Saracens Match Day CPZ - Update from the Council

The following update regarding the Saracens RFC Matchday CPZ was published today on the Barnet Council website. We have published it in full without comment as we believe this is of interest to many people in Mill Hill. The original is available by following the link detailed below.

http://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=4557

Neil Richardson, the Highways Manager, provided the Committee with a verbal update on the Saracens Event Day Controlled Parking Zone. 

Mr Richardson informed the Committee that the primary features of the Event Day Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) were:

• To ensure effectiveness for the area;
• To ensure that the use of the developed Barnet Copthall Stadium did not adversely impact on residents and traders and other community based activities; and
• That Saracens would meet all reasonable costs to introduce and maintain the measures, including enforcement of any restrictions introduced.

The Highways Manager advised the committee that kick-off times would be varied throughout the season and that there would be no kick-offs before 12.00 noon. 

The Committee were informed that there were 7,500 people in the CPZ that were eligible to apply for a permit or visitor’s vouchers.  Households could apply for up to 88 parking vouchers per annum, with additional vouchers being made available to support congregations and other community activities.

The Highways Manager noted the importance of making sure that the highways were safe for all road users.  The Committee were advised that only one test match had taken place so far at the Copthall Stadium on 27 January 2013.  Officers reported that “light” enforcement had been undertaken on that day where vehicles in contravention of parking restrictions were given a leaflet advising of the Event Day parking controls and advising drivers of the dates of the remaining matches for the current season.  The Highways Manager also advised the Committee that a similar approach would be taken at the next match on 16 February 2013, but that yellow line restrictions would be enforced.

Lisa Wright, the Traffic and Development Manager, informed the committee that Officers will be monitoring each match of the current season to assess the parking impact.

The Highways Manager informed the Committee that they would be carrying out another consultation with every property in the area at the end of the current season, asking for views on the scheme.  Comments made would be taken on board to help determine whether any changes to the scheme might be required moving forward. 

Referring to the light enforcement, where leaflets were given to cars that would otherwise have received tickets, a Member questioned how many of these leaflets had been issued.  He was advised by Officers that the figure was approximately 140 leaflets.  Responding to a question, Officers informed the Committee that the vehicles that were leafleted as part of the light enforcement were situated throughout the CPZ.  Officers advised the Committee that the attendance for the match was approximately 3,700.  The Committee noted that as this was a test game, the maximum attendance would be in the region of 4,000.  Attendance was expected to be higher at future matches.

A Member questioned if it was unusual for residents to not have to pay for permits.  Officers responded that it was, but that they were being provided at zero cost to residents by Saracens in recognition that there would be some impact on residents on match days.   Responding to a question from the Committee, the Highways Manager advised that the resident’s permits and parking vouchers arrangement was legally binding.

The Chairman invited Mill Hill Ward Councillors, John Hart and Sury Khatri, to address the Committee.

Councillor John Hart noted that the scheme was still in its early days.  He informed the Committee that many people were unhappy with the five hour period of the parking restrictions, and questioned whether this period was necessary.  Councillor Hart informed the Committee that he had attended the Mill Hill Resident’s Association with Councillor Sury Khatri where approximately 300 people had been in attendance in relation to this matter. Councillor Hart also highlighted that people could misuse the parking vouchers. 

Councillor Hart highlighted to the Committee that the attendees of the last match were largely from the home team and suggested that these attendees could be managed more easily that the supporters of the visiting team.  He informed the Committee that the Copthall Open Space should be considered as an open space for everyone.  Councillor Hart also noted that improvements had been made in the area as a result of the development.

A Member referred to Councillor Hart’s contribution to a previous Planning and Environment Committee and asked Councillor Hart to confirm that Saracens had agreed to that the maximum capacity of the stadium would 10,000 people and no more.  Councillor Hart confirmed that this was correct.

Councillor Sury Khatri addressed the Committee and highlighted his concern that Ward Members had not had enough involvement in the early discussions with Officers and Saracens.  Councillor Khatri questioned whether resident’s interests were being adequately considered.  Councillor Khatri suggested that all matches should start at 3:00 pm and raised concern over residents being able to have quiet enjoyment of their everyday lives.  Referring to the Human Rights Act, Councillor Khatri questioned the impact of the CPZ and stadium on resident’s rights to family life. 

A Member questioned Councillor Khatri on the 88 parking vouchers that are available to each household within the area.  Councillor Khatri informed the Committee that he did not consider this number to be sufficient.   

The Chairman then invited the Leader of the Council, Councillor Richard Cornelius, and the Director for Place, Pam Wharfe, to address the Committee.  The Director for Place invited Councillor Khatri to meet with her to discuss his concerns further. It was agreed that the meeting would involve all affected Ward Councillors.

Ms Wharfe also noted that the planning application that had been made was for 10,000 attendees only.  The Leader of the Council reaffirmed the fact that should Saracens wish to increase capacity to 15,000 in the future, then another planning application would be necessary.

The Highways Manager stated that he believed that Saracens were working to ensure that the scheme had minimal impact on residents.  Responding to a question, he informed the committee that 3,192 resident’s permits and approximately 118,000 parking vouchers had been issued, and that Saracens would pay the Council the amount for the given number of permits or vouchers issued. 

A Member raised concerns that people who were travelling to watch a match might consider that a parking ticket on account of a parking contravention could be factored in as part of the cost of a day out.  The Highways Manager informed the Committee that this was a possible risk, but where safety was being compromised, the police could be involved. 

Officers advised the committee that they were keen to conduct an audit of resident’s views of the success of the scheme, and would allow people plenty of free text to provide their opinions.  There will also be the option of both online and hard copies. Ward Councillors requested that they were involved with the drafting of the consultation.

A Member questioned what consultation had taken place at the beginning of the scheme.  The Director for Place informed the Committee that the consultation had formed part of a planning application determined by a the Planning and Environment Committee who considered that a CPZ was necessary in order to manage the impact on residents and that Officers have subsequently conducted statutory consultation. 

Councillor Khatri suggested that electronic signs should be considered as a way of reducing the five hour time period for parking restrictions.  Officers agreed to investigate the cost of variable signage.

RESOLVED that:-

1.      The Committee note the update on the Saracens Event Day Controlled Parking Zone as set out in the report and as detailed above. 

 

2.      Members note the request that adjacent Ward Councillors be involved in the CPZ review at the end of the season.

 

3.      The Committee note the invitation from the Director for Place to meet with Mill Hill Ward Members

 

4.      Officers are requested to give consideration to the costing installing variable signs for the CPZ zone.

 

5.      That the Committee requested to receive update on the review of the Saracens Event Day CPZ scheme which would be conducted at the end of the current season.

Publication date: 11/03/2013
Date of decision: 07/02/2013

Mill Hill Conservative Councillor wins plaudits for telling the truth

Mill Hill Conservative Councillor Sury Khatri has set a fine example of how a decent, honest councillor should behave. Mr Khatri is a sceptic in regards to the One Barnet program. At a recent meeting with Mill Hill residents, he conceded that the case hadn't been made. It appears that he stood his corner in an internal Conservative group meeting, telling them that they had no democratic mandate for One Barnet as it hadn't been mentioned in the manifesto. Local Tory MP, Matthew Offord attempted to shout down Mr Khatri, but Mr Khatri stood his ground. Mr Khatri is one of the most intelligent and decent of the Barnet Conservative councillors. I stood against him in the 2010 Council elections. When the result was announced, I shook his hand and said "As you are now my councillor, I hope you repay the trust that the people of Mill Hill have placed in you". It appears that Mr Khatri is showing he is well worthy of that trust. Here is the article from the Press newspaper which details Mr Khatris comments.

