We would like
to remind readers, this blog is not run by any one person, it has a number of
residents as members and we work as a team, no single member has full control
on what appears. If you wish to comment on anything on this blog you should
either comment through the normal channel or email us direct, If you would like
to join our group please email us, thank you.
DISINFORMATION AND
DISHONESTY OF THE PARISH COUNCIL.
Residents must be able to trust and have faith in the information the
Parish Council gives them, when information is given out by the Council that is
obviously wrong it injures the trust residents have in the Council and
questions inevitably follow. We are not referring to a one off error, which we
are all capable of making, our concern is consistently misleading information
received from the Parish Council which any reasonable person might ask, ‘do the Council know this information is misleading,
if not the Council should at the very least explain what’s gone wrong and give
an assurance that measures have been taken to mininmise the error occurring in
the future. If the Council simply state “the
matter is closed”, this inevitably leads to a damage in trust, questions
remain unanswered and any future information from the Council is brought into
question.
Although there are a number of items of information from the Council
that are in our view ‘highly questionable’, we will confine our comments to
just 3 items, covering historical and more recent events.
FIRSTLY THE MOST RECENT ITEM,
A request for information was submitted to the Parish Council on 19th
February 2014, the text of the request is reproduced below,
Dear Council
Re: Freedom of
Information Request.
I would appreciate it if you would
forward the following information,
1.
A list of all ‘In camera’ meetings held since
May 2011.
2.
Minutes relating to those meetings.
Thank you for your assistance.
A very curtly worded reply was
received the following day (20/02/2014), reproduced here,
Mr. *********,
In camera meetings were held on 17th April 2012 and 9th May 2012.
The minutes for the meetings are available
to view on the Council web site www.prestonparishcouncil.org and are titled
April 17th
2012 and May 2012.
The Council
Once again it transpired this information
was inaccurate and visiting the Council Web site was not helpful. The resident
making the request was aware of 4 ‘In camera’ meetings since May 2011 but
unsure whether that was the total number or not. The resident responded and
explained why he considered the information given was inaccurate, the Council
replied with a much friendlier response and released the information that
should have been given in the first reply.
The resident responded and thanked the
Council for its speedy reply. If the resident had not had a prior knowledge of
the ‘In camera’ meetings he would almost certainly have been mislead by the
Councils reply.
Residents should not have to push the
Council for information they are entitled to as electors and precept payers.
The Council should not respond in a manner that implies the resident has put
the Council to a lot of trouble and that the Council would rather not be giving
the information out.
THE
SECOND ITEM IS A MORE HISTORICAL ONE BUT DOES ILLUSTRATE THE POINT WE’RE TRYING
TO MAKE VERY EFFECTIVELY IN OUR VIEW.
A group of residents attended a Council
Meeting in late 2010 with information that a Planning Application for the
erection of a new community hall with all associated costs was about £10,000,
The Chairman agreed that is was “near enough” and some Councillors expressed
shock.
A resident then contacted the Council to
enquire as to the actual cost with all associated costs included.
The answer came back as,
Frank Hill & Son.
To Sketch
Plans.
£2000 (19/07/06)
Planning Application Fees. £1860
(09/11/06)
Building
regs.
£ 378 (31/01/07)
Architects
Fees
£3000 (31/01/07)
Total
Cost £7,238.00
More recently, on 19th September
2013 another resident requested the same information using the same wording as
the earlier request, i.e. the cost of the Planning Application with all
associated costs included. Straight forward you would think, the reply was
received on 20th September 2013, which was,
“….I
attach all the minutes covering that period for your information including
the
approval of payments by the Council.
The
payment to Frank Hill was made in two
stages and included the cost of
planning,
building regulations and architect fees. The total cost being
£3903.08p
inc. vat.”
Total
cost
£3,903.08.
That is vastly different to the first reply from the Council that put
the total cost including all other associated costs at £7,238, that’s a
discrepancy of £3334.92 and the later one includes VAT presumably at the
standard Rate. It should we believe be possible to accurately take these
figures from Council accounts that were finalised at least 4 years previously,
there should be no discrepancy between the amounts. It does raise the question,
is the Council attempting to lessen the impact relating to the wasting of
public funds by purposefully issuing false and misleading information on
financial matters?
We need to look at the appropriate minutes and try to match payments
against those figures,
Minutes for the Council Meeting on 14th June 2006. “(05-66) Village Hall Project. The Chairman informed the Council that
a quote of £6000 for producing plans for the proposed new village hall had been
received from Frank Hill”.
