Another Blot on the Landscape: the threat to Victoria Park, and what you can do to fight it ...

Residents fighting the development of the Park Keeper's Lodge, in Victoria Park

Update: the Lodge is the subject of the leading story in Private Eye's Rotten Boroughs, in the new edition, out now, available at all good newsagents. And WH Smith. Do run off and buy a copy. Look: all those new PR people in Barnet's Comms Team (costing us £800,000 over 2 years) are huddled over their desks, weeping ...

The infant Mrs Angry, you may be surprised to hear, was quite often in trouble, as a young child, with her sternly disciplinarian parents, for all sorts of perceived misdemeanours, all the more unwelcome due to the impeccable behaviour of her older brother, who was never naughty, of course, and indeed, whose early life bore more than a passing resemblance to one of the infuriatingly wholesome early lives of the Catholic martyrs and saints, as described in a set of green covered volumes on this subject given to our mother, for some reason, at the time of her marriage. 

Well, in fact the reason may have been that she was marrying a non Catholic, and some of her pious relatives thought her soul was in danger of corruption by Protestant heresy. The books remained in a cupboard, unread by all, except me, on rainy days, when I had read all my library books, and had nothing else to distract me.

But there was one notable lapse in my brother's otherwise unblemished childhood, an indelible memory, you might say (and one which aged 63, he still denies, readers, the big fibber, and yes I will keep repeating this story until you do) when he got hold of Mrs Angry's toy post office, and deliberately smashed the little bottle of Stephen's ink, which she had thought was a thing of great curiosity, and never opened, leaving the tiny cork stopper intact,until the dreadful deed was done, and it was too late.

Ink was important, in my childhood. Ink for the John Bull Printing Press, which I suppose you could say saw the first attempts at Mrs Angry's non digital blogging, perhaps an expose of in house miniature post office break ins - but was too laborious a process to pursue. And then there was the matter of writing, in ink, with a pen.

You were only allowed a fountain pen, once you reached the age of reason, in time for your eleven plus, and, hopefully, for all children of working class parents whose eyes were set on an upward tangent of social aspiration, a smooth transition to grammar school, where the desks, as I recall, still had ceramic pots for inkwells, in honour of dipping pens that we only used for geography, and drawing maps.

Ink is still important, to me, in my middle age, as I still can't write legibly with a biro, or anything else, and I still love the feeling of ink flowing from my broad nibbed pen, shaped and bent as it is now to the mad, angled flow of writing from my dyspraxic hand, the right hand which I was forced to write with, even though, as I discovered rather too late in life, I should have been left handed. 

Stephens' Ink was for fountain pens: a blue-black colour, created by an experimental Victorian 'colour manufacturer', whose guarantee of 'permanence' appealed to the sense of entitlement that our nineteenth century forebears carried, as a natural part of their psyche, a duty and a privilege, a role of colonialism, and empire: making your mark, and asserting your authority, on the ledgers of commerce - and governance.

The 'uncrowned King of Finchley' - Inky Stephens, the son of the colour manufacturer - lived at Avenue House, now rebranded as 'Stephens House' - from 1873, to his death in 1918, at the end of a war which saw the house and grounds he had created turned into a hospital for soldiers wounded in the trenches. In the nineteen twenties his former home was given to the local council, a gift in perpetuity, for the benefit of the people of Finchley.

The people of Finchley still very much enjoy their use of the grounds and house that Stephens left for them. 

Avenue House, now Stephens' House, and the gardens, landscaped with earth excavated as a result of the new railway cuttings, for the GNER railway that employed the first occupant of my house, just along the road, a railway clerk called Nathaniel Corbett, whose dutifully neat census entry, in his own handwriting, may well have been written in that same Stephens ink. 

Famous for its durability, that ink; that permanence - to the extent that it was used not only by Scott, in his ill fated exploration to the South Pole, but in the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, that saw the end of the terrible first World War, that left so many men, so many of my own great uncles, injured, or in need of the rest and recuperation that places like Avenue House were used to provide.

But in an age of paternalistic politics, and philanthropy, Stephens' benevolence saw an earlier act of patronage, one whose motivation, to celebrate the diamond jubilee of Queen Victoria, was really a pretext for the creation of an amenity to benefit the people of Finchley, in fields that he knew as a boy, and a young man, living just a short distance away, across the other side of Ballards Lane.

