Sunday 30 July 2017

Shooting the messenger: or - the art of audit, in the age of Capita

The night the auditors came, left: BDO's Leigh Lloyd-Thomas tells it like it is ...

Mrs Angry had more or less given up going to Audit meetings, since the Tories scrapped the principle of having an opposition member as Chair, and installed one of their own councillors to keep an eye on things. Why did they do this? Why do you think? This is Broken Barnet. If a thing ain't broke, break it, and then rewire it so it does your bidding, and doesn't provide a mechanism for the purposes of transparency, and accountability. 

When Libdem member Lord Palmer was Chair, you could at least expect a modicum of objective oversight, and criticism of council policies and performance which might result in some action - at least, until the beginning of the shotgun wedding with our contractors, Capita, when criticism of their performance was likely to be rebuffed by the administration, if not by the Audit committee.

But this week's Audit meeting, it was clear, was going to be perhaps the most important meeting since those contracts began. 

Mrs Angry turned up for this meeting because she had been alerted by Mr Reasonable, who had spotted that something was very, wrong - and so it was. Very, very wrong. (Read his typically acute report here, which has a more detailed explanation of the financial implications, and significance for all of us).

It was clear that there was a serious problem, because a major part of the agenda was missing from the website, even up to the day before the meeting. This was Item 11 - the report from our external auditors, BDO. When the report was published, at the very last minute, it was evident why there had been a delay. 

The report is a catalogue of disaster. Disastrous, in terms of the presentation and handling of the accounts - yes, the responsibility of Capita. That would be, for anyone who does not understand the extent of institutionalised conflict of interest, in  this administration, accounts produced by Capita, that reflect the financial performance of the council's services, most of which are now run by ... Capita. 

BDO had been unable to complete their annual audit because of the numerous errors in those accounts - and because of issues of concern that had arisen in the course of their inspection. 

A range of issues that were shameful enough, but of which the most significant was the identification of overspending, and that the authority is not on target to make those savings promised to us by our Tory councillors before, against all voices raised in opposition, blindly signing the contracts - without full and proper scrutiny of all the content of the agreements. 

The external auditors also point out in their report that the council had failed to create a satisfactory process for the  scrutiny of performance by their contractors- again, a point which has been made time and time again by those of us who warned them, before and after signing, of the risks to which they were exposing our public services.

On approaching Committee Room 3, Mrs Angry thought for a moment that she had gone to the wrong venue. Something was wrong: the room looked ... different. 

On entering, it was plain to see that yes, it was different: it had been cut in two, and the committee area part of the room reduced to a corner of its former footprint.

Cut in two ... reduced in size ... Do you mean ... 'refurbished', Mrs Angry? 

As in the library 'refurbishments' - applied with the help of sledgehammers, and pneumatic drills - now being implemented by the grace of Tory Cllr Reuben Thompstone, who narrowly lost a vote of no confidence a few days ago, after his latest career best, as seen in the damning OFSTED report into care services for vulnerable children? A report which in itself was enough to prevent the auditors from signing off the accounts?

Of course. Our Town Hall, like our library buildings, is virtually one in name only, now, with nothing more than a nod towards its intended purpose of public service and democracy, and the rest of the building carved up, and pimped out for hire to Middlesex University and now ... and now, readers, wait for this ... as a wedding venue. 

Yes: every woman's dream, married life beginning under the beady eyed scrutiny* of deceased Mayors in moth eaten furs, and their scowling, bespectacled - moustachioed - wives, whose fading portraits adorn the walls of the upper floor.

(*from the days when civic duty meant proper scrutiny, and not an easy life half asleep in meetings, rubber stamping officers' reports and waiting to pick up your allowance).

Sticking together in the cramped public seating area of the newly shrunken room was a small colony of Capita drones, looking, Mrs Angry noted, with some satisfaction, rather glum, and as if they had drawn the short straw in being sent to attend, when it seemed none of the most senior Capita people had dared show up. When they think things are going well, they like to engage in a spot of corporate manspreading, preening themselves in the public seats, or what used to be the public seats, when the public bit in public service had not been removed. No, not removed, Mrs Angry - 'Refurbished'.

Mrs Angry sat down next to veteran council meeting attendee, and one man chorus of disapproval, Mr Shepherd, who said he had been thinking about her ... Mrs Angry's hopes of hiring the Town Hall for her next wedding suddenly seemed more likely, for one shining moment. But then: oh. Thinking of her at the Bishopsgate Institute, when visiting an exhibition of the Morning  Star's photographs of the Brixton riots. 

Oh well. 

Oh, but: he had something to give her. A present, from the exhibition. Hello: what's this - an award, no less: a badge - We Are Angry

We are.

In came the councillors. As the new Chair of Audit, Hendon Tory Hugh Rayner (yes: I know: just fancy that!) took Mr Reasonable aside for a quiet word of explanation (Mr Reasonable had, despite the last minute report that broke the deadline, submitted various pertinent questions ... Mrs Angry waved impertinently across the table at Tory member Peter Zinkin. 

Comrade Councillor Zinkin - greetings! He came over to Mrs Angry and Mr Shepherd. Would you and your fellow traveller like to have a few moments to yourselves, asked Mrs Angry, with her usual tact? He declined the offer.

Mr Shepherd, rather untactfully, then brought up the subject of Cllr Zinkin's cousin and namesake, the hero of British communism, and former editor of the the Morning Star, when it was the Daily Worker. And now look, he complained - you've gone and banned it from our libraries

What libraries, Mr Shepherd? 

Ah. Those former library buildings that are being  'refurbished'? No room for the Morning Star, now, I fear.

The meeting began. The Chair began the proceedings, and introduced himself, claiming the former Chair had gone on to 'greater things'. 

This was a puzzling reference, as Cllr Salinger, the former Chair, has only - at last - become Mayor, after thirty years of waiting, rather than kicked the bucket. A fate worse than death, being Mayor of Barnet, you might think: but of course this is all the Tory members care about, prancing about in the Mayoral bling, and stuffing themselves with cucumber sandwiches at Rotary Club luncheons.

Rayner apologised for the lateness of the report on Item 11, and the resulting inability of members of the public to submit questions, or indeed for all members of the committee to read and properly consider the contents. There would be another meeting, now in view of what had happened, in September. In the meanwhile discussion on the interim findings began.

Rayner cast a sympathetic look at the uncharacteristically subdued Capita drones at the back. 

Don't look so worried, he said. We will be gentle with you.

Will we? 

Why? asked Mrs Angry, and Mr Reasonable.

Well why? 

