'Pot luck' planning

On the 23rd May a planning application was passed for a development of 61 houses in Llandovery, there was considerable opposition, one objection being that the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) only allowed for 32.

A last minute Addendum was added to the planning officer's report which limited the development to 32 houses until such time as the Local Development Plan (still in the process of examination and consideration) was adopted. This Addendum was accepted and approved along with the application.

Contrast that with an earlier decision (28th March) to allow 289 homes in Penybanc, Ammanford. Similar arguments had been put forward that the UDP only allowed for 150, but in this case, there was no similar limitation on the development and the argument that this was nearly double the number allowed under the UDP was dismissed.

Plaid Cymru's Rhodri Glyn Thomas AM has issued a strong statement accusing the planning department of inconsistency and calling on the Welsh Government to urgently intervene;

‘Potluck’ policies in county planning authority 

Plaid AM hits out at inconsistent approach to developments 

Plaid Cymru Assembly Member Rhodri Glyn Thomas has this week launched a resounding attack on county planners for their inconsistent approach to assessing planning applications – calling for the intervention of the Welsh government as a matter of urgency. 

Rhodri’s statement comes a result of county planners curtailing a proposed development of 61 properties in Llandovery on the basis that the authority’s Unitary Development Plan (UDP) only permits 32 properties to be built at the site. This decision comes just weeks after 289 properties were approved on a Penybanc site that almost doubled the maximum UDP limit of one hundred and fifty. 

Branding the inconsistent approach as “astonishing”, the Plaid Cymru politician said developers and communities face ‘potluck’ when it comes to what policies are used to assess planning applications. 

The Carmarthen East & Dinefwr AM said:

“I said last week that planning policies aren’t worth the paper their written on. Little did I know that just a few days later my comments would be strengthened by this astonishing action by the planning authority. 

“My opposition to the Penybanc development is well documented – as is my deep disappointment at the total disregard for local opinion, planning policy and the Welsh language. 

“But the inconsistencies in the assessment process leaves developers and communities in a potluck situation when it comes to what policies are used to assess applications. 

“A planning authority cannot be allowed to use a policy to curtail a development on one site, but disregard that same policy to approve a development almost double the size the policy permits on another site. 

“I will be writing to the Minister and seeking the intervention of the Welsh government as a matter of urgency. Moving the goalposts completely undermines the planning process and is something no Carmarthenshire resident should have to put up with”.

(Full article here) 

Are you healthier and wealthier?...probably not.

It's that time of year again when the council tells us that we are healthier, wealthier and wiser through the endless pages of the Annual Report and Improvement Plan. In reality, you probably feel roughly the same as you did last year, as you will next year too. Much of it is aspirational nonsense. All councils have to publish these documents which measure performance against targets and who can come up with the most ridiculous jargon and the most grateful looking pensioners. It will now go through scrutiny committees where hopefully, it will be scrutinized.

This is a self-evaluation exercise so only a couple of independent reports are incorporated, one is the schools inspectorate, Estyn, which found that in Carmarthenshire, 'the proportion of schools requiring follow-up activity after an inspection is high in comparison with other authorities'. 
The Wales Audit Office evaluation of the Report and Plan depends on the authorities being 'genuine, honest, objective, unbiased, fair, balanced and proportionate', in summary it concluded that Carmarthenshire's reporting was 'generally fair and balanced. Although focused mainly on positive achievements...', In plain speaking, it's a load of old spin.



Carmarthenshire certainly makes the most of the opportunity, publishing a ten page summary for the public (later in the year), a lengthy 75 page report to council and a whopping 218 page supporting technical annex. We can look forward to the best bits forming a selection of council press releases over the next few weeks.

One Key Priority of course is delivering value for money and 'directing our resources to the top priority front line services on which many local people depend'. With those local people in mind, the Policy and Resources Scrutiny Committee are still waiting for a report defining any possible savings in the Civic and Ceremonial and the Communications budgets. Corporate limos, civic lunches, the Carmarthenshire News, and for that matter, senior officer pay, never seem to appear in the 'efficiency savings' programme.

The spin and propaganda also extends into the pay packets of all 9500 staff every month, with the inclusion of a newsletter, complete with a message to the troops from the Chief Executive, (cost unknown).

They, the P & R Committee, are also still waiting for information as to how much is spent on consultants by each council department. An all-Wales report (not just Carmarthenshire) by the Wales Audit Office in February revealed that seriously inadequate management of consultancy procurement and monitoring procedures was not giving value for money for the taxpayer, or 'Better use of Resources' to use one of Carmarthenshire's catchphrases. It turns out that, for example, if a civil engineering company does consultancy as well as building work, current methods of financial reporting make it impossible to tell how much is spent on each service.

As for those local people; luncheon clubs, libraries, day centres, museums, village schools, youth clubs etc are all in the firing line. Charges have increased for parking, leisure centres, care services, council tax etc and anything else the council can legally prise cash out of you for. However the locals, if they're local to Carmarthen anyway, can now go ten-pin bowling, with prayers included, thanks to £1.4m given to Towy Community Church Ltd.

Another Key Priority comes under the heading 'Building a Better Council'; several sub-headings, embedded strategies and pie charts later, we get to 'Core Value B1; Openness, trust, honesty and integrity' where we find a mention of Freedom of Information Requests.

Carmarthenshire council has, the report says, 'one of the highest and increasing number of Freedom of Information requests in Wales', 886 last year, (and they're not all from me, in case you were wondering) This, they say, "may suggest that some of our public information sources could be improved further, or that we have a more engaged and interested community". With regards to the former, it brings back memories of my very closely supervised and unwelcome visit to view the dusty ledgers of the Register of Members' Interests. Something almost all other local authorities manage to publish quite easily online. And many others publish spending details. As for the latter, a heightened interest from the community, I hope they're right.

As an example of their 'openness' there's a link to the 'Senior Management Team Pay Statement' which is so out of date it Meryl Gravell is still queen.

With only two employees (compared to the 'team of twenty' in the PR department) its hardly surprising that the council failed to respond to 80 requests within the statutory 20 day limit, one of the reasons given for this,  which should come as no surprise, is the length of time taken to "obtain approval to release information".

Another questionable boast in the Report concerns the 'review' of the council's constitution, with a view to 'achieving efficiencies and streamlining decision making processes' by amending, amongst other things, the Standing Orders. I'm not sure what the efficiencies are but the streamlining must be referring to the reduction of minority voices, limiting debate, particularly if it's a controversial topic, and generally giving further control over agenda items, questions, motions and petitions to a senior officer.
'Streamlining' is not the word I'd have used but then again, I'm not a spin doctor. There have also been times when puzzled observers have wondered just which version of the Constitution is the current favourite.

So, given a few examples, the reality is somewhat different from the corporate image of the 'best council in Wales'. We all know that by now though. Please note however, I don't want to detract from the hardworking frontline staff and the majority of the workforce who keep the machine ticking over.

I suppose in times past, numerous meetings, seminars and buffets were by held by local government officials to determine how the performance of councils could be measured. The tortured evolution has resulted, in Carmarthenshire anyway, into an unwieldy and unreadable (and undoubtedly expensive and time consuming) load of old tosh and a glib, patronising summary for public consumption. There has to be a better way.

The whole thing can of course be seen on the council website, if you're so inclined.

Midweek news bulletin

As Cneifiwr reported earlier in the week, Welsh Minister Carl Sargeant has refused to call-in the 289 home development in Penybanc, double the number allowed under the current Development Plan. He appears to be continuing his ministerial 'non-intervention policy' as he did when in charge of Local Government. Well, as far as Carmarthenshire Council are concerned anyway.

Plaid AM Rhodri Glyn Thomas reacted angrily and said that "the decision by the Welsh Government shows that planning policies are not worth the paper they’re written on. It looks as though planning authorities are free to ignore development limits whenever they want.” 

