Why I abstained on Pride Flag motion last night

 I am acutely aware of how strongly people feel about this matter.  I am also acutely aware that a person's motivations can be easily misconstrued accidently, or in the field of politics, maliciously.  Therefore I wanted to set down my reasons for abstaining on last night's vote on a motion relating to West Lancashire Pride.

I abhor hatred and the actions which such an emotion often generates.  Everyone in our society, from the moment of conception to natural death has the rightful expectation to be treated with respect.  Equally, I consider I have a duty to show respect in my dealings with others, though I know I may
sometimes fall short.

I am Vice Chairman of the Birchwood Centre in Skelmersdale.  I am proud that we support those people who most need our help irrespective of their background or characteristics.  That includes LGBT young people. 

On that basis I had no problem with supporting items 2, 3 and 4 in the motion (relating to hate crime reporting; hate crime awareness week and the use of council offices on the same basis as other community groups by the West Lancashire Pride Group).

My concern came with item 1 which sought to purchase and fly a Pride flag over the council offices every June.

I asked council officers what our flag flying policy is.  It appears we don't have one, as I haven't received a reply to my question.  We fly the Union Flag and the Flag of St George as our national flags.

When it comes to flying other flags I believe that the starting point would be to consult the public on a flag flying policy as other councils have done.  

There are considerations of fairness and practicality.  What about showing our support for people with disabilities by flying a flag?  Or Black Lives Matter?  Or what about support for women facing violence from men - topical in the wake of the Sarah Everard case?  Or more prosaically, the local heritage group or Association of local funeral directors?  How does the council decide if it doesn't first consult local people on a flag flying policy?   

Flying flags needs to be a source of cohesion.  In the run up to the Brexit referendum it would surely have been unwise for the council to fly the EU flag given the division in society?  Last night the council singled out one section of the community.  I am very aware of the abuse: verbal, mental and physical that people who are perceived as different have to face in our society and here in West Lancashire.  However, I'm not convinced that the decision made will help the situation of those members of the LGBTQIA+ community locally who suffer injustice and hate. 

There are some in favour of flying the Pride Flag whose views I would object to and equally there are some who oppose the flying of the flag whose views I find objectionable.  This blog post is an attempt to explain my reasoning and avoid others ascribing views to me that I do not hold.

Tawd Valley Developments - Taking from the Poor

Introduction and Constraints

I have put my name to a motion (18c) to wind down Tawd Valley Development Ltd (TVDL) the Borough’s Council’s 100% owned development company.  There has recently been some comment in the media – traditional and social – on this matter and I wanted to set down my reasons for supporting the motion. 

Most of the information has been determined to be private and confidential.  I disagree with this.  There are only small pieces of information that are commercially sensitive and they could be redacted.  Other information should be available to the public.  Nevertheless, I remain constrained in what I say and have erred on the side of caution in this blog piece and removed most financial figures.  However, all this confidential information is available to all councillors and much of it should be in the public domain.

How TVDL started

Firstly, it helps to understand the genesis of this Company.  Around 2016/17, the then ruling Labour Group started work on their now abandoned local plan proposals – the one that proposed 16,000 new houses many of them over West Lancashire’s green belt and to house many people from out of the area.  This was in line with central Conservative Government policy to build, build, build.  In fact, the Conservative County Council supported Labour’s local plan proposals.  So, it was no surprise that the council were able to get a Government grant to work up the idea of a Council Development Company to capitalise on all this expected house building with the new local plan.

Then our concerns grew.  The Council engages Savills to carry out the preparatory work for the Development Company.  Well, who should be a Director of the local Savills office at the time but Simon Waller who was also Lord Derby’s land manager?  The links between the local plan proposals and the Development Company were becoming clear.  My Colleague Ian Davis spoke publicly on the matter here at the time.  It was hardly surprising then that at around the same time the local plan proposals emerged which would have seen huge tracts of Green Belt released for Development much of it on Lord Derby’s land! 

The scene was being set for the Council to purchase land and then remove the land from green belt.  Following this it would grant itself planning permission and then, the icing on the cake, use its own development company to build hundreds of homes on this land.    Through OWL intervention, the proposals to appoint Savills personnel as non-Executive Directors on the Development Company was thankfully shelved. 

Opposition grows

However, this is where the well-laid plans started to go awry.  Firstly, there was opposition within Labour ranks to the formation of TVDL.  So, the decision to move ahead was delayed in October 2018.  By the time Labour had resolved their internal disagreements to approve the formation of the Development Company in February 2019 the local plan consultation had taken place and the opposition of the general public to the plans to build 16,000 houses was starting to become clear. 