I thought about Inky Stephens, and his legacy, the other day, wandering about Avenue House, and the grounds he left to us, an estate now run by trustees, and a central part of our community, in this part of Church End, Finchley. 

During the second World War, it became the council's headquarters, and the coat of arms above the doors of some of our soon to be closed libraries is still evident, there, on the side of Inky Stephens' house, still bearing a corporate motto of suitably ambiguous interpretation:

Regnant Quis Serviunt  

Which one might like to think means: They serve, who rule, but might arguably be translated as May they rule, who serve. 

The Tory councillors, senior officers, and private contractors of the London Borough of Broken Barnet, however, not schooled in Latin, or the concept of public service, would seem have chosen to interpret this phrase as We pretend to serve, but are accountable to no one, and are laughing up our sleeves at you, the innocent taxpayers, you great eejits - whilst adding to the range of corporate claptrappery a new motto of gut wrenching hypocrisy: 

'Putting the Community  First' ...

As you may have read in the previous two posts ...

http://wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/we-have-difference-of-opinion-or-park.html

http://wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/dancing-with-park-story-of-lodge.html

... the fate of Stephens' other gift to the people of Finchley, that is to say the creation of Victoria Park, is left in the hands of the heirs to the borough council that once based itself in Avenue House. The councillors of Barnet Council - the Conservative administration - claim to be the trustees of Victoria Park, and acting as such approved the sale of part of it this year, to a private developer, despite the Covenant that Inky Stephens, and Henry Brooks, and all the local worthy figures put in place to protect their legacy for future generations of the people of Finchley clearly stating that the piece of land which has been sold may not have any building erected on it other than accommodation for the Park Keeper, a cricket pavilion, or bandstand.

In other words, the council has sold this land to a developer, despite the fact that - even if they had power in law to sell it, and that is debatable, and being challenged - the land ... may not be developed. 

If I were you, Mr Friedman, I'd ask for my money back. Nothing can undo the terms of that covenant: and just to be clear, just in case something should happen to the building, the land without the Lodge will be even more worthless.

And something could happen to the building, as someone last week slapped a demolition notice on this historic building.* We must repeat: this plot of land cannot be developed, and is worthless without the current building; and if the Lodge were damaged, while the circumstances of the sale are under scrutiny, this would seem likely to result in serious legal - and possibly financial - repercussions. 

*Update: this notice, to which no one know how to object, or if they could object, disappeared today, Monday 15th of August. Mrs Angry has asked the case officer for an explanation. He has replied: 

I do not know why the site notice may have been removed and I do not wish to make any presumption as to how, or who removed it. The legislation relevant to the demolition process states as follows:

"where the site notice is, without any fault or intention of the applicant, removed, obscured or defaced before the period of 21 days referred to in paragraph (b)(iv) has elapsed, the applicant is treated as having complied with the requirements of that paragraph if the applicant has taken reasonable steps for protection of the notice and, if need be, its replacement;"


Very kind of the officer not to make any presumption as to who removed it, isn't it? And all he has to do, as Mrs Angry has suggested, is to ask Mr Friedman, or Mr Gruber, or whoever owns the Lodge and put the notice up, to ... put it up again.

Another issue under debate with the case officer.

The applicants for the current development of the Lodge may have been misled, or simply misunderstood the restrictions on the use of the site. We do not know, as the application, which is online, has been accepted by the Capita planners with the section in which details of the advice given to them in February left mysteriously empty. When the case officer was asked why that was, the response was:

The applicant sought pre-application advice from the local authority earlier this year. That advice was provided. The applicant has stated that that has been received, but has not indicated what that advice was. Clearly it would have been better if that box had been filled in. However, it is not a reason to invalidate the application or the decision. It is not a legal requirement to fill in that box.

Mrs Angry was not satisfied with that reply: why, in the interests of transparency, could the missing information not be supplied now, during the period of consultation? He did not reply until asked again: then responded that he disagreed that this meant the process has been 'less than transparent'. Mrs Angry is not satisfied with this reply, either.

Now here are more curious developments, in regard to this very curious development application.

The proposed development of flats on the site of the historic Park Keeper's Lodge - overlooking a children's playground, which does not appear in this image

Last week a number of residents were asked to go up to the Lodge for a photograph for a local newspaper. While we were being photographed, a young man turned up who claimed he was 'in charge' of the property. Whilst chewing his way through a packet of bread rolls, he regarded us with a fair amount of suspicion, but assumed that we were interested in renting - or even buying - the property.