One complaint brought by the objectors was that they had been reassured by planning officers that no decision would be made at the committee meeting, though this is denied. The South Wales Guardian opinion reminds council leader Kevin Madge that he promised to order the council's monitoring officer to investigate whether there had been any breach of procedure.

Rather like his calls for a public inquiry into the Ammanford police station PFI scandal, everyone's still waiting....

There is growing discontent in the nearby town of Llandovery. As I have mentioned, the most important and largest community asset, Pantycelyn  secondary school is now closing, thanks to our county council (and with no thanks to the local county councillors who failed to raise a murmur), to be replaced by the new superschool 14 miles away in Ffairfach, Llandeilo.

To add insult to injury, the town's small but perfectly formed museum unceremoniously shut it's doors the other day causing panicked resident to scramble for their artefacts before the rest were bundled into a container and plonked round the back. The historians and volunteers who have been running the museum for sixteen years had a bit of a shock. The Town Council have now promised to find a temporary home for all the exhibits as soon as they can.

The future of the museum and Heritage Centre, which was subsidised by the county council, was subject of a consultation last year. Funded by a £9965 grant and run by the Llandovery Partnership, a group formed from local business and other interested parties, including the County and Town Council and the National Park, none of the three options put forward proposed closure, despite the fact that the grant was awarded to;

"achieve a Centre that will Showcase and celebrate the rich heritage of Llandovery and the surrounding area, provide a comprehensive tourist information service for the Brecon Beacons National Park and Carmarthenshire and be a competitive attraction which will attract a range of audiences and encourage repeat visitors, residents as well as tourists."

With that in mind, the alternative use for the Heritage Centre has been met with some disbelief. Somebody, or some organisation, has convinced the Partnership that what Llandovery really really needs is a business-hub, or hot-desk centre which is what it will now become.

Llandovery is not the next Wall Street, the main event of the week is the livestock market and even those in the cut and thrust of rural business have heard of smartphones. And as for tourists, there's now one less reason to stop and browse round the town. Perhaps they'll suddenly need a hot-desk.

Let's also hope, if there's a sudden need for a comfort break, the public toilets are still there. Rumours are circulating that the council contractors Danfo are considering leaving town....

Lastly, Carmarthenshire Council were very pleased with the viewing figures of the council meeting webcast last week (and available to watch at your leisure here). Press releases have been in abundance just to remind everyone how inspired they were to come up with this wonderful idea all on their own....

In fact they've broken records, with 551 fascinated viewers tuning in and had the 'highest figures for any authority in the UK for its first webcast' Who'd have thought it eh? I'll make sure I promote the next one too.

WLGA...one of life's mysteries.

The article in the Western Mail about senior council officers' pay, which, as you saw from my last post, starred Carmarthenshire Council as top of the bill, featured the usual defence from the Chief Executive of the WLGA (Welsh Local Government Association), Mr Steve Thomas who is brought out every time anyone picks on the weighty pay packets of our public sector officers. 

The WLGA is one of those organisations in which the average person, including me, as I am very average, can see no practical purpose whatsoever. I'm sure Mr Thomas would disagree, but with its "primary purposes to promote better local government and its reputation and to support authorities in the development of policies and priorities which will improve public services and democracy" evidence is thin on the ground that this is any more than a talking shop, much concerned, it would appear, with reputation.

As Mr Thomas was so defensive in the newspaper about executive pay I wondered what the staff, and other costs were for the WLGA itself. I could find nothing on their website at all. The English equivalent however, the LGA has a dedicated page to 'Public Information' listing pay, contracts, expenses etc. All the usual.

I emailed the WLGA to enquire where I might find such information as I would have thought it would all be within the Publication Scheme under the FOIA. Although it was not a FOI request. I received a response this morning from Mr Thomas who has kindly directed me to the WLGA accounts, squirrelled away in the website. I'll not provide a link....see how long it takes you to find it. I appreciate his quick response though.

Mr Thomas helpfully tells me that his salary is £146,751 (including pension etc) and the five directors earn between £65k and £85k per year. So far so good. But Mr Thomas then goes on to tell me that as the WLGA is not a statutory body (it is 'autonomous' and part of the LGA, a Quango I believe) it doesn't come under FOI legislation, so they're not obliged to tell us anything. But, according to Mr Thomas they seek to 'embody this in their work'. This is far from evident on their website. Of course, our very own Meryl Gravell and Kevin Madge are Chairs/Deputy Chairs of the WLGA Council. In fact, Member Services account for £92k of its expenditure.

Despite not being 'Statutory', the WLGA are consulted on public issues such as health care, education, electoral boundaries, city regions, housing etc and even, I discovered, the filming of council meetings, and a myriad of matters in their various sub-committees, Advisory Groups, subsidiary companies and those dreaded Task and Finish Groups.

I am somewhat surprised by this, even small Community Councils are subject to the FOIA, so why on earth is a large organisation, with staff costs of £4m and in receipt of £8m of Welsh Government grants, and £2m worth of subscriptions from Welsh public bodies, not under the same legislation?

I daresay someone will tell me, but for now, it remains a mystery.

Chart-topping Carmarthenshire Council

Today's Wales on Sunday reports on the '56 Welsh Council employees taking home six figure salaries' .

Carmarthenshire Council, making cuts of £16m over the next three years, tops the chart. (and apparently there's no magic money tree either).

L to R; CEOs of Carmarthenshire, Cardiff and Pembrokeshire.
(Pic source; Wales on Sunday)

Earlier post from the 10th May; Town Hall Tycoons

Update 21st May; The Chief Executive of Cardiff Council (pictured in centre) announced his resignation today and revealed his new job with accountancy firm, Pricewaterhouse Coopers.

'Public statements' - a vexatious action under FoI?

Further to A vexatious request? (May 3rd), and just in case anyone is still following the lengthy saga of my Freedom of Information request for correspondence between Carmarthenshire Council and the Towy Community Church, the very latest instalment is now available. I asked for this information back in June 2012.

As predicted, the council's second 'internal review' has upheld the fresh decision, (issued after the ICO upheld my complaint), that the request, (or the requestor, I'm not sure which, given their reasoning), is vexatious. It all seems to coincide with new guidance published by the ICO on Thursday which whilst clarifying that only the request itself can be deemed vexatious, the council can incorporate a multitude of other factors including motive, as well as their own perception of the requestor, to add strength to their argument.

Clearly the council have embraced every possible interpretation, and have even included 'public statements' I have made (though they haven't specified exactly what they're referring to) as a reason to refuse on this basis. It must follow then that should a newspaper write a critical report following an FoI response, further requests could be refused on the basis of their 'public statements'.

This latest, full response from the legal department, which includes the council's application of the Information Commissioner v Devon CC and Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC), can be read HERE.
(The full history of the request is here)

Given the highly controversial £1.4m financial commitment made by the council to the organisation and the bowling alley project, the information is still very much in the public interest, and as phase two of the project gets underway, all the more reason for the information to be made public.

I now have the option of going back yet again to the Information Commissioner.

Also in the public interest is the subject of my most recent request which is for minutes of meetings of the Business Management Group. As I have previously mentioned (please use the search box on the right), the group is made up of party elite and senior officers and it's remit is, apparently, to 'advise' the Executive Board.

Although not technically a decision making body, it's advice and recommendations have never been known to be rejected.

The meetings are not published and the group does not feature anywhere in either the Management nor Political Structure of the council. They do, however, appear to produce Minutes. The publication of these minutes will perhaps go some way to open up the decision making process and show the level and content of discussion prior to the recommendations which are, without any known exception, approved.

Another interesting aspect to this group is that any small groups or unaffiliated/truly independent councillors are not included. The 'Independent' group is included of course as it has all the hallmarks of a political party, believe it or not.

A couple of years ago Cllr Sian Caiach challenged the lack of representation of small groups within the BMG. The Acting Head of Legal dismissed concerns that "human rights" (she used inverted commas) were being infringed and it was just (to paraphrase) tough luck that if you didn't have a large enough group, you weren't represented.

