Freedom of Information Disclosures

DISCLOSURE LOG

POSTSCRIPTS TO FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUESTS – HACONBY & STAINFIELD PARISH COUNCIL REF: HSPC/20/FoI/060320 AND REF: HSPC/20/FoI/020522

Facebook 22 May – 2 June 20 – Haconby & Stainfield Private Group

Parishioner A 22 May 20 10.04 am I got a second reply to my original Freedom of Information Request to the Parish Council about the court case they lost… They are misconstruing data protection legislation to justify not telling me anything about the nature of the claim and/or the judge’s reasons for finding against them - something they could very easily do without revealing the name of the person who sued them.

It seems clear the Council is not going to be transparent about the lawsuit they lost. But I know from the number of people who have contacted me about this that I am merely one resident among many who would like the Council to explain themselves over this matter.

So I share here as much as I’ve been able to fathom by piecing together information I have been told by other residents from their first-hand experience; that I have seen in the minutes of Council meetings; been provided with by the Council; or which are otherwise in the public domain:

• The Council was sued for illegally evicting a tenant from parish allotments, with the judge making reference to their use of bullying tactics. They lost the case and paid out £1,308.40 in compensation and direct costs.

• Their minutes record £1,323,60 of out-of-the-ordinary costs in 2019 (£300 for a solicitor and £1,023.60 to an agricultural & environmental business consultant) which may be additional costs related to the court case. If so, this amounts to a total of £2,632 of parish money spent defending the Council’s illegal actions – equivalent to 166% of the money they got from our Council Tax to run the parish last year.

• The Council cannot claim these monies back via their insurers as “the Council had failed to fulfil its obligations to the claimant” and so their policy won’t cover them for the loss.

• The only action the Council has taken to review or revise its operations to ensure it doesn’t act illegally again is to start having ‘Contingency Planning’ sessions behind closed doors at the end of its meetings (i.e. discussions which are not open to scrutiny by residents nor made a matter of public record).

While I have been investigating the court case, a separate but related issue has emerged:

• SKDC have contacted the Council about a breach of planning control in relation to the parish allotments – as they have allowed an allotment, which should only be used for agricultural purposes, to be used for dog agility training.

• The Council are currently spending time and money legalising this planning breach by seeking planning permission for a change of use of the allotments to allow for “…general agricultural, allotments, dog agility and any other leisure uses that the Council may wish to permit”.

• An immediate family member of one of the Parish Councillors runs a dog agility training business.

I’m sure others will have different opinions and interpretations, but for me these two issues seem to show that when it comes to the land they steward on behalf of the parish, the Council does not enforce the rules equally or legally, and is prepared to re-write the rules when it suits them. And along the way they are wasting our council tax trying to defend and legalise their behaviour.

(I’m sure that, as before, the Council will attempt to deflect from the issue by complaining they’re being unfairly pilloried, and demonise me for sharing my findings and opinions. I’m merely pursuing my democratic right to hold people in public office to account for their actions, and to scrutinise the use of public funds and assets.)

Comments:

Parishioner B Interesting reading. Thank you for providing information to the inhabitants of the local parish.

Parishioner C Thanks for investigating on behalf of the village. There does appear to be a conflict of interests and I would be interested to hear the Parish Council's response to what you have stated above.

Parishioner D Ah so that’s where the allotments are, the dog agility bit has given me the answer, been trying to work it out for ages. No sign of any gardening though!!!

Parishioner E Hi I got this from the PC when I asked for the allotments location and details. Hope that provides some clearer information

Parishioner B Wow! Are any of them in use?

Parishioner E Plot 5E is the only plot available I'm informed after my helpful correspondence

Parishioner F Thanks Parishioner A for getting to the bottom of this. I agree with Parishioner C’s comment that there appears to be a conflict of interest. As a Parishioner, you have every right to question the why and the where regarding PC expenditure. Who elects the PC members?

Parishioner C To be fair to the PC, they do a great job for our village and have stepped up to a voluntary position that very few other people have shown an interest in. As I said earlier, I would be interested to hear their response to the above.

Parish Council Thank you.

Parishioner G You and me both . Jill

Parishioner H I echo Parishioner C’s comments. These are untrained (in these matters) volunteers trying to do right by our parish, for which I thank them. Persecuting them on Facebook (which I personally don’t agree is the right approach) when there is the opportunity to attend the meetings is not acceptable.

