Stoke-on-Trent City Council Meeting 20/12/12

I will refer to times on the webcast of this council meeting. There were only two petitions and no speakers present and I found myself to be the only public questioner who turned up. So I will concentrate this blog on my public questions, focusing more on one of them.

But first a few snippets from the rest of the meeting, of which much was routine:

• The council (0:17:34) (Claire Gumbly) received Certificate of Commitment to Disaster Resilience from the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction Campaign. I don't pretend to know much specifically about this but I mention it because I think planning for disasters and emergencies is a very important issue. Cllr Paul Shotton (0:18:29) said he thought Stoke-on-Trent was the first city in the UK to have committed to being a resilient city.

• Cllr Joy Garner was appointed to the Fire Authority in place of Cllr Matthew Fry while Cllr Janine Bridges was appointed to the Police and Crime Panel (0:23:29). This was a surprise because Joy Garner had been allocated to the Staffordshire Police and Crime Panel after losing the election to Matthew Ellis for the role of Staffordshire Police and Crime Commissioner.

• The council agreed to an interest free loan, described by Cllr Paul Shotton (0:49:08), to the United Kingdom Historic Building Preservation Trust (UKHPBT) to repair and regenerate the Middleport pottery site. Following a request for clarification by Cllr Ann James (0:53:25), Council Leader Mohammed Pervez (0:53:59) admitted this was an unsecured loan. As far as I can see this will result in actual expenditure by the council, because even provided the loan is repaid, the council loses the interest on the money by providing it interest free. Whilst this regeneration is a good idea, the interest free loan seems to be overly generous in a climate of sparse resource. Still, council members were unanimously convinced (1:00:27).

First question on pupil number projections

Now to my public questions (questions 3 & 4), addressed to the cabinet member for education Cllr Alan Dutton. As well as my keen interest in education, the background to my first question arose from my incredulity dating back to Building Schools for the Future (BSF) on discovering the council were calculating there would be 14,642 high school pupils in the city by the year 2020 but were only planning to provide 13,500 places! I have failed ever since to understand their rationale (or would that be irrationale) for this and I have written blogs on this before. Furthermore following a FOI request I unearthed more recent projections which seem to be calculated quite differently and arrive at 14,112 pupils by 2020. Leaving aside the bizarre policy of providing insufficient school places, I wondered about the cause of the difference in the projections and whilst I might not get to the bottom of how the BSF projections were done, I would like to understand the current projections.

An analysis of the actual pupil numbers available shows an average loss of about 9% between annual births in the city and entry to reception class in city primary schools, but with considerable variation, including the largest loss, 16%, for the largest number of births and the smallest loss, 5%, for the smallest number of births. For the more recent years, for which births are higher than ever and predictions are difficult, the council projections assume a 10.4% loss, which is probably a good enough guess.

Analysis of actual pupil number changes shows a loss from reception to year 6 of about 5%, with the largest annual loss of about 2% between years 2 and 3. The loss between years 6 and 7 varies between about 4% and about 7%. From year 7 to year 11 there is a smaller loss, about 2%.

Looking at the council projected pupil numbers, in most cases it is assumed there is no change between reception and year 2, between year 3 and year 6 and between year 7 and year 11, but this is not always the case. The projections for years 1 and 2 for academic year 2013-14 and years 10 and 11 for academic year 2012-13 are anomalous in this respect and I had asked about this in my first public question. Losses are incorporated into the projections between years 2 and 3 and between years 6 and 7, but these are not a fixed percentage and I wondered how they were calculated, so I asked about the algorithms used, also in my first public question.

I was disappointed that my first question had not been answered at all properly so my supplementary question (0:40:08) was: “This response is nothing more than vague waffle that doesn't answer the question. What are the actual mathematical formulae used for changes between years 2 and 3 and between years 6 and 7? Also, the specific cases I listed are clearly anomalous and I want to know why.”

Alan Dutton (0:40:41) admitted he couldn't even say the word algorithm and offered a meeting between me, himself and the relevant officer to address my questions. I was happy with that outcome and the meeting is currently in the process of being arranged for the new year.