Cllr Caiach responded and reminded the officer that the group not only used public funds but it's membership was discriminatory against small groups and individuals who actually represented thousands of constituents. She also wondered at what point did a group have to be large enough for the legal department to recognise it had human rights. As far as I know there was no response.

Anyway, the twenty days has now passed for the council to issue a response to my request for the minutes. Apparently they will be in a position to do so by the end of next week. I'll wait and see their response.
The request can be read here.

Carmarthenshire webcast begins...and other news

Update;
BBC article which includes a bit about me; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-22529784
I have also recorded a piece for the BBC, it might be on the Wales news later. (Have just watched it and for some reason my contribution was not included)

Update;

Well, for those of you who missed the webcast, it should be available on archive later on, after some editing maybe. If you enjoy prayer, pomp and mutual backslapping, it'll be just your thing. However, it was the AGM and future meetings may be a little more interesting.

Technically the live streaming was very well done (by @Public_i) As for the cast...? Well, Kevin Madge's Leader's report is probably best forgotten. Incidentally, there was much waffle at the start about declarations of interest and making sure Cllrs spoke up, went out, verbally declared etc - usually they just pass a form round, which went missing on one occasion.

At one point the Chair indicated to Pam Palmer (Ind leader) that it was her turn to speak, she was surprised as she hadn't asked to speak; "but it's in the script" said the Chair. Oh dear.

The only chink in the usual spin was the Plaid leader's reply which brought up Labour's failure to support the Living Wage for it's 'cherished' employees and the recent embarrassing ombudsman reports. Anyway, I don't know why I'm telling you this, force of habit I guess.


-------------------------------------------------------

Failing any last minute problems, it looks like the long awaited webcasting pilot will actually start today at 11am, so far there's no link, or mention on the council website but the page can be found here; http://www.carmarthenshire.public-i.tv/core/
(update; with 45 minutes until the meeting starts, the council have just put a link on the website)
-------------------------------------------------------

For a few brief hours yesterday the Council homepage featured news of two 'focus' group meetings, arranged for next week to chew over a light buffet and the council propaganda rag, the Carmarthenshire News. At some point the article was unceremoniously squirreled away to a remote corner of the website just in case, I presume, anyone decided to go. The Carmarthenshire News now enjoys joint contributions from various taxpayer funded services such as the police and the health board. Masterminded by the press squad  at County Hall, it has been the subject of recent FoI's to try and get to the bottom of the finances, or, 'creative accounting', to quote local politicians.

One meeting will be held at the new state-of the-art £10m Strategic Co-ordination Centre Police HQ in Carmarthen, which has finally found a purpose. The other at, (no not Parc Y Scarlets this time), The Furnace Theatre, Llanelli. (As an aside, you may remember when residents of Carmarthenshire, asked to vote for a name for the new theatre, chose The Stepney Centre, but the council had other ideas and chose the name which came second in the poll, all of which was revealed through a FoI). 

Anyway, if you would like to offer some 'feedback', or make other useful suggestions as to where exactly you would like to place your copy of the Carmarthenshire News, you will need to email your 'expression of interest', after you've located the article on the website. You haven't got much time either. Good luck with that.

With the propaganda rag dominating the homepage, I can only imagine that the preparations for today's webcast of the AGM were so frantic that the press office had clean forgotten to mention it, not even a tweet. I suppose last minute wardrobe issues and getting the make-up right is keeping everyone busy, I expect the ladies are preoccupied too.

So, we look forward to an enthusiastic announcement this morning. But just in case there's isn't, (and depending on the council getting it's act together), it's due to start at 11am.

--------------------------------------------------------

One more thing I'd like to mention is the defeat by Labour in the Assembly of Rhodri Glyn Thomas' (Plaid) amendment to the Local Democracy Bill. This was a modest but important attempt to open up council meetings to members of the public and allow the free use of social media in an attempt to "..put a stop to the stories across Wales of local people being stopped from commenting publicly on these public matters."
Why on earth the amendment wasn't passed unanimously, and without question, I have no idea.

 http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/fails-attempt-open-meets/story-18989783-detail/story.html#axzz2TL1sTSgw

Town Hall Tycoons

The annual Town Hall Rich list was published today by the Taxpayers' Alliance. Carmarthenshire earns a special mention as having twelve employees earning over £100,000, the highest in Wales and two more than last year. The list also includes a mystery salary of £157,500 which doesn't appear on the Council accounts, the accounts themselves record an employee leaving last year within this salary range with a pay off of £126,000. Whether the two are connected I couldn't say, but despite the fact that all employees earning over £150,000 are required to be named, this entry remains anonymous. By my calculations, the combined remuneration of thirty senior council employees comes in at over £3m. Carmarthenshire also topped the BBC league table a couple of weeks ago for having the highest paid senior officer in Wales.

I can't really comment at the moment on whether we're getting good value for money here in Carmarthenshire, but the issue of whether this is all a bit much, particularly for a county with a population of 180,000 gets brought up every year. And every year the respective Leaders rush to the defence of their senior officers, for years it was Meryl Gravell (Ind) who has now passed the baton of unswerving loyalty onto Kevin Madge (Lab).
Local Assembly Member Rhodri Glyn Thomas (Plaid) is trying to amend the Local Democracy Bill to; "..take senior pay out of the hands of council officers and put it under the remit of an all-Wales independent remuneration body. Plaid Cymru are also seeking to abolish extra payments for returning officers at local elections.."

Seems a good idea to me.

Updated 19th May; The Western Mail reports on public sector executive pay and the chart topping fat-cattery of Carmarthenshire Council. http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/more-50-welsh-council-bosses-3867881

---------------------------------------------------

Briefly onto the subject of webcasting and the promised pilot look set to begin with next week's AGM (Wednesday 15th May, 10am). Nothing controversial for the first outing; the Leader's tribute, allocation of Committee Chairs etc  Members have been trained, apparently, on what not to wear (stripes, zig zags, fancy dress), how to appear awake, and of course what not to say. For the majority that won't be a problem as they don't say anything anyway.
Still, we'll wait and see.
The agenda also includes, in CAPITAL letters, (and after two years of wrestling with it all);

PLEASE NOTE: THIS MEETING MAY BE FILMED FOR LIVE OR SUBSEQUENT BROADCAST VIA THE COUNCIL'S INTERNET SITE. THE IMAGES AND SOUND RECORDING MAY ALSO BE USED FOR TRAINING PURPOSES WITHIN THE COUNCIL

AT THE START OF THE MEETING THE CHAIR WILL CONFIRM IF ALL OR PART OF THE MEETING IS BEING FILMED.

GENERALLY THE PUBLIC SEATING AREAS ARE NOT FILMED. HOWEVER BY ENTERING THE MEETING ROOM AND USING THE PUBLIC SEATING AREA, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ARE CONSENTING TO BEING FILMED AND TO THE POSSIBLE USE OF THOSE IMAGES AND SOUND RECORDINGS AS OUTLINED ABOVE.

Carmarthenshire Council will of have, of course, and for the very first time, a recording of everything that is said. And so will we..well, for twelve meetings anyway.
My judgement, for now, is reserved.

Here's Cneifiwr's post on the subject; Lights, camera...action!

A vexatious request...?

Update 7th May
The ICO have informed me that I have no other option other than to go through the complaint procedure yet again, so I have asked the council to review their response that my request is a vexatious. If, when the review is complete, I still find their response unsatisfactory, I will then make a further complaint to the ICO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My request for an internal review is here, (you'll have to scroll down the page, it is near the end of the thread).

Further to my blog post in March, 'Complaint to Information Commissioner upheld', The council have now issued a fresh response to my request.

My request, which was originally made in June 2012, was for correspondence between the Council and the Towy Community Church concerning the Excel bowling alley/church project.

The council refused the original request under the cost/time limits, claiming it would exceed 18 hours to retrieve the information.

