Barnet Libraries Consultation: A Sham

A Joint Letter from the Barnet Bloggers to the Leader of Barnet Council

Barnet Bloggers are appalled by reported plans to outsource libraries and make them available to commercial exploitation by companies such as Starbucks and Waterstones. The real purpose of proposals to cut and shut libraries in Barnet is now clear.

In April 2013, a High Court ruling found that Barnet Council had failed in its obligation properly to consult residents over the imposition of the whole scale privatisation of local public services, known then as ‘One Barnet’.

The Judicial Review which had reached this conclusion found that legal challenge had been brought too late, and therefore the two massive contracts with Capita, agreed by the Conservative administration, are now in place for a period of at least ten years.

After narrowly being returned to power the new administration has, as predicted, rushed ahead with new plans to outsource most of the remaining services, at the same time as launching plans to impose devastating cuts in budget.

As a result, we now face devastating plans to slash the funding of our library service by a staggering 60%, a disproportionate and punitive amount which is clearly agreed as a means of preparing the argument for yet another act of privatisation.

Councillors have been presented with a report with three equally damaging options for the future of Barnet Libraries, and residents encouraged to take part in what we believe to be a deeply flawed and subjective consultation process, one which an independent report has described as not fit for purpose:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/253017634/Topline-Findings-From-Research-Into-Barnet-Council-s-Library-Reforms

Now we are faced with new information which, if true, would suggest that far from learning the lessons of the Judicial Review, the authority’s latest consultation process, as well as being deliberately designed to minimise opposition to the three options, is itself a complete irrelevance, and that the outcome of the council’s consideration of the three options is already agreed in principle, if not in detail.

And if this is dialogue is typical of the way in which potential business partners negotiate with the authority, it would also raise serious and wider questions over the integrity of the procurement process in Barnet, past and present.

http://wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/exclusive-so-others-can-get-cut-of.html

Whatever the opinions of residents, it seems that there will be closure and sale of library buildings, and the outsourcing of our library service, engineered so as to provide opportunities for commercial exploitation by private contractors.

Such an outcome would be simply unacceptable, and indeed would be an unlawful decision taken in complete disregard of the democratic process.

We ask Councillor Richard Cornelius, leader of the Conservative administration, immediately to halt the discredited consultation currently in place, remove the library proposals from the budget cuts about to be imposed, and to launch an independent investigation into the alleged subversion of the due process of democratic engagement that should decide the governance of our borough, and hold the authority to account in a way that is fair, and transparent.

Derek Dishman

John Dix

Theresa Musgrove

Roger Tichborne

Notes for editors/background:

In April 2013, a High Court ruling found that Barnet Council had failed in its obligation properly to consult residents over the imposition of the whole scale privatisation of local public services, known then as ‘One Barnet’.

The Judicial Review which had reached this conclusion found that legal challenge had been brought too late, and therefore the two massive contracts with Capita, agreed by the Conservative administration, are now in place for a period of at least ten years.

http://barnetalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Nash-v-Barnet-LBC-1-JR-Appeal-judgement-2-Aug-2013.pdf

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.

West Hendon Estate - The destruction of a community

I have been to two meeting this week where the subject of the West Hendon Estate has come up. It is a tragic example of greed, incompetence and a lack of regard for the people who live there that is resulting in the destruction of a community.

On Monday night I attended the Contract monitoring scrutiny committee. I have to say the only scrutiny that took place was that carried out by the residents who had submitted 77 questions. Among the other things the residents questions revealed were that Barnet had agreed to Capita including £5.35 million of redundancy costs in their contract price. Yes that does mean that Barnet residents pay to make their own staff redundant so that Capita can make a profit by employing new staff in on much cheaper wages in Blackburn. we also learned that the council have agreed an additional payment of £453,000 to route call to libraries via a call centre. My experience was that having spoken to the call centre they had to put my call through to the library anyway. I say cut out the middleman and save £453,000.