Mr Reasonable began his supplementary questions to the written answers on the issues sheet. The councillors looked on: they know now that he has a better grasp of what is going on than they do, and they pay attention to what he says, as they should have done, years ago, before they threw us into the grasping embrace of Capita. 

It emerged soon enough that as well as all the damning errors and failings identified in the course of the inspection, the auditors - external auditors - had found that seven councillors had not, as required, returned annual declarations. You might wonder why internal audit, and the Monitoring Officer, had not spotted that before it reached the point of an external audit, of course - and you should wonder. The truth is enormous laxity is given to this matter. And we heard that five members had continued to fail to make the declarations even at this stage.

So: name and shame these members, demanded Mr R.

The Chair refused. It was only - only - five, and he 'preferred' not to name them. Later that night he defended this decision on twitter, stating:

As you might imagine, Cllr Rayner's reference to the stocks led to a range of suggestions from residents keen to provide rotten tomatoes (preferably tinned) or attend a public caning. Others were not amused in the slightest, and expressed their sense of fury at the arrogance of members refusing to comply with the requirement for transparency over their interests. 

None of this appeared to worry Cllr Rayner, the new Chair of Audit, who thought it should all be handed over to the Monitoring Officer to deal with. Well no: surely he should have done so already?

The Monitoring Officer is the same one who refused to find fault when Mrs Angry complained about the Chief Executive falsely claiming no libraries had been found to have traces of legionella. And saw no problem with the 'refurbishment' banners which went up outside libraries (including a polling station) during purdah. Now it seems he has left it to the external auditors to hold councillors to account for the declarations which are presumably within his remit to manage. Or rather, to Monitor. 

And since the meeting, it has emerged that the council's MO - not named so unclear if the present or previous one - failed to inform members, as required, of a finding of maladministration by the Local Government Ombudsman.

But then so many of the issues of concern to BDO were matters which should have been picked up by the council's own procedures - were they functioning with any efficiency. The reason why the report is still only an interim one is that the annual audit inspection has met with numerous failings in process: so many that the usual length of time for inspection was simply not long enough. This is an appalling indictment of the state of incompetence for which the council, as the commissioning body, and its contractors Capita, are equally responsible.

Apart from seeking to minimise the failure by members to make declarations, it must be said, Rayner and his colleagues were evidently horrified by the tone, content and implications of the external auditors' interim report. 

As one of the men from Capita leant back against the newly partitioned wall, and yawned, the Chair apologised to members and the public for the lateness of the report and the consequent lack of time for informed discussion, or questioning of the finding. He stated himself to be shocked by the errors identified by the auditors. No bluster, or excuses: just a quiet and highly uncharacteristic reaction of - well, what? For once, when presented with a crisis, the Tories seemed utterly unsure of what to say, or do, or how to manage the political consequences.

Except for one Tory councillor. Yes: step forward Comrade Councillor Zinkin, now displaying a flair for shameless politicking worthy of the name of his illustrious revolutionary namesake. He worked himself into a fury over not the content of this most damning report, but in regard to those who had produced it, that is to say the external auditors. Everyone in the room now looked on in open mouthed astonishment as he attacked BDO for submitting their findings so late, and failing to spot any of the issues identified at any earlier stage, even the recent OFSTED report.

Why are you shooting the messenger? yelled Mrs Angry. He carried on.

He wanted letters of complaints written. To the Chief Executive. And to whatever body was responsible for appointing auditors. (Curious that he didn't know who that is.)

What about Capita? shouted Mr Reasonable, and Mrs Angry, in chorus.

The auditors looked on across the table, forced to listen to this totally unwarranted barrage of nonsensical accusations - without the chance to defend themselves. Tory members such as Cllr Finn looked embarrassed, and clearly wanted to distance themselves from such remarks - Finn openly disagreed with his colleague, and reminded the meeting that the blame rests with Capita. To be fair, he said, wryly, nothing was going 'exactly smoothly' ... 

It is true to say, of course, that Cllr Finn, as Chair of the committee that is meant to oversee the performance of the council's contractors, must share a heavy portion of the burden, as the report points out that the process of scrutiny is inadequate. 

Hoping that everything will be 'hunky dory', and maintaining as he did at one meeting that the purpose of scrutiny, 'was not to criticise. It was to make a positive contribution'. is simply not good enough.

But Finn cannot be held entirely to blame: every Tory member has played a part in the sanctioning of contractual failure, overlooking the clear warning signs of looming disaster, as in the catastrophic library IT crash, which lost a huge amount of data, and caused chaos - and the dire standard of areas such as the website and switchboard systems. 

And how curious that not only were senior Capita representatives absent, but that no senior Tory councillors were in attendance. No doubt the Tory leader Richard Cornelius is happily ensconced in his French rural retreat, but the deputy leader Dan Thomas is here. Mrs Angry caught him legging it from the Town Hall on her way in, that very evening. Can't think why he didn't stick around, can you?

Deputy leader Dan Thomas, who didn't stay for the meeting

When given the chance to speak, the men from BDO, led by Leigh Lloyd-Thomas, who has always struck Mrs Angry as an absolutely fair, honest and conscientious auditor, pointed out that they had been on site for five weeks and had had to conclude that it was not possible to sign off the accounts or to submit anything other than an interim report as there were simply too many issues to 'close down'. 

As for the terrible OFSTED children's care report, (which Tory councillors appear to want to blame on anyone but themselves, including Reuben Thompstone, the Chair of the CELS committee which should oversee the service), Mr Lloyd-Thomas had to bring to the attention of the Audit committee the fact that no one had informed him about it. 

Since last week's meetings, moreover, it would appear there are other serious errors which for some reason officers may not have informed the auditor about, including the LGO report mentioned earlier - and the recent fine from the Pensions Regulator for failing to submit information required by law. What else is there?

The auditors continued, reporting that there had been 'problems with the presentation of income' in the Capita managed accounts. And that there was not 'a robust IT platform'.

There followed a catalogue of 'errors', involving a million or so here, then another one missing there, and on and on, all which were hard for Mrs Angry to follow, but next to her, Mr Reasonable, as is his wont in committee meetings, shook his head, sighed, muttered, and fought back the angry tears of a management consultant and citizen auditor driven beyond the bounds of Reason itself.

The credit balance, for example, was wrong: by £1.6 million. Exit package payments (generous consolation prizes for senior officers who 'leave by mutual consent') - these are not being discharged when agreed, as they should be. Mrs Angry wondered whose exit package may be next up for agreement, and sincerely hoped the figure would of a size sufficient to soothe their wounded pride, and sense of pique, at being the sacrificial victim for the Tory councillors whose own responsibility is never called into question.

