Stoke-on-Trent City Council Budget Meeting 27/2/14

I thought depending on circumstances that I may attend this meeting but in the end had other priorities. It is good to have the webcast to catch up from in any case. 

This was the full council meeting on the budget. Rather than being a budget in the normal sense of the word, a large focus of the council's budget is on what they can cut and close. Much of the budget discussion is political hot air with the Labour council blaming the Conservative government, although back in the days of the last Labour government, the council were cutting and closing things just the same. Labour Council Leader Mohammed Pervez stated at last year's budget council that he expects cuts until the year 2020, there was no statement about a Labour government doing anything different if they should gain power.

Despite the mundane political sniping, there were a few comments worth noting (webcast times given in brackets). Mohammed Pervez (00:13:03) referred to a consultation regarding the budget.  The number one concern was cuts to the demonstrators at Gladstone pottery museum; Mohammed Pervez reported that demonstrators will now be kept but that the museum will be closed on its quietest days, Sunday and Monday. He also reported that prosecutions are being made for litter and fly tipping. I certainly hope that prosecutions will continue and intensify as there is far too much fly tipping and littering in the city. However he also mentioned the incredible amount of money being spent in Hanley. To me this is such a waste and could be better spent. We don't need unnecessary new council buildings. If companies want to build in Hanley then fine, but it shouldn't be for the council to squander money on, they should be focusing on local services for people.

Independent Councillor Dave Conway (0:29:03) was not happy with many of the cuts suggested, especially pay and conditions for low paid council workers, spoke out against the money squandered on the central business district and press officers and 'spin' and said he won't support the budget although opposing it won't make a scrap of difference.  He is right, against a whipped Labour majority the opposition cannot change the outcome.

Independent Councillor Paul Breeze (1:08:47) welcomed the council tax freeze but aside from that had a good go at the Labour group. He was frustrated that suggestions the opposition make are totally ignored. He mentioned 'Our City' magazine which he would like to see cut. I agree wholeheartedly, it is a waste of council tax payers money on what is essentially in my view Labour propaganda. He also mentioned the new bus station being too small and market traders suffering because bus stops have moved.  A gem of a quote aimed at Labour was that "reality will bite you on the bottom"!

Conservative Councillor Abi Brown (1:14:50) raised an interesting point about the Gladstone pottery. She talked in some depth about the Sunday closing, raising the issue that although average attendance is low, when special events are on it is high. Personally I can see the point in closing on days when there is low demand, but it's easy just to close things, I think it would be better to look first at improvements that could be made that would increase visitor numbers.

An issue of particular importance in my part of the city is Trentham library. This was the number two concern in the council's own consultation. But the council are to close it completely despite a high level of popularity and usage and low running costs. There is little evidence that I can see of any detailed thought or commitment from the council's Labour group or officers to alternative provision. However, there is an active local group, the 'Trentham Centre Association' campaigning for this, helped by our two councillors. These two councillors spoke as follows.

Independent Councillor Terry Follows (1:46:38) spoke against the closure of Trentham library to save just £40,000 per year, especially when it's one of the best used in the city for the time it's open, on 3 days a week.  He raised the importance of education and pointed out that there is no library in the nearby Trentham High School. Well it seems to me it's just a land grab! I attended just the first half hour of a meeting on 3/3/14. The BBC report states that any alternative "would not involve keeping the existing building open".

Independent Councillor Peter Hayward (1:48:58) accused Labour of ignorance or arrogance because they use the ridiculous argument that the thousands of people who don't respond to their consultation are in agreement with them. 

Of course the budget and cuts were voted through (2:29:27), because of Labour's majority.

