SENIOR Conservative councillors vented their anger at Thurrock Council at delays in processing a petition that would see more independence for a Corringham housing estate.
In February, local residents (joined by MP Stephen Metcalfe and local councillors) and handed in a petition to Thurrock Council that they hoped would result in a community or parish council being formed.
But six month later, it appears that nothing has been done with the petition.
Chafford councillor Simon Wootton and Corringham councillor, Mark Coxshall both rose on the floor of the chamber to express their frustration at the delay.
Tories proposing more local government.
Perhaps they tell us about the costs of running parish councils.
Grays Ath
Parish councils practically pay for themselves as residents within the parish pay a rate to allow them to operate. Clearly the people on the Frost estate and the surrounding area want a Parish council and are probably happy to pay that bit extra if it means they will be provided with better services.
Parish councild also make local decisions easier. Thurrock could do with many more parish councils but Labour historically have never favoured local democracy which means local people make local decisions. They rather dictate from above as they know best.
Thanks Bernard87.
I do know that there is an additional levy to cover the costs, but shouldn’t residents be given information on this as it could help them make a judgement?
Rochford has 10 Parish Cpuncils. Perhaps the localTories could ask their colleagues there so Thurrock residents can decide.
Having moved from Thurrock to Norfolk we live in an area with a Parish Council. This is paid for by an additional levy of about £80 on our Council Tax.
What the Conservative Councillors appear to be proposing is a Parish Council whose only aim is to act as a vehicle to ensure Frost Estate residents contribute towards the maintenance and upkeep of the roads on their private estate via a Parish levy on Frost Estate residents Council Tax.
The reason for the delay by Thurrock Council is they are seeking outside legal advice on the legality of what the petitioners want. Parish Councils are not responsible for Highways or their maintenance. This is a function of the Highways Department of County or Unitary Councils. Thurrock Council won’t maintain the roads of the Frost Estate as they are private roads whose responsibility for maintenance falls on residents. Only if residents pay to get the roads up to Highways standards then Thurrock Council will adopt them and maintain them.
I don’t think that a Parish Council can legally collect, via Council Tax taxpayers, money to fund the upkeep and maintenance of roads n a privately owned estate and this is the sticking point. Only by having the roads adopted by Thurrock Council will Thurrock Council be responsible for future maintenance.
I think the Councillors behind the petition have sold false hope to Frost Estate residents and have unrealistically raised their expectations of exactly the responsibilities and functions of a Parish Council.
I think it may have more to do with ‘more people make more noise’…
Put simply, if this estate and the surrounding area (as surely the estate itself would be too small to form a parish on its own?) become parished and pay a levy to do so then the parish council itself can then pay for the maintainance of the roads on the estate in a similar way that parish councils have a budget for tending to village greens, parks and verges, bus stops, benches and other small amenities.
If this idea is just to sort out the roads then it is a roundabout way of doing things but at least that money will be sitting in a pot which could then be paid to the highways dept on Thurrock Council to maintain/repair the roads for them without the council adopting the problem roads.
I do find it bizarre that our villages are not parished as you find in much of the UK, especially in a Conservative county like Essex.
The boundaries are just the Frost Estate so it will be a very tiny Parish Council.
The sticking point is Parish Council are not a collection agent to ensure residents pay towards the upkeep of their private roads.
Parish Councils are not responsible for Highway Maintenance especially anything to do with privately owned roads. They have the power to repair and maintain footpaths and bridleways under Highways Act 1980, ss 43 and 50.
The petition wording includes the following:-
“It is expected that the formation of this parish council will bring benefits in that the residents of The Frost Estate will have greater influence and control over making the area a desirable place to live and making improvements whilst maintaining its original characteristics and ensuring that all households contribute equally to the cost. In particular it is intended to:
• Organise and oversee appropriate road refurbishment and on-going maintenance.
• Promote a traffic & pedestrian safety awareness scheme and introduce speed limits and hazard signs.
• Monitor HGV traffic with culpability for road damage incurred.
• Ensure all households contribute an agreed small monthly amount towards the cost.
• Represent the views of estate residents to Thurrock Council and other bodies.”
I like this idea. The roads down the frost estate are terrible. If a parish council can resolve the roads situation then why not go for it. Council lawyers are great at frustrating everything.
c100byz – organising road maintenance for private estate roads and ensuring all households contribute an agreed small monthly amount towards the cost isn’t a function of Parish Councils. It is the responsibility of the Highways Authority – in this case Thurrock Council.
Thurrock Council could do repair work without having to adopt the road first under The Highways Act 1980, c.66, part XI, private street works code, section 205 and bill the householders fronting the road repaired.
205 Street works in private streets.
(1)Where a private street is not, to the satisfaction of the street works authority, sewered, levelled, paved, metalled, flagged, channelled, made good and lighted, the authority may from time to time resolve with respect to the street to execute street works and, subject to the private street works code, the expenses incurred by the authority in executing those works shall be apportioned between the premises fronting the street.
(2)Where the authority resolve to execute street works with respect to a part only of the street (other than a part extending for the whole of the length of the street), the expenses incurred by them in executing the works shall be apportioned only between the premises fronting the length of the street which constitutes or comprises that part.
(3)Where an authority have passed a resolution under subsection (1) above, the proper officer of the council shall prepare—
(a)a specification of the street works referred to in the resolution, with any necessary plans and sections,
(b)an estimate of the probable expenses of the works, and
(c)a provisional apportionment apportioning the estimated expenses between the premises liable to be charged with them under the private street works code;
and the specification, plans, sections, estimate and provisional apportionment shall comprise the particulars specified in paragraphs 1 to 4 of Schedule 16 to this Act and shall be submitted to the authority, who may by a further resolution (hereafter in the private street works code referred to as “the resolution of approval”) approve them with or without modification or addition as they think fit.