Stormy weather: an eventful week, and more trouble ahead for Barnet Council after last night's vote to approve the hugely controversial development plans for a monstrous housing development by Barratt Homes alongside the Welsh Harp reservoir.
The Welsh Harp is a a broad expanse of water originally created in the 1830s as 'Brent Reservoir', not for the conservation of drinking water or other domestic use, but as a feeder for the Grand Junction Canal.
Local historian Philip Grant has written about the background to this well loved location, and you can read more about it here:
A visit to the Welsh Harp became a popular outing for Victorian Londoners, especially once a pub and pleasure gardens were added to its attractions by a Mr William Warner, whose enterprise inspired a music hall song, sung by Miss Annie Adams:
Warner's Welsh Harp! - Have you ever been there?
Pic-nics, such tricks, are everyday seen there ...
You couldn't find its equal, if you walked for miles about,
There's no mistake about it-it's the Jolliest Place About
See here for the twenty first century developers' vision of loveliness that our Tory councillors have just approved, albeit only by a vote of five to four members, ie all Tories sticking together, unwhipped, of course:
The development is controversial not just for the evident ugliness and inappropriate design of the proposed housing - including 29 storeyed high rise flats - but due to the sensitive location, a site of 'special scientific interest', and one which is of incalculable importance to the ecological well being of the surrounding heavily populated and congested area.
This proposed development - already being marketed - is on the border with Brent, whose opposition to the plans is clearly expressed here. Note the comments listing the likely impact on wildlife: the intrusion of infrastructure into the water area in the form of bridges, the loss of green space between the buildings and the water's edge - the developers admit no part of the new buildings will be less than 20 metres from the SSI area - the felling of trees and the effects of of heightened levels of lighting.
There are of course also real difficulties in terms of the density of the proposed development, and the demands of providing access to the site, which will have a hugely detrimental impact on the area.
According to this report here
, at last night's meeting Labour AM Andrew Dismore attacked the development and described the luxury tower blocks as intended for 'Russian oligarchs', rather than local people.
Tory Cabinet member Tom Davey, who has responsibility for housing in Barnet, supported the application, of course and, Mrs Angry's spies tell her, retorted that he would welcome Russian oligarchs with 'open arms'.
Mrs Angry salutes your remarkable political judgement, yet again, Councillor Davey, and is not in the slightest bit surprised.
Dismore and Brent councillors objected very strongly to the 'hard sell' of the report submitted by planning officers in favour of the proposal.
Undoubtedly the estate currently on site is ripe for regeneration, if not complete redevelopment, but what is desperately required in this borough is decent, affordable housing for ordinary families. We cannot hope that this council will encourage the building of social housing on any meaningful scale, despite the overwhelming need for such accommodation, but only 25% of the housing provided by these plans is definable as 'affordable' - and that definition is itself exclusive of most ordinary residents living on modest incomes.
Time and again we see this Conservative administration supporting the best interests of developers and private enterprise rather than the best outcome for residents, from the privatisation of One Barnet to the exercise of its planning policies,this is absolutely clear, but should our councillors be facilitating the profiteering of property developments, rather than developing a coherent housing policy?
There is currently a major development proposed for the Gateway House site in Finchley Central, for example: this is an empty building bought by the Pears Family Trust for a mere £5.25 million and is planned to accommodate around 74 residential properties, a deal which will give a whopping profit to the developers. A spokesman confirmed to Mrs Angry that there will be no 'affordable' housing. The developers have offered to host a new library, that we do not need, in the new building, and one imagines that this alone will help to persuade the council to agree the proposal.It should not be: surely there should be a requirement to include properties that will address the need for lower rental housing in this borough?
And of course in the meanwhile, the three council houses that Barnet has built this year: yes three, will go a long way to answer the pressing need for social housing. These three houses, if you are wondering, will be in Coppetts Ward, currently a marginal ward represented by two Labour members and one Tory councillor.
The council is also currently consulting (yes, really) residents for their views on a new housing allocation system - see here
. Do take part, and tell them what you think about it.
Already the ruthless new rules on allocation have given priority to applicants who can, in the view of their morally judgemental Tory council, prove a positive contribution to the community.
This reversion to Victorian values, and the rewarding of the deserving poor, is discriminatory, and repellant: punishing the children of those parents who are too busy earning enough money to pay the rent to start up a local charity is a simply mind boggling piece of social engineering - but that is not radical enough for our Conservative councillors.
Not only are they planning to reduce offers to one only, in order to deal with the catastrophic impact of the bedroom tax, and other benefit 'reforms', our Tory masters are now proposing to export the poor to cheaper areas, outside the borough.
Those who remain in the borough and struggle with financial hardship as a result will be advised to take comfort from the Lord, in the shape of counselling provided by 'Christians Against Poverty' (apparently some are For, but they tend to keep it under their hat), invited by our very own Barnet Homes, who are clearly born again Big Society people.
