Our offer to the Parish Council to Close this Blog and remove it from the Web.

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.

7. Our offer to the Parish Council to remove this blog from the web.

Following the posting of the notice to say the council meeting on Friday (16/08/13) was to take place and the council was to consider a response to this blog, we responded in a positive manner both on this blog and on HU12 Online as a comment to the parish councils notice, hoping that the council would at least respond in a similar fashion and seek a way forward, instead what the council have done is taken a massive and damaging retrograde step backward.

We asked that both parties explore in good faith and goodwill any ground that would resolve the issues and avoid any future bitterness, the councils response was to once again ignore the issues and simply pass the responsibility to residents by issuing a poster, that was very disappointing, short sighted and misguided, who on earth is giving the council such appallingly bad advice and why aren’t the council leaders showing some initiative and leading the council instead of blindly and foolishly following the same old advice that has obviously failed so miserably for the last 3 years? That same advice has led us to our respective positions of to day from 2010!

The council resorted to calling us names to deflect attention from themselves and the issues raised on this blog, let us make this offer to the parish Council. We will consider shutting this blog down and removing it from the web if the council will answer a few basic questions, fully, in good faith and with documented confirmation.

Those questions are;

1. Failing to respond to requests for information under the FoIA.

There are many requests for information the council have chosen to ignore but we will take the latest, simply for convenience. A request for information was sent to the council by one of our members on 10/12/12 requesting information relating to council approval for Planning Application No. 06/09312/PLF and 10/00410/PCC.

Could the Council demonstrate how they diligently dealt with that request, by way of acknowledging it, responding within the requirements of the FoIA and finally satisfying that request? If the council felt it was outside the remit of FoIA how did they communicate that to the requestor?

2. Wasting of public funds 1.

We have stated that the council have wasted many thousands of pounds of taxpayers money (Preston taxpayers money) on needless planning applications that appear to have been abandoned following the applications approval by not having any documentation to show they were ever followed up on or had any realistic chance of being realised. The council it would seem disagree with that statement and in 2010 verbally insisted that money was prudently spent following consultation with residents. If that is the case, why wasn’t the planning permission followed up vigorously on behalf of residents?

Could the Council produce documented evidence of any public consultation that supports the council’s actions in applying for planning permission and the approval of Preston residents for the demolition of the Community Hall and the building of a new one as a result of that consultation?

The cost of those planning applications, and all associated costs we believe to be in the region of £10,000, we believe that was a waste of public funds and there has not been nor will there ever be any benefit to Preston residents from that expenditure.

3. Wasting of public funds 2.

A resident requested the Audit Commission investigate the parish finances because that resident believed money had been misappropriated.

Could the council demonstrate by documentation that despite talking to that resident and attempting to show the resident they had acted with full propriety the resident still maliciously went ahead with his complaint and that resulted in a loss of almost £9,000 of residents money. With such a large loss the council must show they acted with due diligence in order to avoid the loss and therefore the loss was beyond their control.

4. Denying documents exist.

We have publically stated that the council denied the existence of a Civil Engineers report that gave the Community Hall a clean bill of health structurally and further, that same report suggested the hall was simply in need of some refurbishment to bring it back into full use.

The council commissioned that report (although the council denied that) so was aware of it at the time it applied for its demolition and was not therefore acting in the best financial or community interests of residents. The council view expressed to residents at the time was that the Community Hall was beyond viable financial refurbishment and demolition was the only option, despite a civil engineers report to the contrary.

Could the council demonstrate with documented evidence that the council view at the time was correct and what evidence that view was based on?

5. Illegal use of public funds (Planning Applications).

We have publically stated that the council unlawfully spent public funds by not listing it as an agenda item and by not gaining council approval for this expenditure. For public money to be spent lawfully the expenditure must be listed on a council meeting agenda and approved by the council by way of resolution, particularly large amounts as involved in this case. Due to the councils failure to produce minutes which demonstrate such approval was obtained we believe that expenditure to have been unlawful.

Could the council produce the agenda where the items referred to above (planning permission to demolish the existing village hall and build a new community hall) were listed and minutes to show approval was obtained in council by way of resolution and documented in council minutes.

6. Illegal Council Meetings.

To convene a lawful council meeting the council must comply with the Local Government Act 1972, which lists what the council must do to ensure council meetings are lawfully convened and council members are therefore able to conduct council business on behalf of the parish. We believe the council in the past have contravened those legal requirements and convened a number of illegal meetings. If a council convenes an unlawful meeting it has no legal powers to conduct council business, it becomes simply a collection of individual residents talking amongst themselves.

During such an unlawful meeting in October 2012 the council had no legal authority to conduct any council business on behalf of the parish but went ahead and co-opted a new ‘councillor’, we have photographic evidence the meeting in question was in fact unlawful and consequently that co-opted ‘councillor’ is still a member of the general public and not a legally co-opted member of the council. That photographic evidence was forwarded to the council following the meeting, that to date has not been responded to.

Could the council refute that belief and produce evidence that shows we are wrong.

7. Dishonest Councillors.

 This is possibly the most difficult to satisfy but if the council had dealt with it prior to a complaint being submitted as they were requested to it could have been avoided and the current unpleasantness wouldn’t be an issue. That is an issue beyond our control and responsibility therefore remains firmly with the council.

As stated on this blog we believe a number of councillors knowingly gave false statements to the Standards Committee to protect a long-standing colleague from having to account for their actions. Those false statements had a fundamental impact on the outcome of that investigation, the allegation of false statements submitted has never been investigated and remains an outstanding issue.

It is essential that residents have confidence in the honesty of their elected representatives, it is therefore essential in our view that the matter is investigated by an independent authority to establish the truth of the matter. Having four sitting councillors (a third of the parish council) accused of dishonesty to this extent is no small matter!

Would the accused councillors act in a honourable fashion and support an investigation to clear their names and remove the stigma of this from their colleagues who are being unjustly tarnished by their actions and for the good name of our parish council?

To-date those councillors have not uttered one single word in their own defence in public, If any innocent person was accused of such dishonesty we believe they would shout their innocence from the rooftops, as our member does!!

The council are a public body and keep records of their day to day business therefore any of the above, with the possible exception of the latter, can be satisfied with a simple publication of their public records or confirmed explanation or clarification of their position. For a parish council this is a very simple and easy exercise that can be fulfilled very quickly, the council should now do that and our members will discuss removing this blog from the web.

We believe the issue of dishonest councillors can also be resolved by discussion and good faith on both sides, the matter rests firmly in the hands of the parish council.

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.