Dear Councillor
Re: Hatfield Broad Oak Parish Council – Evidence of Misconduct
We are writing to you as a group of over 60 parishioners of Hatfield Broad Oak, who have become increasingly concerned by the behaviour of many parish councillors and their actions relating to the Village Green (VG), which is currently leased directly from a landowner. The lease, which was agreed in 2009 has been mired in controversy from the start. There have been various disagreements between the then Parish Council and the sports clubs that use the VG over the size and suitable development of a sports pavilion. We understand that all previous planning permissions have now expired.
However, despite permission having lapsed, a tender process was instigated to construct a vehicle entrance to the site and the tender report was discussed, as a confidential agenda item, at the February Parish Meeting. At this meeting various actions were agreed regarding the contract and process, such as making the necessary application to ECC, procuring information from ECC for approval of the vehicle entrance design and specification, advising ECC Waterways Department and to agree a date for commencement when design approval was received from ECC.
Despite these commitments, the Chair, Mark Strutt, current Vice Chair, Keith Artus and Councillor, Denise Hunt, oversaw the construction of a wide vehicle access road without adhering to these legal requirements. The construction was not approved by Essex County Council prior to commencement and there were no inspections from either ECC or Highways prior to, or during construction. This access road is poor quality and does not meet Highways standards. In addition, the contracted company left spoil around protected oak trees, which have still not been removed and pose a serious risk of harm to the trees. At the present time Cllr Keith Artus is trying hard to get retrospective documents together to validate that process that had been followed and trying to get Highways to sign off the entrance. We have evidence from FOI that no invoice, documents nor interim certificate from the contractor is in existence. This is a clear breech of the rules.
Not only was this access road substandard and built without planning consent or building certification and inspections, a payment of over £15,000 was paid to the contractor for just under 75% of the total agreed cost. This cheque was signed by Councillors, Mark Strutt and Denise Hunt. The payment was NOT agreed at a full council meeting and was therefore, not authorised. These financial breeches the local government act 1972 (sections 101,111 and 151) Authority to Act and also Proper Financial Management. This payment violates standing orders and financial regulations. There can be serious legal consequences for those found guilty of the offence of misappropriation of public funds.
This is just one of a catalogue of breaches in regulations by certain members of the parish council. A group of councillors appear to be controlled, or at least, heavily influenced by the Chair and Vice Chair; they show a total disregard for parishioners, the Nolan Principles, and their own Code of Conduct. We have a body of evidence from Text messages, emails and video recordings of parish council meetings where other councillors have been subjected to bullying, manipulation, and intimidation. Despite being subjected to this behaviour and under intense pressure, some councillors have been valiantly trying to hold the rest of the PC to account and act in the best interests of the public.
As previously stated, the Village Green is at the centre of these issues and serious concerns. This year, without prior consultation with the public, the PC entered into negotiations to hand over all control of the VG to an unelected, unaccountable and unproven organisation (HBOSCC) through a sublease for the next 85 years!
This controversial organisation is both a charity and a LTD company with assets of a mere £44. The trustees include: the chair of the parish council, Mark Strutt (whose youth football teams are the main users of the VG, despite not contributing to the costs of maintaining the green), individuals connected to other sporting activities in the village, and businessmen, one of whom is a property developer. Not only is this group unelected, but there has also been no explanation or information on how or why they were selected to be trustees or any succession criteria for new trustees going forward. This organisation is not democratic, there is no mechanism for ensuring that the trustees act in the best interest of the parishioners who will still be funding the VG. An additional concern is that a single trustee can agree and sign future contracts. We have evidence that the current chairman has signed off the charity accounts for this year ending Sept 24.
The VG was intended to be used and enjoyed by all residents and despite the parish paying tens of thousands of pounds to develop the site, purchasing expensive equipment to maintain it along with storage facilities, the Heads of Terms hand over complete control of the land, assets, and equipment, at no cost. In addition, parishioners will be expected to pay up to £20,000 per year, index linked, for maintenance of the green for the next 85 years. The total sum of this contract therefore could be up to £26 million. Our belief is that a national tender process and robust review should have been conducted to justify why the charity was chosen. This has not happened as the documentation; heads of terms and all the legal advice have been led by one councillor in secret. “If there is nothing to hide, why can’t they be transparent?”