Twitter

Nicky Davis: Nicky_Davis_

Stoke-on-Trent City Council: @SOTCityCouncil #sotcc

Stoke-on-Trent City Councillors: my public list 'SOTcouncillors':

@VoteMunday @CllrAndyST4 @OlwenHamer @LeeWanger @CllrRuthRosenau @paul_shotton @debra_gratton @terry_crowe53 @shazadhussain11 @BurslemCentral @pervezstoke @Alisonwedgwood @mattwilcoxstoke @longtontom @Matthewfry1 @AbiBrown1 @button1001 @MarkMeredith01 @CllrActional22 @adrianknapper

Stoke-on-Trent City Council Budget Meeting 28/2/13

Having spent most of Wednesday and Thursday in the great outdoors and in sunshine for a change, it could have been gloomy in the confines of the council chamber, coming straight from an exhilarating walk from Froghall up into the hills above Ipstones, as I did.  But it wasn't gloomy because for a change the public gallery was full and people were taking an interest in what the council were up to.  There were also protesters outside including some anti-cuts groups, unions and MarchOnStoke.

March On Stoke next meeting: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 7:00pm Temple Street Methodist Church Fenton

This was the full council meeting on the budget.  I'm not reporting on every speaker, just my selected highlights with times from the webcast.  Rather than being a budget, this is more about a list of cuts, £20.9 million this year, closures and job losses.  

Despite Labour councillors blaming the Tory government, they have been cutting and closing for a long time, even when their own Labour government had power and as Labour Council Leader Mohammed Pervez (0:25:29) stated, he expects cuts until the year 2020.  He doesn't make any statement about a Labour government doing anything different if they should gain power.  Mohammed Pervez talks about having a meaningful dialogue with the public but he doesn't seem to be listening to them!  Where I do agree though is on the policy of paying council workers (those who still have a job) the living wage. 

Independent Councillor Paul Breeze (0:40:05) is always well worth a listen.  This was a particularly excellent speech.  He highlighted the amount of interest we have to pay on loans the council takes out with no business plan, no risk assessment and no consultation!  He said that Labour treat the people of Stoke-on-Trent with contempt and accused them of "reckless, irresponsible, dictatorial, arrogant insanity".  Well said!  He was then accused by Lord Mayor Terry Crowe (0:42:26) of personalising things, but he didn't!  he wasn't being negative either, he proposed a list of alternatives which are (in brief):

1. Stop borrowing.

2. Release land to the potteries shopping centre which they will pay for with money now and create jobs.

3. Don't misuse public money on propaganda spreads in newspapers.

4. Scrap 'Our City' (Labour spin magazine).

5. Get rid of consultants and listen to people for free.

6. Use £180,000 from selling land at the potteries shopping centre to hold a referendum on whether people have confidence in the Labour council and executive.

7. Hold an election.

He also strongly stated the value of independent councillors not controlled by political parties and acting solely for and accountable to people and communities in the city.  I very much agree with this.

Independent Councillor Dave Conway (0:45:21) accused Labour of targetting rather than protecting the vulnerable and gave examples of cutting and closing care homes, swimming pools, lollipop crossings and pensioners bus passes.  He has a point here for sure, although he also criticised the council on potholes in the roads.  I don't agree with him on that because my experience in Trentham is that the council came round to fix a lot that appeared in the wet weather.  Dave Conway accused Mohammed Pervez of killing the city, he referred to the protest march and said people have had enough with the Labour council.

Independent Councillor Terry Follows (1:10:12) acknowledged that budgeting is difficult and he has seen councillors in tears over budgets in the past, but he objected to borrowing money for the council to move to the central business district and doesn't want to see Mohammed Pervez in tears over this.  He rubbished the idea of the police moving to the central business district because of the lack of parking.  He said there had been past protest marches localised to specific areas but the March On Stoke included people from all over the city.  He criticised the city's MPs for saying nothing, although I reported in my blog on the March On Stoke Rob Flello's support for the Labour council.

Conservative Councillor Abi Brown (1:26:36) criticised the use of money set aside for investment in projects for savings and being diverted into reserves and mentioned the bungle requiring money being paid back to the EU.

Conservative Councillor Jack Brereton (1:36:54) said the budget does not address jobs and growth as Labour claims.  He critcised council priorities and approach to children's safety in cuts in school crossing patrols.  He quoted the 2012 national highways survey which rated Stoke-on-Trent worst for road repairs and joint worst for road condition.  He suggested cutting 'Our City' magazine as the content is "pure fantasy".  I agree there!  He also very rightly pointed out that communication with residents, consultation and getting people involved is very poor.  He described the Labour plans as "crazy".  I agreed with much of what Jack Brereton said this time, I don't always agree but he does tend to present his case well.