The Lodge, we learned, could be rented, although some work still needed doing on it. They had only spent a minimal amount on renovating the property.  How very odd: when the sale of the Lodge was approved by councillors, they had been told by officers that it was necessary because it would cost £100,000 to bring the property to a decent standard of accommodation. 

Now then: Mrs Angry has asked for the report which proves this claim, as part of the audit trail - but it has not been supplied. It would seem reasonable to assume that that is, therefore, because it never existed. And if such a high level of cost was necessary to make the property suitable for tenants, why now is the Lodge being advertised to let, when only a fraction of that cost has been spent on it?  

More information was forthcoming from our new friend. Who did he work for? Eddy. Or Adi. That would be Mr Friedman. Oh: any news of Mr Gruber, who bought the property? Nope. Or why had they put the demolition notice up?

Demolition notice? Nothing to do with them, apparently. Goodness me. Then, a little later, when we were allowed into the garden: ah, the demolition notice was for a very small shed, the size of a kindergarten wendy house, that might accommodate one particularly anti social two year old. Hmm. No. No, it's not. And then, after we left, it transpired our friend had admitted the demolition notice (which has now disappeared) was from them, after all. Oh.

We also were told we could buy the Lodge for £1.5 million: a nice little earner from an outlay of £623,000 in cash, and a lick of paint, you might think. Or rent it, maybe as bedsits. Or, when they had knocked down the building they also wanted to let, and built twelve flats, these would be available, but we apparently will have to compete with the marketing of these highly desirable properties to investment buyers from China, who are awfully keen to buy a flat in Victoria Park, you know.

But the planning application, we said, is for only eight flats. Are you sure you are going to have twelve? Apparently so, which is interesting, isn't it, readers?

Victoria Park, 1930s,  Bandstand in the distance

This weekend a number of residents spent time in the park and elsewhere giving out leaflets urging others to object to this most objectionable of planning applications. Mrs Angry would urge you, dear reader, to do the same, by the 23rd of this month. You may do so online - where there are already many sensible objections, from local residents and park users, and - most curiously - a number of very suspicious, anonymous comments in favour of the application, a large number of which arrived, as if by magic, as predicted, yesterday, Sunday.

And here is a very peculiar thing, readers, and one which would appear to have no reasonable explanation. 

Online objections on this application appear to end up as documents, with the names and addresses of objectors clearly shown.

Online supporting comments appear to be automatically anonymised.

This curious phenomenon was tested at the weekend by someone who made an objection, but clicked the box on the webform which asks if you are supporting. Instead of ending up in the document section, this comment was automatically anonymised. How could that happen, do you suppose, and why would there be a difference? Why is it allowable for supporting comments for this application to remain anonymous, but not those who object? 

Is this is another apparent breach in the principle of transparency, in the course of this consultation process?

One example of this sort of comment, from an unknown source, is as follows:

(Supports)
Comment submitted date: Sun 14 Aug 2016
I support the development!!!
I have just graduated from my masters degree and would love to move into one of these beautiful apartments. 
I have been searching for ages for a flat in Barnet and everything is old and worn out. My parents told me about this new development which straight away appealed to me as I visit the park 5 times a week. 
In addition, I have heard of many rape and sexual harassment incidents and I believe that renovating the lodge could eliminate these problems. 

Being AGAINST this development is being FOR rape!

We love the idea, of course, that someone just finishing a master's degree could afford to buy a flat in Finchley. Or a flat anywhere in London ... but in truth, the offensive nature of this particular comment fits horribly the equally inappropriate suggestion in the application itself, in the Design and Access document, funnily enough, that building a block of flats in a public park should be allowed because of some magic power to prevent incidents of rape, claimed here as an argument put by a senior Barnet officer, who, they state:

... also highlighted the serious issues of vandalism and serious crimes including cases of rape affecting Victoria Park, mainly during night time. She was of the opinion that the constant presence of residents in the proposed flats will help reduce this problem. 

In recent years, there has been one incident of rape in the park, and another rape recently in Long Lane. What would reduce the risk to women in this area, and the perception of risk, would be better lighting - something the council has refused to consider only weeks ago - and the return of proper council park keepers to reassure residents and help maintain the park as a safe, pleasant and tidy environment. What will not help is using the issue of rape, and violence against women, in an insensitive and cynical attempt to support a proposal for commercial development within the footprint of a public park.

