Dear Nub News

Whilst I was not the correspondent of the "Will Hadleigh Council ever learn" in Nub News on 29th June 2022, I found the article fascinating. The comparisons between the Cemetery Extension project, which technically bankrupted the town, and the proposed financing of a 3G pitch at the Layham Road Sports Ground ("LRSG") could do the same. The root cause of both projects seems to be the same – lack of financial acumen amongst officers and some Councillors. 

The ruling "Cabal" in the old Town Council misled the Public Works Loan Board. The erstwhile Town Clerk helped obtain a £500,000 loan by declaring that the PWLB loan would not impact on the precept (i.e. Council Tax). She was being "economical with the actuality".

How could a repayment of over £30,000 p.a. for 25 years, without commensurate income, not fail to cost Hadleigh residents? Two years on, Hadleigh residents have paid the price. The precept had to be raised by 18.7% over the past two years. 

The current budget for the Cemetery for 22/23, presented by the HTC officers, and agreed by Council, expects income from the Cemetery to be £28,480. As Cllr. Knock has pointed out many times, the Cemetery has never had an annual income exceeding £20,000. In 2020/21 it was £10,939. In 2021/22 it was £14,780. Yet, for last year and this, the Cemetery manager expects to more than double its recent average annual income. No reasoning is given. 

It may be argued that the Cemetery is a public service, but why are the current residents being asked to subsidise the bereaved families because of Councillors incompetence? The Cemetery extension could be generating additional income if properly managed. But the closing down of the Cemetery Working Group prevented suggestions being aired. It also prevented criticisms of the project's management being aired in public.

So, what is the similarity to the LRSG? These project proposals also seem to lack financial rigour.

The plans for the new pavilion anticipate a 23 sq. mtr. Tennis Club Room. What does this cost? Is it necessary? The income budgeted from the Tennis Club is £2,000 p.a. The maintenance cost is also shown as £2,000. This is without attributing the cost of electricity for the floodlighting. The Club is quoted as having around 40 members. Is this true? Has the Project Officer checked the number of subscriptions paying members? What does this potential £2,000 fee add to the membership subscription? Are the members prepared to pay a substantial increase? Interestingly, the Tennis Club is not listed as having sent a supportive letter for the LRSG project. How committed are they?

The overall cash flow impact of the LRSG project, without making changes to the questionable income or taking future inflation into account, is quoted as a deficit of £28,000. 

This whole LRSG saga is mighty similar to the Cemetery extension.

"Will Hadleigh Council ever learn?"

Roger Young

Hadleigh

*Send us your letter, news article, or pictures by using the black NUB IT button on the home news page.