A recently leaked document, now circulating among local media outlets, has ignited a firestorm of controversy surrounding Oakham Town Councillor Paul Ainsley and the future of Victoria Hall. The document, purportedly a confidential communication from Cllr Ainsley himself, details "informal meetings" with Victoria Hall trustees, a revelation that has raised serious questions about transparency and proper conduct within the council.
The leaked correspondence, addressed to key figures including Thomas Tyler, Chair of Victoria Hall Trustees, Joanna Burrows, a Trustee, Cllr Sally-Anne Wadsworth, and Cllr Chris Nix, Chairman of Oakham Town Council, outlines a proposal for the potential "gifting" of Victoria Hall to Oakham Town Council (OTC). This arrangement, as detailed in the memo, would place the onus of "all major maintenance obligations" squarely on the shoulders of the OTC.
This disclosure comes at a particularly sensitive time, as Cllr Ainsley is reportedly unable to attend council meetings due to illness. His apparent continued engagement in what appears to be unilateral council business behind the scenes has surprised and troubled some colleagues, especially given his membership in a Town Council working group seemingly related to these very matters. When challenged, Cllr Ainsley has reportedly asserted he was acting in a "private capacity," a claim that many find difficult to reconcile with the official nature of the disclosed discussions.
The leaked document further reveals that the Victoria Hall trustees expressed "significant concerns" regarding OTC's proposed relocation to the Hall, indicating that such a move could render them "unable to remain operational" and potentially necessitate selling the property before the year's end. Cllr Ainsley's memo also confirms his invitation for a Victoria Hall trustee to present to the Full Council in September, covering the hall's financial position, the rationale for gifting, a schedule of required works, and the gifting process. He explicitly states that "at this stage, we are seeking only an agreement in principle."
Adding to the complexity, the leaked document also shows Cllr Ainsley requesting specific financial information to support projections for the Victoria Hall Working Group, including "Current expenditure on rent and utilities for ROL House," "Total Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funds available," and the "Amount previously agreed by Council to support the move to Victoria Hall, including any planned alterations." The memo concludes with a plea for confidentiality, citing "the early stage of discussions and the potential for misinformed speculation."
This revelation follows a council decision to revisit its agreement to move its Long Row Offices into Victoria Hall. This reconsideration was prompted by a council-commissioned survey of Victoria Hall, which, despite costing over £2,000, was reportedly incomplete. What the survey did reveal, however, was an apparent "lack of care and general maintenance," with potential repair costs estimated to exceed £300,000. This stark assessment led councillors to question their initial decision, especially given concerns that office staff had not acted on a council resolution regarding the appointment of a solicitor and the possibility of securing a long lease, with the latter even reportedly omitted from council minutes.
Editor's Note: It is profoundly disappointing to learn of Victoria Hall's apparent state of disrepair. The notion that the burden of rectifying this neglect should fall upon the residents is deeply concerning. It is crucial to remember the solemn role and responsibilities of the Victoria Hall Trustees: to safeguard the hall. As an agricultural hall held in trust, the trustees are legally permitted to let out space for community use, with the express purpose of generating funds for the hall's upkeep. The findings of the survey, paid for, it should be noted, by Oakham Town Council, suggest a clear failure in this fundamental duty.
One would hope the Charity Commission will thoroughly investigate this situation, particularly given the apparent neglect and the trustees' reported willingness to simply "sell" or "gift" the hall upon discovering the substantial costs of their oversight. In similar cases of trustee dereliction, the Charity Commission has not hesitated to dismiss existing trustees and appoint new ones. Furthermore, it has been noted that Victoria Hall has reportedly failed to submit its accounts on time, adding another layer to the mounting concerns about accountability and proper governance. The community deserves full transparency and a clear path forward that prioritises the preservation of this historical asset without unduly burdening the public purse due to alleged mismanagement.
.JPG)
.jpg)
