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 24/1/13

I arrived at the civic centre, in Stoke, for the full council meeting, to see a large impressive banner for the March on Stoke:

March on Stoke

11.30am Saturday 23rd February

The protest march starts at NORSACA, Cannon Place, Hanley

(behind the Victoria on the Square pub) and will end at Kingsway, Stoke.

March on Stoke web site     Leafleting     Twitter: @MarchonStoke #marchonstoke

I refer as usual to webcast times in brackets.  I will concentrate this blog on the motion opposing the move of the civic centre from Stoke, back to Hanley, but first some preliminaries.  

Of note was the minute silence following the sad deaths of former councillor Mick Williams who I knew from Democracy4Stoke and council officer John Ross.

Petition

There were no speakers for public questions but one petitioner Wendy Anderson (in place of Michelle Buckle) (0:29:50) gave a good presentation requesting to keep Stoke Gymnastic Centre in its purpose built premises rather than move to Dimensions and asking for support for community asset transfer.  She outlined how it could be more economically viable to retain it in its current building, which also addresses the safeguarding needs for collection of children by their parents which Dimensions does not. Cllr Mark Meredith (0:34:22) stated that discussions are taking place to resolve child safety issues if the club moves to Dimensions and there is a time limit for possible asset transfer.

Motion to retain Civic Centre in Stoke

I have written a blog on a previous meeting where the council approved a £40million loan to move the civic centre to Hanley and another blog on widespread public opposition to the name 'City Sentral' for the new Hanley shopping centre.

Motion proposed

Cllr Paul Breeze (unaffiliated) proposed and Cllr Dave Conway (City Independent) seconded a motion

CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT

In view of the combination of the continuing dire economic circumstances globally, nationally and, particularly devastatingly, locally in Stoke-on-Trent, and in light of the widespread Stoke-on-Trent public's disapproval of the council's previous decision to borrow £40 million (and rising) of future council tax-payers money to re-locate the civic headquarters from Stoke Town to Hanley, this council  

1.    Radically rethink its overall strategy in relation to the future regeneration of the City Centre and the city of Stoke-on-Trent as a whole, and whilst the strategy is revised, the £40m proposed borrowing for the Central Business District contained in the Councils approved capital programme is suspended. 

2.    Requests the Cabinet to rescind its decision to move the Civic HQ from Stoke Town to Hanley and retains the Civic Centre building in its current location and for its current use in Stoke Town.

It is notable that Cllr Paul Breeze back in July approved the move of the civic centre but in the light of widespread public opposition has put forward the new motion opposing it. He said (0:36:25) he had been assured there would be interested parties to take over use of the civic centre and use the new central business district (CBD) facilities in Hanley but had become aware this wasn't the case and the move would end up costing even more money for the people of the city.

Cllr Dave Conway (0:41:32) pointed out that thousands of pounds of public money had recently been spent renovating the civic centre and moving now is irresponsible. There has been no proper consultation and there is resentment throughout the city.

Debate

Personally I approve of this motion and agree with the points made above. Many councillors commented. I will outline a few key points, categorised in terms of political party or group and add my views in italics:

Labour

Cllr Paul Shotton (0:54:10) said they had consulted and people want jobs. He said once all 6 phases were fully occupied (if they are) this will provide 4,000 jobs, plus 500 construction jobs. He said they are rationalising buildings. Building a replacement building is neither rationalising or rational! Also, they have not asked people specifically if they want to move the civic centre to Hanley.

Cllr Ruth Rosenau (0:49:58) wants more retail and offices to compare better with other cities.

Cllr Alison Wedgwood (1:02:56) gave a bizarre representation which seemed to be saying we want online betting and a city full of betting shops. Well I'm gobsmacked, I can only say I must live on an entirely different planet to her! But then personally I have moral objections to gambling.

