Dear Sir

As a long outstanding resident to this town who likes to think I have. in the past served the community well, I'm appalled that Hadleigh Town Council appears to be making the same, or certainly similar mistakes all over again.

I talk about the comparisons between the 'old' council's dreadfully executed new cemetery extension and the 'new' council's plans for a 3G pitch at the Layham Road Sports Ground.

Without going into the specifics of the rights or wrongs of both schemes, the methodology involved in each has an alarming similarity in regards to the disregard of people's genuine concerns. the apparent cover ups, town council officers' inadequacies, especially in background reports, and certain councillor's interests non-pecuniary or otherwise.

It appears clear to me the current town council is fractured, indeed it as been described to me by observers as 'toxic', and it is difficult to see how it is acting in the best interests of the town when t will not entertain scrutiny, or indeed address legitimate concerns by some of those elected to represent us.

My concerns were piqued by events at a recent meeting when 38 questions were posed by members of the public and councillors regarding a contract Hadleigh town Council were being asked to enter into with the Football Foundation regarding potential funding for a 3G pitch. Among the concerns, expressed by councillors and members of the public were caveats being made by the Football Foundation regarding their right to choose the supplier and type of pitch being used.

Following a deferment of a Full Council meeting to seek legal advice, another meeting was held to discuss the 38 questions people wanted to take legal advice on.

It is of huge concerns to me, and indeed other residents I have spoken to, that the only three questions allowed to go to the legal people, after a split vote, were those being presented by councillor Rolf Beggerow, the Treasurer of Hadleigh United Football Club and by his own admission someone with a non-pecuniary interest, meaning his cub could benefit financially from having the 3G pitch..

Why was that?

Layham Road sports ground (Picture credit: Hadleigh Nub News)

From my own, non-scientific, poll virtually everyone is in favour of the idea of an all-year pitch but many have genuine concerns regarding micro-plastics flowing into the River Brett and want legal assurances that the council, not the Football Foundation, or Hadleigh Football and Rugby clubs, will be allowed to choose the most suitable, non contamination pitches.

There are also questions that the Town Council should answer in regards to how widely the community will be able to use the new pitch, will the caveat ensuring the Layham Ground Sports Ground remains an open space for the town, including all pitches, parking areas and Tennis Club.

This Town Council, whatever the political make up, should be open and transparent and should look to employ appropriate, qualified and experienced people capable of actually putting forward key projects, with transparency of their renumeration packages and working for the people of Hadleigh, and not their own, and certain councillors' self interests, which in my opinion, is what it looks like at the moment..

Councillors should also be seen to be acting with integrity, morals, and the highest standards of propriety instead of this constant slapping down of scrutiny, excess confidential sessions and self interest.

I know questions have been asked along these line before, so it will be interesting to see if the Hadleigh Town Council has the gumption to be open and honest in answering these.

I attach the 38 questions below and again ask, why were only the three asked by Councillor Beggerow put to the lawyers?

Is the Town Council, and its residents, leaving itself open to potential problems, or even worse, loss of an amenity for its wider residents going forward?

And finally, will this Town Council ever learn its lesson about being open, transparent and fully honest with all its residents?

Name and address supplied

*Send us your letter, news updates or pictures by using the black Nub It button on the news page - it is free and easy to use.

*Responding for Hadleigh Town council. deputy mayor Bill Wilson was unable to explain why only Cllr Beggerow's questions were put forward to receive legal advice but said in a statement:"Councillors we're faced with a total of 38 questions to consider which, if any, would be forwarded to a solicitor for advice. Councillors were given the questions in advance of the meeting and our Projects Officer provided additional information to read at the meeting. 

"The decision on which questions should be forwarded to a solicitor was agreed by a majority vote of councillors present. Who actually submitted the questions is irrelevant as the final decision was by way of a democratic vote."