Labour's audit lead member, Geof Cooke, recalled the promises made at the time, or rather before the time, of signing the Capita contracts, and the boasting of their success with previous partnerships elsewhere. Four years into the contract, one year after the (frankly nominal) Year 3 review, and look where we are now. 

A senior officer at the table, unidentified and unaccountable to the public, tried to shift the blame regarding IT inadequacies, by claiming the council was not using Capita's system, and had inherited the old one. Other officers looked askance at this, as well they might. Mr Reasonable pointed out from the public seating that they are indeed now using 'Integra', introduced by Capita, and despite the expense of previously buying in a new SAP system. Senior officer Anisa Darr confirmed this. 

It seems particularly ironic that the failings identified by this audit are linked to a less than satisfactory IT system. 

Readers may recall that, before launching the One Barnet mass outsourcing fiasco, our Tory councillors - and senior officers of the council - stated categorically that no in house option, as an alternative to outsourcing services, could be considered because we needed the capital investment that was promised by a private contractor. 

2013, Barnet Tory leader Richard Cornelius signs away control of council services to Capita

When Capita was awarded the contract, we were promised that one of the benefits of the deal would be an 'upfront' £16 million in investment for IT systems.

It then transpired, after the signing, that not only were we not going to get this generous hand out - we were now expected to GIVE this £16 million TO Capita to spend on the necessary improvements. 

BDO were not our external auditors in this period, unfortunately - the contract then was with Grant Thornton, whose tolerance of Barnet's financial activities - and disasters such as the MetPro affair - was quite remarkable. 

One might speculate now what a different set of auditors might have made of that deal. An arrangement which has not improved the delivery of accounts, but delivered a full blown cock up of the type so often seen, in Broken Barnet. So often seen, but so seldom resulting in any censure. 

Until now.

How many times was this local authority warned of the consequences of such a radical hollowing out of council services, and the delegation of control of those services to the private sector? The theoretical model was bad enough, but the structure and complexity of the two Capita contracts, nodded through by lazy, gullible, irresponsible Tory members, without any real attempt to understand the implications, or listen to those who already understood them: this has resulted in the consequence we all predicted: a disaster, and one that affects every man, woman and child in this borough, at a time of desperate need, and unparalleled hardship.

One of the boxes containing the Capita contracts

And how many times have our dopey Tory councillors defended the Capita contracts, claiming, in the face of all argument to the contrary, that they were returning savings, and represented excellent value for money for tax payers? Despite the clear evidence that Capita is milking the contracts for 'hidden' fees and profits that go far beyond the balance of any of the strictly limited, nominal savings?

The audit report could not have been clearer. Last year the council overspent by £8.3 million. There is a massive budget gap in the years to 2020. The council's reserves are shrinking. The likeliness of any real savings throughout the life of this ten year contract is rapidly diminishing. 

Thursday's meeting was a car crash: but it was a collision that was always going to happen, as soon as the speeding Capita juggernaut could be seen hurtling towards the brick wall of an independent audit. 

The mass delusion of Tory councillors, apparently held, as one resident put it last week, in the grip of Stockholm Syndrome, mutely accepting only the version of truth supplied to them by their own contractors, cannot be sustained. They have f*cked up, good and proper, and at a time when, in terms of electoral risk, they are at their most vulnerable.

The impact of their policies, or their contractors' hijacking of services: the library cuts, the development favouring planning service, the lack of enforcement of planning breaches, parking, all of these things are losing Barnet Tories, in the council chamber, and at Westminster, the support of their own voters, in the run up to next year's local elections and when there could be another general election, at any moment, in three newly marginal constituencies.

For years Barnet's Tories have cut council taxes by token amounts, to try to sweet talk voters into returning them to office. This gesture has cost us untold amounts of desperately needed revenue, and seen the imposition of the most swingeing cuts to vital services. This year, pre-election, such a gesture would be utterly indefensible. 

But what can they do, now, to limit the damage of the inevitable consequence of their folly in promoting the easycouncil road to ruin? 

After the immediate shock has worn off, over the summer holidays, they will try to manage the political impact of this latest, largest cock up. No doubt the PR and communications team will be expanded yet again as they try to spin their way out of trouble, and convince the residents and tax payers that there is nothing wrong. 

But it won't work this time: things have simply gone beyond the point of return, and there is little they can do.

At the end of the discussion of the audit report, Mr Reasonable, Mrs Angry and Mr Mustard wandered down the steps of the Town Hall, and stood talking at the front door, where rain sodden confetti from one of the day's weddings was sticking obstinately to the flagstoned entrance. Mrs Angry suggested that her report of the evening's disclosures would be the shortest ever. Four words:

We told you so

More than four words, in the end: but we did. Tell you so. Over and over again, and you wouldn't listen.

Now all you can do, Tory councillors, is to apologise to the residents and taxpayers of Broken Barnet, come to your senses, and pull the plug on the Capita contracts. 

If you don't, you will be acting wilfully to put your own party interests before those of the people you claim to represent.

The choice is yours.

Tuesday 25 July 2017

It makes us want to shout: Barnet's children, locked out of their own libraries, lobby the Minister for Culture, Media and Sport

Arriving at the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, with letters from Barnet children

One of Mrs Angry's many difficulties, as a result of being dyspraxic, and hopeless at negotiating journeys, and lacking any sense of orientation, is a tendency to get lost very easily, a particularly annoying habit at any time, but one which yesterday meant that she managed, with spectacular stupidity, to walk the length and breadth of Parliament Street (or was it Whitehall?) - both sides - looking in vain for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. 

This led to an unexpected, and in fact rather interesting detour, a tourist trail along the road, all the way to Trafalgar Square and back, past all the dour looking Ministry buildings, the grandeur of the Foreign Office, the solemnity of the Cenotaph, the nervous looking boys serving as Horseguards on sentry duty (seemed much older last time I was there, aged six) ... and even the tattiness of Downing Street, where armed police, brandishing tattoos and hipster beards, protect the be-scaffolded, hanging-basketed seat of government. 

Was Mrs May at home? Who could tell? Does it make any difference, where she is, at any given time?

Was Karen Bradley, Minister for Culture, Media and Sport at home? Or at least, in her office, eventually located right at the beginning of the unnecessary cruise along Whitehall? 

Apparently not. 

Or so we were told, standing with the children of Broken Barnet and their parents, outside the Ministry, which, in fact, was quite hard to spot, with a small sign on a building shared with Customs and Revenue: culture, of course, must go hand in hand with financial matters, in a Conservative government, and clearly is not of the highest priority - an attitude reflected and magnified by the Tory council in Barnet, in the extent of their indifference to any of the impact of the devastation being wrought - by their hands - to our once outstandingly good library service.