I hope Mr Khatris honest and sensible stand is recognised by his colleagues. It is clear that, unlike many of his colleagues, he has bothered to listen to both sides of the argument and recognised the flaws in the plan and the total lack of democratic accountability in the process.

It is only fair to also say that Mr Khatri is not a "natural rebel" or a troublemaker. He has found the situation he has found himself in almost impossible. He recognises the fact that many of his colleagues have not done their homework and are not listening to the people they are supposed to represent. When I spoke to him after the Mill Hill meeting, it was clear to me that he was extremely troubled. He promised the people at the meeting that he would take our concerns back to the Leadership and discuss it. His colleague Councillor John Hart also told me that the way to deal with these issues was to discuss them in a calm and rational way and look at the evidence.

One must conclude that Mr Khatri has done this and drawn the conclusion that the project should be abandoned. For this we must recognise his decency and honesty. I am also pleased to see that Matthew Offord MP has come off the fence and stated his support for One Barnet. Mr Offord knows all about how well Barnet Council manages contractors, he managed to overspend by £11 million on a £12 million project at Aerodrome Road - http://barneteye.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/undynamic-duos-aerodrome-road-bridge.html  - I hardly think he's the man to lecture anyone about managing contractors.

What are councillors supposed to do?

Several of my loyal army of readers seemed to be a little upset that I'd been less than nice to one of the Barnet Councillors yesterday. As I made my way at 6.30am to the The Passage Day centre for Londons Homeless in Victoria, to feed the hungry homeless, I pondered just what it was that specifically annoyed me about the performance of said Councillor. I realised that I was asking myself the wrong question. In fact, with all the blogs and all of the talk recently about "no confidence votes", we all have. The question we have to ask is "What are Councillors meant to do?". Perhaps the next question is one for individual Councillors. Are they doing what they are meant to do? I suspect that perhaps 95% of the residents of Barnet don't really know what Councillors are supposed to do (as opposed to what they actually do).

Councillors in Barnet get £10,000 a year for being a councillor (substancially more if they are in the cabinet or chair of a committee). For this they only have to do one thing to be legally entitled to claim the dosh. They have to turn up to 2 Council meetings a year. So that is the legal requirement, but I daresay that is not what anyone would agree is a satisfactory answer.

Councillors are elected for a four year term. There are 21 wards in Barnet and each has 3 councillors. Let us clear up the first misconception. Councillors are not supposed to "run the council". Even the Leader, Richard Cornelius is not supposed to do this. This job is done by the CEO and his team of executives. The role of the Council is to "decide council policy" and to make sure officers implement it. Councillors are elected by the residents and are meant to represent residents wishes. They have the power to intervene and take action when officers do not act in the best interests of the people of Barnet. They should make sure that officers implement the agreed policy. If you have a problem with a council provided service, a Councillor is supposed to make sure that you have been treated correctly by the Council. A diligent councillor holds regular surgeries for constituents and uses these to speak to residents and undertake casework. In Mill Hill, the local Tory Councillors do this on a Saturday morning at Mill Hill library.

As I pay the councillors to represent me (via my taxes), I expect them to listen to my concerns and if I have a genuine grievance, to act on it accordingly. As the local Councillors in Mill Hill are Conservatives, they were elected to impliment the Conservative manifesto. If I don't like something the Council are doing, but it was a policy laid out in the manifesto, I have no grounds for expecting them to act upon my complaints. I will have the opportunity in 2014 to get another party elected. That is my democratic right. If the council is implementing a policy which was not in the manifesto, the Councillors may still be within their rights to ignore my requests to act. They should however listen to me and explain the reason for their decision.

The One Barnet program was not included in the Conservative Manifesto in 2010, nor was the plan to hike parking charges. As such, my Conservative Councillors lack a democratic mandate to implement the changes. They have a legal power to do it, but the two things are different. I would expect my councillors to make the case for the changes, if asked. At a recent meeting, two of the Councillors Sury Khatri and John Hart met and discussed the issues with residents. They undertook to take our concerns back to the leadership. As such, I have no issue with the two gentlemen. They are doing what Councillors should do.

We then turn our attention to the person who inspired this blog. His name is Dean Cohen and he is the cabinet member with the responsibility for parking. I have a degree of sympathy with Councillor Cohen. He inherited a poison chalice from Brian Coleman when he was sacked. That is where the sympathy ends. He took over the role in May. It is now November. Dean Cohen has just announced his plan to remedy the mess Brian Coleman left him. His planned measures, to be trialled in North Finchley are:



- A 35% reduction in current parking charges on-street to increase turnover with a proportionate slightly less reduction for off-street car parks to ensure overall parity. 

- The introduction of dedicated business parking bays within off-street car parks, to increase on-street parking space. 

- Making a number of on-street parking bays a 2 hour maximum stay to increase turnover. 

- Adapting existing on street loading bays to allow a 15 minutes free parking period after 10am to promote rapid turnover. 

- Introducing a 15 minute stay facility on pay-by-phone bays. 
 
- Introducing a number of new ‘Pay-by-Phone’ short-stay parking bays at specific locations in the High Street to increase on street parking availability. 
 
In addition to the parking review changes, six on-street credit and debit card payment machines will be installed in the New Year. In yesterdays blog, I posted a link to Dean Cohens response to Alan Schneiderman. Councillor Cohen refused to entertain Councillor Schneidermans request for a "free parking period" to boost the High Streets, on the grounds that it would cost too much money. Now I thought that Cohens arguments were weak to say the least. Here are the reasons why

1. The special parking account is over £1 million under budget since NSL took over enforcement. Mr Cohen does not address this huge black hole at all.

2. Mr Cohen claims the changes proposed by Labour would cost money. The hike in parking charges has resulted in a massive defecit in the budget. If Mr Cohen was a serious politician, he would have addressed all of the relevant issues in a costed scheme and have the figures to hand.

3. The figures Mr Cohen attributes to the cost of the Labour amendment are highly dubious. I did some calculations and I think it is unlikely that the officers have got the figures right. Mr Cohen should have challenged these figures and ensured that his answers were robust and credible. Do the maths yourself if you don't believe me.

4. Dean Cohen is delivering the new credit card operated meters in January, after the busiest time of the year for retailers. Presumably their could have been a mini bonanza in parking fees if he'd got the meters in now. They have been planning this for six months.

5. Dean Cohen has sought to repair some of the damage caused by Brian Coleman. Allowing 15 minutes parking in loading bays after 10am is a sensible move, but doesn't address the primary issue that parking charges have been used as a stealth tax. The raise is still well above inflation.

6. Mr Cohen states that if the money is not collected from parking charges, then roads may not be resurfaced. I was under the impression that parking was not the sole source of revenue for Barnet Council. If they were to cut waste (which you know there is plety of) then they could resurface roads and give the High Street a boost. By auditing the Metpro contract properly, the council saved £450,000 on work costing £1.4 million. That is one contract. Barnet only intend auditing 173 out of 9,300 contracts. RM Countrysides were told they could charge what they liked for removing meters. How many other dodgy deals are there out there. Mr Cohen gets paid £24,000 as cabinet member to stop the Council officers taking the piss out of the taxpayer. I think he has not done this.


So in short, I believe that Councillor Cohen has failed to represent the needs of businesses and residents properly. As a councillor and a cabinet member, he has a duty of care to us residents to work tirelessly on our behalf. He may be a nice chap, have a lovely Dad and be very bright, but he is a councillor and a cabinet member and he is paid by you & I, the taxpayers of Barnet to do a job. There are several Tories who are backbenchers, who are hard working and have sharp minds. Three that spring to mind are Brian Salinger, Mark Shooter and  Sury Khatri. I cannot believe that any of these would have done such a poor job of getting to grips with the mess Brian Coleman left in the parking department. 

