woldingham.com

[sean de clare]

Can anybody on the Parish Council please answer the following three questions on the above subject.

( 1) What is the legal status of a "cold calling zone" ?

(2) Have the Parish Council or Surrey County Council, sought the consent of EDF Energy to place "cold calling zone" notices on energy distribution points, around the village . ?

(3) What did all these stickers, posters and literature cost and who paid for them, out of our taxes ?

The most notable public sign is on the energy distribution box at the bottom of Long Hill wich seems to be a constant point for fly posting and other scruffy notices by all and sundry.

I have no particular desire to appear difficult on this subject, but as it has happened "out of the blue" without any consultation with anybody, other than a notice of fait accompli for a meeting on February 7th. it is a gross liberty not to have asked residents before the event, at a public and open meeting to consider views of residents, on what is a pretty radical action by a few people who are not elected or representative , who seem to believe they know what is best for residents, without even asking first.

Any information or comment from a Parish Councillor would be welcome.

Thank you.

Sean.
_________________
sean de clare

[Woldingham.BB]

The answers to your first two questions are available in the literature supplied and online. See also http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/sccwebsite/sccwspages.nsf/LookupWebPagesByTITLE_RTF/No+cold+calling+zones?opendocument. Reference to this site is also inlcuded in your no cold calling pack.

The modest cost of cold calling packs and signs was met by your Parish Council and will be visible in our accounts.

As indicated in the pack the scheme was supported and initiated by Neighbourhood Watch, the Parish Council, and the Woldingham Association. It was the balanced view of these organisations, who each represent residents, that such a scheme would benefit residents, particularly those who are vulnerable. We know we have had problems with rogue traders and it was felt that we should try and resolve it.

In the case of the Parish Council we are elected and we do what we believe is in the best interests of residents. We know from experience that anything we do always attracts supporters and detractors. We can of course avoid this if we do nothing..... If residents are unhappy with what we are doing they are free to reflect this in their future votes at an election. Of more positive help would be for such residents to stand as Counsellors themselves.

Turning to your other post on the same subject in Village Matters. If you don't like the yellow No Cold Calling Zone sticker - then don't use it. Indeed you are entirely free to put up any other sign on your door; even, "Any and All Cold Callers Welcome"!

I find your last comment, reproduced below, very sad indeed. The Parish Council are elected. The majority of residents may well be perfectly capable, although at least one has been caught out by a cold caller, however the purpose of this scheme is to protect the minority vulnerable residents, who unlike you, are not perfectly capable of looking after themselves. Surely in a civilised village the capable should be looking out for the vulnerable? Finally if you object to unsolicited mail from your local organisations I presume you would also object to an unsolicited junk consultative mail - or perhaps you merely object to what you disagree with?

I'd be happy to talk through our different philosophical views. Just call me. Being a resident I am in the book, but you don't appear to be.

Greg Meekings
Chairman, Parish Council

Excerpt - "Many accuse the Government of operating a "nanny state", I do not consider it right or proper for a minority of local residents to consider they have the right to act as "nannies for Woldingham residents". The majority of whom are perfectly capable of looking after their own affairs.

I am registered with the "mailing preference service" and object strongly to such junk mail being dumped on me without consultation, reference or enquiry as to whether I consider this intrusion acceptable."

[sean de clare]

Many thanks, Mr. Meekings for your comments, most of which were already detailed in the junk mail received last week.

I note you have not explained why these horrible yellow notices have been fly posted on private property. Namely the EDF distribution box at Junction of Long Hill.

You also claim that in your opinion and that of your fellow councillors, residents of Woldingham need protection from cold callers. Why did you not seek confirmation of that opinion before wasting time and money on stickers, when these are already produced by Tandridge Council Community Partnership, and Surrey Police force..

I note that many of the houses in Woldingham are now on gated estates or have security gates to prevent entry. It is therefore not possible for cold callers to even get near these properties.

I have to assume, that those who have such security measures, already feel vulnerable and have made their own arrangements to protect themselves from cold callers and unwanted visitors.

I also understand that there is a minority opinion that finds the increasing numbers of permanent posters, signs and notices around the village detract from its rural atmosphere. Given the increase and volume I have to say I am begining to support this view.

Any further comment or explanation is welcome

Yours.
Sean de Clare.
_________________
sean de clare

[sean de clare]

Re my enquiiry to the Parish Council the first question remains unanswered.

What is the legal status of a "cold calling zone" ?

Thanks.

Sean.
_________________
sean de clare

[Woldingham.BB]

A no cold calling zone has no legal status, and cold calling is not illegal. Notwithstanding this other's experience has shown the efficacy of such schemes. Try Googling the subject - there is more information out there.

Sean, you do a lot of assuming and presuming. You assume that those with electronic gates have erected them because they feel vulnerable, that they now feel safe, and by implication there are no vulnerable people. I doubt this is why such gates have been erected. And I think your implied conclusion is false.