We were there to witness the delivery of hundreds of letters to the Minister from the children of Barnet, who bear the worst burden of these cuts in service, barred from their own libraries during the new unstaffed system, facing a huge cull in book stock, and the loss of vital study space, all a matter which had been the subject of a letter sent last December, but which had been totally ignored, until some sort of grudging acknowledgement arrived in reaction to the news of this visit. 

Children stood outside the Ministry building with these letters in a box, holding placards and chanting: 

Don't lock us out! It makes us want to shout!

The streams of passing tourists marvelled at this gathering of militant children. 

British democracy in action, explained Mrs Angry, self appointed tour guide, waving cheerily to the fascinated passengers of an open topped bus. And more interesting than Madame Tussauds, one would imagine.

Security guards peered round the entrance to the Ministry with ill disguised tetchiness. One came down the steps and insisted the children move six inches to the left, for reasons of Health and Safety. And Security. Well, that last pretext didn't really work, being as they didn't fit the profile of the usual sort of threat, but still ...

If there's an evac situation, he warned grimly, ten thousand people will be coming out of this building ... and I wouldn't like to think what would happen to the children. Goodness. Mrs Angry thought that it must be an awfully big building, although, as an estate agent would put it, deceptively so. 

Don't lock us out! It makes us want to shout!

Passers by were all very curious, and asked questions. The older children, including some from local secondary schools like Compton, the Archer school, and Fortismere, patiently explained the issues  - Mrs Angry heard one of the boys tell a woman ... and you know when the unstaffed hours are in place, we aren't allowed in, and anyone who is allowed in isn't allowed to use the toilet ...  The woman shook her head in disbelief.

Where will I study now? Year Eight boys at Barnet schools want an answer

To watch these children take such an active and informed role in lobbying politicians over an issue that affects their lives and their well being was inspiring, in fact. No need for adults to speak for them: their fury - and their articulacy - drove the event and made people stop, look, and listen.

After a while a burly security man came to speak to one of the parents. In private, he insisted. Why in private? He didn't really know why. What did they want? They wanted to speak to the Minister, or someone else, about the library situation in Barnet. Or at least hand in the letters. There is no one available, he claimed. Have you asked? inquired Mrs Angry. Ah. It appeared not. He said he would go and see: but he couldn't promise anything Oh. Ok. 

The children carried on chanting.

We waited. 

The security man emerged and said 'someone' would come down.

'Someone' did come down: a man in sports gear, claiming to be working on 'libraries policy'. Clearly there is relaxed dress code, at DCMS, these days. Or perhaps he was working on the idea being promoted in some libraries where books are no longer in fashion and the buildings must be converted into gyms? 

Clearly very nervous, this man said he could not explain why after six months the Minister had not responded to the very detailed letter sent to her, nor when a reply would come, but they were 'working on it'. Hmm. He listened for a bit, accepted the letters and disappeared inside.

Parent Emily Burnham talks to the man from DCMS

Clearly the people at DCMS are not used to demonstrations outside the building, or being lobbied by anyone, let alone children. 

And equally clear is that it is time for every community dealing with the loss of library services to stand up, speak up, and make the politicians responsible account for what they are doing. 

Do what the children of Barnet did yesterday: take it to the heart of government. 

Don't let them hide behind their desks in Whitehall, letting local authorities take the flak for the policies they are covertly engineering, by allowing the massive assault on library provision go unsanctioned. And don't let your MPs get away with it either: all three Barnet MPs have backed their council colleagues' library cuts. Write and tell them how appalled you are - and don't vote them back at the next election, if you don't like what is happening.

The reason the Minister does not want to respond to the letter sent in December, to accusations that the newly assaulted libraries in Barnet fail the statutory requirements of a comprehensive service, and the requirement to address the needs of children and other protected groups is because that accusation is demonstrably true. 

We are beginning to see the evidence now, as the newly 'refurbished' libraries re-open, even though the managers are still too scared to let them function as intended, unstaffed and unsupervised, with self service and automatic doors. It's too risky. Once the system does run with only a few CCTV cameras in place of staffing or security - it will be only a matter of time before a major incident involving a member of the public.

The impact on our children, and on elderly and disabled residents, on disadvantaged residents, of the newly cut service will be - is already - profound, and deeply damaging. This is both indefensible, and unsustainable.

It's time for the Minister to read those letters, acknowledge the problem, and compel those responsible in Barnet for such a catastrophic policy to think again.

Sunday 23 July 2017

Save Our Libraries: Barnet's children take their protest to Whitehall

Children from Martin's School explained what the library next door meant to them, and put up this display to mark the last day of opening - last day as a real library

They call it 'refurbishment'. 

We call it destruction. 

Yes: libraries again, and if you are sick of it, Tory councillors of Broken Barnet, you ain't seen nothing yet. 

This is going to go on and on, up until the local elections next year and beyond: and as for our quivering Tory MPs, balancing on a knife edge in their newly marginal constituencies, waiting for the next General Election, well: don't say we didn't warn you.

In December, library campaigners wrote to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, to complain about the terrible fate designed for our library service by the Tory council, backed, it must be said, by our local MPs. 

Tory councillors have shut the children's library at Golders Green: here in a corner of what remains of the adult section is the selection of books for younger children

The full letter may be seen here - it was a long, detailed analysis of the impact of a truly devastating programme of cuts, especially on the children of this borough, and other vulnerable groups, supposedly protected in law from the grievous inequality inherent in such a violent assault on what had been a magnificent, beacon award standard of service.

After six months, the Minister, Karen Bradley, had still not replied, and campaigners agreed it was time to take rather more direct action. It was decided that children from Barnet would visit DCMS and hand in some of the four hundred and more postcards that were so lovingly displayed outside the East Finchley branch, on its last day of opening as a real library: beautiful letters of love for their library, from the children of Martin School, next door. 

Here is the press release which announces the action children will take tomorrow.


At Department for Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS)

“Don’t lock us out of our library!”

Children from Barnet are descending on the offices of the Culture Secretary in Central London armed with 440 postcards, demanding a reinstatement of their independent access to libraries.

Primary school children turned a World Book Day project into a call for government action against the loss of their access to Barnet libraries.

Year 6 pupil Zara Lobley, from Martin Primary in N2, wrote to DCMS and local MP Mike Freer in April 2017 asking for a meeting to present these postcards, to no avail. Pupils are now visiting the offices of the Culture Secretary themselves, determined to have their say.

Zara says “My friends and I are very worried about the ongoing changes to our libraries in Barnet which mean that we are going to miss out on so much. Over 440 children have designed postcards addressed to the Culture Secretary so that she can understand what the library means to us”.