Labour Councillor Ruth Rosenau (1:51:39) said she would rather not be elected because of making what she views as the "right choices".  Well, I hope her wish comes true and surely the right choices are to represent the people.

Independent Councillor Ann James (2:05:49) said Labour blame the Conservatives but she pointed out that the Labour government left the council £26million short of their allocation when they were in power.  She said the council were ignoring people's petitions.

It was then the turn of Councillor Mark Meredith to speak, at which point Lord Mayor Terry Crowe (2:11:25) admitted that the majority of us in the public gallery were being orderly but nevertheless chucked us all out because a few were shouting out.  I don't blame security, they were doing as they were told, but it would have been better if they had been asked to remove just those who were shouting.  The meeting was being broadcast in the Jubilee room upstairs from the council chamber for the overflow of people who had not got into the public gallery, so some of us proceeded there.

Labour Councillor Mark Meredith (2:12:57) talked his usual guff, a lot about business.  He claimed Labour were creating jobs but it does seem to me there are an awful lot of job losses.  He claimed the opposition hadn't provided an alternative, although they had and also claimed Labour were the only serious group.  Mark Meredith had become very unpopular when he was elected mayor, but let's face it, the people of Birches Head and Central Forest Park in their 'wisdom' put him back in the chamber as councillor, although they also did us a good turn in giving us Paul Breeze.  Maybe they are a bit of a mixed bag in that ward.

Independent Councillor Randy Conteh (2:18:14) said he did not condone unruly behaviour, I agree with him there, but said that meetings were in the evening to help involve the public and he didn't like the empty public gallery.  He moved a motion, which was lost, to go then to the vote.  I don't know what the councillors can see on their screens, but I would have been against the motion if there were still councillors who wanted to speak, whatever their political colour.  After all it is a full council and they all have a right to a say.  

Labour Councillor Andy Platt (2:21:52) talked about improving recycling rates, but as far as household waste is concerned they have cut it, as they have ceased to collect our kitchen and garden waste during the winter.

Labour Councillor Majid Khan (2:27:08) said that risk should be assessed.  Yes!  So where is the risk assessment for the central business district then?

Labour Council Leader Mohammed Pervez (2:30:14) as the budget proposer, then had his right of reply.  So he then had a go at the independents for forming a group and wrongly claimed they come to a united view.  But he knows full well that the reason the independents end up in a group is because the council is structured around groups and has group leaders meetings which exclude independents if they don't form a group.  Despite his claim Pervez then admitted that some independents had voted for a previous budget.  Some is not all and the truth is the independents, even within the city independent group, are not party whipped as Labour are.  Then the part which got the Jubilee room in a bit of an uproar was Pervez repeating his admission that he does not know what the total cost of the move of the civic centre to Hanley would be because he doesn't know what is going to be borrowed and what interest is going to be paid.  Incredulously he doesn't seem to see the problem with this, he just doesn't get it.  This is what people have a huge problem with! 

Despite the seriousness of the crazy way Labour are leading the council, some of us in the Jubilee room were a little amused at Terry Crowe (2:45:10) stating the obvious "in favour of the budget you vote yes, against no".  The budget was of course passed because of the large Labour majority.  It was a named vote so people will be able to see how their own councillor voted in the meeting minutes.

While some of us were in the Civic Centre (Stoke), Sarah Gayton was filming outside and has produced some great videos which include interviews with members of the public, they are well worth a watch.

Video part 1

Video part 2

Video part 3


Twitter

Nicky Davis: Nicky_Davis_
March on Stoke: #marchonstoke @MarchonStoke
Sarah Gayton: @farmersonfilm
Stoke-on-Trent City Council: @SOTCityCouncil #sotcc
Stoke-on-Trent City Councillors: my public list 'SOTcouncillors' including
@pervezstoke @terry_crowe53 @AbiBrown1 @CllrRuthRosenau @MarkMeredith01 @CllrAndyST4

March on Stoke

What a fantastic protest today! Despite the cold, we put lots of layers of clothing on and got out there and marched. Why? Because Stoke-on-Trent City Council do not listen to us and because they have no sense and no credibility. We don't want to be plunged into debt to move the Civic Centre back to Hanley, from Stoke. It was in Hanley before, the Civic Centre in Stoke is not that old, recently refurbished and perfectly usable and money has been spent on consultants whose reports do not recommend the move. BBC Midlands Today did a good TV report yesterday and BBC Radio Stoke interviewed council leader Mohammed Pervez who admitted despite the >£40million pound cost he doesn't really know what the final sum will be. We have had great support and coverage by StaffsLive throughout.