I hope there is people willing to step up when they are driven out.

Parish Council Thank you.

Parish Council 22 May 20 17.03: I am authorised to post for the Parish Council: 'The Council notes your allegations and will reply directly to answer points and correct misunderstandings in due course. It will make no further comment on this Facebook group. Anyone wishing to contact the Parish Council for information or to make comments should do so via the Parish Clerk – email wendy7wansford@gmail.com'.

Parishioner I It seems that the way forward for the parish council is to take legal and specialist advice on any issues that arise and on all the council’s actions in the future. Be prepared for big rises in council tax. Oh, and we all know that even the best legal advice can be wrong.

Anyone want to volunteer to stand as a parish councillor!

Parish Council Thank you.

Parishioner J I agree this should be taken offline and those wishing to pursue it further should do so directly with HPC.

I’m sure HPC made decisions in good faith and to be fair they have already been held to account, this by the courts and if there was anything more untoward as suggested then I’m sure more action would have been taken

For circa £7 per household I certainly won’t be losing any sleep over this matter.

With regards to the change of use of the allotments to leisure use as well, I think this is a great idea, it will increase flexibility of the use of the land, and will benefit all tenants and the wider community should it be approved.

Parish Council Thank you.

Parishioner K Sorry I am late to comment but dont check Facebook very often. Thank you for looking into this Beth. I do find it a little concerning if the parish council are not adhering to legislation as per the freedom of information act. In relation to data protection any personal data could be redacted and then the documents could be provided with adherence to both peices of legislation.

Parish Council 27 May 20 16.23: I am authorised to post for the Parish Council: 'The Council’s response to your allegations was sent to you earlier today. In the interests of transparency, it is now publicly accessible on the Haconby and Stainfield Parish Councillors Facebook page. The Council will not respond to comments on this page. Anyone wishing to contact the Parish Council for information or to make comments should do so via the Parish Clerk – email wendy7wansford@gmail.com.'

Haconby and Stainfield Parish Councillors Page: Parish Council Response at 16.18 pm 27 May 20:

Haconby & Stainfield Parish Council response to a post on Facebook about Freedom of Information

Haconby & Stainfield Parish Council was the subject of a series of allegations about Freedom of Information in a lengthy post on Haconby & Stainfield Facebook Group on 22 May 2020

The Council is committed to making information available to the public as part of its normal business activities under the model publication scheme. It accepts that it has work to do on this – its resources are limited.

In the interests of transparency, the text of the Council's response, sent to Parishioner A on 27 May 2020, is below. It is necessarily lengthy, with clarification added.

Dear Parishioner A,

The Council has noted and examined your allegations on your ‘Haconby & Stainfield’ Facebook group on 22 May 2020. It supports absolutely and unreservedly your ‘democratic right to hold people in public office to account for their actions and to scrutinise the use of public funds and assets’, including the seven unpaid volunteer Councillors in our small Parish Council. Its only expectation of those who exercise that right is that they do so fairly, courteously, and though the proper channels. It does not think that this is too much to ask.

Your allegations are detailed and extensive. They deserve a detailed and extensive response that addresses each of your points in turn. The Council makes two initial points:

- First, you have repeatedly stated that the Council has acted ‘illegally’. The Council does not believe that it has. Please specify the law(s) you think that the Council has broken.

- Second, you comment on the Council ‘spending time and money’ on a planning application. The irony is not lost on the Council that it has had to spend time considering, discussing, drafting and agreeing this response to your Facebook allegations.

Your allegations on Facebook and the Council responses are below.

Parishioner A: ‘I got a second reply to my original Freedom of Information Request to the Parish Council about the court case they lost… They are misconstruing data protection legislation to justify not telling me anything about the nature of the claim and/or the judge’s reasons for finding against them – something they could very easily do without revealing the name of the person who sued them.’

Council Response: You submitted two FoI requests and the Council replied to both. The Council does not believe it is ‘misconstruing data protection information’ and you produce no evidence to support this assertion. The Council’s response to your first FoI request explained in considerable detail why it could not reveal anything about the claim that would identify the claimant – the legitimate interest in disclosure did not outweigh the interests and rights of the individual. The Council holds no information on anything the judge may have said.

