Councillor Robinson - March 2019

[Malcolm Robinson]

March 2019.
Monthly councillor surgery tonight, been a busy day today.
Strategic planning meeting today and there seemed no contentious issues but this is
planning and you never know what might pop up.
Seems I was right and what should have been a straightforward application for a
new fire station turned into something else. I questioned the reasoning behind
removing the green belt protection because quite simply it flew in the face of what
was in the guidance papers! I fail to see how in one sentence we read that response
times were perfectly adequate yet in another sentence they were being used to show
green belt protection should be overturned because they needed to be improved? I
didn’t really have a problem with the application but I did have a problem with this
reasoning. The new head of planning explained that response times were not really
a planning issue and we should disregard them. I asked if that was the case then
the green belt protection stood and we had no option but to refuse permission. I said
it seemed to me they were an integral part of the application and that was reluctantly
agreed! In the end the application went through unanimously but I hope we see
some joined up thinking behind these applications and their rationale sometime
soon.
Next up was an application for a new free range hen farm. This had its own nuances
seeing as it was the NCC Leaders farm! In fact it was explained that the only reason
it had come before us was because of who the applicant is and anyone else wouldn’t
have needed to submit to such rigorous examination. The only thing I was
concerned about was the ‘waste’ material handling and this was to be agreed at a
later date. I said I was fed up of getting half the information when trying to decide
planning applications and this was a case in point. There are strict guidelines and
some serious concerns had been mentioned about this sort of waste and not having
a full report as to how the applicant intended to manage this meant, in my view, we
didn’t have a complete set of papers in front of us on which to make a decision.
Again the head of planning responded saying the conditions would be subject to
discussions between his department and the applicant. I said I understood that but I
had to make this decision now and I really wanted to know if the conditions would be
in the interests of the general public and residents of that area or for ease of use to
the applicant. Without that I considered this a less than complete set of information!
I had a LGPS panel meeting today and this really was a case of turkeys voting for
Xmas! We have been considering merging the NCC pension fund with the much
larger Tyneside one and we have already transferred our administration department
to them in a cost saving exercise. Going through all the permutations for a couple of
hours we eventually concluded this was potentially a good move for pensioners and
contributors. More investigations to be conducted before our next meeting in June
but if it goes ahead the NCC panel which I’m part of will be redundant!
Busy day today, first up my car had to go for an MOT and with other meetings to go
to lifts had to be arranged. Turned out I got my car back in the morning just in time
to get to the meeting we had with the police.
No guessing what mainly featured in this meeting and I was pleased my calls at the
recent State of the Area debated in Council chambers for a multi agency approach
had been welcomed and things were proceeding. Russ and Bill were there too and
each of us had our own concerns to mention. We all feel these are worthwhile
meetings and it seems the police do too.
Next was another meeting with the CeO and Chair of Advance at their headquarters
in Ashington. More questions than answers again but at least it seems we are
moving forward, albeit in a crabwise fashion!
Last meeting today was the West Bedlington Town Council one, where we all give
updates. Interesting meeting tonight pity more residents don’t attend and see where
their council tax Parish precept goes.
Well at long last the audit report into the Arch fiasco has been released. Lots of
areas of concern in themselves but taken in context with the Active Northumberland
report and the recent Briardale debacle we can see a pretty distressing pattern
emerge, that being, at the very least, a substantial lack of accountability and any
business acumen. For a company which had been “given” hundreds of millions of
pounds in loans by NCC this is extremely worrying. That’s not even considering the
proposed extra £450 million in the last administration’s budget for new projects. This
was to be overseen by only two people, the ex Leader and the Ex CeO of NCC!
These people should not be allowed to go anywhere near anything to do with pocket
money never mind figures that are being discussed now!
It does give an insight of how the last administration conducted themselves when they
held office because all of this had to go through various committees where all
councillors should have been sitting and they had a majority, no excuse!

