Brent Cross redevelopment exposed - Barnet Council - stripped to the bone and unable to do its job

Here's a question you may wish  to ponder. Do you think that your local council should have the staff and resources to be able to deal with local planning issues? As far as I'm concerned such matters are fundamental to the local community and should be fully controlled by the democratically elected officials. Such issues are important and as far as I am concerned, the expertise necessary to control planning issues needs to be built up over years, if not decades. It is all very well for experts to be shipped in from elsewhere, but how can experience in the area be bought? Barnet is a unique place. We have a mix of rural areas and large industrial and commercial areas. How many other London Boroughs boast both farms, factories, council estates and millionaire mansions.We have unusually diverse religious and ethnic communities, unlike anywhere else in London. Each of these issues brings special considerations for planners. Perhaps the most important hub in the Borough is Brent Cross Shopping Centre. I was shocked to see a paper on the Council website which said

To authorise undertaking a procurement exercise to engage an external, multi disciplinary planning practice to undertake all planning work in respect of the proposed re-phasing of the Brent Cross Cricklewood (BXC) scheme.

You can see the document on the council website here:
http://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s8647/DPR%202012%20-%20BXC%20Procurment%20of%20planning%20consultant%20Public.pdf

Reading through the document I was even more shocked to read paragraph 8.7 of the document. This say

The Council does not have sufficient resources in terms of staff numbers or specialist skills to commit to this timescale and is therefore seeking to procure the services of a multi disciplinary planning consultancy in order to meet the planning timetable.

This exposes the fact that Barnet Council is no longer able to do its job. They have to buy in services to manage the planning for the most important development in the history of the London Borough of Barnet.

According to the paper the Council wards affected are Childs Hill, Golders Green West Hendon. This is complete nonsense. The Brent Cross regeneration scheme affects every person in Barnet and every ward in Barnet in some way. Every high street in the Borough has been affected by Brent Cross. When Brent Cross opened in 1973, every High St had clothes shops, shoe shops, electrical retailers and hardware shops. Mill Hill Broadway had a great shoe shop called Freeman, Hardy and Willis, three greengrocers, Mill Hill Televison selling electrical goods and records, a great little record shop on the site which is now the Bridge Tavern. We had Woolworths as a general retailer. We had Kentfields Toy shop. We had  H.A. Blunt and Sons (aka The Model Shop) selling train sets, Scalextrix, Airfix models and other boys toys. If anyone thinks that the demise of such shops is anything other than a direct result of the advent of Brent Cross, they are deluded. Now I am not arguing against progress, merely pointing out the fact that Brent Cross does not simply affect the three wards mentioned.

The planners in Barnet Council, for all their faults, know the area. How can it be wise to hand over such an important scheme to people who are coming in on a fat fee and once they've gone don't have to live with consequences?

The document states in section 3.2

It has been considered whether the procurement of a planning consultancy is likely to raise significant levels of public concern or give rise to policy considerations and it is not considered that the issue will raise significant levels of public concern.

 I would suggest that the only reason that they can make such a statement is because they believe no one will know what is going on until it is too late.

Like many Barnet Council documents, there are significant untruths in the document. It states in paragraph 5.4.1

There are no Staffing, IT, Property, Sustainability implications.

This could not be more dishonest. It contradicts what is said in section 8.7. The only reason they are outsurcing it is precisely because of staffing issues. Are you happy that your council is prepared to make such misleading statements in its official literature.

Section 8.2 gives the whole game away. It says

The Brent Cross Development Partners have indicated that they wish to revise the masterplan to, amongst other things, improve the linkages between the northern and southern elements of the site and to change the phasing to produce a scheme that is viable in the current economic circumstances. It is intended that these changes will be within the parameters and principles (and timescales) of the existing outline consent and that they should therefore be considered as a S73 change to the existing consent.

 It appears to me that the whole things is a shoddy attempt to knobble the planning process . The developers are moving all of the aspects of the scheme which will make them pots of money into the early phase of the scheme and moving many of the things that will cost them money and be socially desirable towards the end of the scheme, when doubtless they can be convienently "modified due to current economic circumstances". Now I ask you this. Do you really believe that such an attempt to "re-phase" the plan should be done by a bunch of outsiders, hired in, no doubt at huge expense, who have no historical links with Barnet and who don't fully appreciate the history of the development or even the effect of the development on the rest of the Borough.

