Hascombe Fountain Q&A

Hascombe Parish Council answers to specific questions raised by Hascombe residents concerning Hascombe Fountain

**Process & Timelines**

Q1. As the Borough Council has confirmed that HPC are the ‘Relevant Person’, could you provide the current list of actions or advice the Borough has suggested you take to resolve the issue?

Hascombe Parish Council is not the Responsible Person. In 2010 we declined as we did not have the funds to take this on. In April, I indicated to Gisella that the parish council would consider becoming the Responsible Person. That decision would need to be taken at a public meeting of the parish council, once we have all the facts and costs.

Q2. What is the Parish Council’s formal timeline for engaging a contractor or professional body to assess the steps needed for reopening?

We have sought advice from a specialist contractor, although the scale and detail of any recommendations won’t be confirmed until we have the results of the first full test.

We are currently waiting for Gisella to advise on the likely testing regime.

Waverley initially advised that the first test should be done at the end of summer, although now it is agreed this can be carried out after a period of dry weather. These conditions are apparently the most favourable in terms of us getting the best results. We will chase this week regarding the testing regime.

Unfortunately, the timeline is being impacted by numerous FOI/EIR requests.

Q3. Does the Parish Council require formal confirmation from the Borough Council to proceed, or is the Parish Council now the sole decision-making body regarding the asset’s future?

Once the parish council has the full information, we can make a decision whether or not to become the Responsible Person. We will consult with Waverley on the process as anything we do has to be compliant with the DWI and satisfy WBC in terms of public health.

Q4. On point three, this requires input from Hascombe villagers and cannot be decided solely by the HPC.

Yes, we completely agree. Hascombe Fountain is special and important to everyone who lives in the village.

We have said that as soon as we have all the facts and figures, we will write to every household in the village setting out the options and asking for feedback. We are proposing that we include a feedback form and Freepost envelope. We will also hold a dedicated meeting in the village hall.

Q5. There are concerns regarding the accuracy of messaging, lack of interaction, and ongoing process, especially now that the FOI shows the communications and information to date. How can the HPC ensure they act as elected councillors and work in the interests of the Hascombe community to get the fountain flowing as soon as possible?

We agree that in the first couple of weeks, communication could have been better. The Clerk works full time, but only 4 hours per week for Hascombe Parish Council. This combined with having to work on the internal audits, has meant that her time was particularly limited during March and early April. She was due to upload the notice that appeared in the notice board to the Facebook page, however, this was very quickly shared by someone else on Facebook before she had the opportunity.

Since then, each time there has been anything to update, the Clerk has posted a news article on our website and link to it on the FB page. The May parish council meeting was very well attended and the Clerk answered every question that was asked and gave a very comprehensive explanation of the situation. A report of the meeting has also been posted on the FB page and in the June parish magazine for those who were unable to attend.

We have concerns about the accuracy of interpretation of messaging. For example, that the parish council is the Responsible Person and that this has been confirmed by Waverley, which is not the case. Also that Waverley only advised us to shut off the water, even though Waverley have included in their FOI Response their email to the Clerk of 9^th April which states “I must now insist that the water is shut off. I am on leave next week but will no doubt re-visit the area by the end of April. If the water is still flowing the next time I visit, I will discuss possible enforcement action with my manager and legal team.”

**Shutdown & Technical Status**

Q6. As WBC have confirmed they did not instruct the shutdown of the fountain, by whose authority was the water flow officially switched off?

As clearly outlined above, Waverley did instruct the parish council to shut down the fountain. This is clear from the information provided in their FOI response. If there is any other information from Waverley denying this, please let me know asap so we can address it.

Q7. Was there a specific incident that triggered the shutdown, or was this a proactive measure taken in anticipation of potential liability?

As explained, the parish council was instructed to shut down the fountain on 9^th April by Waverley. The full email chain between the Clerk and Gisella is included in the FOI response.

Q8. Why no period of consultation prior to shutting the fountain?

This is more a question for Waverley than for the parish council, as we were simply following instruction. But as you can see from the emails in the FOI response, Waverley clearly believed there was a risk to public health.

Q9. Since the Borough Council has confirmed that no water quality testing has been conducted in the last five years, nor is there a risk assessment, what technical evidence was used to justify the initial closure?

Waverley (and the DWI) need evidence that the water is safe. They don’t need evidence that the water is unsafe. The fact that the warning signs were persistently and repeatedly removed exacerbated the issue.

Q.10 How do we validate water quality testing and risk assessment with the fountain switched off, and could consideration be given to switching it on and implementing a plan for initial testing to determine requirements?

We were asked at the meeting how long the fountain would need to be switched back on before the tests could be carried out. Waverley advises that the water only needs to be running for about 15 minutes, although the water testing company, Affinity Water, will ensure the conditions are correct for testing.

Waverley are currently working on the risk assessment. This and the first test result will determine the requirements and testing regime going forward. The testing will be carried out by Affinity Water, who are accredited to carry out tests to DWI’s specification. This is done under strict conditions by expert personnel.#

**Facilitating the CIC Takeover**

Q11. If the Parish Council is concerned about the costs of ongoing testing and public liability insurance, would you be willing to enter a formal management agreement with our newly formed CIC to transfer these burdens entirely?

Yes. Obviously this will depend on the outcome of our consultation with residents once we know the ongoing testing regime. As things stand, we are not clear at this point what the benefits would be but it isn’t something that we would discount out of hand. We all want the fountain to be turned back on again and we’re sure we can all work together to find the most efficient way of doing it.

Q12. Would the Parish Council prefer a proposal that outlines a specific, DWI-compliant Water Safety Plan managed by our CIC, rather than leaving the fountain closed indefinitely?

It has never been the parish council’s intention to leave the fountain closed indefinitely. We know that the parish council or any potential CIC would have to be DWI compliant. Until we know precisely what that is likely to entail following the updated Risk Assessment and tests we don’t see an advantage in a CIC carrying this out instead of the parish council. As mentioned, we would be open to a discussion once we have all the facts.

Q13. If we provide a complete, ‘turnkey’ compliance package—including testing and insurance—what is the minimum legal or procedural hurdle HPC would need to see cleared to permit the water to flow again?

Given the foregoing, it is just a question of whether a CIC or the parish council satisfies Waverley and the DWI to get the water flowing again.

However, as mentioned previously, we’re unsure of the benefits of setting up a CIC over a CIO as it wouldn’t benefit from charitable tax advantages. Neither would it benefit from the ability to reclaim 100% of VAT, which the parish council does, so this, in addition to any setting up costs and governance, would cost more money than if the same job were done by a CIO or the parish council. We already have a charity for the fountain that could be transferred to a CIO quite painlessly.

Hascombe Parish Council