Comments and opinions by auditors below:

Internal Audit Opinion:

“There are two immediate primary areas of concern regarding propriety / probity.
These relate firstly to the purchase of the former Arch Chief Executive’s home, by
Arch, at a price which appears to have been unrealistically high to deliver expected
rental income yields; and secondly, to what appears to be an unduly generous
benefits and remuneration package afforded to a specific contractor (referenced as Consultant C). There is potential for criminality to be indicated in respect of each of these two matters, which were correctly referred by the County Council’s then interim Chief Executive to Northumbria Police for further examination. Northumbria Police requested that absolute confidentiality should be maintained by the County Council / Arch, in order that any potential criminal proceedings would not be compromised.
Lifting of this reporting restriction was notified to Northumberland County Council by Northumbria Police in February 2019 (confirmed in March 2019). The Police are responsible for determining whether any offences have occurred and if so, by whom;
the Crown Prosecution Service would be responsible for assessing whether any
prosecution would be brought. In the remaining areas audited, findings indicate
areas in which procedures need to be strengthened to protect the Arch Group of
Companies and its primary shareholder Northumberland County Council. During
Internal Audit fieldwork, several Arch staff voiced the opinion to us that ‘Arch is
separate to the County Council’ and that ‘Arch is a company and follows its own
procedures, not those of the County Council’. While this is true, it would be expected that as a group of companies wholly owned by the local authority, Arch would understand the need to demonstrate appropriate and effective stewardship of public funds. Some of the decisions reviewed as part of the audit – specifically the two matters referred to above – do not appear to have been in keeping with Arch’s own agreed procedures or expected financial returns; they appear unique and without a sound commercial basis. These examples do not reflect a sense of fiduciary duty to the shareholder when dealing with public monies, or a sufficiently robust commercial approach, by those involved in taking the decisions. In the other work performed by Internal Audit as part of this investigation, there are areas in which we would recommend that procedures are strengthened. These are explained further in this report. Internal Audit has also identified as a specific risk that the nature of Arch Corporate Holdings – as a group of companies – further complicates investigative work. The completeness and reliability of records across the company group will need to be verified as additional work on the matters under examination is performed and concluded.
As part of our work to date in gathering and assessing evidence in respect of the
specific objectives set out above, Internal Audit has not assessed the financial
performance achieved by Arch to date, or the returns which it has delivered / is
forecast to deliver for the shareholder. It is recommended that such an assessment
is performed as part of any strategic review of Arch, to determine the profitability and performance of the group of companies and the accuracy of projected growth and income forecasts. In turn, this will help the Board and its primary stakeholder
(Northumberland County Council) evaluate which activities are delivering well, and which should be continued; and which aspects of the group’s operations are not adding value and which should cease. During Internal Audit’s work, we have begun to consider the matter of State Aid. This is a complex area which did not form part of the initial Terms of Reference for this work. It is recommended that this matter is kept under review and that appropriate legal advice is sought as required. At this juncture, confidence in and reputation of the Arch group of companies would be enhanced by a more transparent approach, clear commercial acumen and demonstrable stewardship in all aspects of the Group’s operations and decisions taken.
Comment /Evaluation:
One of the biggest risks here is corruption / collusion. Without evidence of a
sufficiently robust competitive process in any organisation, there is a risk that firms might be appointed to lucrative contracts inappropriately – or that this suspicion will fall on the company, creating reputational risk. Documentation demonstrating a competitive process was available in five of the thirteen ‘consultant’ assignments sampled. However the robustness of the competitive process could be strengthened.
For the remaining eight consultants, appointed by former Arch Chief Executive or the current Arch Chief Executive, no documentation could be provided. Some of these consultants have had long standing engagements with Arch over a number of years.
The absence of information regarding the engagement exercises with a number of
appointments made by Arch former Chief Executive and the current Chief Executive needs to be examined further. Regarding the engagement with Consultant C, there are a number of documents which Internal Audit has viewed. Some of these, such as the one side summary of this contractor’s skills and experience, refer to Consultant C. However invoices have been submitted under his company name (a company shown as no longer trading on Companies House website). Whilst there was evidence provided regarding a role being advertised and parties (including Consultant C) submitting ‘bids’ there was no evidence of a value for money review of quality and price. There is email evidence which suggests that Consultant C was operating in the role before he had applied for it. The relationship between Arch and the surveying firm/ Northumberland County Council needs to be examined further as a separate piece of work, to more fully understand the nature of the relationship and services provided. All consultants currently engaged by the Group should be reviewed to determine if these services continue to be required and if so whether a fresh engagement process is needed to ensure value for money is being obtained, the engagement process is transparent and financial regulations are complied with.
Comment/Evaluation:
From the information provided and discussions with Arch staff, there is a lack of
awareness of the requirements of Financial Regulations with regard to the
appointment of consultants. There was a lack of information regarding the terms of engagement with the majority of the consultants reviewed. With regard to any
equipment/assets consultants are actually provided with, this is covered in a later
section of this report. The letter dated 15 May 2017 from then Arch Board Members
would appear to be an extremely rare arrangement, and not likely to be typical. The scenario set out in the letter does not reflect the terms set out in the advert for this work published on Arch’s website, from which Consultant C was appointed. Internal Audit has not found any evidence of similar arrangements afforded to any other contractor.