Parishioner A: ‘It seems clear the Council is not going to be transparent about the lawsuit they lost. But I know from the number of people who have contacted me about this that I am merely one resident among many who would like the Council to explain themselves over this matter.’

Council Response: The Council has been as transparent as it believes it can be about the claim, trial, and judgement, and its responses to your FoI requests clearly show this. Disclosure Logs will be put into the public domain on the Parish Council website in due course. You are the only person to have contacted the Council about this.

Parishioner A: ‘So I share here as much as I’ve been able to fathom by piecing together information I have been told by other residents from their first-hand experience; that I have seen in the minutes of Council meetings; been provided with by the Council; or which are otherwise in the public domain:

• The Council was sued for illegally evicting a tenant from parish allotments, with the judge making reference to their use of bullying tactics. They lost the case and paid out £1,308.40 in compensation and direct costs.’

Council Response: The Council believes that you have been misinformed and requests that you provide evidence to support your assertion in the first sentence. As the Council has stated previously, it defended itself against a small claim for compensation and costs in the County Court, lost the case and paid the compensation and costs ordered. It published all the detail it was able to about this and provided a detailed explanation for limiting the release of information in its reply to your first FoI request. It will not comment further on this.

Parishioner A: ‘• Their minutes record £1,323,60 of out-of-the-ordinary costs in 2019 (£300 for a solicitor and £1,023.60 to an agricultural & environmental business consultant) which may be additional costs related to the court case. If so, this amounts to a total of £2,632 of parish money spent defending the Council’s illegal actions – equivalent to 166% of the money they got from our Council Tax to run the parish last year.’

Council Response: Your supposition is incorrect. The Council took legal advice in November 2018 to interpret provisos of the Modern Allotments Contract during the changeover to Common Law and Farm Business Tenancy agreements. The Council decided to seek expert advice in October 2018 after a tenant contaminated part of a rented plot by burning waste (including wooden pallets containing nails) in September 2018, and it subsequently engaged an agricultural and business consultant to carry out a soil test. The costs of these services are clearly not related to the court case. The Council is aware of how ‘out of the ordinary’ these costs were – their necessity was discussed in detail.

Parishioner A: ‘• The Council cannot claim these monies back via their insurers as “the Council had failed to fulfil its obligations to the claimant” and so their policy won’t cover them for the loss.’

Council Response: This statement needs to be clarified: the Council cannot claim 'back the costs of the County Court judgement' from its insurer for the reason stated.

Parishioner A: ‘• The only action the Council has taken to review or revise its operations to ensure it doesn’t act illegally again is to start having ‘Contingency Planning’ sessions behind closed doors at the end of its meetings (i.e. discussions which are not open to scrutiny by residents nor made a matter of public record).’

Council Response: The Council reviewed its procedures after the trial and decided that an agenda item on ‘Contingency Planning’ at its meetings was sufficient adjustment. This item is routinely confidential and is governed by Standing Orders; discussions and decisions would be made public if the Council so decided. This decision is quite properly within the Parish Council’s remit.

Parishioner A: ‘While I have been investigating the court case, a separate but related issue has emerged:

• SKDC have contacted the Council about a breach of planning control in relation to the parish allotments – as they have allowed an allotment, which should only be used for agricultural purposes, to be used for dog agility training.’

Council Response: This is not in any way related to the court case. Had you asked, the Council would have been happy to provide you with all information available on this issue. In summary:

- SKDC followed up an anonymous query on the use of Parish Land on 24 December 2019 and did, indeed, subsequently identify an alleged breach of planning control – ‘Change of use to a dog agility centre’. You were sent a copy of SKDC’s letter on this.

- Consequently (and with the active support of SKDC – Cllr Dr Peter Moseley, the Acting Chief Executive and the Senior Planning Enforcement Officer), a meeting was held at SKDC to discuss the situation and to determine the way forward. The Council’s intent throughout was to be compliant with planning regulations.

- SKDC provided two options: either to apply for permission for the dog training use as a stand-alone application or to apply for planning permission for a mixed use. The Council decided on the latter. The application was submitted on 15 May 2020.

