Want to park in Fitzjohn Avenue Car Park for 30 minutes - that will be £4 please!

Maybe it is just me but when did Barnet Council take the decision to turn Fitzjohn Avenue Car park into a long stay car park?

In the Barnet Press yesterday was a notification showing the various tariff changes in Barnet car parks. One that caught my eye was the Fitzjohn Avenue car park. Currently there is a graduated tariff ranging from £1.00 for 30 minutes through to £5.00 for over 90 minutes. From 30 April this will change to a single tariff of £4.00. I popped up there today to check this out and sure enough the official notices show exactly the same. I have to say the car park was surprisingly empty with just 8 cars in a car park with 88 spaces. So even if you only want to stay for half an hour it will cost you £4.00 from 30 April.

I have been through all of the cabinet papers and environment notices and I haven’t found one that talks about a change of use for this car park. Whilst turning Fitzjohn Avenue into a long stay car park may benefit the college next door, this tariff will condemn the car park to being empty out of term time and on Saturdays.

Maybe the Barnet Residents’ Association or Barnet Traders agreed to this a proposal but nothing in the public domain appears to have been discussed before the issuing of these notices. Will this be a further nail in the coffin for High Barnet at the hands of Cllr Coleman?

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.

Cultural Demolition - Why Barnet Has Got It's Priorities So Wrong

Last night Barnet Council once and for all killed off Friern Barnet Library. Cultural demolition all to save a £100,000. Some people may say that is a lot of money and yes it is. However, in the first two months of 2012 Barnet Council paid over £500,000 to one set of consultants to advise them on the high risk One Barnet outsourcing project. This illustrates the just how misguided the Council's priorities have become.

Thousands of people have opposed the closure of this library. The community have come up with a real alternative for the library as a Community Hub. Barnet should be proud to have such a responsive and constructive community but sadly all they care about is money. Friern Barnet library will be sold and a capital sum generated. Will the landmark library at the Arts Deport ever get built? who knows, but one thing for sure is that as of 4pm today the residents of Friern Barnet will have been cheated out of their local library and that is a disgrace.

Sadly Barnet's Conservative Cabinet members place no value on community or culture - just money.

Catalyst - Will History Repeat Itself?

Barnet Council are about to enter into a new contract with a company called Catalyst. So what you may say? Well this contract has already cost the Council (and therefore Council taxpayers) over £10 million in compensation and legal fees so you would have thought that there would be a great deal of scrutiny over any new contract to be entered into with this company. Well not in Barnet.
In order to understand this a bit more I have set out briefly the background to this contract.

Background:
Back in 2001 Barnet Council outsourced its residential care provision for elderly people to Ealing Family Housing Association (now Catalyst) and their care partner The Fremantle Trust. The contract was worth £9 million per annum and covered eleven care homes, four day centres, and over 300 staff all of which were transferred over to Catalyst.

This complex contract involved the rebuilding of a number of the homes and guarantees of the number of places the council would purchase at these homes. For the specific details I suggest you read this document.

The contract experienced problems due to delays with the rebuilding and with a change in needs of the elderly. This meant that more people either stayed in their own home or moved in to extra care sheltered housing rather than moving into a Catalyst care home leaving empty beds at these care homes. In August 2006 Catalyst formally submitted a Deficit Claim to recover cumulative losses on the contract between 2001 and 2005/6. In July 2007 a further adjustment claim was received covering 2006/7. The Council sought financial and legal advice and rejected the first claim, but the second claim remained in dispute. In 2007 the Council unsuccessfully attempted to renegotiate aspects of the contract to mitigate further deficits at which time they decided to go to Arbitration to resolve the Deficit Claim.

Skip forward to March 2011 and the arbitrators decision was finalised with the bill for Barnet Council as follows:

Final Award to Catalyst (including interest and costs) £8,674,000
Council’s final estimated legal costs £2,000,000
Outstanding issues (land swaps) £110,000
Total Cost £10,784,000

Some of these costs were offset against net income from Catalyst giving a final cost to Barnet Council of £10,252,000.

Today:
Now I am sorry that I have had to bore you with all of this information but it is essential to understand the background so as to make sense or otherwise of what the council is now doing.

Just over 1 week ago the Council released a Delegated Powers Report which set out the basis for the new contract with Catalyst and agreed that this recommendation should be exempted from call in by the Scrutiny Committee that would normally deal with this decision.

I wrote to the Chairman of that Committee, Cllr Hugh Rayner asking that he reconsider his decision to allow this report to be exempted from call in (so that it can be scrutinised) but he has said he will not do so. The argument is that because an earlier version of the report was tabled last November, albeit that it wasn’t finalised, that was the opportunity to call in the report and we have now missed our chance. I would point out that this tabled at a Cabinet Resources Committee meeting which, although it had 10 items on the agenda, was over in just 20 minutes according to the minutes. So no debate at all then.