We must acknowledge that Dean Cohen is an improvement on Brian Coleman, but to be honest, wouldn't just about anyone be? His "trial" scratches the surface of the problem and does nothing for 18 of the 19 High Streets in the London Borough of Barnet.  That is not good enough for the people of Barnet. It is time that the Councillors started to take their job as seriously as they take collecting their allowances and it is time the cabinet started working as hard at dealing with the issues as they did at raising their allowances after the 2010 council election. 

Is that really too much to ask.
 

Lobby of Mill Hill ward Councillors regarding One Barnet Program

I have just returned from a lobby of Mill Hill ward Councillors at Mill Hill Library. Present from Barnet Council were councillors Khatri and Hart. Present for the lobby were nine local residents, most of whom I didn't know. It is worth making the point that both of these councillors are known to be sceptical about the program (or "to be convinced of some elements of it"). John Hart laid out the council position, which is that there is a funding crisis and something has to be done. The delegation stated that we don't believe a ten year outsourcing program, removing council control of services is appropriate. We cited the risks, quoted examples in Barnet and beyond, where such initiatives had failed and stated that the Association for Public Service Excellence had identified less risky methods of achieving savings.

The Councillors promised to report back to the leadership of the Borough, the concerns raised. Councillor Hart gave an eloquent description of how the decision making process works. He explained that once the Conservative group makes a decision, councillors are obliged to support it, even if they do not agree. The punishment for voting against proposals is removal of whip. Councillor Hart believes that he can do more within the party than outside.

Perhaps the most interesting thing to come from the meeting was John Hart's statement that Finchley & Golders Green MP, Mike Freer is the driving force behind One Barnet, despite having no official role in the council. The councillors made no attempt to explain how the program could deliver the savings that have been talked about or address the risks of the failure of the contracts or contractors racking up extra bills when in control of the services. They seemed concerned about the length of the contracts and acknowledged the risks of huge legal bills, which may well gobble up any notional savings.

It is pretty clear that many Conservative councillors support for One Barnet is based on the fact that they feel they have to do something and the ideology that private services do the job cheaper and better. Sadly the NSL parking contract shows that this is not necessarily true. This is a One Barnet contract that has already been let and is a million pounds in the red.

A couple of ladies who have experience of Your Choice Barnet, the LATC set up to provide care, gave some horrific examples of how badly trained or inappropriate staff supplied by this agency actually were. One carer had turned up when she was 8 months pregnant and informed the lady who required care that she was to tired to do anything!

Welcome to the brave new Barnet

Clarification from Councillor Khatri regarding cancellation of Councillor Surgery

As this blog has mentioned on many occasions, most Conservative Councillors are decent and polite people, who don't wander the Borough looking to break peoples bones and insult them. Most don't send rude emails. In fact, most of them are quite nice if you bump into them in waitrose Car Park, Cafe Buzz or on Mill Hill Broadway. Most of them will be perfectly civil, if you send them an email, and most will send you a polite email if you get a fact wrong or need a clarification.

So itw as was that we have just received a clarification from Councillor Sury Khatri, regarding the cancellation of the Councillors surgery in Mill Hill on Saturday. The Barnet Eye stated that the surgery was cancelled due to the BAPS delegation attending. Councillor Khatri, who is a decent chap, emailed me to correct this. It was due to a clash of appointments for both himself and Councillor John Hart.

Here is the email, apologies to Cllr's Hart and Khatri for posting incorrect information. I hope this clears the matter up

------------------------
Dear Roger
Just catching up with events
I noted that there was to be a BAPS delegation to see us at our Councillor Surgery last Saturday and you reported that because of this we had cancelled it.
My reason for writing to you is that this is incorrect and wish to clear up any misunderstanding.
My sincere apologies as if we had known prior I would have informed that we would not be there.
As both Cllr John Hart and I had previous commitments for Saturday 22nd and neither one could be present I informed the Library of this on the previous Saturday 15th (after I finished my Councillor Surgery) and to put a note to this effect that we would not be holding a Councillor Surgery on Saturday 22nd - for your information message sent on Tuesday 18th to Mill Hill Librarian below
DEAR LIBRARIAN
APOLOGIES FOR SHORT NOTICE
THIS TO ADVISE YOU THAT, DUE TO OTHER COMMITMENTS, Cllrs KHATRI & HART WILL NOT BE HOLDING THE COUNCILLOR SURGERY THIS SATURDAY 22nd SEPTEMBER 2012.
PLEASE WOULD YOU PUT A NOTE TO THIS EFFECT AND ADVISE / APOLOGISE ON OUR BEHALF TO ANYONE WHO COMES TO SEE US AND THAT TO CONTACT US BY EMAIL / TEL


I DID ADVISE THE LIBRARIAN LAST SATURDAY OF THIS


Kind Regards
Cllr Sury N Khatri
Mill Hill Ward
------------------------------

Massive CPZ zone for Mill Hill announced for Saracens match day traffic - Update

Earlier this week, the Barnet Eye announced plans for a massive controlled parking zone, which will cover almost all of Mill Hill on match days and run for five  hours (1pm to 6pm) whilst rugby matches last under two hours - http://barneteye.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/saracens-cpz-zone-set-to-turn-mill-hill.html - a fairly big issue you may think. Sadly, the local press don't seem interested. Not a peep about the scheme from either paper. The Barnet Eye is a tadsurprised about the total lack of interest from our local papers. I believe the scheme will cause massive disruption for both businesses and resident.

I also emailed several local politicians including my MP, Matthew Offord, My GLA rep Andrew Dismore, my local councillors John Hart, Brian Schama and Sury Khatri, the leader of the council Richard Cornelius and the cabinet member for parking, Dean Cohen. I stated my objections to the scheme, made some positive suggestions, and asked to be consulted on the scheme. The only response I had was from Andrew Dismore, who agreed with my sentiments. From the rest of them? Not a peep. Not even a "thanks for the email".

What is even more interesting is when we actually look at where our councillors live. I f you look at the map of the area, lots of roads are marked in green as "past this point"  parking. I assume that these will have special restrictions for the match days. What is interesting is that two of the councillors live in the exclusion zone. It seems that neither of their roads have been shaded in in green. This is especially odd as the councillors road (Sherwood Drive) is less than 5 minutes walk from the entrance to Copthall from the Great North way.

When you consider that the councillors house is three times closer to the stadium than Parkside and perhaps four times closeer than Holders Hill Close, which is in the green area, one can only wonder ?

The whole bais for this scheme seems flawed to me. I fully accept that measures have to be taken to control parking, and I fully accept that the area will have to be a fairly large space, given that the stadium only has parking for 700 vehicles. Assuming that Saracens fill the 10,000 seat stadium, that will mean a lot of cars trying to park somewhere. I have no idea if this is true, but I've been told that 10,000 seats is more than all of the council car parking spaces in the London Borough of Barnet.

One avid reader made an excellent point. There is a derelict tube line running from Mill Hill East, directly to the Stadium. This line has long been highlighted as one that could easily and cheapely be reopened. Sponsors of the Brent Cross Light Rail scheme included the link in their plans. It would certainly ease travel problems if the spur was reopened for match days. As the track is already there, I can't believe that the costs would be too prohibitive. It would also be highly useful for people visiting Copthall Swimming pool and for pupils and staff of the local schools. It would also make it much easier for Mill Hill residents to access Finchley Memorial and Barnet General hospitals if the shuttle service was made a regular pattern. Sadly Saracens have expressed no interest in this scheme.

