Sorry!

There was a small but significant error in the final item of the April Newsletter. You might but even notice it - but we did, and it matters. The correct version is below.

The grim picture of Brill Windmill is an expression of our feelings when we discovered this error 10 minutes after posting the newsletter.

Parish Council Meeting Upset

That got you reading, didn’t it? We were tempted with ‘shocker’ but this isn’t The Archers or a JK Rowling novel. It’s real life and we parish councillors take our responsibilities seriously. We do our research, we think carefully, and we take our time over decisions. We bring wisdom from our other lives and we have principles and integrity which we do our best to apply - even though community life is often complex and messy.

March’s meeting was a good example of this process in action. After Planning Applications and Policies and Procedures, the next item was The Common - (although a more accurate title would have been BVCH - Brill Village Community Herd - since there is more to Brill Common than the cows). This item concerned a request from BVCH’s solicitors that the Parish Council pay fees accrued for legal advice and other services during a year-long disagreement between the Parish Council and the Herd over unfounded allegations made in a public meeting by a former councillor. (For details, please see past minutes.) After a thoughtful discussion in which all councillors had their say, a proposal was made to pay the fees on these grounds:

• should this become a legal matter, the costs would escalate and the PC had no immediate guarantee that these would be covered by our insurance

• this matter has already taken up a disproportionate amount of council time and caused a lot of distress and acrimony on both sides

• left unresolved - or taken to the next level - this situation which would cause further damage to community relations and the efficacy of the council.

• payment would be made as a gesture of goodwill and not an admission of fault

The proposal was seconded and a vote was held. Three councillors voted For, one Against, and one abstained. It was then that the councillor who voted Against the proposal - Mark Dickinson - resigned, with immediate effect. He resigned because he felt he could not continue to be associated with a public body that, in his opinion, misused public funds in this way. It was, to him, a matter of principle and we respect his decision. Suffice to say that the matter was treated with the utmost gravity and none of us made our decisions lightly.

On behalf of the community, the remaining members of the Parish Council thank Mark for his many years of steadfast service, particularly the last few in exceptionally difficult circumstances, not least due to the pandemic. We will miss his integrity, attention to detail, financial skills, and kind support of us as new councillors and we are sincerely sorry that he felt he could not continue in his role.

And then there were five - with TWO casual vacancies. Even Rowling only had one at a time.