How NOT to make a decision and NOT bring the public, staff and traders along with you

Seldom can I recall a council decision so poorly made and so poorly justified as the council’s planned changes to the operation of Ormskirk market from April.

I’d much prefer to be able to show you the officer report which went to the council’s cabinet and critique it, but the report is private and confidential and it seems from the reaction of the council since then, that the attitude of “least said, soonest mended” prevails.  Unfortunately for the council, public disquiet understandably continues, so I will try to shed some light on the matter.

The decision was taken by the council cabinet (7 Labour councillors who hold the senior decision-making positions) in June last year to approve changes to the operation of the market from April 2020.  The report before councillors gave the impression that the changes were required to save money and that the market traders had been widely consulted and were in favour of the changes.  The report was passed by the councillors on cabinet in less than 1 minute with no questions asked or comments made.

Our West Lancashire wanted to ask the officers who wrote the report some questions at the subsequent scrutiny committee, but no relevant officer attended the meeting.  This pattern of rapid decisions by cabinet followed by no chance for effective scrutiny is a sustained pattern at the council.  The first three questions I asked at Overview and Scrutiny Committee this year received the answer “We don’t know” from the officers present. 

So, in Our West Lancashire we set about our own investigations.  We discovered financial inconsistencies in the reported financial position of the market.  The report to cabinet in June presented a financial position based on budgeted figures for the current year, not the previous year’s actual figures.  Expenditure is usually overestimated.  In addition, the financial figures presented to cabinet included costs for “pilots” involving gazebos that the council stated in the same report would end.  If that was the case, those costs should have been removed from the figures presented to councillors.

We carried out a survey of market traders.  It was clear that there had been no meaningful consultation with the traders by the council and the council subsequently confirmed to us that they have never asked the market traders if they are in favour of the proposed changes.  Our West Lancashire asked and found that only 1 in 5 traders supported the changes.  

An inclusive, self-learning organisation involves, consults and seeks improvements from its employees.  I will be careful what I say here, but I can say that the council employees who put up the market stalls were not involved in the proposed changes and their ideas were not sought by their managers.  Up to sixteen of these staff face receiving redundancy notices in the coming weeks.

So, in the autumn, Our West Lancashire started raising concerns with council officers and cabinet members.  We raised the profile of the matter through press releases and Facebook postings.  Throughout, the council has deemed that it does not need to comment on or justify its actions in any way.  This is not the sign of a organisation confident in its rationale at the service of its population.

We asked for information on the financial inconsistencies.  It was finally received only after repeated requests and many weeks late.

Residents contacted Labour cabinet members asking for an explanation of the changes to be made.  Those residents have not received substantive responses after several months.

We raised questions with the council’s health and safety manager.  After two weeks he went away on holiday with the questions unanswered.

I raised concerns with the portfolio holder, Councillor Yates in November.  He promised to keep me updated about his discussions with officers.  Nothing.

I asked questions of the Council Leader, Councillor Moran in the council meeting in December.  No answers.

I corresponded again with Councillor Yates at the beginning of January… well you can guess the result.

There are aspects of the council’s plans for the market that make good sense to me, but others raise real concerns.  It’s difficult for me to talk about all those in detail because the report is private and confidential, but the council could easily release large parts of it into the public domain without breaching commercial confidence.

If the council think that least said, soonest mended will continue to stand them in good stead they are mistaken, they will pay a price.  In the meantime, they could start to rebuild some trust by fully answering the questions put to them and justifying the decisions they have made.

July's Borough Council Meeting - A report

Last week’s council meeting contained some important matters including approving many capital projects held over from February as well as motions on important environmental matters and receiving the council’s annual report.

Council meeting last year

Our question about the very late commencement to weed spraying is obviously marked in the "too difficult" file, as we were promised a written answer in due course, even though the council had had sight of the question for 16 days prior to the meeting.

The next item was a review of polling places in wards across the Borough.  To site a mobile polling station costs an average of £1300.  The review was able to reduce the number of these in use and there will be a resultant annual saving.  There are still a number of mobile units being used in urban areas and I hope the number can be reduced further.  Ensuring people can vote is important, but sometimes the average election cost per elector who exercises their vote can be £8 or more.  I and my OWL colleagues supported the proposals which were passed unanimously.

The two main parties had little to say on the council annual report, surprising given it summarises the council’s range of activities for a full year.  Labour moved it and the Conservative leader opposed it in a very short speech which basically said they were against the local plan review.

