On 27th June, I proposed a motion that South Kesteven District Council should adopt the Woodland Trust’s Charter for Trees and develop a tree strategy to protect, improve and enhance the number and quality of trees in the District. Conservatives at South Kesteven tied themselves up in knots in order to prevent an Independent-led proposal from being passed.
The Tree Charter can be signed by individuals and also by organisations. More than 70 organisations and 300 local community groups have signed up to the Charter including at least two Parish Councils in the South Kesteven area have already signed up (Deeping St James and Barkston and Syston). However, meaning no disrespect to the Woodland Trust and their partners, the Charter for Trees is a relatively bland statement of commitment to protecting and promoting trees, forest and hedgerows, in fact one of my Independent colleagues described parts of it as ‘airy-fairy’. It is more a statement of attitude and intent rather than a detailed program of actions.
I argued that signing up to the Charter would demonstrate the Council’s commitment to trees, biodiversity and also to the Woodland Trust which is the leading national charity on this issue and is based in Grantham.
I was gobsmacked when the SKDC Cabinet Member responsible for Environment, Cllr Peter Moseley (Con) decided to oppose the motion. He suggested three reasons why Councillors should vote against it, all of which were spurious. Continue reading →
South Kesteven Council descended into chaos yesterday when
the Chairman and Deputy Leader failed to give direct answers to a simple
question about the time of the meeting. The consequent debate lasted a full 10
minutes purely because a decision had been taken by the Conservative group
without any consultation with the rest of the Council.
Cllr Lee Steptoe (Lab) (LS)
raised the original question with the Deputy Leader of the Council, Coun Kelham
Cooke (Con) (KC) because the Leader, Cllr
Matthew Lee (Con) had decided to take a holiday which prevented him from
attending Full Council.
Here’s what was said:
LS: “I believe that the meeting times for Full Council were changed after the last meeting. Historically I believe that meetings have always started at 2pm. That has now been moved forward to 1pm. Can I ask what consultation within the Council and the public was made on this issue? Members of the public do attend. Some of us work full-time as well as being elected members and it’s a lot of hassle quite frankly to book time off and so on. It is a personal inconvenience – I’m sure I’ll get over it – but what consultation took place with elected members and with the public before this decision was arrived at?
KC: “Thank you Madam Chairman and thank you Cllr Steptoe. Obviously it is not for me to dictate to any Chairman of any Committee or even to this Council as to what time they meet. The Chairman, Cllr Jacky Smith (JS), took the decision to move that meeting to 1pm. Personally, I also work full-time and I know that a number of people in this room also have young families and children so it gives them the ability to pick their children up from school. But it is ultimately up to the Chairman.
Cllr Baxter (AB): “Thank you Madam Chairman, may I ask the same question to the Chair of the Council?
JS: “Yes there were some discussions and it was agreed that we would try it to see how it went. There was quite a feeling that we ought to move the meeting People do have to go and collect children from school. It is to try to ensure that we get the maximum number of people attending the Council meeting.
(AB): “Madam Chairman, the question was “Who was consulted and when?” because I wasn’t consulted and I don’t think Cllr Steptoe was consulted either?
JS: Any other
Cllr Knowles (PK):
Can we have an answer to the last question, please?
JS: “The question has been put and I have answered it to the best of my abilities…
(Loud mutterings of “really?”
from the floor)
PK: Who was
consulted, Madam Chairman?
JS: “The question has been put and I have answered it. It was discussed among a number of people and it was agreed to move the time.
There then followed a number of interventions including from Cllr Bosworth (Con) who said she supported the change of time and from last year’s Chair, Cllr Stevens Con) who begged to differ with Cllr Bosworth and suggested the whole Council should be consulted. The Chair then continued:
JS: “It was discussed. We had quite a few comments about having it at a different time. I know the Leader of the Council was involved in the discussions and a number of other people were involved. (Cries of “Who?”) It is also the Chairman’s decision. I agreed, because there were a number of requests for it, to try it. Now we can have further discussions, we can take more soundings. There were Council members who were involved (Cries of “Who?”). I think what this is indicating that we need to do, with the leader and deputy leader, is to set up some method of having further discussions but we can’t at any time please everyone.
There then followed further comments and chaotic discussion
about whether the issue should be referred to Constitution Committee, whether
the Council had become an autocracy and one Councillor claimed that members
were being disrespectful to the Chair.
It was then asserted that the decision to move the time of
the meeting had already been discussed and decided by Full Council. This was
The Chair concluded the debate by proposing that the 1pm
start would be retained for a year in order to establish the impact on
attendance and then the decision should be reviewed next year.