Parents worrying about the possibility of risk from predatory paedophile activity through their children being observed from the balconies of anonymous residents of this block do not have their concerns addressed by the applicants, of course. And the mitigation for this will be, predictably, look: we will move the playground for you.

Well, no: we don't want our playground moved, for the convenience of profiteering developers. 

We  don't want a block of flats in the park, thank you very much. 

We don't want you to pretend that this is all for the benefit of the park, because - oh, yes, we will move your playground, and it will be a wonderful new playground, and we'll do up the tennis courts, & do the maintenance and improvements you already pay for through your council tax. 

We don't want you to take money from the sale of the Lodge for 'legal fees', and use some of it to build a car park, in our park, to make money for the council from the flats planned for the old police station, across the road.

We don't want you to take money from the sale of the Lodge: we want you to give it back, as you may well have to, if it turns out you had no right to flog it off in the first place.

The response from residents in the park who were told about the development proposals was one of disbelief. Then outrage. If the Lodge is developed, the fury of park users will be uncontainable, and will reverberate in political impact for years to come, in this largely middle class, conservative minded area. Some residents were going to write to their MP. Ha. Good luck with that one: remember he was Leader of the Council, in 2009, when the decision was first made.

Some of the older residents we met in the park while out leafleting were of course particularly upset by the proposals. Many commented that they had seen the park decline, in recent years, almost as if by deliberate policy.

It's Your Park: Keep it Green - (while we sell it off), say Barnet Council

They are right: cutting the maintenance of parks is all part of a strategy, to encourage people to believe the only way of preserving their local open spaces is by 'self funding', commercial exploitation ... and development. Our Tory councillors are ideologically opposed to what they see as the subsidisation of public services, and public amenities. It is a political choice, not as they pretend, driven by austerity, and budget restraint. 

Only weeks ago, for example, they approved a whopping £800,000 splurge on six new PR posts, in order to 'manage' the reputation of the council, just in time for the run up to the next local elections. And handed £500,000 to a nationally funded body, the RAF museum. All while slashing our local public library service, and demanding our parks find new sources of funding, and approving the sale of our Lodge.

Peter (not his real name) - one of the older residents who spoke to me so on Saturday, in the cafe by the Bowling club, which is threatened by the new plans for a car park, had been visiting the park, he said, for seventy seven years. He is in frail health, and his memories seemed particularly poignant, slipping out of the reach of living memory, and at such a sad point in the history of our park.

Perhaps Peter was one of those naughty boys who used to so torment the then park keeper, and former occupant of the Lodge, old 'treacle feet'. He could remember the pond down by the lower Etchingham Park Road entrance, and the boating lake, and thought he knew where there were still stones from the old fountain. Best of all, he knew the identity of the many unusual trees in Victoria Park: the tree from Africa, by the cafe, which smells of chocolate, in summer; the strawberry tree which flowers and bears fruits at the same time; the mulberry trees, and so many others.

It's not really a surprise that the Park should have these exotic examples planted around the park. And it is shocking that no one has done an ecological and botanical survey of what is there, and the impact any development would have on the immediate environment.

Inky Stephens would have chosen the trees for Victoria Park with great care. In the grounds of his home at Avenue House you can still the range of magnificent examples he planted in his own arboretum, specimens from countries all over the world. 

Stephens lived in the age of the great botanical explorers, and an era of gardening innovation, enriched by discoveries from the far corners of every continent. But it was also, of course, the age of Victorian philanthropy, led by men and women like him who wanted to share his good fortune with others, and enrich their lives, in the process. 

He would have been horrified at the assault on his creation, and the betrayal of the principles in which he believed which the current proposals represent. 

As part of his legacy, he left something precious, now under threat in a way which he foresaw, hence the care he took to protect that legacy by legal restrictions, rights for the people of future generations to enjoy Victoria Park,  in a way which he would have thought was binding, in perpetuity, and as permanent as the very words they are written in, in unfading ink, on that Covenant. 

If you walk about your local park, in this borough, you will notice that the local council has tied laminated notices everywhere, informing you, with no sense of irony, as of course a sense of irony is in short supply, in the corporate offices of Broken Barnet, that 'It's your park: keep it green'.