Cllr Tom Reynolds (1:07:47) was a little dismissive of those of us in the public gallery. He quoted reports about attracting business to the city and bringing in business rates. Fair enough, although isn't the reality that businesses aren't being attracted? And there is no logic in linking the move of the civic centre to this.

Cllr Alan Dutton (1:13:37) said they need to honour the agreement made with Realis. He said a u-turn by the council would be madness.

Cllr Olwen Hamer (1:16:08) said we have a good new bus station and high speed broadband.

Cllr Mohammed Pervez (1:20:41) blamed the Tory government for cuts and said all the predictions were that cuts would continue until about 2020. Note that he didn't mention the cuts under the previous Labour government and didn't say the cuts would be any different if Labour win the 2015 general election. He also said the Trentham Lakes development was contentious at the time. In my view there are some useful businesses and employment at Trentham Lakes although there have been some problems with noise that have needed attention. But the biggest problem has been building houses there without building a new primary school to go with them. There is currently a shortage of primary school places in the area and in the city.

Cllr Matt Wilcox (1:27:23) said the current image of Stoke-on-Trent is not great. Students born and raised in Stoke-on-Trent tell him they can't wait to leave. The new CBD would be modern. Fair enough but the civic centre is not very old and has recently been renovated, so there is no need for it to move.

Cllr Joy Garner (1:34:27) cited other examples of new building from the past such as the Potteries Museum, although admitted the theatres had been problematic. She said Keynesian policy indicates now is a good time to undertake new building. That last point is fine, but it only makes sense to build what is needed and that doesn't include a new civic centre. Also the theatre problems are indicative that any building plan should be properly thought out and risk assessed, which this doesn't seem to have been.

Cllr Gwen Hassell (1:38:17) said in future that planning decisions of major local importance would be taken away from local government, which would be difficult as central government wouldn't understand our 6 towns structure. But she and Labour on our council are ignoring that anyway by concentrating on Hanley.

Cllr Alastair Watson (1:41:55) said business people are advising that CBD is a good idea.

Cllr Janine Bridges (1:47:55) said construction jobs would upskill the work force and talked about sustainability. But you don't build unnecessarily and construction jobs tend to be short term rather than sustained.

Cllr Martin Garner (1:44:14) criticised the opposition for being apathetic and negative, then admitted to not being happy about the private sector himself.

Cllr Shazad Hussain (1:56:23) said he may not be here at the next election and he needs to do his job. He said the city centre will be great but it might take a very long time.

Cllr Adrian Knapper (2:00:49) claimed companies are interested in the Spode site. So why has it been sitting there doing nothing for years? He said Cardiff bay and Birmingham Brindley Place are great but people get off the train in Stoke and say “1950s”. So renew Stoke then!

Cllr Andy Platt (2:05:17) did talk about Stoke but seemed to think moving the civic centre out would be a good opportunity and seemed to believe the Spode site would be redeveloped. He said Coronation Court on Lonsdale Street is being refurbished and work is being done to create 120 student flats on Hill Street. He claimed there were some green initiatives coming but wasn't going to tell us what they are!

Cllr Mark Meredith (2:12:37) accused the opposition of smirking. But Mark Meredith is one of the biggest smirkers I know! He seemed to think it is fine to get into debt for the CBD as it will either make money or buildings can be sold at profit.

City Independent

Cllr Lee Wanger (0:46:36) said it is old fashioned for office based business to be in the city centre, which is why Festival Park is successful and pointed out that some business people who Labour says support them are based there.

Cllr Randy Conteh (0:52:18) said the biggest thing missing is consultation with residents and he wasn't even asked about this move as ward councillor. He said people's opinions should be valued.

Cllr Terry Follows (1:43:24) made excellent points about failed past regeneration promises and the civic centre in Unity House in Hanley being then moved to Stoke and now back to Hanley. He said the chief executive of the council when he was first appointed had advised cabinet to abandon the CBD because the figures don't add up. He said the civic centre in Stoke has good major road access and the railway station a 5 minute walk away, Stoke makes a good business district. He talked about the disadvantages of debt and paying the interest and blamed Gordon Brown for the national debt and cuts. He referred to the propaganda the council had advertised in the Sentinel and the cost of it. He said amusingly that he had been woken up by Paul Shotton's voice on the radio saying we have to consider the public's wishes! He pointed out that we, the public, were there in the public gallery. A good representation by my ward councillor.