The issue of BSF has taken an interesting turn more recently. BSF largely failed to take public views into account and has resulted in poor planned high school provision with insufficient future places particularly in the Bucknall / Abbey Hulton and Longton areas. This has resulted in the community schools action group campaigning for a free school at Mitchell and more recently a campaign for muslim faith free school at Edensor, following the BSF plan to close these two schools. Whilst I was opposed to the imposition of academies under BSF, am not keen on the free school concept either and have never liked schools being run on faith lines, I do appreciate the persistence of parents in trying hard to get what they want for their children and particularly schools where they want them, in spite of the system and using what they can of the system to that end. If such additional schools go ahead they will help with the shortfall the council has left in pupil place provision over the longer term.

Second question on post-16 education and training

The reason I asked my second question about the variety and numbers of places available in post-16 education and training is because the current academic year is significant. It is the first year that students cannot just leave school after year 11 and sign onto benefits or, I had thought, get a job without associated training. Although the answer indicated that the government has delayed the training requirement for students moving into employment – interesting! I had just been curious about the impact of this change and how it is being dealt with.

My supplementary question (0:41:14) was “This response is more encouraging in that it does list a wide range of post-16 education and training available. But it is severely lacking in actual numbers! I'm asking how many places of each type of training are available and I would like numerical answers.”

Alan Dutton (0:41:37) indicated that this could also be answered in the meeting. I welcome the chance to meet with Alan Dutton and relevant officer(s) to discuss both the questions and get into the details of the actual numbers.

Stoke-on-Trent City Council Budget Meeting 23/2/12

I present here an account of the points I picked out from the Stoke-on-Trent City Council budget meeting on 23rd February 2012, which amazingly I did manage to get to and observe in person this time.  What was with the security on the door council?  They had been told not to let anyone in after the meeting started.  I do agree with a principle of punctuality but the council has to realise that despite the economic situation, some of us are actually still in employment and have work to do beforehand.   I was a couple of minutes late but it took some persistent persuasion to get in.  Council, you should do better than this, leave the back door open or let the public slip in at a convenient point in the proceedings and instruct security staff appropriately.  Once in, I found the public gallery was fairly full.  I give times from the webcast and some of my observations and views.

Cllr Mohammed Pervez (0:18:49) blamed the Tory LibDem government but said he was determined to cut year on year, £36million last year, £24million this year, towards a balanced budget by the end of the comprehensive spending review period.  Of course he claimed they have listened but is committed to privatisation schemes such as that of closing council run care homes.  He claimed not to be letting residents down!  He also stated that a vote against the budget is a vote against jobs in the city, which met with murmers of incredulity around the public gallery, seeing as they are making massive redundancies.  He did quote £400,000 being spent on economic development, marketing and promoting the city.  One of the things I object to is them squandering resources on promoting themselves in glossy publications etc.  He mentioned that the council is contributing £60million to BSF. 


Whilst there are some nice refurbishments, BSF has been a most shameful attack by the previous Labour government and our Labour council; scrapping community schools, closing schools and disrupting communities.  We had to fight tooth and nail to keep Trentham High School and were not supported by our Tory councillors at the time, who we subsequently booted out.  The Tories continue the attack on schools, forcing academies against the will of communities.  All this and there are still insufficient pupil places as I have reported.  I have emailed Cllr Debra Gratton twice now, requesting updated pupil projections, I have not yet received a reply.


Mohammed Pervez did make a couple of valid points though.  They are updating homes to reduce heat loss, this is indeed a sensible move.  Much better than some of the other things they have done such as flatten areas of the city and get their sums wrong in the decision to demolish rather than renovate.  The other thing he said is that people elected them, it’s a fair point, they did, they voted Labour in the city, they voted for these cuts.  I didn’t, I voted independent in Hanford and Trentham, but it’s a democracy and I live with the consequences of how the masses voted in other parts of the city.

Cllr Paul Breeze (0:35:10) is not one to hold back in expressing a view.  He said he couldn’t support the council tax rise and budget and said decades of Labour control and Labour MPs have not been good for the city.  He accused Labour of being arrogant dismissive intolerant control freaks, very accurate I think.  He also said they only listen when their backs are against the wall and reminded us how they deceived people over children’s  centres.  He quoted Mohammed Pervez from last year, election year, “we are going to freeze council tax to take advantage of the government initiative", "during these austere times it would be unreasonable to put an even  greater financial burden on the residents of Stoke-on-Trent".  This year council tax is being increased, obviously because this time it is not an election year.  Labour undemocratically and despicably took away our elections by thirds.  Paul Breeze is good to listen to, he is not one to be fooled by Labour.

