Frog

OBE - Well done!

2009-01-16T08:41:00.000-08:00

Congratulations to a long standing Craven district councillor Carl Lis for his OBE - which does NOT, contrary to some peoples' opinions, stand for other blokes' efforts!
A man of many talents, Carl, an ex quarry manager, was the leader of Craven district council before being ousted last May by the Conservatives, who managed to get more members than Carl's alliance of Liberals and so called Independents. And whilst there are many who say that no one could have worked harder for people than does Carl, it should be remembered that the new leader regularly works many hours paid by the council, (in allowances) plus 70 hours per week unpaid, plus many hours as a successful business leader. Indeed so hard has the new leader to work that he must drive around Skipton at speeds up to 90 mph in his haste to aid Craven residents!
Dedication indeed, from one who signed the last council accounts which stated that the council were spending more on wages than they received in total council tax, and yet proclaimed that the council was 'awash with money!'
But now rumours abound concerning poor Carl, from some obviously sad people.
First the Craven Herald in a fit of childish peevishness seems to want Carl to tell us why the council is in a financial mess.
Shame on you Craven Herald!
What is a few million when compared to the proud honour of a brand new OBN!
And, if that is not enough, some mischief maker is spreading the rumour that Carl is willing to relinquish his title of Independent and join the Conservatives!
As if someone who joined forces with the Liberals and opposed the Conservatives would even contemplate such an act - Such a rumour gets no credence from Paakwa!
Now you'll all no doubt be wanting to celebrate the return of Paakwa, so I'll cut this short, but there'll be plenty more!
More to come, for example, about how Skipton Building Society bought underpriced land from CDC and then, via their chief executive, proposed a 50% increase in councillors' allowances!

Oh!
'Just one last thing' as aColumbo used to say!
Is there any truth in a rumour circulating that a certain councillor is on 'gardening leave?'
The customary pint bought for any info. confirming this, and more details if poss!

Pip Pip!

Of Misstatements and gagging.

2008-06-18T00:49:00.000-07:00

Gill Dixon, she who asked Oliver like for more, but more money in her case, has gone.

The press statement eulogises her, as is common with public services, however good or bad the departed one is, with such emollient phrases as:

“There has been a step change in the delivery of affordable homes across the district.”

There certainly has, and one noted by the Audit Commission who said how bad it was, and instructed CDC to improve in that area!

Some step change!

The council used to have over 1500 council houses which it virtually gave away to Craven Housing, who stated that they would build 20 affordable homes per year, but instead of the 100 or so we should now have, we don't have even half of that number!

In addition Craven Housing has taken the residents’ community centre and washeteria on Newmarket Street to make new offices for itself, perhaps the ever so Craven council will allow it to build a new community centre on the adjacent green?

What else is in this oily congratulatory blurb?

“A new civic centre on Gargrave Road which will provide high quality services to Craven residents”

Really?

Moving the staff to what was a protected greenfield site with insufficient parking, despite development of that site being against the wishes of virtually all, will give us high quality services?

Perhaps it will improve the bad staff absence record also mentioned in the dispatches of the Audit Commission?

How bad?

Councils are not noted for having good sickness records, but even so CDC found itself in the worst quarter of all councils – now that’s bad!

Out of 6 points in praise of the ex chief executive, 5 are promises for the future; still that does leave one thing she has achieved:

“Major improvements in connectivity through the Martini projects”

Well, if that doesn’t get the average struggling taxpayer dancing in the streets, what could?

Assuming that it is still the beloved Leonard Rossiter involved in the Martini projects that is.

The truth of the matter is this:

Gill Dixon presided over a massive increase in staff, almost 25% in her first few years. This led in turn to massive wages bills, all documented in earlier Paakwa reports.

Somehow she has managed to get through no fewer than 3 Directors of Finance in as many years, leading to the latest report from the Audit Commission stating:

Financial Reporting - The quality of the financial statements and supporting working papers had deteriorated since the previous year, and decreased in score from a 3, consistently above minimum requirements, to a 1, below minimum requirements.

This is a consequence of the material misstatements we identified in your accounts.

Paakwa is not sure what a ‘material misstatement’ is.

Is it like being ‘economical with the truth?’

Or is it what plain talking folk would call lies?

And now to the real message.

Craven district council, the one who boasts about its ‘openness and transparency’ has entered into an agreement with Dixon on this ‘mutual termination of contract.’

The new leader has issued letters informing staff and councillors that there is a confidentiality (gagging) clause in this agreement, and has issued the following guidance from the head of legal services.

“It is really important that Members (councillors) respect the confidentiality of information and knowledge that they have come across or know about in connection with any aspect of the management issues raised with them in March or since, or the subsequent initial investigation. Effectively I am asking you not to make publish or issue any public statements that may be considered detrimental or derogatory to Gill Dixon’s employment with the council, or that relate to the mutual termination of her employment. In addition, it is important that the same principles are applied to current and former directors, or any other employees in connection with these issues.”

What the above appears to state is that there has been or still is, an investigation concerning management issues and Gill Dixon. Worse, it seems to be instructing councillors, those whose first responsibility is to their electorate, and not some ex-chief executive or new leader of the council, that they have to keep quiet about what has been going on!

Is this a council, or a gulag?

Paakwa has asked the following questions under Freedom of Information*:

I note that Gill Dixon has mutually agreed to terminate her contract of employment, giving rise to a few queries:

What, if any, severance pay was awarded at cost to the taxpayers?

What were the management issues raised, and the subsequent initial investigation?

Was any determination made, and if not why not?

It has been stated that the council has entered into an agreement containing a confidentiality clause with Gill Dixon, is this correct?

If so, by whose authority, if not that of full council, was such an undertaking given, and by what authority does a minority of councillors have that right?

Have all elected members been made aware of the above points?

I am sure that you can see the public interest in the above questions, the public purse is always a matter of concern to hard pressed taxpayers.

Whilst not suggesting for one moment that Gill Dixon left after a very poor Audit Commission report or after some investigation concerning her, none the less it would be, in our opinion, a travesty if she were to conclude a mutually agreed termination of contract by costing taxpayers say a 6 figure sum, and the public must be assured that such is not the case.

Should answers be forthcoming from this open and transparent council, then Paakwa will of course reveal them.

Here’s hoping that any answers will be clear and honest, and not material misstatements, meanwhile Paakwa is away to dance a froggy jig in joy at the major improvements in connectivity through the Martini project.

*For those who wonder exactly what Paakwa is getting at, it's this:

If the chief executive wanted to leave, then what reasons can there be for paying out any money, as it would have been her choice. Indeed the council should be paid for having to lose a competent chief executive.

Conversely had the council wanted the chief executive to leave, (commonly called 'sacking' in private industry) then there must be reasons for that, and those reasons should be explained to taxpayers, especially if taxpayers' money has been used.

At the moment all we know is that the chief executive has left, and that this open and transparent council has put a 'gagging clause' on councillors and council staff, possibly without even asking councillors if they agree with such a step.

Such behaviour does not smack of democracy.

The great land give away continues!

2008-05-15T12:18:00.000-07:00

Coincidentally just after the election, Craven district council have announced the sale price of the approximate 6 acres of prime land on Gargrave Road which it has given away - sorry sold - to Skipton Building Society.

After awarding full planning consent the council managed to get the huge price of around

£140,000 per acre.

Isn't it easy to give away our assets?

Paakwa has to ask what planet these people inhabit, to price our assets so cheaply.
CDC has also agreed to either buy or lease back the new council offices to be built on this site, meaning an unknown debt for an unknown period.

The press release detailing the price is HERE

It will be noted that present leader Lis is full of praise for this venture, stating:

"I am very pleased that the land sale has finally been completed and we can confirm that HML will be remaining, investing and growing in Craven."

Investing and growing eh Lis?
It should not be forgotten that Amber, one of HML's subsidiaries, bought heavily into the sub prime self-certified market from GMAC, along with Bradford and Bingley, (Details HERE)
and what is happening to Bradford and Bingley is all too apparent.

Pink, another subsidiary of HML, also favoured the sub prime market, and indeed was advertising for that very market as lately as last October.(details HERE)
Watch this space for imminent news concerning HML's investing and growing, but it would not surprise Paakwa were HML to post a loss, and indeed to reduce staff numbers rather than increase them.

Meanwhile some insight into the position of HML may be gleaned HERE
and some insight into the machinations of Craven district council concerning the sale of this piece of land HERE

Lis also states that some 15% of the jobs in Skipton are at HML - an interesting point, but he conveniently does not state that around 8 out of 10 of those jobs are filled by people from Lancashire and Keighley.
Indeed it was pointed out by Mark Taylor (agent to Anne Cryer at the time) that it would be far more sensible for HML to build in Keighley as it would entail fewer people having to travel, and Keighley, unlike Skipton, DID have an unemployment problem.

You may ask if this blighting of the finest entrance to Skipton is likely to worry Lis in his ward of Ingleton, Paakwa can only hope that his position as leader is soon to be terminated.

N.B! The price given for this site will not pay the wages of the extra staff taken on by the present chief executive under the watching eye of Lis, for more than 6 months.

This next Paakwa interview is with the celebrated pantomime artist, Dame Carla Loss.
Click on the little arrow bottom left to play, and, as always, any resemblance to anyone living, be they human or be they froglike, is coincidental.
Or act of God.