Cllr Ann James (1:51:01) pointed out that the Unity House site, where the civic centre was last time it was in Hanley and which was demolished, had been up for sale for years. She said city centres no longer need as many shops because people prefer out of town centres where there is good parking and also online shopping. She feared that in the absence of a proper risk assessment the debt incurred could become even larger. She said everybody is speaking out against this move as there is no rationale or logic to it.

Cllr Jackie Barnes (2:11:39) suggested that Labour should read the small print on the loan repayments and said she would support the motion as it is basic common sense.

Conservative

Cllr Jack Brereton (1:31:32) said the current decision is a massive risk, there is little private confidence and interest in it and it would mean abandoning Stoke and wasting money. He pointed out there is little support beyond the Labour benches for this project. He mentioned the total lack of consultation, so he had done his own residents' survey in his ward and found 80% against the move, 12% in favour and 8% didn't know. That is a job well done and good points well made.

Cllr Abi Brown (1:58:11) said she supports the CBD principle but moving the civic centre to Hanley is irrational.

Unaffiliated

Cllr Andy Lilley (1:06:00), who has recently left the Labour group, said he supports the CBD vision but said he would support the motion because he cannot justify borrowing the money whilst threatening council staff with cuts in pay and jobs.

Summation

Cllr Paul Breeze (2:29:09) presented a passionate summing up. He referred to the Labour spin in the Sentinel and said that some of those people don't agree with the move of the civic centre and one agrees with the 6 towns philosophy. He accused Labour of not taking a blind bit of notice of the electorate. (Nothing new there then.) He pointed out that the plans are speculative and there is no business plan. Labour has managed to galvanise the whole spectrum of people from political left to right and all points in between and non-political people from various walks of life, workers and pensioners and people who used to but no longer vote Labour, against this move. In a very good analogy with heart surgery he emphasised the risk and lack of consultation. He said when the council get consultants' advice they choose which they want. He referred to two reports, one of which says the council plans for the CBD are high risk and the other which says 2 shopping centres in the city centre can not be sustained. Instead we should focus on realistic options based on what we have. “It will end in tears” he said.

There was a named vote with results which will appear in the minutes, but basically Labour voted against the motion and everyone else for it, so it was defeated. It's a shame the Lord Mayor Terry Crowe didn't read out the numbers because they were a bit small to see clearly on screen, but I think it was 12 for, 26 against.

Stoke-on-Trent City Council Meeting 8/12/11

I was unable to attend to observe the Stoke-on-Trent City Council meeting on 8th December 2011.  I arrived home from the dentist (ouch – not pain, cost!), hurriedly got some food ready for later then popped onto the live webcast and twitter just in time to catch the start of the motion against the name City Sentral for the planned Hanley shopping centre.  I watched, read and tweeted a little then dashed out to the excellent Christmas concert at Trentham High School.

I have now caught up, watched the webcast and comment on some of the public questions and the City Sentral debate.  (Webcast times are given in brackets.)

Public Questions

Adam Colclough had asked what steps the council would take to maximize electoral registration under the new individual registration system.  Council Leader Mohammed Pervez had said that the exact response would await legislation but the council had achieved over 96% in recent years.  Adam (0:18:28) asked if the council leader would engage constructively with community groups.  The response from Pervez (0:19:32) is silenced on the webcast.