I am dismayed that there seems to be no interest in the matter at all from our MP. Mr Offord replied to me saying that he only looked at correspondence with my address on it. A lame excuse indeed, given that he knows me quite well.

I wish Saracens well for their plans at Copthall. The stadium did need developing and their plans will hopefully add much needed sports facilities for the Borough. The downside is that no thought at all has been givento traffic management. Given that Saracens have no association with Mill Hill, having been based in Watford, it is clear that most fans will drive to the stadium. One suspects that this will cause havoc and that Mill Hill residents will not forgive their Tory councillo9rs in 2014, when the fulle xtent of the mayhem has dawned on the residents. maybe that is why our councillors can't be bothered. they know they are doomed, so why bother?

Saracens CPZ zone set to turn Mill Hill into a wasteland !

Barnet Council have just released a map showing the extents of parking chaos and disruption which will be caused to Mill Hill by the arrival of Saracens at Barnet Copthall Stadium. The extent of the "match day CPZ" is humungous, extending on the western side from Mill Hill Broadway Station in Station Road, to the large viaduct on Dollis Road in the East. The most northerly point is Hartley Avenue (just off Mill Hill Broadway) and the the most southerly point is Church Road Finchley.

The zone operates from the 1pm to 6pm on match days and other times if match times vary. What this means is that most of Mill Hill's residents will not be able to have visitors on the days that Saracens are playing. For many working people, Saturdays are the prime time for visiting relatives. What about the effect on the shops in Mill Hill Broadway? The new CPZ will remove much of the parking for the Broadway on the Woodlands Way/Sylvan Avenue roads. After the abolition of Pay as You Go, this is yet another blow for traders.

I have to state a vested interest here. My business is in Bunns Lane Works, which is also included. Whilst on the face of it, this shouldn't affect us, as we have off street parking, given the size and extent of the zone, we may well suffer as inconsiderate car owners try and park on our properties.

The plan exposes the lies that were peddled that there is ample parking provision at the stadium. If this were true, then we wouldn't need this massive exclusion area. All along, Mill Hill residents have had suspicions that they have been taken for a ride. This is now proven by this map.

It is quite clear what will happen. As ever Barnet Council have not thought this through at all. Roads on the edge of the zone, with access to the 221 bus, which serves the stadium will be stuffed full of cars. The roads slightly nearer will be dead, with residents unable to have visitors. Businesses in Mill Hill Broadway, Mill Hill East, Salcolme Gardens etc will see a massive downturn in business.

The timings for the CPZ are truly idiotic and show just how out of touch Barnet Council are. The solution is so simple and obvious. If the time of the match is 3pm-5pm, make the exclusion zone from 3.30pm to 4.30pm. That way, Rugby traffic will not be able to park, as they will miss the match, but the rest of us will not be largely inconvenienced. How hard is that to figure out?

If you are a Mill Hill resident or a Mill Hill based business, please contact your local councillors ASAP and let them know what you think.

As I am sure you guessed, I will be.

Their email accounts are :
cllr.j.hart@barnet.gov.uk
cllr.s.Khatri@Barnet.gov.uk
Cllr.B.Schama@Barnet.gov.uk

The DPR giving details is here

http://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=4285

Here is the map

Saracens CPZ Map

Barnet Council sneak through plans for a new Highway through the heart of Mill Hill

As ever, if Barnet Council want to sneak through a highly contentious and divisive issue, they do it on the sly. Typically they will do this as a Delegated Powers Report, which doesn't require discussion by the Council, which is done by officers with no democratic discussion. Secondly, they will do it in the middle of August, when no one is looking. Thirdly they will give the DPR a very neutral name, which disguises the real meaning of what is being done.

So it is again this year. I happened to notice this DPR -  http://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=4259 - entitled "Highway Improvements to Bittacy Hill". Who could possibly think that such a DPR, signed off by Pam Wharfe, Interim director of Environment, Regeneration and Planning could possibly be in any way contentious? Nothing in there to worry about?

Think again. Behind the bland title, there is a huge scheme being implimented, by stealth and with no democratic debate or accountability. This scheme will effectively divide Mill Hill in two halfs and threaten a nature reserve. It will blight many homes and will have a huge effect on traffic levels through the Borough.

The real intention of what is being done is only mentioned briefly in section 8.3. It says

The proposed highway works will entail the reconstruction of the existing Bray Road access to the proposed development as part of the proposed East-West link road at its junction with Bittacy Hill

If you look carefully at the map associated with the plan, their is a big arrow at the edge of the development, directing traffic down Sanders Lane. If you look at Google, this road is shown as one long road. The road actually becomes a footpath, through a nature reserve shortly after Brownsea Walk. Barnet Council Highways department have long dreamed of making a highway from the Mill Hill East development, down Sanders Lane, into Tavistock Avenue, across Pursley Road, Down Ashley Walk, across Copthall Open Space and down to the A1, making a major intersection. This road would effectively divide Mill Hill and Mill East in two. Traffic would proliferate and huge numbers of homes, which are currently quiet roads in cul-de-sacs would become blighted by constant traffic.

The fact this is being snuck through is typical of the way Barnet Council operate. I will be writing to our local Councillors to insist they call this in and get the Highways department to explain their true intentions. I will also be notifying the Mill Hill Preservation Society and other local pressure groups.

If the council persist with this plan, I would suggest that this would spell the end of the Conservatives in Mill Hill and the end of Mill Hill as a nice place to live. I will publish the response from Councillors Hart, Schama and Khatri in due course. I will also be emailing Councillor Brian Coleman and Dean Cohen. I wish to know the true intentions of the Council in this respect and I suspect only Brian Coleman really knows. Finally, I will be emailing Pam Wharfe for the full details of the plan. As ever, nothing surprises me with Barnet Council. The Email to Ms Wharfe will be under the auspices of a Freedom of Information request.

1742 - Highway Improvements at Bittacy Hill


Map Bray Road

Brian Coleman induced parking mayhem spreads across Barnet

Earlier in the week, we learned that Councillor Brian Colemans decision to abolish free parking bays last year had caused mayem on Bittacy Hill. Buses were held up, the Police had got involved, local residents were inconvenienced and traffic flow was impaired. As parking restrictions are designed to "improve traffic flow", it is clear that Coleman has produced a policy which doesn't work. Not only that, it may be illegal, as it is clearly a revenue raising move (yet another Colemanite Stealth tax).

It appears that Bittacy Hill is not the only place in Barnet to be under the "Coleman Cosh". The Barnet Eye today learned that Bunns Lane in Mill Hill is also suffering. As with the Bittacy Hill cock up, Barnet Council have tried to bury the bad news, by releasing the information as an officer released DPR. Clearly Brian Coleman wants no association with the failure of his policy to be associated with him, in the run up to the GLA elections.

Here is a link to the report
http://committeepapers.barnet.gov.uk/democracy/reports/reportdetail.asp?ReportID=11121

And here is what its says Colemans policies have done to traffic in Bunns Lane Mill Hill.

8. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

8.1 

Bunns Lane/Grahame Park Way NW7

In June 2011 the Council completed a scheme whereby all ‘Free’ parking bays

were converted to permit holder or paid for parking bays in the borough’s Controlled
Parking Zones (CPZs). Subsequent to the changes being made to the Mill Hill CPZ,
Councillor Rayner and TFL have reported that an increased level of parking is
occurring on both sides of Bunns Lane between the junction of Woodcroft Avenue
and the mini roundabout at the junction with Grahame Park Way which is just
outside of the CPZ boundary.