More matters of finance at CDC

2008-04-19T07:59:00.000-07:00

Paakwa is not above a little name dropping, so is pleased to let his admirers know that he was invited to a meeting with David Cameron this week at the Yorkshire Post.
As copies of that august organ were free, one was perused. Imagine the surprise on reading to note the superabundance of jobs available at spendermanic Craven district council!
And not just your ordinary jobs either, but such as yet another person to join the public relations team, a team which itself doubled in size a few short weeks ago!
It pays a mere £27,594 but there is a pay award pending, and unlike the private sector retirement with a salary linked pension will be available at 60.

Or if that's not to your taste, how about a 'Housing Quality Manager' at £32,346 sound?
Again a pay increase is soon to be implemented, the pension is excellent, flexible working hours are offered, and a generous relocation package is offered. As the council sold its (or more properly our) 1540 houses a few years ago for around £5,000 each, there shouldn't be too many houses to examine.

There are presently 13 such jobs, everything from a 'Carbon reduction officer' to 'Affordable Housing Development Manager' at salaries well in excess of twice the average in Craven, cracking pensions, and a work ethic which is happy to allow a couple of weeks per annum off sick, and extended leave given freely to cover Christmas and the New Year.
It's good to have pots of money isn't it?

Except that the council doesn't, just the opposite.

It's so broke that to keep the council tax down to government levels they had to raid the reserves to the tune of £1,000,000 - around 1/3 of the total tax paid by householders, and that reserve is desperately needed to fund the massive pensions liability the council has developed.
No doubt pensioners who have seen their pensions eroded whilst council tax has rocketed, will be very happy paying their £28.00/week for a band 'D' house knowing that big chunks of their money is going for ever increasing wage demands and nice safe pension pots.

Paakwa also wonders just why CDC loses so many Directors of Finance, it almost looks as if the moment they discover the true state of finances they swiftly leave.
Such a thought is laughable 'though, surely?

Meanwhile Councillors allow officers to grant massive amounts to private limited companies, and when those officers exceed their authority the councillors promptly increase, tenfold, that authority, from £1,000 to £10,000!
And even that doesn't seem to stop them exceeding it, Paakwa is told that £15,000 has been allocated to a statue of a sportsman by a single officer.
Perhaps councillors should merely hand over control of all finances to officers?

They already seem to have given up trying to control either the appalling council finances, the ever increasing and massive pensions deficit, or insisting that transparency and openness be adhered to - Why, they won't even tell us what they've received for our assets!

Meanwhile the land offered to Bentleys at £340,000 and for which an offer of double that was swiftly made has been revalued.
In any private company such appalling management would mean that heads would roll.
Don't expect anything like that at CDC - indeed such incompetence will probably be rewarded by an increase or promotion.

Time for the second Paakwa interview, this week it's Jilly Micawber
As always, click on the little arrow at the bottom left to play it, and, again as always, any resemblance to persons living or not so lively is coincidental.
Or an act of God.

Let the sales continue!

2008-04-09T01:17:00.000-07:00

The credit squeeze doesn't seem to have effected Craven district council, (motto - 'Openness and transparency') where they have decided to double the strength of the PR team.
"This underlines our commitment of ensuring communication is at the heart of everything we do" they tell us.
Oh really?
Let's just see how that commitment is carried out, and how lip service is paid to openness and transparency.

Despite colossal opposition, (see HERE) a site on Gargrave Road was sold to HML, a subsidiary of Skipton Building Society. That site of around 7 acres reached a price which CDC determined was fair.
But what was that price?

That question was asked in September of 2007, the reply being that once the sale had been finalised then the figure would become public.
Early this year they were again asked how much it fetched but refused to say, stating on the 4th February that the information would be released in the next 6 to 8 weeks.
That period passed, to no avail.
Towards the end of March the question was again asked, to be told that "The date for publication has slipped," and "The public interest in maintaining an exemption from the FOI act outweighs the public interest in disclosure."
One has to ask exactly what CDC are hiding by refusing this information.
For those interested, we are told that the price was in fact £800,000 - even less than Bentleys offer of £340,000 for 2 acres at the same spot!
For inadvertently revealing the information regarding Bentleys, a councillor has been reported to the Standards Board for England, and rebuked by that organisation.

Last December a letter was brought to Paakwa's notice.
Apparently signed by a director of a certain company it condemned the sale of the land to HML in no uncertain tones;
It mentions that it was an apparently covert deal between CDC and Skipton Building Society (SBS) and that it was not the first time that SBS had flexed their muscles and influenced planning control and land allocation decisions, but rather the third or fourth;
It mentions that this certain company would have to leave Skipton should there be no suitable land for them to build upon, and states that whatever HML had said they would do with respect to council offices could have been matched by this company.

An incredible letter, and verification of this was sought from CDC, who, via the office of one Jonathan Kerr, denied the existence of any letter, or indeed any contact with this company concerning a desire for CDC land until three months after the date of this letter.
The letter was then obviously a forgery!
They went on to deny it even more strenuously, but in the same sort of way that readers of 'A rat on silk' will understand.
Eventually, after deciding that a letter of such seriousness which is being denied by CDC must be a forgery, a last minute appeal was made.
"Are CDC confirming that this letter is a forgery, that the police might be informed?"
Suddenly memory came back to CDC in a rush, and the response came that, "Oh yes! They did send a letter in December discussing the possibility of land purchase!"
See the letter HERE.

By a strange coincidence Bentleys have received approval to buy a site on Gargrave Road, a site of over two acres, and for the January sale price of £340,000

Life is full of coincidences, here's another.

Skipton Properties applied for a legal revue of a couple of sites, believed to be the HML one and the Bentley one. The revue was granted.
In a surprising change of heart it appears that Skipton Properties have removed their application, Paakwa is told that they now have an application to build 280 houses along Shortbank Road.
No doubt Craven district council will ensure that council taxpayers will receive the best price for any land, just as they have done in the past.

In a possibly surprising twist, a letter from John Goodfellow (Chief Executive SBS) however states that it wasn't SBS who came up with the idea of using Gargrave Road, but Craven district council's, who took the idea to SBS!
Letter HERE
But then Goodfellow goes on to write that SBS always complies with the democratic process, and that if the development of Gargrave Road was against the wishes of the majority of Skipton dwellers, then that same democratic process will reach the appropriate conclusion.
No, I don't understand what he's getting at either, except that he most certainly is not going to give up this prestigious site bought at a knock down price, however much the development was against the wishes of the people.

Or will he?
Just how exactly are things at SBS?

Very interesting, at least for those who like matters of finance.
Whilst everyone has heard of the 'sub-prime' market, and Northern Wreck, not many will have heard of GMAC-RFC, the UK subsidiary of the giant auto finance business, originally built by Detroit carmakers, General Motors.
GMAC introduced to the UK the aggressive lending techniques which created the US sub-prime crisis, those which resulted in home repossessions at an unprecedented rate amongst borrowers who were only ever bad risks.

Between 2000 and 2006 GMAC became the UK's 10th biggest lender, with a loan portfolio totalling £12 Billion in 2006, and one of its big customers was Bradford and Bingley, which now has its own problems due to its appetite for sub-prime business and the wholesale money market.
GMAC has a rating set by various agencies, as do most companies, and GMAC has now had its rating cut to 'junk.'
But what, if anything, has GMAC got to do with Craven?

Well GMAC didn't sell millions of pounds worth to Bradford and Bingley alone, they needed to sell to anyone who would buy sub prime loans, buy to lets, etc. and they found a willing buyer.
A company called Amber.

Amber seemed to like the sub prime markets, (Details HERE) lending not just to light and medium sub prime borrowers, but also to 'unlimited' borrowers, and Amber bought - big style, some £840 Million up to 2005 from GMAC. (Details HERE)

It carried on with a further £250 Million in September 2006
Details HERE

The term 'unlimited' incidentally means those who have unlimited CCJ's against them, and also prefer to self certify their own incomes - not always the most reliable indicators of good borrowers, indeed the Financial Services Authority have issued a risk mitigation programme (RMP) to GMAC after such as retired sailor Ismail Ali, aged 71, was lent £75,000 despite an income of £517/month.

As lately as the 4th March, one short month ago, a happy sounding Mr. Jolly (real name) the head of Amber said:

"We've been phenomenally successful, and we now have a balance sheet of £1.5 Billion!"

On the 28th March - just over three weeks later - Amber was sold for £2 Million (see HERE) and Mr. Jolly has gone across to SBS as a General Manager.

For those who don't know, Amber, a company which has been renamed some four times over the last decade or so, belongs to HomeManagement Loans.
HomeManagement Loans belongs to Skipton Building Society.

Amber's financial returns are not due until 31/10/08 - they may make interesting reading.
As might the report from SBS.

As smooth as a rat on silk.

2008-03-27T11:50:00.000-07:00

Last year a couple of people got together and planned to hold a festival near Settle. They formed a private limited company, with the intention, presumably, of holding the event and making a profit – nothing wrong with that, any company that makes a loss won’t be in business very long!

It also happens that Craven District Council (CDC) regularly sets aside a little of our money and awards it as grants to various local projects, such as the arts and sports. It isn’t a great deal of cash, in fact the total awarded to all arts beneficiaries across Craven is only £3,140 and the total for all sports aid is £6,000

Again, nothing wrong with that: a few hundred pounds put into small local projects can make the difference between survival and failure.