Yet the business plan that councillors approved in February 2019 to establish TVDL was still working to the premise that the local plan proposals would go ahead and therefore a huge eight-figure loan facility from the Council to the new Company was approved in spite of opposition from myself and other councillors.  The business plan also approved the provision of a seven-figure sum in equity contributions straight from council reserves.  These are to cover the running costs of TVDL which are significant.  The MD post being advertised at a salary of £100,000 alone.  These equity payments are phased every 6 months for up to 5 years and so are a significant drain on council resources at a time when we have a significant budget gap.  My colleague Cllr Davis, a professional accountant and former MD of a listed Engineering PLC pointed out strongly that this was the wrong way to support the company as equity in shares is harder to extract from the company than additional loan would be.  

Changes of Direction and Delays

Looking back at that business plan is instructive because it shows how things have moved away from their original intention: 

·         The council report states that the first development was supposed to start in September 2019 and the first houses would be occupied in March 2020.  So called Phase 2 sites were due to commence on site in June 2020 yet none have yet started.  Those timescales were missed by a country mile yet officers have stated in a small section of another report to councillors this week that “all schemes on target to be completed within the agreed timescales”.  That is clearly inaccurate and has the effect of misleading newer councillors and the general public.  It’s not the only partial information provided in the public report to councillors as I’ll comment later in this piece.

·         The business plan said 29 of the Phase 1 homes would be for market sale, yet not one is being built because of concerns over risk.  Yet councillors are expected to believe that the risk equation will alter when considering officer forecasts for market sales in 2023 and 2024.  The officer forecasts in February 2019 were clearly awry.  They may be so again.

·         The business plan in February 2019 setting up the company approved unspecified Phase 3 sites which were clearly intended to be sites made available as the local plan proceeded.  Well things rapidly changed on that score.  When Labour saw the feedback from the public consultation on the Local Plan proposals in March 2019, they paused it.  When they lost 4 seats in the May 2019 elections, they ditched the Local Plan altogether.

This was good news in many ways but it left a Development Company without the much-needed flow through of development sites for market sale needed to cover its fixed costs and start to show a surplus.  By the February 2020 business plan, the significant delays from the previous year’s business plan were confirmed and the financial figures such as they were (no detailed profit and loss projection was provided) showed significance variance from previously and much uncertainty.  Later in 2020 the Company’s Chief Executive and Head of Development both left to be replaced.  Still the pattern of overpromise and underdeliver continued.  The business plan talked about sites for 369 houses in the Borough but 17 months later the number now being considered has shrunk to modest two figures and none of these have progressed to planning permission.  The April 2022 start date is impossible.

The better way to build council homes

So, we have a housing company with significant running costs being paid from the council’s general reserves and with wholesale change to the original concept and targets missed every year.  The original concept to build a mix of housing with houses for market sale in the majority has become a concept delivering solely 100% council housing.

As a Council Portfolio Holder, I delivered new council housing as part of the Firbeck Revival.  I delivered the new council homes at Elmstead (the first to be built for 15 years) and I started the Beechtrees revival.  All of these schemes were developed without the need for a Development Company – the council contracted directly with building contractors.  Indeed, the council has also delivered houses for market sale before the TVDL was established with the successful scheme on Walmsley Drive next to the Council Offices in Ormskirk. 

So, TVDL is not essential for the development of new homes in the Borough by the council, but worse still it is being set up to become a financial wheeze to siphon money from the rents paid by council tenants, typically among the less well off, to support the General Fund of the Council which provides services across the board benefitting some of the most affluent in society.

Taking from the Poor

How does this happen?  TVDL has no revenue source from outside the council.  Every incoming pound into the company is generated from within the council.  As TVDL is only building houses for the council then the funding for these houses is coming from the rents paid by tenants plus some modest funds from a small % of the proceeds of a council house sale that the council is permitted to spend in such a way.

There’s a document called the 30-year Housing Revenue Account Business Plan that officers have not shared with councillors [I have shared it with all councillors at the time of publishing this blog piece].  As a former Housing Finance Portfolio Holder, I knew of this document and had to make repeated requests, escalated up to the Chief Operating Officer before I finally received a copy of the current document just 24 hours before councillors considered TVDL’s 2021 business plan in February 2021.  It was clear when I received it why officers appeared to be so loathe to share it with councillors.  The business plan shows that there are available funds of between £4.5 million and £5.5 million every year in the Housing Revenue account.

Once rents are collected and all day-to-day housing revenue account expenditure is dealt with; and once the agreed capital programme for larger works to keep the houses maintained; and once the interest payments on our housing debt are paid, then there is around £5million available to spend.

Have councillors ever been asked to have a debate on how this money is spent?  No.  Some will be needed for the building of new council houses – yes.  However, some is also need to commence a third revival project to follow on the successes of Firbeck and Beechtrees and some is also needed to improve the energy efficiency of our existing near 6000 council homes to reduce fuel poverty and take a big step to being a carbon neutral council by 2030.  Greater Manchester councils are launching an ambitious retrofitting programme on their housing stock.  We are not even in the starting blocks on the race to carbon zero. 

