23 July 2022
Follow me @LindaDerrick1
Facebook Linda Derrick for Ridgeway East
This is a report of the meeting of Hughenden Parish Council on 18 July, the last scheduled meeting for 2 months (i.e. until 13 September).
As it is a long break, I will try to cover much of what came up, particularly as the papers are not available on the website. Let me know if you would like copies of anything.
Here goes.
Item 2 – Declarations of Interest.
I think declarations of interest are important as they ensure openness and transparency about Council decisions. The public should know what might be influencing councillors when they make decisions.
So, I declared a personal interest in item 6b) of the agenda. Under this item, the Council was asked to approve a resolution to permanently turn off all the streetlights in Widmer End.
I live in Widmer End on one of the streets with these streetlights. The guidance on declaring an interest says councillors should declare a personal interest if a decision “might reasonably be regarded as affecting their well-being”.
I thought a Council decision to turn off the lights on my street could affect my well-being as I would feel less safe walking along my street in the dark.
As it was only a personal interest, I was allowed to speak during the item and vote.
Cllrs Cadwallader and Renshaw who also represent Widmer End on the Council did not declare an interest as they do not live on a street with streetlights.
However, both Cllrs Cadwallader and Renshaw declared a personal interest in item 10 on the agenda. Under item 10, the Council was asked to consider what action Council might take about the sale of a field at Four Ashes. This action included Council making a bid to purchase the field (marked blue in the map below). The guide price for purchasing this land is £75,000.
Both Cllrs Cadwallader and Renshaw live near the land at Four Ashes. There was some discussion as to whether their interest was purely a personal one or whether it was also a pecuniary interest i.e. whether the purchase of the land by HPC, rather than say a developer, would benefit the councillors financially.
I am not sure whether the councillors declared a pecuniary interest or not but both agreed they would leave the meeting for this item.
Cllr Jones declared an interest in that he is a trustee of the Hughenden Community Support Trust (HCST) which was relevant to a couple of items on the agenda.
Item 3 – public participation
Two members of the public spoke. One spoke on behalf of Widmer End Residents Association opposing the decommissioning of the streetlights in Widmer End without any consultation with residents.
The other spoke on behalf of the Widmer End Football Club who currently use the field at Four Ashes, now put up for sale. He encouraged the Council to buy the land.
Item 5 - finance /payments due
I have explained (in boring detail) in my blog of 17 June why HPC could not pay its creditors for some months.
A week or so later, I discovered that HPC’s bank mandate didn’t comply with HPC’s Financial Regulations. The Regulations require two councillors to independently authorise the release of payments to a creditor; the bank mandate allowed one councillor to do this.
The internal auditor advised that the Council should suspend the relevant Financial Regulations until a new mandate could be agreed. Council agreed this (except me because I think this continues to make the Council too vulnerable to errors in making payments).
During this item, I queried the fact that there was no payment list for Council to approve at the meeting. Council was told the list was going to the Finance Committee this Friday for approval.
I asked if the list included the rent to HCST and was told it did. This payment would be about £31,000. I suggested that the payment should be considered by Council and not the Finance Committee due to the size of the payment and its controversy; despite repeated concerns by myself and other residents about the validity of these leases, this had still not been resolved.
In the end, Council voted to get independent legal advice about the validity of the leases and then consider the payment of the rent at its September meeting. Approval of the payment was not delegated to the Finance Committee.
Item 5 continued - Grant to Great Kingshill Cricket Club
Life gets curiouser and curiouser.
For many years, Great Kingshill Cricket Club has played on Great Kingshill Common. Their clubhouse is on the Common. The Club used to lease this land from the owner of the land – Hughenden Parish Council. I believe it paid a peppercorn rent. As far as I am aware, it was customary for the Cricket Club to get an annual grant from HPC to help with the cost of maintaining the land.
However, during the past eight years or so, there has been no lease between HPC and the Cricket Club because the ownership of some of the Common has been in question. I think the Club has just continued to play on the land without a lease and continued to get grants. I am not sure because it seems there are no records of the grants that HPC approved over the last few years.