That quote was approved and accepted by Council, in June 2006 there is
no mention of any additional costs associated with a Planning Application as
that wouldn’t be entered into for another 5 months or so.
The actual amounts (in 3 stages not 2) paid to Frank Hill for the
Village Hall Project in 2006/7 are,
Minutes for September 2006. £
2,350.00
Minutes for February 2007. £
2,728.08
Minutes for April 2007. £1,175.00
Total £6,263.08
If we add to this the cost of the Planning Application of £1,860 and
Building Regs £375, it gives us another figure of,
Total £8,503.08.
So we now have at least 4 different costs for that Planning
Application, which one if any is correct?
The whole of the Councils response is confusing and misleading and
possibly to the point of being dishonest, we have various amounts whichever
response you wish to take. That should not be the case, Information given out
by the Council should be consistently accurate and relevant to the request.
There has between 2010 and now been an
accusation leveled at the Council that because they have simply left that
expensive Planning Approval without any attempt to progress it from the date it
was approved, those public funds were spend needlessly with no benefit to the
community of Preston. That in our opinion breached the Councils Fiduciary Duty
of Care owed to residents when spending public funds.
We understand the Audit Commission,
following an Audit in early 2011, criticized the Council and suggested it
should take greater care when using public funds.
As ever with the Parish Council when it gives information more than
once there is always a discrepancy each time the information is given. We still
after many attempts do not know the cost of the 2006 Planning Application.
Whether this is deliberate or not we are unable to say but it does demonstrate
a fault in the process that is in desperate need of rectification.
Structural Engineers Report
on the Village Hall.
In 2010 a group of residents were opposing the Council’s intention to
demolish the Village Hall and build a new Community Hall. At that time we were in possession of a
Structural Engineers Report on the Village Hall commissioned by the Parish
Council, stating the current hall was structurally sound and was merely in need
of superficial refurbishment to put it back into full use. This was contrary to
the advice we were being given by the Council who wanted to demolish the Hall
and were telling residents the Hall was beyond repair and therefore it wasn’t a
financially viable proposition.
On 22nd October 2010 we requested a copy of that Engineers
report as follows
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST
Dear Council
I am trying to locate a copy of a survey on the village hall that was
apparently done some time ago. Can you please confirm there is a survey report
and may I have a copy.
If that could be sent by E-mail I would appreciate it.
Regards
On the 22nd October the reply came back from the Council,
“I
can’t recall a survey being carried out. Who would have carried it out and what
would the survey relate to?”
After some exchanges the Council eventually agreed there was a report
done by Alan Wood and Partners in 2003, but it was done on behalf of the Church
and it was nothing to do with the Council, we were also assured the Parish
Council didn’t pay for it. A copy was not forwarded as the Council maintained
it was not their concern and therefore had no copy to forward. This sort of
denial is beginning to sound familiar isn’t it?
For the Council to ask residents who would have carried out such a
report and what it would have related to is not acceptable behaviour from our
Parish Council or Councillors. The Council commissioned the report, it was
delivered to the Council and the Council was holding the report on file and
because the Council commissioned the report we can only assume the council
covered the cost.
It is our belief that the Parish Council has a culture of misleading
residents and deliberately giving out false information to residents in the
hope that the activities of the Council can remain hidden from the view of the
public. Only when pressed and evidence of what is being requested is produced will
the Council half-heartedly give information. That culture we believe is being
maintained by a number of Councillors who do not have the best interests of the
residents of Preston as their main priority.
In this modern age there can be no place for such inexcusable behaviour
from our local elected officials. This behaviour by the Parish Council and its
members clearly demonstrates an established culture of dishonesty and secrecy
when dealing with members of the public who it is there to represent, in our opinion
it is essential for the Council to take whatever actions are required to
correct the faults.
We are aware there is much friction within the Council because one
faction wants there to be change to a more open and inclusive culture while an
opposing faction disagrees and wishes to maintain the status quo. This position
is not good for the Parish or residents and once again it reflects on the level
or service given to residents by the warring Council.
There is a question of ‘Institutional
Dishonesty’ by the Parish Council that must be resolved.
If there are
any residents with similar experience of the council do please contact us by
comment or email. If you wish we will post on your experience without your
identity being released, or not post anything if you simply want to share your
experience it’s entirely up to you. We would love to hear your story, your not
alone, there are a number of us, let us compare notes and grow as a group.
No comments:
Post a Comment