The most shocking thing of all about this truly horrendous decision is that it has not been democratically made. It has been simply signed off by a senior Council Officer, Pam Wharfe. The Delegated authority process she used was designed for minor decisions that with negligible effect. They were not designed to manage decisions which affect every citizen in the Borough. This is a complete scandal. It is proof, if proof were needed that there is no democratic control or accountability in the London Borough of Barnet. It appears to me that One Barnet is misnamed. It should be called "No Barnet".

I will be writing to every Councillor and to the local Papers because I believe that this is scandalous.

   DPR 2012 - BXC Procurment of Planning Consultant Public

Believe nothing you read about Barnet Council in the Barnet Blogs !

Today the horrible truth dawned on me that I've wasted the last four and a half years of my life writing this stupid blog. Over the past week, it has become patently clear that no one in Barnet Council really has a clue what is going on. The senior officers says one thing, the Leader says another and the Deputy Leader says something different again. The Barnet Eye has our own little cabal of employees and councillors who tell us the odd snippet of information, and we get envelopes stuffed full of interesting papers through the post occaasionally.

The point is that if the organisation itself hasn't got a clue what is going on, what on earth is the point writing a blog about it? I rather feel that it is like the football pundits in the Sun. If Manchester United play Manchester City, one will predict United to win, One wuill predict City and one will predict a draw. That way, the Sun can always say "It woz the Sun that got it right" and print highlights from the article.

So is Pam Wharfe right that One Barnet is now going to be a joint venture? Is Richard Cornelius right when he says that No decision has been taken and it would need a pretty convincing case to change tack? Is Dan Thomas right that a Joint Venture is safer?

Search me. Here is my best guess though ** Pleae read this with caution ** I believe that the bidders are getting cold feet. They are worried about the reputational damage. they know that the Barnet bloggers have the ear of Eric Pickles and they know that Barnet is a media hotbed. Why on earth would Capita and BT want to run the risk of destroying their reputations? They have been religiously checking this blog on a daily basis several times, re reading old blogs etc. They can see the future, even if Barnet can't. They know that a joint venture guarantees profit and minimises risk. As there is no risk at all, they can experiment with no fear of losses. Who are the bidders actually in dialog with? Not Richard Cornelius, he's been on holiday and he only works one day a week at NLBP. Not Dan Thomas, why on earth should they bother with him? Nope, they've been talking to Pam Wharfe. So who would you trust to know their intentions and desires?

That is why I believe that even though Ruichard Cornelius doesn't know it yet, that is what Nick Walkley will tell him to sign off on. And I believe that is what will happen unless something rather unexpected happens, like a certain well known councillor, wiith a reputation to build, stabs dear old Richard in the back and nicks his job. And of that happens, anything could happen. So don't believe a word you read here.

Barnet Council : Has anyone got a clue what is happening in the One Barnet program

Ok, the story so far. On Friday, the Council officer responsible for the One Barnet project, Ms Pam Wharfe announced that the project was not going to be fully outsourced, but instead a joint vehicle company (JV) would be set up by the council and the winning bidder to exploit commercial opportunities. This was announced via an email to selected staff. As this could affect up to £1,000,000,000 of Barnet Taxpayers money, the Barnet bloggers, alarmed by such an important policy seemingly being made on the hoof, sent an open email to the Leader of the Council, Richard Cornelius. Mr Cornelius emailed back to say

No decision has been made. No case for a jv has been made beyond the suggestion that there might be such a case. The decisions will be made by elected members in due course

This seemingly completely contradicted the officer in charge. In todays Barnet Press, Mr Cornelius deputy Councillor Daniel Thomas has stepped in to further muddy the waters. He says

So it seems that there is open war between the Leader and Deputy as to the status of the company. Whilst  the Barnet Eye welcomes the "need to be cautious", the Barnet Eye notes that even Mr Thomas recognises that this is a "new model for outsourcing". This means that Barnet Council is taking a massive gamble, trying a completely new method of outsourcing on the part of the council which collects all of our cash.