But on to questions from the residents of West Hendon Estate. They revolved around the the council's duty to rehouse people who are homeless or about to be made homeless. Some of the council's responses were reminiscent of Joseph Heller's Catch 22.  Jasmine Parsons asked:

The successful implementation of the Council’s Placement Policy has resulted in the first discharges of Homeless duty into the private rented sector.
a. Can you please specify if they still remain on the council housing list?
b. If not why not?
c. If yes what are they categorised as? 

Barnet's response was as follows:
The Housing Allocations Scheme (September 2013) sets out in detail which customers are eligible to join Barnet Council’s banding system and which are not. To be placed onto the scheme a customer must have a reasonable preference. To have a reasonable preference, a customer must either be homeless or owed a duty to house under s.193 Housing Act 1996. Once a customer has accepted a suitable offer of private sector accommodation that can be used to end the housing duty, that customer is no longer homeless or threatened with homelessness or owed a duty to house. Therefore the customer has no reasonable preference and does not qualify to be placed onto the Housing Allocations Scheme (which in 2010 replaced the ‘council housing list’). 

So my understanding of what they are saying is that if you are homeless the council have a duty to house you so they shuffle you off to a private sector landlord where you may have only a short term tenancy and which you may find yourself evicted from in six months time when they crank up the rent. However, because you have been placed in private accommodation you are no longer classified as homeless therefore you no longer qualify to go on the council waiting list. In other words it is impossible for the homeless to get onto the council house waiting list.

The second question was asked by Tayieba Shah related to those people in emergency accommodation (EA) and why the council is missing its own target for the length of stay in EA. The council's response is frankly staggering.

Moving the longest staying households from EA would have a positive impact on this indicator as it would reduce the average length of stay of households in EA. But it may have the adverse consequence of increasing costs as those households who are the longest stayers in EA are generally accommodated in more affordable accommodation for the council which was procured at a time when market conditions were more favourable and rents lower.

So in other words, it is cheaper to keep people who have been in Emergency Accommodation for a long time in the same EA rather than move them to new accommodation because it will be more expensive. The council's target for the length of stay in EA is 26 weeks but currently the average stay is 41.1 weeks. For those stuck in emergency accommodation it must be devastating to be stuck there indefinitely because it is cheaper than moving people out.

On to the meeting last night, the BAPS Question Time, at Barnet Multicultural Centre in Hendon. It was clear from the outset that there was just one massive issue and that is the plight of the residents from the West Hendon Estate. The regeneration of this estate has been on the cards for many years and the initial planning permission was granted back in 2003. However following detail, planning permission being granted last year the scheme now seems to be ploughing ahead.

Where there are currently 680 homes, these will be replaced by 2,171 homes including a number in 29 storey blocks looking out over Welsh Harp reservoir. According to the planning statement of 15 February 2013, the current population of the estate is estimated at 1,475 and that will rise to 9,161 when the development is complete. That is a six fold increase in population.



In theory there should be enough new homes for existing tenants but in practice that is not the case because of the catch-all phase "affordable". What is affordable to a senior officer at Barnet Council on a six figure salary is completely unaffordable to key staff carrying out essential work such as hospital workers, teachers, police and social workers.

It appears that Barnet want to gentrify this area by squeezing out those on low and average wages to be replaced with people who can afford £350,000 or £400,000 for a 2 bed flat right up to £1 million for the penthouse apartments.

It is shameless how this community is being destroyed but in Barnet money always appears to take priority over people especially in a Labour ward. I cannot imagine such a massive and disruptive development would every be considered in Conservative enclave of Totteridge where the population density is just 18 people per hectare, just one tenth of the proposed density of the new estate. Draw your own conclusions as to why that is.

Please look up Our West Hendon community group on Twitter or on Facebook to find out more about their plight.

Stop the building over of community green spaces in Cricklewood

Mr Reasonable is happy to post this press release from the Brent Cross Coalition.