Well, yes: it is your park, and not theirs. 

Time to remind your councillors, then - and their lackeys in Capita planning -  just whose park it is.

Act now, while there is time - before August 23rd, if possible -  to protect it from the hands of developers, and the ruthless ideological tactics of your local council: please object, either online, via email to - planning.enquiry@barnet.gov.uk
or in writing, to:

Assistant Director of Development Management and Building Control, 
London Borough of Barnet,
1255 High Road
Whetstone
London
N20 0EJ

Thank you.

All postcard views of Victoria Park from a private collection.

A fuller conversation: audit, and the new age of transparency in Broken Barnet

Mrs Angry does not engage in any form of sporting activity, except baiting Tory councillors, and also usually avoids watching any form of sporting activity, with a few exceptions. 

Those exceptions are usually sport whose rules are a complete mystery, and thereby reduce the watching of it to a zen like experience, that transcends the need for explanation, or meaning. 

Rugby. Cricket. Golf. Not tennis, because it is too easy, backwards, forwards, in the net, out. Not football, because any woman understands the offside rule, but cannot understand why anyone thought it up to spoil an other wise tolerable game. 

And the same rule applies to council meetings.

Mrs Angry does not have the slightest understanding of the rules of audit, or accountancy. She is practically disnumerate, and has the mathematical ability of a six year old. However: she is an expert auditor because she comes to the game as an absolute innocent, not knowing the rules, and relying entirely on an innate gift for detecting the presence of bullshit.

There is plenty of bullshit in the committee meetings of the London Borough of Broken Barnet - and last night's audit meeting was the perfect example.

Mrs Angry felt an impending sense of doom as she took her place in the public seats. There was no one else, apart from the comforting presence of Mr Shepherd, and his bag of clippings: no other blogger. This was a dreadful thing, because it meant she had to listen to the meeting and pay attention all the way through. 

Public questions: there were three, but one of those was from Mr Reasonable, and he was skiving. Mrs Angry therefore took her seat at the table, with question number one: 

In relation to Agenda item 6 and 7:

I refer the Chair to Appendix A - ISA draft report, Other Communication Requirements, Issue 2, Annual Governance Statement:

We have reviewed the Council's Annual Governance Statement to confirm is complies with the requirements of 'Delivering Good Governance in Local Government: a Framework’ published by CIPFA/SOLACE in June 2007 and the disclosures made are consistent with our knowledge of the Council and its key strategic risks. We have no matters to report in this respect.

Since this draft was compiled, Mr Hughes, as External Auditor, has received complaints about the governance of the Council, in regard to serious allegations made by Councillor Brian Coleman, claiming that scrutiny and other meetings of the Council are 'entirely whipped'. In his response to me, Mr Hughes has rather bafflingly stated the matter does not come under his remit as auditor, and that it is a matter of investigation for 'council management'. I entirely reject this assertion.

Ms Salter, the Monitoring Officer, rather than instigate an investigation has responded that it can only be referred to her as a member complaint, which clearly is completely inappropriate.

I ask the Chair therefore if he agrees that he should refer the matter to the External Auditor as a matter of risk to the proper governance of the Council and to refuse to accept the draft report in regard to the findings on governance until this matter is resolved.

The written response was as follows:

The external auditors have already shared an Audit Commission document with Mrs Angry which sets out her rights as an elector and the limitations of the role of the external auditor. Although external auditors consider governance arrangements as part of our VfM conclusion work, the Audit Commission Code of Audit Practice is clear that these arrangements (and reporting on them) are the audited body’s responsibility. External auditors only review them as part of gaining assurance over use of resources and the external auditors have obtained sufficient assurance for the purpose of their VfM conclusion for 2012/13.

This issue is currently with Council management for investigation, which is the most appropriate route. Should anything significant arise from the investigation then external audit will consider this in the context of their overall responsibilities as part of the 2013/14 audit.

The Council has received a formal complaint from members of the public into the allegations of Member conduct regarding scrutiny committees.  At this stage this is only an allegation. An investigating officer has been appointed and will follow the process as approved by Full Council. This is entirely appropriate.

I can assure Mrs Angry that, far from being ignored, at this stage the matter is being investigated and it would be inappropriate at this stage to make conclusions for inclusion within the annual governance statement. 

Mr Hughes, from Grant Thornton, sat opposite her at the other end of the table, with an interesting look on his face.Time for the supplementary question.

