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 18/10/12

The public gallery was full for this council meeting with people angry at the closure of community halls. Watch the meeting on the webcast.

Cllr Mohammed Pervez (0:14:18) began with an announcement of more cuts to come, another £50 million over 2 years, no surprise there then. He only spoke out about the speed of the cuts though, typical Labour.  

City Independent Cllr Dave Conway (0:25:49) pointed out that the Labour council leaders can't blame government for borrowing £40 million to pay £50 million back in the wasteful move of the civic centre to Hanley and also that the Labour council leaders only kept children's centres to avoid the government claw back and would have closed them otherwise.  Cllr Conway said he expected to see their spin in 'Our City' magazine, he accused them of mismanagement and asked them to resign.  

Conservative Cllr Abi Brown (0:30:15) accused Labour of preventing regeneration in the Potteries Shopping Centre and having empty buildings not for sale whilst selling buildings people want to keep.

Lord Mayor Terry Crowe (0:31:00) announced that the next meeting has been moved from 6^th to 20^th December. I wonder what they are trying play down by having a meeting when many people are distracted by arrangements for Christmas with their families? Or am I being too suspicious?

Petition

There was just one petition, Neil Hawkins asked the council to revisit their plans for community hall closures and accused the council of being negligent. I mentioned in my blog on the 5/7/12 council meeting that Cllr Ruth Rosenau had indicated most or all would likely be closed soon.

The 'usual' procedure followed; City Independent Cllr Randy Conteh (0:38:49) moved a motion to refer the issue to the City Renewal Overview and Scrutiny Committee (the point of this is it would allow the lead petitioner and councillors to discuss things in detail). Conservative Cllr Jack Brereton (0:40:06) seconded it. Then the councillors had a go at each other and inevitably the Labour majority voted the motion down.

Public Questions

There were 7 public questions including one from Angela Maxfield on criteria for schools admission, which is a particular interest of mine. There were 3 supplementary questions.

Mike Barnes, question 3, had asked about information passed to councillors following a report finding the council "failing in its statutory duty to ensure an appropriate level of preparedness" in the case of an emergency such as rioting. Cllr Olwen Hamer had detailed which committees and councillors this had gone to including the cabinet member for transformation. Mike (1:26:49) asked, given that the report stated "the City Council is no longer prepared to be able to continue to deliver all of its critical services in the event of an incident", but Cllr Paul Shotton had dismissed disclosure of the report as administrative, who is misleading the public?  Cllr Hamer (1:27:57) responded that nobody was, improvements have been made and Mike has been sent the report.

Gabrielle Hoban, question 6, had asked what the point is of asking supplementary questions in public when responses are not made in public. Cllr Mohammed Pervez had said if a detailed response is required a written response after the meeting may be better. Gabrielle (1:29:34) asked why she is still waiting for responses to two questions raised in 2011! Good question. I'm no fan of our council leader but his response was correct this time; Cllr Pervez (1:30:11) apologised and said if the questions are forwarded to him he will provide answers. I hope, despite past performance not boding well, that Gabrielle does indeed receive her answers.

Mike Barnes, question 7, had followed up an announcement of £500,000 of tax payer's money to improve swimming facilities at Dimensions, by asking about progress. The answer from Cllr Mark Meredith had been rather noncommital and said whilst a new 25m pool at Dimensions is desirable, available funding is not enough. So, another example of highly spun council announcements with little substance then. Mike (1:30:34) said some buildings had been redacted on a list of buildings to be sold to help fund the transfer of the civic centre to Hanley and asked if Dimensions was one of them. I could see the answer coming; Cllr Meredith (1:31:34) said that as information was redacted he can't answer the question. So much for an open and transparent council then.

Stoke-on-Trent City Council Meeting 20/10/11

I couldn't observe the meeting because I was attending a school governors meeting so I viewed the webcast later.  I refer to times in the webcast in my blog and pick out three items I find of particular interest.

Public Questions

There were no petitions but there were some public questions.  A few who had asked questions attended to ask supplementary questions.   

Sam Richardson had asked whether ward budget spends could be published and Council Leader Mohammed Pervez had said these would appear on the web site.  Sam asked (0:24:53) about the time scale for this and Mohammed Pervez was pleased to report they are online now.  I am certainly pleased by this welcome development by the council.  Ward budget spends can be found with the information on each individual councillor.

