Chaos at Chipping Barnet Residents Forum

Last night's Chipping Barnet Residents Forum started badly and only got worse. The "Chairman" was Lisa Rutter who, I think, took entirely the wrong tone and as a result steered the meeting into a rigid and inflexible format that left many residents completely disengaged.

We started with a presentation on the new Area Forums and the £100,000 budget they will be allocated. Sounds good? Yes except that although residents can come up with ideas, they will then be reviewed by officers and councillors to see if they are "viable". Give it with one hand take it away with the other. The framework is not clear in what they want to achieve other than it has to be a capital project and cannot require on-going funding. Another council officer gave a breakdown of the population profile in the constituency - how that is meant to help decide what sort of projects will be chosen is unclear. On one of the slides was a reference to timebanks and when someone asked what they were, the officer said they didn't know and asked the audience. Luckily Green candidate, Poppy, was able to explain.

Then onto the main part of the meeting. We started with a petition from residents on Pollard Road. The person who brought the petition was told immediately that the petition was being referred to the Environment Sub Committee and did he have anything else to add? He looked a bit flabbergasted and said that he had expected to talk about the issues. Again Lisa Rutter told him he had 3 minutes to speak (not an official time limit as there is no such rule for residents forums). I should have mentioned that there was a large contingent of residents from Pollard Road and you could sense their frustration. The petitioner started asking questions of the chair who batted them straight back by saying they could discuss then at the Environment Sub Committee. Lisa Rutter then suggested that all the residents would be able to raise these points at the sub committee which is untrue, that is not how the subcommittees work. I told several of the residents that this was untrue and that if they wanted to speak they should do so now. When one of the residents then asked again if they could discuss the issue at the sub committee they were told that no they couldn't. Oh dear, not a smart move and a large number of dissatisfied residents.

At this stage the former chair of the residents forum, Kate Salinger - who I always found to be fair in the way she chaired forums - suggested that all the residents move to a room across the hall to discuss their concerns with Brian Salinger, Councillor for the ward, and who could then reflect their views more accurately at the Sub Committee. A smart move and one which seemed to take some of the heat out of the situation.

There were a number of similar tussles throughout the meeting where sensible suggestions from residents seemed to be met by refusal or complex solutions by the council. Parking on Friern Barnet Lane, parking on Sellwood Drive both problems that could be resolved with some common sense but Lisa Rutter's continual chanting of the mantra you should be speaking to your local councillors about these issues just seemed to anger the audience even more. The issue with Sellwood Drive revealed the level of friction between the new labour councillors for Underhill Ward and the ruling group. Residents were told that there is a list of road across the Borough where councillors have agreed that parking on the pavement will not be ticketed. However since the election residents in Sellwood Drive have been ticketed, albeit with warning notices. The three new councillors had not been consulted on the change in ticketing policy nor had they been c=given the list and this seemed to anger Cllr Paul Edwards.

Eventually the meeting ran out of time with a number of questions including three from Mr Reasonable left unanswered. I must note that I was originally told (as were a number of other residents) that my questions were not admissible as questions had to relate to "local" matters, a term entirely undefined in the constitution. A robust response from me and suddenly they weren't inadmissible but better dealt with by other committees or by our local councillors! so what's the point of forums then.

I think you could sum up the evening as shambolic with many residents who had not been to a forum before left feeling entirely frustrated at the restrictive and unhelpful attitude and council procedures. Lisa Rutter successfully managed to reduce what should be a channel to access residents views, to listen to their concerns and to find collaborative ways to work together, into a heated confrontational battlefield where standpoints were simply hardened.

The silence of the Councillors or how to ignore your electors in Jackson Road

Jackson Road is a delightful road of old railway worker cottages in the heart of East Barnet Village. Back in 2011 a planning application was submitted for a 3 storey block of flats behind 69 Jackson Road. Almost two years after that planning application was submitted to the Council  further planning applications have now been made for 3 and 4-storey blocks on the same land.

When the last application was made (November 2011) for a 3-storey block of flats - around 50 objection letters to the plan were received by Council. The Councillors on the area planning granted approval - 10 votes for with 2 abstentions. Not one Councillor voted against the plan - despite the weight of objections.

Cllr Joanna Tambourides, one of the East Barnet ward Councillors, who sat on that planning committee abstained in the vote. Is this the same Councillor who expressed strong objections - along with her ward colleagues Cllrs. Robert Rams and Barry Evangeli - to the Cat Hill development (not actually in their ward)? Yet what is their position on this development? The 3 ward Councillors (CONSERVATIVE) have all been sent an e mail asking for their support against this development . Only Cllr Tambourides replied but when asked as to why the initial planning application had been passed when there were 50 objections from local residents she did not give a reply.

Some residents are wondering why they are being sent letters again from the Council for these plans (Refs: B/05238/13 & B/05234/13) when their original views - listing thirty specific objections - were classed as ‘not relevant’.