Libraries in Barnet, recently shut despite it being exam time, are now reopening with electronic gates requiring pin-code access outside staffed hours. Staffing has been reduced to between 15.5-23.5 hours per week; children under 15 cannot access libraries independently outside of these hours. Even older children will need permission from their school as well as a parent or guardian before they can be issued with a pin code. Toilets will be locked, affecting families with children and making the service far less accessible to vulnerable members of the community. Space, including book stock, computer rooms and study space have been drastically reduced. Once famous children’s libraries at Golders Green and Hendon have been destroyed .

Over the past few years, thousands of Barnet residents have been consulted then ignored about the fate of Barnet libraries. A recent FOI request revealed that local MPs have been complicit in this process. In December 2016 resident-led campaign, ‘Save Barnet Libraries’ submitted a formal complaint to DCMS, pointing to government guidance about children’s independent access to libraries. The Minister has failed to respond. 

Children are calling on the Minister to step in and force Barnet Council to reinstate a proper library service with safe access for all. 

Parents and library campaigners from 'Save Barnet Libraries'

Once we began to publicise this action: well, a miraculous result - a letter arrived, ignoring the reasons for the children's intended visit to Whitehall, and mouthing nonsense about the opening hours. 

Just to remind readers, children under the age of fifteen may not enter Barnet libraries in the new unstaffed hours - even secondary school children needing to study - unless they are accompanied by an adult:

Quite why it took the Minister six months to come up with this feeble letter is unclear, but there is of course virtually no acknowledgement of the extent of concerns raised in the formal complaint.

Again, the completely and deliberately misleading excuse of libraries being closed only for 'refurbishment' is used, when, in the case of East Finchley, and all others, the buildings are in fact being gutted, ransacked, staffing cut, book stock culled, study space removed - and the library function reduced to a fraction of the footprint of the building. 

The reduction in library size within their own buildings was allegedly made in order to free up room to let as rented commercial office space. This is absolute nonsense: a Freedom of Information response not so long ago demonstrated this by revealing there were no rental agreements in place, and even the much vaunted tenancy contract with Middlesex Uni that was supposed to justify the massive loss of size in Hendon Library had proved to be worth no more than the paper it wasn't written on.

In East Finchley, we have the only library in which there was any sign of even a possibility of rented space being used - library managers claimed to be in talks with someone who wanted to use the library for a 'business hub' - which turns out to mean charging people to rent a desk, while local children and young people in what is one of the borough's highest areas of social deprivation lose much needed space to study.

Before it closed for 'refurbishment': local residents make use of access to computers. Now there are plans to charge for the rental of desks in this library

This library had already built a healthy income from letting space in a purpose built meeting room to local groups: not any more. 

Business speaks louder than the word community, even when that community pays its way. Ideology before economic sense or social value every time: this is the Barnet Tory way, facilitated by its private contractors, who of course now manage the library buildings and continue to milk the income opportunities afforded by all those variations the Tory members didn't bother to read, when they signed the contracts.

In case you haven't noticed, the state of our library service is in complete meltdown now: buildings still closed, their re-opening delayed as the terrible damage wrought on the service is installed, blow by blow.

North Finchley Library, safely contained behind bars during the 'refurbishment', which saw the loss of another children's library

Those which have re-opened are libraries in name only, serving time until as is clearly going to be the case, visitor numbers rapidly diminish and they will be shut, and the buildings sold for development as luxury housing, like every other publicly owned asset in this borough.

In the meanwhile, the operation of the so called 'unstaffed' hours is a farce, with senior officers masquerading in 'Here to Help' Barnet library t shirts hovering outside and inside with security guards in attendance, at who knows what cost - all in the pretence of making 'savings'. 

If you recall, achieving those savings, of a couple of million or so, in staffing and so on, is to be accomplished by spending ... £14 million on the evisceration of our libraries. 

Cheaper, you might think, to keep the staff, and well, you know, maybe do a bit of genuine 'refurbishment'. Or even investment, as more some rather more astute authorities are now doing.

What a library means to Wissam: or meant - lots of books about rabbits

Why don't they dare to leave the unstaffed hours to operate as they intend - with residents left to access the buildings on their own, and remaining on their own? 

Because they dare not. 

The anger and confusion of residents confronted by the changes in their newly cut libraries is massive: the difficulties of those with disabilities absolutely apparent - and the fear of 'incidents' as a result of the ludicrous new automatically opening and shutting doors well founded. Automatically opening and shutting - but not always when they are supposed to.

Many problems have already occurred with this new technology, and it would only be a matter of time, once left unsupervised as was always the intention, before someone comes to harm, is trapped in the building, or the victim of assault, or the building itself is at risk due to failures in security. 

The other consequences of the new library service will take more time to become evident: this sort of impact is more widespread, more insidious, more long term, and more shameful: the effect will be on those most dependent on a free and accessible provision of  books, information, study space, computers. 

Those who for whom a library is not just a resource for all of those things, but a much needed community centre, whose value is indefinable, and immeasurable - and irreplaceable. The elderly, those with disabilities, and other members of society dealing with social isolation, or exclusion, for example. 

But not least, and perhaps first of all these are the children of this borough. 

For more than eighty years, this was the children's library at Golders Green. Now closed by Tory councillors.

Even if they are lucky enough to have parents with time to accompany them to one of the newly cut libraries, and even if they can find enough books left over from the massive downsizing in stock, and even if they still feel welcome in a building that has had its children's library ripped out, standing empty, waiting for tenants that will never appear, standing as a metaphor for the gutless, mindless Tory council that has done this terrible thing - the cost in terms of education, literacy, and social mobility for those children from less advantaged families will only become apparent in years to come, when standards in educational achievement fall, and the division in opportunities between those with means and those without becomes even more extreme than it is now.

Tomorrow some of our children will be going to Whitehall, to deliver those postcards that no one wants to read. 

Perhaps those postcards will go into an archive, somewhere, and be rediscovered by future historians, who will try and understand what led to the death of the public library system, in the twenty first century.

Well: like the NHS, our public library system won't die, and will survive - until the fight ends, and the protest dies down. 

In Barnet, at least, that is not going to be for a very long time.

Friday 21 July 2017

Beware of the Leopard: or - tales of planning and enforcement in Broken Barnet - the story of Victoria Park Lodge continues


But the plans were on display…”

“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”

“That’s the display department.”

“With a flashlight.”

“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”

“So had the stairs.”

“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”

“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign outside the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”

Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

No leopards in Victoria Park: just an unlaminated application notice hidden by Barnet Capita planning officers on a lamp post out of sight of the site in question, rather than on the one outside the property.

Updated Tuesday: the curious case of the missing objections ...

