Follow me @LindaDerrick1
Facebook Linda Derrick for Ridgeway East
24 February 2024
PLAYGROUNDS
Residents ought to be aware that there are safety concerns about the equipment in the playgrounds owned and operated by HPC i.e. at Templewood and Great Kingshill.
The playgrounds are inspected independently every quarter. Council last considered a report in January 2023 when a number of councillors, including myself and particularly Jill Armshaw, urged Council to implement the recommendations. No action was taken.
Despite asking, none of the later reports were even circulated to councillors, much less considered by Council.
One piece of equipment in the Great Kingshill playground was taken out of service by the then Clerk in June 2023 but still councillors were not copied into the inspection reports and they were not put on the Council agenda.
The internal auditor has commented in his latest report that this might have invalidated the Council’s insurance for the playgrounds.
The quarterly reports were eventually circulated to councillors in January 2024 but were not put on the agenda for the January Council meeting.
What is now clear is that children have been at risk at the playgrounds at Templewood and Great Kingshill – and high risk at Templewood - for months. And the Council has done nothing.
For example, if the Council had considered and implemented the reports for Templewood, Council should have done the following, amongst other things: -
1. Taken the roundabout out of service in October 2023 and carried out repairs as a matter of urgency;
2. Taken the swing beam out of service in July 2023 as the uprights and beam were showing signs of rot. By October 2023, the chain links needed repair too; and
3. Removed or replaced the stepping stumps in July 2023; indications of rot and movement were seen in July and the stumps were starting to break up by October 2023.
The Council should also, in my view, have put up a notice at the playgrounds warning parents not to let their children play on the equipment.
Just think: -
a) in January 2023, Council appointed a consultant to scope out proposals for a procurement exercise for the playgrounds. This came to nothing;
b) in June 2023, Council set up a Working Group on Playgrounds. This never reported;
c) in September 2023, Council approved a recreation open space policy. This achieved nothing; and
d) in November 2023, Council was asked to approve a recommendation from the Environment and Services Committee for project management services for the playgrounds. This recommendation was referred back to E&S Committee.
Meanwhile the Council has failed in its duty to keep children safe in its playgrounds.
This is what I mean when I say Council should prioritise its time and resources on the basics.
The Council has spent a lot of time and staff resources trying, unsuccessfully, to outsource major and expensive projects. In the meantime, it has ignored the regular inspection reports of the playgrounds. The Council has allowed the playgrounds to deteriorate and has put children at risk.
I urged Council to take urgent action when I got the reports. However, I got no satisfactory response.
So, I reported the Council to the Health and Safety Executive on 9 February. HSE said it wasn’t the relevant enforcing authority. However, due to a prompt and helpful e-mail from Bucks Council, HSE has now changed its mind and decided it is the enforcing authority. I do not know what action it will take, if any.
COUNCILLOR RESIGNATION
Kevin McCormack resigned from the Council on 16 February. He was co-opted onto the Council in November and represented Naphill and Walter’s Ash.
24 councillors have been elected or co-opted onto the Council since May 2021. 15 of them have resigned; 9 are left.
PLANNING
The Council has no Planning Committee nor any process for it to comment on planning applications as a statutory consultee. I comment as an individual councillor on planning applications where I think it appropriate.
You might be interested in the following:-
Kingshill House
This is an outline application for up to 7 residential dwellings on a site at the back of Spurlands Road which has been designated under the planning system as an employment site i.e. not residential. There are other similar sites at the back of Spurlands End Road.
I have objected to the application as has Councillor Carroll who represents Hughenden on Bucks Council. Councillor Wilding who represents Great Kingshill on HPC has also commented. No decision has yet been made by Bucks Council.
Entrance and access drive to Our Ladies House on Kingshill Road.
This entrance (next to the bridleway) has been built without the necessary planning permission. The developers have been told by Bucks Council to either rebuild the entrance/driveway to comply with planning guidance or apply for retrospective planning permission.
Travellers site at Field Farm, Spurlands End Road
An application to convert the existing barn into a dayroom has been approved by Bucks Council. An application for a fourth pitch at the site was withdrawn. One of the conditions for the dayroom is that it is not to be occupied as an independent unit.
Conversion of a garage to habitable space
The policy for approving such conversions was recently set out very clearly by BC officers for a house on the Windmill Estate in Widmer End. In short, garages built 50 years ago are now too small for modern cars and don’t count as parking spaces.
RAF playpark
This is an application for a replacement playpark just off Main Road in Walter’s Ash. I commented as follows:
“As the site is on RAF premises and access is restricted, I have only been able to look at the site from outside the perimeter. However, from what I can see, I would approve the design and the equipment.
