Wednesday, 1 August 2012

Call up Thanet District Council for a call in.



In my dealings with the council there is often a sense of Alice in Wonderland, and my latest dealings with them are no exception.

This particular rabbit hole related to scrutiny and cabinet decisions, I wasn’t happy about some aspects of the last Thursdays cabinet decision relating to The Royal Sands development on The Pleasurama site in Ramsgate, so I thought I would ask for the decision to be called in.

My understanding here is that the council have an overview and scrutiny panel, this is made up of councillors who are not cabinet members and one of their functions is to call in cabinet decisions for review. Now obviously the councillors are representatives of us the Thanet ward constituents, also there is a good chance that none of your ward councillors is a member of this panel. It further follows that there must be some way that us the electors and council taxpayers must have some way of initiating this call in process. Anyway after trying and failing on the councils website, to find a form, I had a look at the new localism act and this seems to say that yes councils should set up some way so that it is possible to initiate a call in. further googling showed that a lot of councils have some sort of process whereby the electorate can use this panel of councillors that are supposed to represent them.

Thanet District Council don’t seem to have any system on their website for initiating a call in, so in the end I started emailing the individual members of the panel using the contact details on the council’s website. If you have any doubts about how difficult this sort of thing is, go onto the council’s website http://www.thanet.gov.uk and try and find who is on this panel from the homepage.

Anyway I started to email the individual councillors thus:

“Hi ***, there are a couple of aspects relating to the Royal Sands decision that I am not entirely happy about, so I am approaching you as a member of scrutiny in the hope of getting the decision called in.

As the last date for call in is the 3rd August and I have never requested the call in of a decision, so don’t know what the procedure is or even if it is possible, so I need your help.

Primarily I am concerned that since the planning application for the Royal Sands was approved the site has been designated by the Environment Agency as “high flood risk” this designation relates storm flooding and damage during a combination of high tide and storm.

My understanding is that during the closed cabinet meeting some cabinet and shadow cabinet members attempted to get a flood risk assessment included in the re negotiation of the development agreement. I am not sure, but I don’t think they were successful, difficult to properly assess when this sort of decision is made in a closed meeting.

I don’t think the issue of the safety of the residents of a new Thanet development should be something discussed in closed session, the problem has been outlined by The Environment Agency, this link takes you to their letter about it http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/ea/id2.htm

The other aspect although of much less importance that the safety of local residents may also be of interest, and this is that the process of disposing of the site from the 199 year leases issued in 2006 to the sale of the freehold now don’t seem to have been subject to the normal asset disposal process.


Best regards Michael”

Well I got to Jodie Hibbert and found there were no contact details for her and gave up.

The next day I though as this is an important issue I would contact the officer in charge of the panel, only to be told he was on leave until after the call in deadline.

 So the I decided I would email the chief executive, here is the email

“Subject; The system the council has for triggering a call in

Good afternoon Sue, me again I’m afraid, this time it’s the cabinet decision to go ahead with The Royal Sands without a flood risk assessment.

As you are probably aware the Environment Agency wrote to the council strongly recommending a flood risk assessment in Feb 2008 and in the period during which the new development agreement has been negotiated I have tried to persuade officers and cabinet members to insist that this basic safety precaution in part of the new agreement.

I think the key issues here are that when the planning application was approved the building was to have been founded on driven piles into the bedrock, the subsequent cliff survey said that this wouldn’t be safe because of the vibration, so the developer agreed to use bored piles into the bedrock, this was subsequently changed in 2010 to shallow foundations on sand that is behind an 1860 sea defence, without any maintenance or survey record.

In layman’s terms, the development is next to the sea, founded on sand and isn’t screwed down.

Anyway information is slowly leaking my way about the secret part of last weeks cabinet meeting, to the effect that councillors asked for a flood risk assessment and officers told them that they couldn’t have one.

As the site is an EA designated high risk flood zone, meaning that any new development constructed on it without a flood risk assessment will be to a greater or lesser degree be blighted and in view of the cabinet and shadow cabinet members request, I considered this sufficient grounds for a call in.

I then tried to grapple with the council’s call in procedure, I tried emailing members of scrutiny sent the following to;

Councillor Ian Driver  (Chairman)
and
Councillor Neil Hornus  
Councillor Thomas King  
Councillor Mrs Julie Marson   
Councillor Pat Moore  
Councillor David Saunders  
Councillor William Scobie  
Councillor Michael Tomlinson  
Councillor John Watkins 

***the email is already above so I have scrubbed it out here*** 

Then I got to Councillor Jodie Hibbert, no email address was published on the council’s website so I tried democratic services, it seems that the officer who runs the scrutiny committee is on leave until after the call in date.

