Follow me @LindaDerrick1
Facebook Linda Derrick for Ridgeway East
30 December 2023
HPC owns or leases about 25 plots of land in the parish. HPC’s Environment and Services (E&S) Committee met on 12 December to consider plans for the following sites:-
Little Burnham Meadow and Spinney
Vincents Meadow
Cockshoot Wood
Primrose Hill Amenity Area
Common Road Old Allotment,
Hatches Field
Cockpit Hole
I can only find one of these plans and even that is virtually uncosted. However, my rough guess, based on that plan, is that implementation of the plans for these sites would cost the Council over 300k over the next 5 years, with much of the cost frontloaded.
I suspect very few residents know that these plans are being produced, much less what will be in the plans. Communication isn’t Hughenden Parish Council’s strongest suit.
The agenda for the meeting of E&S Committee on 12 December was not posted on HPC’s website before the meeting (and still isn’t). Neither was the agenda posted on the parish noticeboards.
The only place residents can find the agenda is on the noticeboard outside the Council offices. This is what you would find.
Luckily, as a councillor, I have an agenda and I have set out below what E&S Committee were asked to decide and my concerns about how this breached HPC’s Financial Regulations. It also sets out the lack of any coherent consultation with residents about issues which affect them and involve major expenditure.
Questions
I am left wondering about the following questions:-
Council meets in January and has to set the precept for 2024/5 i.e. the money it will get from taxpayers in the parish. Are these site management plans what residents would like the Council to spend taxpayers money on?
Why are there no staff resources available to post agendas on the website and noticeboards so that residents know what is to be considered at public meetings? Why are there no staff resources available to prepare and post draft minutes within a reasonable deadline on the website to inform residents about decisions? Why are the list of payments by HPC not posted with the minutes?
Why are there no staff resources available to do the basic work of the Council such as ensuring that residents’ hedges are cut and monitoring the work of existing contracts such as for grass and hedge cutting and tree maintenance?
And yet, why are there apparently sufficient staff resources to do all sorts of new work like procuring a mural at Cockpit Hole, planting trees in the Old Allotments, and procuring new playgrounds?
Can anyone remember last year when the Council said it couldn’t afford to keep the streetlights lit in Widmer End? (Total expenditure on streetlights this year estimated to be about £4000.)
Am I being cynical in thinking this spending spree is more about getting rid of some of HPC’s substantial underspend than about a proper and prudent use of taxpayers’ money?
What is the point of Council when decisions on priorities, strategic issues, major expenditure and payments are made elsewhere by those with no authority to do so?
How is this democratic?
How good is HPC at communicating and consulting with its electorate?
Does anyone (apart from me) care about compliance with HPC’s Financial Regulations, about a proper use of taxpayers’ money and about HPC’s exposure to financial risk?
Any bets on what the internal auditor will say (if anything) in response to my concerns about E&S Committee being asked to breach HPC’s Financial Regulations? (and about the many other concerns I have raised?)
Here’s what was on the E&S Committee agenda
Item 7 – site management plans.
In July, Council approved a contract with a company called Mike Deegan Consulting for the production of site management plans for three priority sites owned by HPC. Council did this without seeking alternative quotes. I voted against this contract.
The contract is confidential so, up to now, I have not said which sites were selected. However, the Council has now, it appears, put the information in the public domain.
The three priority sites are Little Burnham Meadow, Vincents Meadow and Cockshoot Wood. I have no idea why these were selected as priorities.
A price was agreed under the contract for the preparation of the site management plans for these three sites.
The contract also said that “it will be possible for the clerk to initiate development of the three other Group One sites; - Primrose Hill Amenity Area, Common Road Old Allotment and Hatches Field. If required, Mike Deegan can provide the clerk further support with these plans. It is likely, however, that these sites will also include significant proposals for habitat or amenity creation and require considerable input from specialist consultants; to help develop concept designs, community consultation and possibly actual implementation on the ground.”