It was hard to see, reflected Mrs Angry, how the auditors can gain assurance of value for money if the decision making procedures of the council have been put in question, but - how can the council be expected to investigate its own failures? How can it investigate itself? You say you will investigate anything 'significant' that might emerge, but nothing significant is likely to emerge unless it is independent, is it?

Mr Hughes did not wish to comment, and it was left to the Chair, Libdem councillor Lord Palmer, to respond. He had received assurances about the terms of the investigation, which would be carried out by officers from Harrow Council. That might sound acceptable, but, as Mrs Angry commented, avoiding the bemused gaze of the lawyer from Harrow sitting at the table, with respect - Harrow provides our legal services, and it will therefore hardly be an independent undertaking.

The Chair said he had been told there would be safeguards, appointment of officers not involved in the issue etc. Mrs Angry was not convinced.

Second question:

In relation to Agenda item 7:

I refer to Appendix A -  ISA 260 draft report, Value For Money,  Key Findings, conflict of Interest Review, NSCSO, and I ask the Chair to put the following question to the external auditor, Mr Hughes:

Why did you ignore the Development and Regulatory Services (DRS) contract when undertaking this review, and take no steps to assess the level of risk regarding this enormous contract since April?

What steps have you taken to ensure that all outstanding declarations of interest are complete and satisfactory in regard to both contracts?

In view of the history of mismanagement of the conflict of interest in regard to the One Barnet procurement process, I ask the Chair not to accept these findings of the draft report if there is not a satisfactory response given to these questions.

When Mrs Angry had submitted a similar question to a previous Audit Meeting, in which a report about this issue, based on an investigation that had, too late to do any harm, been allowed into the NSCSO contract declarations, Mr Hughes, disappointingly, and for the first time, had not attended that meeting, for some reason, so Mrs Angry had been cheated of the opportunity to ask him about it. Second attempt then. Response:

Within the scope of the Code of Audit Practice, as independent statutory auditor it is the external auditor’s decision to determine what to look into. Whilst the external auditors can (and have) considered elector communications in their audit planning, external auditors’ work is not directed by members of the public and they do not have to account to them for what they have and have not covered.

However, for the benefit of the Chair, external audit have confirmed they considered the DRS contract as part of their audit risk assessment. The Council’s controls for managing conflict of interest risks is the same for the NSCSO and DRS contracts. Audit testing on the NSCSO contract confirmed the Council has appropriate controls in place to manage conflict of interest risks. External audit therefore did not consider it necessary to extend the scope of the audit to include testing of DRS contract controls.

The Council has also applied the same controls to the DRS project and contract.  We maintain a log of conflict of interest and declaration of interest forms for all who have been working on the DRS project.  We conducted an internal self-assessment in April 2013, to ensure this log is up to date and have continued to receive and record new declarations of interest forms in instances where new employees work with the DRS contract.  

Supplementary question: Mrs Angry regarded Mr Hughes with her cool blogging eye ... 

After asking you for eighteen months to look into this matter, when it was too late, you investigated the NSCSO contract declarations only, even though DRS was still in progress, and yes, the controls for DRS are the same as for NSCSO. The investigation found that there was a failure in compliance with the controls with NSCSO so all the more reason to investigate DRS, surely?

Mr Hughes refused to comment. 

Mrs Angry suggested the Labour councillors might like to pursue her line of questioning later - and they did.

Next up of note was a question from Labour's Arjun Mittra, who is new to the Audit Committee, and substituting for another councillor, but made a very useful contribution, in contrast to old timers like Tory Andreas Tambourides, who made none at all, and might as well have stayed at home.

Arjun asked about the council's policy on redacting information requested by members of the public, something which our council takes to the most ridiculous extremes, whether in response to Freedom of Information requests, or during the statutory period of the right to inspect the accounts, when bloggers have dared to ask for council documents, and been presented with blacked out pages - and escorted under armed escort to the loo, treated like prisoners on day release from Broadmoor. (Funnily enough, Mrs Angry's personal escort sat very primly beside her at last night's meeting, avoiding eye contact, and depriving Mrs Angry of the chance to ask him, as she always does, if she sees him, to take her to the ladies, during one of the more tedious stretches of the evening).