We marched in a very long snaking procession from Cannon Place in Hanley to the Civic Centre in Kingsway Stoke. Thanks to the police and stewards for a safe transit and for stopping traffic. Thumbs up for support from motorists and sorry, as they say, for any inconvenience caused. So very well done to all protesters.

A rally was held in Kingsway. We heard from a number of speakers including the youngest, Michelle aged 16. She's not a voter yet but by the 2015 elections she will be able to vote. Points made included that it is our tax money and we don't want the council squandering it, racking up debts that we and our children will have to pay off. They should work for us, the civic move was not on the cards when we voted in 2011. We are not against regeneration, but we don't want our money servicing debt and we think the council plans are illogical and poorly thought out and they do not have their priorities right. We do have an alternative, develop all 6 towns, each with their own character and keep Stoke with its rail and major road links the centre for civic activity. It was clear people want this council out and chanted this. It was noted that it is not the entire council that decides on most issues, it is the controlling group, Labour and specifically the cabinet in charge of making the decisions. What is needed is for people to vote with awareness of the individual they select. Often there will be a good independent candidate there to serve residents only, not a political party. Even if a preferred candidate is a member of a political party, it is the consideration given in making the choice that is important. In particular, there in no need to vote 'the same way' on the local ballot paper as on the general election one. Not all of the councillors are against us, it is just that if they're not in the controlling Labour group, they can't overturn the decisions.

So, what about our Labour MPs, what do they think of our Labour council and the move of the civic centre? Coincidentally, just this morning I received a letter from my MP Rob Flello, following up a 'community conference' he had held with residents in November, which of course I attended. He says “the £40m that is being cited for the cost of the move is money that is to be found from closing some council buildings, savings from bringing staff together and borrowed, not money that is being taken away from other services”. So, why close buildings that are fit for purpose, bringing staff together perhaps means redundancies and the last point, “borrowed”, is what particularly bothers people. If the council has to spend money on interest, servicing the debt, then that surely does impact on services. Rob Flello says “I am pleased at the leadership being shown by the council”. I have to say I hugely disagree with Rob on this point.

I live in Hanford & Trentham ward, where we have embraced the independent idea, with both our councillors being independent. Furthermore, if a councillor has not served us well, we have shown we can turf them out at an election, as we did in the case of Ross Irving.

So, will this protest change the council's mind? I doubt it, but that is only part of the reason to protest. It is also about having our say and raising political awareness. Mind you, I tend to be a pessimist. I didn't expect such a large turnout today, I had thought maybe 300, but most of the figures being quoted are at least two times this. It was thrilling to see so many there, especially as I had personally put out 1,360 leaflets in Trentham. Maybe this encouraged some people to turn up, or if not, at least to know more about the issue. But as Alan Barret had said, he would march if only 10 turned up, that was my view also. Sometimes success can be had, as with the save Trentham High campaign. All the way through that I never thought we had more than a 50% chance of success, but I felt determined to have a say. We won then. What about the next local election, simultaneous with the next general election? I would predict a Labour council by a huge majority. But then, I am a pessimist, so could it be different?

What next? One of the pointers from the rally was let's be politically aware. On February 28^th the full council meets at 5.30pm to discuss the budget (cuts), one of the few decisions made by the full council rather than the cabinet. These meetings are open to the public to observe (no shouting out is allowed, but it's a chance to see how they operate). I have been observing council meetings either in person or on the web for some time, sometimes asking public questions. I have blogged on these on this blog since 8/9/11, for example on the crazy City Sentral name, approving the £40million to move the Civic Centre to Hanley, petitions against the move, independent councillor motion against the move and last year's budget council 23/2/12.  It would be good to see more who attended the rally turning up. The plan is to assemble at 5pm on Thursday, just before the meeting. See you there!

