PRESTON PARISH MEETING 20 MAY 2015.

THE PARISH MEETING 20 MAY 2015.

What can I say, an unmitigated disaster, again! This has happened every year for at least the last decade!!  And each time the council regurgitate the usual excuse of ‘it was on the Notice Board so there’s nothing more we can do”.

I was unable to attend due to illness but I am reliably informed there was just 1 resident who attended, 2 councillors and parish clerk. The Parish Council won’t bat an eye at that or give it a second thought. The fact is this was the Annual Parish Meeting for residents and it’s the legal duty of the council to ensure it takes place within a specified period. I would have thought the council also had a responsibility to ensure its success but it would appear the council takes every possible step to ensure the meeting takes place in name only and beyond that it is totally ineffective!

The facts are that I pushed for the Parish Meeting to be planned for 6 months ahead of the date of the meeting and I was arguing that case from May 2014. I had 2 other councillors who were willing to join me in forming a committee with some residents and planning for the meeting and making arrangements to engage with residents to try and make the meeting a success. We had plans for Posters, leaflet drops and suggested agenda items, we planned to have hot and cold refreshments available, we were even prepared to cover the cost of promoting the meeting out of our own pockets, that’s how important we believed it to be.

 The council did as far as I recall agree to put plans in place to make the meeting a success, as is often the case the matter was never mentioned again and nothing was actioned, even though the whole council agreed to take it forward, following the meeting someone decided to bin it and as usual that was the end of it, its happened time after time!

There are some very important matters and issues not least of all financial issues that residents need to be aware of and need to have the opportunity to discuss and debate in public because the issues potentially effect every household in the village. It does appear the council or those few people controlling the council have no wish for residents to be aware of these issues and will take almost any steps to prevent engagement with residents.

There are lots of local issues that I would imagine are of interest to residents and issues they would like to see discussed at an official level and in cases action taken, they include, Cemetery, Play Park, Foot Paths, Traffic and Parking, Dog Fowling, Preston Playing Fields, Jubilee Trees, Emergency Plan, allotments etc. etc., the list just goes on.

It really is time residents had their say, there are just a couple of people who are denying all other residents the opportunity to have their say, that needs to change!

UNDER PERFORMANCE IN RETURN FOR OVERPAYMENT.

PRESTON PARISH COUNCIL

I’ve just checked the Parish Council Website to see who our new councillors are, I should have known better!  This I think is pretty disgusting, we pay a clerk about 50% of the council’s entire income [Precept] for 12 hours work per week and part of the job is to update the Council Website as a source of information for residents. Seven councillors were elected in April [Unopposed] and I understand some have been co-opted since but they are not listed on the council Website.  So why am I and others who are no longer councillors still listed as councillors almost 2 months after we stood down?  I would like my name removing from that site! The Website is at the very least 6 months out of date and much of the information necessary to residents is simply not available.

We have Burstwick  Council seeking a new clerk on a NJC Spinal Count of 15 to 19 points [pay scale] subject to having or working to obtain the CiLCA Clerk qualification. This I understand is a very similar council profile to Preston in terms of Population and income according to the scales complied by NALC and SLCC in conjunction with NJC.

We then have Hedon seeking a new clerk on an NJC Spinal Count of 33 to 35 points, dependent on experience and qualifications, CiLCA qualification I believe is required. Hedon is probably 10 times the size of Preston in terms of income and expenditure [the last time I checked and if I remember correctly, I believe Hedon had a precept income of something like £165,000], probably has more than twice the population and I believe has one less councillor than Preston [from memory].

We then have Preston with a population of about 3,300 and an annual income of £20,000 [precept], about £2,000 of ancillary income and a rapidly dwindling reserve. This is were it goes horribly wrong because we have a clerk on a NJC Spinal Count of 26 points. The pay for our Parish Clerk is a long, long way ahead of Burstwick’s, 11 spinal points ahead and snapping at the heels of Hedon clerks pay scale. The Preston clerk’s pay puts him into the LC2 range [Hedon Clerks pay group] and there is absolutely nothing in the Preston Council profile that remotely warrants that level of pay.  

Everything I have received from Preston Council Office while a member of the council from work schedules to budget forecasts have been amateurish in the extreme and produced almost on the back of a fag packet and without any thought or consideration. When I questioned inconsistencies in a working schedule produced by the council office neither the Chairman or clerk had any idea of what I was talking about, even though I was actually quoting the schedule they had issued just days before, needless to say they refused to discuss it during later meetings!

