SANDFORD ON THAMES VILLAGE MAGAZINE ON LINE
	THE LINK MAGAZINE    LOCAL DIARY     PARISH COUNCIL     VILLAGE HALL     VILLAGE APPRAISAL        N H W       THE RIVER RUN    LOCAL LINKS     SITE MAP     SEARCH SITE     SITE INFO     COMMENTS        HOME				THE LINK   AUTUMN 1997   ISSUE 67    ISSUE 67 INDEX   ISSUES INDEX   SUBJECT INDEX  The Link Magazine COPYRIGHT © 1997 by The Link Committee. Reproduced with permission.

Autumn 1997             Issue 67

CHURCH NEWS

Hanging basket City

Another one is going up,
Hooks,
Brackets,
Containers of all sorts,
Plastic basket lining,
Compost,
Lobelia,
Petunias,
Geraniums,
Fuchsias,
Busy Lizzies,
blowing in the breeze,
going dizzy the bees,
the hanging gardens of Babylon. No,
what a pity,
instead it's hanging basket city.
I look at the trees,
frightened that I will get the hanging basket disease.

WELCOME

WELCOME TO THE WORLD

FAREWELL

Rest in peace

A meeting was held on August 27th to discuss the failure of grant bodies to provide enough to proceed with a £70,000 project of extending the hall, and also to underline the urgency of going ahead with parts (kitchen and storage space) anyway.
Present: from the Council, Mrs Hutton, Mrs Shepherd, Ms Smithson, and Mrs Leary (clerk); from the management committee, Mr Gladwell (chair), Mrs Hutton (other hat), Mr Bunce (treasurer); from the extension committee, Vicar (chair), Mr Hawkins (architect), Mr Inston, Mrs Shatford, Mr Beadle.

Strong scepticism was expressed about the original project, but there was total unanimity that the kitchen and storage part of the project should go ahead at once. A series of complaints had been received about the kitchen, and the management committee's frustration about the delays was expressed in the last Link. The money (from village precept) is available and quotations received from three builders. A strong message was sent from the meeting to the Council meeting in 5 days' time requesting an immediate decision and acceptance of a tender. The chairman of the management committee stated that if this is not done by 31st October the trustees would no longer be in a position to function as a management committee. The architect thought the deadline just about feasible, as tenders and estimates have already been received.

Other interesting information coming to light was that the Council does not even pay for the Village Hall grass to be cut - it is done by volunteer labour, as is the churchyard. The meeting ended with renewed appreciation for all the voluntary work done by the trustees and management committee and others, especially Bob Hutton. There was also general agreement that the Council could be expected strongly to support this local amenity which makes other things in the village possible, and should be prepared to argue the case with its auditors if necessary, not drag feet. At present the Hall needs financial help.

Since there was total agreement that the kitchen should be done at once (and two of the Council members present were the most emphatic about this) those who had not been at earlier discussions wondered what the disagreement was about. Apart from whether a larger extension was desirable or necessary (including disabled toilets and an office for the parish clerk) one issue of principle for the whole village

The clerk argued that the precept could not be spent on running costs of the village hall. Several replied 1) that the kitchen and storage job was a capital project and so a legitimate expense (whether or not designated phase 1. of the larger project) and 2) that other ways of supporting the management committee in its running the Hall were available. In particular those who spent time in a voluntary capacity are entitled to strong support from our elected Council.

STOP PRESS At its meeting on 1st September the Acting Chairman Mrs Janet Shepherd urged that action on the kitchen was a priority and the Council agreed nem. con. to go ahead and to meet in a week's time to decide which of the three tenders should be accepted. Thanks to all concerned.

Village Hall bookings £5 per hour for village individuals and organisations. Bookings taken by Sharon Fenn, 3 Henley Road (716597)

Church Roof

Youth Club

Toddlers

The River Run

The 5 mile race was won by Grant Edwards and this year he was awarded the Sandford shield because he was marrying a Sandfudette two weeks later - Jo his fiancee completed the 5 miles in 38.37 to Grant's 32.31, well ahead of 2nd Kevin Glessen (33.02). 3rd was Kelly Caffel (33.44) who therefore wins the 'fastest woman in Sandford' award. Andy

The 3 mile race was won by our local triathlon champion Sue Norton in 25.55. Medals to youths competing with distinction in this race: Daniel Welch (aged 13 - 25.40), Nicola Rolston (15 - 41.47) and commendations to Laura Rolston (13 - 45.32) and Gemma Turner (same age, same time). Other creditable adult performances from Paul Daglish (25.42), Vincent Boyle (26.53), Karen Pike (30.11), Sharon Fenn (33.39), Sharon Gibbons (39.48), Clare Rolston (39.48). In the 'not winning or losing, but playing the game' category we applaud Stephen Pyne and Charlie Wilson (45.32) and Maria Grimn (helping stragglers).