The purpose of this post is to inform, educate and entertain. If you find this kind of post interesting, please hit the like button or share it on social media. This will give me an indication of whether such detailed feedback from Council meetings is useful. It is quite time-consuming but I have only related this particular incident because I am still so upset about the attitude and conduct of senior Conservatives in relation to the very next item on the agenda which was “Charter for Trees”. Another blogpost coming soon!
The friendly Deepings has been shortlisted in the search to find Britain’s Best Walking Neighbourhood 2019. I hope you will vote at ramblers.org.uk/vote The Ramblers nominated the area because of the Deepings Green Walk which was developed during the Deepings First Neighbourhood Planning process supported by Market Deeping Town Council and Deeping St James Parish Council which aims for all new developments to include “safe, accessible, attractive, linked” footpaths.
The annual award celebrates areas which create green and welcoming walkable neighbourhoods, supporting increased physical activity, as well as the health, social, economic and environmental benefits that brings to people and their communities. Last year’s winner was Hastings Old Town.
Announcing the finalists, The Ramblers recognised the local councils’ plan to create The Deepings Green Walk, a 15km circuit to link local facilities, housing and green spaces. It is a key part of The Deepings Neighbourhood Plan which all new development will be expected to support.
Mrs Pam Byrd, of the Deepings First Neighbourhood Plan group, said: “This came from the Neighbourhood Plan process, where instead of deciding where housing and industry should go, we looked at the green space and pathways first, the environment and the community, and then worked other things around that.
“I would encourage everyone to give The Deepings the best chance to win by encouraging their friends and family to get online and vote.”
Local rambler Peter Jackson said: “I’ve done walks around the Deepings and it is a beautiful place to walk around, with a lot of different environments. It’s very calm, very safe, and there are some beautiful views to be seen and paths to tread.”
The winner will be decided by an online public vote which closes on 30 June.
I was recently given some ancient papers by a generous benefactor which include the minutes of the Market Deeping Parish Council (as it was then known) from exactly 40 years ago this month (May 1979).
At that time, the Council spent its time discussing the poor state of the roads, the overgrown verges, youths causing damage and creating a nuisance, the lack of a visible police presence, inconsiderate parking, and grants to the youth club.
Nothing at all like nowadays, eh?
Last night was the first meeting of the new Market Deeping Town Council. It is much the same as the old Market Deeping Town Council as before the election except for the two people who have retired (Thanks very much, Roy Stephenson and Colin Gamble) and the one person who has joined (Best of British to you, Brian Hembrow)!
I circulated my monthly written report before the meeting started but unfortunately I couldn’t stay for the election of Mayor (Congratulations Xan Collins) or the other exciting agenda items.
Being a Town (or Parish) Councillor is an unpaid, often thankless task and an uphill struggle. Please keep them on their toes but at the same time give them your support and the benefit of the doubt. Sometimes it can take a very long time to get stuff done!
Last year, the Conservative cabinet at South Kesteven had a good idea of designating a fund for ‘Invest-to-Save’ activities. It’s hard to argue with the principle of such an initiative especially when I have been arguing for years that the Council should invest in energy efficient lighting which typically has a financial payback of less than three years (slightly more complicated with street-lighting projects but it would still be worthwhile.
The ‘project’ decision was an amalgam of three initiatives. The first is a review of Council Financial Procedures. It is hoped it will result in efficiencies and savings (hopefully no involuntary redundancies but I always get nervous when Tories mention ‘efficiency savings’). The review will be undertaken by an external partner whom the report states has already been identified although the name of the partner is not mentioned in the report.
The second part concerns the ‘Internet of Things’. Again, the proposal is to work with an external partner but the partner has not been named.
“The initial area is to develop is intelligent street lighting across the district. The proposal is to combine an LED lamp with Internet of Things sensors. This will create saving on the power with LED and also allow proactive monitoring of use, condition and other factors such as footfall monitoring and air quality.The proposal will also see the implementation of an IoT network which can then be utilised for future initiatives.”
This sounds spectacular. At face value it could revolutionise street-lighting across the UK and possibly the world. The investment at this stage is only £10,000 which, in my experience of R&D, doesn’t usually pay for a lot of research or development. Regular readers will know that I have attended dozens of meetings about SKDC street lights and the cost of replacing or adapting all 3,000 of them to LED is likely to be over £300,000 so I’m fascinated to know what the anonymous partner is offering the council for £10,000. I suspect it might be non-existent technology but I am genuinely trying to curb my cynicism so let’s wait and see.
