Why did you waste taxpayers money by calling an election?

To be clear, it is the right of anyone in the town to call an election to fill a vacant seat (as long as they live in the ward where the vacancy is). Once two residents have sent requests in writing to the Proper Officer of the authority this triggers the election timetable. At present the Town Council has not got its full quota of councillors so it is possible there may be a by-election called. This is the democratic right of residents of the ward, and the Council has money set-aside to cover it. Calling an election is not something we as a party either can or would do, since SWFCTA is not involved in Town Council matters. However, our members are perfectly within their rights to call for an election as ward residents. For more information refer to: Electoral Commission

The fact that the Town Council elections were uncontested means that there was little or no cost incurred. It's only when elections are contested that polling stations have to be provided and manned, voting papers printed and the vote counted. These are what cost the local authority money, but it is the price of democracy and worth paying if residents get to choose who represents them and who decides what happens with the Council Tax they pay.

The alternative is to have co-opted members who are not elected and do not have the same mandate from residents to make decisions. A poor substitute.

How can you be independent candidates when you are part of a party registered with the Electoral Commission?

We are a small local party formed about 10 years ago to provide residents with the opportunity to vote for candidates who are focussed on local matters rather than ones influenced by the ideologies and national politics of the big 3 English parties.

It's true we aren't independent councillors in the sense that we are not individuals standing under no party banner with just their own views and ideas to take into the Council chamber. Instead we talk together about how best to represent the town for the benefit of the residents and we ask you what you'd like to see done (e.g. the Compass Gardens survey) and take forward your views wherever possible.

We are, however, defined as independents by the Local Government Association (LGA), the Electoral Commission and in both polling and broadcasting parlance. We sit alongside many other small local parties from around England and Wales within the Independent Group of the LGA. In this sense we are absolutely independents.

You say that Compass Gardens Car Park being built a year earlier was down to SWFCTA councillors. How?

During 2020, Cllr. Bentley was in email contact with Cllr. Rose Moore to try to get something more permanent done about the sorry state of the Compass Gardens car park which had a rash of potholes that filled with water in the winter months and made parking a nightmare for users of the Gardens. The idea was to link it with the revamping of the play area due to take place in the summer of 2021 rather than wait until 2022 when it was scheduled. The previous Conservative administration had done nothing but pile up heaps of road planings.

At Cabinet on 17th November 2020 he asked when work to improve the condition of the car park at Compass Gardens, South Woodham Ferrers, would be carried out.

The minutes of the meeting report, 'The Cabinet Member for Greener and Safer Chelmsford said that funding in the capital programme for the scheme would be brought forward to 2021-22 and the work was planned for between June and August 2021 following the refurbishment of the equipped play area in the park. In the meantime, the Cabinet Member would check on when scheduled maintenance to remove loose surface material in the car park would take place.'

Another example of us putting the case for SWF and things getting done.

Is it true the Conservatives built South Woodham a swimming pool/leisure centre?

It is true that SWF’s swimming pool was built under the Conservative administration but it was the previous administration, with Cllr Roberts, who sought and won the funding that was required to build it, including National Lottery money.

How did SWFCTA help older people to stay fit and healthy on a budget in South Woodham?

Back in 2019, in order to save money, 'free' swimming was restricted to the over 65s whereas it had previously applied to all over 60s. These changes were put together by the Tory administration in 2018. At the same time Chelmsford City Council's leisure services decided to put the seniors session between 6.30-8.45am. Not the most sociable of hours, you'll agree. We received several complaints from residents and acted on them. We negotiated some changes to the timetable to give older users of the Leisure Centre and Pool a better choice. The Conservatives neither consulted South Woodham residents, nor communicated the change at the time even though two SWF councillors sat on Chelmsford Cabinet.

The LibDems seem to be following in their predecessor's footsteps as they recently introduced even more changes to the senior swimming scheme. Now only those on benefits are able to get reduced rate (not free) swimming at our pool. Cunningly, it was launched to give as little opportunity as possible for debate and no consultation of stakeholders was undertaken, yet again.

Is it true you’re a Taxpayers Association yet you voted to increase Council Tax?

We’ve never called ourselves a Tax Reduction Association or made any promises that we wouldn’t support tax (or precept) rises when they are justified. Also, these accusations refer to the Town Council which our party is not politically active in, and for the year in question there was never a vote on raising the precept in any case. We do not vote or make decisions as a political party on the Town Council. The only councillors who have been elected onto the Town Council under a political party banner are the LibDems everyone else stood as independent. We are, instead, after value for money for our residents at City and County Council levels of government.

Is it true that you got the planning application for Countrywide’s 1020 home development called-in…wasn’t that the Secretary of State?

The two things are different and the Secretary of State didn’t ‘call-in’ the application, but merely issued a temporary holding decision which has since been lifted.

At Chelmsford City Council Planning Department there is a procedure that allows local ward Councillors (in this case Elmwood and Woodville ward) to “Call In” planning applications so that they have to go to the Planning Committee rather than be determined by officers.

SWFCTA Councillor, Ian Roberts, called-in the Planning application back in 2021 to ensure that there was the opportunity for the Town Council and residents to have their say. This extra debate gave everybody more chance to look at the planning decision which will have the biggest impact on our town of any development since the 1980s.

Wasn't it the Town Council who got the Creekview Green paths reinstated, not Scott Wilson or SWFCTA?

