Follow me @LindaDerrick1
Facebook Linda Derrick for Ridgeway East
18 August 2024
Nothing much surprises me now about Hughenden Parish Council – particularly its complete indifference to complying with the law.
But carrying out an unlawful procurement for about £50,000 pushes the Council into another league.
Here’s the summary – and then the facts as I know them.
Summary
A company called Local Council Consultancy was contracted by Council in March to support Council in renovating its two playgrounds. Mr. Phillip Woodward was the LCC project manager for this work. The contract is for over £14,000.
In my opinion, Mr. Woodward has not carried out the work specified in the LCC quote which was approved by Council.
In particular, he did not carry out the specified community engagement for the Templewood playground nor feedback the outcome to Council before he prepared a draft tender specification for the playground. Nor did he put a draft specification for the Templewood playground to Council for approval before he put the specification out to tender.
Council did not approve the specification for the tender – indeed Council has still not seen it. Council did not approve the tender process, including the process for evaluating the bids and identifying the preferred bid.
In my opinion, Mr. Woodward, and those acting with him, had no authority to issue the tender or carry out the tendering process. In my opinion, they acted unlawfully.
Nor did Council approve consultation with residents on the preferred bid. This gave an advantage to the preferred bid and might in itself be unlawful.
Instead, Council was kept in the dark about the tender process. Council was only informed the tender had been issued on 23 July - 7 weeks after the tender was issued. And by then, the deadline for the tender had passed, the bids had been evaluated and a preferred bid had been identified. Council was only informed about this another 2 weeks later.
Mr. Woodward and Cllr Prashar, the ward councillor for the Templewood playground, justified bypassing Council in a paper to Council. They said that unless decisions were explicitly reserved to Council, decisions were “appropriately addressed” by “operating Committees”.
This is sheer nonsense and shows a complete lack of understanding of the governance of a council.
The actual position is that unless Council explicitly delegates its power of decision-making, it retains the power. Council did not delegate any decision-making for the tender process to anyone. It did not delegate any decision-making to a Committee nor to an officer nor to LCC. Council cannot lawfully delegate decision-making to a working group or individual councillors.
And in any case, no HPC committee “appropriately addressed” the tendering process.
Council was only provided with a copy of the preferred bid when it was asked to approve one of five bids. It could not therefore take an informed decision on which bid provided value for money.
Finally, the decision to accept the preferred bid at an Extraordinary meeting was taken by only 4 councillors and Mr. Wilding. As I said in my last blog, I thought Mr. Wilding was co-opted unlawfully. However, Council has declined to take legal advice on this.
If I am correct, the Extraordinary meeting would have been inquorate and any decisions made were invalid.
So I think the procurement for the Templewood playground for about £50,000 was unlawful and the Council meeting at which the decision was made to approve the preferred bid was inquorate.
Background
Hughenden Parish Council owns two playgrounds – one at Templewood in Walter’s Ash and one at Great Kingshill on part of Great Kingshill Common.
For years, the Council failed to maintain the playgrounds or invest in new equipment.
Every three months, Council receives a safety inspection report from a competent company contracted by Council. Council has ignored the reports for years.
I asked the locum Clerk for copies of the latest reports but had no response. The Council has now received a formal Decision Notice from the Information Commissioner’s Office telling Council it has not complied with the Freedom of Information Act.
Both playgrounds have deteriorated. Much of the equipment at both playgrounds have become a risk to children and the Health and Safety Executive is carrying out an investigation. I asked for copies of the correspondence between the Council and HSE but the locum Clerk refused to provide it.
Ward councillors for Walters Ash and Great Kingshill told Council that residents were complaining about the playgrounds and wanted new playgrounds.
Remarkably, however, no written complaints were ever circulated to Council by the locum Clerk and no resident complained in person at any Council meeting.
I have to add that, for all I know, residents of the two wards have been bombarding the locum Clerk with e-mails – but the locum Clerk doesn’t circulate correspondence to Council. And I also have to add that residents might well have had no idea when Council was to discuss the playgrounds; Council doesn’t communicate its business well.
But whatever – the upshot was that, whatever the residents thought, it was not getting through to Council.
Nor have the ward councillors presented the concerns of residents to Council or put forward any substantive proposals. The issue just went round and round for years.
Finally, Council decided it needed support from consultants.
The Full Council meeting on 19 March
Council was asked to consider quotes for the “provision of Project Management Services for the renovation of playgrounds at Templewood and Great Kingshill”.
Three quotes were received and Council “resolved to accept Quote B (Local Council Consultancy) at £375 per day = £14,250 plus expenses (38 days).”
I have included the actual resolution as it clearly shows that all Council resolved was to accept the quote from the Local Council Consultancy; it delegated none of its decision-making powers to anyone.
So what should have happened then?
The programme of support work and activities proposed by LCC in the quote means the following should have happened.
By the end of April, Stage 1 initial research and information gathering, should have been completed. The project manager from LCC, Phillip Woodward, should have had a Zoom meeting with the Clerk/Chair, agreed the scope of community engagement and soft market tested with potential suppliers.
By May/June, Stages 2 community engagement, should have been completed. The project manager should have met with two residents associations, carried out two open public display / exhibition events, sent flyers to nearby residents (if agreed by HPC), contacted local schools, and contacted relevant sports clubs. He should have collated the results of this community engagement and fedback to Hughenden Parish Council.
At this stage, Council should have been given a good idea of the demand for the playgrounds. Was the demand for playgrounds for children, or young people? How many would be likely to use the playgrounds? Were there other playgrounds currently meeting that demand or likely to become available?