In Edinburgh on Monday, it was explained to me that the council there also looked at mass outsourcing. They then compared this with what would happen if they made the savings and kept control in house. The council found they would save millions of pounds with no risk at all. Barnet hasn't even bothered to try and see if this is an option.

The Barnet Eye would like to ask the question as to why such a sensible move hasn't been undertaken here. The problem is, we don't have a clue who to ask, because no one actually seems to know who is in charge.

Barnet council is out of control - what the hell is going on?

On Friday Pam wharfe, a senior executive of Barnet council circulated an email to staff saying the following about One Barnet.

"as a result we have decided to form a Joint Venture organisation with the successful bidder, which provides an effective basis on which the Council can benefit from these opportunities and at the same time it gives the Council greater rights of transparency and control.  What this means is that the successful bidder and the Council will form a new organisation in which both have an interest.  This new organisation will then contract with the Council to provide the DRS services.  The Joint Venture approach does not change the approach to TUPE of staff or weaken any of the commitments given - staff would TUPE into the new organisation rather than to the commercial partner.  We shall provide further information on the Joint Venture in the next week however as ever you are welcome to ask any questions you may have regarding this or other elements of the DRS procurement"

Today the Leader, Richard Cornelius emailed local blogger Mr Mustard saying about Ms Wharfe's email

No decision has been made. No case for a jv has been made beyond the suggestion that there might be such a case. The decisions will be made by elected members in due course

In short, either one of them is telling Porkies or there is something highly suspicious going on, with officers making policy and not telling the Leader of the council.

What is going on? Who is running the council? Officers or the political leadership?
Richard Cornelius has been completekly undermined by Ms Wharfe's email. There is only one course of action which we expect him to take. We expect him to get a Gin and Tonic and go to the golf club, pretending everything is fine, like he's done with all of the other problems that have happened on his watch.

We expect Pam Wharfe and Nick Walkley to also do what they always do when such embarrassing situations arise. Piss themselves laughing.

Exposed - The conspiracy to rob the people of Barnet

I was forwarded an email being circulated by the senior management of Barnet Council regarding the One Barnet outsourcing program. What it contains is truly staggering. Until now, I've been totally unable to work out exactly why anyone would want to persue such a policy. As the old adage goes, follow the money. This email makes it 100% clear what is going on. Here is the email :-

_____________________________
Dear colleagues

Dialogue update

As with the last message, there is no specific news to report on dialogue other than it is continuing to progress well. This week’s meetings have included legal/commercial and technical sessions covering the bidders’ financial models, their emerging commercial development plans which provide details of new investment and income streams, insurance matters and our approach to resolving conflicts of interest in relation to service delivery. We have also been discussing the bidders’ Service Improvement Plans which set out how the services will be delivered and enhanced over the course of the contract.

In addition to enhancing service delivery we also believe that the DRS project has great potential to generate new commercial opportunities, both in Barnet and further afield.  As a result we have decided to form a Joint Venture organisation with the successful bidder, which provides an effective basis on which the Council can benefit from these opportunities and at the same time it gives the Council greater rights of transparency and control.  What this means is that the successful bidder and the Council will form a new organisation in which both have an interest.  This new organisation will then contract with the Council to provide the DRS services.  The Joint Venture approach does not change the approach to TUPE of staff or weaken any of the commitments given - staff would TUPE into the new organisation rather than to the commercial partner.  We shall provide further information on the Joint Venture in the next week however as ever you are welcome to ask any questions you may have regarding this or other elements of the DRS procurement’

Staff Group

The latest DRS staff group took place on Thursday 9 August and was attended by representatives from all your services. Make sure you speak to your rep if you want more detailed feedback or to raise any questions at the next staff group meeting. Martin Cowie has also been continuing to visit teams across the DRS service cluster to speak about the project and answer questions. If you haven’t yet had a briefing with Martin, let me know and we’ll make sure a suitable time is organised.

Also at the group meeting, a series of further questions were asked about various aspects of the project. The answers to these will be shared on the intranet over the next week.