This year the Club applied for a grant of £1,200.
But, in February, the Land Registry decided that some of the Common belongs to the Hughenden Community Support Trust. I don’t know where the boundary is between the land owned by HPC and the land owned by HCST.
A lease between HCST and HPC was signed in April 2021. I think the lease is invalid and (see above) the Council has now agreed to take legal advice on this.
However, assuming the lease is valid, HPC will have to pay over £3000/year to HCST to lease the land on the Common (which the Land Registry says HCST owns) and a field on Old Common Road (which the Land Registry says HCST also owns).
And I wondered why is HPC leasing land on the Common from HCST for a considerable sum and then leasing this land (and the land HPC owns on the Common) to the Cricket Club for a peppercorn rent. And why would it then give a grant of £1200 to the Club to maintain the land?
I don’t think other Cricket Clubs in Hughenden have applied for grants. If they haven’t, I don’t know why not.
I get a headache thinking about it.
The Council approved the grant (except me as I didn’t understand why the Council was paying to maintain the land when it was already leasing the land to the Club for virtually nothing and could have to pay HCST a considerable sum on top.)
Item 5 continued – tree felling
Council agreed to delegate authority for approving a quote up to £5000 to fell an ash tree in the field off Common Road. – yes, the field owned by HCST.
So HPC are leasing a field from HCST for another considerable sum and are then paying up to £5000 to fell a tree in the field.
Don’t ask – it beats me.
Item 6 – locations for Community Speed Watch signs
Council approved 15 locations in Hughenden for these signs as the basis of negotiations with Bucks Council. The locations were proposed by the Road Safety Working Group chaired by Cllr Jones who provided photos of where they would go.
Item 6 continued – streetlights in Widmer End
Cllr Renshaw introduced a paper prepared by the Streetlights Working Group which concludes with a long resolution asking the Council to turn off all 80 streetlights in Widmer End on 31 March 2023 and then decommission the lights. He then responded to comments from other councillors.
I have received a good many comments from residents in Widmer End and, like the representative from the residents’ association, all of them have been annoyed/outraged that a decision was proposed without consultation.
A few residents were relaxed about the thought of the streetlights being turned off but most objected strongly and wanted to keep the lights.
Most residents will know nothing about the proposals. Few will have read the paper as it is not on HPC’s website. Few would have known anything about it if I hadn’t blogged about the proposals and circulated the resolution.
As a resident, I too am annoyed/outraged that the Council could even contemplate decommissioning streetlights, which have been there for over 50 years, without consulting residents. Not only is this undemocratic, it also misses the opportunity to get ideas from residents; some have suggested ways that the Council could cut its costs in maintaining the lights and do so in a more environmentally-friendly way.
Even if I thought the lights should go, it is my responsibility to represent the residents of Widmer End so consultation is essential.
Eventually the Council agreed to an amendment to the resolution to require consultation. I voted for the amendment.
However, I have no idea where the amendment fits in the resolution, nor what the consultation will entail, or whether Council will be required to take it into account. So I voted against whatever the final resolution said.
Oh – and the Council did not decide who it believes owns the lights.
Item 6 continued – communicatons
I asked if the Communications Working Group had been able to consider my suggestion that the Council could enable residents to join it by Zoom. I also suggested that the Council should do more to communicate with residents about what it was doing. There is very little on HPC’s website for example.
I was told that the Communications Working Group has not yet met.
Item 8 – finance
Council agreed a new Reserves Policy. I voted against as I thought it should contain some guidance about the minimum the Council should hold to cover contingencies. I also thought the Policy should contain some guidance about the maximum HPC should hold (as HPC’s reserves go ever higher).
Item 9 - Neighbourhood plans
This was taken off the agenda by the Chairman. I’m not sure why.
Item 10 - the sale of land at Four Ashes
With a guide price for purchasing this land of £75,000, Council thought there was insufficient justification for this expenditure and decided to merely note the sale.
And that’s it, probably until September.