17 July 2021
Follow me @Linda Derrick1
Facebook Linda Derrick for Ridgeway East
This is a factual account of the meeting of Hughenden Parish Council on 13 July before it broke for the summer. Sometimes facts speak for themselves.
It is not comprehensive. For example, I’ve missed out the discussion on the transfer of the allotments; I will return to that in a later blog.
Public Participation and reports from Buckinghamshire councillors.
Well, there we were – curtains drawn to shut out the light and waiting for the public. But no-one came – no residents, so no public participation. We don’t normally get more than 1 or 2 residents. But this time, none. And no BC councillors. We haven’t seen or heard anything of our BC councillors since May when all three turned up to thank residents for voting for them.
Apologies for absence
No apologies apart from Cllr. Broadbent, one of the BC councillors. No apology from Cllr. Charlton who hasn’t been to any of the meetings since the elections. Cllr. Charlton represents Widmer End on HPC.
Minutes of the previous meeting
HPC minutes are very short – basically just the resolutions and whether they are approved or not. Previous Clerks had included some narrative in the minutes so that residents had some background to the decisions and could understand why the decisions were taken. This was in line with national guidance which says that minutes should be “self- contained i.e. complete in themselves and understandable without reference to other documents and “the narrative should summarise points raised in debate on a sensitive matter”.
I had previously asked for HPC to return to providing such narratives but the Clerk said minutes were purely for recording decisions. So this time I raised the issue at Full Council. The Clerk agreed to consider.
In the meantime, I voted against the minutes on the grounds that they didn’t comply with national guidelines.
Officer’s Report
There was reference to an agenda item on a risk assessment for HPC. However, there was no risk assessment on the agenda.
The Clerk does not maintain a correspondence register as was previously done but circulates “correspondence of potential interest to councillors” when she receives them. I have received no correspondence from Widmer End residents via the Clerk since I became a councillor.
There were eight freedom of information requests logged by the Clerk. Five of them appear to have been made by me. Three of them were made before I became a councillor; they are related requests made in one e-mail and split into three separate freedom of information requests. They have still not been answered in full.
The other two requests were made since I became a councillor, again related requests in one e-mail. Although councillors’ requests for information are covered by the Freedom of Information Act, it is unusual for requests from councillors to be treated as such. The normal way would be for the Clerk to simply provide the information as soon as she could.
Instead, the Clerk has referred the requests to a private sector company called Breakthrough Communications and Strategies Ltd for guidance. I was unaware my request for information had been referred to this company until I received the Council papers. I do not know why the Clerk has sought guidance from this company nor how much their guidance will cost. Guidance from the Information Commissioner’s Office is of course free and authoritative.
The information I requested is not complicated. BP Collins is the firm of solicitors carrying out the transfer of land from HPC to a charity. BP Collins informed councillors that they (BP Collins) had been instructed by the Chairman, Cllr Nicholls, as well as the Clerk. It is highly unusual for a councillor to instruct solicitors.
I am not aware of any instructions to BP Collins being approved by Council, nor have I, as a councillor, had copies of any instructions given to BP Collins by either the Clerk or Cllr. Nicholls. Nor have I seen any legal advice, as a councillor, in response to those instructions. So I asked for copies of the correspondence between BP Collins and the Clerk/Chairman and reports of any telephone conversations they have had with BP Collins. I will see when and if I get the information I asked for on 7 July.
Staffing Committee
We were asked to receive and note the draft minutes of the Staffing Committee which took place the day before. However, I didn’t have a copy of the minutes; they had not been circulated to all councillors.
The Clerk reported orally to Council, in what was an open meeting, that she had put a complaint to the Monitoring Officer alleging harassment and bullying by a parish councillor. She also reported that her complaint had been considered by the Staffing Committee who had supported her complaint.
There are five councillors on the Staffing Committee. So residents can work out that the complaint must have been made against Cllrs Gieler, Capey or myself. I have had no notification from the Clerk or the Monitoring Officer about any complaint.