8.2 Bunns Lane has seen an increase in parking activity since the removal of the free

bays in the adjoining CPZ by motorists, suspected to be commuters using the local
transport links parking their vehicles throughout the day. Motorists are parking as
close as possible to the current restrictions which is causing obstruction for larger
vehicles including buses and commercial vehicles resulting in an increase in

congestion along this section of Bunns Lane. A site visit by Officers and Councillor

Rayner confirmed that obstructive parking is detrimental to traffic flow.

8.3 As a result of these observations, it is intended to propose and implement ‘At Any

Time’ waiting restrictions in lengths of Bunns Lane and Grahame Park Way, in
order to improve traffic flow along these stretches of road:

8.4 In addition, it is also proposed to extend the existing Monday to Saturday 8am to

6.30pm waiting restrictions in Bunns Lane for a short length. The proposal is
shown on the drawing 21729/744 appended to this report.

8.5 Councillor Rayner has since reaffirmed his views and support for the proposals. In

particular, Councillor Rayner advised of his concerns regarding safety being an
issue at this location.

8.6 All Hale Ward and Mill Hill Ward Members have been consulted on the proposals

Councillor Sury Khatri has confirmed his support for the measures.
As one may have come to expect from our useless and cowardly Mill Hill and Hale Ward Tory Councillors, there has been no attempt to stand up for the hard pressed commuters of Mill Hill, who resnet being stung by extortionate car packing charges at Mill Hill Broadway Station car park. These were hiked to £5 a day last year. Who can blame ordinary working people for wishing to try and avoid such daylight robbery. There is no mention from them that prior to Brian Colemans cash grabbing abolition of Free bays, this wasn't a problem. There is no mention of the fact that there is widespread opposition to the CPZ parking hikes.

Section 8.6 gives  the game away. Of six councillors informed of the changes affecting their ward, only one Sury Khatri appears to have bothered to respond. What does this tell us about the Conservative Councillors who now represent Mill Hill and Hale Ward. It strikes me as likely that the council planned to roll out these sort of sneaky parking restrictions across the Borough, under the radar as officer approved DPR's. I urge the opposition Labour and Lib Dem councillors to call all of these in for review to expose Colemans policies for the abject failure and cash grab, which everyone knows they are.

I stood for election in May 2010 for Mill Hill Ward. I lost out to the Conservatives. They get [paid thousands of pounds a year to represent the people of Mill Hill. This DPR lays bare just how useless and lazy they are. How hard is it to read your paperwork and let the Council know when the people you represent are being fleeced. Brian Coleman has materially damaged the infrastructure of Mill Hill, with his cash grabbing policies and our councillors are to scared of him to say a dickie bird about it. Shame on all of them. As to the Hale Councillors, they are even more useless. Tome Davey is on the Cabinet and has waved all of these Tax the motorist policies through, stopping only to abuse people on benefits at every opportunity. Councillor Hugh Rayner is the chairman of the Local Conservative Party and so is clearly hand in glove with Coleman and his grab your cash policies. As to the other Hale Councillor, he's so useless, I can't even remember his name. Maybe he's the invisible man. Maybe he's a figment of Councillor Robert Rams imagination. If he's ever lifted a finger to stop the good people of Hale Ward being ripped off by Brian Coleman please feel free to add a comment, because he must have done it in secret.

The Barnet Eye will continue to fight to save the hard pressed families and commuters of Mill Hill from the cash grabbing excesses of Brian Coleman and his policies of Stealth taxation. It seems that in Mill Hill, you only see Tory Councillors when they want your vote. You will find the Barnet Eye here 365 days a year fighting for you. Enjoy your Easter

Here is the full document for your perusal
1604 - Introduction of Waiting Restrictions

Official document prove Brian Colemans parking policies are a disaster

Have you noticed how people in Barnet seem to be parking their cars in the strangest places, how congestion has got worse recently, how roads which previously were quiet are now awash with cars during the daY?

Last July Councillor Brian Coleman sneaked through a whole raft of changes to Parking restrictions in Barnet. He is well known for his stealth tax his parking policies. The five main ones, which have affected just about everyone are as follows :-

1) Hiking up parking charges on High Streets and car parks, driving away customers and shutting shops
2) Aboloshing pay and display parking on High Streets
3) Hiking up the price of Resident CPZ permits
4) Abolition of "free bays" in Resident CPZ parking zones
5) Outsourcing the parking warden contract to a company with a reputation for overzealous enforcement

All of these measures are designed to do one thing. Squeeze more money out of motorists and residents. Sadly for Brian Coleman (and the rest of us), not only have these policies failed miserably in their target of raising extra cash ( rumour has it that the parking account is down by £500,000 as people shun council car parks). As people have sought free spaces outside of the restrictions, roads have become clogged, congestion has risen and residents have been inconvenienced.

Given that the sole purpose of parking restrictions is to "ease the flow of traffic", this means that the policy has not only been an abject failure, but it is probably illegal. Coleman cannot claim that the policy is to ease traffic flow, because papers published on the Council website prove this is not the case. The Barnet Eye suggests that a judicial review should be performed of Colemans policies and in the meantime they should be reversed. The complete failure of Colemans policies are laid bare in this document on the Barnet Council website -
http://committeepapers.barnet.gov.uk/democracy/reports/reportdetail.asp?ReportID=11110

Let me quote the document :-

8. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the full document for your perusal.

Bittacy Hill Parking restrictions

This document lays bare the failure of the parking policies of Brian Coleman. It exposes the fact that rather than easing traffic flow, they are creating mayhem, tying up Police resources, ruining the lives of residents, making buses late and worst of all threatening public safety. In short Brian Coleman and his polices have been thoroughly discredited. Even worse is the fact that rather than admit that Colemans policies are to blame, the lame Mill Hill Conservative Councillors have buried their heads in the sand and refused to address the real cause of the problem.

The Barnet Eye will today be contacting local press, local councillors and the Leadership of Barnet Council to demand a full review of the disaster which Brian Coleman has inflicted on the London Borough of Barnet. Is there anyone in Barnet who seriously thinks that Brian Coleman deserves re-election for a £52,000 a year part time job at the GLA in MAy? His level of competence is laid bare here.

Is Barnet Council run by lobotomised zombies? The Barnet Cash lottery

Picture courtesy of scoutnetworkblog.com

"Times are hard", "We are all in it together", "They believe money grows on trees", "Labour are very good at spending other peoples money". These are all phrases that I've heard local Conservative Councillors use in relation to myself, other bloggers and the opposition. What they keep very quiet about is just how completely useless and profligate they are with your cash, if you are lucky. The Barnet Tory Councillors sometimes remind me of an army of lobotomised zombies, who are very good at responding to basic commands (such as "put your hand up now to vote for this idiotic policy") but who are seemingly incapable of actually thinking about anything they do or what effects it has on Barnet. They seem to have no problem at all holding diametrically opposed views on issues at the same time. For example overdevelopment in Cat Hill (LB Enfield) is bad. Over development in Brent Cross is good. Some may call this being two faced (as the councillors who oppose this are representing people near Cat Hill).