After a week of complaints to planning managers - and the Chief Executive, John Hooton - about the mysterious disappearance of online objections to the plans to build flats in the park, a response, of sorts, has emerged from an officer, one who is Planning Manager for Finchley and Golders Green:

I have investigated the issue you raise and note that a relatively small number of the comments are not currently shown on the online comments system on the website, despite the fact they have been received by officers. The issue lies with the online comments system which is managed by a third party provider which manages comments for a number of local authorities nationally. I can assure you that this is absolutely not deliberate. We have raised this with the relevant team as a matter of highest priority, and also sought assurances that this is secure.

The integrity of the consultation process is of great importance and residents need to have confidence that their comments will be taken into account. Please be assured that officers have received the objections, and that these will be considered by the case officer when they assess the proposals.  Officers will make sure that the correct level of public interest is noted within the report. I am happy to confirm with individual residents that we have received their comments if they would like this assurance.

I assure you that the comments will be visible on the website so that the level of public interest displayed is accurate.

I note your points regarding the site notices, however it is not current procedure to laminate site notices.

I hope that this is of some assistance and we will continue to keep you updated on the matter of the online comments.

Well, no: this was not of any substantial assistance. Mrs Angry asked who the 'third party provider was. Answer - IDOX. Ok. Did some research. Ah. Ok.

Mrs Angry's response yesterday:

I am really not sure why you are apparently seeking to play down the significance of the loss of objecting comments. This is a very serious matter.

You claim that the the number of lost comments is 'relatively small'. This is both inaccurate, and unacceptable. 

The first resident who contacted me last week to report that there was something wrong had noted the numbers changing and that there had been a loss by 21% of objections, whereas the number of supporting comments had risen. That is not a 'small' difference, but statistically highly significant.

You claim this is irrelevant because officers have received all objections and will consider them. That is not the point. In the interests of transparency, all objections must be in the public domain. If not, the impression will be given to those residents looking at the website that the proportion of objection is less than is really the case. 

Planning is meant to be run not for the best interests of officers, but as part of a democratic process, and one that is meant to be subject to the rule of the Nolan Principles. 

You are now attempting to put the blame for the loss of objections - and let us acknowledge that it is was objections that were lost en masse, rather than supporting comments - on a third party provider.

This raises several points. 

First of all it would be disingenuous to try to imply the use of a third party provider removes all connection with 'Re' planning officers and therefore absolves them of any responsibility for this failure. Quite clearly officers have access to the system, as confirmed by information from the provider's own website: my emphasis -

Following the entire lifecycle of development people can view Planning Applications which are made to the council, seeing where the application is on a map and viewing the Documents and Plans which provide the detail of the development. They can then comment on the application with the comment being electronically processed by the council.

Even if officers did not have any access, or ability to interact with the provider, which cannot be true, it is their responsibility to monitor the comments publication, especially in view of the history of this case last year, when all supporting comments were mysteriously anonymised - until complaints were made to the Chief Executive. 

If the fault lies with the third party provider, as you claim, then clearly there are serious implications here: a risk that the level of service is inadequate, and that as data processors, the personal data for which you and the provider have responsibility is compromised by a lack of security. Please tell me if this apparent breach has been reported to the ICO. 

How did the loss occur? Why has it taken so long for you to decide the fault was with the third party provider, when presumably you knew this a week ago?

Please explain why you have not replaced the missing comments, when you claim still to have them in other form.

Finally, in regard to your comments about the utterly inadequate unlaminated notices, which are now soaking wet and deteriorating, I would ask why it is that Capita Re routinely laminates Highways notices, and yet the same company refuses to safeguard the critical information relating to important planning applications by using the same method?

You state that  'the integrity of the consultation process is of great importance'. I would disagree: the integrity of the planning process is vital, and should be of the highest priority, and yet as it is run now, there has never been a higher level of dissatisfaction among residents and taxpayers with the way these matters are being handled, and a clear perception that the planning system now compromises and disadvantages the best interests of those residents.

Last night it was confirmed that the missing objections would now be replaced, which poses the question - why was this not done as soon as their disappearance was reported, and only after repeated requests to do so? Mrs Angry is also awaiting a promised response to the other issues raised.

Original post:

Summer in Broken Barnet can only mean one thing. 

Apart, that is, from the haze of filthy air draped over the North Circular,  criss-crossed by the trail of planes carrying our Tory councillors up, up into the clouds, pointed in the distance of their holiday homes in the Dordogne, while down below, back in Broken Barnet, officers of the London Borough of Crapita carry on with business as usual. 

Well: as usual, but even more so, during the holiday season, the 'silly season' when - they think - most residents are away, and all councillors. 

Summer is a very good time, you see, to get on with anything likely to be controversial, with the residents of Broken Barnet.  

Remember the summer of 2012, when senior officers took advantage of the absence of the Tory leader, and announced they had decided on a joint venture, with Capita?

There are other sorts of things that are best dealt with in the holidays. Unpopular development plans, for example. 

Aha. Anything in particular, Mrs Angry? 

Well, yes. But you wouldn't know, of course, unless you already knew, because, like Mrs Angry, someone had found out, and told you. 

Because the council is not exactly falling over backwards in the effort to keep you informed.

Beware of the leopard.

Remember the plans revealed last year, around this time, to knock down the lovely, historic, arts & crafts style park keeper's Lodge in Victoria Park, Finchley? 

Well, guess what? Here we go again. 

Knock it down and build flats. Yes, flats. In a park. 

Residents and campaigners outside the Lodge last year

My local park: just around the corner from home, the place my children played in all year round, when they were small, through which, or past which, we still all walk every day: a lovely Edwardian park  founded by local benefactors such as 'Inky' Stephens, for the enjoyment of the people of Finchley, left to decline by the council in recent times, but still green, and quiet, with lovely trees chosen by Stephens, and well used, and well loved by local residents.

Here is some of the history of Victoria Park, and the background to the story of the development, in a post from last year:

Standing on the far right is what appears to be the ghostly presence of the park keeper who first lived in the Lodge, Thomas Smith

And here is more:

The consultation period for the new plans is already underway. 

You wouldn't have known it had begun, unless another resident or park campaigner told you, because the official notice from the Council was the one shown above, hidden on a far away lamp post - the photo shows the notice after it had been turned round the right way by me. A notice that no one will see, at the furthest possible distance from the Lodge, out of sight of it, in fact. 

A notice in small print on a piece of thin A 4 paper, shoved in the sort of flimsy, transparent, punch holed cover kept by students in ring binders - open to the elements, so that the first time it rains, the notice becomes soaked, and then illegible.