Comment/Evaluation:

There is no segregation of duties in the payments to the four long standing
consultants and a lack of evidence was provided in relation to the work undertaken.
The daily rates are very high and we refer back to our previous comment regarding
reviewing all consultants currently engaged by the Group to determine if these
services continue to be required and if so whether a fresh engagement process is
needed to ensure value for money is being obtained, the engagement process is
transparent and financial regulations are complied with. There is no process in place to verify the work undertaken by Consultant C. This would not be possible due to the apparent absence of any terms of engagement and the lack of detail on the invoices
in relation to work undertaken. On the basis of the invoices reviewed it would appear that former Arch Chief Executive and former NCC Chief Executive were authorising
the payments. There was little evidence of the work undertaken (seven press
releases at Arch) in comparison with the remuneration to this consultant. There is
evidence that the first payment relates to a period before Consultant C had
submitted his application for the role / contract advertised. In respect of the
construction consultants sampled properly authorised orders and invoices were
evidenced. For the two marketing companies where quotations had been obtained
and purchase orders issued, evidence of monitoring progress and completed work
was also provided along with authorised invoices.

Comment/Evaluation:

The absence of an inventory of assets has hindered this aspect of the review and it
is difficult to say with certainty that the information provided forms a complete record.
No consultants other than Consultant C appear to have been given a house / car. A
decision is required in relation to what to do with the car, and its future value and use to Arch.
Comment/Evaluation:

Once an inventory of equipment has been established, a decision should be made
on whether or not insurance is required for any items held by consultants. The
purchase of insurance for the car used by Consultant C adds to an already
substantial package of benefits enjoyed by this contractor and funded by Arch.  It
would be unusual to provide insurance in these circumstances. 

Comment/Evaluation:
It is not known whether the tax implications of the provision of equipment and
mileage payments to Consultant C have been accounted for correctly, or whether his status as a consultant is correct.
Comment/Evaluation:
There was a lack of evidence provided regarding the appointments of a number of
the employees sampled. For the most recently employed member of staff in the
sample a relatively robust process appeared to have been followed. This could have been enhanced further through checking the qualifications of the new employee. A number of appointments appear to have been made without a competitive process being followed. The offer of a £3k relocation package to a new Director already living in Morpeth at the time of his appointment would be difficult to justify, especially as the Director appears to be living at the same address as prior to his appointment. It was not established whether this payment was in fact made, or simply proposed.
Financial Regulations and MoDA do not specify anything in respect of salary
decisions that are required to be considered by Remuneration Committee, other than MoDA specifying that in year pay increases to the Group Managing Director are to be approved at this committee. If the Director of Finance’s email to the former Arch Chief Executive on 21 April 2017 regarding the requirement for Remuneration Committee approval for the Chief Executive’s direct reports is correct there are further areas that need to be examined further, including increases to the Director of Finance and the Arch Chief Executive.

Comment/Evaluation:
The absence of a salary scale makes it difficult to ensure parity for roles of
comparative levels of responsibility. The provision of company vehicles to employees should be reviewed. Where it is felt beneficial for employees to have vehicles that they take home the terms and conditions of the use of the vehicle and each party’s responsibilities should be formalised. The other vehicles used by staff appear reasonable given the nature of Arch’s work, i.e. Citroen vans and a ford fiesta van.
However, the purchase of a vehicle for £24,290.65 + VAT would appear at face
value to be excessive. The invoice for this purchase is not signed / authorised. The
staff benefits should be reviewed taking into consideration that the company is
owned by NCC. For example in the current financial climate within the public sector, it may seem extravagant for a company which is wholly owned by a local authority to have a subsidised Christmas party. 