Oh dear: now let's look at the wider picture, shall we?
The encouragement of luxury developments such as that proposed by the Welsh Harp in West Hendon, a Labour ward, which will be occupied not by the poor, deserving, or undeserving, but a large number of affluent home owners, and will significantly change the demographics and voting patterns of that area.
Add to that a restriction on the ability of ordinary and often disadvantaged residents dependent on low rate or subsidised housing to find any decent accommodation anywhere in the borough.
And now we have the offer of housing outside the borough to those who cannot afford anything in this one.
You might think that this could reasonably be considered to be effectively a policy of social cleansing, or even gerrymandering, if only by default: exporting the poor, exporting those most likely to vote Labour?
In Broken Barnet?
Perish the thought, Mrs Angry.
Another victory for the residents of Broken Barnet: judgement handed down this morning in the CPZ parking Judicial Review, finding in favour of the claimant, and thereby ruling the outrageous policy of enormous hikes in charges introduced by former Tory Cabinet member Brian Coleman to be unlawful.
You can find the full judgement here, and the background to the action here:
http://barnetcpz.blogspot.co.uk/.
This verdict is a magnificent achievement for resident and campaigner David Attfield and all his supporters, and residents will be extremely grateful to him for all extensive efforts made to bring this case to the High Court - and win. So many residents have been struggling to cope with the permit rise from £40 to £100, and most of all the 400% rise in charges in vouchers, leaving many elderly, vulnerable and disadvantaged people isolated, and unable to afford the cost of parking in these areas.
Yet again it has been demonstrated that the Tory administration of Barnet Council has allowed political ideology, and a deep rooted contempt for the opinion and well being of residents and taxpayers to overule the limitations of their statutory powers, and seek to impose unjust and unlawful policies on the community whose best interests they are supposed to protect.
Reading through the judgement, it is clear that the exploitation of parking revenue was deliberately chosen and ruthlessly pursued by Councillor Coleman, in contradiction of his own earlier opposition to increased charges. He will no doubt excuse this on the grounds of political pragmatism. Others may take a different view.
We currently await the outcome of the One Barnet Judicial Review, in which residents have challenged the awarding of contracts to Capita, and the mass privatisation of our council services, another policy decision of uncalculable significance for the residents of this borough, and one which was foisted on us unlawfully, in breach of the statutory duty to consult.
Questions must be asked about the legal advice given to the authority in the preparation for both these discredited policies, and the way in which they were imposed.
We have a right to know that the council is acting properly in seeking the right legal advice, and then acting in accordance with the proper opinion, rather than, for example, putting political expediency or budgetary pressures before the right course of action.
The risks associated with the adoption of such reckless policies have exposed the authority not only to legal challenge, but to the expense incurred in addressing such challenge.
In the Barnet Press, Tory leader Richard Cornelius, predictably, refuses to accept the judgement, saying he believes the the council's use of this revenue was 'entirely within the scope of the special parking account
under the Road Traffic Act. With that in mind I don’t think we have any
alternative but to look to appeal this decision'.
Cornelius and the Chief Executive bemoan the inconvenience and expense caused by legal challenge to their policy decisions, and seek to imply that residents are to blame for daring to bring such challenges to judicial review.
It is time that this administration learns a very important lesson, and one which is glaringly obvious: if you choose to impose a policy that is unlawful, or in the face of overwhelming opposition from residents, you can no longer expect to get away with it.
We will challenge you, and oppose you, and hold you to account, and if we win that is because you broke the law, and you must bear the consequences.
You may think you can ignore the will of your own electors, but you cannot ignore the laws which are meant to protect us from your incompetence, and the irrationality of your political agenda.
Another battle won, and another victory for justice: the war continues.
Updated:
Mrs Angry has just seen the report in the local Times in which Tory leader Cornelius is quoted thus:
“... it is fairly clear that the council raised the price of
parking permits, after five years of a price freeze, too abruptly and
rather charmlessly. I will make sure that doesn’t happen again.”
Rather charmlessly.
Laugh, or cry?
This man is completely incapable of understanding why his administration keeps falling falling foul of the law: in his view of the world, the most outrageous policy is still acceptable if it is eased into place with a dollop of charm. Highway robbery with good manners, rather than a cosh over the head: that's so much more acceptable, isn't it?
And here are some unsettling thoughts, which Richard will probably not want to consider: what now for the rest of Coleman's discredited parking policy - the upping of charges in our high streets, and the hugely unpopular pay by phone system foisted upon us? All introduced as part of the policy of using revenue to subsidise other parts of the budget: this now must surely be reviewed?
