24plusnews.co.uk Rotating Header Image

Grassroots

A little festive cheer from Nottingham

Dec 16th, 2011
by Anna Bailey.
Comments are off for this post

Christmas greetings from the Midlands, where long-suffering Nottingham taxpayers have been brought a little bit of festive cheer. Nottingham City Council has opted for more frugal celebrations after last year’s splurge on a £5,000 Christmas tree for its headquarters building.

According to the Nottingham Post the 2010 tree was rented for just 35 days, meaning it cost nearly £143 per day. Now where would Nottingham City Council, which likes to tell us it is too cash-strapped to publish its spending over £500 like every other council in the country, get that kind of money to burn?

At the time, council leader Jon Collins rushed to tell his Twitter followers that the tree was sponsored and so did not cost Nottingham taxpayers a penny. But a recent Freedom of Information request revealed that only £550 of sponsorship was received. The council’s FOI response claimed that this was used to buy presents for needy children, but the council later told the Nottingham Post that this was incorrect and the £550 was actually set against the cost of the tree (meaning that Nottingham taxpayers footed the bill for the remaining £4,450).

Confused? Probably not as confused as NCC’s Information Governance staff at the misinformation apparently fed to them by their council colleagues. If the council’s long-winded sign-off procedure for FOIs – inadvertently revealed by a council worker earlier this year to cause delays to issuing responses – isn’t picking up fundamental errors like this, what is it doing?

Nevertheless, thank goodness for Freedom of Information or cases like this might never be exposed in the first place. Not to mention that the leader of Nottingham City Council might never find out what his council is actually spending. Except Mr Collins doesn’t like FOI much. A few months ago he tweeted that FOIs cost the council £500,000 per year, and that ‘you could save a lot of services with that’.

Is that figure any more accurate than his Christmas tree tweet? Not if the council’s accounts are anything to go by. In 2010/11 the council’s Information Governance department spent £236,000, actually coming in under budget by nearly £67,000. And remember that FOI is only one of Information Governance’s responsibilities, along with data protection, access to personal data and licences for public sector information. Of course, this figure does not include the cost to other departments of gathering data for FOI requests. But it is hard to believe that that cost amounts to more than the entire budget of the Information Governance department.

After all the negative publicity surrounding the infamous giant tree in the local press, Nottingham City Council has decided to do without a similar tree this year. A small victory for Nottingham taxpayers brought about by a simple FOI request. Now how much more money could be saved if the council actually answered all the FOI requests it receives, rather than using every means possible to block and delay them?

Parking anger in Yarm

Dec 16th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

As we enter the festive season, Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council has given residents and businesses in Yarm a very unwelcome early Christmas present. This council is another in the long list of councils who think introducing parking charges is a great revenue raising opportunity. They just assume that everyone will cough up and not change their shopping and driving habits. They only have to look at examples we have quoted from around the country to know this is not true. 

“An ignorant and short-sighted decision that seems solely about raising money for the council regardless of the impact on Yarm High Street”, is what one resident said on a local newspaper’s website. Unsurprisingly the council disagrees, and said pay and display will give more flexibility to motorists! As defences go, that must be the most bizarre one I’ve heard all year. All pay and display will do is take money out of the local economy to fill the council’s coffers, but I guess when you are desperate you will say anything to justify your position.

When I wrote about parking issues last week, I suggested councillors and council officers should try running a small business for a week. They should experience first hand what it’s like being a small independent trader. They may then appreciate how difficult it is trading in the current economic climate. It looks like Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council is another to add to the list of councils who fail to appreciate just how much parking charges can wreck the local economy.

Filton Council’s costly container

Dec 14th, 2011
by Tim Newark.
Comments are off for this post

Filton Town Council continues to be troubled by a mysterious container. Sited opposite the council’s Cycle Speedway track, it costs the taxpayer £600 a year to rent and yet no one knows exactly what is inside it. The puzzling container was mentioned at a recent cost cutting meeting. Filton Councillor Roger Hutchinson claimed it contained pedal Go Karts as part of an intended recreational fitness initiative. This scheme, however, has failed to excite the public and in the last year the Go Karts raised only £60 against an expected revenue of £1000. The container has cost the Filton taxpayer £3000 in rent so far.