What sort of playgrounds did residents (and the children and young people) want?
What did the nearby residents think, not just those who wanted the playgrounds?
What were the options?
The first option was obviously to carry out the brief for the project i.e. for the renovation of the playground defined by my dictionary as “restoring something to a good working condition”.
How much of the existing playground could be restored to a good working condition? What equipment or what infrastructure could be repaired and made safe? And which would need to be replaced?
A second option might have been to go further than the brief i.e. not only to renovate the playground but to provide something more - possibly a completely new playground with more and bigger equipment.
A third option, if the demand was limited, might have been not to provide a playground at all.
With estimates of the costs for each option, Council would have been able to make an informed decision on the value for money of each option – as councillors are required to do under HPC’s Code of Conduct.
Council should then have been able to take a decision on the options - and importantly set a budget for the renovation of each of the 2 playgrounds.
By the end of June, Stage 3 development of the final specification, should have been completed. In the light of Council’s decision at the end of Stage 2, the project manager should have developed the final specifications for each playground and sought the approval of Council.
What actually happened?
None of this happened.
Nothing went to Council between the March Full Council meeting and the July Full Council meeting – no feedback from consultation with residents or community engagement, no options, no estimates of costs, and no specifications for either of the playgrounds.
The only reference to the project was in the draft minutes of the April E&S Committee which were circulated in early July.
The draft minutes say that E&S Committee agreed to recommend to Council that a Playground Working Group should be set up to liaise with the Project Manager on the refurbishment of Templewood and Great Kingshill Playgrounds…Member representation would be Cllr Wilding and Cllr Prashar and the working group would report into the Environment and Services Committee.
Apart from this, there was a complete silence.
Full Council meeting on 23 July
Then, as I recorded in my blog of 28 July, came the bombshell. Council was informed – orally – by Cllr Prashar that the tender for the procurement for the Templewood playground had been issued. This was the only information Council received.
Council was told nothing about any consultation with the community – Cllr Prahar said community engagement on the playground was for her and not Council.
Council was not informed about the tender specification nor given a copy.
A few days after the meeting, I wrote to Council, the locum Clerk, LCC and the internal auditor setting out my concerns. I pointed out that Council had not delegated any powers, including decision-making to anyone. Council hadn’t been informed about the issuing of the tender let alone approved the tender specification.
I questioned whether the process complied with HPC’s Financial Regulations and the law.
Cllr Prashar had said at the Council meeting that Council had delegated authority on the project, although Cllr Prashar did not specify what had been delegated, when or to whom. She also said that Council had been informed.
I asked in my e-mail if Cllr Prashar could let me know when this happened.
I also pointed out there was no agreed budget for the renovation of the Templewood playground but I assumed the value of the contract for this work was in the region of £50-100k.
I said I was shocked that a tender for £50,000 had been issued without Council’s knowledge let alone its approval. No-one had any authority to issue a tender on behalf of the Council.
I asked that the tender process was paused and those submitting bids, or thinking of doing so, were informed until Council had had an Extraordinary meeting to discuss the issues.
I also asked that, for the Extraordinary meeting, Council had full reports from LCC on each stage of the project for both playgrounds. I didn’t think Council should be bounced into accepting a tender process just because it had been started - and stopping it would be embarrassing and not good for Council’s reputation.
We were talking here, as the Chair repeatedly said, of a budget of £132, 000 for both playgrounds.
As normal, I got no response to my e-mail.
Extraordinary Council meeting on 6 August
I wasn’t able to go to the meeting but read the supporting paper by Cllr Prashar and Mr. Woodward.
Again I was shocked.
From the paper, Council now learnt that not only had the tender been issued (on 2 June) but the deadline for the return of bids had been set for 12 July.
Cllr Prashar hadn’t mentioned that at the July Full Council meeting.
Council also learnt that five valid tenders had been received and evaluated on 22 July by a panel including Cllr Prashar, Mr. Woodward and staff of the Council; and the panel had identified a preferred bid.
Cllr Prashar hadn’t mentioned that the next day at the Council meeting.
Council also learnt that “various members of the community” were consulted. These “various members” were asked if wider community consultation should take place before or after going out to tender.
The “various members” opted for the latter option. And, on the basis of their views, this is what was done.
Naphill and Walters Ash Residents Association, Naphill Village Hall Committee and various key individuals in the community were not consulted – they were merely informed of the proposal to renovate the playground. There was nothing in the Naphill and Walters Ash Newsletter. There were no flyers to local residents and no community events before the tender went out.
Instead, two community engagement events were held after the procurement had finished – one on 30 July and one on 2 August. An anonymised version of the preferred bid was shown to residents for their comments.
Cllr Prashar hadn’t mentioned at the July Council meeting that that was going to happen.
Council was asked at the Extraordinary meeting to approve a budget for the contract and approve the preferred bid. Copies of the preferred bid were circulated to Council but not the other 4 bids.
The preferred bid was for a completely new playground – equipment, surface and barriers except for one piece of equipment (which was assessed in July as a medium risk to children). The new playground would provide considerably more equipment than at present. This was not the “renovation” which Council approved.
In effect, Council had been completely bypassed in the tendering process.
I thought this was unlawful.
So, I put my concerns in writing to Council (again) before the meeting, copying to the same people plus the external auditor. I had a response from the external auditor, but from no-one else.
Last week, I asked the locum Clerk and the Chair of the Council what was decided at the meeting but haven’t had a response.
However, I understand from other sources that 4 councillors and Mr. Wilding approved the preferred bid.
Comments