Hughenden residents accused of "mob rule" (From Bucks Free Press)

Hughenden residents accused of "mob rule"

1:10pm Wednesday 17th November 2010 in Politics By Lawrence Dunhill

Council chairman Peggy Ewart

HUGHENDEN residents have been accused of “mob rule” at parish council meetings, while failing to hold constructive talks with councillors.

There has been uproar in Hughenden Valley since March, when the parish council proposed that ten affordable houses could be built in Warrendene Road, which is within the Green Belt (see link below).

Residents have packed the public gallery at council meetings, with members being heckled and arguments breaking between councillors and parishioners at times.

Peggy Ewart, the chairman of the Hughenden Parish Council, has said an open evening was held at Widmer End School last month but “very few” residents attended.

A statement on the council website reads: “Surprisingly, given the numbers of parishioners who have attended recent council meetings and criticized the council for being remote and out of touch, very few availed themselves of the opportunity the open meeting provided.

“This is a pity as we would have been pleased to see them.”

Vice-chairman David Jarman made the same point at last week's council meeting, asking why residents came to meetings in a “mob rule”.

There was controversy at the meeting on November 9, as one member of the public tried to film the public speaking section and a councillor threatened to smash his video camera (see link below).

Hilda Stearn, a parishioner from Hughenden Valley, also addressed the meeting and said she was “disappointed” by the behaviour of the residents.

She said they had not 'practised what they preach' and ignored some people's views on the rural affordable housing plan.

But Paul Cawte, the chairman of Hughenden Valley Residents Association, told the Bucks Free Press: “Hughenden Parish Council resolved to draw a line under the issue and not to engage in any further discussion or correspondence on this subject...

"It is therefore, not surprising that few residents felt inclined to go to the HPC open day when the issue they were most concerned about had previously been declared 'off limits'.”

He said he had received 160 negative and just four positive responses from residents about the housing plan.

He added: “In the opinion of the HVRA committee that indicated a considerable majority of village opinion was against the proposal, and enabled the HVRA committee to resolve to represent the majority of those who had seen fit to respond."

Meanwhile, documents seen by the Bucks Free Press show that several complaints have been made against parish councillors since March - but none have resulted in action being taken.

One complaint from resident Ed Furness against Cllr Ewart, about the hosuing plan in March, reads: “The complainant says that the parish council have pursued the scheme in secret, even though they knew that he was at the same time investing in an extension to his house.

“He says that had he known of the scheme he would have suspended the works until the matter was resolved and that the indication of the intention to develop has already seriously damaged his family's health and finances.”

The complaint was assessed by a panel set up by the Standards Committee at Wycombe District Council, but no action was taken.

Another details a complaint by Cllr Ewart and Cllr Jarman against Cllr Tony Konieczy in September, who has spoken out against the processes and methods used by the parish council.

Part of it read: “Following a decision by the parish council that there would be no further correspondence or decision about past processes related to rural affordable housing, Cllr Konieczy spoke to the Bucks Free Press about the matter and in particular about a working party recommendation that had yet to be approved by the full council.”

No action was taken against Cllr Konieczy, though a review of that decision has been requested.

In October, Cllr Konieczy complained that Cllr Ewart had "shown disrespect by not pronouncing his name properly", among other complaints. No action was taken.

There was no action taken by the committee on six other complaints.

Two complaints have also been made to the local government ombudsman, but are yet to be investigated.