Kieran Clarke had asked two questions, the first was what the council would do to address concerns residents may have about contacting councillors on expensive mobile telephone numbers where no landline number is given.  Mohammed Pervez had said he thought mobile numbers give better access.  Kieran asked (0:25:30) whether councillors could give a landline number.  Mohammed Pervez said he cannot comment on individual councillors' arrangements but he prefers a mobile. 

Kieran Clarke had also pointed out problems with 'Our City' magazine, such as poor content, for example not informing the public of full council meetings changing to the evening and poor distribution and had asked what the net cost of publishing it is.  Mohammed Pervez had said the magazine referred to the web site for further details.  This to me is a poor answer because for people who access the web, the magazine is not needed.  He also had said distribution is good and it costs about £25,000 per issue.  Kieran asked (0:27:55) whether the 6 issues a year is justified but Mohammed Pervez said he believes it is the best way to communicate.  Personally I think with all the cuts being made, 'Our City' should be top of the list for the chop as it's just a big pile of spin.  If it really is needed for those who don't access the web, it could be reduced from 32 sides of A4 guff (issue 23) to one folded A3 sheet with councillor details on one side and key factual notices of meetings and telephone numbers on the other.  In Trentham I always get it delivered. 

Mick Williams had asked two questions, the first to Cllr Gwen Hassall referred to her wholly inadequate response to questions at the last full council meeting, which I mentioned in a previous blog and asked if this meant a reluctance for community engagement.  She had said they had a new team working on community engagement and were in ongoing discussions with resident associations.  Well I'm a committee member of a residents' association and such discussions have not reached me.  Mick asked (0:31:58) the same question he had asked at the last full council, where have the resources come from for the new team, especially in light of the fact that funding for the Community Empowerment Network had ceased?  Gwen Hassall yet again spectacularly failed to answer the question!

Mick Williams had also asked Mohammed Pervez if he felt portfolio holders demonstrated quality in their answers to public questions and how shortcomings are dealt with.  Mohammed Pervez had said he chooses cabinet and deals with performance as he sees fit.  Mick referred (0:35:10) to two emails where he had been mentioned by name and he felt he had been disrespected, he thought cabinet qualities ought to include respect and asked whether he should direct his complaint to the Standards Committee or the Labour party.  Paul Hackney, legal officer, said he could get a form from democratic services officer Angela Gardner to submit a complaint to the Standards Committee.  Mohammed Pervez said he can also be approached about any complaint involving a Labour councillor.  I hope Mick does both.

Parliamentary Boundaries

Cllr Martin Garner (0:56:15) proposed a motion (minutes pages 20-22), seconded by Cllr Gwen Hassall (0:58:00) opposing the BCE initial proposals; objecting to the reduction in local representation, the lack of time for public hearings and the Stoke-on-Trent boundaries, the division of Burslem in particular.  The motion called for council to authorise cabinet to submit a response and alternative to the BCE.

The debate was largely party political with no constructive suggestions, so I might as well get party political, not that I like any of the political parties.  Martin had a go at the Tory government and the BCE.  It's a bit rich him talking about reducing local representation when it was his Labour lot with support from the Tories and Libdems who reduced our democracy by scrapping our local votes 3 years out of 4 and allowing us only 1 year out of 4, contrary even to a legitimate council vote!  He wasn't a councillor then but it was his party.  I blame Labour for our lack of local democracy.  I blame local Labour for letting the governance commission in to dictate to our city. I blame the previous Labour government for dictating to us and imposing the governance commission then the transition board. I blame Labour's previous mayor and current Cllr Mark Meredith for having his strop and getting his Labour government to force whole council elections on us using that most dictatorial Local Government Act 2000.  I blame Labour for cutting short the 4 year mandate of 20 of our councillors, Labour and otherwise, denying those councillors and the public who elected them decent democratic rights.  Martin may moan about the reduction in MPs, I agree I don't want them reduced, but where is Labour's consistency?  They were instrumental in reducing our councillors from 60 to 44.  It was them who got the LGBCE review started that resulted in the haphazard mess of council wards we now have.  Then our Labour MPs wouldn't pray against the result in parliament.  I was one of the Democracy4Stoke contingent who went to see Rob Flello MP to ask him to do this, but he wouldn't, despite previously saying he thought Stoke-on-Trent needs 80 councillors.  So Labour don't like the Tory Act of Parliament and BCE initial proposals now and I agree I don't either, but the difference is they are hypocrites.  So, party political rant largely over and back to the council meeting and my views on it...