Despite asking more than once I have never been informed of the relevant qualifications the clerk holds. I can only conclude the clerk for Preston is not qualified to do the job, so why do we pay such a princely wage? Especially when the clerk had no idea of what the quorum is for the council he works for?

While on the council I questioned the issue of the clerk’s salary scale and qualifications on a number of occasions but never got any answers. The issue was never put before the council to decide, it was always decided by someone else, I don’t know who, but the issue does need to be discussed openly and residents need to be closely involved in the discussion, after all this is public money that is being wasted sorry, spent.

As far as I was able to ascertain and confirmed by the Chairman, there are no records of the clerk ever being assessed for the position he now holds, no records exist of the process used to evaluate the level of pay inline with any official guide lines [NALC, SLCC or NJC] and no records exist that would indicate the clerks qualification to hold the post. There are no records that indicate the clerk has undergone any kind of performance review or appraisal during his 15 years in post.    

So I can only draw my own conclusion, it’s a remnant of the cosy rouges club that constituted the Parish Council prior to 2011.

Ken Lyons

DISINFORMATION AND DISHONESTY OF THE PARISH COUNCIL.

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 19^th 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 17^th April 2012 and 9^th May 2012.

The minutes for the meetings are available to view on the Council web site www.prestonparishcouncil.org and are titled April 17^th 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 19^th 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 20^th 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 14^th 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 22^nd 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 22^nd 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.

OPENNESS AND TRANSPARENCY.

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.

OPENNESS AND TRANSPARENCY.

Over the last 15 to 20 years Preston Parish Council has never been known for its openness, transparency or its engagement with residents but in mid 2013 the Council expressed the aim of becoming more open, transparent and engaged with residents of the Parish. Since that was announced there would appear to be very little evidence of any progress being made in achieving those aims.

Those aims were expressed following a request by a resident to have a Parish Meeting where residents would have been instrumental in producing an agenda for the meeting and all residents who are on the Electoral Register of the Parish would be entitled to vote and have their views and opinions recorded. Our understanding is that the Council was not helpful in assisting residents to hold a Parish Meeting and it has never been mentioned since.

The only visible evidence that the Council is trying to achieve its aims is the possible holding of the Parish Council Meeting being held in Preston South on 10/03/14. This we find is disappointing, there are fundamental issues, which we feel, should be addressed as part of the process, one of those issues we cover here.

Preston Parish Council Website, this is possibly a first point of contact for many residents who wish to locate information or possibly have access to their elected Parish Councillors.

PARISH COUNCIL WEBSITE,

This by definition is there to give as much information as possible to residents and people who would like to find out more about the Council and Parish, not only on the historical nature of the Parish but also on Council business, lets look at the contents of the website,

Home Page.

On the Home Page there is a short narrative mainly covering the boundaries of Preston and the population level in the village. There is a short acknowledgement to George Stephenson author of “Welcome to Preston in Holderness”.

There is a picture of a row of houses we believe on Weghill Road leading out of the village. That introduction we feel is uninspired, lacking in substance and gives very little if any real information of interest to anyone reading it for the first time. This uninspiring narrative we feel would immediately fail to grab anyone’s attention and would in fact put readers off from looking further into the village or  its website.

We in Preston are blessed with a Grade 1 listed church nestling in the center of a conservation area with views looking outward that many people would love to have on their doorstep. Preston has a history second to none but the Council seems to make no capital of it what so ever. We’re sure there are many historical pictures that would show how interesting  Preston is and would make the site compelling reading for visitors.

Someone has graciously put the website together with the bare minimum of information as a format and template for others who are more knowledgeable on local issues and history to expand upon and make it interesting and compelling, why has no one taken the time or interest to make the site more informative and welcoming? If, as appears to be the case the Council have no interest in doing that, enlist the help of residents and lets start a project to have the website ungraded and welcoming to visitors, they may just look a little further if we do. A small group of residents we’re sure would be better placed in improving the site and keeping it up to date with relevant information.

If we want proof of the effectiveness of residents and what they can achieve we need look no further than the Community hall.

Parish Information.

A very boring narrative with 2 interesting pictures of the Church and allotments buried deep within its bowels. The 2 pictures we consider to be better suited to the ‘Home Page’ or at least to be considered as such. About half of the sub listings under Parish Information have no information at all, they are simply boring, ‘fun less’ and uninformative. There isn’t even any information on bus routes or timings and none on taxis, but they are listed as items, why?