Let me explain what their basic mantra is. This is that if they keep council tax down, then they will get re-elected and keep their generous allowances and perks. If you are from a Conservative persuasion, you will probably say "quite right too". Then all of a sudden, you find that the methods they use, hit you in the pocket. Let me give  a couple of examples. CPZ charges have been hiked massively. Now the likes of Brian Coleman, who are responsible, don't have much CPZ in their constituency. It won't affect them, but plenty of other Tories do. These lobotomised zombies aren't prepared to even think about the effect on hard pressed families, many of whom are Tory voters. by squeezing the 10% here, they can save a wider tax rise for the rest. If you are a Tory voter in a CPZ, affected by the changes, you are the sacraficial lamb, your cash paying a subsidy for a few even more wealthy residents council tax, who don't live in CPZ's. Then there is the pay by phone parking changes. Brian Coleman beleived this would save money. Sod the OAP's and other people who can't for whatever reason use it. The guys who work for me used to drive to Mill Hill Broadway to buy lunch. A 15 minute parking charge was 30p. Now it's a pound. Thats £250 a year just to buy a sandwich. They have voted with their feet and now buy their sandwich at the garage on the A41. All the small sandwich shops lose out. The rumour on the street is that Barnet parking revenues are down by 7%. If you drive down Bunns Lane during a working day, you can tell where the parking zone ends. Cars are parked in sidestreets where they used to be parked in the statiomn car park. It seems that Colemanballs didn't realise that people would vote with their pockets.

But just as there are losers, there are winners. After the last Council Cabinet resourses meeting, I had a beer with Mr Mustard, another blogger. I asked him what he thought Barnet would try and sneak through on a DPR as the council shut for Xmas. We speculated, but we were wildly wrong. Mr Mustard, ever eagle eyed, spotted this - http://lbbspending.blogspot.com/2011/12/1000-well-spent-or-waste.html - Barnet Council are giving Brian Colemans favourite vicars son £1,000 to write a song for the queens jubilee. This is an outrage. Unlike my fellow bloggers, I think that money spent on the arts such as this is money well spent. Where I have an issue is the method they've chosen to allocate it. Surely they should have said "We'll have a competition locally to write a song for the jubilee and the winners will get £1,000 towards equipment for their school or college". That way everyone would have become engaged and young people would have been inspired to be creative. Such tunes are invariably unlistenable dirges, so at least give everyone a bit of fun.

Then there are the "special" companies, who operate without contracts and seemingly get all manner of highly lucrative work, much of which is unneccessary and overpriced. We've seen two examples (both exposed by bloggers). These are Metpro Security and RM Countrysides. Between these two companies, Barnet Council has spent £4 million pounds. Neither has a contract. When Metpro's contract was cancelled, it was revealed that many of the services they were providing were deemed unnecessary. Kerching, your money down the bog. I emailed all of the Barnet councillors about Metpro before XMAS. I asked for them to call an emergency council meeting to debate the latest revealations. I got 16 read receipts and not a single reply from the Conservative group. One councillor - Maureen Braun, deleted the email without reading it. One may ask what value Councillor Braun adds, if she can't even be bothered to read an email marked urgent, concerning a scandal that has cost the council £1.4 million?

I don't expect Barnet Councillors, especially Conservative ones, to agree with me about everything. I don't expect them all to reply when I send an email marked urgent, detailing a scandal that bloggers were praised by the Tory local government minister for their role in exposing. I am however amazed that not a single one got in touch to either say "Yes this is terrible we'll do something" or "No, you've got it all wrong, it's all in hand".

This leaves us with the impression that they are useless. What I can't comprehend is why, when Barnet Council must realised that the Barnet bloggers are in control of the local agenda, that they don't engage and try and build trust. I can almost see the likes of Brian Coleman sneering as they read this "in control of the agenda, ha ha ha". Any Conservative Councillor who reads the local papers, will have seen 52 weeks of negative stories this year. These have all started in the blogs of Barnet. Private Eye has yet again pilloried Barnet in its end of year awards. Local businesses and residents are reading the blogs in ever greater numbers. My blog readership has doubled this year, with well over 250,000 hits. That is more than the population of Barnet. October was the peak month this year and February was the quietest (as it has 3 less days, this is not surprising).

I don't really ask much of our controlling group of Tory councillors. If they simply did their job, for which they are paid a decent allowance, and made sure Barnet Council was properly run, that would be enough. The Barnet bloggers read the DPR's and reports. If we can why can't  they? We spotted the Metpro and RM Countrysides scandals, yet we don't get big fat allowances. We read the reports that are supposed to be discussed in committees. We turn up to meetings and they are ignored. It is clear from the few questions that ever get asked that the majority of committee members don't even bother to read them. I have come to the conclusion that many Barnet Councillors just treat the issue of being a councillor like winning a lottery. A bit of extra cash and the odd night out with their friends.

I sent a questionaire to all Barnet Councillors, asking what contribution they had made. I said for every returned copy I'd donate £5 to the mayors appeal. Two Conservative Councillors replied - Brian Salinger and Sury Khatri. All the Lib Dems did and two Labour members, Barry Rawlings and leader Alison Moore. I will be sending Councillor Rutter, the Mayor a cheque for £35. To be honest, I am rather disappointed at this response. I have to ask whether they didn't respond out of embarrassment at their lack of contribution? And I thank and commend those councillors who took the time to respond.

A better man than I ????

The bloke in this picture is Suri Khatri BSC Hons. He's a Conservative Councillor in Mill Hill. He got over 1,000 votes more than me in the Council Election, which is why he's a Councillor and I'm not. Do I care? I was gutted at the time, but I shook his hand and wished him well (genuinely). I really thought no more about it until today. A BNP sympathiser left a comment on another Barnet blog, in response to a comment I made about a young man who is a leader of a local youth project and happens to be a Kenyan. I said he was one of the most intelligent young people I'd ever met. The BNP commentor replied that he should stand in Mill Hill as a Lib Dem and see how many votes he gets. The clear implication was that Mill Hill is full of racist bigots and he'd get no votes.

I suddenly remembered the fact that Suri Khatri had been elected. I don't know him, but he seemed a nice enough chap. John Hart told me he's a nuclear physicist by trade so he's clearly a bright bloke. Whilst I was pretty gutted on May 7th that Mr Khatri beat me, at least it shows that Mill Hill is not full of racist bigots. For that reason alone, I'm pleased he won. Is he a better man than me? Well he certainly is if your Nuclear reactor needs designing, not quite so sure if you need a bit of punk rock guitar. The good thing is that the people of Mill Hill clearly judged us for who we were, not the colour of our skin. I suspect that if the BNP are looking to seek a base of racists support in Mill Hill, they will be bitterly disappointed as we all get on rather well here.

Hugh Rayner - The voice of sanity in the Barnet Conservatives

Earlier this evening (saturday), I happened to bump into a rather upset and rather "tired and emotional" Barnet Conservative party activist. "Pray what could be troubling you my friend" I enquired. "Brian Coleman has been at it again".

To cut a long story short. A Mill Hill Conservative Councillor - unnamed - sent an email to Brian Coleman with a list of grumbles about the way that the Barnet Conservatives are being run by Lynne Hillan. It appears that this was a private email with some constructive suggestions as to the way forward (allegedly).

Anyway, from what I've been told, Brian Coleman reacted with his usual charm and pleasantry. He emailed the whole group and basically told the said councillor that he'd been sacked as a Tory.

It appears that Hugh Rayner immediately sent the unnamed Mill Hill Councillor an email saying "Don't respond to Brian, come and have a chat with me first". From what I can glean, Hugh Rayner has realised that with a vote of confidence in Lynne Hillan coming up on Tuesday, Brian Coleman has rather jumped the gun in sacking said councillor. My source had spoken to said councillor about what to do, as they were rather upset by the whole issue.