Data cleanse

As you know, over the summer all DRS in-scope staff are having to take part in a data cleanse of their HR information; the data that will be transferred to the new provider after contract award. Environmental health and strategy and regeneration staff have completed their data cleanses, and next up is staff in Highways, Planning, Development and Building Control. Your line managers will take you through the process. They are being provided with the relevant forms on Monday 3 September and they must be returned by Friday 21 September.

Workshops

We still have places available at the TUPE workshops for staff and managers, as well as the Change and Me sessions. These workshops will run up until November and have already been on for more than a year. They are set to continue until November, by which time we will be approaching mobilisation.  During mobilisation we will begin to talk to you about how the transfer will affect you personally, but it would be a very good idea to have attended one of these sessions before that time.

The times and dates of the workshops are as follows:

Managers’ TUPE workshops

• 4 September – Training Room 2 – 2-5pm
• 2 October – Training Room 4 – 9.30am-12.30pm
• 14 November – Training Room 2 – 9am-12noon

Staff TUPE workshops

• 4 September – Training Room 4 – 1-2pm
• 4 October – Training Room 4 – 1-2pm
• 1 November – Training Room 5 – 12noon-1pm

Change and Me workshops

• 24 September – Training Room 3 – 2-3pm
• 17 October – Training Room 3 – 10.30-11.30am

To book a place on any of these sessions, email onebarnet@barnet.gov.uk.

Use that same email address if you have any further questions between now and the next newsletter, about the DRS project. Have a great weekend.

Kind regards

Pam Wharfe

Interim Director Environment, Planning & Regeneration

London Borough of Barnet

2nd Floor Building 4, North London Business Park, Oakleigh Road South, London N11 1NP

0208 359 7988

www.barnet.gov.uk

_____________________________

The key statement, which lays bare what is going on is "As a result we have decided to form a Joint Venture organisation with the successful bidder, which provides an effective basis on which the Council can benefit from these opportunities and at the same time it gives the Council greater rights of transparency and control.  What this means is that the successful bidder and the Council will form a new organisation in which both have an interest.  This new organisation will then contract with the Council to provide the DRS services. "

This means that a new company is being set up, which is jointly owned by the Council and the "successful bidder". We have already seen Barnet Council setting up such companies. The first thing that happens is that a board of directors is formed. Past experience of the council doing this has shown that senior council executives are appoined to the board. Now you may think that there is a conflict of interest (I certainly do). The same council executives who are making the decisions to form these companies are also appointed to the board, presumably on huge salaries and with juicy share options. It beggars belief that people can set themselves up as directors of a company with a turnover of a hundred million pounds a year at the expense of the Barnet taxpayer.

There is an even more dangerous side to all of this. The companies are presumably going to be limited liability enterprises. This means that Capita Symonds or BT have no exposure to failure. They own shares in the company, so if it all goes swimmingly, they make the profits, but if it fails and goes bust, they have no exposure  whatsoever. In a normal outsourcing exercise, the successful bidder takes a degree of risk. Multi national companies such as BT are unlikely to go bust, so there is a degree of protection for the taxpayer. With this model, the only thing which is being outsourced is the profits. It also means that if and when it all goes wrong, BT or Capita Symonds can say "Not us guv, we were only shareholders in the company".

We can sum up the whole One Barnet program with two questions.

Q: Who stands to gain from this arrangement?
A: The directors of the new company (many of whom are involved in setting up the company, whilst working for Barnet Council) and the shareholders of the "successful bidder".

Q: Who is left with the risk?
A: The Barnet Taxpayer, who if the "joint venture" fails, will have to pick up the tab.

I don't know about you, but the whole thing sounds to me like a conspiracy. This "joint venture" is riddled with "conflicts of interest". The fact that the bidders are unwilling to accept any risk at all, but are more than happy to accept the profits is truly staggering. Is there no one within Barnet Council who is prepared to speak out and call a halt to this attempt to rob the taxpayer?

Ms Wharfe talks about transparency. As this "joint venture" will be a private company, it will be exempt from FoI legislation, so there will be no transparency at all. 

I call on the Leader of the Council, Richard Cornelius to call a halt to the whole debacle immediately.