Scott had been in contact with Chelmsford Council, as an individual not a councillor, about Creekview Green since 8th July 2020 where he sent a question to be answered in Cabinet. It was answered, but not to his satisfaction. The Town Council contacted Chelmsford Council about the paths on or soon after 7th July but nothing was done about them by Chelmsford Council in the following weeks.

Scott then e-mailed the previous Town Clerk on 19th July asking her to confirm whether she'd had a response, and and asked her to share more information with Chelmsford Council about the paths which he thought needed reinstating (sending maps and photos for extra weight). He had no response.

The SWFCTA councillors had invited Cllr Moore to visit Saltcoats Park, in their role as City Councillors, to talk about ideas for the use of CIL money there. Knowing the issues Scott had with Creekview Green they invited him along to the 29th July on-site meeting.

During this meeting we showed Cllr. Moore the issues with the paths and how walkers used to be able to cross to the creek from Creekview Road but now had to walk the long way round. She agreed with us and said she would sort it out. Scott also explained that the wire fences protecting the re-wilding needed to be removed to make this happen.

On his return from holiday in mid-August, Scott noticed the paths still hadn't been 'cut' through. He contacted Cllr Moore again and one of the rear paths was cut on 20th August but that still left no access from Creekview Road or any pathway through the rewilded area as requested.

Keith emailed Cllr. Moore again and she asked for information on exactly which paths needed restoring, copying in Paul Van Damme. Scott sent the maps and photos to her and Paul Van Damme. Paul Van Damme then sent an email to us on 28th August confirming he had visited the site, looked at the maps, and agreed the work would be done on the week commencing 6th September, which it was.

Voting Independent is a wasted vote because the main parties are in charge?

That's not the case because if there's ‘no overall control’ of the City Council (no one party has enough seats to be in the majority) following the May election, our party will be very much in the driving seat. One or other of the big parties will want us to support them in order to get their policies and budgets through Council. We would then be able to demand better facilities and services for our town. Even if one party gets overall control, should all 4 of our candidates take seats the big parties will have to rethink how they've ignored SWF and work harder to win votes next time. History shows how the other main parties have not covered themselves in glory when it comes to making improvements for the residents of SWF. It would be more likely that our town gets what it deserves if we and other non-aligned groups have more members on the City Council.

Why vote for you, you just vote with the Lib Dems?

We opposed the LibDems on a motion to remove the prayer at the start of Full Council. We teamed up with the Conservatives when we were being asked by the LibDems to support some major investment which had a large risk involved. We have put forward amendments to the past 2 budgets and together with other independents put forward an amendment to the budget 3 years ago. We voted for the Conservative amendment in the last budget.

It's also a fact that the Conservative group has voted with the LibDems over the past 4 years on more than one occasion e.g. Modern Day Slavery.

However, there are very few issues that actually come to a meaningful vote because of the way the City Council is structured. Full Council and Policy Board are the main ones. Planning is supposed to be non-political, although following a recent meeting that is debatable. Other committees we are involved in are non-political. Cllr. Bentley is on Governance and Cllr. Roberts on Licencing and Regulatory none of which are ‘political’ in nature. Cabinet, which takes most of the major decisions, has 5 voting members and all are from the administration (LibDems). Both of our members have spoken extensively at Cabinet and questioned the LibDems over many of their decisions during the 4 years but we have no vote - neither do the Tories. All committees are put together on a proportional basis, so the majority party will always carry the day if they want a particular outcome.

You don't do anything apart from in the build up to the elections?

We have been active from the start of this 4-year term. The Leader of the opposition, Roy Whitehead, said they hadn’t heard South Woodham Ferrers mentioned as often in the previous administration as it had in the first few months of this one. Cllr. Bentley has been involved in the Waterways Working Group since its inception and made sure our riverside town had been considered wherever possible. One of our meetings was specifically targeted at what possibilities there were for increasing the offer at the Crouch. He has also been involved in the iMAC Working Group and brought up the transport issues our residents face in accessing Chelmsford whenever appropriate.

We have been engaging with the administration over SWF’s leisure facilities from the start when we questioned the changes to the swimming pool scheme imposed in 2019. We’ve also been in discussion with Cllr. Moore and City officers over the maze, new play area and car park at Compass Gardens and the loss of the toddler sand play area at Saltcoats Park. Quite early on Cllr. Bentley talked to a City officer regarding possible projects using the CIL money. As a result the Council voted through 100% allocation of CIL money from the north of Burnham Road site to SWF infrastructure projects - this could be about £8 million.

Both of our councillors have been very active in the masterplan process and have continued to ask for better infrastructure and more facilities to support future and existing residents of the town. We supported the Neighbourhood Plan through to it being ‘made’ and continue to refer to it whenever planning decisions are being taken that should consider it.

If you compare what we’ve achieved with our 2 members with what the Conservatives have done - we’re still waiting to hear details of anything they’ve achieved over the 4 years with 4 members from SWF - it’s clear which party works hard and delivers for the town. If you compare what we’ve achieved with what the Lib Dems have done on their own initiative then you’ve only got to look at the loss of facility at Saltcoats Park and the concentration of children in the Compass Gardens play area to see that there’s a give-a-little-take-a-lot mindset. To their credit they have at least got Frankland Fields Nature Reserve status, but the Creekview rewilding has been handled poorly as has further change to the swimming scheme they introduced recently.