PRESS RELEASE from The Coalition for a Sustainable Brent Cross Development¹ (BXC Coalition)

 November 11^th  for immediate release

Protesters question legality of sale of Cricklewood’s only green space to developers

The Coalition for a Sustainable Brent Cross Development has learned that under revised plans to go before Barnet planning committee in January 2014 the green space outside B&Q will be built over in Phase one.  Despite Cricklewood Town Team having popular plans to plant trees and utilise part of the space for a market in the short term, this green space has been parcelled up and sold for high density development as part of the Brent Cross Cricklewood development over a mile away.

The green space on Cricklewood Lane will be covered by a five storey building, right up to the pavement line. Phase one could begin within 3 years.

      

     View towards the bridge – now                                   View towards the bridge - densely developed

Lesley Turner, Barnet resident and BXC coalition member says "This green space was given to Cricklewood community at the end of the eighties, as compensation or section 106 planning gain, when Food Giant (now B&Q) was built on the site. The Green does not belong to Barnet but to Cricklewood and we have asked Barnet to see the original 106 agreement. We will be challenging Barnet over the legality of the disposal or change of use of this land. 

Lia Colacicco Mapesbury resident and member of the BXC coalition added “Cricklewood Town Team identified that Cricklewood needs a landmark at its centre, and a town square.  The Green Isle is our only public space, used for the Silk Road festival and other community events and now it will be snatched from us.  This piece of land is totally unrelated to the BXC development a couple of miles away, but has been wrapped up with it to gain outline planning permission.  It is a generic piece of land to the developers, but means everything to us and needs to be unwrapped from BXC, or become the subject of a land swap. The site might not be pretty now, but look at how Mapesbury Dell has been transformed.

Once excavated it would be a real asset to the community as a plaza or other open space. 

Fiona Colgan from the Groves Community Action Group said "my neighbours and I have written to our councillors and MP to strongly oppose the plan to build on our only local green space.  Accommodation in the Groves is very high density and Cricklewood Lane gets very congested and polluted so this green space is particularly important to us but it's clear that everyone in Cricklewood would benefit if this land was retained as our 'town green’ at the heart of our community.  I think Barnet needs to explain why the green space in front of B&Q wasn’t included in its calculations of green space². Those of us who live in this part of the borough often feel overlooked by Barnet who do not seem to realise that we need green space as much as those who live in the wealthier, leafier parts of the borough to the North.

The Coalition group urges people to attend the public consultation⁴  this week and has started an online petition to save the Green Isle www.brentcrosscoalition.com/savethegreen

    

ENDS

Contact for information

Lia Colacicco 07710 460 155

Notes for editors

References

1. The “Coalition for a Sustainable Brent Cross Cricklewood Plan” comprises twelve residents’ associations plus the Federation of Residents’ Associations in Barnet (representing the 12 largest residents’ associations in Barnet), Brent Cyclists, the North West London Light Railway (NWLLR) group, Brent Friends of the Earth (FoE), Barnet & Enfield FoE, Camden FoE, Sarah Teather (MP for Brent Central), Dawn Butler, (former MP for Brent South), Labour and LibDem Councillors from Brent and Camden, Navin Shah (London Assembly Member for Brent and Harrow), Darren Johnson (London Assembly Member), Jean Lambert (London MEP), Brent Green Party, Barnet Green Party, Brent and Barnet Trades Union Councils, and Bestway Group.

The Coalition blog is at www.brentcrosscoalition.blogspot.com

2. Consultation on Tuesday 12 and Wednesday 13 November from 11am to 8pm at Hendon Leisure Centre, Marble Drive, NW2 1XQ.

Comments need to be sent to nicola.capeli@barnet.gov.uk by 6th December (giving your name and address).

