The Chief Executive                                                                                                                            50, Adelaide Road

Cornwall County Council                                                                                                                     Redruth

County Hall                                                                                                                                        TR15 2HQ

Truro

                                                                                                                                                          10th August 2003

Dear Mr Stethridge

Thank you for your response to my letter of 11 July.

It is notable that you have not really replied to even a single point of the many points contained in this letter. The only construction that can be placed on that omission is that you are unable to respond to these points of substance. However, I will extend to you the courtesy of responding to each of your comments in turn.

Firstly, you accuse me of writing in an intemperate manner. It is true that I recounted a number of uncomfortable facts, none of which you have denied and which certainly do not make for comfortable reading, but I do not think that this means that ipso facto they are intemperate.  This can only be judged in the context in which my comments were made and I would suggest that in the chaotic situation, which has existed in the conduct of highways matters, my language, though blunt, is certainly not unreasonable. The fact is that something is very seriously wrong with a section of Cornwall County Council and this is an opinion which is increasingly confirmed by my contact with articulate and responsible people in different parts of the county as well as by a growing number of members.

You are quite right to point out that on two recent occasions, after 12 months of a lack of interest, you have been prepared to meet me on site to discuss my concerns. But I have already met on separate occasions Mr Fish, Mr Stephenson and Councillor Lobb on the Sandy Lane by-pass and on the adjacent residential estates and I have  met with the Director and his Deputy off site to discuss the considerable problems. The blunt truth is that nothing has ever been achieved by these exercises and the countless questions which I have posed about developments in this area have remained unanswered. There cannot much doubt that this situation is an affront to democracy.

With great respect, I have no intention of being subject to this demeaning activity yet again and, since you were provided with copies of my 5 extensive letters to the Director and a copy of my extensive report on the developments on the Sandy Lane by-pass and the adjacent residential estates at the end of last November, you should already be fully aware of my concerns. However, were you to make just some response, which showed that you were actually taking my concerns seriously, I would most certainly accede to your request. After all, my sole purpose in being a member of Cornwall County Council is to represent the interests of the people of Redruth South - and their interests have been affected by the developments about which I have vociferously, but unsuccessfully, complained - and if I seriously believed that a meeting would be fruitful and in their interests, I could not do otherwise than accept your offer.

With the greatest of respect, Mr Stethridge, I would find it very difficult to take any lessons from you when you remind me that “members should behave in a reasonable manner". Of course they should, but I fail to see how, in the circumstances where I have displayed remarkable patience in the face of considerable provocation over a prolonged period of time, I have behaved other than in a reasonable manner. Furthermore, I find it especially difficult to accept that you of all people can say this when some of your senior officers have consistently over time, failed to behave in such a manner. There has been a continuous resort to evasion, obfuscation and even half truths when responding to me as an elected representative and, in spite of the fact that last year you had copies of my lengthy letters to the Director on 14 March, 9 April, 8 August, 9 September and 12 September, I am not aware of any action which you have taken to put an end to this most undemocratic practice. Had you displayed some concern at the way an elected member of this council was being treated and therefore acknowledged the slight to which my electorate was being subjected, I would certainly have met you to discuss a way forward.

Secondly, I must respond briefly to your comments on the Audit Report. Many of the points which you mention have been mentioned before. Perhaps, you would explain WHY you thought that my criticisms of Mr Phyall's report were unreasonable.

• Is it unreasonable to expect that the many questions, to which I have been unable to obtain answers and which were presented to Mr Phyall would be answered, especially after he had given his word that they would be?

• Is it unreasonable to expect that Mr Phyall should adhere to his protocol and, if he did, that very senior officers should have acted upon it?  

• Is it unreasonable to expect that, if Mr Phyall had a free hand to decide whom, among members, officers and third parties, he would  have consulted:

i] in conformity with the 9 October resolution of the Community Life Scrutiny Committee, those committee members  who had concerns and could have acquainted him  with names of third parties,

ii] the two officers, the former County Surveyor and the former Network Manager, who occupied important positions when most of the irregularities    

occurred and

iii] at least some third parties?

• Is it unreasonable to expect that, if he had a free hand in reporting  "the findings and conclusions as he saw fit", he would have reported that this council was acting  ULTRA VIRES and therefore UNLAWFULLY by failing to comply with the requirement of the 1980 Highways Act that APC notices must be issued and that the building of houses must NOT begin until surety has been lodged with the County Council, so that householders on new residential estates are protected against street works charges and that he would have reported that, by the contravention of a  number of council policies, MALADMINISTRATION was taking place?

