I assume that the Truth is the Parish Council’s mouthpiece and is also the mouthpiece of Hazlemere Residents Association (2009) which from its one-sided blogs on its website appears to influence Parish Council policy decisions. From the comments in this e-petition this Residents Association evidently represents only a very small minority of Hazlemere’s residents. There are many holes in the Truth’s assertions. I just mention a few :-

1. The Truth and the Parish Council have completely lost the plot. This Community Facility was funded partly by section 106 monies derived from the sale proceeds of land sold by Bucks C. C. for development, land in which the Parish Council had no beneficial interest. The Parish Council also avoided VAT on the construction costs on the back of an agreement with HMRC that it would grant a lease of the Pavilion to HSA at a peppercorn rent. The purpose of these parliamentary concessions (use of section 106 monies for community facilities and zero-rating for VAT) is to encourage local councils to work in partnership with local organisations like HSA in the construction and subsequent management of community facilities like the new Pavilion the capital cost of which would not otherwise be affordable for the local council and the running costs of which would not otherwise be affordable for the local organisation. The key word is community. The persons to benefit are not just restricted to Hazlemere’s Council-tax payers/residents. The Parish Council holds the pavilion on trust for the wider community namely the sports clubs for whose primary benefit the new Pavilion was built to replace the old one and the many other people (regardless of where they live) who choose to use the Pavilion.

2. The Truth’s suggestion that HSA’s Directors might run off with the profits just because HSA Ltd’s Articles apparently permit them to do so is both insulting to them and absurd. Has he read HSA’s question and answer document on HSA’s website? If not he should do so. If he has read it then he should say whether or not he accepts HSA’s explanation of how the profits are dealt with. If the Parish Council is unhappy with HSA’s Articles it should make a polite request to HSA to amend them not propose ridiculous unacceptable terms as a means of forcing HSA out.

3. Has the Truth read HMRC Notice 708 section 17 and 18? I interpret these sections as meaning that if the Parish Council was to charge HSA or any other Tenant a rent in excess of a peppercorn within 10 years of completion of the building of the new Pavilion then the user of the Pavilion would become primarily commercial and cease to qualify for VAT zero-rating and render the Parish Council liable to pay VAT.

4. As to the debt which the Parish Council has to fund to the tune of £40000 a year the Truth does not state how much of the £40000 is interest and how much is repayment of capital. Be that as it may the Parish Council at the time evidently decided that the repayments were affordable in the full knowledge that this was to be a community facility; not an income-producing asset to benefit the Council

An anonymous contributor and admirer of HSA’s Directors who have worked tirelessly to make such a success of the new Pavilion despite the bests efforts of the Parish Council to hinder them at every turn.