Proper consultation? No chance!

To those who know about Craven district council and its parlous financial state, it will come as no surprise that they are desperate to build some 366 houses on land that they, or rather we, own. They're desperate for cash, with virtually every penny coming in going to the vastly increased staff numbers that they have, and a pensions deficit standing at around 6 times the annual payment made by council tax payers, and rapidly rising.

But there's another reason.

As has been pointed out by an astute reader, Craven 's housing policy is appalling.
After virtually giving away 1,540 houses to newly formed Craven housing at the knock down price of just over £5,000 each around 4 years ago, they've managed to spend the £8 Million given for those houses, with apparently nothing to show for it.
Except many more staff.

Every few years the Audit commission does an audit of how well councils perform, and one of those performance indicators is housing.
So how is Craven performing?
The Audit commission is usually fairly non-committal in its statements, the most damning usually being of the order of 'There is room for improvement,' or 'The council recognise that there are some slight failings, and are addressing those needs,' but in the case of Craven it has not been so lenient.

On the question of how well CDC understand its housing market and developed the right proposals, the Audit commission states:
'There is a high risk of failure and poor outcomes.'
Grade - High need for improvement

On the question of how well the council monitors its progress and how effectively this feeds into future plans, the Audit commission states:
'There is a high risk of failure and poor outcomes.'
Grade - High need for improvement

So we see another reason for CDC's headlong rush into building 366 houses without, yet again, any form of proper consultation. They need to have some affordable houses, after all, the 20 per annum that Craven housing promised to build have resulted, after almost 5 years, in not the 100 we thought we'd have, but around a dozen.

Craven housing has rebranded itself as a charity, thereby escaping the Freedom of Information laws, and it has made it very plain that it will not be answering any calls for information - Wonder why?

Earwig oh! Again

It doesn't seem like two minutes ago since Craven district council wasted around £1,000,000 of our money (approx. 1/3 of the total paid by tax payers in one year) in a disgraceful so called consultation. You might remember the one, it's where the council, aided by GVA Grimley, sent out questionnaires with such delightfully innocent queries as:
"Would you like to see an improved canal basin?" and
"Would you like more car parking?"

When the expected answers of 'YES' came back, they then tried to tell us that we wanted lots of multi storey car parks, and that the best way to improve the canal basin was by building 6 storey blocks of flats there.

The late and much lamented Gwynne Walters of the Civic Society, spent thousands of her own money in organising an honest consultation, unlike that of the council's, and her consultation, organised by the Electoral Reform Society, blew the council's apart.

But now Craven council is at it again.

In another so called consultation, aided (surprise surprise) again by Grimley, it's spending our money in acting as developers.
The latest developments are massive. Proposed is no fewer than 260 dwellings on Horse Close, a further 68 on Granville Street, and a further 38 on the High Street. Added to this will be 17,000 sq. ft. of retail on the High Street.

And what language does the council use to describe this multi million pound development?
Well the High Street is described as a 'Vibrant new hub' although how vibrators enter the equation Paakwa does not know.

No. 9 High Street is to have a 'Lively and animated elevation,' and the answer to what that means is at the end of this article.

Apparently Granville Street will 'Recognise the hierarchy of road users,' and the 260 dwellings on Horse Close will have 'On-site car parking in accordance with accepted standards.'
Accepted standards at Craven council vary, the last development at Sutton was cheerfully accepted with no car parking, because it was on a bus route, and when they wanted to blight the Canal Basin with blocks of flats, then 4 parking spaces per 5 dwellings was deemed adequate.

To add further insult to injury, Jonathan Kerr, the chief officer responsible for these developments, has suggested that the next development should have more public participation, and from an earlier time in that development.
Earlier because this one is set to be settled no later than November of this year, a mere few weeks after the exhibition, an exhibition where there was a distinct lack of any material to take away and study.

So why this unseemly haste?
Paakwa ascribes it to money.

There is no doubt that the council has a desperate need for money, spending all its income now on the vastly increased staff since the new chief executive took over.
For those with masochistic tendencies, the council's finances are explained here, and might help to explain why no fewer than two financial directors left in around 12 months.

So are we talking big bucks here?
Well disregarding the new retail sector, and the work on the town hall etc. and simply considering the dwellings, gives us no fewer than 366 dwellings.
If these dwellings, described in the brochure as '1-3 bed apartments' and '2-4 bed homes' with 'attractive canalside locations' only realised £200,000 each, not a lot in Skipton, then we're talking about £75 MILLION
The whole development must surely be in the region of £100 Million.

With figures like this, why on earth is it being rushed through in a matter of only a few weeks?
With hardly any time for even the scantiest of public participation, never mind a thorough consultation?
Ah!
That's one question Paakwa cannot answer, perhaps Craven district council might like to enlighten us?

Of one thing Paakwa IS certain.
The council is thumbing its many noses once again at any decent public participation.
It is the role of the council to serve its paymasters, the taxpayers, not big business developers.
When will they learn to present to the public, in plain simple language, the true picture, and then properly ask of that public what they want?

In the interests of objectivity, if the council does not know how to promote democracy, having paid but lip service to it for so long, here is how it could be achieved, at minimal cost, in the present development.

Have a display of all that is being considered in the town hall, if need be over a period of weeks, so that many can see it.
Involve the local newspaper, the Craven Herald, in printing all that is being considered, with plain simple explanations, ignoring the words 'vibrant' 'lively' and 'animated' if possible.
And then hold a proper consultation, one organised by the Electoral Reform Society, not by a developer.

For those who are unsure of what a 'Lively and animated elevation' really is, the answer is given by a learned scholar, one we believe to be an amicus curiae of Craven district council's Director of community services, and it may be seen HERE.

Ribbet!

The turning of the screw.

In the strange world lived in by those concerned with matters of finance, narsty things are happening in the woodshed.
A report out today tells us that house prices are not increasing, but are in decline. This is great news for those wishing to get on the property ladder, but not so good for those who borrow on the backs of their houses, and not good at all for those who lend money to sub prime borrowers and can see their equity disintegrating.
Britain has been kept afloat for some years now with the bubble of borrowing, fuelled by sub prime lenders such as Pink and Amber (subsidiaries of HML, which is in turn a subsidiary of Skipton building society) who lend with some rates approaching 12% to borrowers who might have many CCJ's against them, and amounts of up to 5 times self certified incomes.
These financial events have led to the first British casualty, Victoria mortgages, which called in the administrators this week, and Pink are complaining that no fewer than 67 mortgage products have been withdrawn from them in a period of 12 weeks. They have also dipped a toe into packaging an IVA product.
If you don't know what an IVA is, then you're lucky, you wouldn't really want to know.
Meanwhile Countrywide, America's largest home loans company with a turnover of over $280 Billion this year has announced a few job cuts.
12,000 to be precise.
Having put many eggs into the basket of HML, Craven district council may well be wondering just when the start will be made on their new offices on what was a protected site on Gargrave Road.
Paakwa has the same wonderment, but knows that the old offices are over 40 years old, and new ones must be desperately needed.
Just as that old site on Gargrave Road will be much improved when Pink or Amber or HML or whatever they're called show the world again just what they can do in modern building styles.