The Filton container controversy has sparked doubts about the value to the taxpayer of the nearby Cycle Speedway track completed in 2006. Costing approximately £50,000, the track has been barely used by locals and is only occasionally utilised by clubs outside the area, leaving it unused for 350 days a year.   Councillor Hutchinson, who also happens to be Filton Cycle Speedway Secretary, explains on its website that the track was built in an effort to re-introduce the sport of Cycle Speedway to the Greater Bristol area, but sadly the club has hit difficulties in recent years and has failed to enter the speedway league in the last two seasons.

A leisure centre manager, however, disagrees with Cllr Hutchinson and says that the costly container holds a large amount of cycle club equipment, for which the club members pay no fee towards its storage. When a recent boules competition spilled over onto the controversial cycle track that, in turn, ignited another debate about Filton Council’s loose use of taxpayers’ money

The latest Filton council uproar concerned a boules court being used regularly by players for free.  Recently, the court was given a new sign costing the taxpayer £300 and yet no fee is charged for using it, unlike other council provided sports facilities. In a lively debate at a packed council meeting, one councillor argued ‘There was no point on spending money on looking after the courts if you don’t get income in return.’ Quite, but at least it’s being used…

Tim Newark, Bath and South-West TaxPayers’ Alliance

Rotherham councillors booted out

Dec 12th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

How much work do your councillors do? This is a question being asked in Rotherham, South Yorkshire, today. All councillors in Rotherham are paid an annual allowance of £12,130. This is to compensate them for their time, and for any income lost from their normal business activities or job whilst fulfilling their council duties. Yet what about councillors who don’t do any work but continue to claim allowances?

John Gamble was elected to Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (RMBC) in May 2008. Mr Gamble is something of a Scarlet Pimpernel. He rarely attended meetings, and the last one he did attend was a full council meeting at the beginning of February this year – ten months ago. According the Local Government Act 1972, a councillor is automatically disqualified if he/she fails to attend any meeting for six months. As Mr Gamble did not give any reasons for his absences, such as ill health, this disqualification should have taken place in August.

Instead, RMBC has let this drag on a further four months until they finally took action. As a result of this inertia, Rotherham council taxpayers are over £4K out of pocket, although with such a poor attendance record since he was elected, it could be argued they were out of pocket the moment he was sworn in.

Attendance at meetings is one of the few ways we can judge a councillor’s performance, but councillors will also point to the other work they do in their communities. A supporter has told me that Mr Gamble did not even hold surgeries. Looking at the council’s website, this seems to be true. On his profile page, under the heading of ‘Surgery Details’, nothing is listed.

I contacted RMBC to find out if we are going to get our money back for the last four months when he shouldn’t have been a councillor. I am still waiting for an answer, but this is not the only Rotherham councillor who has acted in a similar way,

In March this year, former Tory councillor, Gavin Sharp resigned his seat just a few weeks before he was due to stand for election. Since being elected in May 2007, he had been absent from 80 percent of meetings. He hadn’t attended a full council meeting since May 2009, and had made appearances at just enough meetings to allow him to receive his allowance.

According to press reports at the time, his fellow Conservative councillors tried to persuade him to stand down and asked to him to pay the money back, but without success. You would have thought that as a bank manager and magistrate, Mr Sharp would have done the right thing at the time, and it is not known if since his resignation he has paid back all or some of the money he claimed.

These two lazy, (now thankfully) former councillors pocketed money from Rotherham residents, many of whom are on low incomes, without batting an eyelid. Not that they are the only ones at fault. RMBC should have acted sooner to remove John Gamble, and the Conservative group should have taken action against Gavin Sharp.

We elect councillors to make decisions on our behalf. For them to do this, they have to attend meetings. We also elect them to represent our views. Unless they regularly meet their constituents, it is impossible for them to do that effectively. Both of them should hang their heads in shame.

 

Some councils double parking charges

Dec 8th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

In last week’s bulletin sent out to all our supporters, I asked for examples of increases in parking charges across the country. Many thanks to those who got in touch. (If you would like to receive our weekly bulletin, sent out every Friday, click on this link to sign-up)

It appears that many councils are planning increases, or are considering charges on evenings and weekends. Some councils regard motorists as the gift that keeps on giving, however as we have highlighted this year, some councils – Wiltshire Council in particular – have found themselves in the eye of a storm as drivers desert town and city centres to visit and shop in other places that are cheaper to park.