Parish Council Information.

This fares worse than the previous section. There is a list of Councillors who are elected to represent residents and to be on hand should residents need to contact them especially in any kind of emergency.

As we understand it, a councillor’s main task is to engage and get to know the views of residents so that they are able to represent those views in council, holding a Councillor surgery each month is a good idea and we know some residents suggested this in 2011 prior to the local elections, but the current arrangements need much more thought and publicity.

There are no contact details for any Councillors except through the Parish Clerk who we understand works about 12.5 hours a week, so for the vast majority of time Councillors are not available and are not contactable through the site should any resident need to contact a Councillor in an emergency. Why would people put themselves forward for election in order to represent residents and then withhold their contact details?

Added to that the list of Councillors is hopelessly out of date (02/03/14) as it still lists Councillor Harrison who resigned some months ago and it does not list Councillor Obernay who was co-opted onto the Council some months ago. Again if the Council have no interest in updating the site, which it clearly does not, would it not be a good idea to recruit residents who have the time and interest to do the job for them.

There is a Register of Councillor Interests, which is equally out of date as the list of Councillors, this particular item along with the list of Councillors, was only added after those interests were posted on this site, again the Council should be leading residents and not following them.

Policies and Procedures, as with most of the other sub headings of this section, is blank. This is a very important section of the site as it is supposed to inform residents or any one visiting the site, how the Council operates and the standards to which it operates. We are aware the Council adopted Policies and procedures developed by NALC and more recently have agreed to adopt an internal grievance procedure.

It comes across to the reader of the site that the Council really does not want residents to know how Council business is supposed to be conducted and therefore residents do not have any information that would enable them to hold the Council accountable.

As with most other sub sections under PC Information there is a calendar of local events, it is completely blank, it would appear there are no activities or events in Preston at all, that is very misleading there are many events that have happened and are to happen that are well deserving of a mention.

Council Meetings and Agenda’s. It seems to be the same old story, sometimes they’re listed and sometimes they’re not, it depends whether the Council can be bothered! The same applies to Council Minutes although following a recent observation to the Council by email from a resident these have now been brought up to date, this should be done without the need for a resident to prompt the Council into updating them.

Local Business.

There are 2 businesses listed, Cranswick Foods and Songbirds Nursery with links to the company websites. The sites that the links take you to are good but how many people would have lost interest long before they get here?

Surely the local shop and Post Office deserve a mention, its essential to Preston North and is a great service to the village, why is this not mentioned?

Community Groups.

Of the three sub sections Clubs, Organisations and Societies there is only ‘Preston Walkers’ Listed, again a narrative that is uninspiring. We are sure this could include pictures and explanations by the walkers group to inspire local people to join them, and in doing so meet new people, keep fit and get to see some of the local sights. If there are no listings under these headings would it not be better to have them replaced with subjects that can be expanded upon and that are of interest to people?

Image Gallery.

Even this is totally blank, surely there are lots of interesting images that could be posted here, we could come up with quite a number.

The site gives a reader the distinct impression that some one has simply thrown on information without any thought or interest because they have to. What has been thrown on is the absolute bare minimum and the information is just piled up any old how to get the job out of the way, just looking through this site is depressing!

Our conclusion is that the Council had the site produced by ERYC as a response to the requests and comments of residents, and then listed the bare minimum of information very reluctantly, showing no ongoing interest in a vehicle that could give residents a very great deal of relevant information.

At present the website is boring, uninspiring, incomplete, and does not achieve the aims that are inherently associated with a website. The design of the site is probably the most basic and worst attempt at ‘Corporate Identity’ we can think of, there is not a single thing about the site that says ‘read me’ or ‘visit Preston’. 

It comes across to residents that the Council appears to actively deny information to residents and do not want to engage with them. If the Council is sincere in reconnecting with residents, becoming more open and transparent it could do much worse than making the website a first project and inviting residents to get involved. At the very least it would be visible!

Maybe the end result would be a complete revamp of the site or start again from fresh and rebuilt it?

Can we suggest the Council take steps to find out?

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.

2ND REPLY TO JAN HUNTER.

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.

2^ND RESPONSE TO JAN HUNTER

POSTED BY KENNETH LYONS.

Hi Jan, Thank you for your comment, I’m pleased to hear you have an open mind. I agree one voice will get nowhere and I assume you are aware of why I am here and doing what I’m doing.