Sadly I don't know the identity of the said Councillor as my friend suddenly realised he'd made rather a boo boo in telling me all of this. I guess this can be ascertained when I serve an FOI request on Brian Colemans council correspondence. I am taking a wild guess here, but the odds are as follows

John Hart  - 4/11
Brian Schama - 2/1
Sury Khatri - 14/1

There is a free pot noodle for any Conservative Councillor who sends me a copy of Brian Colemans email before the vote on Tuesday (so long as they declare it, he he he). I will of course immediately post it here.  Oh and if I've got the odds wrong, I apologise profusely to all concerned.

Anyway, I must confess I'd given up on the leadership issue as a dead duck, assuming that all of the Barnet Tories would toe the line. It appears that I couldn't have been more wrong.

Stuck in the Middle with You - A John Hart tour de force

Do you remember "Stuck in the Middle with you" the 1970's hit for Stealers Wheel. Watching John Hart and Sury Khatri chair the Hendon Residents Forum, I was reminded of this classic songs lyrics.

Well I don't know why I came here tonight,
I got the feeling that something ain't right,
I'm so scared in case I fall off my chair,
And I'm wondering how I'll get down the stairs,
Clowns to the left of me,
Jokers to the right, here I am,
Stuck in the middle with you.

Watching John and Sury chair the meeting, I started to wonder if I'd at some stage in my misspent youth been slipped a hugely powerful halucinagenic drug and I was really lying in the ward of a mental hospital imaging it all. I missed the first question. I entered the room during question 2. Hale Ward Councillor Hugh Rayner came up and asked me to make sure I read his press release justifying voting for huge rises for Tory Cabinet members. Sadly he didn't have one to actually give me, which meant I ended up sitting with the Labour troublemakers - Andrew Dismore and his merry men (as I know them and thought they'd give me a copy). I hadn't really intended sitting with them, but it meant that there was a little cabal of smart alec trouble makers all sitting together waiting to ambush poor old John and Sury. Question 2 was from local environmental champion Clive Cohen about topsoil. I hadn't anything to add.

Question 3 was from Mr Dan, who I don't know but I suspect is a disgruntled Burnt Oak Resident. It's points were many and vaired. John Hart asked told us to look at the table of figures and asked if we were happy. We were all nonplussed. He said "right if there are no questions, we'll move on to question 4". Sadly for John, Mr Dan then said "I've not even started". He read out a prepared statement which started "I've lived in Burnt Oak since 1940" or some such thing. The gist of it was the Tories were rubbish and he wasn't happy. John Hart tried again "Well if thats it". I then piped up saying that the council hadn't actually answered point "B" which is "what is the councils position of the £M's placed in Icelandic bank?" They had simply spewed out some waffle. John Hart tried to persuade us that the council had done a spiffing job, earning £25 million a year in interest and that they had to invest the money overnight. Andrew Dismore made a couple of relevent points, to which John Hart said "I don't do figures" and then "I wasn't in charge". He explained that you had to invest the money. I asked him if he was aware that the Council hadn't followed it's treasury management policy. His response was along the lines of "I don't do figures and I didn't invest the money". In short the "not my fault guv'nor" defence.

Cue question 4 from Andrew Dismore (ex MP).  John Hart objected to the fact that an ex politician was making political points at a residents forum. Mr Dismore pointed out that he was a mere resident and John Hart was the politician. Mr Dismore was trying to get a statement out of Mr Hart on the Allowancegate scandal. When he finished, I tried my luck. "Dear Mr Chairman, do you agree with the statement made by The Chairman of the Finchley Residents forum last night when he said that Councillor Kate Salinger was his hero". John replied (cunning linguist that he is) "Surely he said Heroine". I said he'd definately said hero and did John agree with this in light of her principled stand against the increase. John replied that Kate Salinger was indeed a very highly principled woman, unlike himself. I'm sure he added under his breath "I've got no principles at all", but I may have misheard him. At this I asked him if he'd got a rise for chairing the residents forum and he said "No and Sury actually got a pay cut".  I thought to myself "what sort of idiots have we elected in Mill Hill. They only support troughing by other people". It would be bad enough if it was for them, but all that derision so the likes of Brian Coleman can have an extra week on holiday in Dorset with his mum.

When it was clear that we would get no joy, we moved on to part two of Mr Dismores  question. What did John Hart think of the cancellation of the school building program, which condemned pupils at Copthall and St Marys to study in slum like squalor. Mr Hart said it was necessary as Andrew Dismore had spunked all the money. I asked how Mr Hart as a former polytechnic lecturer and Mr Khatri as a nuclear scientist could justify the cuts. He replied that it was vital to fix the mess that Andrew Dismore left. Andrew Dismore then explained that this was not the case at all. Given that it is the children of Hendon who suffer, it made me feel rather sick.

At  this point I started to hallucinate that John and Sury were really members of Stealers Wheel.  The middle eight came to mind

Well you started out with nothing,
And you're proud that you're a self made man,
And your friends, they all come crawlin,
Slap you on the back and say,
Please.... Please.....

We then moved on to West Hendon redevelopment. Same argument "Labour spunked the money" from Hart, from Dismore "Why have you done nothing for ten years". John Hart then the "Not my fault guv" defence, pointing out he'd only been on the council since 2006. Labour Councillor Julie Johnson interjected and made a couple of rather wise and non partisen comments about the problems with the scheme. my mind went back to election night. There was a time when the Labour candidates thought Julie may have lost. Thank god she didn't. It was a pleasure to see someone on top of their brief. Councillor Khatri made a little speech about the problems, but it was clear he knew nothing about the subject. I suggested he did his homework and finished the speech at the next meeting. He looked rather hurt.

The next question was from Nagus Narenthira again about Councillor pay rises. The Council had deployed some sophistry in their answer. We pointed this out several times but I suspect that John Hart was rather pleased as it got him off the hook. There was a bloke sitting next to Hugh Rayner who I think is a Tory Councillor (I don't know his name). At this point he said "what does it matter". Well it rather matters a lot that the council get things right, follow the rules and don't make mistakes.

The reason for the Icelandic fiasco, the Aerodrome road overspend, Partingdale Lane legal fiasco, Underhill Fiasco etc is just this. Lack of attention to detail. I asked what John Hart thought of the GMB's legal challenge to the allowance rise. His response "I used to be a trades unionist you know". He then said "good luck to them, it's their right in a democracy" or words to that effect.

The next question, at which point I made my exit was about shrubs in a playground. John Hart announced he was pleased to get back to "non political proper residents forum questions". I'll bet he was. I'll bet he was even more pleased to get home and have a nice glass of valpocella or the like. I don't think he really enjoyed the meeting. John Hart's idea of a good forum is one where he cracks a few jokes, gets a few hedges cut and is out by 8pm for a beer. Sadly the audience in Burnt Oak this evening were not in the mood for any of it.

Calling Barnet voters - Is this why you elected Tory Councillors?

Let's have a little discussion as to why any allowance or salary is set at a certain level. The whole idea is to attract the most suitable people for the job. If lots of people can do it and it's fairly mundane, salaries tend to be low. If it requires a high level of unique talent or it is a job not many people could do or would want to do, then it tends to have a high salary. Generally salaries are reassessed when organisations are looking for fresh talent. If they have had trouble attracting the right quality of people, then you up the salary. If there are a surplus of people who want to do the job, maybe you are paying too much.