Brighton and Hove Council has been in the news lately because the ruling Green administration is planning to refuse the extra cash from the government to help freeze council tax. It instead plans to increase it by 3.5%. Cllr Jason Kitcat, the finance portfolio holder, was awarded our Pin Head of the Month prize in November for this action that will increase the burden on council taxpayers. But it’s not just council tax bills that will increase. Car parking increases are on the way too.

Last week the council approved to advertise price hikes of more than 100%! The Green Party has said this is to reduce congestion, improve air quality and promote the use of sustainable transport.

Not surprisingly this has been greeted with opposition. At a time when when residents, visitors and traders can least afford it, these increases would have a devastating effect. If you wish to object to these plans, you have been allowed 21 days from 29 November (the day the meeting took place) to lodge your complaint.

There are also plans to double the cost of parking in Gravesend, and introduce charges on a Saturday. Free parking on a Saturday was one of the town’s selling points, but that seems to be lost on Parking Manager, Paul Gibbons, who told the cabinet, “We seem to be the only town in the county which offers free parking on Saturdays.”

Local trader, Bob Atkinson, said, “It is disgusting what they are doing. If you really, really want to drive everyone to Bluewater, put the prices up.” There are many more comments along the same lines.

There are planned increases in Chichester, and a petition has been set-up to oppose the introduction of charges on Sundays, and Oxford City Council has introduced charges at park and ride car parks. This must be to pay for all the non-jobs they have advertised this year!

What amazes me is the reaction from some councillors. You would think they would be acutely aware of how many shops are closing in their high streets, and how difficult it is for everyone during these hard economic times. Instead they defend increases by saying ‘our charges are favourable compared to other towns in the area’. They justify increases by saying ’50p isn’t much.’ They seem to be completely divorced from reality. Perhaps they should trade places for a week with a small independent trader. Perhaps that’s the dose of reality they need.

Cheltenham Council’s bizarre costly case continues

Dec 7th, 2011
by Tim Newark.
Comments are off for this post

The bizarre case of Christine Laird, former managing director of Cheltenham Borough Council (CBC) continues to drain money from the taxpayer. The media consensus is broadly sympathetic to her claim for damages suffered as a result of a bullying environment at CBC during the years of her employment, and yet, her statements in court betrayed a strange attitude to public sector employment.

Mrs Laird was appointed to the post at CBC in 2002 but left in 2005 after accepting early retirement on the grounds of ill health—severe depression—that involved a council payment of £450,000. The council accused of her acting fraudulently by withholding details of her past depressive illness and said this resulted in a substantial financial loss. In 2009, the council sued her for £1 million—that is, taxpayers’ money.

In her defence, she claimed that the recruitment pack she was sent did not truthfully represent the organisation she would work for. ‘The statement that the council,’ she told the court, ‘embraced the values of being honest, truthful, wanting to work together in partnership with other organisations and providing quality service at the right price was absolute bunkum.’ Well, I would have to agree with her on that, but could that not be said of almost every council? And the level of naivety shown by her seems amazing in someone recruited to such a high council post. But it does not end there.

She went on to tell the court that she believed CBC was ‘at the least negligent and at worst deceived me into accepting a job that, had I been aware of all the facts, I would have immediately turned down, or at best reserved judgment about.’ So, she claims she was deceived into accepting a very highly paid job that she would not have taken had she known how councils really behave. Well, that does rather open the floodgates, doesn’t it? Couldn’t most disgruntled public sector workers say that?

Mrs Laird claims that her bouts of depression were sparked by family bereavements, her personal financial situation and a lack of certainty in employment. Otherwise, she believed herself to be in good health. But there appears to have been no point when she thought that maybe it would have been best for her, the council and the taxpayer if she just quietly resigned her position.

In fact, according to an external auditor’s report, the atmosphere of conflict between Laird and the council appears to have arisen out of a change in political administration following a local election a few months after she took the job.

In 2009, the council lost its £1 million case and was ordered by the High Court to pay her £250,000 in damages. In total, however, spiralling legal fees meant that the case actually cost £2.1 million in taxpayers’ money and the council sent letters to local residents apologising for its failed legal action. In 2010, an industrial tribunal declared that her treatment by the council was ‘calculated to cause personal distress’.

Now, Mrs Laird claims that £75,000 of public money is still owed to her and, apparently, Eric Pickles agrees. ‘The secretary of state has said I am entitled to an injury allowance in law,’ she told the BBC this week, ‘a tribunal has ruled I was injured at work because my illness is an industrial injury and yet the medical advice to make me an award has been ignored by the council.’ Bouts of depression—personality clashes with councillors—an industrial injury, eh? It is an interesting definition that is exciting a lot of lawyers.