Comment/Evaluation:
There was a lack of evidence provided regarding the appointments to new posts of  a number of the employees sampled. A number of the pay enhancements reviewed
appear to be unusual and require further examination by management. Financial
Regulations and MoDA do not specify anything in respect of salary decisions that are required to be considered by Remuneration Committee other than MoDA specifying that in year pay increases to the Group Managing Director are to be approved at that Committee. If the Director of Finance’s email to the then Arch Interim Chief Executive on 21 April 2017 regarding the requirement for Remuneration Committee approval for the Chief Executive’s direct reports is correct there are further areas that need to be examined further, including increases to the Director of Finance and former Arch Chief Executive.
Comment/Evaluation:
The absence of an inventory of assets has hindered this aspect of the review. An
inventory of equipment, particularly portable electronic equipment should be
established as soon as possible. The number of mobile phones in use appears to be
excessive and could benefit from a review. Internal Audit are of the understanding
that the former Arch Chief Executive was on gardening leave in the period prior to
him leaving the company in June 2017. This raised questions as to whether the
charges incurred outside of the EU occurred in this period and if so whether he was on Arch business.

Comment/Evaluation:
The 2016/17 P11D return to HMRC is inaccurate in that it does not contain all the
required information. The use of company vehicles by employees is a particular area of concern. Further work is required by the company to ensure compliance with all HMRC requirements.
Comment/Evaluation

Inaccuracies found in a number of banking transactions associated with property
purchases result in a lack of confidence in the overall internal processes surrounding bank payments for properties purchased by Arch. We were informed in September 2017 that the legal law firm contractor ref.1 had concluded a review and that this had identified that £42k had been overpaid by Arch. It is understood from the Management Accountant that clients’ accounts at the Law Firm should all reconcile to zero once a property purchase is complete, which would have provided a further control, but should not have been relied on by Arch as the sole source of control.
The surveying firm appear to have received payments under a fee structure which
sees a payment for identifying an executive property to be sold to Arch; a further
payment for identifying a tenant to live in that home; and possibly other fees which at the current time are obscure. This does not assure value for money. The decisions around the purchase and disposal of property at Empire Court in Whitley Bay do not seem congruent with the direction of other Arch acquisitions and developments. As we understand this property is now being disposed of, it will only be when all units are sold that the return on this investment can be evaluated. Further analysis on the treatment of Stamp Duty Land Tax (and professional advice on the treatment applied in this case) will be required.
Comment/Evaluation:
Rental income monitoring appears to be disjointed with the Arch team monitoring
private rental sector and affordable homes and the surveying firm monitoring the
Executive Properties. Review of rental statements show high levels of arrears in
some Executive Properties, suggesting that the surveying firm may not be managing this as effectively as would be expected. There are weaknesses in the end to end process for all rental income monitoring. A review should be undertaken and a process determined which gives Arch assurance that there is a robust process in place across all the rental sectors. It is of concern that the Land Registration details for the property Y were incorrect and in the name of Persimmon Homes rather than Arch, despite the conveyance having been performed by legal law firm contractor ref.1.
Comment / Evaluation:
The involvement and interest taken by the former Arch Chief Executive in the
purchase and subsequent rental of Property Y, demonstrated in emails regarding the property, appears inconsistent with his involvement in the purchase and
management of other Arch properties. Had the ‘extra’ costs been taken into account in the purchase of Property Y then calculation shows it would not have achieved the 5% gross target yield or a net annual profit and may/should not have been approved.
Had a more realistic achievable rental income been used in the calculation for the
purchase of Property X then it would not have achieved the 5% gross target yield or a net annual profit and was unlikely to have been approved.

