< About in the News Wrong colour gravel Chorleywood Parish Council The Watford Observer | Posted 15th March 2013 Chorleywood resident Susan Bookbinder “harassed” by parish council over wrong colour gravel A Chorleywood resident has been left feeling harassed by a parish council campaign to force her into removing “appalling” gravel from outside her home. Susan Bookbinder said Chorleywood Parish Council took such exception to the stones – placed on common land outside her home – that staff were sent to photograph the offending gravel the next day. The broadcaster and journalist, who lives on Chorleywood Common, says she has been “harassed” by the council which sent her letters, contacted her neighbours about the stones and sent officials to examine the area last weekend while she and her eight-year-old son Zac were at home. She said: “This is ludicrous, it is petty and frankly I find the whole thing a little creepy. On Sunday (November 11) there were three people walking up and down outside my house and when I asked who was taking photos, the council said they needed to gather evidence. “It really is just pettiness; surely there are more important things to worry about, I told them I would try to filter the green and brown ones out if they assured me they would replace the gravel. “I feel harassed when I think a person from the council was taking photos of my house and snooping on my son and I.” The 200-acre common is a renowned local nature reserve and is owned by the parish council with the public enjoying the right to access it on foot for “air and exercise”, those living on the common are also permitted to park outside their homes on common land. The dispute between Ms Bookbinder, who has lived on the common since 2005, arose when she laid the stones in August after making repeated requests for the council to replace gravel where she and her neighbours parked. In a letter sent to Ms Bookbinder, who presents The Morning News for radio station LBC, the council defended taking photographs, saying they were for records and without any intention of “snooping” on her The letter adds that the stones on the permitted parking area were re-laid last year “at considerable expense” to the parish council. The council declined to comment on the matter, however during Tuesday evening’s open spaces committee meeting, parish clerk Yvonne Merritt told the committee: “There are no legal obligations to this property, we do not have to provide the area as a driveway. “The area is common up to the front door and the lady who lives there is a commoner and therefore is contacted when we do normal consultations so she is aware of her obligations. “The chippings she laid look appalling therefore we asked her to remove them because they are totally out of keeping with the area.” Nick Pickles, director of civil liberties group Big Brother Watch, said: “These officials are totally out of line. Turning up with a camera to take photographs, writing threatening letters and talking to someone’s neighbours all because of the colour of gravel. “It’s another case of busybodies with nothing better to do interfering in people’s private affairs when they have absolutely no right to do so.” There is an interesting follow up to the above article, see link below. The Daily Mail Posted 10th October 2015
< About in the News No confidence Desborough Town Council BBC News | Posted 10th June 2016 Local residents had complained the council had failed to consult with them over the increase and accused the council of not having a clear plan on how the extra money could be spent. Local residents had complained the council had failed to consult with them over the increase and accused the council of not having a clear plan on how the extra money could be spent. The vast majority of those voting (2,133 residents) supported the vote of no confidence, with only 103 objecting to the notion. Over 2,000 residents also called for the town council to undertake a public consultation before making any further decisions about precepts and loans. The poll had a turnout of 27%. The council chairman cllr Allan Matthews, said he will not stand down after the vote of no confidence as he had been elected on a four-year programme. He said the extra money will be spent on additional car parking spaces and some facilities for children. Although the parish poll has no legal implication, local residents hope it will encourage the council to consult with them before raising council tax bills in future.