The Information Commissioner (ICO) eventually decided that it could in fact be answered within the time limit and ordered the council to issue a fresh response within 35 days. The full ICO decision notice can be read here

The fresh response from the Council is another refusal under Section 14 (1), Vexatious Requests. The full response and thread of the request can be seen here but here is the relevant extract;

“Issue a fresh response under the FOIA that does not rely on Section 12 (1).”

In light of the ICO’s findings, we have therefore reconsidered your request. We find that there are other grounds for refusing to comply with the request, which are set out below.

Under Section 14 (1) of the FOIA, a public authority is not obliged to comply with a request which is vexatious.

Having referred to the ICO’s guidance (version 5, June 2012) and relevant case law (Information Commissioner v. Devon CC & Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC)) we are of the view that the request is indeed vexatious.

We feel that it would impose a significant burden on the Council, as documented in the ICO’s decision notice (reference FS50461626).

Furthermore, we are of the opinion that the request does not in fact have any serious purpose or value in terms of the objective public interest in the information sought.

Section 14 (1) has the effect of an absolute exemption in such circumstances.

Please therefore consider this email to be a formal notice of refusal, in accordance with Section 17 of the Act.

For the time being, I shall have to assume that the council are being sincere in stating that it is the request which is vexatious, and not the requestor. However, given that I am aware that the council consider the number of requests I have made as 'high', I am not certain the refusal relates solely to the request. The request itself concerns a controversial topic.

I also find it puzzling that the request was not classed as vexatious in the council's original refusal notice, why now and not then?

The 'points' of vexatiousness ( "manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or improper use of" the FOIA procedures) used by the council in this refusal are that it will still pose a burden on the authority to supply the information, and, whether there was a 'serious reason' behind the the motive of the request.

To take the first point, I believed from the start that the request should not have involved the degree of retrieval the council made out, however I recognise that I will probably not be able to prove my 'mountain out of a molehill' argument. For the record, I have always been aware of the correct use of FoI and have tried to keep my requests focussed and reasonable.

The second point turns on the motive and the public interest in disclosure of the information requested. I believe the public interest argument is clearly made out and therefore the motive should not come into the equation. Indeed, there was no 'other' motive.

I am not going to go over all the numerous issues which have arisen concerning this 'partnership' between the council and the Towy Community Church, they can be found by searching this blog, or Cneifiwr's, or for a comprehensive summary see my guest post on Secular Wales from last November. There have also been several critical press stories including the BBC Wales Dragon's Eye programme, Private Eye and Wales on Sunday.

There is also a continuing public interest in the growth of evangelical organisations delivering council services, food banks and debt counselling. Community spirited organisations should be commended but there is an underlying concern that evangelical groups are taking advantage of the increasingly vulnerable sectors of society to proselytise and 'spread the faith' and this is being embraced by central and local government through the 'Big Society' agenda.

To put it simply, the public interest in disclosing the correspondence between the organisations was clearly to shed some light how the 'partnership' was formed, how grants from the council met criteria, the issue of equalities, the 'flexible' planning permission and how the council came to bestow £1.4m on this organisation and announce that it was going to ease the burden on the Social Care budget.

The Scarlets, The Reds, and the Council

A couple of weeks ago the Llanelli Reds, the town's troubled 114 year old football club was wound up by the high court over tax debts of £21,000. The club and fans are trying to find a way forward and save the club. According to the Chief Executive of Carmarthenshire Council on Radio Carmarthenshire last Friday they hadn't been 'approached' for help and didn't know about the winding-up order until after it happened.

He also reminded listeners that the council had given the club £40,000 some years ago towards a new stand and anyway, the town council owned the ground, not the county council. But he did say their door was 'always open'.

Kevin Madge, Council Leader features in an article in today's Llanelli Star under the slightly misleading headline 'Carmarthenshire Council held meetings to try to save Llanelli AFC from winding up order', you might think this involved the club, but reading on, Cllr Madge makes it clear that these meetings were actually just between himself and the Chief Executive. He said they "weren't in a position to find a huge amount of money to bail them out." and that  "people will learn lessons from this about living within their means". Thanks for that Kev, now on £47,500 per year plus expenses.

Of course, this all sits in stark contrast to the situation a few miles away with the Parc Y Scarlets rugby stadium. Back in 2007, despite warnings from the accountants that it was a risky venture, the council embarked on the highly controversial stadium development when the club was £9m in the red. The actual figure are in dispute as it was a contorted process, somewhere between £18m and £40m, partly depending on the value of the land, which, according to the council was 'worthless', others put it at around £14m.

It's a long story which has been well covered over the years and the council's controversial ongoing financial commitment has attracted criticism. Taxpayers' concerns over the massive investment have always been rubbished by the council, only last year when further concerns arose over the clubs accounts, the council Chief Executive accused critics of wishing 'the club and the council harm'.

And bail outs were not a problem either, the interest on a £2.4m council loan was slashed a couple of years ago, costing the council £216,000 over a three year period and the maintenance fund 'waived' for a few years. The council continue to pump money into the venture all ways it can. It is one of the jewels in the council 'masterplan', or, to put it another way, an expensive white elephant which will not be allowed to fail. Another £20,000 was granted to the club last year to fund a new staff member...to attract funding...

The club's latest accounts have just been published and things don't look any better. As last year, the auditors warn that with the net loss of almost £1.3m, liabilities of £3.6m (£1.9m in 2011) and the need for further funding (which, incidentally, must be approved by the council) there is yet again an 'existence of material uncertainty which may cast significant doubt about the company's ability to continue as a going concern'.

The value of the stadium, for the purpose of the accounts has been put at £10.2m but the auditors warn that the material uncertainty referred to may cast doubt on this 'carrying value', and a requirement to adjust this to 'realisable value' would raise the figure for the club's liabilities significantly.

Early last year the club and the council commissioned a report which detailed the many millions that the stadium was bringing to Llanelli. Critics cast doubt over the figures, £16m per year, leaping to £32m by 2016 and branded the exercise as a PR move to back up the council's shaky investment. The figures would appear to be at odds with the clubs accounts, surely such a level of inward investment, if accurate, would at least reflect somewhere in the club's own bank balance.

The council continues to own the land which is leased to the club and part of this was sold to the Marstons pub chain last year. The club, in a letter supporting the brewer's planning application referred to it being owned by the club. An article earlier this year states that the land (part of the car park deemed superfluous to requirements) was bought from the Council. It would be interesting to know who did eventually get the money, the council or the club?

Before I attract the usual hostile comments about being anti-rugby, I'm not. I'm sure no one, including myself, wishes the Scarlets (or the Reds) anything but success, and the club's directors continue to invest heavily to keep it afloat.
It is the council's commitment which gives concern especially given the reassurance by the Chief Executive back in 2007 that “the council will have no ongoing liability for the running of the club in the stadium.”

As for 'bail outs', the poor Reds must be wondering where they went wrong....

Another question on last week's Radio Carmarthenshire 'interview' was whether the council felt confident with their investment in the Scarlets, the Chief Executive hurriedly changed his reply from 'fairly' to 'very' confident. I think he was right first time.

Barnet Council's hollow victory

Barnet council claimed a very hollow victory yesterday when the judgement was handed down concerning a Judicial Review application against their massive £1bn outsourcing programme. The victory for the council was that the challenge was out of time. The hollow bit was the finding that, basically, there was a complete failure to adequately consult on such a major change in the structure and delivery of public services.

The judgement and the legal arguments were, as ever, complex and for the details and a far better understanding of the situation read Mrs Angry's excellent blogpost here. The essence of the objections were that public service improvement will not, by definition, be best met by the drive for profit of private companies, in this case Capita plc.

Take the 'out of time' argument. When is it the appropriate time to make a legal challenge against a decision? When does a twinkle in the eye of a council's corporate management team become a 'decision'? Is it when the 'principle' of whatever the proposal is, is 'adopted' for further development or when that proposal is embodied in a report to full council or,  in this case, contracts are (almost) signed? The judge cites examples but the situation for the campaigner or objector, when the time limit is three months, is far from clear. A situation not helped by the jargon-filled sea of mist created by councils particularly if it is clear that the proposal is likely to be controversial.

