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

A Question of Truth

Who is telling the truth?  Is it the Lancashire County Council Highways Portfolio holder or is it the Leader of the Conservative Borough Council Group?

The current Conservative election leaflet in Ormskirk under the by-line of Cllr David Westley says: “The Conservatives are back in control of Lancashire.  They have … re-instated the plan for the Ormskirk by-pass”

Imagine my surprise (or perhaps not given my experience of the local Conservative Borough Group Leader) to learn yesterday from County Councillor Keith Iddon, the Highways Portfolio Holder that “I can confirm that the Ormskirk Bypass is not part of the county council’s plans for managing the transport network in West Lancashire”.

You can read the documents here and form your own judgment.

Conservative leaflet 19th April

Letter from the County Councillor Iddon, Highways Portfolio Holder, 23rd April 

The saga of the long delayed cycle route from the town centre to Edge Hill

As a result of development at Edge Hill, Edge Hill had to provide monies (known technically as Section 106 monies) to mitigate the impacts of development that could not be mitigated through conditions on the development itself.

One of these is the impact on roads of travel to and from the University and so monies sit in the Borough Council's bank to provide a cycle route between the stations in Ormskirk Town centre and the University.


The County Council (I get a sinking feeling now simply typing those words) is responsible for coming up with a scheme to spend this money.  Their West Lancashire Transport Masterplan promised the cycle route would be complete by March 2017.

Throughout the period 2015-2017, County Council Officers responsible for this scheme came and went, portfolio holders changed and I and Borough Council officers became increasingly frustrated and yet nothing progressed.

The County Council came up with a scheme that was eleaborate and hundreds of thousands of pounds greater than the budget available and so was shelved. 

Therefore, last year, working with one dedicated local resident from Ruff Lane, we drew up an alternative, fully-costed scheme which was checked by Quantity Surveyors from a large Civil Engineering company.  This would not only have provided a safe route from the bus/rail stations to Edge Hill, but also have provided quality speed calming measures on Ruff Lane. 

That speed calming is important.  What student or other cyclist is going to take their lives in their hands by using two wheeled transport with the speeds witnessed on our roads?  The 20 mph signs are simply not sufficient.

The scheme we costed came well within the amount of monies provided by Edge Hill, yet the County Council rejected it without much consideration because it utilised Knowsley Road which was deemed "too narrow".  Given that Knowsley Road is part of the A570 arterial road and no detailed rationale for this statement about it being "too narrow" being given, I remain of the view that this route should be seriously considered.

In the meantime we have money sat in the bank; a scheme that is already two years late; no plan in place; no speed calming on Ruff Lane; nor the improved facilities for students and others to cycle.  When local residents and councillors take the time and trouble they have, then the County Council needs to adopt a more cooperative and energetic approach.  Then perhaps Ormskirk might see at least ONE transport improvement.

Vote for Labour councillors in West Lancashire this May and the Party HQ in London looks likely to pull their strings

It’s not often that a couple of councillors resigning should cause much comment, but when two Labour council leaders resign within the space of two weeks citing bullying and racist abuse, then we should take notice.

Now I know very little about internal Labour politics, so I’ll simply quote directly what these two Labour Council Leaders said on resigning.

First, Claire Kober, led Haringey Council in London for 10 years and was Labour’s most senior woman in Local Government.  She resigned after Labour’s National Executive Committee (NEC) intervened with a clear message that a major Regeneration Programme agreed by the local council should be re-thought.  She went on to say that she wasn't consulted over the NEC's ruling which she says was handled "very badly".

Worrying she then added, "The sexism, bullying, undemocratic behaviour, and outright personal attacks on me, as the most senior woman in Labour local government, has left me disappointed and disillusioned."

Ms Kober said she "didn't want to go over details" of her claims, but added she was "in no doubt that the behaviour and actions of certain individuals at certain times met the test of both sexism and bullying and politically intimidating behaviour".  She is resigning as a councillor as well.

The decision of the Labour NEC to intervene in Haringey has been publically criticised by 15 other Labour London council leaders.

Then today, it became clearer why the Labour Leader of Harlow Council, Jon Clempner, resigned as both Council Leader and councillor a couple of weeks ago.  He said:

“There has been a lot of speculation about why I resigned as Leader of Harlow Council, as a Councillor, and subsequently as a member of the Labour Party… 

Those who follow my personal social media will know I did not react well to an active campaign against my leadership by a local Momentum organiser (which this individual denies, despite several independent witnesses), being called a neo-Nazi by some Corbyn t-shirt wearing person outside the Labour Party Conference, and events at a national level targeting Labour Councillors and Labour Councils that do not conform to the particular form of ideological purity that seems to have taken a grip of the party, and that will shortly culminate in the output of a party ‘democracy review’ to make Councillors more accountable to a small group of party members (and less to the actual electorate presumably). Councillors, unless formally endorsed by the privately owned company Momentum, seem to have replaced the Parliamentary Labour Party as the focus of the hard left’s ire…

He went on: “the Labour Party was becoming a deeply unpleasant place, I resigned from the Labour Party shortly after”.

What appears to be happening in Labour is that the national party is telling local councillors elected on local manifestos what they can and cannot do.  It’s a one size fits all approach and a direct threat to the general view of local democracy that local councillors should be free to respond to the needs and requirements of their area and residents.

If this trend continues, then local residents in West Lancashire can have no confidence that if they vote for a Labour councillor in May that that person won’t simply have to march, not to the local party whip, which might be bad enough but to a centrally imposed agenda set 200 miles away in London by people who weren’t even in the Labour party 3 years ago.