Our West Lancashire took the opportunity to offer support to many areas of the council’s work Tawd Vale; North Meols Leisure Centre; the work on proceeding to new Leisure Centres; the Beechtrees Revival (though we need to start planning the next); and Apprenticeships among others along with the hard work of officers.  However as well as expressing our opposition to the local plan review, we highlighted the poor progress on delivering the promised financial savings from digital initiatives; concerns over the new Development company; and the ignoring of the public over the bus station development.

I also highlighted the concern in our Independent group over council performance in relation to Ormskirk Town centre.  I highlighted that rather than trumpeting their Discover Ormskirk website and Facebook page they should be concerned that they didn’t issue one article promoting the town for a whole two-month period earlier this year and that the statistics quoted were poor compared to other local web and social media sites.  I also pointed out that it was no surprise that there was no mention of the car park charges changes given that they had resulted in 77,000 fewer tickets being issued – an indication that some at least of the shoppers went elsewhere or visited less frequently.   

On the item concerning the year-end financial position, we had pressed during the elections and also in direct correspondence with the Council Leader in the run-up to this meeting for the Free Tree Scheme to be retained.  The council had not allocated funding in the budget in February.  I was delighted when the portfolio holder announced that the scheme would continue especially as I was aware of opposition among some of his colleagues. 

The performance for the Housing Account was the best I can remember and I said so; congratulating the officers concerned.

There were two motions on the agenda – both with an environmental theme.  The first was aiming at declaring a Climate Change Emergency and the second on fracking.

Our West Lancashire councillors supported the motion which stated the Borough Council’s continued opposition to fracking in West Lancashire, as we have in the past.  Half the Conservatives present left the chamber stating they felt there might be a risk of pre-determination over a forthcoming planning decision.  As the decision is to be made by the county council not Borough councillors this was illogical in my opinion and they could and should have participated.

The Climate Change Emergency motion focused on what could be done locally in the face of this global challenge.  Our West Lancashire councillors thought the motion was long on fine words but not specific about the actions the Borough Council could take. 

We suggested that the council should ensure new houses built were carbon neutral through planning policy and that new homes should be built for local need and not to satisfy wider objectives, so reducing the numbers required.  We suggested that new large warehouses if built following a new local plan (something we continue to oppose) should adopt the lowest carbon technologies available and be required to offset any remaining carbon generated. 

We wanted energy efficiency and insulation measures prioritised on the near 6000 homes owned by the council in the Borough through the council housing capital budget.  Finally, we highlighted the need for the local plan to encourage greater woodland planting in the Borough.

I was delighted that these ideas were taken on board for consideration.  I accepted a suggested wording change from Labour Cllr Dowling and the OWL amendment was passed and became part of the main motion which also passed.  It was a shame that the Conservatives were somewhat sour and voted against.

I concluded the contribution to the debate on the Council’s Annual Report by saying, “The Our West Lancashire Group will be interested this year to see how our ideas and comments are taken by both the main groups.  No one has a monopoly on good ideas and we don’t expect all our ideas to find universal favour, but our ideas clearly resonated with local residents in May. 

None of my five colleagues joined OWL from another political party and I can assure you they come from different political perspectives when viewing national politics.  There is a possibility that this council will go into no overall control at some point in the future.  That will be unfamiliar territory, but how, in our three groups we work together this year for the benefit of all the residents of the Borough will influence the views of my colleagues on who we work with and how we work should this council go to no overall control.”

Why has the Borough Council granted a £20 million loan facility to their new Development Company?

Our West Lancashire has already raised questions about links between Lord Derby’s Estate Director and Savills, the company that advised the Council in setting up its new house-building company.

 I still can't tell you much about this new house-building company Tawd Valley Developments Ltd because the council reports are confidential but you can download a redacted version of one of the council reports here (2.5MB).

What I can tell you, is that the council has agreed to invest £2 million of share capital into the new company.  This struck both me, OWL colleagues and even one Labour councillor as the wrong way to provide funding to the company.  A loan is much easier to extract from the company in the future.

Of more immediate concern though, is that the Council has granted a £20 million loan facility to this new company.  This sum is far in excess of what’s required to build the affordable housing in Skelmersdale that has been announced.  Our West Lancashire moved an amendment to cut this figure in half and although 3 Labour councillors refused to support the whip on Labour councillors to vote against our amendment, it was still heavily defeated. 