Cllr Abi Brown (0:58:17) opposed the motion but didn't seem to put forward any view of her own on the boundaries.  Cllr Jack Brereton (0:59:56) asked what the council really wants but did not say what he wanted.  He put forward a crazy view that a split Burslem is good because it would have two MPs.  If he had added fairness to that it would lead to every community being split, going against the local links that any boundary review ought to consider.  Cllr Randy Conteh (1:01:53) said he wasn't going to have spoken on this.  He might as well not have done as he just said he would abstain.  Cllr Joy Garner (1:02:17) presented a good argument for the need for a united Burslem not split by a constituency boundary.  Cllr Debra Gratton (1:03:46) told us she lives in Burslem (something she is unwilling to admit on her council web entry).  She moaned about the previous LGBCE boundary review and moaned that money is wasted on a boundary change nobody voted for, but the LGBCE review she complained about was triggered undemocratically by her Labour government who imposed a whole council election system which was not voted for and an unelected transition board, all on her watch!  Cllr Andy Platt (1:04:40) has not got a clue; he accused the BCE of political gerrymandering when it is not in their remit to consider party politics and blamed them for using the old ward boundaries which the act requires them to do, so he ought to blame parliament for letting that through.  Cllr Neil Day (1:07:16) said the government has ignored common sense but he doesn't spell out whether he will be asking his MP to vote against whatever the final BCE proposal is on principle.  Cllr Tom Reynolds (1:09:01) blamed the electoral commission for using the old ward boundaries, but again this is an issue with the act of parliament.  He also moaned about the reduction in MPs and the reduction in democracy.  Agreed, but this is what his own Labour lot did to our councillors, they wreaked absolute havoc with our local democracy, on his watch!  Cllr Ann James (1:11:01) unsurprisingly (to me anyway) spoke by far the most sense of all the councillors.  She said she was concerned about authorising cabinet to prepare a response from the council and thought individual responses would do more good.  She also mentioned the failed fight against the Labour government to try to stop the reduction in councillors.

The motion was carried:

For the motion:- Lord Mayor; Councillors Ali, Aumir, Banks, Bridges, Clarke, Crowe, Day,
Dutton, Fry, J. Garner, M. Garner, Gratton, Hamer, Hassall, Hill, Hussain, Kallar, Khan,
Knapper, Meredith, Pender, Pervez, Pitt, Platt, Reynolds, Shotton, Rosenau, Walker,
Wanger, Watson, Wazir, Wedgwood, Wheeldon and Wilcox.
Against the motion:- Councillors Brereton, Brown, Conway, Hayward, James and Ward.
Abstained:- Councillors Breeze and Conteh.

If I'd been a councillor I would have voted against the motion on the basis that any council response ought to be a full council response and not delegated to the cabinet and individual responses are preferable to trusting the cabinet with it.

The Dimensions Cover Up

Legal officer Paul Hackney (1:17:33) spoke at the start.  He said that because confidentiality (cover up) had been promised in the settlement between the council and Waterworld - Mo Chaudry, he advised the questions asked in the motion should not be answered (further cover up).  This of course denies us, the public, information on the way the council operates and deals proposed using our tax payers money.  What a disgrace!  A motion (minutes page 23)  was proposed by Cllr Lee Wanger (1:22:11) and seconded by Cllr Dave Conway (1:27:00) who wanted to know:

• Whether there was any agreement, in writing or verbally between the council and any
third party to supply facilities for Dimensions users if it were closed?
• Whether any offer of financial imbursement or enhancement, in writing or verbally
was offered to any third party to cover any loss to that amenity?

Where was Dave Conway when we needed him?  It would have been better for him to put the case.  The motion was defeated.  Typical Labour 'openness'.