Cllr Ann James (0:40:10) also spoke out well, criticising cutting adults and children’s services but investing in regeneration.  She said that residential homes in the private sector are not well monitored.  She also complained about not being able to get proper information from officers to put forward an alternative budget, describing this as a farce.  I have heard this before from opposition councillors.  She said an alternative suggestion for housing had not been accepted.

Cllr Olwen Hamer (0:45:15) claimed the council tax rise will support the poor in the city.  She apologised to care home residents and their families about issues they had had, but said the council works closely with the care quality commission, an investigation was carried out and nothing was found.   This rather proves Ann James’ point I think. Olwen Hamer’s comments generated angry grumblings in the public gallery.

Cllr Bagh Ali (0:46:56)accused Ann James of misleading the public, reporting that she had said she would vote against the budget without discussion.

Cllr Abi Brown (0:48:46) said 737 people voted for her on a principle of low council tax, she wanted common sense savings involving more economical use of buildings and postage and the council not funding union representatives.  She pointed out that Labour squanders a lot of money in interest payments.

Cllr Karen Clarke (0:52:06) made some sensible points about the privatisation of care homes leading to poorer terms and conditions for staff and concern over quality of service, but said she would support the budget.  Well, she’s Labour, so I imagine she’s been whipped to.

Cllr Joy Garner (0:57:21) blamed the government and said the council needs to spend money on redundancy payments.

Cllr Jack Brereton (1:00:57) said the council tax rise will hit some of the worst off and criticised the council’s approach.  He called the consultation a charade and said it wasn’t transparent or inclusive.  I would agree with him on this.   I was one of the 900 who responded but only on specific issues, especially the removal of help with bus fares for 16-18 year old students attending college, not that it got me anywhere.  I think that just shows how little value the council places on the education of our young people.  I didn’t respond on the entire budget on account of the document being so opaque and knowing they wouldn’t value my view anyway.

Cllr Martin Garner (1:04:07) had a general go at the Tory government and accused the Conservative and Independent councillors of being unfit.

Cllr Adrian Knapper (1:06:04) said, amidst guffaws of laughter from the public gallery, that he would not turn his back on the city.  His emphasis was all about helping business and promoting image.  Labour propaganda again then.

Cllr Tom Reynolds (1:09:17) supported the rise in council tax to increase the base from which to raise it further.

Cllr Dave Conway (1:11:21) presented a long list of criticisms of the Labour budget, pointing out that they have been cutting for years so can’t just blame the Tories.  He presented some previous quotes from Mark Meredith while the Labour government were in power, including “at a time of economic uncertainty and through these difficult times, the last thing people need at the moment is a big council tax rise“ and “we need to keep investing to create jobs”.  But Adrian Knapper had just said 73 people are chasing each job, showing Mark Meredith didn’t create the jobs he said he would.  Dave Conway asked how many of Labour would vote with their conscience today and prove themselves true socialists.  Needless to say they didn’t and they’re not.

Cllr Gwen Hassall (1:18:53) admitted they were all to blame but said they must ‘move forward’, whatever that means.

Cllr Sarah Hill (1.21.12) said she didn’t like Paul Breeze calling them names, but called the independent contributions pathetic.  She did agree with Abi Brown’s suggestions.  She said she cannot sleep at night.

Cllr Mark Meredith (1:25:09) said he smelled the scent of hypocrisy from the opposition and praised his former Labour government.  He seemed most concerned about roads with not a mention about actual people.

Cllr Terry Crowe (1:30:21) in a fit of extreme blandness said that Labour had listened and would take the city forward.  To me it seems the ‘forward’ direction they are taking us is over the precipice into catastrophe.

Cllr Alan Dutton (1:33:31) wimpishly said they have no choice.

Cllr Paul Shotton  (1:36:30) rightly pointed out that there were cuts under a Tory/Independent/LibDem cabinet.  He also seemed a bit obsessed about buildings and roads.