Finance and Policy Committee
I am a member of the Finance and Policy Committee so had already been able to consider resolutions coming from this Committee. So I was able to vote in favour of the grant application from Great Kingshill Cricket Club (£1,100) and Great Kingshill Village Hall (£500).
However, I voted against the Communications Policy put forward by the Finance Committee and then amended at Council. The policy agreed by the Finance and Policy Committee said “it provides guidance on how to ensure efficient and effective communications between council members and with third parties.” I was happy to take such guidance into account.
However, during the discussion at Council, somehow – and I really don’t know how, the guidance became a policy with which councillors were required to comply. I voted against this amendment. No-one was interested at Council in my reservations but here’s why:- .
First, I needed time to consider the implications of what was put forward as guidance suddenly becoming binding on councillors. As a matter of common sense, it needed to be re-read knowing that all the details of a seven- page document would be binding on councillors.
Second, the Council has about 30 detailed approved policies and more are proposed (one on street furniture and one on hedges and verges). To require councillors to abide by all HPC’s policies is simply impracticable. Councillors are intended to be part-time lay people. Life is too short to read and abide by 30 policies.
Services Committee
Council approved an increase in the rents for allotments. It also agreed to charge new allotment tenants a deposit of a full years rent i.e. a new tenant would have to pay £120 for their first year rather than £60. I asked for an explanation of the need for this deposit. I was told that, on departure, allotment tenants could leave their allotments in a mess; the deposit would help reimburse the Council for clearing up any mess.
There was no information as to the extent of this problem nor how far the deposit would deter new allotment holders so I abstained.
Council agreed to make a full and final settlement of £8400 to Hughenden Valley Village Hall. I voted against as I had no idea what this settlement for. There was no information in the background papers. Moreover, the original resolution proposed a settlement of £7000. One of the Hughenden Valley councillors proposed an increase to £8400 at Council and I could not understand why.
Council agreed a Tree Policy (I did say HPC had a lot of policies).
Street Light Survey
For years, it has been generally accepted that HPC owns and is responsible for the street lights in the Windmill Estate in Widmer End. The estate was built in the 1970s and it was not unusual then to make such an arrangement. The Council agreed to carry out a survey at a cost of £1200 to find out if the lights needed replacing/repairing and if so, how many.
In the meantime, Council agreed to seek legal advice to make sure it actually was responsible for these street lights.
Terriers Development
Persimmons is one of the developers for the Terriers development site which will have a huge impact on residents of Widmer End. A month ago, Persimmon wrote to suggest HPC invite them to give a presentation on what they proposed to do at Terriers. I was keen for HPC to accept that invitation and hold an open meeting so that councillors and residents could find out what was happening and get answers to their questions. National guidance encourages Councils to accept such invitations and help ensure residents are involved.
However, other councillors felt that residents would criticise councillors for holding such a meeting; residents would think that councillors would in some way be influenced (corrupted?) by the developers. Other councillors also felt the resource needed to organise such a meeting was not justified.
So the Council (except me) voted to decline Persimmon’s invitation. (Post meeting note: Widmer End Residents’ Association has agreed to take up the suggestion instead).
HPC Residents’ Survey
HPC is going to carry out a survey of residents’ views during the summer to inform its strategic planning. HPC has no strategy plan at the moment that I can find. Council approved the questions for this survey. Council also agreed that the questionnaire would go out on Facebook.
I voted against on the grounds that the questions concentrated on what the council was already doing and not on what the Council could or should do. I didn’t think the answers would contribute to Council’s strategic thinking. And I thought relying on Facebook would exclude large numbers of residents.
I will be working to encourage residents to respond and think more strategically when they do so.
Future meetings
Councillors were asked to suggest items for the September meeting. I asked for a delivery plan for planting trees – not a policy but actually to plant trees.
Comments