13 October 2022
Follow me @LindaDerrick1
Facebook Linda Derrick for Ridgeway East
Almost exactly a year ago, residents from Hughenden Valley came to a meeting of Hughenden Parish Council. They were concerned about proposals for a new access road to be built for a company called Country Supplies. There were calls for the then Chairman and then Vice-Chairman to resign (which they did, perhaps incidentally, three months later).
There was what I called “a bit of a fracas” at the meeting – which, as a result, had to be abandoned.
Some of those residents are now councillors on Hughenden Parish Council – which just makes you think.
A year later, last Tuesday, about 30 members of the public attended the Council meeting, despite problems with COVID and a notice on the road to the meeting in North Dean saying the road was closed.
It was good to see so many people at a council meeting.
The vast majority were there because of their concerns about the Council’s decision, made in July, to decommission all the streetlights in Widmer End next March.
This time round there wasn’t a fracas, in fact hardly a raised voice. Residents said they understood that most of the councillors were inexperienced and were having to deal with inherited problems. Nevertheless, residents managed to make their worries and anger clear in the short time allowed for public participation.
The Windmill Estate Maintenance Company maintains an estate of about 350 houses in Widmer End. A committee member of WEMC read out a statement saying it was unacceptable for WEMC to be asked to take over the funding of the lights – or lose them. WEMC was not responsible for the streetlighting issue. According to the legal advice from HPC’s own solicitors, HPC was responsible for the lights and had been for over 50 years.
Residents then explained why turning off the lights could cause health and safety problems to families, children and elderly people in Widmer End and their concerns about an increase in crime and antisocial behaviour if the lights were turned off.
I spoke later when we came to this item on the agenda.
I pointed out that the decision by Council in July affected thousands of residents in Widmer End causing anger and worry. I thought it was therefore disappointing that all that was on the agenda was a verbal report from one of the councillors on the Streetlight Working Group.
In the event, he wasn’t able to attend the meeting and could only provide notes for the Clerk to read out as best she could. So, three months from the decision in July, residents (and Council) were no clearer on what the Council was doing on this issue.
I said the issue had never been about decommissioning the lights until the resolution had been approved last July. The issue had been about determining who owned the streetlights, and then, if HPC did own them, agreeing a programme of maintenance.
In fact, the resolution agreed by Council was outside the Streetlights Working Party’s terms of reference. The resolution also probably breached HPC’s Standing Orders because it was not available to the public until weeks after it was agreed by Council.
More importantly, I said, the decision was simply wrong, and Council had not managed the process well.
Unlike last October, Council listened to the residents and took account of their concerns. It acknowledged the problems, including a lack of information to residents. Council could not reverse its previous decision at this meeting. However, those councillors present committed to supporting a special resolution at next months Council meeting to reverse the decision.
In the meantime, residents have provided documents and advice which hopefully will help answer the question as to who owns these lights.
What else did Council do?
Council had an excellent presentation from a group of residents in Hughenden Valley who proposed to pilot different ways of making a wild flower verge. This could help other groups to do the same.
Council was asked to mow the verge where the pilot was to take place only twice a year (no problem) and to give the group money to buy seeds and signs to explain to passers-by why the verge might look a bit untidy for a while. (This was more tricky as Council can’t give taxpayers’ money to an informal group of residents. But we will see what we can do.)
We had lots of reports back from working groups and committees which got a bit confusing and we agreed (I think) that Council needs to set out clearly which group does what, which reports to where, and who is on them.
There was an excellent report from Cllr Armshaw suggesting how the Council should re-tender its contracts for the maintenance work in the parish – cutting hedges and grass, and maintaining the allotments, burial sites and other land and property it owns. This work is crucial in getting best value for taxpayers’ money and in complying with the law (which the Council has not done in the past). But Council didn’t really get round to discussing this.
I had a moan about Council’s failure to cut down some dead trees on the amenity field on Primrose Hill which overhang the gardens of residents on Brackley Road. The residents complained in April 2021, the trees have been inspected by HPC’s arboriculturist who agrees they should come down, and still there is no indication as to when the work will be done.
It matters because when Council plants more trees, it will need residents to help water the trees at least for the first year. Council can’t ask residents to water new trees when it leaves dead ones overhanging residents’ gardens.
In the meantime, a tree on the land off Common Road in Great Kingshill was felled at a cost of over £2000 after a complaint was made by a resident only a few months ago.
Makes you wonder.
Council also received, for the first time this financial year, some income and expenditure figures against Council’s budget.
I don’t think you need to be an accountant to see that Council is unlikely to spend all its budget or its allocated reserves (again). Halfway through this financial year, it has spent a third of its £300k budgeted expenditure and nothing of its £135 reserves which are ear-marked to be spent this year.
At the moment, Council has spent about 60% on overheads which can’t be good.
Council considered some proposed priorities but decided more work needed to be done on these. There was agreement that Council needed to get the basics right before we moved on to more ambitious projects – and we weren’t there yet.
Council agreed its response to last year's interim internal audit and wasn’t quite sure whether it had been signed off on last year’s external audit (and if not, why not).
Council had a report from the Clerk on her work (very helpful) and a welcomed return for the much- requested correspondence log (which gives councillors a feel for residents’ views).
And finally, the issue of Hughenden Community Support Trust once again raised its head as Council were asked to authorise £31k of rent to HCST. This was voted through (3 votes to 2) with me voting against. I have consistently maintained that the lease between HCST and HPC is invalid. I also think the invoice from HCST should not have been paid as it did not specify the period for which the rent was requested.
Cllr McDonald, the other councillor who voted against, expressed his opposition to paying the rent somewhat more colourfully. If you want to know why, you will need to ask him yourself.