Comment /Evaluation:
Points of good practice: Internal Audit was informed that in the earlier years of the Company, the opportunities for hosting of events were more carefully considered with proposals going to the Board and a report of outcomes also going to the Board.
It was the perception of the Marketing Manager that more recently as the Company
grew and with it the volume of business going to the Board, hosting became a
reduced priority for Board consideration and reporting purposes. Internal Audit was shown an overall calendar of events (spreadsheet) and provided with detailed
spreadsheets for the planning and monitoring of expenditure in relation to individual larger events which included MIPIM (Cannes) and the Tall Ships. Areas of concern:
Due to the apparent lack of a strategy and reporting, it appears unclear what value is being gained from expenditure incurred; the rationale for hosting certain events, or the level of hosting if such events are to be attended (e.g. bar and travel to social or sporting events). There is a risk that expenditure may be incurred that does not contribute towards the objectives of the Company. At the transaction level, all transactions should be properly supported with prime documentation regardless of the method of payment.
Comment/Evaluation:
Under the Localism Act, elected members are required to comply with the Code of
Conduct maintained by the Council’s Monitoring Officer. It is the elected member’s
personal duty to declare interests. Clarification should be obtained from the
Monitoring Officer as to which ‘hat’ elected members serving on Arch’s board would be expected to be wearing when undertaking various duties and roles related to Arch, or accepting hospitality. The risk is that acceptance of hospitality and gifts from, or interests with, those firms with which Arch contracted may have impeded the impartiality of decision-makers or been seen to impede that impartiality. At worst, there is a risk of corruption/collusion; and reputational risk to the organisation. There is clearly a need to reiterate the duty on elected members and senior officers at NCC of their duty to declare in accordance with the County’s codes of conduct. There is similarly a need to make the requirement to declare by Board members at Arch more robust, and to enforce this more stringently.
Comment/Evaluation:
Further to the lack of a separate process for the declaration of offers of hospitality
and gifts by Board members throughout the year, as there exists for officers, it is
apparent from the work undertaken by Internal Audit in relation to the hosting of
events that the annual declarations are incomplete, specifically under the section
‘Gifts and Hospitality’. There had not been additional declarations made under the
NCC policy and processes.
Comment/Evaluation:
The awarding of exclusivity arrangements to the surveying firm to act as agents and
property management agents in relation to the Executive Homes Portfolio has not
been tendered for in accordance with Arch’s Financial Regulations and
Memorandum of Delegated Authority, as described in Section 1 of this report. An
assessment should have been made as to the estimated fees for the scheme should
have been undertaken and the appropriate procurement method followed (for
example the Director of Finance had delegated authority to £20m on Executive
Homes, therefore it would have been easy to establish that the fees for finding and
managing these properties would have been over the threshold requiring a full
tender exercise). Our earlier work in relation to the Executive Homes portfolio has
identified concerns regarding the surveying firm’s management of these properties
and we are aware that the Head of Estates and the Homes Manager have written a
briefing paper recommending the management of these properties is brought in
house. The award of the 2015/16 and 2016/17 asset valuation works has not been
compliant with Arch’s Financial Regulations and Memorandum of Delegated
Authority as competitive quotes were not obtained and the services are in excess of
£20k. Competitive quotes should be obtained prior to the award of these works for
the 2017/18 annual accounts. The annual costs of the estate management contracts
is below the £20k requiring competitive quotes to be obtained, however as these
contracts have been in place since 2015/16 it may be an appropriate time to obtain
competitive quotes for the 2018/19 financial year. Earlier in this report we have
referred to the importance of estimating the costs associated with schemes to ensure the correct procurement routes are followed. This applies to individual schemes such as the large acquisitions of Potland Burn and Ellington Colliery as the fees incurred were likely to be significant given the value of the land being purchased. No declarations were identified in relation to the engagements with this company. A number of emails were identified during the original review which indicated an apparent closeness between the surveying firm and Arch former Chief Executive (the former Chief Executive being referred to as ‘mate’ in one email).