But what is one to make of CDC’s eagerness to thrust the relatively huge sum of £11,500 – taken directly from the council's meagre grants budget – and thrust into the outstretched hands of a private limited company?

At the time of awarding the grant Settle Festival Limited had the legal minimum of two directors – Messrs Mark Dale and Michael Dean. There were [and still are] no employees, no declared assets, no shares issued and no accounts filed. All of which suggests a shell company formed with the single purpose of protecting its two directors from personal liability for debt.

Moreover, the decision to award the public's money to this duo was not made by elected councillors – who can be held responsible for using our hard earned cash to the best advantage – but by a council support officer who exceeded his £1,000 grant authority by a factor of eleven and a half!

So what did the ten councillors who serve on CDC's Policy Committee do?

At least six of them (we don't know who or how many since the voting went unrecorded – as is CDC's usual practice) voted to increase that officer's expenditure limit tenfold, and retrospectively approve his unauthorised dispensation of our money!

Disgraceful as this was – it's now ancient history. But the story gets worse. Much worse.

In an attempt to determine how much taxpayers’ money had been spent on the festival a written question was put to CDC's Head of Legal Services. A simple question asked by a firm of Leeds solicitors on behalf of a local taxpayer.*

The question was:

“How much money has been spent by Craven District Council on Settle Festival?”

In due course, the answer came back from the Head of Legal Services. It stated:

“For Settle festival 2008 a grant of £5,500 inclusive of any VAT was given to Settle Festival Limited.”

Overlooking the fact that the question was put in January, and remained unanswered until March, one might have expected a council which constantly proclaims itself to be ‘Open and Transparent’ to have been a little more – er – open and transparent.

Honest, even?

But instead of answering a legitimate question of significant public interest, someone in CDC apparently deemed the facts to be so damning that they chose to answer a different question altogether.

They did so by restricting the answer to the £5,500 given to Settle Festival Ltd in 2008 – conveniently "overlooking" the £11,500 already handed without authority in 2007 to Messrs Dale and Dean.

The solicitors' letter also enquired:

“How was the money authorised?”

CDC's answer would have been envied by Machiavelli:

“The grant was authorised by the Director of Community Services who has delegated authority to approve all grants up to a maximum of £10,000.”

The question was sidestepped as smoothly as a rat on silk – had it been answered it would have been a damning admission that the earlier £11,500 handout was unauthorised and in flagrant breach of CDC rules.

Which brings us finally to the point.

Disregarding the pros and cons of the Settle Festival, on what grounds did six or more of our elected representatives vote to increase tenfold the power of a single officer to dish out our money?

This 'open and transparent' council is inclined to be anything but when it comes to accounting to the electorate for the use of public funds. Nevertheless, it might be argued that at least one councillor (the appropriate portfolio holder) would be involved in such handouts.

But as can be seen from the letter from CDC (below) that was not the case.

Paakwa issues a twin challenge to the ten members of CDC's policy committee …

1. Now that you are aware of the officer in question's lack of judgment in dispensing public money by giving £17,000 – five times the total awarded to all arts bodies in Craven – to a private limited company in pursuit of commercial profit

Will you now vote to remove that authority?

2. And even more seriously: When a bona fide legal firm asks equally bona fide questions of CDC's Head of Legal Services, should the replies she receives from officers and councillors – and passes on in good faith – be open, transparent and honest?

Or should we expect more 'economies with the truth?'

* To see the letter click on the link below.

CDC Response.

Normal service is resumed

2008-03-09T18:12:00.000-07:00

Having returned fresh and kempt, from a winter holiday, alas! It seems that Plus ca change, plus c'est les meme chose!
After praising Craven district council for not increasing council tax, it appears that they are taking no less than £1,000,000 or around 1/3 of what council tax givers pay each year, from reserves, and yet that is only enabling a standstill!

Presumably if it had not been for that, then a 33% increase in tax would have been needed!

However even Craven district council's ability to waste money has been exceeded of late by that unelected and spendthrift quango North Yorkshire police authority.

This bunch of highly rewarded folk are rightly criticized by the Audit Commission and the local M.P. A quick scan of Google on NYPA will reveal all that they have been up to, a list of some considerable length.

However Paakwa, conscious that he must strive for fairness above all, has sought the views of the populace at large.
In this, the first of the Paakwa reports, the viewpoint of an ordinary person is sought regarding the antics of the above mentioned police authority.

There are some who may think that Miss. Grindepoor-Harshly bears an uncanny resemblance to another person, but with umpteen billions crawling on the face of this earth, it would be surprising indeed if she did not resemble, in superficial areas, another human being.

Here are two links to the video of the Paakwa report.
This first one is a link for those with high speed connections, and is:

Link to high speed connection

And here's a link to a Google connection:

Paakwa on Google

Praise and Bouquets. Plus a plea.

2008-02-22T10:37:00.000-08:00

After seeing council tax in Craven rise in excess of inflation year after year, it's very good indeed to see that Craven district council (CDC) are not increasing tax to householders at all for the next year.
Sadly this is not echoed by North Yorkshire county council, or by the ever greedy North Yorkshire police authority, both of whom think that increases of twice inflation are reasonable!

This makes Craven's stance all the more commendable, as it would be all too easy to follow in the footsteps of these other profligate and spendthrift organisations, especially the police authority, which is rapidly becoming a byword for financial incompetence - See Chapter 4 of 'Incompetence or Worse?

And there's yet more good news!

CDC have refused to allow the Settle festival.
Now Paakwa is not going to go into the merits or otherwise of this festival, but one thing did stand out about it, that officers of CDC were strongly backing it.
Not alas! With their money, but with ours.

Two senior officers had apparently approved, and given, a large grant to the festival organisers.
How large?
Well larger than the combined totals of that reserved for all sport and all art combined in Craven!

This was done without councillors' permission, and without taking the request to them seeking such permission, until after the money had been given to the festival organisers.

If we had so much money to give in grants, should not councillors have been asked whether they would prefer to double the grants for sports and arts in Craven, or to give it to the organisers of what appeared to be a rock festival before they had even achieved consent for that festival?
And now the application to hold that festival has fallen, meaning that the money granted has been totally wasted.

It is the job of councillors to award grant money, not officers, and most certainly not to the extent done on this occasion.

It is to be hoped that councillors will now have something to say on that score, especially to the officers concerned,* but meanwhile three councillors are to be commended for taking a stance for what they believed, rather than following the leads of CDC's employees, the council officers.

At the risk of bringing down the wrath of some of their more pusillanimous council brethren on their necks, Paakwa hands bouquets to councillors Heseltine, Ireton, and Quinn for reminding council officers that theirs is a supportive role, and not a commanding one.

* The licensing committee rejected the application on all 4 licensing objectives as follows:

The Committee have decided to reject the application.

The Committee considered that it was necessary to reject the application for the premises licence so as to promote the four licensing objectives under the Act –

1) The prevention of crime and disorder

2) The prevention of public nuisance

3) Public safety

4) The protection of children from harm

Bearing in mind that the application fell on all four points, Paakwa asks the following questions:

Why have council officers, in breach of agreement, granted these festival organisers a larger grant than that available for the whole of sports and arts in Craven?

As officers have now shown their standard of judgement when allocating taxpayers' funds, will councillors now consider whether to rescind the latest agreement, that allowing officers to grant up to £10,000 in individual cases backed only by one councillor, a tenfold increase on the previous agreement?

Incompetence or worse? Chapter 4

2008-02-17T02:56:00.000-08:00

This is a change from our normal ‘Incompetence or Worse’ series, because this is possibly the most incompetent bunch of people in public service, however if you're patient enough to get to the end, then there is a little video for your delectation and delight.

This chapter concerns a self selecting quango with an appalling history of grabbing taxpayers’ money whilst rewarding themselves with ever more of our hard-earned.

Yep, you’ve guessed it, it’s North Yorkshire police authority (NYPA) once again.

This little band of people are in charge of North Yorkshire police, and are, in their own words,

‘Open and Accountable.’

Oh Yes?

After years when they increased our precept by amounts such as a staggering 42% followed by an eye watering 76% so that we’re now paying around 4 times as much for our policing as a few short years ago, what have we actually got for our money?

Well we DO have a best value team, and they have reported as follows:

The Best Value team has:

produced an article for the NYP News magazine
produced posters that have been distributed across the organisation
updated the intranet sub-site
put out a “Message of the day” to the whole service publishing details of reviews and seeking contributions
established a communication strategy as a key part of every review

Producing an article for their news magazine eh?

Well if THAT doesn’t inspire confidence, what could?

Mind you, it’s to be hoped that their news magazine really is news, ‘cos their website is still detailing budget requirements for the year 2004-2005, and indeed the report from the Best Value team is from that year also!

No doubt after their employment of a marketing manager – no, that’s not a misprint, North Yorkshire police have had a marketing manager since 2007 – the news magazine will be even more balanced and objective than in the past.

There are 16 members of this quango, and their work load is so little that the chairman, the Gorgeous and pouting Jane Kenyon, has time to chair the Authority’s Leadership and Strategic Planning Boards; be a Conservative County Councillor for the Mayfield Division of Whitby since 1989; be a Scarborough Borough Councillor, serving as Deputy Mayor of the Borough of Scarborough from 1989 to 1999.