Although these cuts are not at all a laughing matter, I have to say that the summing up by Mohammed Pervez (1:40:04) did provide a bit of comedy.  He started off with a mantra to himself “I shall remain calm”.  It didn’t work!  He raised his voice and ended up hitting the bench.  You will have to watch it to get the most from it.

Lord Mayor Terry Follows (1:47:05) thanked Mohammed Pervez for his "calm and measured"  summing up.  A named vote was agreed.  The vote was 31 (Labour) for the budget and council tax rise and 8 (Independent and Conservative) against.  I think Terry Follows didn’t vote and as there had been 3 apologies for absence; Cllrs Conteh, Day and Lilley, that leaves one Labour councillor unaccounted for.  The minutes will reveal who.

Stoke on Trent City Council Meeting 2/2/12

I did actually turn up to observe this meeting, having thought I had the time to get to at least part of it.  But I had missed all the best bits, including petitions and public questions, arriving during the item on solar panels, which was nothing more than party political posturing on a topic over which the council has no jurisdiction.

I have since looked at the webcast.

Petitions

Dennis Woolley (0:20:07) gave a very good presentation of a 1,668 signature  petition against the closure of St. Michael’s care home.  He was very critical of the council’s behaviour, saying people were told before the consultation that St. Michael’s would close.  This is the usual story with council ‘consultations’.  He told councillors they are there to support citizens and people would remember when they come to vote.  Well, I wish they would, but in my experience too many people go out and vote Labour when it comes to it, regardless of what they have inflicted on the city.

Kieran Clarke (0:23:46) thanked the council for accepting a petition to save the Lord Mayor position.  I have mixed views on this.  There are many far more worthy uses for council money but on the other hand the council squanders large sums.

Janet Smallwood (0:26:42) presented an enormous 6,725 signature petition asking for a review of home care services, giving examples of poor care and saying people had no confidence in the service.  What on Earth are Labour playing at here?  Apparently they were going to do a review then decided not to.  What riles me is the way they are messing people about.  The Labour council withdraw the review then they have Labour MPs campaigning with the petitioners.  (Labour have form on this, we had the Labour MPs campaigning with the community over BSF while the Labour council tried to impose ludicrous closures and mergers on the community.)  So here we have it, Labour causing the problem so they can make it look like Labour are solving it!  (They did the same over children’s centres too.)  Why couldn’t they just do the review without a fuss and without the petition?  This was a point made by independents Cllr Paul Breeze (0:35:19) and Cllr Ann James (0:26:53).  Ann James also added that the review should be done properly.  Other councillors spoke but it was largely more Labour propaganda with the tired old claim by CllrJanine Bridges (0:39:40) that they have consulted and listened.  The review will go ahead.

Public questions

There were many public questions at this meeting, the numbers given correspond to those in the document.

1.  Marcin Musial (0:47:31) essentially asked the same question already asked, why are the people responsible for the Renew degeneration mess still employed by the council?  But he posed it passionately, saying a Sentinel survey showed 90% of the electorate think Renew has failed.  HHHe said communities have been ripped apart.  Cllr Mohammed Pervez (0:48:54) blamed the government.

10.  Marcin Marcel (0:49:46) again essentially repeating the question asked, said he had asked the council for an internal audit report about the illegal demolition of a privately owned church paid for by the tax payer.  He wanted to know if this was mismanagement or worse and what the council are trying to hide.  Mohammed Pervez (0:51:18) said he would await a report from the information commissioner.

2.  Gabrielle Hoban (0:52:08) also essentially asked the same question already asked, why do planning allow building of unwanted luxury dwellings that then stand empty?  Cllr Adrian Knapper (0:52:46) stated that they have no power!

3.  Gabrielle Hoban (0:53:25) having asked what measures are in place to support families having to be moved compulsorily and been informed by Cllr Gwen Hassall that the Housing Standards Team provides support, asked how the current action is different from the USA historically shifting indigenous people.  Gwen Hassell (0:54:58) just did not get it and said she was incapable of answering.  That just about sums up the situation at the council I think.  Gabrielle tried to prompt further but she was banging her head against a brick wall.

