Question
Would you consider it good practice for all Borough Councillors representing the affected wards to be copied into ‘mass circulation’ letters or emails sent under Wokingham Borough Council letterhead, such as the letter from you regarding the 3G pitch proposals at Laurel Park, dated the 26th February?
Minutes:
Question
Would you consider it good practice for all Borough Councillors representing the affected wards to be copied into ‘mass circulation’ letters or emails sent under Wokingham Borough Council letterhead, such as the letter from you regarding the 3G pitch proposals at Laurel Park, dated the 26th February?
Answer
I would like to remind you that embedded within our Constitution are the Nolan Principles. We are required to show Honesty, Leadership, Openness, Accountability, Objectivity, Integrity, and Selflessness. There is ample opportunity for all Members, Town and Parish councils and residents to question a decision or proposal; this can be simply by giving me, the Executive Member, Chief Executive or a Director a call. This Administration is here for one purpose alone and that is to serve the residents. By being open and transparent hopefully if we have got it wrong it will come to light and we can get it right.
The recent debate over the Laurel Park has regrettably shown us wanting. There is ample evidence that the proposal to site a 3G pitch at Laurel Park was in the public domain in and before March 2021, when it was advertised in the Executive Forward Plan. The proposal was first promoted by Councillor Jones in in December 2020 followed up by many other discussions, which he and officers had. There were no Member or public questions on this proposal until February 2022, when residents en masse questioned the Council. It was never raised in Overview and Scrutiny nor whilst the budget was being scrutinised. The Executive’s proposal to include it in the budget proposals and explore was not called in. Indeed, there is ample evidence that Earley Town Council enthusiastically supported the decision until very recently when they found that local residents were against. I understand that conversations were being held to improve the pavilion to accommodate this 3G pitch in September 2021.
Supplementary Question:
Thank for you acknowledging that the Council has been found wanting on this particular matter. The answer that you have given is not the one you gave me during the meeting residents at Laurel Park. There you told me that it was not necessary for me, a Ward Member that would be affected by these proposals to receive your letter, because it was all over social media. For so many reasons this is not the way that this Council should be communicating, but my supplementary question is how many times have Conservative councillors deliberately not been forwarded important correspondence from yourself that directly effected their wards? A simple numerical answer would suffice.
Supplementary Answer:
The requirement for Honesty and Integrity means that false flag initiatives designed to put the Administration into disrepute does nothing to enhance the reputation of this Council.
On 8 December the day after Cantley Park was announced Clive Jones wrote to the Borough Council:
“ NEW FUNDING TO REVAMP CANTLEY PARK’S FACILITIES
Hi,
This is very good news.
How are discussions going with them about Laurel Park? It would be great to have something similar there.
Can we have an update chat?
The discussions with the Borough Council and Councillor Jones went on throughout 2020/21. The fact that you did not know about it is really not a matter for me.
The false flag initiatives which are currently being raised - We will not have borrowings of £750million (our current net borrowings are closer to £170million with realisable assets well over £1billion. To keep on repeating £750million is untrue and does not make it true. Council documents do not support your contention. To keep repeating information which is untrue does not make it.
To negate a saving circulated by our Monitoring Officer and calculated by our statutory financial officer of £1million plus per annum and for all-out elections does you and the Council a disservice.