Formerly a Whitby Town Councillor, she served as Mayor of Whitby for three years and Chairman of Scarborough Safer Community Partnership. Jane is also a primary school governor, Chairman of Whitby Regatta and a non-executive director of Scarborough and North East Yorkshire Health Trust. She gained business experience in the health service and property market fields. She is a member of the APA’s Leadership and Community Leadership Police Group and Finance Lobbying Group.

All these and more Jane has done whilst being chairman of NYPA!

Phew!

She certainly earns the miserly £16,000 plus she gets from chairing NYPA, AND she has to attend at least 4 meetings a year.

Unless there’s a reason she can’t.

So onerous is this that the authority reduced the meeting number from 6 a year to 4,

Well done!

There are other small payments of course, up to £217/day for actually attending meetings, plus mileage allowances, meal allowances etc. but these are small beer.

Up to April of last year they had a clerk, one Jeremy Holderness, to take down notes, issue the minutes and so on, but they no longer have a clerk, instead they have a…

Wait for it...

CHIEF EXECUTIVE!

Still the same Jeremy of course, but no doubt on an enhanced salary structure more concomitant with his title.

And his first job in his new position?

Well if you look carefully, you’ll find that he needs an assistant, and so that there is now an…

ASSISTANT CHIEF EXECUTIVE!

Isn’t it easy to spend public money, OUR money?

NYPA has now been lambasted by auditors over its handling of finances.

This bunch of highly rewarded and unelected people which has shown scant respect for the public purse under its stewardship, what with fleets of leather trimmed Discoveries for inspectors’ personal use, and £28,000 showers for Chief Constables, has come under fire again for its lack of financial competence, the local M.P. calling it:

“A level of financial incompetence of classic proportions.”

Their response?

This is from the clerk - sorry - chief executive:

“It shows people that we are exercising strong governance.”

You couldn’t make it up, could you?

But perhaps we'll now see some level of accountability, with some members, or maybe even the chairman, resigning? After all, whilst she has overseen a quadrupling of cost for North Yorkshire taxpayers, it appears that the handling of those finances has been, very much less than satisfactory.

Don't hold your breath.

Would YOU give up such a nice well paid job, where however badly you did, you couldn't get sacked?

We in Craven have two members of that authority,

Polly English and

David Ireton.

Polly and David, as ordinary members, only receive a little over £8,000 for their allowances, and a quick scan of the meetings listed under 2007/8 shows that Polly has attended at least 4 meetings, and David at least 5!

Both of these have been mentioned by Paakwa before, David as the man who used his second vote as chairman of Craven district council to vote for the best person to take over that job for the next year.

Himself.

Yes, David Ireton used both his votes for no other than David Ireton to carry on receiving the chairman's allowance, and Polly is the only person to claim more in household allowances for Information Technology than David.

Most councillors get one allowance which pays for their computer, telephone line etc. but David gets two, once for being an Independent Craven councillor, and once for being a Conservative county councillor.

The English household however tops the poll with no fewer than 3 lots of IT allowances!

That’s the way to do it!

Oink Oink!

Now here's the promised video, which has nothing to do with North Yorkshire police authority, but something to do with Craven.
As always, to watch the video, click on the little arrow at the bottom left hand side, and apologies to Bill Blake, a great poet whose work has now got the inimitable Paakwa touch.

Incompetence or Worse? Chapter 3

2008-02-08T12:32:00.000-08:00

"Something" they say, "is rotten in Denmark."
Well that's as may be, but there's certainly something strange going on at Craven district council (CDC).
Only a few short weeks ago councillors were told that the £340,000 offered by Bentley's for a prestigious greenfield site on Gargrave Road of around two acres, was the best that could be obtained for that site, and a very fair price indeed.
And so those councillors accepted that advice, advice given in a document written by one Jonathan Kerr, whose name crops up not infrequently in this website.

Some may have wondered why a 'non-local' company, one headquartered in Chicago, should have given the valuation, and not a local company such as say Dacre son and Hartley.
Some might have wondered why there weren't two or more valuations.
Some may have wondered about the reason given, that of employment, when Craven does not have an employment problem.
Indeed HML have to import most of their staff from Keighley and Lancashire, such is the shortage of workers!

Others might have wondered, as did the editor of the Craven Herald, why, if the price was right, it should be kept a secret.

And now we see that Dacre Son and Hartley have indeed given an offer for this land, at twice the price accepted by the policy committee from Bentleys!

The letter confirming that offer may be seen here.

So just what IS going on at CDC?
Why was the price offered kept secret?
Is one single officer, one living in West Yorkshire, responsible for who determines the value of our assets?
Would CDC really allow such a stupid system, one which is incredibly open to mistake or abuse, to exist when dealing with valuable assets?

The reality is that they probably would.
It's but a few years ago when our council houses, all 1,540 of them, were sold at the give away price of just over £5,000 each.
Not to the tenants, but to a newly formed private company, who proceeded to allow them to be sold at an average of 10 times that price, and now at full market value.
A company which has declared itself to be a charity (although not appearing on the Charities Commission website) and thereby exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.

Of course CDC had a 'Clawback' mechanism whereby any huge gains such as this could be realised, at least in part, by the council, didn't they?

You wish!

And so Paakwa has this plea to make, to all councillors at CDC.

Please don't accept everything you're told by officers of the council, especially when it comes to disposing of our assets.
Please question and re-question, especially every time that secrecy is declared essential.
Demand to know why 'cloak and dagger' techniques are necessary, and why the public, the owners of those assets, should not be told the truth, and better still consulted.

Please.

Incompetence or worse, Chapter 2

2008-01-27T12:30:00.000-08:00

Incompetence or worse? Chapter 2

Craven District Council (CDC) has decided that your money should be spent in promoting a rock concert.

No, really!

It’s like this…

CDC allows a certain amount of money to be spent on charitable bodies. Not necessarily registered charities. But, as an example, suppose you want help in setting-up a worthy cause for the neighbourhood: fixing the leak in the church roof, forming a ‘mothers and toddlers’ group or perhaps an old folks’ outing, then CDC allocate funds for those very purposes.

You might get awarded a few hundred pounds, even as much as five hundred if the cause is deemed good. Generally the seekers of such awards are asked to go to a public meeting where they explain to councillors why they need such monies, what other funding they’re getting, and so on.

There is a limit to this generosity. After all it is public money, and council taxes are at an alltime high. In June 2007 the limits were set as:

Community Chest: £16,500

Sports Development: £6,000

Arts Development: £3,140

Over 2006/7 a total of 62 groups were supported under this scheme.

There is also an Employment Initiative scheme, which is self-explanatory, and officers were allowed under what’s called ‘Delegated Authority’ to allocate grants of up to £1,000 each to worthy causes which might help employment.

However one officer, David Smurthwaite, apparently decided to slightly exceed that authority, by allocating £11,500 to a profit-seeking commercial organisation. That's more than the combined totals granted to sport and arts bodies in Craven.

An organisation in which he, Smurthwaite, seemingly had managerial status, in which capacity he visited parishes adjoining Settle to extol the virtues of that organisation and a major commercial project.

This was, of course, the proposed Settle Festival, and one might well ask why a salaried CDC employee should be giving large grants without prior authority to two inexperienced organisers of a putative rock festival.

That festival has been considered by the parish councils and meetings of the villages concerned, with the following results:

“Giggleswick Parish Council, Ribblebanks Parish Council, Rathmell Parish Meeting, Halton West Parish Meeting and Long Preston Residents Association have all objected.

The Cyclist Touring Club, Yorkshire Dales Soc, CPRE, and Halton West Parish Meeting have all objected, and adverse comment has been made by North Yorkshire Police.

The only body that has not met formally to consider the matter is Wigglesworth Parish Meeting”

Curiously, Wigglesworth Parish Meeting is chaired by one Michael Dean, who apparently saw no reason to call a meeting to discuss this Festival.

The fact that he is one of the festival’s directors is of course pure coincidence.

As is the fact that he works for Cottages4U (a local company owned by a US multinational) which has a financial stake in the festival.

It’s good to see democracy in action, isn’t it?

Some festival facts:

Leeds Festival has been organised by Mean Fiddler, probably the most experienced festival organisers in Britain, and takes place at around the same time of year. No doubt Settle Festival organisers are hoping that the same people will attend both events.

With professional staff, including up to 700 on security, it might be supposed that trouble of any sort would be noticeably absent from the Leeds Festival. You'd be very, very wrong!.

So you might well feel a sharp stab of concern to learn that the organisers of the Settle Festival are attempting to recruit unpaid volunteers for such highly responsible managerial positions as:

Child Care Manager
Site Structures Manager
First Aid Manager
Fire Risk Manager
Security Manager
Coach Manager
Fencing & Barrier Manager
Site Communications Manager
Traffic Manager
Information & Signs Manager
Ticketing Manager
Car Park Manager
Clean Up and Prep Manager
Services Manager
Environment & WiderEconomic Benefits Manager
Camping Manager
Lighting & Power Manager
and Chief Steward & Marshall.

Settle's organisers are displaying their amateur credentials - in Spades!

Even with the expertise of Mean Fiddler, troubles are rarely absent. For example, the video clip showing actual footage of Leeds Festival happenings at the end of this article.