So why is the council already authorising such a lending facility to this 100% owned Development company from day 1, when this is around £10 million more than its business plan requires?  When officers were asked the question, no satisfactory answer was forthcoming.

It doesn’t take much imagination to realise that the green belt sites proposed for release by the council in their controversial local plan proposals (such as his one in Bickerstaffe) would be prime targets for the many millions of pounds that this new council Development Company has available.

The Council may well be setting itself up to release green belt; buy the land; award itself planning permission and then develop the prime farmland in our communities. 

Soapboxes, diatribes and missed opportunities - Another evening in the Council Chamber

After prayers and apologies (the councillor with the worst recent attendance record was absent yet again), the evening started with Declarations of Interest so lengthy that they will take up two pages of the meeting minutes.  Such are the number of councillors who “double hat” on both Borough and County councils or have fingers in pies that the conflicts are numerous.  Not a healthy state of affairs.

Our West Lancashire posed questions on the scaling back of the local plan proposals reported in the Champion from a Labour press release.  I wasn't surprised to not receive answers and when the answers are eventually forthcoming it will be interesting to see if the Labour PR was anything more than spin.

Before the budget setting items, councillors have to vote on their own councillor allowances.  Yes, we have an Independent Remuneration Panel, but it’s all a little too cosy.  All the panel members are routinely re-appointed and receive a good allowance themselves from the council for attending one or two meetings a year.

I moved an amendment to reduce our councillor allowances which are the highest in Lancashire to the Lancashire average of £3,924.20.  This would have saved more than £62,000 a year.  It was seconded by my OWL colleague, Cllr Davis.  It was my call for a named vote that really upset particularly the Labour members.  For 20 minutes or so I was roundly lambasted – all for proposing a measure that has the support of more than 80% of residents in our surveys; would put allowances on a sustainable and justifiable long-term footing; and provide some financial relief in these austere times.  Needless to say, my amendment was voted down.

The debate on the budget items were of poor quality.  The Conservative Finance Spokesman, in proposing an amendment to freeze council tax said “we can afford it” while at the same time proposing a budget where expenditure exceeded income by more than £1 million!  Neither of the main parties had identified the additional income from HMO licensing that we utilised, and because our budget involved reducing councillor allowances and this had already been voted down, we didn’t present it to the meeting but instead we will announce these costed proposals in the coming weeks.

On the capital side, we were concerned that proposals to improve Burscough Sports Centre were delayed, especially as these would generate extra income.  The ruling group also refused to support our proposal to continue the popular Free Tree Scheme.  This only costs £3000 a year, but its future must now be in serious doubt, given the lack of support from Labour.

On the housing budget, there was more common ground and I was delighted to see Cllr Forshaw reinstate the Environmental Improvement Budget.  She had been a real ally in getting a scheme in Westhead completed at Holly Close and this budget will allow more such schemes to be taken forward.  Of course, I didn’t have to wait long for someone to ruin the consensus when Cllr Furey launched into a rant implying that 2015 when Labour took control of the council was some sort of year zero for housing with no improvements before that date.  Well Cllr Furey, there always was an Environmental budget and it was Labour who got rid of it only to now reinstate it and I was the Housing Finance Portfolio Holder that approved the largest improvement scheme to kitchens and bathrooms this council has ever undertaken.

It was concerning that we were the only group on the Council to allocate project funds to allow the third Skelmersdale Revival scheme to be identified so that works can commence next year.  The suspicion must be that the ruling group are too interested in new builds on green field sites in the future to bother with the less glamorous task of improving the New Town Estates.

There was a debate lasting well over an hour and a quarter on the Council Development Company and I’ll be blogging separately about that.

The motions weren’t arrived at until after 10pm and we had 4 motions to debate.  The first was on Fairtrade.  I can always raise a half-cheer for Fairtrade, but neither is a panacea.  One Labour councillor made the good point that it doesn’t cover many industries e.g. clothing where supply chain concerns are high and a Conservative councillor pointed out that he had personal experience where Fairtrade had worked well but also where it hadn’t.  This was probably the best debate of the whole evening and I supported the motion.

