Another straw that broke the camel’s back

Follow me @LindaDerrick1

Facebook Linda Derrick for Ridgeway East

23 March 2025

I explained in my last blog of 19 March two of the reasons for me deciding to resign from Hughenden Parish Council on 18 March – or, in other words, two of the final straws that broke the camel’s back.

Two motions on matters of concern to Widmer End residents did not get on the agenda for Council’s 18 March meeting.  I covered one of those motions, on speeding, in my blog of 19 March.  The Bucks Free Press has done a short article on the issue at Bucks woman who ‘bullied’ people quits parish council | Bucks Free Press.   

This blog tries to explain why the other motion, on streetlights, never made it to the agenda.   

It’s a story once again of a lack of communication, respect, courtesy and honesty.   But that’s HPC for you.

My next blog will cover the absolutely final, final straw. 

If I have a chance, I will then look at the nominations for the parish council elections (due in by 2 April).  And then my blogsite will close down.   

A lot of work has been done over the past 4 years to get the Council to accept it owns the streetlights in Widmer End and to prevent it turning the lights off.

Further work was done to get the Council to approve a strategy for gradually replacing the old streetlight columns on the Windmill Estate which are now about 50 years old.  

Cllr Jones, the Chair of HPC, and I were appointed to inspect the streetlights annually and recommend a small number of columns to be replaced each year.  Eventually, after months of delay and repeated reminders from me, 3 columns were replaced last year.  

Last month Cllr Jones and I, with a resident from the Windmill Estate, carried out another inspection and agreed another 3 columns to be recommended to Council for replacement.  These columns were: -

-          Column No 20 at 3 Candytuft Green

-         Column No 24 at 35/6 Campion Road

-         Column No 29 at 46 Columbine Road

I prepared a motion to Council, cleared it with Cllr Jones who would second it, and sent it on 3 March to Jason Wise, the deputy Clerk, to put on the agenda for the Council meeting on 18 March.  If approved, the replacements could have been done in April. 

Mr. Wise issued the summons for the Council on 13 March but the motion was not on the agenda. 

I naturally asked Mr. Wise why he hadn’t put the motion on the agenda. 

He said “multiple people” had informed him that I would not be attending the meeting; the motion would therefore have failed; and the motion was now in the folder to go to the Environment and Services Committee in April. 

Naturally, I asked Mr. Wise who these "multiple people" were.  I pointed out that it was for me to give my apologies if I could not attend a Council meeting and it was not for him to take my intentions or apologies from anyone else.    

I copied my e-mail to Council so councillors could let me know directly if they were one of these “multiple people”.

I also asked Mr. Wise why on earth he did not contact me before he decided not to include the motion on the agenda?  Surely that would have been the sensible and courteous way to proceed?

Mr. Wise responded promptly, apologising for the “misunderstanding”.  However, he did not answer my questions as to who the “multiple people” were or why he never contacted me. 

So I asked again. 

No response. 

Separately, I had to explain to Council that the Environment and Services Committee has no delegated authority to approve expenditure from the streetlights budget.  The issue will need to go to Council after the May elections.

In the meantime, I wrote to Cllrs Cadwallader and Thomas to ask if they were one of the “multiple people” because:-  

a)     I couldn’t envisage that Mr. Wise would give any credence to “multiple people” if they didn’t include a parish councillor; and

b)    Cllrs Cadwallader and Thomas were the only parish councillors at a meeting of the Widmer End Resident’ Association on 5 March when I mentioned my concerns about attending the Council meeting.    

I copied my e-mail to residents just in case they were one of the “multiple people” and they could let me know.

In my e-mail to Cllrs Cadwallader and Thomas, I had to clarify what I said at the WERA meeting about attending the Council meeting.  I had to do this because Cllr Cadwallader interrupted me on at least three occasions at the WERA meeting and told me to stop.   The discussion, understandably, became rather disjointed.   

So I explained in my e-mail that, at the request of those at the meeting, I had tried to inform residents of staffing changes at HPC.    

This was necessary as HPC had still not put out a statement about these changes, including the termination of the contract of its ex-Chief Officer who left on 24 February. 

I also tried to inform WERA, despite the interruptions, about the appointment of a new HPC Chief Officer, Kate Rogers, and my concern about the appointment process. 

Council had been informed that Ms. Rogers would be starting her employment with HPC on 11 March.  I told WERA that, if my concerns were correct and if it was Ms. Rogers who issued the summons for the Council meeting on 18 March, then I believed she would be convening the meeting unlawfully and I would not be able to attend the meeting as a councillor.

In the event, Ms. Rogers did not issue the summons; Mr. Wise, the deputy Clerk, did.

In my e-mail, I asked Cllr Cadwallader, in passing, why he thought he had the right to interrupt me so many times and tell me to stop providing this information. 

I asked him and Cllr Thomas if it was them who informed Mr. Wise I would not be at the Council meeting on 18 March – and if so, what right did they think they had to speak on my behalf?  

What right did they think they had to inform the deputy Clerk that I would not attend without checking if their interpretations of my intentions were correct?  

If Cllrs Cadwallader and Thomas were those “multiple people”, they were remiss not to have checked with me in the light of the confused discussion at WERA.  They were particularly remiss as it was the deputy Clerk who convened the meeting – and I never mentioned the possibility of him doing so or what I would do if he did.  

If Cllrs Cadwallader and Thomas were those “multiple people”, why on earth would they take steps to block a motion on streetlights which their constituents would welcome? 

And if Cllrs Cadwallader and Thomas were those “multiple people”, why were they so lacking in courtesy and simple good manners that they approached Mr. Wise without telling me what they were doing?

I received no response. 

I suspect I will never know for certain who these “multiple people” were and why they felt entitled to act as they did. 

Every councillor and a wide range of residents have had the opportunity to say it was them or not.  Cllrs Cadwallader and Thomas, who are the most likely to have been the “multiple people”, have had every opportunity to say it was not them. 

So you can come to your own conclusions. 

I will only add that getting the streetlight columns replaced has been an uphill battle, not least with Cllr Jones, who has said publicly that it is unfair that residents in other wards should have to pay for the streetlights in Widmer End. 

He should tell that to residents in Widmer End who see over £90k being spent on a new playground in Great Kingshill.   Cllr Jones, who represents Great Kingshill, might think whether it is unfair for Widmer End residents to pay for a playground in Great Kingshill.

I just wonder whether the streetlights motion would have gone on the agenda if the streetlights were in Great Kingshill? 

But whatever the answer, again what emerged was a lack of respect to me, no honesty, no communication and no courtesy.  

And such a sense of entitlement on the part of these “multiple people”.

Again, I could have no trust in my fellow councillors. 

So another reason for resigning and the third final straw.