Basically we have 4 Parish Councillors who in my opinion gave false statements to the Standards Committee while it was investigating one of their number. Since doing so none of those Councillors have uttered another word on the subject, anything that has been said, has been said in private and behind the protection of closed Council doors. This can only be intended to deny me the right to defend myself.

Apart from the 4 councillors we have 5 other Councillors who gave honest statements and 3 members of the public gave statements, all of those statements support my case in some detail. The two sets of statements cannot both be truthful.

I have requested the text of all statements from East Riding Council, who have refused that request along with refusing to look into the matter further. As you will be aware a Parish Council does not come under the jurisdiction of the Local Government Ombudsman, so I have no redress in that direction. I can write to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to ask his Department to look into the matter and that is presently under consideration, I am currently researching the possible outcomes of that approach.

You mention “hard evidence”, the only hard evidence I have are the statements from witnesses, and at the moment I am being denied access to that evidence. East Riding quote legislation as the reason for their refusal, I have challenged their interpretation to no avail. I have subsequently submitted a complaint against East Riding Council to the Information Commissioners Office to have those statements released, I am currently awaiting the outcome. Should this approach fail my only access is to have them released by legal process and the only way I can do that is for the Councillors involved to call me a liar in public, and hopefully in writing, I can then instruct my legal advisors to apply for the statements on legal grounds (a provision for this is made in The Local Government Act 1972) and enter into the “Pre-Action Protocol for Defamation”. At the moment the press are reluctant to air this in print because of their concerns relating to the Law of Defamation, quite understandably.  Should I be in a position to take legal action that will change the position with regards to the Press.

I am already seen as a persistent complainer and I am very well aware of that, it’s a small price to pay in order to reach the truth. I agree with you again that 16,000 hits on this Blog go nowhere towards resolving the issue, but that figure will eventually reach 25,000 or 50,000 possibly even more. I will continue to press the issue until I have what I originally asked the Parish Council for, that is, an apology and an assurance that no other resident will be subjected to this kind of abuse in the future. It is my opinion that these type of people rely on their victims to either submit to their intimidation or quietly go away leaving them free to repeat their abuse on the next victim in the secure knowledge that their colleagues in Local Government will cover for them.

It would be futile to knock on doors to ask people to sign a petition on my behalf, not only because I am a relatively newcomer to the Village but because I feel sure those people not having been there to witness the incident will be unsure of the veracity of my position and would most likely therefore choose to “not get involved”, I put that down to “Village Politics’.

What I can say is that in my opinion, this matter does bring the Parish Council into disrepute and will further compound that disrepute the longer it continues, I am also aware of the approaching Local Elections. I do not accept that what I am doing causes that disrepute, Councillors who chose to be dishonest occasioned the disrepute, my actions are merely a consequence of their dishonesty.

The sad thing in all of this is the innocent people who suffer because of those dishonest Councillors. We have I believe 6 new Councillors who were elected in 2011 and the incident in question unfortunately happened on their first Council Meeting, their stewardship of the Parish has I believe been greatly hampered by this matter and any achievements and improvements they possibly could have introduced have been severely curtailed by the actions of those Councillors who are dishonest.

We have a Chairman who has been in her position since directly following the incident, her leadership has many questions attached to it because of this ongoing sore. However much I might sympathise with that position I can only respond to the Chairman’s inactivity in dealing with the issue.

My natural instinct is to talk about the issue and resolve it in an amenable manner, this regrettably has not been possible, I am therefore left with the only avenues open to me, my training over many years compels me to fight with whatever ammunition I have available to me and as dirty as my opponent chooses to make it. This matter will be resolved and I will receive an apology, if not from this Council it will be from the next Council or the one after that.  That position in my opinion can only put shame on our current Council.

I’m sure you will agree, this is a sad state of affairs and a reflection on Local Government as a whole and if our Local Government bodies disregard the legal provision’s placed upon them and they operate in a sloppy procedural fashion it can only reflect on the standard and quality of the service that is eventually delivered to members of the public.  

Thank you for you advice to “keep at it” and I’m pleased you will keep reading the posts, should I at any time go off on a rant please feel free to correct me. You have just prompted me to read a post earmarked for publication either tomorrow or Friday, I’ll apologise in advance but am prepared to go with the accuracy of the post.

Again thank you for your comments Jan, its been a pleasure responding to you, and thank you for reading.

