4 December 2021
Follow me @LindaDerrick1
Facebook Linda Derrick for Ridgeway East
If you want to know why Hughenden Parish Council fails to deliver, you only have to follow the progress of its streetlights project for Widmer End. It’s like playing snakes and ladders.
Let’s start at the beginning.
Back in the 1960s, a local developer built about 300/400 houses on what is now called the Windmill Estate in Widmer End. In order to get planning permission, the developer was required to provide community facilities like footpaths, greens and streetlights. The footpaths and greens became the responsibility of a company called the Windmill Estate Maintenance Company run by volunteer residents.
The streetlights somehow became the responsibility of HPC and, at some point, were included on HPC’s asset register.
These streetlights are now over 50 years old. So in July this year, the Council approved a quote for £1,200 from a company called Sparkx to carry out a survey of the condition of the street lights.
I don’t know if other companies were asked to quote for this work and, if they did, what those quotes were.
On 9 September, the agenda for the Council meeting was issued and it included an item on the survey report on the streetlights. I am going to call this DAY 1 of the streetlight project.
The agenda said the survey report recommended immediate, short term and longer-term action for the streetlights. The immediate actions would be managed by the Clerk.
The agenda also recommended Council set up a Task and Finish Group, for which Cllrs Hardinge and Air had already volunteered.
I was a bit surprised by this. I was surprised the report hadn’t been circulated to councillors when it was received, particularly myself and Cllr Air who represent Widmer End. I was also surprised I hadn’t been consulted about the Task Group as other councillors had.
Then the day before the Council meeting, the Clerk e-mailed to say the immediate work would cost £9000 and needed to be authorised by Council. She attached an invoice from Sparkx for the work. I don’t know if she obtained quotes from other companies.
The immediate work was for four streetlights – one each on Columbine Road, Snowdrop Way, Windmill Lane and Brimmers Hill.
And I thought this odd – the last two roads aren’t in the Windmill Estate and I didn’t think HPC was responsible for them. So I e-mailed the Clerk to express my concern and to ask for the legal advice as to which streetlights HPC was responsible for.
The Clerk responded to say that “HPC was responsible for all the street lights in its parish unless they were private, the majority were in the Windmill Estate.”
I thought this can’t be right. It wasn’t in line with the legal advice and the only street lights on HPC’s asset register were in the Windmill Estate. I thought we should only be maintaining or repairing street lights in the Estate - the rest were for Bucks Council.
I was also concerned because residents already pay for street lighting through their taxes for Bucks Council. Paying again through HPC’s taxes, without any legal justification to do so, is double taxation.
I was concerned because I thought the survey of the streetlights should only have covered the Estate and nugatory work had presumably already been done and would have to be paid for.
So I went back to the Clerk to express my concerns again and also asked if I could consult residents on her e-mail and have a copy of the survey report.
The Clerk said I could not circulate the information to anyone until after the council meeting; the matter must be discussed by Council first.
She also declined to give me a copy of the report until the Task and Finish Group met saying “This is a health and safety matter, there is a risk to life. You will be able to note your objection to this expenditure tomorrow evening at the meeting if following a consideration of all the facts your pre-disposition to say No persists.”
I said I had not objected to the expenditure. I simply believed the streetlights outside the Windmill Estate were the responsibility of BC. If there was a health and safety risk, BC should be informed urgently and presumably it had an emergency service. And of course councillors could not consider all the facts if they didn’t have the survey report.
The Clerk again refused to provide a copy of the report.
So by DAY 3 of the streetlights project, HPC was stuck on the starting square of the snakes and ladders board.
Council approved the £9,000 for the urgent work on the four streetlights. I voted against and Cllr Hardinge abstained. Cllrs Air, Hardinge and myself were appointed to the Task and Finish Group.
20 working days later, the statutory deadline for providing information, I had still not received the survey report. I asked Council to carry out an internal review of the Clerk’s response to my request for the report.
On 16 October, the Clerk said my request for an internal review would go to Council. Inexplicably, the same day, I was sent the report.
So, by DAY 29 of the streetlights project, councillors had a copy of the report and the streetlights project had moved up a very small snake on the board.
Unfortunately, the Clerk said the report could not be circulated outside HPC because “the survey was the property of HPC”. I was still unable to consult residents on the survey. So, it was back down a snake on DAY 30.
I went back to the Clerk to say I didn’t think ownership of a document by a council was a legal reason for that council to decline to release the document.
I got no response. So, I waited 5 working days and then assumed that there was no reason residents should not have a copy of the report.
So, at DAY 35, I thought the way was now clear to consult residents; the streetlights project moved up a ladder again on the board.
Unfortunately, by then Cllr Hardinge had had to drop out of the Task and Finish Group. He could only be replaced by a decision of Council and this could not happen until the November meeting. So, back down a snake to the starting square on the board.
Come the November Council meeting, Cllr Nicholls was appointed to take Cllr Hardinge’s place on what was now called the streetlights working group. It was now DAY 46 and we were back up a ladder again.
Moreover, by November 22, councillors had copies of all the correspondence with Bucks Council and Transport for Bucks on the issue of the ownership of the streetlights - all 17 documents of it. None of it shed much light on the issue but it was now DAY 50 and the streetlights working group was ready to have its first meeting.
Except, oh dear, I was still unable to consult residents; I was grappling with the format of the report. So, I asked the Clerk whether she could put the report into a user-friendly version suitable for consultation with residents. Or perhaps she could ask the company to do so?
I was told the office “would not be re-formatting the document as this would not be a good use of their time and that the report was in a format which was not challenging to read”…. “if I required a different format this was something I could do myself”. The office was “sure that if they contacted the company and asked for a different format the company would make a charge for their time”.
Well, that told me – and back down a snake again.
Nothing daunted, I phoned the company myself and, within an hour and at no cost, it had provided the report in the format I asked for and which I could use to consult residents. I sent the report out.
This was now 25 November – DAY 55 – and consultation with residents had started. The streetlights project could climb a big ladder up the board.
The first meeting of the Streetlights Working Group was arranged for 30 November. The streetlight project moved up a ladder. But we had been playing this snakes and ladders game for 60 working days by now.
It was DAY 60 and the streetlight project hadn’t really started.
I will keep you posted on further moves up and down the snakes and ladders. I forecast we will be back to square 1 by Christmas.