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 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