The next motion was on Fracking.  I don’t see any need for Fracking, yet the motion appeared to have been overtaken by events in that it wished the Council to write to the government to reaffirm that there should be no weakening of the traffic light system which governs fracking in relation to seismic activity.  The government had, three weeks before the council meeting, given this reaffirmation.  I pointed this out.  Nevertheless, I was ready to support the motion until a closing contribution from Cllr Gail Hodson who launched a diatribe against gas – the cleanest of the fossil fuels and without which, at affordable prices, many elderly people would suffer premature death.  Her extreme views led me to abstain.  My opposition to fracking remains unchanged but the debate was probably the worst of the night, as there was no debate, just several councillors spending their full 5 minutes re-hashing old arguments.

So much time had now elapsed that a motion was carried to extend business to 11.30pm but even then the final motion of the evening calling on Lancashire County Council to advance the case with Government for funding for transport infrastructure fell through lack of time.  Perhaps this was Labour’s plan as we had received a briefing note from officers pointing out some misunderstandings in the motion.  The motion on flooding was

carried unanimously but not without speeches stating the bleeding obvious or petty disputes between the main parties.

What do they say about the Cover-Up being worse than the "crime"?

There's an old saying that the Cover Up is worse than the "crime".  

My colleague, Ian Davis has highlighted a link between Lord Derby's Estate and Savills, a leading and large property agent.  This is especially in relation to the council's plans to establish a Development Company to build houses and the current Local Plan Review.

So concerned is Ian, that he has written to the council's Chief Executive over the matter.

I doubt, those concerns will have been allayed by the sudden change today (8th January) to the LinkedIn profile of Simon Waller, Estates Director at Lord Derby's Estates.  

Having had the connection between his employment at Savills and Lord Derby's Estate publicly commented upon by a councillor and with two local websites carrying the same story just today, Simon Waller has suddenly altered his LinkedIn page to remove all reference to employment by Savills.

Is he still employed by Savills?  We don't know.  Was he previously employed by Savills?  One assumes he must have been from his LinkedIn entry until today.  What is interesting is that he feels so embarrassed by the connection that he should feel the need to completely remove all reference to employment by Savills from his profile.  Why would he want to do that?

Here's a screenshot of the LinkedIn profile he doesn't want you to see, which was current until sometime earlier today (8th January).  

 

No way to run a public authority

The last full Council meeting took place on 18 July 2018 - 42 days or 6 weeks ago and yet no minutes of the council meeting have been published to date.  I cannot recall such a long delay in the past.

In fact, for cabinet meetings, the council must publish minutes within 3 days.  It's a pity it's not more efficient with the minutes of full council.

This is no way to run a public authority.  It might be seen as a tedious administrative detail, but minutes perform important functions in an efficient organisation:

1. Meeting minutes offer legal protection and clarity

2. Meeting minutes provide structure

They describe how Council members arrived at reasonable decisions. They record who attended and who was absent along with declarations of interest. 

3. Meeting minutes drive action

Good meeting minutes help drive a plan of action for the Council's senior officers. They clarify how, when, why, and by whom decisions were made. They map out a plan for the action items (which helps get the work done) and they later provide valuable information to those who aren’t able to attend the meeting.

4. Meeting minutes act as a measuring stick

Minutes record meeting decisions, which makes them a useful review document when it comes time to measure progress. They also act as an accountability tool because they make it clear who’s duty it was to perform which action. 

The delay in publication of the minutes is symptomatic of a council that is not firing on all cylinders.

Two-Timing Councillor seeks new "nice little earner"

My views on Councillor Paul Moon – the councillor who remains a Borough councillor in both West Lancashire and Wyre are well-known (see here and here), but now he is seeking to boost his allowances still further by becoming Chairman of the Planning Committee on Wyre council while simultaneously trying to represent his residents in Hesketh Bank, West Lancashire where he two-times as a councillor. 

 

In January I focussed on his poor attendance record .  Cllr Moon seems impervious to calls for him to mend his ways but perhaps emails from local residents in West Lancashire and Wyre might cause a rethink.

The meeting to decide who will become Planning Committee Chairman at Wyre Council is this Wednesday 10th May, so if you share concerns about Cllr Moon then don't delay write now to:

West Lancashire Conservative Group Leader, Cllr David Westley (if you are a West Lancashire resident) Cllr.Westley@westlancs.gov.uk 

Wyre Conservative Group Leader, Cllr David Henderson (if you are a Wyre resident) David.Henderson@wyre.gov.uk

Please copy us into your email and share any reply with us.  Our email is office@ourwestlancashire.com

You might also wish to write to the letters page of the local paper and to your local councillor asking for their comments on the matter.

"American politicians do anything for money...English politicians take the money and won't do anything."  Stephen Leacock