The public will no longer have any say in how it is used, who uses it, how it is maintained and any future development on the site. The public will be completely cut out of the equation, but still be expected to foot the bill.
The business plan submitted by HBOSCC is very weak and has serious omissions and questionable assertions, particularly regarding figures for proposed income etc. For example, the youth football clubs run by the Chair, have consistently refused to provide details of accounts and income, even though their financial contribution is mentioned in the business plan. The figures and details in the business plan are not backed up by evidence and therefore, cannot be verified.
Although the original lease mentions the possibility of a future sublease, it does not preclude other organisations. Therefore, if it was agreed by the PC to pursue this option, there should have been a tender process with other charities or organisations included.
Despite, and possibly because of, growing opposition and increasing awareness of this controversial process, members of the PC, led by the Chair and Vice Chair, are trying to rush this sublease agreement through. There has been no public consultation, despite numerous calls to do so and endless promises by the PC to hold at least one public engagement session before it is agreed. At parish meetings some councillors have tried to set a date for a public meeting, but have been met with opposition from other councillors, particularly the chair and vice chair. One councillor’s request to delay the process so that the whole PC had sufficient time to assess the Heads of Terms and business plan was refused. A subsequent request for more time to evaluate legal advice was likewise ignored. At the October meeting a councillor put forward a motion for the sublease to go a public referendum, which was supported by other councillors, but ultimately voted against by the majority.
Councillors who have tried to ensure that there is openness, transparency and that protocols are followed have been met with intimidation, verbal abuse, and bullying. We can provide evidence of numerous examples of this behaviour by particular councillors in texts, emails and videos of parish meetings. Unfortunately, the clerk is inexperienced and during meetings has not acted to curb this behaviour and other breaches.
At an EGM held on 3rd Oct ’24, which was called to vote on matters relating to the sublease, the meeting was delayed for around 20 minutes without explanation or a vote to suspend the meeting, so that councillors who were running late could attend. The meeting commenced only when they arrived and the late councillors voted with the chair and vice chair on a number of controversial motions relating to the VG.
Legal advice on the sublease has been sought and despite the vice chair assuring parishioners at a recent parish meeting that the full legal advice would be made public, this has not happened.
In summary, we believe that:
- Members of the PC have broken their own Code of Conduct and Standards in Public Office.
- All Nolan Principles have been breached by the Chair, Vice Chair, and several other councillors.
- There is evidence of bullying and intimidation.
- The lease process has not been open and transparent. In our opinion, decisions have been predetermined and there has been a concerted effort to keep the public in the dark.
- There has been no consultation with the public over this fundamental and irreversible change of control of the Village Green
- There are numerous conflicts of interests with several councillors. Many of whom have voted on issues where there is a conflict.
- There has been no tender process to assess whether HBOSCC are the most appropriate organisation to be awarded a sublease.
- There has been negligible due diligence in assessing HBOSCC’s suitability.
- The sublease and proposed Heads of Terms are NOT in the best interests of parishioners, either today or over the next 85 years.
We believe that the PC agenda for 19th November will include a motion to agree the Heads of Terms for the sublease, with an EGM called shortly afterwards to agree the contract with HBOSCC.
It is imperative that parish councillors do not vote on the sublease or a contract with HBOSCC until there has been a formal investigation into the PC’s conduct. Therefore, we urgently request the PC be suspended from voting on any issues relating to the Village Green pending a full and formal investigation.
We trust that you will appreciate the seriousness of this matter and act in accordance with the laws relating to conduct in public office and the best interests of the public.
Recordings of Parish meetings are available along with other supporting information. Additionally, we would welcome an opportunity to discuss these issues further with you and provide supporting evidence of our claims and concerns.
We look forward to receiving your urgent response.
Yours faithfully
Members of The HBO Village Green Honesty & Fairness Group & Associates