Now the argument that the Tories in Barnet are using to justify the salary is, well "because they are worth it". Now if 18 months ago they'd said "We've had to put up with a completely useless idiot of a leader who lost £27.4 million in Icelandic banks (Mike Freer), another idiot of a deputy Leader who overspent £11 millon on a budget of £12 million at Aerodrome Road (Matthew Offord) and we've got a cabinet member for Social Services who has lead us on a disasterous policy of abolishing Sheltered Housing wardens which has lead us into a court case which we've lost (Lynne Hillan), they might have got some agreement from me. If they'd have said that the Barnet Tory Party was full of useless placemen and they were throwing the selection process for new councillors completely open to all with the promise of 100% pay rises if they won (as part of their manifesto) justified by the need to replace the likes of the failed team, I wouldn't have disagreed when they implemented the policy.  There would have been a justification and a popular mandate for change.

But the truth is that is the opposite of what they did. They hid the fact from the electorate that their first major action would be to award themselves huge pay rises. They didn't sack the failed old guard and try and recruit fresh blood. The only Tory councillors who were replaced were those who lost their seats, those who had legged it abroad, those who had fallen foul of the regime and been shafted and those who left to become MP's.  The replacements were specially selected lackies such as Barry Evangeli, who had dedicated his time to writing letters to the press saying that Brian Coleman is marvellous.

It is quite clear that there is a large surpless of Tory Councillors who would love to become cabinet members at the old rate of allowance. The Council Leader, Lynne Hillan fought like a polecat on heat to get the leadership, at the old rate. If she stepped down tomorrow, I know of at least three Councillors who would immediately snap up the job regardless of whether it was at the old rate or new. The whole grubby saga sums up the way allowances are paid in Barnet. They are not used to attract new talent, they are used to stifle competition and bludgeon Councillors into supporting the morally bankrupt policy of the leaders.

They used a three line whip on Councillors to ensure that they voted for the payrise and the one Councillor with the guts to say no, Kate Salinger was ritually humiliated in a public council meeting.

So if you voted Conservative in the elections in May tell me this. Did you vote Tory because you wanted an administration that behaves in this way? Do you think that it is acceptable for politicians to hush up a huge payrise until immediately after an election and then bludgeon it through, at the same meeting where they said everyone else would suffer from cuts.

In Mill Hill, where I live, we elected two new Tories to join John Hart. There names are Sury Khatri and Brian Schama. They've been councillors for nearly three months now and I only know of one thing they've done. They voted for this big payrise for their political bosses.  Do you know who your Tory Councillors are? Do you know of anything useful theyv'e done since being elected? Unless there name is Salinger, they voted for the rise. Is that why you voted for them (if you voted Tory)?

I received an email yesterday from the Hendon Times. They have reported that they've had an overwhelming response to their petition against the rise. If the Barnet Tories think this is going away any time soon, they can add deluded to their list of faults.

Barnet Tory Councillors fail the people who elected them

Lets talk Mill Hill first.

J'accuse Councillors John Hart, Brian Schama and Sury Khatri. The people of Mill Hill elected you to represent them. They expected you to cut waste in Barnet Council. Thats what your manifesto promised. Last night you voted for huge increases in allowances for your chums in the cabinet, some up to 100%. This at a time when public spending is being hammered. You have lost any moral authority you may have had. You have undermined any argument that may be made to the trades unions that cuts are needed.

In short you are a complete disgrace and should resign. Of course you wont. You get your bunce as well. I stood against you, for the Lib Dems, specifically to oopose this sort of disgusting troughing. I lost the election, but I believe you have committed fraud against the people of Mill Hill. Where in your manifesto did you say "We will give ourselves massive payrises". This is virtually the first act of the new administration. I was prepared to give you a chance to prove yourself. You are a disgrace.

As to Council Leader Lynne Hillan. She has shown herself completely unfit for the job. Doesn't she read the papers. The school rebuilding program in Barnet has been savagely cut by the new government, but she's all right jack. As to Brian Coleman - his allowances for a string of part time non jobs has risen to over £130,000 a year.

You may think you've won the battle for a pay rise, all you've won is round one. I will do everything I can to ensure you lose the war.

Tory old guard plan big rises in their allowances in Barnet

One of my Barnet Tory moles let slip that there has been some discussion amongst our local Tory councillors about whether allowances should be raised in the current climate. Word reaches the Barnet Eye that some of the new Tory Councillors objected as "a matter of principle in the current climate".

This blog is nothing if not fair so we cordially invite Councillor Brian Coleman, Councillor Lynne Hillan and all of the rest of  Tory old guard to explain to us all exactly what their views on the subject are. A whole blog, with all of my tens of thousands of readers (yup, true) with no comment from me whatsoever. Surely one of you guys knows how to write a coherent guest blog?

Old Guard Tories will be pleased to know that this offer is the very begining of a campaign, which we have some rather interesting stunts lined up for, which will receive lots of publicity from other sources. Of course if there is a good reason to give councillors more dosh, we'll be only too pleased to hear.

I am currently planning to have a whole lot of signs made up saying "Cancelled by Barnet Council to pay for bigger allowances for your Tory Councillors".  My friends at the Trades Unions have promised lots of help putting them up in key places. Any community groups, etc facing budget cuts are encouraged to get in touch once the new allowances are formally announced. I hope that our Mill Hill Tories hold their nerve in the face of this greedy onslaught and show their colleagues what public service is really about

Bork Update - Voted Conservative in Barnet - Is this what you expected from them?

It's less than a month since the Tories won Barnet Council. Was this in their manifesto?

http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/8199423.New_jobs_worth___300k_created_by_council/

It seems that Barnet Council thinks that the best way to spend £300,000 of your money in these times of hardship is on more managers. The jobs :-

Assistant director of strategic finance job, which boasts a salary of £110,000
Assistant director of financial services  for £90,000-a-year
Audit and risk management assistant directorship for £90,000

Why does a London Borough need an assistant director of Strategic finance? What does it entail? “management of the corporate business planning process” and managing the council's “transformation programme”. Given that if that's an assistant post, there's two people getting huge salaries doing this (at least). The spec contains the following rather alarming statement - "A sophisticated finance function is critical. We need to be creative, enabling, with balanced risk taking, whilst maintaining robust stewardship of increasingly tight resources. We need people who can create new models, for types of organisation and partnership forms that don’t yet exist anywhere else." In other words, us, the Barnet Council Taxpayer are the guinea pigs. What usually happens when the public sector tries to set things up from scratch?

Assistant Director of financial Services? “creating a high performing culture that drives improvement and efficiency savings”. Again there's at least two of them, as this is for an assistant. The spec goes on "An understanding of local government finance and current best practice is essential, ideally with experience of dealing with a financial services provider." So ideally an assisatant director of financial services should have experience of dealing with a financial services provider (that's a bank in English).


The Audits and risk manangement assistant Director? They will be “essential to meet the challenges to come”. The Spec goes on "With the ability to analyse complex information and issues, and the inter-personal skills to convince your colleagues, you will offer extensive audit and risk management knowledge and experience, preferably gained within a local authority context." Let's get this right. They think the person, on £90,000 per annum should have the "inter-presonal skills to convince your colleagues". This person is managing risks. This is crap, all they need to have is the skills to say "do that and you'll get the sack".



I've got a better idea. Why doesn't the council stop inventing highly paid jobs, which they've never required before. The descriptions are written in gobbledygook and are packed with phrases from the Borking manual. By the time of the next election, this mob will have cost over a million pounds. Would the people of Barnet be any wiser or wealthier if they weren't appointed.

I just hope some of our local Mill Hill Tories, John Hart, Brian Schama and Sury Khatri have a bit of sense and rebel against this profligacy. Now is not the time to start inventing jobs. I wonder how long it will be before these assistant managers need assistants to deal with all the Bork they create