Set out below are my concerns about this proposed new contract which I forwarded to Cllr Rayner and perhaps would have been useful to discuss:

• Catalyst appear to have successfully de-risked their part of the contract by simply becoming the landlord. This will guarantee them with a rental stream for the duration of the lease in return for dropping the ‘deficit clause’.

• It is not clear who will be responsible for repairs and upgrading of the homes over the next 21 years and it does not appear to resolve the issue of overall capacity. As such, in 10 years time Barnet could be leasing homes it does not require or which are entirely unsuitable for its needs.

• It is not clear when the “appropriate stage” for the break clause will occur or the terms of such a break clause. For example, it is likely to prove difficult to invoke a break clause on lease which covers all of the homes whilst there are residents in some of the homes. However, if each home has been let under a separate lease, the council would be able to invoke the break clause one home at a time, minimising unnecessary costs whilst retaining sufficient homes capacity to meet on-going need.

• By novating the Fremantle contract to the Council this has shifted the operating risk back to Barnet. Cllr Thomas, who signed off this report, states that “This novation will enable the Council to either negotiate a contract more appropriate to its needs or, retender the care provision and thus provide more flexibility in terms of block beds, the price per bed and the form and location of day care services”. However, it also places the responsibility back with the Council to find a suitable operator at the right price which may, in reality, prove very difficult to deliver.

• It is essential to understand the details of the contract that is being novated to ensure that the terms enable the council to renegotiate the contract with Fremantle without incurring subsequent penalties.

More fundamentally, I would have expected to see a strategy explaining what Barnet anticipates in terms of the changing care home needs of residents over the next 21 years, how this revised deal with Catalyst fits that strategy, what other options were considered, what risk analysis was done to test the robustness of this proposal and, finally, whether this deal represents good value for the rate payers in the medium to long term. I can see that this may be an expedient short term solution but I worry that over the longer term it could prove just as damaging to the council as the contract it seeks to replace.

What the Delegated Powers Report is asking is that we should trust the officers who have renegotiated this contract without having sight of any of the relevant details. Given that the previous version of this contract has already cost the Council over £10 million in compensation and penalties, I am sure most reasonable people would understand why it is so important that, this time around, the Council need to demonstrate the highest standards of scrutiny and rigour so that all of the details can be thoroughly examined in public.

Maybe the other 350,000 residents of Barnet think I am just mad and should let the Council get on and run things the way they see fit. However, I am afraid I have a lack of confidence in the way the Council do things. Just look at the problems that have surfaced in the last twelve months over the Council’s procurement procedures. If this contract goes wrong again, the people who will pick up the bill will be the ratepayers - again.

My view is that this proposed contract should be scrutinised in public so that at least someone can ask these and other pertinent questions. Tell me what you think.

Agilisys - £248k fee in February

Barnet Council published their supplier payments for February last Friday. Sadly the Council's love affair with their One Barnet implementation partner just keeps on rolling. In February Agilisys were paid £248,169.40, slightly down on the £270,719.50they were paid in January. So in the first two months of 2012 Agilisys have been paid over half a million pounds of council tax payers money to help implement One Barnet. Yet this is something we are not allowed to discuss at the residents forums.

In the year to date Agilisys have been paid £1.55 million and when coupled with the £642,050.64 they received last financial year they have now billed £2.2million. That is £2.2 million to just one firm of consultants.

Only in Barnet!

Parking Chaos in Colemanistan

An open letter to Richard Cornelius, Leader of Barnet Council, and all Barnet Councillors

Dear Leader and Barnet Councillors,

On 20th March a document was placed upon the Barnet Council website entitled - Bittacy Hill_Introduction_of_Waiting_Restrictions - (http://committeepapers.barnet.gov.uk/democracy/reports/reportdetail.asp?ReportID=11110).

This document details the mayhem caused by the abolition of free bays in Controlled Parking Zones as part of Councillor Brian Coleman’s parking policies. This document details how the Barnet Police have had their time wasted, congestion has been caused, buses have been delayed, residents inconvenienced, and people’s safety has been endangered. In short, it is the most damning indictment of a Council policy possible. The background information section of this document says:

8. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

8.1 In June 2011 the Council completed a scheme whereby all ‘Free’ parking bays were converted to permit holder or paid for parking bays in the borough’s Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs). As a result of the changes made to the Mill Hill East CPZ, a proportionate level of displaced parking is occurring on both sides of Bittacy Hill on the outskirts of the CPZ boundary.