Neither a 3^rd revival or energy efficiency on homes has been getting a look in because all the £5million surplus is being pushed through TVDL to cover for the fact that the original concept for the Development Company was a cul-de-sac, and in an attempt to balance the books and cover up the embarrassment of senior people.

I have complaints from tenants in Birch Green and Ormskirk about significant damp and insulation concerns on their properties and they aren’t getting a decent response from the council because all the headroom £5million is being diverted through TVDL.

The bogus “profit”

TVDL charges a Developer’s fee of 10% on all developments.  As I point out above, this isn’t a route the council needs to take.  It built council homes at Firbeck; Elmstead and Beechtrees in the past decade without this financial arrangement.  So, we are getting 10% fewer council homes than we  need to, even if it is considered that all the £5million should go into new council house building.

TVDL’s 10% Developer’s Fee then becomes its “profit” (Remember that General Council Reserves are already covering TVDL’s significant running costs) and it is this “profit” that council officers trumpet will come back to the General Fund as a dividend from 2022/23 in their report on another part of the agenda for this week’s council meeting.  Again, this is a partial presentation of the facts.  Once the equity payment from Council Reserves is included the “profit” becomes a “loss” but councillors aren’t informed of this.

So, money is siphoned from the Housing Account to the General Account but the overall financial position of West Lancashire Borough Council is no stronger, indeed it is worse.  Council reserves are being ploughed in to cover TVDL running costs and incredibly if a dividend is paid in 2022/23 then because of the arrangement with TVDL, 19% of it will need to be paid to the Government in Corporation tax – all from a “profit” that has not been generated from anywhere outside the council and so is a financial loss to our area.

It is quite wrong to deal with council house tenants rent monies in this way.  There are strict rules to prevent the Housing Account subsidising the General Account.  Now, this may be a clever and legal “wheeze” around those rules – I don’t know, but it doesn’t make it right.  When I was Finance Portfolio Holder, I was faced with how the costs of grass cutting should be fairly split across the General and Housing Accounts.  We came up with a rule that, so far as I know is still in place, which ensured that whenever a council house was sold the amount charged to the housing account was reduced and to the General Fund increased.  This went down to changes of £100.  That’s how important it is that council house tenants are not paying for grass cutting in Rufford or bin emptying in Aughton – services that are to be funded from the General Account.  Yet through TVDL that is exactly what is happening to the rent money of tenants across the Borough.

This is the main concern I have and why I will be supporting the motion on Wednesday evening though I’ve listed many more above and there are countless horror stories of Council Development Companies around the country.  The motion is also welcome in pointing to an alternative approach in saying that we should build council homes directly and also by releasing £1.2million for energy efficiency measures on our existing housing.  I hope a third revival can also be started with a slice of that £5 million.

If the community aren’t involved in drawing up town centre development plans don’t be surprised when they get a big thumbs down

There is something drastically wrong with the way the Borough Council plans new projects for Ormskirk Town Centre.

Yet again this week, there has been a large public outcry to proposals to remove the ‘pagoda’ in Wheatsheaf Walk.  If this was a one-off then my opening paragraph is contestable, but it’s part of a pattern.

 

Last year, the council worked closely with a Developer and put out plans, as part of a planning application for a new 4 storey re-development of Ormskirk Bus Station.  The public were outraged as this was the first any of them had heard of the proposal.  There are two Our West Lancashire councillors in the ward covered by the Bus Station.  We knew nothing until the plans were published either.  The plans were later dropped.

 

Prior to that, stone slab seating which is cold and hard and unpopular was installed in the town centre without even the courtesy of my being informed, never mind being consulted.

 

The truth is that these projects for ‘pagoda’ removal; bus station re-development; and the like are dreamed up in a small office in the council buildings by ‘one head’ or at best, very few.  As they are not subject to the scrutiny of ‘many heads’ including the many residents with talents and professional skills who reside in West Lancashire, they land half-baked and the reaction of the public is a matter of luck.

 

It’s time we started to approach these projects in a more inclusive way.  There is the old idiom that ‘a camel is a horse designed by committee’, but this has always struck me as a silly phrase.  If I was in the desert, I’d much rather be riding a camel.  I prefer ‘many heads are better than one’.

 

A new process needs to be devised by the council to include a wider range of views at an earlier stage when concepts for new developments in our centres (this applies to Skelmersdale and Burscough as much as Ormskirk).  For changes in Conservation Areas, the council ran an Advisory Panel for many years.  It wasn’t perfect, but such a panel looking at concepts for Developments in our town centres might be worth considering.

One thing’s for sure.  The residents of Ormskirk care passionately about what the council proposes in the town centre.  Residents still raise the demolition of the King’s Arms more than a half-century later.  Council officers and the current powers-that-be would do well to remember that memories last a long time with these matters and adopt a less high-handed approach in future.

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.