearly predetermined , and as such should not vote or speak at the EARC and is additionally compromised in that his son is the District Councillor for the area.

• The case for a wider referendum is nonsense as it defeats the whole object of Governance review, which is to ask those being governed whether they are happy about how they are being governed. By asking the whole Parish, Wymondham , you are simply attempting to drown out the voice of those most affected. It achieves nothing and wastes everyone’s time and money and when we already have a clear mandate to break away TWICE, do we really need another consultation?

 Julian Halls

Ward Councillor Cromwells Wymondham

27th October 2017

Wymondham Town Council has no justification to stop the outer region establishing a separate parish. Any tax income lost from 500 residences will be more than compensated for by 1000's of new dwellings currently being built in and around the town centre and Silfield.

Mr Gurney has replied as follows to the comment that Cllr Lee Hornby's commenatary at the last Town Council meeting was not included in the minutes. My reply to this e mail immediately follows on from this is red. 

Subject: RE: minutes of the last meeting

Good afternoon

 Thank you for your email.

 Minutes are a formal record of the decisions made not the discussion that took place. There is no need or reason for verbatim and lengthy “he said, she said” minutes.

 This is advice and training given by the Norfolk Parish Training and Support team who are part of the Norfolk Association of Local Councils.

 The minutes will be formally approved by the Town Council at its meeting on Tuesday 7th November 2017

 If any Councillors who attended the meeting on 10th October 2017 feel that they are incorrect then they can propose an amendment which will be voted on in the normal way.

 Many thanks

Trevor Gurney

Dear Mr Gurney

 The issue is about whether Cllr Lee Hornby is predetermined and to slightly misquote from the declarations of interest guidance at South Norfolk whether he ‘made any statements or undertook any actions that would clearly indicate that he has a closed mind on the matter under discussion’ ( The proposal to form a new Parish /Community Council ) This is a discussion that will take place at the ( Electoral Arrangements review committee) EARC where he now sits as a full member.

 It would have been helpful if the proposed amendment ( see below) was included in the minutes.

 As I was not present it would appear that I cannot object or raise the wording of the minutes as an issue, but the fact that Cllr Hornby spoke so vehemently against the proposal should have been recorded in the minutes because of the clear risk of predetermination at South Norfolk’s EARC.

(Predetermination simply means he has already made his mind up and that as such he is debarred from taking part in the vote ) 

 Members of the public of course cannot raise objections to the minutes in the meeting as they do not appear below the ‘public comment items on the agenda ’

 Of course, if Cllr Hornby declares a predetermination at the EARC meeting, then he is free to speak as a member of the public for 3 minutes and then must retire from the room and not vote on the matter , as I sure you are aware and this aspect goes away

 This attempt to clarify the minutes is simply to ensure that the rules are followed and I have no wish to embarrass the Council, but if Cllr Hornby does not declare as such , at the EARC , and I believe there is a risk that he will not do so, then I feel constrained to gather evidence at this juncture to prove that he was predetermined and bring it to the attention of the Committee clerk, the monitoring officer , the committee chair and other members of the EARC. I would be failing as a councillor if I did not do so

 If the amendment to the minutes is agreed ( simply says Cllr Hornby spoke against the proposal) then I will have no need to do so as the question of predetermination is then academic

Julian Halls

I see that the Wymondham Christmas festival is called Wymondham Wynterfest.  I'm a bit of a traditionalist myself and prefer Christmas.  There are lots of Christmas festivities happening locally in Attleborough too.

Good question!!  District and Parish Councillor, Lee Hornby doesn't even live in the village or even Cromwell's Ward.  Lee Hornby isn't our Councillor and is nothing to do with us at all, so what is he doing out here?  What does his son Cllr Jack Hornby, who is our Councillor, say about this?  Is the Village Hall with registered charity status now becoming politicised??

I am concerned that the current local governing system wants development control over what happens to land in the village.  Spooner Row and Suton haven't been treated kindly in recent times and local people have been undermined. 

So Mr Lemon are you in favour or not of local people setting up our own community council??

Oh dear, this will mean we will have no say in the unwanted development of Spooner Row and Suton. I can only guess that the rumour of the very much cherished Spooner Row Recreation Ground to be carved up between the school and new houses will very possibly happen now.  Very, very sad.  Kings Head Meadow vII.

I expect there are those who intend to profit from the development of Spooner Row, who don't even live in the village.

Thank you for initiating this whole process, Stephen, it is appreciated.

I don't think Wymondham Town Council will be in the least bit interested in how we would like our own contribution of the precept to be spent. They do not listen and care even less.  The only time they become animated and involve themselves is when they stop us pursuing our own community council.

What you are suggesting for the future sounds good, but actually, it is the Town Council's job to do that type of engagement and cohesion. A parish council's job is more than just collecting residents hard earned precept contributions. We pay out lots, get ignored and worse is yet to come - if the rumours are anything to go by, but we won't be engaged with, that's for sure.

The town council can start by using some of our £20,000 contribution on stopping our recreation ground from being run-down. We want it back for sports use again with the pavilion reinstated.  We would like clubs not to be quoted extortionate prices by the town council making it unaffordable to hire.

We do not want the recreation ground to be taken over by the school and for more development. This is our long-standing local recreation ground and Ketts Park is too far away and not within walking distance. Ketts Park is no use to us.

We used to have a say in its running, but even this has been taken away by the town council.

So disappointing that this very popular and sound proposal was stopped in its tracks. Particularly, for what I have heard, are very weak reasons. The weak reasons should have been overridden and discarded.

I have just looked at WTC's 'About Wymondham' newsletter article and the heading says it all "Town Council aims to keep the Wymondham parish united". For a start, this is a community governance review and seeks to represent the wants and aspirations of communities and NOT what existing parish councils would like.  The article is incorrect as Wymondham parish is not united. Those of us living in the outer part of the existing parish do not feel included, we don't even have the luxury of an adequate broadband unlike the rest of Wymondham. The town council does not represent us.  

As for the WTC's dubious own survey results which were based on just 113 replies, even this reported a majority support for an independent parish.

Julian is right, this is nothing to do with the church so why was it included as an excuse?

The community governance review is about positive, progressive change that will benefit communities. Clearly, WTC is against beneficial change for us and the excuse that we have been part of Wymondham for 120 years and that this must remain unaltered is utter nonsense. My opinion on this is, so what about the 120 years!  It is unbelievable how WTC has a different opinion when it comes to the support it gives to LOTS OF CHANGE when it involves excessive local development!  It's apparent there are other hidden agendas in operation which will benefit some but will not benefit this community. 

The recreation ground needs to be maintained properly for beneficial, recreational and community use.  As WTC does not provide this (why has it become too expensive for local clubs to use, for example?), it would be beneficial for this community if it were to be managed again by the local community.  How has the existing arrangement shown WTC has benefitted our interests?

You probably need to remember that they do not represent only Spooner Row, but WTC, and as such need to consider the impact on everyone. It is accepted that Spooner Row and surrounding area would benefit, but also that the wider council area as a whole would probably be negatively impacted, so they are actually doing their jobs correctly. Unfortunately in this instance we are in the minority.

You cannot have breakaway factions just because they would be better off, otherwise what is next? Wealthy / active areas forming their own councils and poorer / disinterested areas falling behind? There will always be some winners and some losers, but overall the net effect is positive.

Can you please give me anon some examples of why the overall effect will be positive by remaining under the WTC envelope.

Happy to be persuaded but I think the colonial argument which is being used here which says you are better off under us because we have been doing this for many years does not actually hold any water

They are in a tiny minority.