And here was a curious thing, in response to Arjun's query: the new Section 151 officer, Mr Chris Naylor, who for some reason always grins cheerily at Mrs Angry across the room, unlike his predecessor Mr Andrew 'Black Hole' Travers, who seems to be cast into deep depression at the sight of her face, had something interesting to say on the subject of transparency. No, really. He likes it. He thinks it is a Good Thing.

Mrs Angry sat up. Time stood still. A bell tolled in the distance: the cock crowed, three times - it marked the passing of an era. Broken Barnet has now moved into the twenty first century. We may only be the residents and taxpayers of this borough, but from now on, we may be allowed to know stuff. Stuff that matters. Stay tuned, more on this later. 

And he went on to say - yes, checking my notes, that in his view, the excuse of commercial confidentiality should be challenged, and companies should be persuaded to waive such rights. 

We may not always be successful in this, he said, but we should not always accept their first refusal to agree to it. Well f*ck me, thought Mrs Angry: whatever next? Who runs this borough - oh. Yep. Capita. How did that happen?

Of course, in reality, it has often been the council rather than the company which has chosen to redact information, but still ... Mrs Angry felt a little faintheaded, and was very glad of the storm force gale electric fan blowing air through the stale air of the committee room. 

Councillor Mittra raised the issue of 'commercial sensitivity' and the One Barnet contracts. He had felt restrained about pursuing issues regarding the contracts he had seen which he felt should have been in the public domain.

Naylor said he tried to be on the side of releasing material. When an individual had asked for specific information he had tried to step back from the issue of risk to have 'a fuller conversation'. At this point, the external auditor was looking at him with perhaps a less than supportive expression on his face. The Tory councillors stared across the table, in a state of shock.

Councillor Mittra then raised a point about Mrs Angry's question, and the matter of the allegations about scrutiny meetings being whipped. 

Maryellen Salter, who is now the Monitoring Officer, and has been dealing with the demands from residents for an investigation of the allegations made by former Cabinet member Brian Coleman, said that they could not make any comment.

Councillor Mittra observed he was glad that the matter was at least not commercially sensitive.

Chair Lord Palmer said that he believed the allegations would be investigated properly. 

We learned that the 'investigation' will take about 28 days, or maybe until September, or the twelfth of never, then go to the group leaders panel  for a complete whitewash- (Mrs Angry was moaning softly over her notebook at this point: as expected, this replacement for the old standards system proved this week to be utterly impotent) - and then the result will go to full council. Where, Mrs Angry imagines, members will be whipped into dismissing the whipping allegations. 

Phew, thank God: we are still in Broken Barnet, after all, even in this new era of openness and transparency.

Business as usual, then.

Ah: now the matter of transparency over the DRS contract, and - well, something of an extraordinary statement from Tory councillor Sury Khatri.

He wanted to inform the committee that as a member of the council he was of the opinion that there had not been transparency over the DRS contract he was expected to approve.

The room fell silent. His fellow Tory councillor Hugh Rayner froze in his seat, visibly unnerved.

Councillor Khatri described the 'ridiculous' way in which he and his colleagues had been given the most minimal information, in rushed conditions, material strewn around a table,  and a couple of hours to inspect the relevant material, and pressed into agreeing something they simply had not had time to grasp.

How could that be called transparency? 

He is usually a quiet man, but is clearly very angry about this, and rightly so. He is to be commended for having the courage to speak out - although clearly this would have been more appropriate at an earlier stage. 

Hugh Rayner diverted attention quickly by asking how many ring binders had contained the contract? Ten was the answer. Even he thought this really been 'blinding with science'. Unless you have expertise, how could you not be confused by such material? You expected officers to provide members with the substantive elements. They didn't really get a grasp of NSCSO.

Mrs Angry looked on in amazement. The Tory councillors clearly have failed to understand the enormity of the massive commercial undertaking they were committing us to, and here were two of them, one complaining, so late in the day, of being excluded from a proper exercise in consultation, and here was another saying that such matters were too hard for any councillor to comprehend. Simply incredible.

Lord Palmer observed that transparency was 'not as good as it should be'. 

Labour's Geoff Cooke said that a group of six councillors were given two hours to see the one copy of the NSCSO contract.

Councillor Khatri declared then that there must be more trust of members. 

Mrs Angry tried to understand how it had come to pass that a Conservative member of the council administration was so alienated from the process of decision making, and felt he had no option but to defy the culture of omerta within this group of secretive, unaccountable Tories and make such a statement at an audit meeting. It is the sign of the fatal faultline which is opening up under the feet of Cornelius' supposed leadership, and one which he refuses to see. 