You also seem to presume that those involved in the decision to establish the zone did not consider all the issues, the pros and cons, consult, or establish how well other schemes had worked. They did, and as I said previously on balance the view was that we should go ahead.

I suspect that your ability to pepper questions and comment exceed my desire to respond. In the end I doubt anything I say will satisfy. As often happens in a democracy we will have to agree to disagee. I shall therefore refrain from commenting further.

Greg Meekings

[sean de clare]

Mr. Meekings,

Thanks your further comments, which confirm that a minority of private individuals made the decision to circulate these notices to all and sundry.

Why did the Woldingham Parish Council as an elected body not consult residents before spending their money on sticker notices and letters, , when Tandridge Council, Surrey Trading Standards and Surrey Police already circulate all the information provided at libraries, communtiy centres, doctors clinics and council offices. Age Concern and Help the Aged have also over the past two years also circulated information to retired people on how to cope with cold callers and dishonest trades people. There are even tv programmes such as Watchdog and others on the subject of dishonest tradesmen. Surrey County Council even produces a list of reccomended trades people which was ciruclated last year to all households in the county.

Surrey and Tandridge Council quarterly glossy news magazines delivered to all households contain such information and warnings every three months. Does this mean that nobody bothers to read such literature circulated to every hopuse in Tandridge. If so this too is a waste of tax payers money.

The Government also circulate leaflets and have web sites on the same subject of cold calling, burglary etc.etc.

This is a yet another totally wasteful duplication of information already widely circulated by other authorities, both in the district and nationally.

In your previous somewhat offensive diatribe you also state that you do not care what residents think, and if they do not like what elected parish councillors do, they can wait until the next Parish Council election to oppose or change you and your fellow councillors.

I also note from a perusal of your Parish Council minutes your council agreed in November 2008 to spend £1,400 of tax payers money on this exercise, without ever consulting any tax payer in Woldingham beforehand.

I get the impression that your councillors raise local taxes to spend on anyhting that takes their fancy, or on a pet "hobby horse," without consutation with anybody. Despite what you may think that is not what a Parish Council is elected to do.

No Hawkers or circulars is a very common sign traditionally used to deter "cold calling" which has been an effective detterent for years.

The only cold caller I have had in the past two years was a young man on a Sunday last summer trying to sell me at Aerial photograph of my property for £49.00. I understand this was an extract from aerial photographs of the County taken by Surrey County Council in 1998.

I did point out to him, that if I wanted to look at my property from the air, Google provide more than adequate pictures on the internet. A use I understand which is particularly helpful to burglars rather than cold callers.

As far as the comment, in the literature about people canvassing for elections being allowed to call on people the only person who has ever visted my property to canvass for election is District Councillor Butcher, who is clearly a traditionalist of the old school who every four years calls on his electorate and has obviously secured support in this way since 1974.

Although there were 11 candidates for election to the Parish Council recently as far as I am aware not one of them canvassed for votes, or introduced themselves to voters and indeed they produced a leaflet which was hardly informative and icluded details of all 11 candidates on one leaflet.

In conclusion I shall not be telephoning you for a "philisophical" discussion as clearly there is no philosphy to discuss as you have done what you have done without consulation, and your reaction to my legitimate questions demonstrates a frightening arrogance.

I regret having to take this view on the matter, but with respect I expect to be consulted by the Parish Council before they take action not be told after the event. There are after all nine of you, who are largely unknown to the majority of people in Woldingham.

Your Parish Council was created at the insistence of the Woldingham Association Ltd in 2000 as that private company was not recognised as having any interest in the Parish other than its own corporate interest as a property company.

It now appears that your Parish Council is more interested in representing the views of the Directors of Woldingham Associaton Ltd rather than the people from whom you collect taxes.

THis is of course neither democratic or acceptable.

You have also not explained why these yellow Surrey County Council notices are illiegally attached to property, owned and maintained by EDF Energy. I am sure you are aware that fly posting is unlawful !


Yours Sean.
_________________
sean de clare

[Mike Dwyer]

It is always difficult when making a decision to appeal to every resident of Woldingham .The Parish Council on balance do a very good job with the intention of looking after the residents interests .I do not agree with every decision they make but take a pragmatic view as I personally do not wish to give the time energy and commitment -The Parish council however are prepared to do so on my behalf and should be congratulated .Any-one wishing to be involved can of course attend the meetings voice their opinion or indeed put themselves forward for election and influence from within .
Security in Woldingham has always been an issue and I personally make a contribution from after taxed £ to the community police and yet I am in the minority of residents that do so .Cold calling can be a frightening experience for vulnerable and elderly people especially when its dark with no immediate neighbours and no street lighting .I have personally been intimidated on the doorstep and I do not see myself as vulnerable or elderly - it wasnt a pleasant experience .The Parish council should not be put in a position whereby every decision has to be voted by the community not only is that impractical- and costly but also general apathy applies to most residents eg look at the number of views on this web site but how many actually contribute or try and influence the rest .
So in conclusion I welcome the work done by the Parish council and I dont always agree with some of your decisions -BUT you were voted in by the residents and you have my support and thanks for the work that you do on mine and the other residents behalf

[sean de clare]

Re the comments from Mr. Dwyer in his glowing testimonial.