• Is it unreasonable to assume that if I was "consulted on the terms of reference” those terms would actually reflect my main worries? Is it unreasonable to have expected that the determination of why there had been such contravention of council policies and the statutory duty and who had authorised them, since they were beyond doubt my prime concerns, would have featured in the terms of reference?

• Is it unreasonable to have assumed that the departmental report, which was established ostensibly to consider my complaints would answer my questions, and would not have engaged in a discreditable exercise of misrepresenting the history of the Sandy Lane by-pass seemingly to represent the action of officers in a better light and then that the Audit report would consider the exercise, not in the light of its reflecting the evasion,  obfuscation and shoddiness which characterised the whole  P.T.E. approach, but of whether or not it had been given sufficiently precise terms of reference?

• Is it unreasonable to assume that if I made my views known to the Audit team - and after all it was I who first approached them - they would take them into account and not, without adequate reason, discard them?

• Is it unreasonable to assume that my impact on Internal Audit has been minimal in the light of the misrepresentation of my position in its report?  Evidently, I was interviewed on 6 November but my report, according to Appendix 1, Pages 26 and 27, which consisted of 1 volume of text and 5 volumes of evidence, apparently was not even a part of the evidence relied upon, although it included much relevant if damning material. The airbrushing of my contribution from the proceedings is even encapsulated on Pages 4 and 55 of the report, which state that  "YOU [i.e. the chief executive] have informed us that  a councillor of the County Council has questioned" a number of things which relate to s 38 and s 278 agreements and to the accuracy and completeness of the departmental report. The reality is, as Mr Phyall well knows, having met with me on a number of occasions not mentioned in his report, that I was much more concerned by what had gone on in the construction of the by-pass and the adjacent estates, where the failure to implement the APC requirement was a factor of major significance.

Above all, I wished to know the identity of the person who had authorised the violation of a statutory duty and at least two important council policies of ensuring that estate roads were of sound construction and that houses were not occupied before a Part One certificate had been issued. My purpose in  introducing the department report was to show that it was as evasive, as inaccurate and no more frank than the antics of P.T.E. which had preceded it. The  testing procedures deployed by Internal Audit seemed to be more concerned with whether or not the report's author  had been given explicit terms of reference than whether or not it was carrying out an exercise with  integrity. Significantly, none of the 6 questions [listed on Pages 4 and 55 of the Audit  Report], which I am said to have posed by the Audit report, have been answered!!

Thirdly, you have already told me of the action plan and its subsequent history but you seem oblivious to the cogent criticisms, which I have levelled at it. I note that you are unable to refute them.

Fourthly, as regards impropriety, you do not appear to have grasped the point I was making. Furthermore, I have no idea of the people who, on a number of occasions, have apparently mentioned that I should go to the District Auditor since, as far as I'm aware, the involvement of the District Auditor is a most recent development.

If you read carefully my letters you would have seen that I have never said that there was improper conduct. I have said however that there existed circumstances, which have been specifically identified, where it could have flourished. I do not see why you have been so upset by what is obviously undeniable. I would have thought that everyone would have been only too eager to establish, for the good name of the council, that there was no impropriety.

You say that,"As you know part of the internal Audit investigation was on the question of fraudulent activity." I'm afraid that you are assuming something which is incorrect. I was not aware that Internal Audit's terms of reference were so comprehensive as to include this question and certainly there is nothing in the Audit report which would give substance to your claim. In fact, the only reference that I can find is, "We confirm that no evidence of any fraudulent practices within the Development Control process has been identified as a result of the testing undertaken". One would not dispute that this is an accurate statement, but before too much is read into it, one would need to know much more about the evidence that has persuaded the Head of Audit Services to reach this conclusion. This is not an unimportant matter as, in the public's perception, rightly or wrongly, there is much cynicism of County Hall and, in the County Council's interest, it is a matter of some importance that its integrity is not only beyond reproach but that it is seen to be, as well.

Finally, to avoid any repetition of previous experience with Internal Audit, I must point out that I shall be seeking assurances from the External Auditor that he will fully explore all the issues appertaining to developers in this county, in so far as their dealings with the County Council are concerned, that he will look very carefully at the record of senior management and that he will be empowered to comment without inhibition on the situation which he identifies. Otherwise, I shall explore other possible avenues.

Yours sincerely

Graeme Hicks

cc Leader of the Council, Executive Members, Members of the Community Life PDSC, Party Leaders, Monitoring Officer & County Treasurer.

 Return to Objectives of Detailing the Correspondence.