28 November 2021
Follow me @LindaDerrick1
Facebook Linda Derrick for Ridgeway East
This is a round-up of events since the last Council meeting of Hughenden Parish Council on 9 November. Apologies for the delay and therefore the long blog – but I have been doing other things, including enjoying myself.
Planning
On 15 November, I went to HPC’s Planning Committee. This time the Committee managed to achieve its quorum of three. (The meeting before this one had to be cancelled at the last moment as two councillors, including the Committee Chairman, could not attend).
This time the Chairman of the Planning Committee was again unable to attend. Moreover, one of the Committee members thought the meeting was the next day and he had to be reminded by the Clerk. However, he arrived (albeit somewhat late and without papers) and the meeting could start.
Half a dozen residents came to the meeting to put their objections to a planning application to build 24 houses at Fittalls Yard on Spurlands End Road. The details are at
The Planning Committee decided that it would also object to the application.
Local councillors on Bucks Council have called in the application i.e. have required the decision on the application to be made by a committee of councillors rather than by officers. No date has yet been arranged for this committee.
I’ve mentioned a number of planning applications since I started this blog. You might find it helpful to know what has happened to them.
The application to increase permitted HGV movements by 80/day from Wycombe Recycling Ltd, at Binders Yard on Cryers Hill Road was approved.
The following are awaiting decision but there is no date for the relevant Bucks Council committee:
- Terriers Farm at Kingshill Road;
- Field Farm, on the corner of Spurlands End Road and Windmill Lane;
- Anns Cottage, Naphill Common; and
- Hoppers Farm, Cockpit Road.
The planning application for the erection of a storage shed at the junction of Kingshill Road and Church Lane at Four Ashes has been withdrawn.
Authorisation of expenditure on legal fees
Back in July and August, I requested information from the Clerk about the authorisation of tens of thousands of pounds of HPC expenditure on legal fees for HPC’s solicitors. I had no response.
So I complained to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
On 20 September, the ICO told HPC it had breached the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations. The ICO instructed HPC to conduct an internal review of its handling of my request and to inform me of the outcome of the review as soon as possible, or within 40 working days.
On 4 October, the Council held an Extraordinary Council meeting and set up an internal review with three members, Cllrs Hardinge, Gieler and Capey. The agenda, minutes and papers for that meeting have not been put on HPC’s website.
The ICO’s Code of Practice advises that “an authority should provide an internal review within 20 working days of the request for one, and no longer than 40 working days. This longer period may be justified if an internal review is complex, requires consultation with third parties or there is a high volume of relevant information covered by the request.”
On 23 October, I wrote to the members of the review as I had heard nothing. I said it was over 20 working days since the ICO had instructed the Council and, as far as I was aware, the information I requested was not complex, did not require consultation with third parties and did not involve a high volume of relevant information. So I asked why the Council had not provided the information yet and when I could expect to receive it.
Cllr Capey, the Chairman of the review, responded to say “We are working to the letter from the ICO, dated 20th Sept, which states that there is a 40day window (from the date of the letter) for the review to respond.”
On 15 November, exactly 40 working days after the ICO instructed HPC, I received a copy of an e-mail from Cllr Capey to the ICO.
The e-mail said two reports were attached, one of which “deals with the information requested by the complainant (who is copied into this email). It explains why some information was not provided within the FoIA timescale & seeks now to provide that which we have. No information, when it has been found, has been withheld.”
Now I don’t like to be pernickety but the ICO did instruct HPC to write to me with the outcome of the review – but HPC didn’t.
However, I worked out which attachment was intended to deal with my request. It starts with the sentence “As the information requests were made by a Councillor the Clerk treated them as operational requests rather than FoI requests…
I'm afraid this is simply not true. My requests to the Clerk for information during July and August were not treated as operational requests; they were ignored. If my requests had been treated as operational requests, I should have had the information 3 or 4 months ago. If HPC had complied with the law, I should have had the information on 20 September at the latest.
As it is, the report sent on 15 November to the ICO contained only some of the information I requested – although even this information is interesting. I will blog about this later.
The report provided no explanation for HPC not releasing all of the information I requested. So, I have complained again to the ICO. The ICO has told me my complaint is eligible and will be assigned to a case officer in due course.
Has anyone at HPC apologised for the delays and the breaches of the law? I think you know the answer to that one.
Strategy
On 23 November, the Council met to discuss its strategy. However, the meeting was arranged after I had made other commitments and I could not go. I haven’t had an agenda and I can’t see the meeting on HPC’s website. So I assume the meeting was not public, although I don’t know why not.
I was sent a copy of the slides prepared for the meeting by the deputy Clerk and I assume anyone who is interested can ask the Clerk for these. I do not know who attended the meeting nor what was decided. Or indeed whether minutes of the meeting will be prepared and go on HPC’s website.
However, I did contribute to the discussion by e-mail before the meeting – and this is what I think.
The first objective for any organisation’s strategic plan is to survive.
The Councils urgently needs residents to be co-opted onto the Council. There are currently 7 councillors for 15 seats and the quorum for Council is 5 councillors.
If residents don’t come forward there is a real risk that the Council will become inquorate and won’t be able to carry on.
There are a number of reasons residents have given for not coming forward for co-option. Some of these were expressed at the Council meeting in October and are recorded in my blog of that meeting.
I believe some councillors need to consider these reasons carefully and honestly and consider their positions.
I have also repeatedly suggested that Council encourage potential councillors to come forward by reducing the load on councillors. That would mean taking a radical look at HPC's priorities over the short term, concentrating on those that are urgent and important and cutting out extraneous work. I have received no response to these suggestions and my motion to put the issue on Council’s agenda was rejected by the Clerk.
I have repeatedly asked for Council to update and monitor HPC’s “Key Actions for 2020/2021” produced for Council’s June meeting. However, this suggestion has also had no response. (The same chart was on the agenda at the October meeting as “Key Actions for 20/21 Worksheet – Appendix 17” but Appendix 17 was missing from the bundle of papers. )
I think this radical look at the workload needs to be combined with streamlining the Council’s committee structure. I think we should suspend all standing committees and working groups and centralise the Council’s work into Full Council. I would be minded to retain the Planning Committee but the experience of the last two meetings makes me doubtful about that too.
Finally, here is my proposed HPC survival plan.
To encourage residents to be co-opted to HPC by:-
1. Restoring HPC’s reputation as a friendly, responsive, inclusive and professional organisation which delivers for the community;
2. Supporting councillors in their work by:-
(i) Cutting out extraneous meetings and non- priority work; and
(ii) Providing information and other support when requested;
3. Getting the basics right;
4. Starting a few priority projects once the basics have been sorted, manage them well and deliver.
Getting the Basics Right means:-
a) Providing cost-effective, good quality services based on HPC’s own land assets: -
(i) Allotments
(ii) Recreational land
(iii) Burial grounds. b) Providing good quality services which HPC is required to do by law:-
(i) grass cutting and hedge cutting
(ii) providing information to the public. c) Providing independent and authoritative comments on planning applications as a statutory consultee.
d) Putting financial arrangements on a sure footing, including implementing the internal audit report.
e) Getting a grip on what is happening on the transfer of land.
My priority projects are:-
a) Protecting Cockshoot Wood
b) Reviewing streetlights on the Windmill Estate in Widmer End