I gather that the localism bill makes provision for councils to publish there own system for a member of the public or a local group to trigger a call in, but neither the council’s website nor the officers I have spoken to seem to be clear about this.

Could you please let me know what if any system the council has for triggering a call in and in this instance either ensure that the decision is called in or provide me with some reason why it won’t be?     

Best regards Michael”

I didn’t, still haven’t got any reply from the chief executive, perhaps she is on leave too.

I did get an email from the officer who was supporting the development at cabinet.

Here it is:

“Michael

I understand that you have been in contact with the Council's Democratic Services section in relation to call in procedures following Cabinet.



I also understand that you have left your number in relation to a potential call from me in relation to this issue, but I think it more appropriate to email.



Clearly I cannot provide specific advice in relation to call in arrangements as this is not my area of expertise, though I understand the arrangements for this have been explained by the officer to whom you spoke.



On the specifics of this issue, despite our long conversation in relation to flood risks, I am not going to instigate a call in for this item on this basis. I know your arguments in relation to this issue, as you set them out eloquently to me the other day, but even with this in mind I do not think it appropriate for me to seek a call in in relation to my own report.



Mark”

Obviously the bloke who wrote the cabinet report is about the least appropriate council officer to call the thing in, so I emailed him thus:

“Mark my assumption is that it would be highly inappropriate for you to ask for a call in on an issue where you were the advising officer.

The substance of my phone call to democratic services was that I had been trying to email all the members of scrutiny tying to obtain assistance in initiating a call in when I got to Jodie Hibbert whose email address wasn’t published on the council website, so I phoned democratic services.

I was told that the officer supporting the scrutiny group was on leave until after the call in date, that the officer who I spoke to didn’t know the criteria for and didn’t know how a member of the public initiated a call in and that an officer who did know would call me back.

My guess is that no one knows the rules under the localism act and so it landed on your desk.

Best regards Michael”

In the meantime I have received replies from two of the members of scrutiny I contacted, one from the chair, who we shall call Goldmember in the circumstances.

And one from a lady member, both are now trying to get the decision called in.



The reason that I want the thing called in is the flood assessment issue and frankly the underlying problem here is trying to get the officers, members of the last Conservative Cabinet and now members of this new Labour Cabinet understand that this is a fundamental safety issue and the only person qualified to comment on it is the Environment Agency’s technical specialist.

My attempts to communicate this to current cabinet members seem to roughly rebound as though it is me and not a qualified expert calling for this, and as though the experts in the field are the council officers, who as far as I understand have no related qualifications.

Back in 2008 after I had read the EAs letter I discussed this with one of the senior council officers who was in charge of the department dealing with the Pleasurama development. He implied that the EAs engineer was young and female and so I shouldn’t put much credence in what she had written, so I got Laura Sandys who was meeting with the most senior EA officer for the southeast to ask them for the official EA position, here is the quote from her email to me, saying what these EA officers had to say.  

"The Pleasurama development gained planning consent prior to the publication of the latest government guidance on development and flood risk, PPS25.  When we were consulted in 2003 our floodplain maps did not show the site to be at risk and the design, at that stage, had clear evacuation routes to the top of the cliff. But, having received revised plans for the development last year, we highlighted our concern over flood risk and recommended that a site-specific flood risk assessment be undertaken.  This would inform appropriate mitigation measures such as recommended floor levels, flood resilient design and an evacuation plan to ensure that the development is made as safe as possible."          

I will ramble on here. 

21 comments:

  1. Dont forget to get Mr Philip Hamberger who started as the new Director of Corporate Resources and Transformation this week up to speed. Selling off prime sites must be part of his remit.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You will know for sure that you have got them on the back foot when 'anonymous' blogs taking you to task for wasting TDC's valuable time.

    ReplyDelete
  3. TDC have updated their web site pronto,
    cllr-jodie.hibbert@thanet.gov.uk

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They did apologise and said they would do it immediately, I am afraid it has been a long couple of days of emails and phone calls. I still haven't received a reply or acknowledgement from the chief executive, or any confirmation from the council that the decision has been called in.