I understand that members of the local community can be given a social pass which enables them to have access to the playpark.
The replacement playpark would therefore be an asset for RAF personnel and other residents in Walter’s Ash.”
INTERNAL CONTROLS AND FINANCIAL STUFF
No improvement but I’m not going to bore you with the details.
SANCTIONS: REQUIREMENT TO APOLOGISE
On 29 January, BC’s Monitoring Officer advised Hughenden Parish Council that it was “pivotal” that HPC should make clear to me that I was required to apologise to a woman BC called Ms. X. Ms. X complained about my blog of 1 February 2023 (see my blog of 25 January 2023 for the background). BC also set a deadline of 3 working days for me to respond.
My previous sanction imposed in April 2023 had “asked” me to apologise to various people but I was now “required” to apologise to Ms. X.
The Monitoring Officer’s advice was forwarded to me by Mr Truppin, HPC’s locum Clerk, who said he was merely acting as the “messenger”. I pointed out that it was HPC that had sanctioned me not Bucks Council. And I asked him what legal power a parish council had to require any councillor to make a formal apology or indeed require any councillor to do anything.
Neither he nor the Monitoring Officer could answer the question.
The Monitoring Officer, via Mr Truppin, their messenger, referred me to S.28 of the Localism Act 2011. However, that Section places a statutory duty on councils to do various things; there is no legal power in that Section or indeed in that Act which gives councils the power to require councillors to do anything.
The Code of Conduct has no statutory backing for non-compliance by councillors.
I also commented on the language the Monitoring Officer used, including calling me ‘disingenuous’ i.e. dishonest.
I said I found such language from the Monitoring Officer unprofessional and unpleasant when I was simply asking what legal power a parish council had. I had the right to query the parish council’s and BC’s legal powers and to get a polite answer.
The Monitoring Officer also said my failure to “discharge a sanction imposed on me” could undermine the ethical framework of Section 27 of the Localism Act.
It amazes me that one parish councillor on a small parish council could undermine an ethical framework of an Act. But there it is - I can apparently undermine a statutory ethical framework!!! Wow!!!
The Monitoring Officer said Section 27 put a legal duty on me. But the legal duty in this Section is put on councils not individual councillors. Surely the Monitoring Officer couldn’t have got this wrong?
Finally, the Monitoring Officer wanted to make it clear that it was taking the matter very seriously and it could lead to an escalation of … well something I wasn’t quite clear about.
So I did a bit more homework.
In 2019, the Government issued a Command Paper into Local Government Standards written by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. It states: -
"Under the current arrangements when a councillor has been found to have broken the code of conduct there is no requirement to comply with remedial action."
It goes on to say:-
"At the moment, councils who impose sanctions at the most serious end of the current range – premises bans and withdrawal of facilities – are doing so without a clear basis in statute or case law. .... We have heard expert views on both sides of the argument as to whether measures such as premises bans are likely to be ultra vires or could be considered as tantamount to suspension; councils are therefore accepting a certain measure of legal risk in using these sanctions."
I suggested that the premises ban on me seemed even more legally risky as the ban is only to be lifted if I undertake training which has to be arranged by the Council - and the Council has failed to arrange that training for over 10 months.
In the circumstances, I considered the matter of an apology closed. I also considered the premises ban to be ultra vires and against natural justice. I consider that matter closed too.
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
It continues to astonish me that what I say in my blogs causes Bucks Council – and some of HPC’s councillors - such angst.
Here is what the High Court said about freedom of expression (i.e Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights) in its application to councillors: -
“Article 10 protects not only the substance of what is said, but also the form in which it is conveyed. Therefore, in the political context, a degree of the immoderate, offensive, shocking, disturbing, exaggerated, provocative, polemical, colourful, emotive, non-rational and aggressive, that would not be acceptable outside that context, is tolerated.
“Politicians, including councillors, have “enhanced protection as to what they say in the political arena” but by the same token are “expected and required to have thicker skins and have more tolerance to comment than ordinary citizens”.
“A councillor’s Article 10 rights extend to “all matters of public administration and public concern including comments about the adequacy or inadequacy of performance of public duties by others” but do not extend to “gratuitous personal comments”.
Far from being any of the things described by the High Court as tolerable, my blogs are moderate, factual, and generally quite boring. They include no gratuitous personal comments (unlike comments made about me).
But I do hope they include sufficient information to help you decide about the “adequacy or inadequacy of performance of public duties by others”, particularly of course of Hughenden Parish Council.
As I said right back in the beginning of this blogsite in May 2021, this blogsite is about scrutinising what the Council is doing and making it accountable.