This mist is apparent in the failure to consult. At no point through this lengthy process did Barnet council make it abundantly clear it's intentions to 'outsource' its services, in fact it seemed to deliberately avoid the word, being aware, I am sure, of the controversy that surrounds it. Promised consultations never materialised and those that did were "plainly not designed to elicit views about it" (para 66).

All sound familiar? Why am I writing about Barnet Council? No, there's no massive outsourcing plan on the scale of Barnet here in Carmarthenshire, not yet anyhow, but take a major regeneration project for instance. The first anybody really knows about it is when a council issues carefully crafted press releases about the corporate 'vision' it wishes to implement. If the proposal is flawed in some way, be it detrimental to residents or financially imprudent, it is likely that the actual process started a long time ago, definitely more than three months and obligations will have been made, appraisals commissioned and consequently, a great deal of public time and money already spent. This should never be a reason to refuse a challenge though - should the challenge be well founded, legally or morally, then that money and time will have been wasted by the council itself.

At some point the council may be obliged to actually consult with the public and at the planning permission stage, consultation is of course statutory. How does that usually pan out in Carmarthenshire? The core group of campaigners who have withstood the test of time become accused of wasting council resources by their endless objections and of standing in the way of progress and the 'improvement' the proposal will bring to the lives of residents. So, armed with their vast resources of spin, valid objections and concerns are not only ignored but those who put them forward become that 'small group of troublemakers'. Divide and conquer again.

Take the idea of 'partner' organisations, one example that springs to mind here is the Towy Community Church. The vision of the council was that this was a form of 'outsourcing' its social care responsibilities, albeit to a far lesser degree. But that was what it is. Forget the bowling alley. By the council embarking on a financial and it would appear, moral commitment to an evangelical association it also embraced its values, quite how eternal damnation upon the rejection of Christ fits into any equalities legislation or any legislation for that matter is beyond me.

And what of conflicts of interest in the decision making process? The Barnet bloggers have constantly highlighted their concerns over possible conflicts of interest between the decision makers and the companies who stand to profit, though these were not part of the legal case. Carmarthenshire Council, on agreeing the various loans and grants to the Towy Community Church over the past couple of years only records two declarations of interest, both from councillors who felt it right that, as Christians, they should at least say so. This didn't appear to be on the horizon of anyone else's conscience at all. As mainstream Christians, they would not, in reality, be personally benefiting from the 'partnership', but anyone with similar beliefs in evangelical Christianity would be promoting something which would benefit their own personal crusade. If nothing else, it's a fine line.

I am not in a position to pick apart the Barnet judgement (which can be read in full here), but the importance of this decision to other councils must be made clear. Barnet's claim to victory is false, to win on the challenge being  'out of time' is no win at all. The message to local authorities is that to deliberately cloud their intentions over controversial proposals goes directly against their basic obligations to the general public and the promotion of democracy. It doesn't really need pointing out.

Barnet's claim to victory may also be premature as the possibilities of an appeal are being considered.

(Wednesday, update; Legal Aid has been granted to take the Appeal forward)

Recent statements regarding the libel judgement

In light of recent statements issued by the Chief Executive and also Carmarthenshire Council press office, including those made last week in the Western Mail, the monthly council staff newsletter 'Y Gair', and on Radio Carmarthenshire, I wish to reiterate the statement I made on the 15th March when the Judgement on the libel action was handed down.
I cannot comment further at the moment, other than to emphasise that preparations are underway to start the process of Appeal.

"I am absolutely devastated by this judgement and I believe it is a miscarriage of justice. I would never have embarked on fifteen months of litigation and endured a six day trial in the High Court if I had not felt entirely justified in my action.

I have always acted in good faith, my motives have always been honest and sincere and have merely criticised the council where I felt it appropriate, and have never had a complaint until the counter claim was issued...."

Full statement from 15th March here; Judgement on Libel Action - a brief statement

Open play areas...and black holes

The Executive Board meets on Monday to consider objections to the 'disposal' of four small areas of land (Agenda Item 2) These were part of a total of 86 small areas, adjacent or nearby other properties, which are being flogged off (otherwise known as an 'Asset Review') to try and fill some of the black holes which are beginning to appear in the council's finances. Incidentally, the Head of Corporate Property has delegated power to seek disposal of 'non-strategic' land.

This whole exercise may have passed you by, a few however did manage to spot the Public Open Space Notices in the Western Mail at the end of last year.

The Council is obliged to advertise the disposals in a "local newspaper", one would think that would mean local to Carmarthenshire rather than local to Wales.

Anyway, it looks like the other 82 went unnoticed and unchallenged, despite the requirement that Local Members were informed. Clearly though, some of the objections raised in the four to be considered on Monday would seem to apply to all. One main point was the loss of open play areas for local children. As the council are also hoping to save on potential liabilities by selling off these open spaces, it would seem they would rather the children stayed safely indoors.

There is another point, it appears that developers are already expressing an interest, one is a housing association. Some parcels of land may of course be well suited for affordable housing, if that is what is promised. I would imagine that most, if not all these plots are within the UDP so planning consent will be little more than a formality. The council, when disposing of these assets will naturally have to remember its policy and afford "all interested parties an equal opportunity to purchase".
 
A little further down the agenda at Item 6, is the Play Sufficiency Assessment 2013, quite an extensive exercise which determined whether there were enough opportunities, of all sorts, for children to play.
Recommendation Two states;

 Local Authority to recognise the importance of open spaces in contributing to children’s play needs within the community and the potential negative effects that the selling of these pockets of land has on children and communities.

There is even a 'Play Sufficiency Officer' who is tasked with an 'Action Plan' to ensure that;

When decisions are made with regards to disposal of green spaces that children and communities are consulted with meaningfully and that full consideration is given to the impact of the disposal on children’s play. 
Brownfield sites are assessed for their potential to be reclaimed to provide for children’s play

A recent Scrutiny meeting raised the inconsistency between the 'Play Strategy' and the selling of council land as well as the lack of provision through the Planning Service. One large development was mentioned where the only open play area left housed a large electricity pylon.

The Local Members who are objecting to the four 'disposals' are not allowed to speak at the Executive Board meeting so will have to hope that the Board bears in mind the objections (which include a 278 name petition for one of the areas) and that they don't forget about Item 6 further down the agenda....

Going to the dogs

An interesting decision was made today by the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) which overturned on appeal, a refusal by Carmarthenshire Council to release details of licensed dog breeders in the county under the Section 40 (personal data) exemption.

Following the initial FoI refusal, the council's internal appeal upheld it's own decision (as it invariably does) and the subsequent complaint to the Information Commissioner also failed.

The requester, a Ms White with, er, dogged determination, took the matter one stage further, and appealed to the Tribunal, and won. The council must now release the details of the 88 licensed dog breeders.

Carmarthenshire has the highest number of licensed and unlicensed dog breeders in the UK and monitoring and managing the welfare of dogs is of considerable public interest. Indeed, problems with 'puppy farms' in Carmarthenshire have featured on a number of television programmes and the press in recent years.

The council also considers that dog breeding, in planning terms, complies with their farm 'diversification' policy. They also have a statutory duty to ensure that the breeder conforms to the necessary minimum standards to obtain a license.

To put it simply, the council contended that to publish the list of licensed breeders would have the effect of opening them up to attack. Ms White responded by saying that there was no evidence that this had happened even prior to 2008 which was when the council changed it's policy and decided to withhold the list from the public register.

She also maintained that there was no evidence of council discussions leading to the policy change in 2008.

During the course of the Information Commissioner's investigation the council carried out a 'consultation' of registered breeders. The Tribunal was "unimpressed" by the survey, "conducted after the information was requested – that seeks to justify the policy of non-disclosure. The survey, and the suggestive language used in posing the questions, inevitably gives the impression of being self-serving and less than objective".