Stoke on Trent City Council Meeting 6/9/12

I attended this council meeting and this time contributed by asking supplementary questions to two public questions.  I will concentrate in this blog on petitions and public questions and refer to times in the webcast.

Petitions

Two of the petitions opposed the move of the civic centre from Stoke to Hanley.  There was a further petition on this still receiving signatures outside the civic centre as I arrived – I signed it naturally,  I reported previously on the decision at the last council meeting to squander a further ~£40k on this move.  The speaker, Richard Snell (0:20:31), gave a very good presentation.  He described the planned move as madness from the point of view of residents, traders and the business community.  He also presented an alternative idea to concentrating the city in Hanley; to build on the city's heritage, keep the tradition of the civic centre in Stoke and introduce town councils to build a strong federation of towns within the city.  This is a good idea I think.  He expressed some surprise that the council had not thought of this.  I'm not surprised myself, I just suspect Labour would find it more difficult to dominate such a devolved structure.

City Independent Cllr Randy Conteh (0:23:18) then proposed that the petition be passed on to the City Renewal Overview and Scrutiny Committee for further consideration.  Labour Cllr Ruth Rosenau (0:23:46) said opposition councillors could have called the decision in but didn't.  Labour Council Leader Mohammed Pervez (0:24:10) agreed with this but what happened next surprised me.  Pervez began a discussion and rebuttal of the petition itself.  Normal procedure is that councillors may propose referral to scrutiny but do not debate a petition in full council unless it has reached at least 5,000 signatures, which these petitions had not.  So anyway, Pervez launched into his speech, much of which was nonsense.  He claimed, as has been said many times before, that the empty Spode site is attractive to investors.  If so, why is it still empty?  It seems to me he's been flogging that particular dead horse far too long now.  He now adds that the abandoned civic offices, King's Hall, Kingsway car park and Swann House will be attractive to investors.  But he repeated the claim that moving the civic centre to Hanley will give businesses the confidence to follow and invest in Hanley.  Now to me that's logically inconsistent, if moving the council to Hanley attracts business then wouldn't the council abandoning Stoke have the opposite effect there?  I can't see that he can have this both ways.  Furthermore, the supposed plans for Stoke are unclear even within the Labour party; Labour MP for Stoke-on-Trent Central Dr Tristram Hunt has been complaining in the press about lack of information on this. Pervez used that tired old claim that the electorate on the doorstep agree with Labour on this issue, a claim of course for which there is no evidence.  There is however documented evidence in petitions and protests that many of the electorate do not agree. One pertinent question Pervez did ask was “where are we now exactly?”  Anyway, eventually unaffiliated Cllr Paul Breeze (0:30:45) pointed out that procedure had gone awry.  

City Independent Cllr Dave Conway (0:32:16) was consequently also given the right to speak.  He pointed out that a colossal amount of money has been spent renovating 4 floors of the Stoke civic centre, what a waste to then abandon it.  I'm not surprised, the Willfield gym and education centre were also nicely renovated, I saw them myself.  Where are they now?  Bulldozed!  He referred to the claim of good feedback on the doorsteps being rubbish, if it was so good then why didn't Labour win the Springfields and Trent Vale by-election?  He also pointed out that the new bus station that Pervez had mentioned is not big enough for all the buses!  He said the money for moving to Hanley was borrowed and there was no money to invest in Stoke.  He rightly expressed concern about the council's increasing debt.

Cllr Randy Conteh (0:36:27) was then given the right to reply to the debate.  He said Hardial Bhogal, director of city renewal, had said he would provide information on the proposals for the regeneration of Stoke and that councillors and petitioners needed to see this and petitioners should be able to bring their case to scrutiny.

Needless to say the City Independent motion to take this issue to the scrutiny committee was lost because dominant Labour councillors voted against it.

Public Questions

There were 8 public questions for which 2 questioners, one of whom was me, attended to ask supplementary questions for 4 of these.