4.  Adam Colclough had asked about sustainability and environmental policy, suggesting the approach was too ‘top down’ and asked how the public are being engaged. Cllr Janine Bridges had completely missed the ‘top down’ point and said the public could see strategy when it is ready.  Adam Colclough (0:55:08) asked how the problems of the demise of the Community Empowerment Network and Neighbourhood Forum would be overcome in consultation.  Janine Bridges (0:55:59) claimed to be in favour of ‘bottom up’ involvement but contradicts this by operating a top down approach.  She said new ‘locality working’ proposals are being developed to empower people.  This is the problem, they cut off people’s opportunities without telling them what will happen next.  I have experience of this as a residents’ association committee member.  The council got rid of ‘Area Implementation Teams’ that had assisted us.  They have now given us ‘Local Matters’ representatives who have been very helpful, but I for one wasn’t even informed, much less asked about the changes before they were in place.

5.  Adam Colclough (0:57:00) expanded on his question about local sourcing, wanting this in procurement policy.  Cllr Janine Bridges (0:58:24) made a valid point that the sustainability criterion of transporting over short distances could favour local sourcing.

8.  Mike Barnes (1:02:02), having asked about repayment details of a council loan to Port Vale Football Club, wished to clarify whether the loan period had been extended.  Cllr Sarah Hill (1:03:19) stated that it had not changed.

9.  Mike Barnes (1:02:02), having asked about Housing Revenue Account expenditure details, asked how the ring fencing operated for items such as the call centre and grass cutting.  Cllr Mohammed Pervez (1:05:34) said he would provide the information.

11.  Kieran Clarke (1:06:12) had asked about BSF spending and said given that originally a council contribution of £10million had been planned and now this is £60million, is this under control?  Cllr Sarah Hill (1:07:07) claimed £50million had always been expected but now an extra £5million is needed.  I notice this does not total £60million and she did not address the question of whether the spending is under control and how it impacts on other spending.

12.  Mick Williams has asked questions at previous council meetings, see my blogs 8/9/11, 20/10/11, 8/12/11, which have not been properly answered.  He had proposed an appeal procedure which Cllr Mohammed Pervez doesn’t see the need for, but will ask the constitution review group to look at.  Mick (1:08:38) suggested satisfactory answers would be better than many questions.  Mohammed Pervez (1:09:49) said he cannot use Mick’s satisfaction as a performance indicator!  Mohammed Pervez just doesn’t get it; if the council were open and transparent and engaged properly, then people would not need to ask so many questions.  I find if I ask questions I often need to progress it to a complaint or FOI before I get an answer, it would be better if that weren’t necessary.  I think whenever I can get to a full council meeting I should ask a public question, doubtless that would add ‘proof’ to Mohammed Pervez that he is doing well.  I think someone should lock Mick and Mohammed Pervez in a room until Mohammed Pervez understands and Mick gets his answers.  They could be in there for a long time!

13.  Mick Williams had asked where council agreement to Mr Van de Laarschot becoming ‘champion’ for Vanguard Consultancy is minuted.  Incredibly (or not) Cllr Mohammed Pervez had failed to answer this question.  So Mick (1:10:27) asked again where, constitutionally, has this arrangement been sanctioned?  Mohammed Pervez (1:11:55) simply launched his usual politician’s blether.  You have to wonder if he really is clueless or whether he does this deliberately.

6.91% Council Rent Rise

I won’t discuss much the council rent rise debate in which Cllr Gwen Hassall (1:19:30) proposed a 6.91% rise, Cllr Mark Meredith seconded it and it was voted through.  Except to say that, a point made by Cllr Dave Conway (1:28:21), although the council had an easy chance to raise just one of rent or council tax, they have decided a significant rise in both.  This cannot be easy for working families on low wages, some of whom have to pay both these costs.

Lack of High School Places in Stoke-on-Trent

The views expressed here are my own and are not necessarily the views of any body or organisation I am a member of.

The shortfall in high school places for the young people of Stoke-on-Trent is something I have been banging on about for years, (see 21/11/08, 1/1/10 , 27/2/10 , 28/8/10 ).  Nobody listens of course, but the latest Stoke-on-Trent cabinet meeting on 26th January 2012 has prompted me to have another go.  Item 7 concerns BSF.

