The Spalding public has shown a clear interest in where the Johnson Drinking Fountain should be reinstated.
We doubt, if any of them, however, feel that South Holland District Council has shown any interest in consulting them about the future site.
This failure is contrary to Government advice in the National Planning Policy Framework, which states that “early engagement [with the public] has significant potential to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the planning application system for all parties. Such community engagement is also a necessary requirement for bids to central government for funding.”
There has been no such community consultation or engagement over the fountain.
As newly elected Chairman of South Holland District Council in 2018, Coun Rodney Grocock declared he was determined to “reinstate the drinking fountain within Spalding town centre.” (Council AGM).
Spalding and District Civic Society welcomed this choice of location. Equally welcome were the words: “I am, however, keen to ensure that this happens in conjunction with a wider consideration of town centre improvements.”
When the Spalding Town Centre Regeneration Steering Group was set up 18 or so months later, we believed that not only would an overall scheme for the town centre emerge, but also that it would enable public discussion and community engagement to take place, as advised by the National Planning Policy Framework, encouraging an increased sense of community well-being about the town.
At that time, we felt that both ourselves and the district council shared that common goal.
Things changed in 2021. When the council announced a proposal to locate the fountain in the cemetery.
Spalding Civic Society’s position has always been that the fountain should be returned to the town centre, and we do have some thoughts on potential sources of funding that may be available, and I am sure that others on the Regeneration Steering Group may also have suggestions.
Whilst the cemetery proposal was dropped, it is now clear that discussions were taking place behind the scenes, resulting in a planning application to locate the fountain in Ayscoughfee Gardens.
We were told that other locations in the town centre were discussed and discounted.
Naturally as we were not involved in those discussions, despite requests made both privately and publicly at Spalding Town Forum for us to be included, we feel we need to be fully informed as to their full extent.
How can we, or anyone, be fairly expected to comment on the planning application without knowing the other sites and therefore whether the most appropriate one has been chosen?
We have not been provided any information relating to those discussions and have therefore resorted to the Freedom of Information Act to secure a response.
Under that Act the council is permitted 20 working days to respond. No response was made, despite a reminder, and we eventually had to resort to asking the Information Commissioner’s Office to intervene.
On July 25, the council was given ten working days to respond. We eventually received a response at 6.39pm on the tenth working day.
The quality of the response to our Freedom of Information request is poor, incomplete, and inaccurate.
We will be highlighting those failings to the Information Commissioner’s Office.
On other aspects we have been advised that relevant officers are on holiday and that they cannot make a response until after August 15. As our request was made on May 26, we find such a position deeply concerning.
This situation cannot continue. The Councillors’ Code of Conduct states that “holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office” and that they “should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take.”
Should not the authority be living up to the same standards of openness and scrutiny when it comes to their deliberations about the future of a community asset?
Spalding and District Civic Society
