This came following reports that the bench was not in keeping with others within the cemetery and was obstructing the walkway due to its size.

My understanding is that this situation only arose because permission was originally given for a bench to be placed in a location that did not leave room for my bench, so i accommodated. What I still struggle to understand is the reasoning behind removing the bench in the middle. I have personally measured the access before and after the proposed changes, and in both cases there is insufficient space for a wheelchair to pass through. If wheelchair access remains restricted regardless, then removing the middle bench does not appear to achieve the stated objective.

This raises a reasonable question: if the access issue is unchanged, why was it considered necessary to remove the middle bench at all? From my perspective, the decision seems inconsistent, particularly when no similar review appears to have been undertaken for other benches in the cemetery.

​

January 28th 2026, it was unanimously decided by Councillors that we instruct the Clerk to write the letter that was sent February 9th 2026, which invited your family to contact the Clerk to discuss a meeting so that we could find a positive way forward.

This appears inconsistent with what has happened since. The stated intention was to discuss the matter and find a positive way forward through a meeting. The current position appears to have shifted from discussion and resolution to removal. Furthermore, my mother was neither the applicant nor the owner of the bench, despite this being clear within the Council's own policy.

​

On the morning of Tuesday 24th February 2026, staff from the Town Council spoke with your mum, Mrs Phillips,

Again, my mother was not the owner or applicant regarding the bench. I struggle to understand why discussions about my property and application were considered appropriately addressed by speaking to someone else. I suspect most people would have concerns if decisions about their property were communicated through a family member rather than directly with them.

​

I want to make it very clear that no decision was made by the Town Clerk, the Deputy Clerk or any other member of staff. This decision was made by Town Councillors at a public meeting.

This raises an obvious question: was the Council's decision to arrange a meeting and discussion, or was the decision to remove the bench? The two positions appear difficult to reconcile. It gives the impression that subsequent decisions may have been made without reference to the original Council instruction.

​

I have been made aware of the fact that you have posted about this on social media, tagging the Town Clerks account and placing blame on her. I request this is removed and that a formal apology is given to the Clerk by yourself. We do not accept abuse of our staff or Councillors in any form and a post that directly targets and lays blame at her for simply doing her job as instructed by Councillors is entirely unacceptable. If this is not removed, we may have to take this further as a Council.

I submitted a formal complaint and, rather than receiving answers to the issues raised, I received a request that I apologise.

The account in question uses the handle "@OBTCTownClerk", which naturally presents itself as an official Council-related account.

If the Council objects to members of the public drawing that conclusion, it might be helpful for there to be clear guidance within Council policies.

I also note that the Council's published information referred to Facebook but not Instagram, which raises further questions about how

official Council communications and representations are managed online.

​

In line with our complaints procedure, as Chair of the Council, I will take this matter to the next Full Council meeting on March 18th 2026.

The response appears to be that my concerns will simply wait until the next Council meeting. There was no indication of an investigation, review, or discussion beforehand. That approach seems particularly concerning considering how serious complaints are expected to be handled, especially where urgency could potentially be a factor.

​

The letter was sent to Mrs Phillips as she is the registered person for your father grave.

That may be true regarding the grave, but it does not address the fact that she was not the owner or applicant relating to the bench. The Council's own policy distinguishes between those matters.

​

We apologise if this should have been addressed to you, and the Clerk has expressed this apology already. We are confident though that there is no breach of GDPR. I have had site of the letter and you are not named within it.

The fact that my name was not included does not automatically remove data protection concerns. Information relating to my application and correspondence was sent to another individual at another address. My concern is not whether my name appeared in the letter, but whether information intended for me was disclosed to someone else without proper authority.

​

As is explained in the letter, you failed to supply the Town Council with draft designs/drawings of the seat with full details of the materials and dimensions. This is a requirement of all memorial benches and as such is a breach of our policy.

Which bench is being referred to here? The original design that I initially proposed, or the alternative arrangement that was verbally agreed when your errors were made? The bench had been in place for over a year before any suggestion was made that it was unsuitable. It is difficult to accept criticism of my compliance with policy when there appear to have been several occasions where the Council itself did not follow its own procedures.

​

I will work with the Town Council staff to get you any further information, but please be aware that we as Councillors are here in a voluntary capacity and many of us work full time on top of being Councillors.

I appreciate that Councillors volunteer their time and often balance those responsibilities with employment and personal commitments. However, those practical realities do not diminish the Council's responsibility to act in accordance with its own policies, procedures, and legal obligations.

​

You can see our policies here https://ollerton-tc.gov.uk/documents/policies-documents/

Thank you for providing the link. I have reviewed the policies available on the Council's website. During that review, I noted the apparent absence of several important policies and documents, including those relating to data protection, GDPR, safeguarding, and whistleblowing. My understanding is that local authorities are expected to maintain appropriate governance documentation, so these omissions raise additional concerns that I intend to pursue separately.

​

I have also attached a redacted copy of the letter that was sent.

If there was no data protection concern arising from the contents of the letter, it is unclear why redaction was considered necessary before disclosure.

​

I want to finally reiterate that this is not a decision made by the Clerk or any other member of staff and we will not accept abuse towards our staff in any form.

I have never supported or encouraged abuse towards any member of staff. My concerns relate to the actions and decisions taken during this process, not to individuals personally. I live in the same community and have always maintained a respectful relationship with Council staff, including the Clerk, who spoke warmly of my father on numerous occasions.

My comments were directed at the handling of the matter rather than any personal criticisum.