And if you don’t like your council tax being spent by salaried officers on promoting rock concerts in which they are actively involved, why not let Paakwa or – better still your ward councillor - know?

Or write to the Craven Herald. It now has an editor who, unlike his predecessor, is promoting council transparency and accountability.

To watch the video, click the little arrow at the left.

Incompetence or worse? - A Series

2008-01-20T02:21:00.000-08:00

The more Paakwa delves into matters concerning councils and councillors, the more Paakwa is disturbed.
Are their more questionable actions driven merely by incompetence?
Or by something more serious?

Paakwa thinks YOU should be the judge of that, and in this short series the facts will be laid before you, that you might judge.

Let's start with one of Paakwa's least favourite public bodies, Craven district council.

One of the items mentioned earlier in this blog was the sale of some prime building land on Gargrave Road to local construction firm J. N. Bentley, a sale which had been nodded through by Cllrs. Lis, English, et al, just before Christmas.

This greenfield site had been valued by a land development company headquartered in Chicago, and instructions appear to have come from one Jonathan Kerr (a name infamous for pushing the sale of many Craven assets, and mentioned many times in Paakwa's dispatches) that the sum offered should be kept secret.

That sum has already been revealed by Paakwa, that prime commercial site was knocked down for a mere £340,000, just £15,000 less than the price paid two years ago for a mid-terrace house with minimal land on a site immediately opposite, in Gargrave Road!

And so the Bentley sale price DID become public knowledge, thanks to a councillor who was heard by non council witnesses to inadvertently blurt out at a public meeting something along the lines of: "How do we know that £340,000 is the best price we can get?"

Paakwa now hears that plans may be afoot to punish that councillor for letting such information escape into the public domain, even that he might be reported to the Standards Board of England with regard to disciplining him.

But in a just and democratic world that councillor should be commended for his action, whether deliberate or not.

The council is secretive over the disposal of our assets to the point where questions - serious questions - need asking. It apparently suits Kerr, an ambitious officer who doesn't live in Craven, to see our Craven assets disposed of at secretive and apparently bargain basement prices, but these assets are ours, the public's assets, and once gone will never be recovered.

Councillors are elected to safeguard the interests of their constituents, NOT the the ambitions of council officers. It is to be hoped that more elected members will challenge the words and actions of those who seek to dispose of our assets at questionable prices.

Sadly it's too late to regain the hill at Gargrave Road from Skipton building society's subprime moneylenders HML. Around 6 acres sold at an apparent snip, for the sale price of £800,000 Paakwa has been informed.

But it's not too late to stop the sale to J.N. Bentley.

If the £340,000 offered by Bentleys is a fair price, the most that we could get for our assets, then Paakwa asks this:

Why was the price secret?

What is being hidden, and why?

Paakwa extends grateful thanks to a councillor who, by letting this price inadvertently be known to the public, has done a service to democracy in Craven.

And Paakwa has this to say to councillors who give mealy mouthed lip service to 'openness and transparency,' but hide behind cloaks of 'commercial confidentiality' whenever it suits them...

J'accuse!

Next in the series:

'How to spend more than the combined charitable allowances for sport and arts in Craven by backing a single private limited company.'

For fans of video, stand by for some revealing footage.

Who runs the council - Take 2

2008-01-11T10:41:00.000-08:00

The more Paakwa delves into the murky waters of Craven district council, the more it seems to be that the council is controlled by a few people, rather than the councillors.
On name in particular crops up very often, that of Jonathan Kerr.
Jonathan has many mentions in this Blog, he it was who pushed the recommendation for selling a greenfield site to Bentleys at what might seem like a bargain price (HERE)
Jonathan was also the one who was brought to attention in the first of this series of 'who runs the council. (HERE)
He answered the ago old riddle of 'Why is a council like a condom?' (HERE) and he is also justly famed for explaining the meaning of 'Lively and animated' to an enlightened audience. (Video HERE)

But now Paakwa has discovered that Jonathan, aided by one David Smurthwaite (his assistant as far as is known) decided to spend our money without recourse to councillors.
Last year a money making enterprise was set up, called the Settle festival. This was set up by two promoters, Mark Dale, a chef by trade, and Mike Dean, a commercial holiday cottage rental executive, who formed a limited liability shell company with no employees, no experience, and no listed assets.

Jonathan and David decided to aid these two financially, not out of their own pockets, but out of ours.
Now the council does aid many worthy projects, indeed there were 17 worthy projects chosen who received grants. Not huge grants, for example the total for all sports grants was £6,000 and the total for arts was £3,140

So these charitable activities were aided.
But Settle music festival is not a charity, it is a money making venture.
So just how much of our money did they give to these two budding entrepreneurs?
No less than £11,500 - around FIVE times as much as say Ingleton Swimming Pool school support team got, they received £1,180 to encourage school children in swimming.

Jonathan does not have the right to give our money away, he is not a councillor,he is a highly paid employee of ours.
And so he went to the policy committee, headed by our old friend Carl Lis, who retrospectively approved his largess for this profit seeking endevour.
Isn't it good to know that employees such as Kerr can spend our money without bothering to ask councillors, knowing that they can get such permission afterwards?

This article gives details of the Settle festival planned for this year. Perhaps Craven district council, or Kerr, may be equally free with our money again?

FOI Request from Paakwa:

I note that £5,000 was given to the festival last year by CDC, apparently to pay for licensing, who approved this?

The actual sum granted was £11,500. This comprised of:

£8,100 licence fee

£150 license advert

£2,500 traffic survey

£200 local business event

£150 local business event advertising

Plus VAT

This payment was agreed by Jonathan Kerr and David Smurthwaite

And was it returned when the festival did not take place and remained unlicensed?

No.

Minutes of the Policy Committee, June 2007:

Table 2: Projects seeking retrospective approval

Settle signage project

£2k

Waterways Festival

£2k

Settle Festival

£11.5k total

£8,100 licence

£2,500 traffic survey

£300 advertising

£200 local business event

Plus VAT

Musical interlude.

2008-01-08T15:26:00.000-08:00

Music Lover's Dilemma

Those of you who know Paakwa know that he is a lover – indeed a player – of music. So Paakwa will be happy to hear that the so-called 'Settle Music Festival' is back on the agenda, won't he?

Mmmm...

Let's get a few facts straight about this 'festival':

Firstly: It won't be in Settle. It will be held on a low-lying flood plain largely on the west side of the A65-Rathmell road and is immediately adjacent to Rathmell village. It will virtually encompass some properties in the parishes of Giggleswick and Rathmell;

Secondly: The two would-be promoters, Mark Dale, a chef by trade, and Mike Dean (a commercial holiday cottage rental executive), have formed a limited liability shell company with no employees, no experience, and no listed assets;

Thirdly: These two organisers expect up to 29,000 people to attend the event, a maximum of 20,000 per day, arriving at the site at the rate of 1100 vehicles per hour. This equates to around one vehicle every 3 seconds trying to enter the site! Anyone who's been to a music festival will appreciate the chaos probability of that expectation!

It also demonstrates the naiveté of organisers, who expect people to turn up at a steady rate per hour. Most will arrive on Friday afternoon/evening, totally blocking the already choked A65 on the last weekend in August, one of the busiest times of the year on one of North Yorkshire's busiest roads.

Fourthly: this wildly optimistic duo are asking for volunteer (ie unpaid) staff to fill the following managerial positions:

Programme Manager

Liaison Manager

Stage Manager

Child Care Manager

Site Structures Manager

First Aid Manager

Fire Risk Manager

Security Manager

Coach Manager

Fencing & Barrier Manager

Merchandising Manager

Sponsorship Manager

Print Manager

PR & Publicity Manager

Site Communications Manager

Traffic Manager

Information & Signs Manager

Ticketing Manager

Car Park Manager

DDA Manager

Clean Up and Prep Manager

Services Manager

Environment & WiderEconomic Benefits Manager

Camping Manager

Lighting & Power Manager

Chief Steward & Marshall

Volunteer First Aid Manager? Volunteer Safety Manager? Volunteer Fire Risk Manager? And Volunteer Traffic and Security Managers?

In the words of volatile tennis star John McEnroe: "You must be joking!"

But even disregarding all the above, the most questionable part about this whole affair is that the organisers expect to make sufficient profits to be able to give away an unstated sum to 'charity'.

If this is a profit-making venture, then why is Craven District Council stated on the festival's website as being a 'joint sponsor' or 'partner' in a wholly commercial enterprise?

Why has Yorkshire Forward – an unelected Quango with lots of public money to waste (sorry invest) parted with £15,000 of our money to fund a venture whose sole purpose is to turn a profit for its promoters?

By a strange coincidence Paakwa notes that the daughter of Dixon, Craven district council's chief executive, works for Yorkshire Forward, an expensive quango which will be the subject of a future Paakwa piece on its profligacy.

And why is the Yorkshire Dales National Park named on the promoters' website as a joint sponsor or partner of the festival – when it will not be held on national park land and has nothing whatsoever to do with that body's remit?

Craven District Council has already promised £5,000 of our money to this limited liability company, apparently to cover the festival's licensing fee. Who approved this? Has it been paid to the promoters? And, if so, was it returned last year when the festival application was withdrawn after widespread public opposition?

The answer to all the questions posed above will be posted on this blog as soon as Paakwa receives them.