The Tribunal said that the correct time to have carried out an impartial survey would have been prior to the policy change in 2008, not after someone challenged it.

Unsurprisingly the majority of breeders who were consulted didn't want their details disclosed. Ms White also said that the council used emotive language to justify their refusal to her, referring to “animal welfare extremists”, “targeting” the authority and “converging on it from all parts of the country”.

Significantly, Ms White requested the details of neighbouring Ceredigion Council's 71 licensed breeders, they released them without hesitation.

The Tribunal concluded that this was a "regulated commercial activity which is subject to a public licensing regime to protect the welfare of animals", the public interest in disclosure outweighed privacy issues.

There's probably a few lessons to be learned here. Firstly, there is no reason to withhold information such as a list of regulated licensees in this business, any more than the licensees of pubs should be withheld. Secondly, its never a particularly good idea to buy a puppy out of the back of a van.

The decision of the tribunal can be read here.

Caerphilly, accountability and re-organisation

Caerphilly Council is back in the news today with a vote of no confidence in the Council Leader. The row has arisen following the Wales Audit Office report which found that the circumstances surrounding the pay rise for the Chief Executive and senior managers was unlawful. The decision was taken at a closed meeting, the agenda item was not publicised and the Chief Executive, who had input into the report recommending the rise, did not withdraw from the meeting nor declare any financial interest. A compromise was eventually reached but the Chief Executive has now been suspended and the police are looking into the matter.

The political fall-out has resulted in today's no confidence vote where the Leader and his cabinet were accused of allowing this to happen on their watch. As this blog post has been sitting in draft for several hours I can now add that the vote was lost and Caerphilly's Leader remains in place. I followed the meeting on twitter for a while and noticed they were also discussing the damning Wales Audit Office report. In Caerphilly, at the very least, the question of accountability has been raised if not fully resolved to the satisfaction of all political colours.

In Carmarthenshire, as we know, the council will go through constitutional contortions to avoid any negative reports, or even vaguely negative stories being discussed either inside or outside the Chamber. The recent removal of urgent business from full council agenda; the requirement that seven councillors second a motion; the refusal to discuss ombudsman reports; threatening the local press; the 'discussion' of a crucial council motion on press freedom, 'in camera', between two officers and an Executive Board member...I could go on. And on.

This morning's BBC article also carries a table of Chief Executive pay across all 22 local authorities, but doesn't include additional extras such as Returning Officer fees etc. These figures add up to £3m, all bar the cost of a frugal night at Claridges, I wonder whether this furthers the idea of a dramatic reduction in the number of local authorities? There is also a huge difference in pay, given that the duties of a Chief Executive are virtually the same everywhere, and one could almost feel sorry for the poor chief officer of Blaenau Gwent. Executive pay has been called an 'easy target' but it all adds up, and given the army of Directors and, in the case of Carmarthenshire, two Assistant Chief Executives, there would certainly be savings to be made by reducing of the number of councils.
Carmarthenshire also has 74 councillors of course who, in 2012, took home £1.26m between them, £20,000 more than in 2011.

The arguments for and against re-organisation are complex and discussed far more eloquently elsewhere but with each individual council pursuing its own policies, programmes, LDPs, tendering frameworks etc etc, it would be a difficult, costly and painful process.

Collaboration with other authorities has been encouraged by the Welsh Government to 'streamline' services and reduce pressure on budgets but these are not always well thought through as Carmarthenshire has found with its IT 'strategy' with Dyfed Powys Police. The vision of a 'single entity' has been abandoned and, although there are examples of shared software, as well as a shared IT manager, the differing levels of data security, complex pay arrangements and the need to vet any council worker who may (or may not) use very sensitive shared data proved to be too costly and risky.

The principle of reducing Welsh local authorities, more or less back to the pre-1996 model is financially attractive and would perhaps help dilute the village mentality which pervades some of our council chambers. One big downside, in my opinion, could be even less democracy than we have already. Public participation is, in general, already negligible and the opportunity and ability to get your voice heard nigh on impossible. Any re-organisation would have to ensure that accountability, as well as the representation of public opinion, was not only carried forward to potentially huge sprawling organisations, but vastly improved from the dire state it is currently in.

Anyway, for information, here's the list of Chief Executive officers' pay from the BBC;

Carmarthenshire: £189,178
Cardiff: £176,376
Rhondda Cynon Taf: £171,000
Denbighshire: £160,141
Pembrokeshire £159,462
Neath Port Talbot: £154,525
Newport: £147,142
Swansea: £144,600
Anglesey: £141,138
Torfaen: £133,749
Caerphilly: £132,653
Flintshire: £131,233
Vale of Glamorgan: £127,133
Merthyr Tydfil: £125,437
Powys: £124,407
Bridgend: £122,323
Conwy: £114,435
Wrexham: £113,000
Monmouthshire: £110,000
Gwynedd: £108,264
Ceredigion: £108,084
Blaenau Gwent: £103,050.46

BBC Wales; Caerphilly council pay row: Leader faces no confidence motion

Update 25th April;
Plaid AM, Rhodri Glyn Thomas is seeking changes to the Local Democracy Bill which would take senior pay decisions "out of the hands of council officers and put it under the remit of an all-Wales independent remuneration body" and to "abolish extra payments for returning officers at local elections"
http://www.rhodriglynthomas.org/plaid-cymru-am-makes-legal-bid-to-stop-council-pay-hikes

Ivor parks the Lexus

Sharp-eyed residents have again (see 'Ivor goes to vote') snapped County Councillor for Llandovery, Ivor Jackson parked in one of his favourite spots, on the double-yellows...Perhaps Ivor should remember that Llandovery is a very small town...and the personalised number plate is a bit of a give away...

Still, I'm sure that Ivor, (member of Cllr Pam Palmer's 'Independent' party), must be something of a parking expert as he is not only Vice-Chair of the Environment and Public Protection Scrutiny Committee (responsibilities include parking and highway safety) but a representative on the grandly named Parking and Traffic Regulations (Outside London) Adjudication Joint Committee....

All words and no action

Aside from the politics of it all, the lesson here for Council Leaders is that if you repeatedly and publicly call for an Inquiry, its usually a good idea, at some point to at least ask the relevant authorities to carry one out.

Local Plaid Cymru politicians have been trying to find out what became of Cllr Madge's promised calls for a Public Inquiry over the PFI disaster of Ammanford Police Station.

Here's their press release;

Labour Council Leader left red-faced over Public Inquiry blunder

18/04/2013

Despite fourteen months of ‘calling’ for an independent public inquiry into the costly Private Finance Initiative (PFI) that plagues Ammanford Police Station, Council Leader Kevin Madge has done nothing to act on his rhetoric. That was the reaction of Plaid Cymru Councillor, Deian Harries, after it emerged the Leader of Carmarthenshire Council has not taken any action to back up his public inquiry ‘calls’.

In January 2012, Councillor Madge – then Deputy Leader of the County Council - called for an “urgent independent investigation” into why the PFI contract, which costs Dyfed Powys Police Force £700,000 a year to maintain, was allowed to go ahead.

In March 2013 Councillor Madge – now Leader of the authority – stated publicly he was “surprised” that no-one had supported his call for an independent inquiry and went on to renew his call as it is the “only way we can win back public confidence”.

But Freedom of Information requests by Plaid Cymru to both the UK Government Home Office and to the Welsh Government have now exposed Councillor Madge’s calls as meaningless. Councillor Madge has not made any representations regarding a public inquiry since making his ‘calls’ fourteen months ago.

Plaid Cymru County Councillor for Ammanford, Cllr Deian Harries, has said the revelation shows the Labour party is clearly out of its depth and that Councillor Madge may as well have been talking to himself considering the lack of progress his rhetoric has achieved.

Councillor Deian Harries said:

“It’s quite astonishing to be told by the Welsh Government and Home Office that they hold no information whatsoever from Councillor Madge regarding his calls for a public inquiry.

