21 November 2021
Follow me @LindaDerrick1
Facebook Linda Derrick for Ridgeway East
I said I would finish blogging about Hughenden Parish Council's meeting on 9 November.
I’ve already covered the items which didn’t make it onto the agenda – prioritising the Council’s work, the unlawful invitations to tender for maintenance contracts, and the breach of HPC’s Financial Regulations in not verifying the bank statements.
I’ve already covered item 8 on the agenda – six requests for internal reviews of freedom of information requests – where I declared an interest and went home.
I thought I would now cover the important items on the agenda – items where the Council made decisions on things which would benefit the community.
Only there weren’t any.
The only decisions the Council made on 9 November were:-
a) on the telecoms services and the gas supply to the Council offices;
b) for a new noticeboard at the Council offices at a cost of £1045; and
c) to recruit Duke of Edinburgh Gold Award Volunteers.
These volunteers would be supervised by Cllr. Gieler and would work for 1 hour a week for a year on one of three projects:-
(i) To research, design, and cost Interpretation Boards for Hughenden Parish Council and other interested organisations.
(ii) To identify, photograph, plot and catalogue all Hughenden Parish Council Assets (Street Furniture)
(iii) To shadow the working of the Parish Clerk/Deputy Clerk in order to gain an insight into the workings of local government.
Residents are increasingly complaining that the Council fails to plan and get things done. You can decide for yourselves whether this is a justifiable complaint.
As I have so little to report, I thought I would follow up one small item on the agenda. It is trivial but illuminating.
Item 8.4 is a request by a member of the public for an internal review about the “exact purpose of the wire fencing”. Council was recommended to nominate a working group of three councillors to undertake this review.
Here’s what that was all about.
About three months ago, the Council erected a wire fence between the allotments and the amenity field on Primrose Hill. HPC owns this land. The fence consists of 3 small posts (one hidden in the hedge) and some wire connecting the hedge to the allotment gate. Here it is:-
Residents were puzzled because the fence seemed to serve no useful purpose. It won’t keep people out because anyone can walk through the gate. It won’t keep animals out as they can go under the gate or through adjoining fields.
So on 8 September, one of the residents asked HPC: -
1. Whose decision was it to put the fencing up?
2. What exactly is its purpose?
3. How much did it cost?
Some very simple questions you might think.
On 20 September, the resident received an acknowledgement.
On 29 September, the resident received a “final response” from the deputy Clerk:-
“1. The decision to erect the fence was taken under the delegated powers to the Clerk due to concerns regarding the security and safety of the allotment tenants and following consultations with Thames Valley Police.
2. The purpose is to secure the private area which is set aside for the purpose of allotment gardens having established that there were no legal rights of way adversely affected.
3. The total cost was under £500 the materials predominantly drawn from stocks that HPC keep in the event of existing fence failure.
Appeals Procedure
If you are unhappy with the way your request for information has been handled you can request a review by writing to The Clerk at HPC.”
You might note that HPC has not answered the third question. And you might ask why not. You might also ask who established that no legal rights of way were adversely affected.
However, the resident let that drop. He was more interested in why the fence was put up in the first place. He would have been happy if someone from HPC had phoned him up and explained the reasoning. However, all he had was the “final response” above.
So on 11 October, he wrote to the Clerk:-
“I am unhappy with the way my request has been handled so I would request a review please.
I am unhappy because I asked for the exact purpose of the wire fencing and I cannot understand what the exact purpose is from the information provided.
The purpose as given is “to secure the private area” due to “concerns regarding the security and safety of the allotment tenants”.
However, you do not say who has threatened the security and safety of the allotment tenants and in what way. So you do not provide information about the exact purpose of the wire fence. Who is it protecting the tenants from and what is the threat?
Moreover, I cannot see how the wire fencing will secure the private area as anyone can walk in through the gate – or indeed climb over the gate. So, what exact purpose does the wire fencing serve?”
On 19 October, the resident was told his request for an internal review would be “put to a Council Meeting on November 9th 2021 for the appointment of a Councillor Working Group to review the request and to agree Terms of Reference.”
The resident thought this a complete waste of time – all he wanted was the answer to his questions.
On 2 November, he received another response from the deputy Clerk confirming he had made a request for an internal review.
On 19 November, he received an email from the deputy Clerk saying:-
“The Parish Council has now met and made the decision not to conduct an Internal Review. Please see extract from minutes.
21.1.233 The Council resolved to decline the request for an Internal Review from Pseudonym 12 relating to “The exact purpose of the wire fencing, and I cannot understand what the exact purpose is from the information provided.” An Officer to communicate this decision and record the response within the Freedom of Information repository.
If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision.”
The resident has decided not to go to the Information Commissioner who the resident thinks has better things to do.
Of course this is a relatively trivial example. However, the resident asked HPC three simple questions at the beginning of September. Two and a half months later, HPC has only answered one of the questions.
The outcome is that yet another resident has become angry and frustrated. Once again, HPC has not complied with the law nor guidance from the Information Commissioner and the Council appears content with this unlawful behaviour.
The real problem is one that Mrs Armshaw, formerly the deputy Clerk, and Ms Main, formerly an HPC councillor, have expressed and I have reported in previous blogs - a culture of secrecy at HPC and of withholding information.
The lack of openness is systemic.