Meantime, Paakwaa's faithful readers may be interested to read details of a company which planned a similar festival in 2007.

http://www.creweguardian.co.uk/mostpopular.var.1572688.mostcommented.music_festival_gets_drowned_out.php#comments

Unlike the Settle Festival organisers, this company had some tangible assets. Indeed they spent around £200,000 on the festival, including £50,000 for fencing. The festival was cancelled due to rain, and those who'd bought tickets received no repayment, despite the tickets stating that they would.

Meanwhile Paakwa wonders if the organisers of the Settle Festival, if they succeed in obtaining the *permanent licence for which they've applied, will actually proceed? Or will they sell that licence to a third party on for a massive profit?

*According to the Oxford English Dictionary, 'permanent' means: lasting, enduring, indefinite, continuing, perpetual, eternal, abiding, constant, persistent, irreversible, lifelong, indissoluble, indelible, standing, perennial, unending, endless, never-ending, immutable, unchangeable, unalterable, invariable, unchanging, changeless, undying, imperishable, indestructible, ineradicable.

Residents of Settle and Rathmell – be warned!

The true meaning of Christmas

2007-12-22T10:09:00.000-08:00

Well, Christmas time is almost upon us, and Paakwa will be taking a few days' holiday.
Not as long as Craven district council will of course, but then Paakwa doesn't have access to unlimited funds.
In the true spirit of Christmas, namely crass commercialism mingled with sprouts, Paakwa has had to take on advertising to make ends meet. Of course only the very highest quality of advertisers will suffice, so your approval is certain to be granted.

Just before the video Paakwa extends grateful thanks to all those councillors and council workers whose overriding aim is, and has been, to serve the public. We know who you are, but will neither embarrass you by stating your names nor cause you grief from others. We do, however, send you our heartfelt best wishes.
To those whose main aim in life is self service, and again we know who you are, and often DO name you, then we extend to you simply our wishes.
As Dickens showed us, even Scrooge could have a change of heart, and maybe this time of year will change the heart of some at Craven, and make them determined to live up to their promise of being

'Open, transparent, and accountable.'

We should also remember the words said to us by Christ - and Paakwa tends to agree with him -
"I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance."

And now the bit you've been waiting for, Paakwa goes commercial!

(To start the video playing, click the little arrow at the bottom left hand side.)

January sales, Craven council style.

2007-12-20T10:33:00.000-08:00

Here's a little quiz for you.

What's the going price for a few acres of land on Gargrave Road? Land opposite Aireville Grange and adjacent to the auction mart? (Map HERE)

Answer later, so no cheating!

Last night's meeting went exactly as predicted, Craven district council's (CDC's) policy committee met and nodded through the offer made by Bentleys for the field on Gargrave Road. The discussions between Bentleys and the council have taken some 18 months, but councillors were given a few short days to absorb the information and vote on it. Indeed a motion to wait a short while and see what other offers might be made was rejected!
The votes were recorded, and are noted at the end of this article. If you feel that you have something to say on this point, perhaps you should contact your local councillor.

The committee is chaired by Carl Lis, and contains such as Paul English and David Crawford.
The plan to sell the land to Bentleys was recommended by Jonathan Kerr, and keen eyes may well notice the similarity between those names and the ones who pushed for carpeting Skipton with high rise flats and car parks.

The council is charged with getting value for money when it sells our assets, our land, but they don't have to use auctions or tenders, instead they get valuations from independent valuers, to use as a measure - for some reason Craven district council, presumably ordered by Kerr, used a huge American company, Jones Lang LaSalle based in Illinois.
Perhaps because the council don't know of any competent valuers in Craven?
Whilst Jones Lang LaSalle do have offices in England, their main business seems to be in valuing land etc. for developers, as to whether it could be a viable purchase.
Perhaps a strange choice for land vendors!

Here's a clue to the price offered, and now accepted.
The council were told by Bentleys that if they didn't let them have this land then they, Bentleys, would move away from Skipton. CDC have a track record of giving in to big business, see HERE for details of the HML affair, so maybe Bentleys thought they were on to a sure thing.
Interestingly, Dacre son and Hartley apparently came up with an offer which was brushed aside. But then how could Dacre son and Hartley be expected to know as much about land values in Skipton as Jones Lang LaSalle of Illinois?

And so to the price.
Paakwa is informed that Bentleys is to pay no less than...

£340,000

Around the same price as was paid for just one inner terrace opposite this site two years ago (details HERE) although the field Bentleys want would hold at least 24 times as many houses as that.
One of the two councillors whose constituents live in that area is David Crawford, but alas he was apparently away and could not attend the meeting, no doubt something much more pressing came up.
His doppelganger, or double, was nearby during the day though, playing golf. A good healthy game that, and far better than stuffy council chambers.
For doppelgangers.

Paakwa is informed that Bentleys is possibly the preferred partner in Skipton's redevelopment scheme. This scheme is overseen by a small committee of six, chaired by Carl Lis who is aided by councillors David Crawford and Paul English.
Keen eyes might note some similarity in all the names above.
Paakwa is absolutely certain that equally hard bargains will be fought by the councillors in looking after the interest of Craven taxpayers as these doughty people have shown in bargaining so far. A bid of a tenner has been entered for the town hall, certain to be accepted, because if it isn't Paakwa has threatened to move out of town.

If the council follows its normal procedure at this time, then it will quite likely try to find someone to blame for letting this figure out into the public domain, instead of asking themselves what they were trying to hide, so here are three questions for councillors and council officers to contemplate:

If the price quoted is a fair price for that piece of land, then why the secrecy?
When is Craven district council going to stop pretending to be open and transparent?
and does anyone out there know how to spell predetermination?

The voting details from the 19^th December Policy Committee are as follows:

Amendment – That consideration of the request by Messrs J N Bentley’s to purchase land at Gargrave Road, Skipton is deferred to (a) enable officers to establish whether anyone else is interested in purchasing the land and (b) pending a report on what other options have been considered in respect of a site for relocating J N Bentley’s.

For: Councillors Mrs Fairbank, Foster, Turner, Whaites and Welch

Against: Councillors Barrington, Camacho, Polly English, Heather, Ireton, Lis, Mulligan, Place and Wheeler.

Motion – (1) That the offer made by J N Bentley’s for the field OS 5707, Gargrave Road, Skipton is noted.

(2) That the Council disposes of the land comprising field OS 5707 at Gargrave Road, Skipton to J N Benthley’s of Skipton, subject to the Council at least achieving the market valuation for the land as set out in the Valuation Report at Appendix C (exempt from publication) to the Director of Community Services’ report.

For: Councillors Barrington, Camacho, Polly English, Heather, Lis, Mulligan, Place and Wheeler.

Against: Councillors Mrs Fairbank, Ireton, Turner and Welch

Abstained: Councillors Foster and Whaites.

Part (2) of the motion will go forward to the Council Meeting on 22^nd January as a recommendation.

HML Mark 2?

2007-12-16T09:47:00.000-08:00

HML Mark 2 ?

Paakwa hears that a nice large field (see HERE for map) opposite the Greenfield site which Craven district council (CDC) gave permission to HML for offices/car parks/council offices of around 1100 people is up for sale.

The people interested in buying this field are JN Bentley, a construction company based at Snaygill industrial estate.

Paakwa has nothing to say about Bentleys, either good or bad, but Paakwa certainly has some thoughts about the purchase of this field.

CDC have produced a report which will be read by the Policy Committee on Wednesday 19^th December. In brief this report states that members are recommended to dispose of this land to Bentleys subject to the council achieving at least market value for the land, and as council policy is nearly always to follow the advice of officers (yet again this report is by Jonathan Kerr of Renaissance fame) it can be reckoned that members will indeed vote to dispose of our land to Bentleys.

And this is good, surely?

We shall keep another large employer happy and within Skipton area, thereby keeping our council tax down (no laughter here please) won’t we?

But…

But.

The council are charged with looking after taxpayers' assets, and this land is most certainly that, an asset. To ensure that the maximum is realised for our assets there are certain rules which the council normally follow, and if a piece of land of ours is up for sale, as this one appears to be, then we should get the best price we can for it. Normally the land would go for sale by tender or by auction so that it can be readily and openly seen that we have got the best price, but not in this case.

In this case a price has been offered to the council from Bentleys, a price set by a consultant employed by them, and that sum is on a document withheld from the public. Similarly a valuation set by another valuer, one employed by the council, is again on that same document, the one withheld from the public.

That valuer employed by Craven district council is Jones Lang LaSalle, about whom Wikipedia has this to say:

Jones Lang LaSalle (NYSE: JLL) is a major real estate and money management services firm headquartered in the Aon Center in Chicago, Illinois."

Their nearest office to Skipton is Leeds, and their main service is testing viability of purchases for developers.

It is to be wondered at just why these sums should be secret. Just as Bentleys want this land, there may well be other companies, equally deserving ones, who would like the chance to purchase it, and are not being given that chance - Why not? What has CDC got against other Craven companies?

CDC have this to say:

Any application to purchase land is exempt from the Council’s Contract Procedure Rules. The rules do not apply to sales or purchases of land (paragraph 2.2. (b). ).

There are provisions which relate to access to and the disclosure of information. Frequently local authorities will enter into negotiations concerning the provision of services and until a decision is made those negotiations are commercially sensitive.

Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 list categories where access to information may be treated as exempt and paragraph 3 applies to ‘the financial or business affairs of any person.’ Financial or business affairs’ includes contemplated as well as past or current activities.

Any report which contains details of negotiations between the Council and an external person or body may, where it is considered appropriate to do so, exempt information in accordance with this paragraph.

Bentleys themselves have put in a supporting statement, and this is the final paragraph:

"We are a Skipton company, and have a deep desire to remain so, but if a suitable site in Skipton does not become available very soon we will have little option but to seek alternative arrangements outside of the district"

Those conversant with the HML application to build on a protected greenfield site on Gargrave Road may remember that very similar wording was used in their application, and how that application was successful.

And so Paakwa worries, worries that it sometimes appears that big business runs Skipton, not councilors, and worries even more that a council which publicly declares itself to be ‘Open and Transparent’ sees the need to hide the valuation of this land, hiding behind the 'sensitive information' clause.

Without open tendering or bidding how can we be sure that Craven tax payers are indeed getting the best price for this land? The price paid for the land will not be revealed until after it has been sold, and possibly not even then, we await confirmation on that point.

Even so, it is hard to see why the land could not be sold at tender, as we would then be assured of the best price for our asset, whilst the tender would not be public. Perhaps all will become clear if, or when, the sale is concluded.

One council officer is the person recommending this scheme, the same officer who recommended carpeting Skipton with blocks of flats and multi storey car parks, and the same officer who goes by the title of Director of Community Services.
The officer deciding that this information is sensitive, and should be kept secret, appears to be that same officer.

It's hard not to feel sometimes that 'Big Business' could be substituted for the word 'Community,' and 'Secrecy' for 'Transparency.'

Praise me, for I am a Portfolio Holder!

2007-12-09T06:46:00.000-08:00

Nearly 5 years ago Craven Housing bought, at a give away price of just over £5,000 each, 1,540 houses from Craven district council. One of the reasons they gave for Craven housing being better than the council at housing needs was given in the blurb they published, thus:

"One of the advantages of being part of Yorkshire housing is that it can help Craven Housing in developing new homes for rent in the Craven area. Yorkshire housing has agreed to assist Craven housing in providing an additional 20 homes per year."

Well that's good news surely?
Especially as Craven has been seriously bad in providing affordable homes (see HERE)
But at least we've had around 100 built as promised?
Er no...
We've had around one dozen built, some 90 fewer than Craven Housing's apparent promise.
And now that housing association, and Craven council, have seen fit to boast (Craven Herald 7/12/07) that 60 affordable homes are planned, some 30 fewer than should have already been built!

They even boast that these proposals have been the result of two years' work!
That's speed and efficiency council style!

And the pompously titled
'Craven district council's portfolio holder for addressing housing needs'
(who on earth dreams up these pretentious and vainglorious titles?) Paul English, late of Bootle and now blessing Craven, has this to say:

"Craven district council has been strengthening delivery of affordable housing for some years now."

Oh really?
This is the truth of the matter, unlike English's boastful words:

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

Perhaps it might be more fitting if apologies for not providing the 100 affordable homes already due were offered, instead of empty boasts?

Even now we are not to get these 60 houses for free, for it is our land which Craven district council is giving to Craven housing, without asking us if we are happy at that, just as in 2003 they virtually gave away our houses, and it is our money (around £3.5 Million) which Yorkshire Forward are giving to Craven housing.
It is also our money (another £3.5 Million) which the government is giving to Craven housing to build these 60 houses.
Why we're even told that on top of the free land and our money, Craven district council is to add some money for Craven housing, an unknown amount!
Isn't it good that the council has unlimited funds at its disposal, namely ours!

Now at £7 million already promised from us, a further undisclosed sum from us, £3.5 million from Yorkshire housing, and free land donated by us, one can assume that these houses are going to be little short of magnificent.
Not including the further sum of our money promised by Craven district council, that adds up to £175,000 per dwelling plus free land from us and a further sum from Craven council. As land prices are normally around 1/3 of house value, these houses should be worth an average of over £262,000 each!

To spell it out to council and councillors, we're now going to see pensioners and others on fixed incomes, who may live in small terraced cottages, paying to subsidise expensive houses for those who are better off than themselves. When pompously titled 'portfolio holders' boast of these acts, it merely adds insult to injury.

Of course we DID get around £8 Million for our houses in 2003, not far short of 3 years council tax payment from householders in Craven, and one might wonder where that has gone.
Wonder no more, it's gone on the almost 25% additional staff which the chief executive decided was needed, and of course everyone in Craven knows that services have improved for those millions don't we?
And we can all confidently expect to see a reduction in our council tax bills this year can't we, now that Craven district council has shown it has money to spare?

The household of Councillors English meanwhile demonstrates efficiency by claiming not one, not two, but THREE sets of allowances for IT equipment from we long suffering council tax payers!
That's the English way of doing things!

Infamy infamy! They've all got it...

2007-12-03T11:17:00.000-08:00

Fame at last!

Paakwa has at last achieved fame – or at least notoriety!

All praise to those who merely wait on table, and tend to bars, for they also have ears to hear, and eyes to see...

It has come to Paakwa's ears that Ian Lockwood, ex-editor of the American-owned Craven Herald, was the after-dinner speaker at Craven District and Skipton Town Councils' annual civic dinner last Friday. In what looks like an act of Olympic obsequiousness Lockwood decided to curry favour by attacking Paakwa and the CravenMatters website.

He started by patting himself warmly on the back, telling councillors how objective and fair-minded he had been during his tenure as editor of the newspaper.
Objective and fair-minded?
That's a statement some might question.
Especially as under Lockwood's helm, the Craven Herald exemplified the first word in its title when covering district council matters.

The Herald failed to condemn the 'Renaissance' debacle, when the council planned to carpet Skipton with multistorey car parks, chain stores and blocks of flats – even though nearly six thousand Skipton residents voted against the proposals by 71.5% in an independent referendum conducted by the Electoral Reform Society.

Neither, under Lockwood's stewardship, did the Herald attack – or even question – the council's approval of the HML plan to build a massive office block on a protected greenfield site. Despite, yet again, being against the wishes of the majority of those consulted – from the people of Skipton to the Environment Agency.

Interestingly, the impartial and objective Mr Lockwood also sits alongside the chief executive of HML parent company, Skipton Building Society, as 'independent' members of the committee that determines councillors' pay.
This committee of only three who are clearly "objective and fair-minded," were so impressed by councillors' efficiency that they sanctioned a fivefold increase in their attendance allowances between 2001 and 2005.

In another example of civic miasma, the Lockwood-edited Herald was the only newspaper not to criticize a councilor who thought it reasonable to live some 450 miles distant from the Craven ward he represented, continuing to draw his £90 weekly allowance although uncontactable by telephone or email.
This disgrace was roundly attacked by The Yorkshire Post, even in national newspapers such as the Daily Mail, but not the 'objective and fair-minded' Herald.
Which, although it possessed all the facts, failed to print even a single column inch about the matter until the councilor concerned finally quit.

Worst of all, in yet another potential scoop for the Craven Herald, Paakwa pointed out the incredible waste of money in North Yorkshire police force by giving superintendants leather trimmed and sat-naved Volvo V90's and Range Rovers for their personal use. Jane Kenyon
who heads the self selecting quango North Yorkshire Police Authority for a trivial £18,000 plus for attending 4 meetings a year, was taken to task by Paakwa originally 18 months ago, and then HERE as long ago as last July.
Did the Craven Herald use this scoop?
Not a chance!
The Yorkshire Post finally did catch up with Cravenmatters last week (article HERE) in calling for the resignation of the gorgeous and pouting Kenyon, the Craven Herald under Lockwood never would have.

With the Herald continuing to brown-nose Craven District Council, the CravenMatters site is an essential counterbalance to CDC propaganda handouts, handouts which the Herald continues to print without criticism – or even question.

Neither does this site exist solely to criticize, as Lockwood alleged in his speech. When deserved, Paakwa has been happy to dish out compliments.

Here's one.

A bouquet to Robert Heseltine, a councilor who has been criticized by this site in the past and has no cause to defend Paakwa, despite which he publicly condemned Lockwood’s attack on free speech.

Well done Councilor Heseltine!

Who's behind the sell-offs at Craven?

2007-11-22T05:05:00.000-08:00

Paakwa has commented many times on profligacy and waste by Craven District Council. To compensate for this ongoing misspending of public money, the council is desperately selling-off much of the property owned by the people of Craven.

CDC is apparently not content with wasting around £1 million on the 'Renaissance Affair', when it tried to convince us that we all wanted blocks of flats on the canal basin and multistorey car parks blotting the townscape, nor with granting planning permission to build a massive office block on a protected greenfield site at the behest of subprime money-lender HML. Now CDC now wants to build over 300 homes on yet more taxpayer-owned land in Skipton, presumably to top-up those empty council coffers.

But many people believe it is neither the council at large, nor the majority of elected councillors, who are trying to push mammoth development schemes – the latest of which would despoil an officially designated ancient monument and nature reserve – but merely a few individuals.

This may be true or not. But in defence of council staff Paakwa is pleased to present another side to the council, a truly artistic one.