“It’s been 14 months since that first ‘call’. Councillor Madge may as well have been talking to himself given the lack of progress his rhetoric has achieved.

“I suspect the real reason the council leader has not acted on his rhetoric is because he doesn’t want to draw attention to the Labour party’s love affair with costly PFI projects that plague our public services today. However it’s just not right that any politician can make public comments but then not see those actions through.

“Councillor Madge said an independent inquiry is the only way to win back public confidence. Confidence in the Labour party is at an all time low in the Amman Valley as our communities now see how clueless the party is in turning words into action.

(Linked from Plaid Carmarthenshire, here)

The only Police 'front desk' for Ammanford is now located in a van in the car park.

April Council meeting

The Carmarthen Journal has let us know that that other great coalition, the long running Lab/Independent alliance of Carmarthenshire will continue until the next election in 2017. Readers may remember that when the pact was eventually formed after last year's vote, a review was planned after one year. Looks like that review has happened and despite Plaid's suggestion that a rainbow coalition would be a good idea, Cllr Madge and Cllr Palmer (leader of the Independent party) were clearly having none of it. 

Kev and Pam confirming rumours that 'new technology' is set to replace gas lamps in County Hall (source; Carmarthen Journal)

Anyway, back to today's meeting and just to confirm, the webcasting pilot was approved - without discussion as the meeting had overrun - and we can look forward to the first episode on May 15th. Sunday parking charges was first up with a lengthy speech from Cllr Evans (Exec Member for Parking) about how he had arranged meetings with various local church leaders, who were particularly annoyed by this measure. I'm not sure whether they had a result or not as a row broke out between the Chair and Cllr Caiach over faulty translators.

Next up was the issue of the pay rise. At the last meeting Plaid had suggested that rather than a blanket 1% across the board, a graded rise would see the lower paid workers having a larger increase than those at the top, those at the very top could probably manage without a rise altogether. (Plaid are campaigning for the Living Wage of course but the Labour administration is resisting it) This was all dismissed at the last meeting. Lo and behold, at Monday's Executive Board meeting the pay structure was changed with all staff starting on a higher rate, which, with the 1% rise, had the same effect as Plaid's suggestion would have done. The Executive Board naturally took all the credit. Plaid Leader, Peter Hughes Griffiths was not impressed.

The presence of three additional suited gentlemen soon became apparent as that annual love-fest, the Wales Audit Office Annual Improvement Report came up. They were from the WAO of course, and were there to summarise the Report, well, one of them was, the other two must have been for back up. You know the sort of jargon filled report I mean by now surely, to give an example, the Council 'Engages well with citizens in setting its priorities' or 'The Council’s governance and management arrangements have delivered a mature and embedded approach to self-evaluation'. There were several criticisms in the report ranging from the provision of support for carers to making scrutiny more robust (yes that word) by improving the knowledge of councillors, to 'still' having problems with grant management.

Things were going fairly well and the corporate preening was well ahead of the cynics on point scoring when Cllr Darren Price (Plaid) observed that officers and senior Members were very keen to accentuate the positive and "keep a lid" on the negative. (Surely not? I'd find that very hard to believe...) He gave the example of the recent finding by the Ombudsman against the Leader, Cllr Madge. He, as a backbencher, had not even been given a copy. This is not the only recent adverse report of course that has been kept in a locked drawer in the civic cellar and as for keeping a lid on the negative, you only have to remember the unfortunate episode with the South Wales Guardian last year.

The man from the WAO was briefly thrown at the suggestion that all was not well, he said something about  the reason the Improvement Report was positive was because the council was open and transparent and robust (yes, robust again) scrutiny was 'being developed'. He told Cllr Price that if he had a particular issue, he was welcome to, er, contact him. I suspect my idea of openness and transparency differs fundamentally from that of the council and the man from the WAO.

Cllr Madge then continued the love-fest. He started reminiscing about Cardiff football club's success the night before until the Chair ordered him to stick to the point, unfortunately that was his point, the Council were in the Premier League...near the top!....other authorities must be wondering 'How do we do it?' he said. He was looking forward to the webcasting...warts and all...he instructed the Chief Executive to write to all staff thanking them for their efforts which, I have to say, was an improvement on the comments by the former Leader last year when she blamed the problems at the council on the lack of hard work by nine thousand staff. Cllr Bill Thomas (Lab) defended Cllr Madge by saying the Ombudsman report wasn't serious, and maybe he'd just been over enthusiastic....

The next item was Cllr Derek Cundy's Motion for the council to express its concern over the re-organisation of health provision by the Hywel Dda Health Board. This has been much documented in the local press much of which has focussed on the downgrading of the A & E department of Prince Phillip Hospital in Llanelli. The Health Board's proposals were put out to consultation but what appears to have happened, in the well trodden path of all public body consultations, is that the 'proposals' were just that, comment all you like but this is what we're doing.

Further details of the campaign group can be found here, and all sides of the argument can be found in the local press, but there was cross-Chamber agreement that strong representations had to be made to the new Health Minister, Mark Drakeford. Press reports about queuing ambulances, lengthy trolley/ambulance/A & E waiting times, discharging patients at 2am, etc seem to be multiplying and the budget restraints on health provision were causing an alarming decline in services. The continuing centralisation and 'virtual' beds (ie your bedroom) was putting further strain on the Council's own social care budget. Cllr Caiach suggested the Motion was amended to include a request for the Minister to look at the whole picture but the Chief Executive reminded her that she couldn't amend a motion like this, Clr Caiach questioned this information but the Chief Executive told her he'd send her another copy of the Standing Orders...to remind her of the rules....

Next up was the nominations for Council Chair and Vice Chair, the actual chain swapping ceremony to take place next month. As is customary, the Vice Chair automatically replaces the outgoing Chair (Plaid), so Cllr Terry Davies (Lab) will be in the hot seat for 2013/14. Each Party takes it in turns to be Chair so the nomination for Vice Chair had to come from the Independents. Cllr Daff Davies was duly eased in. It was all very jolly.

Time was ticking on and nearly three hours had passed so things speeded up. The Acting Head of Law had a couple of points to raise about the Independent Remuneration Panel Wales Report. One issue was Eric Pickles' announcement last December to end Councillors entitlement to join the lucrative Council Pension Scheme, part funded by the ever generous taxpayer. Alarm bells seemed to be ringing in Carmarthenshire as it became apparent that whilst Eric Pickles had no control over anything else in Welsh local government, public pensions were different and he could upset this particular apple-cart all the way from Westminster.

Three hours were up and it was decided to speed through the rest of the agenda. Item 13 on Webcasting sped past and at that point, I decided to go too. Soon, you'll be able to watch it yourself.

I have linked to the full agenda here.

Tomorrow's Council meeting

Item 13 on tomorrow's full council agenda is 'Webcasting of council meetings' which, if approved, will mean that the first live webcast will be the council AGM on the 15 May, if all goes according to plan.  Although there shouldn't really be a problem, as the council itself says, it is in a 'better  position than most other authorities in Wales as it has already conducted a detailed review', indeed it has, for nearly two years. It is of course a twelve month pilot and only full council meetings will be filmed and after appropriate 'Member awareness' training has been undergone. Without a doubt there was also a public interest case to have included both Planning Committee and Executive Board meetings in the pilot too.

Included in the agenda are the usual reports from various committees and it will be interesting to see whether any issues are raised when the report from the planning committee meeting on the 28th March is brought up. Both the new superschool in Ffairfach and the 289 home development in Penybanc, Ammanford were driven through against enormous public opposition.

