Dear Peter,
I trust you are well. We are the Hatfield Broad Oak Honesty & Fairness Group & Associates. I wanted to escalate to your attention the current situation that is rapidly being driven forward with Hatfield Broad Oak with respects to the sub lease of the village green. Currently the chairman and vice chairman are driving forward with haste to push through the signing of the lease before the end of the year without any engagement of the taxpayer. On many occasions we have asked for transparency and engagement to try and achieve fair terms for the village, but the underhand and secretive nature of the current council’s conduct is making this impossible to collaborate.
Several complaints have been made by members of the public – but not only have they taken longer than the 28-day process to get a response and conclusion in all cases the feedback given has been unclear and has not been sufficient to resolve any of the issues. Example – A compliant was made about Cllr Murphy being conflicted, the complaint was upheld, and the outcome was training was required. No clarity was given and still has not been given as to if this councillor is even allowed to vote – my feeling is no – but we require the MO to clarify this for everyone.
The key issues we currently face:
– The charity had been established to take on this project and had no funds or previous trading to suggest it had the necessary skills or competence to fulfil the role
– There has been no tender process which is a clear requirement for contracts of this size
– The method of procurement is questionable as it would seem there was none. They have chosen a preferred supplier without carrying out any financial or legal due diligence.
– The conflict of interest go much further than the chairman Mark Strutt especially as Keith Artus is one of the original officers of the charity so he should be recusing himself too but instead has declared no interests in the green or the sports clubs.
– The two groups are clearly conflicted as there are member of the pc on the charity group.
– There was a business case submitted which is both inaccurate and false information and does not contain sufficient to detail to warrant such an award. The financial information is sparse and in large parts missing. Despite regular requests for further financial information this is and has not been forthcoming without any substantiating reasons why this is being withheld.
We are concerned that there may be some underhand actions here to circumvent established and required processes and that some councillors may have other motivations to drive this through without the proper processes.
– They have not engaged or consulted any villagers on the short- or long-term benefits and have acted with impudence in investing present sums future sums on the pcs funds with no consultation or engagement with the electorate.
– There are financial breeches – councillors have been approving and signing payments for £18,000 to pay for the vehicle entrance without seeking council permission nor having any invoices or certifications for works completed. This behaviour breeches the local government act 1972 (sections 101,111 and 151) Authority to Act and Proper Financial Management. This payment violates standing orders and financial regulations and will be subject to a separate complaint to follow.
Furthermore, we know of at least one councillor who resigned because of the poor behaviour of a number of councillors including the chair and vice chair both of which have been referred to the monitoring officer as yet without reply and all of which are now beyond the 28 day period required
We have attached a document providing much more information to help add some more context
Our residents are very concerned and are powerless to be able to stop the current route forward so therefore have no say as to where our precept is spent as its currently being abused by a small minority of the council.
– There is a full council meeting happening on Tuesday evening 12th November in secret to discuss the sub lease behind closed doors. The motions for the following meeting will be put forward and pre-decided – following this Tuesday 19th November is a scheduled council meeting where the concern is motions will be voted for and passed as there will be little to no discussion needed due to the previous week’s meeting and the majority supporting the chairman and vice chairman.
We feel major intervention is required – we have tried to utilise the MO, to log complaints, as this role provides the public with a governance resource that ensures councils conduct themselves in line with the Nolan Principles at the very least. The reality is this has had little or no impact helping us ensure a legal and compliant process is followed.
We would like to propose a face-to-face meeting with yourself and the MO ASAP to discuss this in more detail and have a conversation as to what are the next steps and what could be done.
– We are prepared to escape this issue to the LGA and FSA as well as the ombudsman as this presents a serious risk for our village which could pct people’s lives for 85+ years.
Can I ask for your acknowledgement of this email and a prompt response as we are very time pressured given the proposed council timetable.
Yours Faithfully
Hatfield Broad Oak Honesty & Fairness Group & Associates
Appendix – Summary of the Village Green 8th Nov 2024
We are becoming increasingly concerned about the conduct of our Parish Council in particular in relation to the following:
The Parish Council lease approximately 12 acres of land, which is designated our village green and on which there is a cricket pitch and several football pitches. The remaining length of the lease is 85 years.
The Parish Council are now proposing to issue a sub-lease to a Charity, which will take control of the village green for the full duration of the existing lease, less one day.
In addition, the Parish Council are proposing to subsidise the Charity, by way of an annual grant, a sum of money somewhere between £10,000 and £20,000, index linked and, according to the Heads of Terms we have been shown, could be for the full duration of the sub-lease. The total sum paid to the Charity by the Parish Council over the period of the sub-lease could exceed £26 million.
The whole process of agreeing a Heads of Terms has been carried out in near secrecy with no consultation whatsoever with parish residents. Indeed, at the last Parish Council meeting a motion on the agenda called for a binding referendum to be held on the final terms of the sub-lease. This motion was defeated.
For a decision of this magnitude and with such far reaching consequences we believe the residents must be given the opportunity to vote on it.
Most of our residents are not against a sub-lease being issued so that sport on our village green could be managed by a specialised entity. However, so far there has been little or no evidence of the Charity having sufficient skills or financial acumen to do this.
We believe the issuing of a sub-lease is being pushed through by the chairman and vice-chairman of the Council with indecent haste and, it is worth noting that certain other Councillors never appear to speak but simply hold their hands up when asked to do so.
Another important point is that the Parish Council chairman is also a trustee of the Charity, although he does recuse himself when matters regarding the sublease are discussed. However other Councillors also appear to have conflicts of interest and, in our opinion, should also be recusing themselves. Some of us have been in contact with the Monitoring Officer to register our complaints about this but being frank very little has happened to change the dynamic within the council.
Finally, we are extremely concerned that, although the Council propose to grant a minimum of £10,000 per annum, details of the existing income and expenditure of the Youth Football Club element of the Charity have been withheld. It is our contention that, if the Parish are to subsidise the Charity, the taxpayers have an absolute right to know where every penny is raised and spent.
This whole process brings into question issues such as: conflicts of interest, bias, pre-determination and an unwillingness to share information with the residents.
When the village green and sports pitches were installed, approximately 14 years ago, a new vehicle entrance in the Dunmow Road was also installed. The works to the entrance were subsequently condemned by the relevant Authorities and are now in process of being carried out again. We are concerned that there is ample evidence of mismanagement here as evidenced by:
A report by Kenyon Brabrook Limited, dated January 2022 and commissioned by Uttlesford District Council into accusations of bullying and bad behaviour by certain Councillors made the following recommendations:
Recommendation 7
In particular the Council should develop a project plan as a matter of urgency to prepare proposals for the future of the village green to be put to the community as a whole. This may involve offering the community more than one (properly costed) option for consideration. The starting point should be the Parish Council’s existing responsibilities and financial commitments. This may require third party facilitation and intervention and may also require some imagination.
Recommendation 9
Should the recommendations above not have the desired outcome then, whether in May 2023 or before, all Councillors should put residents first, step down and agree not to stand in any future contested election nor put themselves forward for co-option should there be no election.
Needless to say, neither of these recommendations were taken up and one of the main protagonists in the report is now the vice-chairman of the Parish Council.