John Taylor, on behalf of Friends of Bucknall Park City Farm had asked who took the decision to abandon the tender process for the farm site, when and what bidders were told. Cllr Janine Bridges, Cabinet Member for City Services, said this was decided by the Director of Business Services in consultation with Elected Members on the 27th January 2011 and a notice was published.  John (0:20:03) cited other councils that had retained their city farms and asked why our residents are not as worthy.  Janine Bridges (0:21:16) said problems with land ownership had been resolved and it was now possible to look at integrating the site into Bucknall Park.

John Taylor had also asked about the unfulfilled stated commitment of the council to finding a new operator for a similar city farm for the future.  Janine Bridges had said alternative uses for the land were being pursued because of lack of funding for a city farm.  John (0:22:12) warned residents not to believe the word ‘commitment’ next time they hear this from the council and asked how this word should be interpreted.  Janine Bridges (0:23:26) struggled to answer and talked about difficult decisions, then seemed to imply there was some hope for a city farm.  John pointed out the contradiction between this and the written answer.

Kieran Clarke had said many other councils were sharing services and had asked why  Stoke-on-Trent City Council was not doing this, as had been stated in the press.  Cllr Sarah Hill, Cabinet Member for Finance, had said they were actually sharing in some cases and were investigating further sharing.  Kieran (0:26:05) raised concerns that such ventures involved recruiting temporary workers when so many council workers were being made redundant.  Sarah Hill (0:27:07) talked about this being best value.

Mick Williams had asked why he had not got answers to his public questions at the last two full council meetings (he didn’t – see my previous blogs on this) and asked for the issues to be addressed or the meaningless charade of secrecy and obfuscation to be discontinued.  Pervez had replied that he believed the number of questions asked indicated success and asked Mick to email him the questions.  Mick (0:28:48) said he had tried to ask questions again because he hadn’t had them answered and suggested that success should be measured by satisfaction from the response to questions.  Pervez (0:30:10) seemed to think it was only necessary to give responses regardless of quality.

City Sentral Debate

Cllr Paul Breeze (0:57:26) proposed:

That, in view of the clearly overwhelming expression of public opposition to the name City Sentral for the proposed new Hanley shopping development, as a matter of significance to our city, as witnessed through many media outlets, including local radio, tv, newspaper articles, letters and a poll, in addition to an online petition and general word of mouth, this City Council:-

• rejects the name City Sentral for the proposed new shopping development

and,

• In partnership with Realis Estates, endeavours to put in place a more acceptable process to choose a more appropriate name.

He mentioned this is not a political issue and gave a great speech about having pride in our city, respecting people’s views and involving them in the choice of name.

Cllr Andy Platt (1:03:42) said he hadn’t had any letters or emails about this and mentioned other issues such as jobs and housing, although he didn’t say how many letters he had had about those.

Cllr Alan Dutton (1:05:15) congratulated Paul Breeze, saying he had done the most to promote Hanley city centre shopping centre.  Great!

Cllr Terry Crowe (1:07:20) said the debate is a waste of time because residents hadn’t told him they were concerned about the name.  Clearly he doesn’t read the local press.

Cllr Mohammed Pervez (1:08:40) said the £350 million investment is important.  He said “who are we to complain about the name”?  Well Pervez, you are the elected members who are supposed to be representing the people’s views.  

Cllr Adrian Knapper (1:11:07) declared an interest because he has a business, Realis are his landlords.  He floundered over describing where his business is.

Cllr Martin Garner (1:11:48) said the council has no power and Realis can have what name they want.  Weak!

Cllr Paul Shotton (1:12:44) said we shouldn’t question the name.  Again, weak.

Cllr Randy Conteh (1:14:47) spoke in support of Paul Breeze’s motion.  He supports the development but not the name because the majority of residents associations’ attendees he had met were against the name and he is representing residents.  Well said Randy.

Cllr Mark Meredith (1:15:58) said investors saw no problem with the name.  Worryingly he said shopping centres elsewhere had failed.  Why I wonder, could it be anything to do with councillors and developers not engaging properly with reality?

Cllr Tom Reynolds (1:18:43) asked for the vote to be put.