The latter had previously been refused (against officer recommendation for approval) by the committee last December but the 'cooling-off' period meant the decision was not ratified until it was sent back to the committee. By which time the application had been amended but had not, according to opponents, addressed all the issues of concern. From reading the officer's report to the committee it is clear that the overriding concern of the local authority was not the views of the local people but the avoidance of a costly legal challenge if the application was refused. Fortunately, for the Authority and the developers but not the objectors, this seemed to be the priority of the majority of committee members too, and the development was approved. Whether there was a breakdown in council communication or a misunderstanding I couldn't possibly say, but the Penybanc Action Group who opposed the development were apparently reassured by planning officers that no decision was going to be made at the meeting. PAG were under the impression that the committee would just be discussing the amended plans, so naturally they didn't go and air their views. I hear a request has now been made to the Welsh Government to call the plans in and campaigners have arranged to hold a protest on Saturday morning (Cneifwr has details).

Eric Pickles was on the warpath again yesterday criticising councils for obstructing journalists. The article, from Hold the Front Page, cites two examples from Wales including the meeting in Llanelli where the Llanelli Star reporter was thrown out and his notes confiscated. As we know, Mr Pickles jurisdiction on these matters doesn't cross the Severn Bridge and legislation requiring councils to publish 28 days in advance, notice of, (and good reason for) holding meetings in secret doesn't apply to Wales, and it especially doesn't apply to Carmarthenshire. Let's hope the prospect of live streamed meetings doesn't shunt even more decisions behind closed doors.

A stab in the back for Llandovery

A week last Thursday, planning permission was granted for the new 'superschool' in Ffairfach, Llandeilo...in fact nets were being thrown over the hedges the day before the meeting presumably to prevent birds nesting, prior to removing the hedges...Anyway, the significance of this proposal to the people in the Llandovery and surrounding rural area was always the closure of the secondary school, Ysgol Pantycelyn, and a lengthy hard fought battle by local residents, parents, children etc including a Judicial Review, was eventually lost.

For reasons best known to themselves both the Councillor representing the town and the Councillor representing most of the catchment area, (both members of the Independent Party), remained silent throughout the closure process. In the face of such mass local opposition, I found their inaction incomprehensible, this was the single most important community asset the town had.

By December 2011, after the whole process had largely been rubber stamped, they both spoke out about their objections to the 'preferred' location in Ffairfach, 13 miles away in the press, saying "we've all been against this from the word go". They excused their previous silence by saying they were concerned that if they did say anything, it would compromise their position on the planning committee whenever the application came before them. However, many local people felt that there had been nothing whatsoever stopping them speaking out against the closure of Pantycelyn.

Move forward to last week's Planning Committee meeting and a last ditch attempt by the town's mayor to highlight the unsuitability of the location was to no avail. The application was passed, only three voting against. The Mayor must have hoped, at the very least, and particularly after their comments, that the two local Members would have supported her, but unfortunately they were not even amongst the three, as one of them had apparently decided to go on holiday and the other abstained.

Here's a press release from LATRA, the Llandovery Area Tenants and Residents Association which currently has over 300 members;

A stab in the back for Llandovery 

Carmarthenshire County Council decided to close Ysgol Pantycelyn despite furious and almost unanimous protests from the people of Llandovery and surrounding areas.    

Carmarthenshire Council then decided to rub salt in the wound by recommending that the new school should be sited 13 miles away on the other side of Llandeilo.  For some children east of Llandovery, it meant return journeys of over 45 miles a day and up to 3 hours a day travelling.  

The planning application for the new school was heard by the Carmarthenshire Planning Committee on March 28 and despite almost 100% opposition from the Llandovery area, and a valiant effort from the Mayor of Llandovery on the day, the application was approved.    

What is the point of public consultation? How can Council leader Kevin Madge describe this decision as ‘a significant investment in education in the Dinefwr area’ when it means the destruction of an excellent school and leaves 400 square miles of West Wales without a senior school? Added to this, the decision to charge children from their 16th birthdays for their school travel costs will place an intolerable extra burden on the families of this beleaguered town. 

Where do our two local county councillors stand in this debacle?  We know that they supported the decision to close Pantycelyn which, in itself, was a bitter pill to swallow – but we felt sure they would fight tooth and nail to have the new school built within easier reach of the children and parents of Llandovery.    

The planning meeting on March 28 was, therefore, an incredibly important meeting for them - and all the people they represent.  

The reality?  Cllr Tom Theophilus (Cilycwm) decided to abstain from the vote.  Cllr Ivor Jackson (Llandovery) decided to go away on holiday 24 hours before the vote and did not attend. We cannot think of a worse example of a betrayal to the electorate on such a desperately important issue. Letters will be sent to both these local county councillors asking them to explain themselves.  

Maybe they should both resign and stand again with an honest campaign so that electors can have a chance to show how many still support them.  Nothing is surer than if electors had known about this last May the election results would have been very different.   

The Mayor is quite right when she claims the local authority had not adhered to statutory policies with regard to the new ‘superschool’. Forget the health and wellbeing of the children; turn a blind eye to carbon footprints and the Welsh Governments policies for sustainable local development; ignore the financial hardship for hundreds of parents; forget the fact that the chosen site is on a notorious floodplain.  In fact just do whatever you want to do and hang the consequences.  

The people of Llandovery will not forgive or forget the damage that has been inflicted on them.  Well done to all who fought so valiantly – and shame on our county councillors.  

Chair:  Llandovery Area Tenants and Residents Association (LATRA)

Friday news round-up

You will be aware from this blog and Y Cneifiwr's, that the council propaganda rag, the Carmarthenshire News is not universally popular, alternative uses have often been suggested, from comfortable bedding for pet rodents to emergency supplies for the smallest room.
A couple of years ago the council brought five other public bodies on board, including the police and the health board to contribute to the publication which is issued every two months. The council announced that it would be 'self-financing' through advertising revenue but as I have said before, private adverts always seem a little thin on the ground and the impression is that other council departments and the other five equally cash-strapped public bodies contribute financially.
The council website claims;

Each edition costs an average £23,000 to produce and distribute. The average costs and income currently are:

Print = £5768.26
Distribution = £17,400.73
Advertising and sponsorship revenue: £18,000
Net cost: £5000

The local Plaid politicians have been looking at this and have recently highlighted their concerns about other aspects of the council's financial management with the Wales Audit Office. A FoI request for advertising/sponsorship invoices for one issue produced four, amounting to £1680. This falls a little short of the £18,000 claimed by the council. This figure will vary from month to month but seasoned readers of the 'Carms News' will be aware of the usual format. Of course the website doesn't specify exactly where the 'advertising and sponsorship revenue' comes from, and so anyone that might naturally assume it is from private companies would not, of course, have been misled.

---------------------------------------------

A quick mention of a story from a couple of weeks ago concerning a parking row at the council's new 'flagship' Eastgate development. Not only have the council, controversially, promised £5m in rental for new offices for the next twenty years to the developers but, to the annoyance of other workers at the site, have commandeered, with red marking paint, 20 free parking places in the limited and otherwise 'short term' Eastgate car park. The council's response to the rest of the furious Eastgate workers who have to pay £8 a day? "There are proposals in hand to erect an automatic barrier gating system to manage the use of the 20 private parking spaces to avoid any future confusion." Charming

--------------------------------------------------

The Agendas and minutes for Executive Board Member Decision meetings, as we know are not published until after the event ('bringing the constitution in line with legislation') and the public and press are excluded. One of these, a Regeneration meeting, recently approved the council's masterplan for our museums. One councillor and no less than eleven officers were in attendance and the documents included an 'Organisational Review of the Carmarthenshire Museums Service 2012-2020'. I couldn't find it anywhere on the website and the only clue to its contents was the resolution to 'acknowledge and endorse the content of the review of Carmarthenshire Museum Services which supports the concept of focussing resources around one main museum site supported by satellite facilities and services'. 

As a non-statutory duty, the council doesn't have to maintain museums and the responsibility, which also includes libraries, has now been shifted from the Directorate of Education and Children's Services, to Leisure and Sport, which also suggests a shift in priority. Museums, and even libraries are not, of course, the most vital service the council delivers but hugely important nonetheless and should it not be a matter of principle that future plans such as this are open and accessible from the start?