Should you wish to contact me privately I can be reached at prestonparishcouncilproblems@gmail.com

Kind regards

KL

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.

REPLY TO JAN HUNTER.

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.

REPLY TO JAN HUNTER.

WE BELIEVE THIS COMMENT WAS AIMED AT KEN LYONS SO HE HAS AGREED TO POST A PERSONAL RESPONSE.

Hi Jan Hunter, thank you for your comment, I shall try to answer all your points.

If you have read previous posts you will be aware that I make a point of letting readers know that I am far from being an expert on anything let alone Council Meetings. My view and opinion is given as a lowly resident and not as a knowledgeable Councillor. I arrived at my opinion by researching the requirements for Council Meetings and the role of the various participants.  My opinion, and it’s only my opinion, is that the procedures followed during many Council Meetings do not marry up with the requirements, I shall be posting on this subject in the near future, maybe you would care to read it and point out where I’m going wrong.

You suggest I should put my name forward to be a Councillor, I have been asked to do that by a number of residents also by a Ward Councillor, I have considered it and rejected the idea. In 2011 we had, I believe without checking, 6 or 7 new councillors elected to make a difference to how the council operated and how it involves and connects to residents. In my view and it’s just my view from observation, those aims have not been realised, if 6 good residents are unable to change things, what makes you think one more would make any difference?

You could very well be correct in that I sometimes rant and I respect your opinion in that regard. But, at least I take an interest and at least I’m passionate about it and I do believe that there is a need for some one to speak out, if no one speaks out the situation will only deteriorate further and we could well be left with chaos. In that event we would not be able to put all the blame on the Parish Council because we as residents would be equally at fault by not speaking out.

Yes we have had almost 300 comments though I didn’t mention the number of emails as that wasn’t referred to in the previous comment from ‘anonymous’, who by the way made the same points you are making. You have stated very emphatically that we only publish comments that are from the same person, unless you have made almost 300 comments to this site you already know that isn’t correct. In any event many of them are ‘anonymous’ comments and we have no idea who they are from. If all comments are from the same person I can only suggest that person is really very fickle because the comments cover a wide range of opinion from pure opposition to total support, which suggests to me they are not all from the same person.

You ask “why?” we only publish comments from the same person, we appear to be going round in circles, I can only tell you that we publish all comments except for a number of comments on very recent posts, which we have already covered.

You suggest I am devoting a great deal of time to this Blog, I can assure you I don’t spend a great deal of time on here, I have other things I need to do and other people I need to consider. That is possibly why some of my posts may come across as “ranting”, I don’t re-read them 20 times in order to ‘polish’ them up before I publish them, so again I apologise if they come across as “kinder Garden” rants, I certainly don’t mean them to.

You go on to suggest that I say that I have “much support”, as far as I’m aware I have never said that, though I have thanked people for their support as they have given it. You say I should make the Parish Council and Public aware of my support and opinion. 

To date there has been more than 16,000 page views on this blog, I don’t know who those readers are, it may be only one person who has read this Blog but that person would have had to read it 16,000 times, I don’t consider that to be a realistic proposition. As for making the Parish Council aware, you will see in previous posts that I made every attempt at making contact with the Council to enter into a dialog to resolve any issues I might have with them. The Council has never responded so I now do it the only way that appears to be left open to me as a resident, registered voter and precept payer of the Parish.

As for me being bored, as far as I’m aware you don’t know me so I’m unsure how you reach that conclusion, you may have noticed that there are planned breaks in this Blog and they can last 5 months where I nor anyone else posts on this site, if we were bored we wouldn’t have those breaks, would we?

You are correct to some degree in saying that I’m just one person, I do not and will not ask others to fight my battles nor will I hide behind the skirts of women, the Council have been aware who I am from the start and they are still aware today. My door has never been closed to the Council, which has been my whole point.

That I think answers the points you raise, but if I could just add. Your comment has been similar to many others in that they want to shoot the messenger instead of dealing with the message. You clearly disagree with me on, it would appear, most points. If you think or know anything on this site that is incorrect, dishonest or misleading please contact us again with details of same and we shall try to address them, in doing so you would be a great help in resolving the issues through debate or at least possibly coming to an open conclusion.

Thank you for your comments Jan and very many thanks for reading.

KL

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.

PARISH COUNCIL MEETING 03/03/2014.

We would just 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.

PARISH COUNCIL MEETING 03/03/2014.

Posted by Kenneth Lyons.