BSF in a nutshell:

BSF is the controversial ‘Building Schools for the Future’ programme initiated by the previous Labour government to privatise the schools system and contrary to their promise to refurbish or rebuild every high school, resulted for some in Bulldozing Schools for the Future.  There are some rather nice refurbishments and rebuilds although some schools have been cajoled into academisation in the process.  Under the current Conservative government privatisation and academisation continues unabated but instead of the Labour approach of trying to bribe schools with funding for their buildings, the Conservative approach is to cut off funding and just send in the heavy mob to force academisation.  Either way, privatisation abounds and democratic rights are reduced for families and teachers.

In the webcast of the cabinet meeting Councillor Ruth Rosenau, Cabinet Member for Regeneration stated (0:19:16) that both options C in the meeting document were agreed.

One of these involves moving Abbey Hill special school from Abbey Hulton to Longton.  The other changes the planned refurbishment of Holden Lane High School to involve much more rebuild.  These changes bring the total council contribution to BSF to nearly £60million.

Holden Lane is currently in special measures and the governing body has been replaced with an ‘Interim Executive Board’.  Councillor Debra Gratton is Cabinet Member for Children’s Services and Life Skills and is a governor at Holden Lane. 

  

The new plans for Holden Lane provide only 900 pupil places compared with the previously planned 1050.  Debra Gratton stated (0:21:30) that Holden Lane currently has 970 pupils on roll and asked if 900 places is adequate.  Joanne Tyzzer, Assistant Director City Regeneration, said the numbers had been checked against total school capacity across the city and there is no problem.  Well – I would like to see the proof of that! 

The meeting documentation refers to "Pupil place planning projections (updated August 2011)".  I do not have these projections (I have now requested them from the council).  I have some previous projections and have analysed post-BSF high school place provision in the city against these numbers.  My analysis shows, much the same as it has previously, that Stoke-on-Trent is one high school short.  The latest reduction in places at Holden Lane does not help matters. 

Stoke-on-Trent City Council does not provide information on school capacity in a very coherent or transparent way but the information gleaned from the references I give in the first sheet of my spreadsheet indicates a total of 13,800 places.  This is better than the 13,500 in the original SERCO BSF strategy and provides 2,010 surplus places across the city by the year 2014.  Some surplus places are desirable to allow for parental choice and pupil population distribution within the city.  So what’s the problem?  The issue is that 2014 is the year that high school pupil numbers drop to their lowest point before rising significantly.  By the year 2020 high school pupil numbers are projected to reach 14,642, giving a shortfall of 842 places, that’s one entire high school short!  With increasing birth rates there seems no indication that this may fall.  Quite apart from any issues concerning the quality of education, I have grave concerns about educational provision for high school pupils just in terms of number of available school places in the city.

The problem is in fact worse than this when the geographical distribution of pupils is considered, as shown in the second sheet of my spreadsheet.  Clearly some assumptions are involved but it can be seen that the lack of places provides fewer problems in the far North of the city.  There is a particular dearth of provision towards the centre of the city, particularly in the Abbey Hulton and Bucknall areas. 

There has been a strong public campaign by the Community Schools Action Group (CSAG) to retain high schools on the Mitchell and Longton sites rather than merge Mitchell and Edensor to one school, the Discovery Academy on Willfield, but despite Labour lies of support on this, more lies ensued and the merger went ahead, destroying Willfield Gym in the process.  The lack of interest in providing pupil places for the families of Abbey Hulton was highlighted at the Willfield planning meeting.

CSAG are still pursuing a plan for a school on the Mitchell site, now by proposing the R J Mitchell Free School.  If this goes ahead it will help a little with the pupil numbers problem and it is certainly geographically in an excellent location where there is an absence of high school provision.  This could provide for families in Bucknall, Berryhill, Townsend, Bentilee and Abbey Hulton.

I look forward to receiving more up to date pupil projections from the council.  There should be 3 more years birth data now available beyond the numbers I have.  The council really ought to be planning beyond 2014 and planning properly for 2020.  I would like to see the projections beyond 2020.

Analysis spreadsheet:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgnPMdnm-yQhdDlDRTZuMGFXbnFuRDhWTUloNTloQmc&hl=en_GB&pli=1#gid=1

Pupil projection data:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0BwnPMdnm-yQhOTI2ODA5NjgtODQyYi00ZjU3LWFiZjItMDhhOGU3ODU0ZWEy&hl=en_GB