In the event that these planning applications are approved - at the proposed height (i.e. >20 metres) - they would overshadow a number of  homes in Jackson Road and Churchmead Close, and effectively cut out sunlight and destroy wildlife. There is also the small matter of the Thames Water main foul water sewer for East Barnet running diagonally below this land, which our local Councillors appeared unaware of.

Residents in the immediate area are urged to object to this development to protect a historical road with architectural merit and to an area which is already over developed. It has residents once again saying, loud and clear: ‘No!’ 

If you are against more major development on or around Jackson Road which is already built up and unable to accommodate any more cars as well spoiling an architectural and historic part of East Barnet, then say no.

Send a letter or e mail  or fill out a form on Barnet Councils web site to -

Barnet Council – Ms Mumtaz Shaikh

Planning Services,

Building 4,

North London Business Park,

Oakleigh Road South,

London,N11 1NP

If writing a letter you need to add your name, address, daytime telephone number and e mail if you have one and quote the Planning application reference –

B/05 234/13.  (four storey block of flats to the rear of 69 Jackson Road.)

B/05 238/13  (three storey block of flats to the rear of 69 Jackson Road)

If you have any further questions please contact Ms. Mumtaz Shaikh , the person from Barnet Council dealing with this, at email -

Mumtajbanu.Shaikh@barnet.gov.uk

Jackson Road Neighbourhood Watch enquiries  –   en4@hotmail.co.uk

Jackson Road FaceBook Page  -  The Jackson Roadies

Barnet's Decision Day Tomorrow

Tomorrow is a big day in Barnet. No, I know Brian Coleman made his court appearance today but tomorrow is the full council meeting and the vote of no confidence in Richard Cornelius. It all hinges on the One Barnet Outsourcing programme. All the evidence shows that this consultant driven project is very high risk and would outsource democracy for the next ten years. Even Brian Coleman has spoken out against One Barnet.

There are other alternatives and I would be delighted to share my 8 point savings plan with Richard. Pulling the plug on One Barnet and getting all the key stakeholders involved in working together to deliver the savings that are required could make so many problems disappear. It would show that Richard is prepared to be his own man and not do as he is told by the senior officers. It would help to re-engage residents and show them that the Council is genuinely willing to listen to the electorate.

However, failure to pull the plug before the vote tomorrow night will show a contempt for residents, a willingness to trust consultants over the views of many and the denial of evidence from numerous failed outsourcing projects. More importantly it will ratchet up the pressure even further, it will split the Conservative group and it will guarantee that the Conservatives lose control of the council in 2014. Richard, please think carefully and do the right thing. Pull the plug on One Barnet.

Community Spirit is alive and well in Friern Barnet

This afternoon has yet again shown me why Barnet is such a great place to live. A community that cares and stands together is a tremendous asset that should be treasured and supported. 

Outside Friern Barnet Library this afternoon, the community were out in force. They show that in spite of what Barnet Council has done to devalue the community by closing the library, they are continuing to provide a friendly environment for the community to come together. You would have to pay consultants hundreds of thousands of pound to come up with a community cohesion strategy that the Save Friern Barnet Library group are delivering free of charge. 

Barnet Council should embrace this group and identify how they can work together. Instead they are just rude to them.This group deserves the support of every member of the community and they definitely have mine! Keep it up.

Another Example of Commercial Ineptitude?

Back in March 2011 I attended a Cabinet Resources Committee. At this meeting the disposal of Barnet Copthall to Saracens was being discussed. I raised a question about the lease and why it was being offered for 99 years on a peppercorn rent and seemed to be against the advice of officers. It struck me at the time that Saracens were getting a highly valuable site worth well in excess of £10 million for nothing so long as they maintain the facilities, a contract which GLL had and which has now been terminated (we don't know what penalty Barnet had to pay to terminate this contract).

Today Saracens have announced a multi-million pound naming rights deal changing the name of Copthall to Allianz Park.. I have no issue with Saracens doing the naming rights deal because their objective is to maximise the value of their new stadium.  My disappointment is addressed fairly and squarely at our Councillors who saw fit to give away a valuable community asset for a pittance without taking specific legal advice on such an eventuality. Their haste at the time was driven by a desire to get shot of Copthall whatever the cost. If there had been a revenue sharing agreement or a commercial exploitation clause then Barnet might be sitting on a windfall of a couple of million pounds.

Interestingly, at  the same meeting, the One Barnet DRS Business case was being tabled and I asked a number of questions about that as well. I hope that for the sake of every single ratepayer in Barnet that the undue haste and lack of foresight on the Saracens deal is not mirrored in the DRS outsourcing deal. Sadly I have absolutely no confidence in the commercial aptitude of Barnet Council and I remain terrified that the One Barnet outsourcing contract will be a commercial disaster.