A former H-SWAG (Hemingbrough Sewerage Works
Action Group) Member concerned about new Planning Applications around Orchard
End asked for a re-run of this series.
It has been sanitised.
The Stench of Sewerage, Parish Council Deceit, Dishonesty and Blatant Lies. (2)
The
Parish Council’s website, under the control of Cllr S. Strelczenie, the
Chairman’s wife, described the “very constructive” “public relations meeting”
to discuss the “Essential Upgrade to
Hemingbrough Waste Water Treatment Works” and the Council’s offer “to leaflet
Main Street” asking residents to keep their cars clear of the expected heavy
traffic. Residents found out later it
would be a larger plant, in a separate, unscreened, visible location.
This
‘very constructive public relations meeting’ had obviously satisfied Parish
Councillors and they had
decided in that closed meeting to support Yorkshire Water’s plan application,
WITHOUT TELLING THE RESIDENTS!
A
diligent Parish Clerk should have instructed Councillors “at a private meeting
those present may not conduct any formal business that leads to them reaching
any decisions in the name of the Parish Council unless the meeting is held in
accordance with the legal requirements” of the Public Bodies (Admission to
Meetings) Act 1980.” Maybe he knew nobody
would listen to him!
IN SIMPLE TERMS, A PARISH COUNCIL MUST
NOT HAVE A PRIVATE, CLOSED-TO-THE-PUBLIC MEETING WITH A PLANNING APPLICANT AND
COME TO ANY DECISION, AND CERTAINLY MUST NOT ASK THE APPLICANT FOR ANYTHING
BEHIND THOSE CLOSED DOORS. THERE MUST BE
NO HINT, SUSPICION OR UNVOICED UNDERSTANDING OF “SOMETHING FOR YOU, SOMETHING
FOR US”.
When
details of that ‘Special (closed) Meeting’ leaked out, all hell let loose and
those words associated with Hemingbrough Parish Council – Deceit, Dishonesty,
Disagreements and Lies - were back in play.
The
Village Institute is not a very big place - the size of a small Village School
classroom. One could swing around the
proverbial cat and get one or two flying pigs in there, just. It would be impossible for anyone in there not
to know what was happening, unless they were in the single lavatory for some
considerable time. Even then,
Councillors have been overheard on their mobile phones by their colleagues when
spending too much time in there.
The
eight Parish Councillors could not agree what had happened around that small Village
Institute table. The dominant Gang had
one version, and three Hagg Lane Green Councillors had a completely different
view.
‘The
Three’ were in no doubt that Yorkshire Water had brought their actual plans to that private, closed meeting
for comment by the Parish Council in advance of a public meeting. Yorkshire Water’s Communications Manager
called the site drawings ‘Plans’
but changed his choice of word to ‘Drawings’
when he realised there was some sensitivity about that term.
The
‘sensitivity’ was that when the three Hagg Lane Councillors, McCann, Pickering
and Senior, realised they were expected by the Council Chairman to comment on
those plans that were being passed around at the closed meeting, they refused to take part in that process.
‘The
Three’ were so concerned about the breach of regulations, they asked the Parish
Clerk to minute their actions. Subsequently,
they declared interests [because of their
presence at that closed meeting] in the planning application at the next
public Parish Council meeting and left the room when those plans were put
before the Parish Councillors for ‘comment’.
In
‘Monopoly’ terms, Hemingbrough Councillors hadn’t got past the Old Kent Road
before they were mired in the muck.
They
couldn’t all be telling the truth! ‘The Five’ said they “hadn’t seen anything to do with the plans” at that special
meeting closed to residents. ‘The Three’
said Plans had been passed around by
Yorkshire Water, the planning applicant, for Parish Council comment. One Group was right and one Group was
wrong. One Group was telling the truth,
the other Group was telling lies.
The
Parish Clerk’s Official Notes of 13 February of what happened at that meeting
were agreed by Councillors to be a ‘fair summary’, but the Notes omitted key
details. Were Plans, Drawings, call them
what you will, passed around for comment by Councillors? Were those Plans, etc. to be a part of
Yorkshire’s actual planning application?
Did three Councillors refuse to take part in that process? Did three Councillors ask the Clerk to note
their unwillingness to take part in that process? If they did, why did he not include that
information in his “fair summary”? Fair summary? 30££0(}$!
A change of Clerk avoided a complaint that the Council had prepared “a fair summary” of the
‘useful discussions’ and entered them into the Council’s legal record as such,
when they were anything but a fair description of events.
To be continued .../