3. See http://www.barnet.gov.uk/info/930329/brent_cross_cricklewood_development/907/brent_cross_cricklewood_development

and

http://www.barnet.gov.uk/downloads/download/777/brent_cross_cricklewood_development

and

http://www.brentcrosscricklewood.com/planningapps/2013/planningapp.htm

Who pressed the self destruct button - Barnet Cabinet

Last night Barnet's cabinet members voted for the award of the NSCSO contract to Capita and in so doing pressed that big red self-destruct button. They have successfully shown their complete disregard for the electorate by their resolute refusal to engage in debate, to inform residents, and involve them in the outsourcing process. When you see polite, knowledgeable, middle aged and mature voters incensed by the arrogance of the people who patronise or ignore them, you start to understand the massive gulf that has opened up in Barnet. Last night the cabinet went a step too far. They could have quite easily put the programme on hold and spent time explaining to residents much more of the detail in the NSCSO contract and listened to the very real concerns of residents. Instead they stuck two fingers up to the residents and pressed ahead with what will be a massive risk. Any references to the DRS contract last night were dismissed as not relevant to the NSCSO contract. However, the two are inextricably linked due to the IT and customer services that will be shared and, as a result, I suspect Capita will be awarded the DRS contract in just a few weeks time. 

I watched the Barnet Bugle's recording of the second half of the cabinet meeting held in private. I got a sense that some of the cabinet members still have some concerns but were subtly covering their backsides by shifting the responsibility to officers and consultants. There is one comment almost at the end (49mins 30 secs) where Cllr Cornelius is drafting a recommendation thanking officers for their help in "providing the information which we have relied on to make an informed decision." My immediate reaction was nice side step Richard, blame shifted to officers if and when it goes wrong. Well sorry but that won't wash because cabinet members rigidly ignored any concerns expressed by residents, unions or external experts such as APSE.

Indeed, over a week ago I wrote to my three ward councillors including two cabinet members, Joanna Tambourides and Robert Rams expressing my concerns and asking what steps they had taken to validate what they had been told by officers and external consultants. I think that it was a perfectly reasonable question and the one non cabinet member (Cllr Barry Evangeli) responded within a couple of hours with a courteous and considered response. However the two cabinet members have simply ignored my email. Such utter disregard for your own ward electors shows that council tax payers have become irreverent. Robert Rams has found plenty of time in the last week to tweet about his various activities including responding to an insulting email yet he has completely ignored the concerns of someone who has spent a great deal of time investigating the issues at stake.

Last night confirmed to me that cabinet members don't give a stuff about the people who voted for them. In so doing they pressed the self destruct button that will see them swept from control in 2014.

Friern Barnet Library-What is the Council up to?

Yesterday I paid a visit to Friern Barnet Library to visit the campaigners and get sight of the squatters who have occupied the vacant building.

Frankly, when I read in the on line version of the Barnet Times that Barnet Council had immediately offered the squatters an opportunity to take over premises at Friary Lodge, I thought it must be a joke. However, in Barnet, reality is often stranger than fiction and sure enough the leader of the squatters, Phoenix, not only told us about the offer but read out a long email from the council setting out their conditions.

There is a meeting tomorrow (Monday) morning at 10am between the squatters and senior council officers to talk further.

 Now I'm sure Phoenix and his comrades are jolly nice people and they have been clean and tidy  but they are not Barnet residents or Council taxpayers. The honest, genuine and law abiding and council tax paying local residents who form the Save Friern Barnet Library Campaign have been ignored completely by the Council.

Personally I find the Council's approach to this situation utter reprehensible but what is does show is that being reasonable with the Council doesn't work and that direct action pays. I think the Council have made a fundamental error of judgement  that will copme back to haunt them, but there again that comes as no surprise whatsoever.

Local Labour Councillors, Pauline Coakley Webb and Barry Rawlings were in attendance but remained outside the Library. Other campaigners came inside to see what was going on. Seeing the empty library in the heart of the community that could be use now whilst the £35,000 broom cupboard up at the Artsdepot, is nothing short of tragic.

It is quite clear the Council has turned it back on the people it should be listening to. The Council shouldn't therefore be surprised when, at the next election the local, decent, community spirited people of Barnet turn their backs on this utterly rotten Conservative regime and vote them out.

What price democracy in Barnet - £40,000 a year?

