Where is the Conservative fund for Eynesbury Manor?

After the Conservatives annexed the the Town Ward of Eynesbury Hardwicke Parish (part of Parklands and most of Eynesbury Manor) to St Neots, the Conservatives went on the rampage blaming the Liberal Democrats. Yet this blog worked out the Conservatives pushed this annexation through.

Before the 2010 General Election the Conservatives put out a leaflet. In the last paragraph it says:

So under the new Conservative run Town Council this has all been forgotten. As the Conservatives said: "as you were expected to pay considerably more the money should be spent on Eynesbury."

Having said the above what are the Conservatives doing now they are in power? Nothing of course. No new money set aside specifically for the area. So none of the extra money coming in from the annexed area is specifically going to this area. In 2010/11Accounts, the Town Council receives £16,121 from its share of the abolition of Eynesbury Hardwicke PC. Was this money put aside? No. Did the incoming Conservatives put this money aside? No!

At the 2010 elections the Conservatives went to town on this subject. Once in power the Conservatives are silent on this subject. They have forgotten what they said. 

The Conservatives and Eynesbury Hardwicke

In another spat with Cllr Paul Ursell a leaflet came to light sent out by the Conservatives at the last election in the area which was formerly part of Eynesbury Hardwicke and has been annexed by HDC to St Neots Town Council. The leaflet in question can be found here.

There is no Conservative banner so how do I know it is a Conservative leaflet?

At the bottom of the page there is an imprint. In really tiny font size it says:

This Conservative leaflet doesn't really want you to know it is from the Conservatives.

The banner at the top of the leaflets simply says:

Nothing to indicate it is from the Conservatives.

So what does the leaflet have to say and what doesn't it say?

The first paragraph:

Nothing in this paragraph indicates the Conservatives were the ones who moved the residents from Eynesbury Hardwicke to St Neots fully knowing that these residents would have to pay higher council tax. On 21/11/2007 then Councillor Andrew Gilbert drew attention to this change:

So the Conservative knew fully the annexed residents would have to pay more. The Conservative run HDC had decided to move these residents to St Neots. There is no mention of this fact in the Conservatives leaflet.

The second paragraph goes on:

Of course the small reduction in the Council Tax for the majority of St Neots Council taxpayers is for existing council taxpayers. But it is also for the annexed residents who don't have to pay so much under the Conservative prosposals.

The third paragraph says:

Whilst it is a valid point that the Liberal Democrats have upped the Town Tax and the increase is being funded by the annexed residents, nothing is said about the Conservatives moving these residents in the first place and therefore making them liable for these higher taxes.

The fourth paragraph goes onto say:

This argument would be good if the Conservatives hadn't moved these residents to St Neots Town Council. The consequence of such a move is the annexed residents would pay more. The Conservatives knew this when they took this decision.

The fifth paragraph is the most interesting: 

But what of the old Eynesbury Hardwicke Parish Council? If they had built and provided facilities then St Neots Town Council would have to take them over and run them. EHPC didn't provide any facilities. Affected EHPC residents enjoyed much lower parish/town tax than the rest of St Neots.

The minority Conservative group did put forward ill thought out proposals. But creating a specific fund does one thing. It would put up the Council Tax for all residents in St Neots. This is something the Conservatives are quiet about. 

Why should residents get a specific fund for their area? This must be new Conservative policy for Eynesbury. Under a Conservative run Town Council will this discrimination be put into effect or will we all be in this together.

Also why should neighbours pay different taxes. The boundary was there before Parklands and Eynesbury Manor were built. Some residents on one side of a street paid St Neots rate of Council Tax and on the other side they paid the much lower EHPC. 

Oh and HDC did actually tax, many years ago, the residents of Eynesbury Hardwicke at the St Neots Town Council rate until it was pointed out Eynesbury Hardwicke was a different parish.

The use of Eatons Community Centre is a strange choice. As Councillor Ursell (Conservative) who is on HDC, SNTC and was on EHPC put it:

“This much needed community centre will be a tremendous asset for the residents of the Eaton Ford and Eaton Socon communities who will undoubtedly make full use of its facilities.”

In Eaton Ford this is a tremendous asset. In the annex area this is a financial burden. Two different messages, one St Neots Conservatives. Depends where you live the Town.

In conclusion, this is a shameful leaflet and I understand it was from the Conservatives and this was hidden away at the bottom of the page. It sets out some valid points but misses the main reason why the annexed residents had to pay higher Council Tax and that is simply because the Conservatives decided to change the boundary and move these residents into St Neots.  

Far easier for the St Neots Conservatives to blame the Liberal Democrats than admit your own decisions!

Parish Boundary Review - How the St Neots Conservatives messed up.