Mike Barnes had asked what would be done to provide better future projections of and services for the population in the city, which is increasing contrary to previous predictions.   Council Leader Mohammed Pervez had attributed the unexpected increase to soaring birth rates and EU inward migration on a scale never seen before.  He had said services were reviewed on a rolling basis and the ONS provide annual population estimates.  Mike Barnes  (0:39:56) asked about inconsistencies in reports he had heard regarding the population.  Mohammed Pervez (0:41:04) said the uncertainties depend on the accuracy of the data collection and that the population of the city is 249,000, from the 2011 census.

Mike Barnes had also asked which councillors had signed up to the new standards protocol.  Mohammed Pervez had replied that council had agreed a code of conduct effective 1st July 2012 and it automatically applies to all members, they do not have to sign.  Mike Barnes (0:42:48) asked what selection procedure is used to appoint the independent member of the standards committee and whether the criteria include political party membership or former membership.  He said the current individual was a Labour party member for 27 years.   Mohammed Pervez  asked the head of legal services Paul Hackney (0:43:55) to answer this.  He said the council's fair recruitment and selection procedure is used and the independent member must have no current political affiliations.  So presumably this would be applied to any former member of any political party, irrespective of how long they had held that membership, provided they had currently ceased membership.

Then it was my turn.  The background to my questions was that I had wanted for both general interest and local reasons to find out the catchment areas of the primary schools in the city.  I had scoured the Stoke-on-Trent city council website but had failed to find the information I was seeking.  I submitted questions relating to this.  In between submission and receiving the answers, pleasingly, a map of catchment areas appeared on the website.

So my first question had been to request a map showing the primary school catchment areas.  Cllr Alan Dutton, cabinet member for education, had replied that this is now on the website. I asked the question (0:45:20) “How are catchment areas decided and how can local residents take part in the decision making process?"  Alan Dutton (0:45:40) replied that schools decided this and that parents could choose schools if places were available.  This threw me rather because if schools decided their own catchment areas there would be overlaps and gaps.  Also no mention was made of the council's role in deciding the catchment areas.  The point about parental choice isn't really relevant because catchment areas only matter in precisely the situation where there aren't enough places and parents may be denied their choice.  This links in with Mike Barnes' question about population.  In my area of Trentham both the primary school and high school are oversubscribed.  This isn't a direct issue for me as my children are past high school age and continuing their education outside the city, but it's of great general importance, has community implications locally and can cause great difficulties to families when catchment areas move.  Besides, I have been banging on about impending lack of school places for years.  I will be following up this question with the council.

My second question had been to request not just any map, but a map on the website.  I had provided an example of one, from West Berkshire council, for no other reason than this popped up when I did an internet search and looked useful.  Of course Stoke-on-Trent had provided a web map after I'd asked the question, so Alan Dutton's reply reflected this.  I had prepared two possible supplementary questions in this case.  I had been dismayed when I saw the meeting documents because my question had not been reproduced as I had sent it.  One possible supplementary question could have been: “An apostrophe has been introduced to this question as printed.  This was not in my original question and is grammatically incorrect.  Would the education department please remove it from the meeting documents and minutes?”  However I had chased this up ahead of the meeting and been told that the meeting documents would not change but the error would be corrected in the minutes, which is half OK.  So instead I posed another question (0:47:01).  “The introduction of these maps to the website is most welcome.  But could we please have more zoom out options added so those of us with an interest in education across the city can see the bigger picture?”   Alan Dutton (0:47:19) replied that the Stoke-on-Trent map is superior to the example I had given.  To an extent this is a matter of opinion, hopefully you may judge for yourselves and compare West Berkshire with Stoke-on-Trent.  While writing this blog I am unable to access the West Berkshire map, but from memory my assessment of the two websites is that Stoke-on-Trent is better in respect of having both aerial photograph and OS map views and catchment areas of different colours, albeit of poorer contrast in OS view and West Berkshire is better in respect of having blue rather than yellow boundary lines which are easier to see, having quicker and less cumbersome navigation around the map and having a larger number of zoom levels.  It's good that Stoke-on-Trent now has a catchment map and I can feed in suggestions for improvement via the website.