Complaints were made to Tory councillors some while ago at a Residents Forum about this practice. They agreed it was unacceptable, yet planning officers refuse to abandon this unprofessional form of notification, and use laminated notices that are larger and unaffected by rain. Why is that? I have one from Highways right outside my house at the moment: twice the size of A4, and properly laminated, in a prominent and appropriate position. Apparently Capita planning officers are unable to borrow the laminating machine used by their colleagues in Highways, or allowed to purchase one themselves. Hard up for cash, probably.

After complaints about this notice to a senior officer, copied to the Chief Executive, John Hooton, who also dealt with 'problems' in the consultation process last year, suddenly it was agreed that the original notice could have been placed in a better position, and that eight more notices should be put up around the Park, including, as it ought to have been, outside the Lodge itself, where there is a perfectly good lamp post. 

And suddenly as well, they decided it would be a good idea to consult all those hundreds of people who objected last year - and amend the consultation closing dates. 

Good, but why were these measures not implemented as the obvious course of action, rather than in re-action to residents' complaints?

And the notices? Well, of course - still not laminated. Walking by yesterday on the way home, it was clear that after the first fall of rain ... yes, nicely soaked & on the way to illegibility: is that part of a meaningful process of consultation, do you think?

One of the new notices

New official notice outside the Lodge: no expense spared on flimsy cover, but a robust application of string. How long is a piece of Capita Re string, Mrs Angry?  As long as you like, doesn't matter, as no one will be able to read this by Monday.

But there is another 'problem', and one similar to the 'problem' that mysteriously occurred last year, when the Chief Executive had to investigate why planning officers were ignoring complaints that the online comments system had been set up to favour the supposedly 'supporting' comments. Supposedly, as many were rather odd, and, as discovered once the identities were published, from people associated with the developer, his builder, their families etc.

It had been noticed, however that these 'supporting' comments were hidden by anonymity, while any objectors had, as is supposed to be the case, their full names and addresses published. It was found that the web form had apparently been coded so as to automatically anonymise the supporting comments. 

Only after complaining to the Chief Executive was this stopped. But why had it happened? Who had authorised and implemented this? We were not told.

This year something equally odd has happened.

At the beginning of this week, residents who had left comments objecting to the new development plans began reporting that these objections, after being published, had suddenly vanished. Possibly up to a third removed, or deleted -  obviously changing the proportion of objections to supporters. And yes, residents have sent me screenshots of their lost comments, and noted when they were published.

Supporting comments are of course much fewer, and clearly predominantly not from the local area, for some reason. They are largely preposterous, ranging from the absurd to the offensive, with many who live miles away claiming new luxury flats in my park must be allowed in order to address the urgent housing crisis in my area (not theirs, clearly) or claiming that they travel miles from their home to stroll about late night in my local park, and worry about crime, so flats must be built here to mitigate against their fears. Or something like that. 

Worst of all are the remarks, an echo from last year, apparently from a woman using the suffix 'Mr', affecting the same argument due to what she suggests is the 'raping history' of the park. 

Why anyone would think the gravely serious issue of violent sexual assault is a useful pretext for backing a development of flats - and one with views overlooking a children's playground - is beyond comprehension, and deeply distasteful.

But what has happened to the missing objections? 

Yet again, several complaints have been made, to the senior planning officers, and to the Chief Executive. 

Days have gone by: all we are told is that they are 'urgently investigating'. What are they up to? Who removed the objections? Why have they not been replaced? Have other objections not even been published? We do not know.

As time goes by, any lingering confidence that residents can have in this hapless 'consultation' is rapidly diminishing.

The Lodge

Residents are already at a disadvantage, in any major planning development now in Barnet, because of something few of them know about. And that relates to what is in effect a major conflict of interest inherent in the way in which Capita runs the council's planning and enforcement services. 

As fellow blogger Mr Reasonable recently pointed out to Tory councillors, the poor level of enforcement in this borough is likely to be related to the fact that their contractors make no real money on it. The profit is all in planning. An important source of that profit is in the new system that has been introduced allowing Capita 'Re' to charge developers big fat fees for pre-application advice on their proposals. Proposals that will be decided at an early stage by  ... Capita 'Re'. 

This advice is something we, the residents, and taxpayers, are not allowed to know about: it is a matter of commercial interest, between planning officers working for  'Re', and their clients, the developers: all perfectly legitimate, it must be stressed.

Legitimate, but fair? Should a council's planning service not prioritise the best interests of residents, in the course of an entirely open and transparent process? Should there be any inherent conflict? 

Are planning officers under pressure to meet targets of recommended approvals? How much time and consideration is given to the needs of the community within the process of application? We don't know. But clearly a large number of recommendations to reject applications by officers would deter developers from using the fee based advice service.

They will say, oh the same officers who deal with the case don't decide the outcome. Is that so? Please demonstrate that. But as Mr Reasonable also pointed out, management of conflicts of interest is largely about perception, rather than proven risk.

The balance has tipped too far: the planning process as it is now cannot work to the best advantage of ordinary property owners or residents affected by development. And the political impact of this for Tory politicians both on the council and in parliament is rapidly growing. 

Back to the Lodge.

The park keeper's Lodge and garden, Victoria Park
Bad enough in itself, the idea of demolition of this lovely building, but to be replaced by an block of flats? Unthinkable, you would imagine. Unless you are a developer, or work for the Capita run planning service of our Tory council.

This time the proposed structure is less high, and less brash - but still ugly, a mutant style of architecture cobbled together in order to convince us all that it is somehow in keeping with an area of Edwardian housing. The photograph on the plans is rather fuzzy and appears to have been photoshopped from an amalgam of gothic Victorian, rather than Edwardian, buildings, rather unhappily reminiscent of a workhouse, corrective institution, or asylum. 

Perhaps someone doesn't know their architectural history, or language - or care, or understand that any building on this site, in a public park, is simply not acceptable, and would set a dangerous precedent if allowed. 

A mock up from the application for the latest development plans, flats over looking a playground, built in the style of 'Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children' ...

If allowed, moreover, it would be a constant reminder to every former Tory voter passing by, or entering the park, of the demonstrable state of abject failure by their council and their MPs to prevent the development of our parks and open spaces, or to exercise any control over the now rampant overdevelopment of our borough.

The ugliness of the flats proposed last year was one thing: the real objection was the principle of building anything at all in any of our parks - we all know that this is seen as a test case by the council - and Capita - intended to serve as a precedent to sell off other parts of our parks and open spaces, and accumulate capital profits from development potential in the process.

The reaction to this proposal last year was instant: residents were horrified at the thought of the Lodge being demolished, and incensed by the very idea of a part of their park being used for development of any sort. Objections soon rolled in, and after a hard fought campaign by the community, the plans were blocked. Of course it was only a matter of time before the developer, who bought the property for a cash sum, made another attempt to make profit from his ill advised purchase.