Barnet Council, in its wisdom, decided a year ago to reduce the number of planning meetings from three to two. Previously they were split by the three parliamentary constituencies but in order to save money they were reduced this down to two meetings East and West of the Borough. This has resulted in some meetings running over. To address the problem, rather than go back to three meetings, the Council has proposed that for a planning application to be referred to the committee, five people have to object rather than the current three people. The council have identified that this may save up to £40,000 a year in reduced officer and Councillors time (I thought Councillors were paid a fixed allowance irrespective of how many meetings they attended.) The problem is that with many planning applications the council informs residents of only those immediately adjacent properties meaning that often very few people know about the application.

I attended a planning meeting recently where two planning applications recommended for approval by officers were refused by the committee. This reflects the fact that most Councillors live in their local communities and are much more in touch with what is and what is not appropriate.

In 2010/11 planning application fees generated income for the Council of £1.58 million and when One Barnet Outsourcing is implemented they are forecasting that will rise by another £237,000 per annum. Trying to save £40,000 by reducing residents' right to speak at meetings seems both inappropriate  and ill judged. 

I urge every resident who has ever been affected by a planning application to write to their Councillors asking them to reconsider this stupid proposal. If this proposal goes through it will illustrate - yet again - that actually the Council is prepared to sacrifice the rights of residents all for the sake of £40,000 a year.

Mr Reasonable is back in business

Mr Reasonable has been indisposed for the last week or so but today I am back to blogging. Several matters have caught my eye over the intervening period, all of which are inextricably linked to a Conservative regime which is out of touch with the people it is supposed to represent.

The first is the fun and games going on in the Brunswick Park Ward By-Election for which I am indebted to the Barnet Bugle for bringing to my attention. The Conservative candidate makes a series of claims including fighting against the introduction of parking charges in the local car parks and helping to relaunch Church Farm Youth Club. The fact that the conservative group voted repeatedly to introduce charges and that the conservatives withdrew funding from the Church Hill Road Youth Club seem to have passed her by. By claiming that she is not a politician simply a working mother is somewhat disingenuous given that she is the Executive Secretary of The Conservative Muslim Forum, an integral part of the Conservative Party.

The second is the consultation on Door to Door Transport. This seems to be a very clear way of cutting services to the most vulnerable. Like so many consultations carried out by this administration, simply going through a process in order to impose a policy that no one supports is not what most reasonable people would classify as 'consultation'.

The third matter relates to the railings outside Martins Primary School in East Finchley. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would have realised that this was a bonkers idea but the Council went ahead with it anyway. New person in charge, Cllr Dean Cohen realises its a mistake and agrees that the railing should be replaced. Ultimately the right decision but by not listening to local people in the first place this fruitless exercise will have cost the ratepayers of Barnet several thousand pounds.

I genuinely hope that the voters in Brunswick Park send another signal to the Conservative group at Barnet council that they have got to change their ways and start actively and honestly engaging with residents. It seems to have had a small effect with Brian Coleman but there is still a great deal of change required. The Council needs to recognise that the residents of Barnet are its biggest asset. They have knowledge, they have skills, they contribute to their local community and ultimately it is the ratepayers who pick up the bill. Barnet needs to stop ignoring residents and start taking them seriously.

Save Friern Barnet Library Protest Pictures

While I was outside the Library today a chap walked up looking rather concerned. He asked what was going on. When I explained that the library was closed he seemed quite upset. I asked if he had come to bring back some books but he told me that he was unemployed and in receipt of jobseekers allowance (JSA). He used the internet access to look for jobs, a condition of his JSA, but now he would have to go to another library. With nothing in place yet at the Artsdepot he would have to go to Bowes Road Library and off he trudged. Councillors whizz around in their cars and assume everyone else enjoys the same privileges. Sadly they don't and for those people local libraries are an essential lifeline. Cabinet members are completely out of touch with the people they are supposed to represent and that is a big problem.

Leisure Consultation, One Barnet, expensive consultants and a total contempt for residents

Mr Reasonable has shown a great interest in the leisure facilities in Barnet for several years, largely because of Barnet’s determined approach to run the leisure facilities into the ground. At Residents Forums over the last three and a half years I have been asking questions as to when the Council are going to start taking leisure seriously. One thing I have repeatedly asked for is a leisure strategy starting with a sports facilities audit. Until you know the condition of your current facilities and how much life they have remaining, how can you plan what you need over the next 20 years?