Bill Wilson thinks it is irrelevent whose questions went to solicitors

POTENTIAL QUESTIONS – LRSG PROJECT

1. Could the Council by signing the Joining Agreement as an additional client be compelled in future stages of the process to accept a contract with a 3G pitch provider that contains Rubber Crumb Infill?
2. Would the Council be liable to pay any costs if at the end of stage 3 of the process they did not enter a Pre-Contract Services Agreement with the selected Contractor ?
3. Would the Council be liable for any costs if at stage 5 the Football Foundation did not offer the Council a grant at the expected level, the consequence of which resulted in the Council not being able to issue instructions to the contractor to proceed into the delivery stages ?
4. May the council enter into this arrangement? Which includes a paid contract with a management company, given the covenant on the Layham Road Sports Ground? Are we allowed to arrange for the use of that land for to be for commercial purposes? What is the definition of commercial purposes?
5. What may we do and not do to raise the money for the shortfall between grants/ donations and costs?
6. What are our rights should costs increase due to delays caused by partners?
7. What will happen if FF do not give us enough money, what will we be liable for if we pull out because we can't afford it?
8. Can you explain the term 'clawback period' and what will that mean for us?
9. Will we have to do due diligence, background checks on any and all sponsors/ donors/ gifters of money to this project and have contracts with them?
10. What is the cost and what is required of us regarding disposal of the pitch at the end of its life?
11. What will happen if the pitch material is banned?
12. Can the council request that particular materials only are used in the construction of the AGP?
13. What will partner organisations be liable for? Insurance? Maintenance? Renewal?
14. What legal advice will we need going forward?
15. In this relationship with FF and a third party management company, who is liable for injuries caused by the facilities we have purchased?
16. At the end of the clawback period, who pays for the pitch to be disposed of and land returned to 'natural' state?
17. If the land is found to be not suitable (eg flooding) will we be liable for any costs and what might they be?
18. Can we progress the pavilion ahead of the pitch? Can we separate the two and progress with one or the other? Would this mean that we cannot take advantage of the FF offer?
19. When the playing fields cannot be used for playing on, does anyone have a right to complain to the council for change of use or similar?
20. What is the benefit to the council and the (majority of) residents of Hadleigh of this contract with FF? Is the benefit only to the clubs who have contracts with the Town Council at Layham Road Sports Ground? And the management company who wins the tendering contract?
21. How much money will this all cost? Is there anything missing from the business documents which we should expect to pay normally? What is our duty as a council?

22. What are the council's general obligations under this contract?

1. Will any individual/s be liable for any money/ be held personally responsible at any time if anything goes wrong?
2. Who will conduct the tender processes for management company and build? HTC or FF?
3. How much would they charge to hold our hand/ advise us throughout this whole process?
4. Can HTC specify the pitch solution has to use organic infill (ie. non-rubber crumb) before Stage 3? If so, how and where do we do that?
5. If we do so, are suppliers who propose rubber crumb or other polluting solutions excluded from the tendering process? Ie. would a rubber crumb proposal be filtered out completely, or would it just mean the supplier got a low score or one 'Fail' on one criterion, and could still in be the running due to high scores on other criteria (eg. cost)? In the FF Alliance contract (between the FF and suppliers – not the contract with HTC) it says: "Unless otherwise specified in the Concept Design Document, the Performance Infill shall be End of Life Tyre (ELT) granulate [ie. rubber crumb]".
6. HTC doesn't want rubber crumb. Where is the Concept Design Document set, at what point in the process? And who writes the CDD? How does HTC get its requirements into the CDD? Who approves it, and what happens if HTC does not want to approve it?
7. As I understand the contract, both the HTC and the FF have to approve the bid recommended by the FMC in order to progress beyond Stage 3. Is this correct?
8. As I understand the contract, if the HTC and FF do not both approve the recommended bid at Stage 3, HTC is liable for all of the FF costs incurred to that point in Stages 1, 2, and 3. Is this correct? Are there any other liabilities if we walk away at the that point? Would those costs include:

• · the costs of FF staff and FF-appointed consultants and their work (The Engagement Manager, the Framework Managing Consultant, the Technical Project Manager)?
• · the costs incurred by the Survey Company?
• · the costs incurred by suppliers doing 'pre-contract' work?

1. The only environmental assessment criterion to be used in the selection process that I could find was this: "Environmental Considerations – A commitment to act responsibly within communities in which they work, by reducing travel, ensuring efficient working practices and sourcing local materials". Are there any other environmental criteria used in the process?
2. Could HTC and/or the FF use the Direct Award mechanism in the contract to assign the contract to a supplier who was not recommended by the Framework Managing Consultant?
3. What are HTC's potential risks and liabilities if the Environmental Agency objects to the pitch due to a rubber crumb solution (as at Bishops Stortford)? See: https://www.eastherts.gov.uk/latest- news/2022/3g-pitch-grange-paddocks-given-green-light
4. What are HTC's potential liabilities if planning permission is refused?
5. What are HTC's potential liabilities and risks if the EU (and UK) bans microplastics such as rubber crumb: before Stage 3? After Stage 3 but before completion? After completion?
6. In your opinion, are there particular aspects of the contract that should the council be particularly aware of?
7. What are the potential implications for the ownership of the land and any covenants the council has on it?
8. What does the agreement say about what happens under the following circumstances, and in particular what are the risks and liabilities for HTC under those circumstances:

• The income from the use of the pitch is insufficient?
• Any of the clubs that are seen as the main users of the pavilion and pitch (ie. Hadleigh United Football
• Club or Hadleigh Rugby Club) fold/dissolve prior a). prior to the completion of the project or b). after
• completion?
• Any of the main clubs that are envisaged as the main users of the pitch and the pavilion (ie. Hadleigh
• United Football Club or Hadleigh Rugby Club) relocate themselves to another venue a). prior to the
• completion of the project or b). after completion?
• The Football Foundation closes or dissolves at any point during the project or after?