A statement by the Barnet Bloggers:
At Barnet Council’s full council meeting on 16 July, Councillor Brian Coleman alleged that Barnet’s Conservative members are ‘entirely whipped’ when attending scrutiny and other Council meetings, including those dealing with the highly controversial One Barnet privatisation programme.
According to the Council’s constitution, any whipping arrangements must be declared, but we believe that no such declarations have been made at any of the relevant recent meetings. Such actions would be in breach of the constitution and therefore unlawful.
If Councillor Coleman’s allegations are true, this clearly has very serious implications and casts into doubt the legality of many of the highly significant decisions which have been taken by the current administration, most importantly the decision to grant two massive contracts to Capita and Capita Symonds in the outsourcing of a large number of our local council services.
We therefore call on the Leader of Barnet Council, Councillor Richard Cornelius, to instigate an immediate and independent public inquiry into the claims made by his former colleague, and we also ask that the authority’s external auditors at Grant Thornton should as a matter of public interest hold an urgent inquiry into the allegations. Residents need to know whether decisions have been made legally and whether Tory councillors have acted constitutionally.
Signed:
Derek Dishman
John Dix
Vicki Morris
Theresa Musgrove
Roger Tichborne
As the footage above shows, Brian Coleman made these allegations at Tuesday's full council meeting, to the evident discomfiture of his former Tory colleagues. His statement was of course intended to cause maximum embarrassment to the party which has now disassociated itself from him, after his recent criminal conviction for assault by beating in the street of a female resident, and clearly Coleman relishes the attention he receives by such sensationalist outbursts, whether calculated or not.
Whatever the motivations of the former Tory councillor, these claims, coming as they do from a former Cabinet member and member of the decision making executive of the council, must be addressed, examined and investigated.
If they are true, this will have immensely important legal and political consequences, as such breaches of the constitution would be likely to have been unlawful, and therefore cast doubt on the integrity of the One Barnet process.
If they are not true, then Councillor Coleman should be held to account for his allegations, in whatever way may be appropriate. Clearly it is now up to him to substantiate his claims with evidence, or withdraw them.
Several residents, including Mrs Angry, have already written to the Leader of the Council, the Monitoring Officer, and the external auditor, Mr Paul Hughes, of Grant Thornton, asking for an investigation into the matter. It would appear that there is a marked lack of enthusiasm for such an undertaking.
The Leader has not responded to Mrs Angry yet, but Maryellen Salter, the new Monitoring Officer, has tried to insist that such complaints would be dealt with through the utterly impotent, and in this case totally inappropriate, member conduct complaint, which has replaced the old standards committee system. Mrs Angry has pointed out that this is inadequate and that the matter requires a full - and independent - inquiry.
Paul Hughes has replied that the matter does not fall under his remit as external auditor, and Mrs Angry has queried this, and asked him again to instigate an inquiry into what is clearly a matter of public interest, an allegation regarding a possible failure in processes that are meant to ensure the financial probity of our local authority.
Perhaps this is a situation which requires the extension of some facility for whistleblowers to provide the information which may be of vital importance to any investigation. Mrs Angry would suggest that councillors of all parties press for this sort of protection is given to any elected member or council officer who might feel it necessary to contribute to any inquiry that may take place.
Updated:
As noted, Barnet's external auditor last night took the view that this matter is no concern of his, stating Unfortunately, this issue falls outside of my remit as external auditor...
Unfortunately, under Mrs Angry's remit as a citizen journalist, she is unable to agree with Mr Hughes' view of the modest definition and restrictions of his role, and has challenged his response as follows:
Dear Mr Hughes,
I really must ask you once more to reconsider your position on this
matter. It really does seem extraordinary that you do not feel that
there is reason to be concerned about these allegations, made by a
former senior Cabinet member of the current administration
of Barnet Council, and which if true would mean that there has been a
widespread breach of the Constitution and potentially rendered many of
the decisions taken unlawful.
As our external auditor your remit includes the responsibility of
ensuring the council has sound and effective arrangements for good
governance, and clearly this must include a scrutiny process that is
both competent and compliant with the Constitution of the
authority.
I refer you to Appendix A in your report to Audit Committe,
24th July 2013, in which you state you confirm the the council's Annual
Governance Statement complies with the requirements of 'Delivering good
governance in Local Government', the framework
published by CIPFA/SOLACE.
The council's own Assurance commentary refers to 'making transparent
decisions which are subject to scrutiny and risk management' and
defines the purpose of scrutiny as to 'challenge policy development and
performance and to be a 'critical friend' to the Executive'.
I fail to see how you can continue to support this statement in the
light of the recent allegations.
I also do not accept that you can, yet again, refuse to investigate an
issue which is evidently a matter of very serious public interest and
most certainly obliges you in your role as external auditor to address,
on behalf of the best interests of the residents
and taxpayers of this borough.
Yours sincerely,
Mrs Angry