Back in February 2009 I asked at a Residents Forum: “When is Barnet Council planning to undertake a sports facility audit and when will it develop a sports facility strategy that identifies Barnet’s sport and physical activity facility gaps and future investment priorities?”

The response from Barnet was: “The Council will produce a leisure facilities strategy in 2009/10. Discussion of the scope and timescale will begin soon but accordingly no public consultation or any other part of the work has yet been scheduled".

Now move on 18 months to July 2010 and I was still chasing for the Leisure Strategy. Unfortunately Barnet Council told me that: “We are in the process of starting a piece of work around forming a Leisure Facilities Strategy this strategy will show the facilities we have their age, location and what activities are offered. The strategy will also look at the growth in population the councils expects in the coming years. From this we will look to bring in funding and investment where possible but at this time there is no long term plan for the leisure facilities in Barnet”.

Barnet pulled out some figures about the provision of swimming pools that were completely and utterly wrong. When I asked for the evidence they provided a long list of leisure clubs in Barnet including LA Fitness and David Lloyd. I was told that they counted towards the provision of swimming pools in Barnet because they offer “community usage” i.e. you can buy a day pass. A friend of mine who was also concerned about this problem (and a true community champion) rang around the various clubs and found that the cheapest day pass was £15/person with several operators not allowing day visitors. So yes we have lots of leisure facilities in Barnet but at £60 for a family of four for a single day pass or a family annual membership of over £1,000 a year it is definitely beyond the reach of many.

Nevertheless the chap from Barnet Council agreed that we could have a meeting to talk about the forthcoming strategy and an appointment at NLBP in August 2010 was confirmed. Sadly just a week later the meeting was postponed indefinitely.
Jump forward a year and in September 2011 the Cabinet consider a report on the “Strategic Leisure Review” where the main thrust of the report was how to cut £1.2 million out of the Leisure Budget in the next two years. Given that the current spend is only £1.7 million per annum that represents a cut of 35%. In the report it talks about “detailed consultation, which will be carried out with users and non-users of the leisure facilities, will support this objective and will enable an understanding of the changing user and resident needs in all sections of the community, including those members of the community who are protected under equalities legislation”.

As a follow up to the cabinet meeting, a public consultation was listed on the wonderfully difficult to find and expensive consultation hub website http://engage.barnet.gov.uk/. However since that time the consultation has been postponed twice. The last time it was postponed, in December, the public consultation was rescheduled to commence on 1 February. I duly logged on at 9.00 am all ready to give my views but no it was still showing as about to commence. I tried to email on the link given on the website but that didn’t work – what a surprise.

In the afternoon I was told that this consultation has been handed over to the Council’s One Barnet Implementation Partner, Agilisys/iMPOWER because the Leisure Strategy is now a “One Barnet project”. But do they have the requisite skills I wondered. No, so Agilisys/iMPOWER have drafted in a leisure expert, Duncan Wood-Allum from a specialist consultancy Sport, Leisure, Culture Consultancy . Apparently he will be preparing the strategic overview case which will then go to Cabinet and if approved will move forward to the business case. The problem is that once again the agenda will be set by a consultant and residents will only get consulted on the options the consultant determines are best for us. Residents will once again get left out of the policy development stage - it seems to be the One Barnet way.

What I want to know is how the council gets away with it - public consultation cancelled, no facilities audit and why the hell have the council designated this a One Barnet project and employed yet another expensive consultant.

The Council have p****d about for almost four years on this review, they have failed to engage with the public and now they want to spend a fortune on yet another consultant. In the last 18 months Barnet have paid Agilisys/iMPOWER £1.6 million on One Barnet, money that could have gone into delivering services and they now want to spend even more. Sadly I won’t be able to ask any more questions about the leisure review at Residents Forum because that is policy and One Barnet and therefore banned under the current repressive regime. Barnet Council is yet again demonstrating its utter contempt for the public.