Whilst some councillors may be happiest playing the pantomime dame, there are certain senior CDC officers who possess truly thespian souls and worship at the foot of the great bard Shakespeare. Paakwa has been sent proof of this, if such proof were needed, and is pleased to reveal to all the true nature of a great orator and actor.
Simply clicking HERE will reveal all you could wish to know concerning

Craven's Repertory Artistic Programme

Enjoy!

How is a council like a condom?

2007-11-18T02:45:00.000-08:00

If there's one thing guaranteed to increase Paakwa's nervousness rating, it's when councils start meddling with business. Let's face it, if they couldn't compulsorily increase their rate demands in excess of inflation every year they'd go bankrupt.

So would you trust them to run a business?

Craven District Council (CDC hereon) is an outstanding example of how to spend money in profligate ways.

It's now receiving around £7 million per annum in total from business rates and central government (our money), which together contributed £3.284 million plus a further £3.815 million from us council-tax payers.

Whilst CDC will no doubt be saying it's not enough in its coming annual demand, it amounts to around an 8% increase on the preceding year, a healthy increase by any yardstick.

CDC chooses to spend our money as it sees fit, and where it sees fittest is on staff, whose numbers have increased colossally over the last few years. Staff wages have increased in equal proportion, i.e. colossally.

But let's put a figure on 'colossally'.

In the financial year 2003/4 (council years run from April 1st to March 31st) CDC spent £5.62 million of our money on staff wages. Last year that increased to £7.3 million, an increase of 30% in three short years. That's efficiency CDC style!

It doesn't take a financial genius to notice that the council is paying virtually all its incoming council tax, business rates and government funding in staff wages – and this doesn't include the pension contributions for all those workers.

But while you and I might think that's appalling maths and management in equal measure, it seems that fact is lost on CDC. Perhaps unsurprising given that over the past few years it has shed its financial directors at the rate of around one a year, the last financial director now working for HML, the company which in partnership with CDC itself obtained planning consent for a new office development on supposedly protected greenfield site.

All of which brings us neatly back to the beginning, and CDC's meddling in private sector business matters.

The primary business of councils is not the welfare of business – but to look after the best interests of its electorate. CDC, however, doesn't see it that way.

So CDC's latest wheeze is to use our money to plan massive employment schemes in sensitive areas such as the unique and irreplaceable Hoffman kilns at Langcliffe. This publicly-owned site is rightly classified as an ancient monument and nature reserve, with rare orchids and peregrines. Even this scheme's begetter, CDC director of community services Jonathan Kerr, an officer with a track record of enthusiasm for business developments, admits it is a 'sensitive' location.

So what does Jonathan intend?

He intends the site to ‘move forward’ by allowing Craven College and Leeds Metropolitan University to build education centres there. In addition to this encroachment into a protected area he also proposes a business site, dormitory blocks, and car parks.

Well, what could be more 'sensitive' than that? Well done Jonathan!

And for those of you who fear that your own area might be left alone, unspoiled, and unblessed by all the treats Jonathan has in mind, he told the Craven Herald:

“If we can move this site forward in a positive way, then there is no site that we can’t deal with!"

Just one of the many innovative ways in which CDC can sell off our assets to cover its financial shortfalls. We must be forever grateful for its sensitivity and efficiency!

Oh yes! The answer to the question posed at the beginning, 'How is a council like a condom?'

Simple, they both claim sensitivity whilst stifling it, and their chief effect is to kill creativity.

Proverbs 28/20

2007-10-28T08:41:00.000-07:00

Paakwa is mindful that today is a Sunday, and also notices that Craven district council (CDC) has now given permission to blight another wild place, a haven for Paakwa and his frog brethren.
Burnside allotments is to be converted into 41 dwellings, despite this being a greenfield site, despite the wishes of the allotment holders and other residents, and despite some of these being 3 storey dwellings and out of keeping with the town.
And despite the increased traffic flow along Gargrave Road, already earmarked for a colossal development with sub-prime lenders HML and its subsidiaries, and - possibly worst of all - despite this being a high risk area for flooding.
So why is CDC pushing ahead with this, and what will be the possible outcome?
The reason given by the council is that of affordable homes, Craven needs them, and the developer has promised to build 17 of these as part of the development.
Well that's all right, surely?
Yes and no.
CDC's track record in this area is appalling. Not just the thoughts of Paakwa, but the writings of the Audit commission, as follows:

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

These statements by the Audit commission are not calculated to inspire confidence in CDC, and a quick look at some of the reasons are even less inspiring.
It's a few short years ago when CDC sold our council housing stock to Craven Housing at a little over £5,000 each, with the understanding that they, Craven Housing, would build 20 affordable homes each year. As this was 5 years ago, we should have around 100 - we actually have around one dozen, the reason being that Craven Housing's contract allowed them to get away with so few, presumably the council is not good at reading small print.
This housing association pleads exemption from the Freedom of Information act, calling itself a charity, but the government now seem willing to act on this cop out by a public service company, so they may find themselves under the spotlight soon.

The developer who has been given permission to develop the allotments is Burley Develoments, (advisors GVA Grimley) and for those interested there is much information HERE including how they pushed the principle of building on a greenfield site right to the boundaries at Scalebor Park, receiving consent for 135 properties, amongst them a large percentage of affordable homes.

So just how many of those 135 new homes turned out to be affordable?
Er...
Exactly none.

Burley Developments decided that they didn't want any to be affordable - perhaps the great and good don't want the not so well off living in their midst? - And so they decided that zero affordable out of the 135 was a good number.

And they're allowed to do just that, by parting with money to the council instead of building any affordable homes. They also allowed a mere 0.6 parking spaces for those properties, - homes with up to 6 bedrooms - and then sold off the site to another developer as soon as the groundwork had been done.

Should any developer find that building costs are higher than originally thought, perhaps because the ground is wet by being in a high flood risk area, then Carleton Road residents might find themselves the proud owners of a pond instead of affordable housing or allotments.

Whilst Burley Developments have promised to go along with any conditions concerning wildlife on the site, Paakwa will be interested to know just how many conditions can be met whilst building 41 houses on this small site. Maybe one of the houses will have a small pond?

In the true spirit of British fairness, it should be known that whilst no 'affordable' homes were built at Scalebor Park, the developer DID build a sports pavilion.

So why is CDC desperate to allow building on a high risk flood area?

Paakwa believes that CDC are rushing headlong into allowing development on this watery plain because of its insatiable need for money.
In all likelihood they will be more than happy should Burley Developments part with cash instead of affordable homes, after all, where has the £8 Million gone from the virtual give away of our council housing stock?
Not into affordable housing, that's for sure!

Hence the title:

"He that maketh haste to be rich, shall not be innocent."

It's good news week!

2007-10-24T09:29:00.000-07:00

There's been nothing to report for a while, but now...
It's good news week!
Yes, at a time when the stock market is reeling from the collapse of the sub-prime market, (see HERE) when Victoria mortgages have gone bust, when Northern Rock is on its uppers and holding out the begging bowl to the Bank of England, (that's our money by the way) with Bradford and Bingley shares at almost half price, with Countrywide mortgages having spent the 11.5 Billion dollars they borrowed and gone to the Bank of America for a further 2 Billion, and with Merrill Lynch taking an 8.5 Billion pound loss, what do we folk in Yorkshire do?
Well if you're Skipton building society, not only do you take such news in your stride, but you actually open up a new deal for sub-prime borrowers, even those with unlimited CCJ's against them!
That's right! Pink, (details HERE) a subsidiary of HML which is of course a subsidiary of Skipton building society, has just launched a new range of deals for this very market, including all categories of sub-prime borrowers from feather, light, and medium, to unlimited. That's those with unlimited CCJ's against them.
Fortunately they have allowed self certified statements of income, where the borrowers can merely state their income, and loans up to £500,000 are available.
Details HERE.
At a time when the financial world is reeling from the shocks brought on by the sub-prime collapse in USA it's good to know that here in Yorkshire we're still keeping the flag flying for those borrowers who wouldn't stand an earthly from the likes of Capt. Mainwaring and Martin's bank.
Well done Skipton building society!

Meanwhile Amber, another subsidiary, and the ones under investigation by the FSA for charging up to 11.95% on loans to sub prime customers - is now under fire for selling on its loans. In the small print of the contracts signed by their borrowers was a little clause, which said they could sell the debt on. Customers received letters telling them that if they did so, then nothing would change, but things did!
Amber sold loans on to a company called Redstone mortgages, who hiked interest rates up by an eye watering 11% plus -just what you need if you're finding your mortgage a bit tricky to pay!
Amber's comments were that its actions were legitimate, because borrowers had signed the clause allowing the lender to sell the loan on, so that's all right then.
Details HERE
Gordon Jolly, the managing director of Amber, commented that it tried to protect customers from rate increases when loans were sold on, presumably by asking the new lenders if they would not increase interest rates.
Perhaps he asked them nicely:-)
Thinks...Wonder if Skipton building society borrowers have that same little clause in THEIR loans?
Oh well, it won't matter as long as that nice Mr. Jolly protects them.
And with a name as nice as that, every bit as nice as that lovely Mr. Champagne, who regularly picks me out of thousands to win a prize, who could doubt it all turning out nicely in the end?

LORD POLONIUS:
Neither a borrower nor a lender be;
For loan oft loses both itself and friend,
And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.

Proper consultation? No chance!

2007-09-29T09:14:00.000-07:00

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

2007-09-18T11:38:00.000-07:00

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!