      Delete
  4. It has now been called in by OSP Chair Ian Driver:

    1. To ensure that there has been a recent flood risk assessment of the development site;
    2. To ensure that the disposal of the site was in compliance with agreed Council processes;
    3. To ensure that the Council secured a reasonable price for the sale of the development site."

    I would imagine it'll appear on the agenda for the Tuesday 7th August OSP meeting. The reasons seem to indicate this item might be considered in closed session given the item was on "pink papers".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. James I can understand 2 and 3 being discussed in a closed session but the flood risk assessment is a public safety issue, I don’t see how they could justify discussing that in closed session.

      Delete
    2. The reasons won't be considered individually by OSP but rather a single agenda item. When an item is called in, reasons have to be provided to justify it, thus the above. Splitting it up into open and closed sessions would be too risky in terms of Members restraining their comments and not crossing over into closed issues.

      I dont mind this too much as long as they remember to re-open the session once the item is debated because I think the next item will be Scrutiny Arrangements and Ive been waiting months for that...

      Delete
    3. Sounds stupid to discuss public land and funds and council processes in secret from the public that vote and pay for them. Parliament is even televised.

      A handy way to prevent the public from seeing how incompetent the council is though, and voting accordingly.

      Let's hope councillors scan and publish any pink papers online or post them to the newspaper - or ban them completely at the council - and minute any secret meetings for release afterwards.

      These secretive farces would end almost instantly.

      Delete
  5. Why are there any secret meetings or secret pink reports for public funds? Especially after years of dodgy dealings at Pleasurama - along with EKO and ChinaGate.

    Whcih coucnillors approved or support this secretive policy? I doubt they would be reelected or even selected.

    Pleasurama should be scrapped, the Police called in and start again.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Shall we also ask the EA whether it is ok for people to live in the newly rennovated apartments at Granville Marina?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We did, EA standard flood defence, full flood risk assessment which stipulated pile boring into bedrock and ground floors about a metre higher. The development is screwed to the bedrock unlike the Royal Sands foundations which are resting on the sand on top of the bedrock.

      Delete
  7. Was Granville Marina mini piled?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Granville Marina was an existing building. Being listed the floors were reinstated at their historical height. The building does not have an escape route to the cliff top.

      Michael - Can you post a copy of the EA for this building.

      Delete
    2. the planning ref is 03/1213 some of the docs and plans showing the new ground floor level are on the uk planning website, I did publish the flood risk documentation at some time in the past I think

      Delete
  8. Incidentally was the damage to the hand rail on Wellington Crescent footpath caused by the contractors plant?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. as far as I know there has been no contractors plant used in connection with the Royal Sands since the contractor deserted the site, mid stage and even leaving the door to one of their storage units open, at the beginning of the year.

      Delete
    2. Just to get this right, after having spent well over a £1 million on repairing the cliff face {albeit not totally successfully} the council is going to sell the land below it for £3 million in the middle of a double dip depression, when land prices are probably at the lowest ebb. The Chief exec must have got her selling nous from Nigel Lawson and when to sell gold.

      Delete
    3. And perhaps more interestingly who does TDC have in mind as a buyer?

      Delete
  9. Surely the days of deals done in backrooms or over knitting bees is over, wouldn't any disposal of that magnitude by a local council have to be advertised in the London Gazette or the official journal ?

    ReplyDelete

Please note comments that may be libellous, comments that may be construed as offensive, anonymous derogatory comments about real people, comments baiting internet trolls, comments saying that an anonymous comment was made by a named real person, boring comments and spam comments, comments in CAPs will be deleted. Playground stuff like calling real people by their time stamp or surname alone, referring to groups as gangs, old duffers and so on will result in deletion. Comment that may be construed as offensive to minority groups is not allowed here either, so think before you write it, remember that the internet is a public place, that it is very difficult to be truly anonymous and that everyone who uses it leaves a trail of some sort. Also note the facility to leave anonymous comment will be turned of during periods when I am unable to monitor comment, this will not affect people commenting who are signed on to their blogger accounts. When things are particularly difficult on the commercial spam front I may turn comment moderation on for periods.

If you feel that someone has left a comment that is offensive and directed at you personally please email me (link on the sidebar) asking to have it removed, you will need to tell which post and the date and timestamp of the offending comment. Please do not reply to the offending comment as I will assume you continuing the dialogue as meaning that you want the comments left there.