Comment / evaluation:
The cost of the new stand and clubhouse by Arch and associated lease require
review regarding the expenditure incurred and the financial viability of the project.
That the former Arch Chief Executive and a former Arch Board member are also
ACFC Board members and there would appear to be a close relationship between
the two organisations with Arch providing financial support to ACFC. Further review is required to establish whether this is in accordance with Board approval. Arch has paid approximately £67k plus on-costs for 2 members of ACFC staff and in itself is a significant financial contribution to ACFC.
Comment / Evaluation:
From the information gathered at this stage in the investigation, the nature / extent of any relationship between Arch and Construction firm ref. 13 is unclear. No evidence has been found of undue influence from Arch within the procurement process leading to Construction firm ref. 13 being included within the NCC framework contract. A substantial amount of business has been awarded to Construction firm ref. 13 by Arch. While some of this has been the subject of competitive tender, in other cases it is unclear. With regard to the first (and largest) tender exercise the validity or suitability of some of the other requested tenderers appears doubtful.
Given the status and influence which the former Arch Chief Executive would hold, it would have been expected in the interests of transparency that the relationship with his brother (an employee of Construction firm ref. 13) would have been explicitly declared. This is especially so given the values paid to this company.”

Given what the police have come back with I have no doubt this will not be the end
of the matter! How they could have conducted a complete investigation without
interviewing anyone, even without being under caution, is something I just can’t
understand. There are some pretty devastating sentences included in the auditors
comments above which anyone of them by themselves demand forensic
investigation!
Firefighters Pension training all day today at Hartford Fire Station. Members of
pension boards came from all over the North East and it was a long and quite
intense session. Several questions now for our board.
LAC meeting tonight and I have been asked to chair the Planning portion because
our last chair was Bernard. So a pre meeting with the planners to go through the
application/s then the meeting proper started at 5pm. Only one application and after
we heard the planning officer outline the application then an objector and supporter
we had members questions. This was followed by the debate amongst members but
this was somewhat truncated when we all decided a site visit was in order. Seems strange to me that this application was first brought in 2016 for outline and then a
demolition order but there’s nowt as strange as planning matters!
Once the planning was done we had 15 minutes before the main event. The room
was filling up because there was a Bedlington Town Centre update on the agenda.
We got through the bulk of the meeting quite quickly then it was the main event. I
knew this was going to go wrong and I had warned them but it was for some reason
deemed necessary? So the CeO of Advance gave a presentation of where the
development stood and basically it was in the same place as it was last year at this
time. That’s not quite fair, there has been a lot of preparation work done so building
work above ground can begin but until we see some bricks being laid I don’t think
anyone will believe it’s actually happening. I asked a few questions, why has this
turned into a staccato type development, can’t we look at other ways to develop the
USP Bedlington could offer and lastly why is the public toilet not showing on the
plans now? Seems the toilets were never included, sorry but I sit on strategic
planning and saw the toilet provision clearly stated and a member of the public
backed me up on this.
After members had a chance to question the CeO of Advance the public had their
chance and if he thought we were tough…….. Lots of questions, suggestions and
concerns put forward with some people leaving early. All in all a pretty lacklustre
offering with more questions than answers again.
My first question now would be if we are so close to sealing the deals and getting the
scheme across the line why not put off this presentation for a month or even two so a
definite signed and sealed development could be presented. For my money this a
just another in a long line of disastrous PR for firstly Arch and now Advance. At
some point lessons have to be learnt, surely!
I used the chance of having the heads of local services at the meeting to lobby for
Bedlington to be included in the recent High Street Clean Up funding central
government has just released. Seems I wasn’t supposed to be aware of that yet but
the point was taken and I was assured Bedlington would be included.
I have had several meetings with local organisations and I was offered a meeting
with local services manager about this high street clean up funding. I suggested
including WBTC and Russ came along too seeing as its primarily in his ward.
Seems this funding is extremely time dependant with only a matter of days to submit
schemes for consideration. WBTC have to put in schemes for most of the funding
but NCC are withholding some of the allocated funding to do extras in the Town.
Both Russ and I are trying to get maximum benefit out of that NCC withheld funding
but its turned into a bit of a fight! Time will tell.
Called in to make sure the new play equipment was on track at Plessey Woods so
we get an Easter holiday opening. Looking good and seems with only some infilling
left to be done, we are on track.
Had a whole afternoon at planning training, this one about the new social rented
housing we are initiating. Listening to the presentation I became increasingly
worried that we might not see as many new houses to rent at affordable charges as I
was anticipating. I therefore had to question the presenters about this. Still waiting
for a definite answer to that one! I also asked about build quality and running costs
because it’s all very well having a new council house but if you can’t afford to heat it!
I asked about infrastructure and where that might feature and another point of worry
was the onus the presenters put on the financial aspect to demonstrate need so I put
forward that social need had to be figured in too. I said “need” was something
aligned to people so it wasn’t too hard to see a lot of social need in our area given
we have over 50% of the population squeezed into the South East of the county. If
we only rely on the fact that there may not be enough houses available in rural areas
and financial constraints when there are then we will miss out on a huge opportunity
to address social housing needs in my area. With no other members from the South
East in the chamber I had to be determined enough not to take flimsy answers or I
would lose the point for this whole area. I eventually got acknowledgement of my
concerns!
I seemed to monopolise the questions and apologised but as I remarked we should
get this right from the start and save problems building up later. I also questioned
the fact that developers seem to say that their sites cannot support S106 schemes
because of ground conditions etc. and we let them get away with it. Is it really in our
job to allow developers to maximise their profits on the back of not paying any
community funding, such as health, education and leisure? The new head of
planning responded and said I was quite right and this was something central
government has identified and were going to take steps about.
All in all a very informative afternoon but once again I was the only member from the
south east of the county to attend? We are shaping a social housing policy and the
very people purporting to support this don’t attend therefore don’t get to shape any
part of it. There might not be any newspaper headlines to grab but this is the basic
workload of elected councillors as far as I can see and I have to wonder how anyone
can shout their mouths off when the cameras are on yet fail to put in the work where
and when it really matters?