Parishioner A: ‘• The Council are currently spending time and money legalising this planning breach by seeking planning permission for a change of use of the allotments to allow for “…general agricultural, allotments, dog agility and any other leisure uses that the Council may wish to permit”.’

Council Response: The Council discussed, consulted (including with SKDC), drafted, agreed and despatched the application for planning permission for change of use as described. Unsurprisingly, this took time. It did not, however, spend any money. SKDC Cllr Dr Peter Moseley provided a grant to cover the application fee of £ 462 and Parish Councillors’ time is free.

Parishioner A: ‘• An immediate family member of one of the Parish Councillors runs a dog agility training business.’

Council Response: Your thinly veiled suggestion of a conflict of interests is unfounded. Parish Land plots rented under Common Law Tenancy agreements are for private recreational and leisure uses with no business element. The ‘immediate family member’ to whom you refer is compliant with the terms of this agreement and uses the plot he rents as his own personal space for his own well-trained dogs.

Parishioner A: ‘I’m sure others will have different opinions and interpretations, but for me these two issues seem to show that when it comes to the land they steward on behalf of the parish, the Council does not enforce the rules equally or legally, and is prepared to re-write the rules when it suits them. And along the way they are wasting our council tax trying to defend and legalise their behaviour.’

Council Response: Your assessment is not supported by any evidence. The Council contests your assertion that it ‘does not enforce the rules equally or legally’, that it is ‘prepared to re-write the rules when it suits them’, and is ‘wasting our council tax trying to defend and legalise their behaviour’. It requests, quite reasonably, that you provide evidence to support each of these allegations or withdraw them and apologise.

Parishioner A: ‘(I’m sure that, as before, the Council will attempt to deflect from the issue by complaining they’re being unfairly pilloried and demonise me for sharing my findings and opinions. I’m merely pursuing my democratic right to hold people in public office to account for their actions, and to scrutinise the use of public funds and assets.)’

Council Response: The Council did not and does not attempt to deflect from ‘the issue’. It has not complained that it was ‘unfairly pilloried’ and it did not ‘demonise’ you. It supports absolutely and unreservedly your ‘democratic right to hold people in public office to account for their actions and to scrutinise the use of public funds and assets’, including the seven unpaid volunteer Councillors in our small Parish Council. Its only expectation of those who exercise that right is that they do so fairly, courteously, and though the proper channels. It does not think that this is too much to ask.

The Parish Council is committed to making information available to the public as part of its normal business activities under the model publication scheme. It accepts that it has work to do on this – its resources are limited, as you well know. In the interim, the Chairman of the Council is happy to discuss your information requirements with you and for you to contact him direct.

Parish Council Advisory notice: Anyone wishing to contact the Parish Council to make comments should do so via the Parish Clerk – email wendy7wansford@gmail.com

Haconby and Stainfield Parish Councillors Page: Parishioner A Response at 11.37 am 31 May 20:

Parishioner A So much here which could be picked apart – as this is another of your masterclasses in obfuscation and misdirection. But the key things which are worth putting on record are:

- Losing a court case AND being found to be in breach of planning control are both clear evidence of illegality.

- The soil contamination report was commissioned as part of your case against the allotment tenant you sued – so these costs are indeed related to the court case.

- Spending £462 of SKDC money is still wasting taxpayers’ money to legalise your breach of planning control. Our taxes provide their budget too.

- It is irrelevant whether the dog-agility-training tenant used the allotment for personal or commercial use. It was a breach of use, and their family member on the Council should not be voting on any issues related to their allotment or the subsequent change of planning permission to legalise their mis-use. This is a clear conflict of interest.

(And just because your liberal interpretation of your rules may lead you to think this isn’t a breach of your code of conduct – it is. Think MPs, expenses and duck houses. Just because you think you can, doesn’t mean you should.)

Parish Council Response – Facebook 2 Jun 20:

Haconby and Stainfield Parish Councillors The Council notes Parishioner A’s comments, which it considers discourteous, ill-informed and largely wrong. It has communicated with her courteously, comprehensively and constructively but she has not reciprocated. The Council does not, therefore, feel obliged to spend any more time on this issue.

Parish Council Advisory notice: Anyone wishing to contact the Parish Council to make comments should do so via the Parish Clerk – email wendy7wansford@gmail.com.