8.2 The council has been contacted by roads users and local residents, complaining of the congestion being caused as through vehicles are being obstructed by the displaced parking.

8.3 London Buses have reported to the council that the displaced parking is obscuring sightlines and obstructing through traffic, preventing their buses from gaining suitable access through the road, resulting in the delay of their services. They also stated that this situation has caused major congestion in both directions on Bittacy Hill and therefore, have had to temporarily put some of their buses on diversion.

8.4 In addition, the Police have also expressed concerns regarding this location, and have requested for waiting restrictions to be introduced.

8.5 Following investigations including site observations, Officers concluded that major congestion occurs on the hill at this location, and in order to keep traffic moving through the borough considered that the provision of waiting restrictions would be appropriate given the obstructive parking which is taking place.

8.6 Therefore, proposals to introduce lengths of ‘at any time’ waiting restrictions on certain lengths of Bittacy Hill including around its junctions with Bittacy Close and Engle Park, were designed in order to deter obstructive parking and improve traffic flow, sightlines and safety.

8.7 In anticipation of the statutory consultation, Mill Hill Ward Members were consulted on the proposals with all advising of their agreement and support of the measures for the area. In particular, Councillors Khatri and Hart stated that they had also received complaints on this matter or have experienced problems themselves. Councillor Hart did raise the issue that more restrictions may cause more problems to the wider area as did Councillor Schama.

8.8 However, Officers consider that any displaced parking that may occur as a result of the introduction of the restrictions can be absorbed into the local network with minimal impact.

8.9 In mid August it was necessary to introduce emergency temporary waiting restrictions on the eastern side of Bittacy Hill, as nearby Devonshire Road was closed to allow for essential maintenance works to take place, which resulted in an increased traffic flow on Bittacy Hill that exasperated the problems occurring at the location.

8.9 Traffic cones were placed on street to indicate the temporary waiting restrictions, and the location was monitored by Officers. Observations showed that displaced parking was minimal and what did occur had little impact on the area. It was concluded that the removal of the parked vehicles at this location was very effective in relieving the congestion normally experienced.

8.10 Additional supporting evidence underlining the concern via photographs showing buses being obstructed and the congestion experienced were sent to the council and a petition signed by all residents of Bittacy Close was also submitted, asking for waiting restrictions to be implemented at the junction of Bittacy Close and Bittacy Hill.

8.14 Councillor Khatri and Councillor Hart have since also reaffirmed their views and support for the proposals. In particular, they advised of their concerns regarding safety being an issue at this location. Councillor Hart also re-iterated his concerns for residents of Bittacy Close, who suffer from obstruction at the junction of Bittacy Close and Bittacy Hill.

Councillor Brian Coleman ignored all wise counsel in order to introduce these policies. He ignored all efforts to mitigate the problems caused. As a result, we have a situation where ever more parking restrictions will be required to fix a problem that did not previously exist. To what end? To inconvenience and overcharge local residents.

It is time for Barnet Council to have an urgent rethink. It is time to reinstate free bays, cut parking charges on Barnet’s high streets, and, most of all, it is time to put someone in charge of parking who is competent.

There is no way that Barnet Council can pretend that Coleman’s parking policies are anything other than an unmitigated disaster. Your own document says so in black and white.

Signed:

Derek Dishman
John Dix
Vicki Morris
Theresa Musgrove
Roger Tichborne

Colemanistan - the code name for Barnet?

It is amazing what people leave in the back seats of taxis; false teeth, the ashes of loved ones as well as the more typical umbrellas, wallets and mobile phones. Last week a good friend of mine had to get from a very nice restaurant on the South Bank where he had been entertaining some clients back to his office in the City. A short hop but after a rather good lunch, a taxi seemed the most suitable means of transport.

Sitting on the back seat was a confidential file. Being a city professional of the highest standing he of course immediately opened the file in the hope of finding some price sensitive information which he could use to his own advantage.

Unfortunately for him it contained only a short report which was printed on plain paper with no distinguishing marks. However the contents were dynamite from my perspective and was happy to pay for my friend's rather good lunch in return for seeing a copy of this document. I have subsequently sought legal advice and hence my blog has been especially quiet this week. At this stage I have been advised not to divulge the specific nature of the document but what is interesting is that the code name for this project is 'Colemanistan'. It involves the reduction of 62 posts in the London Borough of Barnet with only one of the original 63 posts remaining. It involves some of the most Machiavellian moves I have ever come across and is a masterplan in manipulation of the democratic process. It involves just one character who is at the heart this project and who has the ear of people in the highest positions in government.

I will reveal more once my lawyer has carried out more detailed investigations and clarified my legal position.