Cllr Debra Gratton (1:18:58) said we shouldn’t be concerned about levels of education and she and her girlfriends are looking forward to the shopping centre.  Enough said.

Cllr Dave Conway (1:19:45) said we should not confuse primary children.  Agreed, what a weird world they have to grow up in.

Paul Breeze (1:22:43) angrily summed up that he was not surprised but deeply disturbed by levels of sarcasm, patronising and arrogance shown.  He said Mark Meredith had been to RAs where all residents didn’t like the name, so he was the biggest hypocrite.  Paul Breeze said he welcomes the investment but this is not about the money, it is about the soul of the city.

The motion was lost at the vote (1:26:07).

City Sentral History

Cllr Mark Meredith is fond of the name chosen by the developer Realis, for the new shopping centre in Hanley.  Clearly he is very pleased to go on jaunts to promote it in Manchester and Cannes and have breakfast in Keele Hall.

Cllr Paul Breeze on the other hand had written an open letter to Duncan Mathieson, managing director of Realis, pleading for it to be changed.  I don’t like his suggested alternative although he does say the people of the city should decide.
 
The debate regarding the name has been going on in the Sentinel since September.  David Elks on 15th September posed the question “Hanley's new £350million shopping centre is going to be called City Sentral. Do you think the brand identity is a good idea, or does it make the city look stupid?” which attracted 60 comments.

My alliterative letter was one of many letters written to the Sentinel by aghast residents. Hearing Mark Meredith try to justify the name on BBC Radio Stoke prompted my letter, in which I promised to buy him a dictionary if he corrected the spelling.

D Hewitt from Newcastle said outsiders would conclude Stoke-on-Trent residents are the least well educated in the country.   Richard Faulkner from Tunstall wrote a poem.  Ann Salih from Norton wanted the talented and proud people of the city to be asked for suggestions for a name. Mervyn Edwards from Wolstanton called the name a “crackpot proposal”. Peter Bennett from Meir Heath discussed illiteracy. Phil Glover from Milton referred to the dubious spelling.  Terry Buttery from Weston Coyney stated: “This can only further the misconception all Stoke-on-Trent people are dim and slow and deserve the bunch of idiots who run this city.”  J M Morrey from Stoke-on-Trent accused the council of being weak.  Lucy Hind from Trentham referred to our councillors’ “woeful academic standards”. Raymond Rhead from Meir Park queried why the council wouldn’t ask the people of the city what name they would like.  Sandra Johnson from Stoke-on-Trent described the proposed name as “absolutely nuts”.  Roy Hedges from Cheadle speculated that it could be a conspiracy to make fools of us.  G George from Talke suggested the name “UpAnley”.  Andy Morris wrote an excellent comment article describing the name as “crass stupidity".  Mrs Jane Moore from Cheswardine near Market Drayton suggested Jubilee as an alternative name.  Jeff Healey from Northwood questioned the logic of Realis approach.

More recently some letters approving of the name have appeared.  Bill Quelch from Tunstall said he likes it and thinks it good marketing.  Brian Walklet from Stafford reported being won over by the name because of the money.  Richard Talbot from Penkhull went even further, calling the name a “stroke of sheer genius”.

However, others have not succumbed.  Andrew Smith from Hanley takes the same view as I do, that the name should just be corrected to City Central.  Patricia Skinner from Etruria is convinced the misspelling sends the wrong message.  She has suggested  plenty of alternatives and has spoken to Duncan Mathieson (who apparently insisted that Stoke-on-Trent has 5 towns not 6).  It is clear these are not people who are inclined to listen to locals.  Dave Everall from Newcastle sums up the situation well, he says: “Of all the ridiculous, misplaced and inept ideas that this city has had to put up with over the years this surely has to go to the top of the list”.
 
Pam James set up a petition against the name attracting 237 signatures.  A Sentinel poll found 95.7% against the name.   


Nevertheless, the Labour council will plough ahead and ignore what people think.  Why do people persist in voting for them?