UPDATE 11/10/12

Following the council meeting Alan Dutton did arrange for a meeting between the council's education department, our local councillors and some members of our local RA to discuss a local catchment issue.  That was useful insofar as it enabled a better understanding of how these things work but not as yet in producing any desired change.  

It was clarified that the council does indeed have a major role in deciding catchment areas (less so for academies and trust schools for which there are very few in the primary sector in Stoke-on-Trent for the time being).  In fact it is ultimately the council's cabinet which makes these decisions, although they are unlikely to take any action unless prompted by the education department of the council.  If the education department wants to make a change they trigger a 'consultation' which is considered by an 'admissions forum' at the council attended by some school governors and councillors, which then advises cabinet.  This process is for admissions policy more broadly and may or may not include any catchment consideration.

It was also clarified that there is no formal way that local people are included in the council's process but we can meet with, write to and let our views be known to councillors, council officers, cabinet members and school heads and governing bodies.

It is the issue of primary catchment which is of particular major concern locally to the RA I am in.  The council states that catchment areas must be “reasonable” and “inclusion of a catchment tends to increase the chances of local people getting access to their local school”.  However locally a change was made that was very unfair and had the opposite effect, exclusion of local people from catchment has decreased, rather than increased, the chances of those families getting access to their local school.  The education department and Alan Dutton are now aware of this and have been requested to rectify this in future cabinet decisions, although there is of course no guarantee that cabinet will agree.

There are some distressing anecdotal accounts but I requested some statistical information regarding the schools local people from different areas, both within the council defined catchment and the area we think should be in catchment, are asking for and the schools actually allocated and the areas from which allocations to the school actually come from.  I thought some real statistics would help with discussions at our RA open meeting next week.  But I am still waiting for the numbers.

As for the suggestions I made for the website, which were well illustrated by me having to litter the meeting table with multiple A4 sheets printed from the web, on account of not being able to zoom out far enough, these have not, as yet, been implemented.

Stoke on Trent City Council Meeting 5/7/12

This was the first council meeting I had been able to attend in months.  It was a little disappointing that there appeared to be some background noise, possibly from the projector, which made it difficult for me to hear well.  However it was very pleasing as a member of the public to be given a copy of the ‘red book’ of papers for the meeting. As usual I shall make some observations on the council meeting and refer to times in the webcast.

Petitions

There was one speaker (0:15:27) for a petition to demolish the ‘Hancock’s’ building in Summerbank Road, Tunstall.  He made his case well and cited 8 years of vandalism and antisocial behaviour including an incident on 8^th May when a gang got onto the roof and were throwing debris at cars and houses.  He also reported perpetual fly tipping which, despite the council saying there were fortnightly inspections, nothing seemed to be done about.  Really, residents should not have to put up with all of this.  As this council is well used to demolition, I would hope that they could arrange for this in a case where it is much needed. 

Under council procedure the next step is that this petition goes to the relevant council officer, Pete Price, Assistant Director, Technical Services, who is responsible for responding to it.

It is interesting to note that the government’s localism act repealed the duty on councils to respond to petitions.  To me this seems to be a backward step for local democracy.  Currently the council is still responding to petitions.  It will soon be reviewing the petitions scheme.

Public Questions

There were 7 public questions for which questioners attended to ask supplementary questions for 3 of these.

Marcin Musial had needed to resort to instruction from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to require the council to release an audit report on the demolition of the Boothen Methodist Church.  He had asked for the name of the officer who had tried to hide the report from the public and what disciplinary action would be taken.  Cllr Mohammed Pervez had named Paul Hackney, Louise Kelly and Julie Savage but said there was no wrong doing, just that the ICO had taken a different view.  Marcin (0:18:48) asked if Mohammed Pervez was telling the electorate that the Labour Party is happy to tolerate incompetence in officers.  Mohammed Pervez (0:19:59) said the officers had complied with the ICO so there was no wrong doing.  Marcin attempted to argue further with encouragement from some people in the public gallery.  Whilst I can certainly sympathise with Marcin’s frustration, as I would agree that obtaining information from the council is usually difficult, but I do not personally condone his outburst as it is too disruptive in a council meeting.