The Young People's race (under 12s) produced some good efforts, but not the star quality of past years. It was won by Martin Judd (aged 10 - 26.30) followed by Gregory Boyle (26.53) and James Fenn (27.45 aged 9, so very impressive). 4th was Mitchell Malson, aged 7, in 28.10 - astonishing) and Matthew Daglish (aged 8 - 33.35). Ian Middleton (aged 9) 28.32, Sadie Donahue (aged 8) 31.02, Paul Middleton (aged 11) 32.04, Faye Donahue (on her 10th birthday and full of party treats, 33.41, Thona Wilson (43.5 1), Jason Pyne (45.32) - along with Alex Pyne who at 5 yrs old shares the youngest competitor award with Kieran Donahue (45.40) - also aged 5. A number of walkers brought up the rear.

Thanks to all the medical team (Brian, Andy, Jane, Gill) and the judges and timekeepers. It was a low entry, but in poor conditions the cautious withdrew.

[More information on the River Run]

Council Burial Plots

This combination of residence requirement with reservation leads to unfairness. One reason for the Council excluding church members who no longer live here was perhaps the limited space (even though some of these had lived decades in the village and were still active in it). But reservation means that the whole extension or Council ground could theoretically be sold now. Unlike cemeteries, small local burial grounds which have residence requirements do not usually allow reservations, apart from shared graves.

The still unanswered question is why the consecrated bit cannot simply be treated as a churchyard extension, leaving all the rest for those who prefer to be buried without a church service.



The Porch
is still in need of volunteers for a couple of hours a week between 10-11.45 am or 5.45-8.15 pm, any day except Wednesday. New helpers start with washing-up or making drinks, before progressing, at their own pace, to share in many of the practical tasks involved in running this small day centre for poor and homeless people in East Oxford. Current volunteers range in age from 17-70. For more information, call 728545.     [The Porch - more info]

Correspondence

On the other hand, in many editions of the Link we note a repeated left-leaning political undertone (sometimes overtone) whenever the views of the national government of the day, its policies or its actions are not congruent with those of the persons writing the editorials and captions, and when local authority actions do not suit. Like most people, we find government actions and policies at every level (in all the countries in which we have lived) and from all of the parties, a mix of those things we like and those things with which we disagree. We think this is what happens in a decent society and a fully functioning democracy, and are grateful we can participate within it. We even express our political views in private, but think it undesirable to do so in a community newsletter not designed to be a vehicle for expression of political views. So we think that the hard work and commitment of those connected with the Link, and even the appeal of the publication, is eroded by this tendency to express political leanings and wonder whether the aims of a community publication like the Link might better be served when editorials, comments and captions are free of political slants, left or right.

Who pays for what - how the Precept is spent

This led to the vicar's article in the July Link. There had been earlier concern about the Council's refusal to pay for fencing around the Garden of Remembrance (available for all members of the village) and a refusal to contribute to equipment for lawn-cutting - though in refusing this time the Council were courteous enough to invite the vicar to speak formally at the Sept. Council meeting. This is what he wanted to say:

Most things done in a local community are done on a voluntary basis (Council, Village Hall management, church officers). Those who are paid by our taxes (Clerks of the Council) or by voluntary donations (most vicars) link the local to some wider organization. Those who do a lot of work voluntarily usually do it in a spirit of public service, not for the sake of exercising power. The rest of us may or may not make our views known about how they are doing it - but are mostly happy our money is well spent on local amenities such as a Village Hall and burial space. Some grass is cut voluntarily; a tractor was bought (though now it seems unused).

In the past the Church (and that meant most of the community) cared for most of the burial space (= churchyard) for the good of the whole village. This still happens, but as Church members became a minority and most people are cremated the question arose how the whole village might chip into the costs the Church incurs on behalf of the whole village. That lay behind the requests which the Council refused.

The position is similar with the Village Hall: both churchyard and Village Hall are: 1. the responsibility of trustees and management 2. upkept mainly by voluntary labour 3. for the benefit of the whole village and 4. therefore likely to be supported in part from the village tax or precept.

I do not know why the Council is doing this, and ask for better co-operation. Churchyards in the past have cost village taxpayers nothing, but monument fees have been paid to the church and help maintain the churchyard (cost of machinery, tree surgery, insurance). These fees will now be paid to the Council instead - so it is a time to think about contributing to a village amenity (the churchyard) rather than set up an alternative administration with much frustration, time- wasting, and new costs.

Sandford on Thames Parish Council: minutes of recent meetings