I attended the Council Meeting tonight (03/03/2014), it confirmed and reinforced the reason why I haven’t been to one of these meetings for a while. I get totally frustrated with how they work and what they talk about, which I have to say is nothing or at least its anything as long as it isn’t relevant to the issue being considered.

Tonight as I understand it, was to consider the “soundness and legality” of East Riding’s “Proposed Submissions Documents”. I had the very distinct impression that not a single councillor had taken the time or trouble to read any document on the protocol for reaching this point in a legal and sound manner.

We had talk of Preston not being a ‘Village’ or ‘Primary Village” its a ‘Hamlet”, people who lived in some houses or other that had now become flats, big red fire engines that are bigger than the ones we currently have, traffic blockages, a bypass and that would be down to a builder to build, where the by-pass would be and how it wouldn’t improve the traffic in Preston, drains in Bilton and how many houses could be connected to it, how in 1999 East Riding said they wouldn’t build in Preston until the traffic problems had been adequately addressed and a host of other subjects that were totally irrelevant to the purpose of the Council Meeting, all this took up at least 95% of this section of the meeting, yes I was watching the time.

We had a resident who has spent a lot of time and hard work collecting signatures for a petition to East Riding on the traffic issues in Preston, who was told by a Ward Councillor that she was wasting her time and it would make absolutely no difference at all, terrific, who’s side are the council on?

At the end of this section of the meeting and before the Council went on to consider Planning Applications the Council Chairman gave a little speech about how the Council never seemed to get any residents at Council Meetings. The Chairman said, “maybe the Council isn’t relevant to the lives of residents and that the Council didn’t know if that was the Council’s fault”. The Chairman went on to say the Council was having its meeting next Monday in the café in the Co-op Supermarket, every body had a good laugh, including Council members, at that point I could take no more…I had to leave!

I worked for an International Broker and I can only go by the meetings I attended and in many cases arranged and Chaired with an agenda of items. Every attendee had to be up to speed on the subject earmarked for discussion. My time was accounted for during every day in the coming year and what I never had time for, was some one going off at a tangent and getting off track. There had to be a conclusion drawn, a plan for moving that subject forward and responsibilities assigned, that was the end of the meeting.

Maybe I’ve got the wrong end of the stick and Council meetings operate in a very different way to what I’m used to but I have to say, I have great difficulty in coming to terms with wasting my time at meetings that appear to cover very little, go nowhere and avoid the subject in question. I have only ever been to Preston Parish Council meetings in a public forum and they are very different from business meetings I am more accustomed to, so if I am being overly harsh I can only apologise, I can only put it down to my lack of experience.

The Ward Councillor who attended explained that the current process has been going for the last 8 years. I know that the council has received all the documents relating to that process over that time but cannot prove that many of them were never even opened, I know that from a Council source.

Should the Council have shown a little leadership and drawn those documents and plans to the attention of residents some years ago? Wouldn’t this be a very good subject for Parish Meetings to consider the implications and gather the views and opinions of residents?

Obviously none of the above, it seems to have been the domain of 13 Councillors to let this slip through because the decision seems to have been theirs alone, is the Council relevant to residents lives, I’ll leave you to figure that one out.

Allow me to give the Council a clue, the Council is there to manage the Parish and its affairs and representing the views of residents. In 2010 more than 500 residents sent letters to East Riding objecting to a housing development of 20 dwellings, last year almost 600 residents objected to housing developments in the village, currently there are about 700 residents who have signed a petition objecting to the current Submissions Document. I make that in the order of 1800 residents, not withstanding duplications that are against development due to traffic issues in Preston. Those figures are pretty well exclusive to Preston North, does the Council happen to know how many residents live in Preston North?

The current Council has been sitting for the last 3 years and certainly since that first development in 2010, the Council can argue this blunder was down to the previous administration, which I would agree with, but can the Council explain to residents why it has not in the last 3 years taken up this cause on behalf of residents instead of leaving it till 7 days before the whole process reaches its conclusion?

If the Council want to know if it’s relevant to the lives of residents and why no residents (to speak of) attend Council Meetings I suggest the answer is no, thats why nobody attends Council Meetings!

I have been asked by a number of residents if I will submit a note of interest in the current vacancy on the Council. I told them I would consider it, after tonight I’ve considered it and my answer is “if you pee into the wind you normally get wet”, I prefer to stay dry thank you!

We intend to publish a post on housing allocations in the near future, you might find it interesting.

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.