On to the annual accounts now. While Mr Shepherd sat by the electric fan, sighed and began reading 'The Economics of Capitalism, Mr Naylor talked about the successful and continuing actions of the council in making substantial savings. He thanked his staff for their efforts, and stated that we were 'on a journey to become more open and transparent ...'  And then there was nothing in the room but the sound of silence, and the whirring of the electric fan. Mrs Angry underlined the words and read them back, in wonder.

Over to our external auditor. Mr Hughes gave us a brisk and, what is the word, robust, or even one might say, boastful, presentation of his report. He was, he told us, a couple of days from signing off the accounts. This meant, he said, speaking very quickly, as if keen to rush home and get his pen out, we would be the first in the country to do so, quite an achievement.

Yes, thought Mrs Angry. Speed, rather than any other quality, is what the public demands of our external auditors, relying on you as we do to ensure the proper use of our taxes, and the proper governance of our local council.

It became clear that Mr Hughes had little intention of explaining that he had recently received no less than four objections to the accounts, courtesy of blogger Mr Mustard, who had raised very serious issues to do with the parking revenue and NSL contracts. see here for full details: 

http://lbbspending.blogspot.co.uk/

 

To ignore these objections: would that be in compliance with the new culture of transparency?

Mrs Angry decided that it was necessary to help Mr Hughes and nudge him in the right direction. By the power of thought transference, therefore, aided by a certain amount of covert operations, she alerted Councillor Mittra to the small matter of the objections. Oh dear. This caused some inconvenience, as we shall see.

In the meanwhile, Councillor Cooke referred to Mrs Angry's question about the conflict of interest declarations. He noted that Hughes'  investigation  of NSCSO had indeed found a series of rules not enforced, and senior officers not declaring interests - this was 'disappointing' - and the investigation had not been linked to DRS. 

He also objected to a misleading claim about the council providing an increased amount of housing - the former libraries head Bill Murphy, who had left the council and, like a boomerang, immediately returned to hit the London Borough of Broken Barnet as the new head of DRS, was called to the table, but Mrs Angry did not quite understand his explanation.

Ah: Councillor Mittra had a question for Mr Hughes.

Had he received any objections to the accounts? 

Mr Hughes was obliged to admit that he had. 

Oh. Could he say how many, and indicate the areas concerned?

Well, these may or may not qualify as objections ... we need to consider them properly.

Lord Palmer asked if there was a need to look at the 2011/12 accounts? It was thought inappropriate to comment. But hold on: rescue is at hand ... 

Mr Naylor said he was very happy to explain that there were four objections, on the matter of parking, the Judicial Review and the NSL contract. Oh. Mr Hughes looked less happy than Mr Naylor about this, but explained that there was a difference between material objections and issues raised which did not present a problem when signing off the accounts. It was not established yet how the four objections would be defined.

In response to Councillor Khatri, he said that if the objections were not material he could sign the accounts, but not certify that the audit was closed.

Just to continue his theme of openness, and inclusion, Mr Naylor said, to nobody in particular, that such objections were a  'wholly reasonable' process for members of the public to undertake.

Mrs Angry is warming to Mr Naylor. This is an uncomfortable feeling, and will need correction, if Mrs Angry is to remain on course for her crusade against the evil empire of Broken Barnet. 

Of course, Naylor is clearly an intelligent man, and an intelligent man coming to work for the London Borough of Barnet as a senior officer would realise the writing is on the wall, and the walls are tumbling down, and only someone capable of adapting to a new reality, and a new administration will survive intact, and even prosper. 

Perhaps he would make a good CEO for a Labour run council? 

Just a thought. No need to pack up your paperclips quite yet, Andrew. 

On the matter of audit fees: Councillor Mittra naughtily asked if any other tenders for the contract had been considered, other than from Grant Thornton? Mr Hughes smiled a tight smile. The Chair explained that the external auditors were appointed by the Audit Commission. (From a tiny pool of four main companies, which you might reasonably conclude represents a virtual monopoly of public sector audit ...)

Lord Palmer thanked Mr Hughes for his efforts.

Mr Hughes replied, to the amusement of all, that it was 'always a pleasure'. 

Mrs Angry is not entirely sure that he was being sincere.