Once again it seems I’m being targeted on social media by the same person and his
cronies, this time demanding I apologize for screaming across the chamber at the
last full council meeting, as well as other nonsense. I think light must have to bend
around these people! Well I’m not going to apologize for refusing to allow this Town
from being used as a political football between the two main parties. The video of
that meeting is in the public domain and I think anyone can see I certainly wasn’t
screaming at anyone, passionate for the town yes, screaming no. In fact there isn’t
many times fellow members indicate their support for what was said with a round of
applause but that was one! But thanks for bringing up the question of apologies
maybe someone needs to apologize for the many years they spent on Wansbeck
District Council ignoring the needs of Bedlington and the way they and their
associates allowed Arch and Active Northumberland to operate, ramping up debt
levels to unsustainable heights which in turn leaves council taxpayers on the hook
for many millions of pounds in interest payments. We can all clearly see the present
day results of that!
On another point it seems the fact that I have a “day” job as well causes mirth. No
answer to that absurdity really. Also it seems I claimed I ran ‘successful’ businesses
for 30 years, well the video of the council meeting can lay that one to bed. Of course
given that in all that time I have never left creditors in the lurch would explain why
some might see fit to insert their own adjective.
It would appear the seemingly demented ex taxi driver is increasingly apoplectic in
his rabid social media attacks to which I will respond with a truncated quote from an
ex Prime Minister when describing someone of opposing views…
“a sophistical rhetorician, inebriated with the exuberance of his own
verbosity, and gifted with an egotistical imagination that can at all times
command an interminable and inconsistent series of arguments to malign
an opponent and to glorify himself?”
I would just like to point out one extra little bit of extraordinary hypocrisy. I was
castigated by a local political group for abstaining on the council tax benefit vote.
I did give my reasons for that at the time and in these diaries but I was “told” in
no uncertain terms that they considered abstentions an aberration, in our
democracy. Well not only did we see the whole of the Labour contingent
abstain on a recent vote at county we now see our MP abstaining on a vote of national
importance. I’m still waiting for similar cries directed at them off the same
political group, who have been strangely quiet on the matter!

[John Fox (foxy)]

Thank you for the update Councillor Robinson, I can name all the perpetrators mentioned in the last three paragraphs. Do I win £5 ?

 

[Canny lass]

That IAO is a real eye-opener! Thanks Malcolm for this little glimpse backstage. More transparency like this is needed - at all levels of politics, I might add. Keep up the good work.