Parish Council under fire over playing field

Parish Councillor Mike Hill strongly criticised the way Audlem Parish Council had handled the possible acquisition of the Playing Field complex at last night's parish council meeting.

He distributed a statement to councillors and AudlemOnline and then spoke giving a brief history of the complex, saying: "In September 2011 we were offered the chance to take over the complex for £1. Little if anything happened for three years.

"In Autumn 2014 we were told we were at the front of the Cheshire East devolution queue but there was a limited window of opportunity. In October and November 2014 the public and the parish council voted overwhelmingly to take over the complex.

"Delays and indecision followed as we argued over figures but a sub-committee delivered a report in Spring 2015 with a Business Plan. A formal application was made only in October 2015 by which time we had been moved to the back of the devolution queue, entirely because of our delays and indecision.

"We now have a 30-year lease option which means much lower costs and risks contrary to what is stated in the latest Parish Council Newsletter.

"We should have a formal investigation in to how we have mishandled and mismanaged this entire process.

"If we do not proceed with a lease, this will be a victory for the two parish councillors who voted against the acquisition in 2014 and who have contributed significantly to all the delays.

"I propose we vote tonight to proceed positively on what is a lower risk and much cheaper acquisition via a 30-year lease meaning we have control over this vital asset which the public voted overwhelmingly in favour of taking over almost two years ago. Or, to be absolutely democratic, call for an open meeting with the public given the right to decide."

His intervention sparked off a lively, to put it mildly, debate. Chair Heather Jones retorted that Mike Hill had been involved throughout and therefore was culpable himself before two newer members of the council said that what Cllr Hill had said chimed with many local people feeling let down by the lack of progress.

Cllr Siddorns said he felt the statement to be libellous as he was one of the most criticised. He later blamed Cheshire East for all the stalling and delays and that he had been trying throughout to progress the project.

Cheshire East Councillor Rachel Bailey was present and she said on a number of occasions that Cheshire East officers dealing with the possible devolution were receiving mixed messages as to whether Audlem Parish Council really wanted to take over the assets. She added that the parish council should be grateful Cllr Hill had raised the issue as his view reflects what many members of the public feel.

As the debate went on it became clear that there was still great uncertainty about what was on offer and how to proceed, rather confirming why Cllr Hill had raised the issue and the points detailed in his statement.

It was eventually agreed that Cheshire East be asked what precisely was now on offer and that the issue be discussed at next month's parish council meeting when, hopefully, the full facts will be available.

Playing Field Statement

Cllr Mike Hill's statement, which goes into greater detail, and in places was strongly denied by some other councillors, said:

I wish to make a statement concerning the way the possible acquisition of the Playing Field Complex has been handled, or I should say mishandled, by Audlem Parish Council. Full copies of what I want to say are being distributed to each member but I wish to read out a summary.

First I request that the Clerk records the full statement verbatim in the minutes.

Councillors will know that I, as a member of Audlem parish council, offered to be involved in the taking over the playing field complex (the field itself, tennis courts, children's play area and the car park) for £1 in September 2011. This was when we had taken over responsibility for the public toilets, which as everyone agrees, has been a great success and was the first example of asset devolution to a parish council by Cheshire East Council.

After raising the possibility of devolution of the playing field complex little happened for some three years. In September 2014, Audlem's application was, if we had acted promptly, in front of the queue for devolution as Cheshire East agreed on its Devolution Policy. We were told there was a limited window of opportunity that would keep us in pole position.

The council did start to act that Autumn of 2014 when an extraordinary parish council meeting attended by over sixty residents saw virtually all attending, with just one person against, vote for devolution of the complex. 

This was followed almost immediately by a parish council meeting when there was also an overwhelming vote to proceed with the acquisition with only Councillors Geoff Seddon and Dave Siddorns voting against.

A sub-group was formed to look after the process as Cllr Siddorns suffered illness meaning he could not carry out his previous role with responsibility for devolution issues. It has to be said however, that he had failed in that role to progress the project for a very long time.

Over the period late 2014 to early 2015 a detailed report was developed by Councillors Frances Mary Christie, Richard Furber and myself. 

Meetings were held with Cheshire East. Progress was held up for many weeks because some members of the council, largely those against the take-over, considered it to be biased. Eventually, in October 2015, a year later, a formal application was made to Cheshire East Council by the parish council to take over the full complex.

There was during this period much argument about the initial and on-going funding that would be required with, in my view, misleading sums being put forward by the parish council's finance committee (on which the two councillors opposed to the take-over make up the majority) and these misleading figures were even presented to the council.

I am aware that, because of all the delays and indecision by Audlem parish council, the Audlem application, caused CEC such frustration; it was moved from the front of the devolution queue by Cheshire East to the back. Others have been told by Cheshire East that is the case.

Meanwhile, Cheshire East Council was changing its policy on devolution. This would not have affected Audlem's project if this council had acted in a timely manner and carried out what the public and the council had voted for in 2014 by overwhelming majorities.

Cheshire East held consultation meetings for parish councils in June/July 2016 prior to introducing its new devolution policy. Despite the parish council receiving invitations, these were not made available to councillors, particularly the sub-group responsible for the project, and no-one from Audlem attended. I would very much like to know why councillors were not made aware of these meetings by the clerk.

The latest situation is that playing fields are now being let on 30-year leases rather than outright devolution. The latest Parish Council newsletter says that: "Councillors are concerned that residents would be liable for expensive maintenance which would require a higher local precept on an asset on which there would be no continuity of ownership. It would also be difficult to get grants towards costs on a relatively short lease. Additionally there would be no reduction in council tax."

These are almost precisely the arguments the two councillors opposed to the take-over used back in 2014. It appears that those arguments are being used to prepare the public for a complete change of approach by this council despite the overwhelming votes in favour of taking over the assets by the public and the parish council in 2014.

In contrast to this new approach hinted at in the Newsletter, which would in effect be reward for those opposed to the take-over and who have contributed to all the delays, I propose that the parish council proceeds to accept a 30-year lease as this will give ample control. Running on a lease has had no detrimental effect on Audlem Tennis Club, for example, and their ability to raise funds via grants and loans. Also, over a period of 30-years, there may be ample opportunity to move eventually to full control. Much changes with councils and council policy over such a period.

The Parish Council, if it does not wish to take on responsibly itself, can help arrange setting up a Charitable Trust that will also provide financial advantages and the parish council can pay the running costs. These sums have been allowed for in future budgets and, as we must always remember, the Precept we receive is for the community and not the parish council. We have built up more than adequate reserves to cover the initial and on-going costs. 

Also, as the car park or tennis courts would not be included in the 30-year lease, the likely on-going costs would be very much lower than originally calculated.

Before concluding, I also ask that there is a full investigation by CHALC or a similar body as to how we have got into this mess, have let down the public, how we missed the date that would have kept us at the front of the devolution queue and how we have not been informed of consultation meetings we should have been at. 

To conclude, we as a parish council must carry out what the public and the council voted for in 2014. We may have missed the opportunity, appallingly so by our own delays and indecision, to acquire the entire playing field complex outright but the 30-year lease option now on offer is very much cheaper and lower risk and I propose that tonight we vote to proceed positively and carry out what the public want.

If we don't proceed, we may have lost the opportunity to control a vital village asset through our own failures and by leasing we will have every opportunity in future years to ensure the playing field and Play Area are kept in excellent condition and possibly acquire it outright as Cheshire East Council policy changes.

Michael Hill

This article is from our news archive. As a result pictures or videos originally associated with it may have been removed and some of the content may no longer be accurate or relevant.