Anybody with a knowledge of Local Government would know that a Parish Council has a legal obligation to annually consult with residents of the Parish as to what facilties and services are required by them for the followng financial year in order to set a budget for expenditure from April to March each year.

To the best of my knowledge Woldingham Parish Council have never done this since created in 2000 at the behest of the Woldingham Association Ltd. A private limited company !

It is obvious that not every single issue needs to be considered in detail by the entire population of the Parish, However, as stated above there is a duty to advise tax payers what expenditure proposals are for the coming year, before they occur rather than after.

I note from accounts that over £40,000 was spent laying a strip of concrete to the rear of the Crescent. This was allegedly to relieve the long term parking problems in the Crescent for residents. Allegedly to provide additional parking for shoppers in The Crescent..

Yet there is now a notice on that road which states authority has be to be sought from the Parish Council to park in the road which they class as a private road, yet was concreted over at Parish tax payers expense.

There are also Parish Council notices in the Crescent restricting parking to 20 minutes. These are neither legal nor enforceable on a public highway. The white lines painted on the public highway in The Crescent by the Parish Council are also unlawful and have no standing. Particualry when they designate parking places which are too near to each junction and are therfore unlawful and unsafe.

Mr. Dwyer also rightly states that few people comment on the web site or even attend Parish Council Public Meetings. Yet the Parish Council also meet in private on the annual budget and on planning matters and never publish details of those meetings on the web site or in published minutes.

In the last financial year The Parish Council donated £15,000 of tax payers money to up date the toilets in the village hall. The village Hall is a registered charity yet the toilets are only available to people who rent the village hall.

I take the view that if public money is used to provide toilets in the village they should be opne to residents of the village who paid for them.

One has to ask whether this is an elected democracy or a self serving secret society who feel they can raise and spend the Parish Precept as they wish without question

Yours.

Sean.
_________________
sean de clare

[sean de clare]

As suggested by Mr. Meekings in his posting as Chair of the Parish Council I have now looked at the Surrey County Council web site in regard to "no cold calling zones."

It is quite fascinating in the volume of information required by Surrey County Council in order to establish a no cold calling zone.

It also gives a list of all the streets and roads in Woldingham which is covered by the edict. Some of them listed do not even have houses in them, which seems a bit ridiculous.

It also states that consultations ceased on January 16th.2009 prior to the official launch on Feb. 7th.2009.

Can whoever organised this detailed requirement for a no cold calling zone give the specific details of all the "door step crimes" comitted in Woldingham over the past three years as requested by Surrey County Council in the application form.

Surrey also ask for information on what type of people live in each road or street for the proposed zone. Can the organisers also publish this information, which they gave to Surrey County Council and where and when they obtained the information from as we have a constantly changing population at this time.

I have to say that although there are Neighbourhood Watch signs up on highway and speed limit signs in Woldingham, this is the first occassion I or many other people have heard from them.

A number of people of my acquaintance in the village also put the envelope they received on this subject, straight in the bin as yet another piece of "junk mail" dumped upon them.

It might have helped to encourage people to look, if the parish council had provided personalised address labels as they do with their other newsletters which are sent by second class post.

As an elected body with nine members can I please ask again why there was no consultation by the Parish Council, with residents of Woldingham during or leading up to the time the formal consultation period with Surrey County Council expired on January 16th.2009.

These are simple questions which remain unanswered to date, other than both facetious and offensive comment from the Chair of the Parish Council.

Yours.

Sean.

P.S. anybody who wants to find out more, I reccomend the Surrey County web site as defined by Parish Councillor Meekings.
_________________
sean de clare

[sean de clare]

It is interesting to note, that since the subject was opened up on Jan.24. 2009 the site has had 214 hits, so 214 people from various places have viewed the topic.

Only one person in Woldingham has commented, other than the Chair of the Parish Council and myself.

Is this apathy or does nobody care about Woldingham anymore.

Regards.
Sean.
_________________
sean de clare

[Stella]

no message -so as not to offend Sean de Clare who I now know to be John O'Brian.

[Mike Dwyer]

Stella
I am afraid that Sean is right that most people who live in Woldingham are not interested in being actively involved in the local community thats why I have always applauded the work of the Parish council .Just look at the last postings on this site most are over a year old .To stimulate discussion it always needs someone to "poke the community with a stick " to gauge reaction and thats what Sean demonstrates and who now seems to have given up .This site was at is most active when John Obrien was posting edgy stuff -unfortunately he went too far and was quite rightly banned .I must say however I do miss the excentric views as it was always good fun to read and did get a reaction from a cross section of the community .The mantra at the moment must be "Apathy rules -So what ! "