I have no idea why these three sites were selected for the proposed next tranche. Council has not agreed the initiation of the development of any of these other three sites. Nor has it been informed that anyone has initiated this work. Nor has Council agreed a price for this work nor authorised any expenditure on this work.
E&S Committee has no delegated authority from Council to authorise any expenditure.
It is against this background that:-
a) E&S Committee was “asked to accept a quotation from Mike Deegan to supervise the procurement and delivery of a Site Management Plan for Hatches Field, working in collaboration with a local partner, Future Nature (BBOWT).”
Hatches Field is in Hughenden Valley ward. Cllr Kearey represents Hughenden Valley on E&S Committee. I do not know whether residents in Hughenden Valley have been consulted on the Plan.
Hatches Field is not one of the three priority sites. Council has not agreed that Mike Deegan should prepare a site management plan for Hatches Field. It has not authorised the expenditure for this Plan. Council has not seen the Plan and has not approved it. I haven’t seen it.
I have no idea how much the Plan has cost.
This is a breach of HPC’s Financial Regulations.
The papers for the E&S meeting contain no quotation for the procurement and delivery of the plan and no indication of the expenditure involved. E&S has no delegated authority to accept a quotation from Mike Deegan Consulting (or indeed anyone else). There is no indication that other quotes were sought.
Accepting a quote by E&S Committee would therefore also be a breach of HPC’s Financial Regulations as it has no authority to authorise expenditure. The Regulations also require other quotes to be sought.
b) E&S Committee was “asked to recommend to Full Council that it approve a Site Management Plan submitted by Michael Deegan for Vincents Meadow & Pond.”
Vincents Meadow and Pond is in Naphill. I do not know whether Naphill residents were consulted on the Plan while it was being developed. Cllrs Janes, Byrom, and Prashar represent Naphill and Walters Ash ward on the E&S Committee.
The Plan was circulated to the Committee with the agenda. It is a substantial document with a substantive five-year action programme. If approved, it would require considerable councillor and staff resources to implement and a substantial amount of funding (not quantified).
The only costed action (out of 27 action points with a cost) is for £5k for 2 “interpretation panels”.
My guess, and it is a guess, is that the action plan would cost conservatively £50k over 5 years, front loaded, and either at least a member of staff one day a week to supervise or, if the supervision is contracted out, at least £10k a year.
And this is just for one site.
A news item on the Plan was put on HPC’s website on 19 December but councillors were not informed about this so I did not pick this up until yesterday. It asks for comments saying that “The Parish Council will be providing a draft copy of the plans on its website and greatly appreciate your input and comments.”
I can’t find the draft Plan on the website and there is no deadline for comment. I am happy to send a copy of the Plan to anyone who asks.
c) E&S Committee was “asked to note that a Site Management Plan for Cockshoot Wood would be delivered by the end of the year for presentation for approval at the January 2024 Council Meeting.”
Cockshoot Wood is in Widmer End and Four Ashes ward. Cllrs Thomas and Cadwallader represent Widmer End and Four Ashes ward on the E&S Committee. Cllr Cadwallader is the Chair of E&S Committee.
I am one of the councillors for this ward. I have not been consulted on this Plan nor have I been sent a copy.
Nor, I understand, has Widmer End Residents Association seen a copy or been consulted. WERA does not normally meet in January so would need to set up a meeting if it wished to discuss the Plan in time for the Full Council in January.
I am unaware of other residents being consulted.
I do not know what E&S Committee decided about a), b) and c) because the draft minutes have not been circulated.
Mike Deegan has been paid £2300 for one of the Plans but I don’t know which one. This payment was not approved by Council.
There was no mention on the E & S agenda of a site management plan for Burnham Meadow and Spinney, which is in Hughenden Valley. Cllr Kearey represents Hughenden Valley on the E&S Committee. This site is one of the three priority sites.
Council was asked to approve this Plan at its November meeting but deferred a decision to January because a copy of the Plan was not included with the papers.
I have still not seen a copy of the Plan but a news item was put on HPC’s website on 19 December asking for comments, saying “The Parish Council will be providing a draft copy of the plans on its website”.