The third and final part of the report concerns advertising and sponsorship. It begins: “South Kesteven District Council has worked with Publitas Consulting to complete an audit of advertising income received by the Council and the potential extent of opportunity within the local market”.
It goes on to recommend that we spend a further £40,000 with Publitas Consulting to manage a procurement process on our behalf to generate additional advertising revenue.
I have a few problems with this proposal. The main one being that Publitas Consulting does not exist! A simple check of Companies House website reveals that there used to be an organisation called Publitas Consulting LLP but it was dissolved three years ago.
Looking for more evidence of Publitas Consulting I discovered a website consisting of a single page with a backdrop of a River Thames skyscape but no address or contact details other than a mobile phone number. I phoned the mobile number for more information and was greeted by an answerphone message stating I could leave messages for Swedish Interior Design Ltd and also Publitas Consulting. Now, to give them the benefit of the doubt, we’re all busy people and lots of us have roles in more than one organisation. Publitas Consulting might be the best in the business for income generation and just want to keep a low-profile but surely, if a Local Authority wants to spend money with an external partner company, then it is basic due diligence to make sure the company exists!
The decision was originally planned for 9th April 2019. Before then I did ask for more details from the relevant Portfolio Holder but I received no reply. When the decision was delayed I was hopeful that someone had looked a bit more closely at the credentials of Publitas. Unfortunately, the Decision was taken a few days later and consequently I have asked for it to be ‘Called In’. This should mean that a special meeting of the Growth Overview and Scrutiny Committee will be called and the details of the three sub-projects will be looked at properly.
A ‘call-in’ request requires five Councillors to agree that the decision needs more scrutiny. This is one of the reasons we need more Independent and opposition Councillors. A massive majority for the Conservatives (or any other party) is not good for democracy and accountability.
Great news! The Council has announced new exciting new leisure centres for the Deepings and Stamford. Brilliant, fabulous, fantastic… but technically this is old news as it was also announced in October 2017 and again in October 2018.
The Conservatives want everyone to know that they are planning new leisure centres in Stamford and the Deepings and a refurbished and enhanced leisure centre in Bourne. The publicity has included a double-paged spread in SK Today, almost three pages in the Stamford Mercury, umpteen tweets and other social media posts and, to top it all, 6 massive banners parading the exciting new facilities “delivered by South Kesteven District Council”. The irony is that nothing has really been delivered yet except for the posters.
I attended the South Kesteven Cabinet meeting last Thursday where a report on the new approach to sports and leisure facilities was formally approved. I wanted to ask the questions that everyone else is asking me. Here’s a summary of the questions I asked and the answers I was given:
An annual survey of staff at South Kesteven has revealed that a significant proportion (28%) of employees feel their jobs are insecure, more than a third (36%) don’t feel their hard work and good performance is recognised and only 41% would describe morale as ‘good’.
Arguably the most worrying finding is that only 29% of employees feel processes and procedures are applied consistently across the Council, e.g. in recruitment, flexible working, sick leave. This is hardly surprising in the field of recruitment where it appears that many people are chosen on the basis of who they know rather than what they know and multiple senior posts have been appointed without adverts or competitive interview.
The 69% survey response rate has been hailed as ‘exceptional’ by the project team that conducted the exercise. I’m not quite sure why as it is down from 72% the previous year and, if I’ve understood correctly, it is only marginally above the public sector benchmark for this kind of consultation.
On a far more positive note, it is clear that despite various reservations about the working environment, 97% of SKDC staff are fully committed to doing their very best for the Council and 88% feel trusted to get on with their jobs.
The South Kesteven Local Plan was submitted to the Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government on Tuesday 15th January.
The Submission Local Plan provides updated planning policies, as well as setting out spatial allocations and designations throughout South Kesteven. It is the same as that approved by Council on 24th May and has been submitted together with the 345 valid representations made during the period of statutory public consultation.
The Local Plan Submission documents and supporting documents can be viewed on the Council’s website (www.southkesteven.gov.uk/newlocalplan) and will be accessible electronically at the Council’s offices and libraries during normal office hours.
In addition, reference hardcopies of the relevant documents will be available for public inspection in local libraries and at South Kesteven Council Offices at Grantham, Bourne, Stamford and Market Deepings (Deepings Community Centre, Douglas Road, Market Deeping, PE6 8PA Mon-Fri9.30-14.00)
The South Kesteven District Local Plan will now be subject to an independent examination, which will be conducted by the Planning Inspectorate. The public hearing should normally commence within 14 weeks of submission, although it is possible that it will be longer. Once the date is confirmed, all details relating to the examination process will be advertised, made available online and sent to all respondents.
If you have any questions relating to the local plan, please contact 01476 406438