An ill advised purchase, as the council's own lawyer had admitted at a Residents Forum last year to local campaigner Mary O'Connor: stating that the buyer may well have landed himself with 'a white elephant'. 

Which was an acknowledgement that, aside from uncertainties over the power of the authority to dispose of the Lodge in the first place, there are quite clearly limitations on the use of that site, which are there to prevent the site from being developed, or separated from its function in regard to the park.

Well: 'caveat emptor', and all that: but did the council in any way lead the purchaser to believe he could develop the site? Because if so, and they had doubts about the grounds for such belief ... he might well have reason to feel disgruntled now.

The application last year, in any case, was met with a tidal wave of objection from local residents, and thankfully, was rejected at the first stage. Now it seems we must go through all of this again.

What we must also go through, it seems, is the deathly and mysterious processes of the privatised planning service now run for Barnet by Capita. 

Many concerns have been raised by residents over the last year about planning and enforcement in this borough. As the Capita 'Re' contract has bedded in, and change has become apparent, those who generally take no notice of council policy, indeed are likely to be (previously, at least) happy Tory voting homeowners are now sitting up and objecting to the failure of the authority to regulate the tide of development,  large and small, that is transforming the streets of this borough, seemingly unrestrained. 

As previously reported, we have seen vast large scale developments built at the expense of lost landmarks, such as the Newspaper Library and hospital in Colindale, but also we are seeing a tendency to smaller properties being knocked down without authorisation - such as the historic former White Bear pub in the Burroughs, opposite the Town Hall - and in another case, a house in Hendon by the same developer as the one who bought the Lodge, unsanctioned by local councillors, who indeed recently happily approved a retrospective planning application for the new building that had already sprung up in its place. 

Despite the indifference of Tory councillors in Hendon, their colleague and current Mayor Brian Salinger has expressed his worries about the low level of enforcement of planning breaches: everything from a house built in a barn in Totteridge, to multiple examples of unauthorised extensions, outbuildings, conversions. 

A recent meeting of residents and Tory members to discuss the Capita contract which oversees these services was attended by a large number of residents, not political activists, but ordinary people enraged by what they see as the councillors' failure to put their interests before that of developers. It was an uncomfortable experience for the Tories, who clearly have not any degree of control over the monster they have created in this so called 'joint venture', and will now pay the political price, in next year's local elections.

Not surprisingly, the developer who bought the Lodge in a cash purchase from the council, wants to see a return for his money. 

He thought - or was led to believe - that he could develop this site, and that it was worth the investment. Who told him that? We don't know. 

The property had stood empty for several years, because the council had evicted the family who had lived there: they had thought the sale of this property would be straightforward, and only later realised the legal limitations that applied to the property, in terms of any attempt to sell it, once the Lodge had been emptied by the authority and put on the 'assets for sale' list.

What we do know, however, is that there is a covenant that protects this side of the park from development, and that the site where the lodge is situated cannot be used for the erection of anything other than a park keeper's lodge, a cricket pavilion, or a bandstand.

Even if this covenant did not apply, and if anyone accepted the principle of building a block of flats within the footprint of a public park, there is absolutely no way in which this location is suitable for development. 

The Lodge site is at the entrance to the park, on a very busy road, and at a junction which is already dangerous: residents know of countless accidents at this spot - personally known to Mrs Angry were one involving a six year old child, and another in which a mother was hit by a car and her baby catapulted out of her buggy. To put a block of flats there, with access for a number of associated cars, would be an act of extreme folly, endangering the lives and safety of many families and children entering the park, or simply walking along this section of Long Lane. It would raise the risk of accidents not just between vehicles travelling along Long Lane, or crossing the already risky junction with Park View Road and Oakfield Road, but exiting the proposed flats.

It is hard to see this developer accepting he has been sold a pup, in the case of the Lodge: he clearly does not understand why local residents object to the loss of this building, a part of our built heritage, and local history; nor probably does he appreciate the strength of feeling about the principle of protecting a park from development. 

What is to be done, then? Well: forget about a block of flats. It's not going to happen. Even if the Lodge were demolished, or fell down, or went up in flames, the covenant means it has to be replaced by ... a cricket pavilion, a bandstand ... or a Park Keeper's Lodge. Nothing else. 

This is a charming period building, with a lovely, private garden, and sympathetically restored, would make a suitable community centre, or an attractive cafe. Residents would also probably be happy to see it used as it was before the sale, as a family home: a period property in a nice garden screening it from the rest of the park, as it was, would turn over a reasonable profit for a developer stuck with what is otherwise a 'white elephant'.

And similar Lodges, in other areas have been sympathetically restored: such as this one, in Roe Green Park, Brent, which is going to be a cafe: you can see the similarities to the property in Victoria Park: this would perhaps be the ideal solution - and one which would generate income for the owner - for our Lodge. It certainly would be a more positive outcome for the reputations of all parties involved, than a continued attempt to knock it down and replace it with flats.

In Labour run Brent, where a very similar park keeper's lodge has been restored, and will be used as a cafe, rather than offered as a development opportunity by Tory councillors ... Pic courtesy Wembley Matters website

In a borough where our libraries are currently undergoing a virtual evisceration, and the service is all but dead, it is of course a natural progression of thought for our Tory council to see our parks and open spaces as the next target in their campaign of destruction. As well as the sale of the Lodge site, it is rumoured developers have their eyes on a plot of land at the main entrance to Victoria Park. It is likely this will be attempted, under the pretence, as was the Lodge sale, of generating revenue for the park, which is in a state of deliberate neglect, and underfunding, in preparation, it is alleged, for such proposals, as well as spurious proof of the need for 'volunteer' maintenance by residents, rather than by the council that we already pay to do the job. In this pursuit, the council has identified small and unrepresentative residents' groups to co-opt in what they hope to present as 'consultation' over their plans. 

Some residents attempting to take part in these groups report that they have waited weeks to have their applications accepted, and then found themselves relegated to a mailing group, rather than invited to take part in any meetings, or decision making. Don't be fooled: the real voice of the residents and users of this park in the objections: those that have survived.

The idea of a public park, like that of a public library, is something that speaks to a uniquely British sense of national identity. It is a cultural symbol, as much as anything: a mark of community, a shared space, endowed in an age of philanthropy for the generations of the future; a legacy that is precious and founded in our common history. 

Let's not let them tear that apart. 

Here is a leaflet produced by residents campaigning against the Lodge demolition and development: please check when making your objection that the amended consultation end date has been verified.