I can’t find the copy and there is no deadline for comment.
Confused? Me too.
Item 5 - Cockpit Hole
Cockpit Hole is not a priority site. It already has a site management plan under a contract with Chiltern Rangers, approved by Council without seeking other quotes. Chiltern Rangers has already been paid £1400 by the Council but I do not know what this was for. The payment was not approved by Council.
Cockpit Hole is in Great Kingshill. Cllr Jones, the Chair of HPC, represents Great Kingshill on E&S Committee.
E&S Committee was asked to “authorise the following activities to continue the restoration work”:-
a. “Authorise up to £1,000 to support a Community Day in April or May 2024, to include making raised beds, trellises, planting up with pollinators & climbers, installing bat boxes and the bird boxes (made by Chiltern Rangers), sanding and treating the picnic table area”.
E&S Committee has no delegated authority to authorise this expenditure (or any other expenditure).
b. “Authorise expenditure of up to £1,400 for artist’s time and related materials to create nature-themed art for the wall with the involvement of Chiltern Rangers artist Dan Wilson, and follow-up once it has dried with the application of two coats of anti-graffiti varnish”.
E&S Committee has no delegated authority to authorise this expenditure (or any other expenditure).
An article on previous work by Mr. Wilson in the Bucks Free Press is at Vandals rip down 'unique' Chiltern Rangers community mural | Bucks Free Press.
c. “Authorise the Locum Clerk, under delegated powers, to request Chiltern Rangers to water and tend to the planted saplings during the course of the summer of 2024, up to a maximum expenditure of £500 (approx. 10 waterings).”
The Committee has no authority to authorise the Clerk to do anything. The Clerk has got delegated authority to authorise expenditure up to a certain limit but this is normally used for routine purchases (like stationary) or in emergencies; it would arguably be a misuse of that authority to pay for the upkeep of items purchased without the approval of Council and in breach of HPC’s Financial Regulations.
Once again, I do not know what the Committee decided on a), b) and c) because the draft minutes have not been circulated.
Item 6 - Old Allotments, Common Road,
The Old Allotments site is now simply a field in Great Kingshill. They were given away to Hughenden Community Support Trust in 2015 and are now leased back to the Council. {Correction made on 1 January 2025 - I believe the transfer of land was unlawful, and the process by which it was done was invalid and not completed. So, the land is actually still in the ownership of HPC}
Cllr Jones, the Chair of HPC, represents Great Kingshill on E&S Committee. He was a trustee of HCST.
The Old Allotments are not one of the three priority sites but is proposed for the next tranche.
Based on a resolution agreed by Council in 2019 setting aside a budget for the development of the Old Allotments, the Committee was asked to “support a motion to request the Locum Clerk, under delegated powers, to issue the instructions and purchase orders necessary to carry out the following”:
a. “Order three native cherry trees at a total cost of not more than £35 per tree from Berwode Fruit Trees in Brill or some other suitable supplier
b. Upon delivery of the trees, to instruct Ridgeway Woodlands to plant the trees with deer protection at a cost of not more than £550.
c. Order the Compact8 Smart table picnic bench or suitable alternative up to a cost of £750
d. Upon delivery of the bench, to instruct Steve Rogers to instal the bench securely, taking advice from the landlord (Peter Gieler, on behalf of HCST), on its exact location.”
The budget set aside for this work in 2019 was not approved in subsequent years. There is no budget line for this work.
Moreover, the Committee has no authority to request the Clerk to do anything; only Council can instruct or request the Clerk to do something.
The Clerk has delegated power to authorise expenditure within limits but again this would be questionable on non-routine or non-urgent items without the approval of Council.
I don't know what the Committee decided on a), b), c) and d).
Item 10 - Playgrounds
The Committee were asked “to receive an oral update from the Locum Clerk on proposals to provide the necessary project management services to specify and procure playground facilities at Great Kingshill and Templewood.”
Mr Truppin, the Locum Clerk, has a conflict of interest in making these proposals as his services are provided by a company which intends to bid for this work.
Comments