< About in the News Potentially Unlawful Dilwyn parish council The Hereford Times | Posted 30th March 2015 Parish council slammed for “potentially unlawful” five figure spend on pub project A PARISH council has been cited for “serious failings” in its governance and procedures over the purchase of a village pub as a community hub. The Audit Commission (AC) says £34,689 spent on the refurbishment of the pub by Dilwyn parish council was “potentially unlawful” with it not being possible to trace proper payment approval. An investigation report out this week also finds the council failed to comply with its own standing orders and financial regulations and took action without proper authorisation. Councillors were also found to not to have made “proper” declarations of interest at meetings in which payments were made to them. In one specific example, £6,566 excluding VAT was found to have been paid to a councillor’s heating and plumbing business for work undertaken at the pub, with “insufficient or no” declarations of interest made at meetings at which orders for required work were authorised or payments made to the councillor approved. The investigation, carried out by Grant Thornton UK LLP on behalf of the AC, revolved around the council’s purchase of The Crown, Dilwyn, to be retained – ahead of an auction – as a community asset. That purchase went ahead in early 2012 with the pub bought from Punch Taverns for about £250,000 for renovation and reopening. The council used grants and a public works loan to raise the money. In the AC report, the council concedes that proper procedures were not always followed, but offered a justification of circumstances in which “speed was of the essence” to make the project viable. Grant Thornton, however, found this argument to be “put forward after the event” and in response to enquiries having not been recorded in council minutes as such. Time pressure, the report says, could have been avoided with better planning and allowing for “sufficient” time for proper governance procedures to be adhered to. In a response to the Hereford Times, the council said it was “likely” to formally accept the findings of the report in full at a meeting next Tuesday (April 7) and “guarantee” to implement all of the related recommendations – with a number already in place. At a meeting in March 2012, the council set up a committee called The Crown Community Hub (hub committee) to deal with the purchase, renovation and leasing of The Crown. During the meeting, guidelines for the hub committee were set out and adopted. Concerns about the committee not keeping to the guidelines, acting outside of its delegated powers, and unlawful expenditure, were raised with the AC later that year. In 2013, the Herefordshire Association of Local Councils (HALC) was commissioned to undertake a “detailed investigation” and prepare a report. HALC wanted all business relating to The Crown to be conducted through the full council and the council agreed. Between July 2013 and February 2014, the hub committee did not meet, with all business relating to The Crown being conducted by the full council. The HALC report in February 2014 noted “serious failures” in governance and procedures and recommended all business relating to The Crown continued to be conducted through the full council. Meeting that month, the council accepted all the HALC recommendations, except that business relating to the crown be conducted through the full council. At that meeting, the council resolved that the hub committee be re-instated with immediate effect. A subsequent AC investigation found a number of serious failings in governance and procedures at the council. In failing to comply properly with its own standing orders and financial regulations, the AC found: The council failed to obtain quotes for work in accordance with financial regulations. The council failed to pass a resolution authorising the signing of the lease agreement between the council and the landlord of the Crown. Failure by councillors to make proper declarations of interest at meetings in which payments were made to them. Failure by the council to ensure that a responsible financial officer took responsibility for all cash income received by the crown to be properly counted and banked. The investigation also found that action was taken by councillors between council and committee meetings without proper authorisation from either the council or the hub committee. Nor did the council undertake adequate risk assessment in relation to the operation of The Crown and, as a consequence, the pub was under insured and compensation subsequently reduced when a claim was made as a result of a chimney fire. The report says the additional costs would normally have been borne by the council and local taxpayers, but were, instead, paid voluntary by customers of The Crown. Also identified were “inappropriate procedures” in place for the payment of VAT with VAT due paid out of the clerk’s own personal bank account and re-claimed from the council. Other payments were made without proper approval by the council or hub committee. In the report, the AC identifies that in the year ended March 31 2013 the council spent £34,689 excluding VAT that was “potential unlawful”. It had not been possible to trace approval of all of these payments to either hub committee meetings or full council meetings, the AC said. In the AC’s view, however, there was no benefit from seeking a court declaration that the expenditure was unlawful, as the cost to the taxpayer of doing so would outweigh any potential benefits. The council has already changed its procedures relating to VAT with all claims and payments now made through the council’s own bank account. A number of councillors have since received training on the local government code of conduct and, following the upcoming election, it is planned that all councillors will be provided with formal induction and code of conduct training. The council also re-adopted its exiting standing orders, financial regulations and internal controls in May last year, pending review. But this review has not yet taken place and must do so “as soon as practicably possible” the AC says. Also recommended are: Periodic reviews by the council of guidelines for the hub committee. All expenditure must be properly authorised and approved at a properly convened council or committee meeting. Declarations of interest must be properly made at all appropriate stages, that is in discussions regarding the award of contracts, authorisation of expenditure and authorisation of payments. Risk assessments must be undertaken annually and should consider all aspects of the council’s business, including The Crown. Specific risk assessments of any other “high profile” projects to ensure “properly informed” decision making. The council should document all its day to day internal controls and review them periodically. The council should retrospectively authorise the signing of the lease and record this in minutes. DILWYN PARISH COUNCIL REPORT – DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST. Declarations of interest were a specific example the AC made in identifying failures in the governance of Dilwyn Parish Council. The investigation found £6,566 excluding VAT was been paid to a councillor’s heating and plumbing business for work undertaken at the pub with “insufficient or no” declarations of interest made at meetings at which orders for required work were authorised, or payments made to the councillor were approved by the hub committee. Overall, the report reveals that where declarations of interest were made, the nature of the interest was not recorded and insufficient detail given as to which councillor was making the declaration. Councillors did not leave the room, nor were they excluded from discussions relating to the authorisation of work or approval of payments in which they had a prejudicial interest. The council told the AC that the reason for giving work to the councillor was because this gave “best value for money” with work done by the councillors’ business charged to the council at a rate lower than cost. However, the AC found the council was unable to demonstrate that amounts paid were reasonable and gave value for money.