It is easy to believe the Conservative Councillors that this review was something dreamt up by the Boundary Commission. In fact the review of Parish/Town Council arrangements fall squarely on the Conservative controlled HDC.

It came across to me very clearly that our St Neots Conservative Councillors Group were absent in the formulation of these boundary changes. I couldn't find one representation from the Conservatives to this review. The whole lot went through with only a murmur and that was from EHPC. 

So when the Conservatives complain about the hard up people of the annexed areas, they should stand up and inform those residents what they did. Because I can find nothing. The Elections Panel actually was chaired by D. Harty and A. Gilbert was made Vice Chairman during this process. The recommendations were approved by Council, of which all the Conservative District Councillors, at the time, were members.

Instead of standing up and informing the residents as to why they think this is a good idea, now the consequences are becoming apparent they hide or blame the Liberal Democrats. All very easy. Below, I've mapped out how this decision was made. 

This was a Conservative decision. There is no getting away from that.

The original decision was taken in March 2006. - No paperwork on that. The Elections Panel was charged with the job of looking at the boundaries and electoral arrangements.

Elections Panel 22nd August 2006

Elections Panel Minutes 22/08/2006

This sets out the reason behind the review (in legislation) and what the review could do.

Consultation Summary 22/08/2006 / Edit version here

This shows the Liberal Democrats were in the running. The "St Neots Conservative Councillors were nowhere!

The St Neots Conservative Councillors at this meeting were: D Harty, A Gilbert

Elections Panel 2nd October 2006

Draft Proposals - 2nd October 2006 / Edit version here

This set out the draft proposals for the new St Neots boundary.

Annex A - Electoral proposals

SNCCG - D. Harty and A. Gilbert

Elections Panel 19th February 2007

Elections Panel Meeting 19/02/07 Appendix

This appendix is a summary of suggestions from the Public. Not one was received from St Neots.

SNCCG - D. Harty. A Gilbert -apologies

Elections Panel 20th November 2007

Elections Panel Minutes 20/11/2007

This was the agreement for the changes to the St Neots Boundary.

SNCCG - D. Harty and A. Gilbert

The Final Report / Edit version

This set out the final version to go to Council

Parish Summary / Edit version

This a summary of the last representations.

Council Meeting 5th December 2007

Council 5th December 2007

This approved the new boundary!

Elections Panel 25th March 2009

Election Panel Minutes 25/03/09
Awaiting details of the confirmation

02/12/2009 Parish Orders Report

Huntingdonshire (Parishes) Order 2009
The Parish Orders.

Huntingdonshire District Council - Parish Boundaries
Link to webpage

Ups and downs in villager' protests?

The Hunts Post St Neots - 31/03/2010 digital edition

As I've been saying for a year or more, Eynesbury Hardwicke/Eynesbury Manor residents were in for a bit of a shock. What has added to this shock was neither EHPC nor SNTC didn't inform the affected residents of the changes. This is bad Government and was something THIS BLOG RAISED.

Cllr Barry Chapman unhelpfully weighs into this controversy with "Something could have been done to ease the burden or phase in the increase, but they did nothing." I can't find anything in law that allows any of what you are telling people. My question to Barry Chapman is what could have been done and by whom?

As for they it was the Conservative run HDC which did decided to move this area into St Neots. It was EHPC that agreed to this move. So they isn't the Liberal Democrats it is his colleagues - The Conservatives.

Bob Barnes in right in saying this is a consequence of joining St Neots. It is a pity the "St Neots Conservative Councillors" can't get their collective heads around all this.

I asked for some information but not yet received

I sent an e-mail to Deryck Irons, Parish Clerk to Eynesbury Hardwicke Parish Council and also to St Neots Rural Parish Council with the following e-mail:

Deryckirons@aol.com  2nd March 2010

Dear Sir,

I noticed from the HDC website that your a Parish Clerk to Eynesbury Hardwicke Parish Council and St Neots Rural Parish Council. As these are being abolished on 31st March 2010 can you let me have the following:

1. A list of current parish councillors on each Parish Council.

2. What arrangements have been made for the parish records. Which Council is going to be in charge of these records?

Still waiting for an answer!

Is £15,000 still coming from Eynesbury Hardwicke?

In this weeks edition under the heading of "Deal struck on town's toilets" Julia Hayward is quoted as saying:
“In the first year we will put in about £15,000 and Eynesbury Hardwicke Parish Council will pay about the same. After that the town council will put in about £30,000.”


This is news to Cllr Ursell (Eynesbury Hardwicke Parish Councillor and District Councillor) who wrote the Town Council may not get this money. I'll only believe the Town Council is getting the money when the Town Council actually receives the money.