Kieran Clarke had asked about ‘Groupon’ offers (I have not got a clue about this) and Cllr Mark Meredith had said 130,000 emails had been sent and 96 had been redeemed.  Kieran (0:23:24) asked if Groupon could be promoted in ‘Our City’ magazine, Mark Meredith (0:24:27) said a written reply would be sent.

More importantly Kieran Clarke had asked why it was necessary for the council to move lock, stock and barrel out of Stoke to occupy two buildings in the Central Business District (CBD).  Kieran had reported that the Strategic Partnership had involved retaining a strong staff presence in Stoke whilst moving some staff to be located throughout the city, but when it was stopped the Chief Executive had made it clear the council would not rescue the CBD.  Kieran had asked, why the u-turn?  The response by Cllr Ruth Rosenau had been, in my view, typical of Labour, with stock phrases such as “driver for change”, “moving forward”, “major impact”, “key signal”, “clear focus”, “master plan”.  Kieran (0:25:21) asked if Ruth Rosenau would agree that transfer of staff from Stoke to Hanley will affect footfall and retailers in Stoke.  Ruth Rosenau (0:26:00) denied that it would be detrimental!

Member Questions

I haven’t tended to blog about councillor's questions but this time feel that they are of particular community interest.

Cllr Jack Brereton had asked about the future of community centres.  The response by  Cllr Ruth Rosenau  had indicated that many will be closed down well before Christmas.  Jack Brereton (0:26:35) asked why the 3 ward councillors weren’t involved in the discussions about Norton community centre.  This is a widely relevant question to which he did not get an answer.  Ruth Rosenau (0:27:44) said discussions had taken place with committees.

CllrAbi Brown had asked what is being done about increased roadside car sales.   Cllr Ruth Rosenau  had indicated they can be reported to the environmental crime unit but that this does not seem to be an increasing issue.  Abi Brown (0:28:33) asked how many fixed penalty notices had been issued.  Ruth Rosenau (0:29:10) said complaints have decreased dramatically but she would let Abi Brown know the numbers.

Moving the Council from Stoke to Hanley

The main motion of the council meeting was to approve an extra £40,727,000 for the Central Business District to enable construction of new offices in Hanley for council staff.  Cllr Paul Shotton (0:32:20) proposed this “bold” move and  Cllr Ruth Rosenau  (0:36:13) seconded it “to make our city strong”.  I for one am not taken in by this Labour spin and think it is an outrage to squander money in this way, leaving Stoke in the lurch, when services and facilities are being drastically cut across the city. 

I won’t report on the entire sickening debate but will pick out a few ‘highlights’, the most gobsmacking of which is the lack of a risk assessment, as pointed out by Cllr Dave Conway (0:42:19) and the fact that Labour do not seem bothered by this.   Cllr Mohammed Pervez  (1:03:15) seemed to think it is fine to do the risk assessments later, after the decision!   Cllr Jack Brereton  (0:50:12) said the business district should be about new jobs, not moving them and said building new civic offices is a waste of money.   Cllr Mark Meredith  (0:45:45) supported the move but astoundingly admitted that the private sector had failed to deliver jobs to the city because there was too much risk!  Cllr Paul Breeze (0:51:09) supported the motion, of course, as councillor for Birches Head and Central Forest Park ward in Hanley.  It is worth watching Cllr Andy Platt (0:53:53) on the webcast, pausing in an apparent struggle to find the words to tell his electorate in Boothen and Oakhill ward in Stoke that he must support this Labour idea.  Amongst his excuses was that the Spode site would be renovated, but we have been hearing that for years and all we are doing is paying for security for it.  Cllr Terry Follows (1:08:02) suggested nothing should be signed without reading the small print.  Of particular interest was his question asking whether the Chief Executive thought the move was a good idea, during which John van de Laarschot was markedly shaking his head.

The motion was of course passed.  As far as I could tell from the show of hands, Labour plus Paul Breeze were in favour with the rest of the independents and Conservatives against.

Councillors on Twitter: @AbiBrown1 @BurslemCentral @button1001 @debra_gratton @MarkMeredith01 @pervezstoke @CllrAndyST4 @longtontom @CllrRuthRosenau @paul_shotton @CllrActional22 @mattwilcoxstoke