Ferret has taken further advice, since posting this originally last week.
In the Policy and Planning Committee Meeting on 2 October 2019 the resolution passed by the Councillors was:
“Due to problems with parking in previous years, extra capacity be procured by utilising space offered free of charge by Cllr Eccles.”
Independent Hemsworth Town Council then cleared the land at a total cost to the Precept Payers of £4461.
We are now aware that Councillor Eccles subsequently breached this agreement and charged for parking.
The income received from parking was £208.
Following a public backlash, Councillor Eccles agreed to pay this money to Hemsworth Town Council.
Ferret would like to know – Why did Councillor Eccles break the agreement which was made at Policy and Planning Committee Meeting on 2 October 2019?
As a result of this, legally the following must happen:
Councillor Eccles refunds the Precept Payers £4253 – The cost of improvements made to his privately-owned land.
If he fails to do so:
Then the Councillors who voted for it should voluntarily refund the Precept Payers £4253.
Councillor Bugge,
Councillor Dodson,
Councillor Hardacre,
Councillor Hirst,
Councillor Kenyon,
Councillor Mitchell,
Councillor Pringle,
Councillor Wilson,
Councillor Womersley.
Ferret calculates this to be £472.55 each.
And if they fail to do so,
The Precept Payers will have to seek redress via a Judicial Process due to the blatant misuse of public funds.
Original Post
Hemsworth Town Council have organised a successful Bonfire Night event at Hemsworth Waterpark for a number of years.
Prior to 2019, arrangements were made with local business to allow parishioners to park their vehicles in their car parks. Even the Police were very lenient, due to the event being only for a couple of hours once per year.
Independent Hemsworth Town Council held a Policy and Planning Meeting on 2 October 2019, an item on the agenda:
204 Bonfire Night
Resolved that:
• Due to problems with parking in previous years, extra capacity be procured by utilising space offered free of charge by Cllr Eccles.
Fantastic news thought Ferret…
But where was this extra capacity offered by Cllr Eccles?
For those readers that are unaware, Councillor Eccles not only lives but also owns a lot of the land surrounding Hemsworth Waterpark towards Kinsley.
The space in question turned out to be the former Farmers Public House site on Wakefield Road in Kinsley.
Councillor Eccles owned the site which he had allowed to become a dumping ground over the years following the demolition of the Farmers.
So, YOU the precept payers paid for Councillor Eccles’ privately-owned land to be cleared.
This cost you £4461…
But don’t worry, after a backlash from some residents, Independent Hemsworth Town Council announced that Councillor Eccles will donate all the profits from parking on the evening back to Independent Hemsworth Town Council…
And he did… all £208 of it.
[…] Bonfire Night…more of YOUR money up in smoke (Update) […]
[…] Bonfire Night…more of YOUR money up in smoke (Update) […]
This was the FREE parking that was advertised that people paid for!!!!
This fence should not be fixed by HTC, it should not be using their workmen, machines or monies, Mr&Mrs Eccles should be fixing it themselves.
I cannot see why HTC should foot the bill at all for this.
In contract terms, a contract is in existence because something was exchanged for something (quid pro quo).
We also know that certain details of this agreement between HTC and Mr and Mrs Eccles were documented.
Unfortunately, other critical terms of the agreement are unclear, most importantly, when does the agreement terminate and what/who triggers the termination? Who decides which events this additional land can be used as a free car park? At what point will they be able to charge for parking?
HTC (Alan Draper in his capacity of Town Clerk) holds the responsibility to deliver value for money to the precept payers and, part of that duty involves negotiating beneficial and clearly documented contracts with the supplier (Mr and Mrs Eccles).
Clearly this didn’t take place – so instead of any agreed terms, it falls to what would be reasonable to expect, which is ambiguous.
Could it be argued that the lack of a fully considered and documented contract be the consequence of a conflict of interest, because HTC oversee the performance and salary of our Town Clerk?
In my mind, it can only be regarded as value for money when:
The number of events. X The potential income per event (say £200) = The cost to HTC (£4,723),
which equates to approximately 21 events.
With 3 major events per year, that equates to 7 years worth of free parking.
Or, as Ferret rightly says, as Mr and Mrs Eccles breached the terms of the contract (by charging a fee), HTC had the right to terminate and claim back all the costs on behalf of the Precept payers.
It drives me mad that our interests are not being protected.