‘I’d been a chief officer since I was 32, and working in local government at senior level is no picnic, so I was used to the rough and tumble of political life,’ she says. ‘What I wasn’t used to was being personally attacked and undermined. It got to the point where I would wake up in the morning and feel physically sick at the thought of having to go to work.’

Bullying in the workplace is never acceptable, but this case is not just about bullying, it is about someone with an apparently fragile mental capacity taking on a demanding job with all the cut-and-thrust of party politics thrown in. Certainly, she now admits that throughout the costly saga ‘I can’t think of anything worse than someone with a severe mental illness [having] to be dragged though the courts system.’ And yet she has shown the mental strength to carry on her long battle against the council.

An external auditor’s report on the case concluded that that there were ‘flaws in the decision-making process whereby decisions were made with an over-emphasis on legal matters.’ That is, councils should not be too eager to call in lawyers at the taxpayers’ expense. But, it also concluded that ‘It is not unreasonable for a council to go to court to seek recovery of a substantial financial loss. The Council had incurred significant costs as a result of the employment dispute with Mrs Laird and it was appropriate to consider options for recovering losses.’ What is clear is that there was a succession of poor decision making and management at the council during this dispute and that the subsequent legal fees was allowed to spiral out of control with little regard for the cost to the taxpayer.

Certainly, locals commenting on the case have been far from charitable towards Mrs Laird. ‘This woman caused hell at the council,’ says one anonymous Cheltenham resident, ‘why should the ratepayer fork out for her malicious actions?’

Cheltenham Council’s bizarre costly case continues

Dec 7th, 2011
by Tim Newark.
Comments are off for this post

The bizarre case of Christine Laird, former managing director of Cheltenham Borough Council (CBC) continues to drain money from the taxpayer. The media consensus is broadly sympathetic to her claim for damages suffered as a result of a bullying environment at CBC during the years of her employment, and yet, her statements in court betrayed a strange attitude to public sector employment.

Mrs Laird was appointed to the post at CBC in 2002 but left in 2005 after accepting early retirement on the grounds of ill health—severe depression—that involved a council payment of £450,000. The council accused of her acting fraudulently by withholding details of her past depressive illness and said this resulted in a substantial financial loss. In 2009, the council sued her for £1 million—that is, taxpayers’ money.

In her defence, she claimed that the recruitment pack she was sent did not truthfully represent the organisation she would work for. ‘The statement that the council,’ she told the court, ‘embraced the values of being honest, truthful, wanting to work together in partnership with other organisations and providing quality service at the right price was absolute bunkum.’ Well, I would have to agree with her on that, but could that not be said of almost every council? And the level of naivety shown by her seems amazing in someone recruited to such a high council post. But it does not end there.

She went on to tell the court that she believed CBC was ‘at the least negligent and at worst deceived me into accepting a job that, had I been aware of all the facts, I would have immediately turned down, or at best reserved judgment about.’ So, she claims she was deceived into accepting a very highly paid job that she would not have taken had she known how councils really behave. Well, that does rather open the floodgates, doesn’t it? Couldn’t most disgruntled public sector workers say that?

Mrs Laird claims that her bouts of depression were sparked by family bereavements, her personal financial situation and a lack of certainty in employment. Otherwise, she believed herself to be in good health. But there appears to have been no point when she thought that maybe it would have been best for her, the council and the taxpayer if she just quietly resigned her position.

In fact, according to an external auditor’s report, the atmosphere of conflict between Laird and the council appears to have arisen out of a change in political administration following a local election a few months after she took the job.

In 2009, the council lost its £1 million case and was ordered by the High Court to pay her £250,000 in damages. In total, however, spiralling legal fees meant that the case actually cost £2.1 million in taxpayers’ money and the council sent letters to local residents apologising for its failed legal action. In 2010, an industrial tribunal declared that her treatment by the council was ‘calculated to cause personal distress’.

Now, Mrs Laird claims that £75,000 of public money is still owed to her and, apparently, Eric Pickles agrees. ‘The secretary of state has said I am entitled to an injury allowance in law,’ she told the BBC this week, ‘a tribunal has ruled I was injured at work because my illness is an industrial injury and yet the medical advice to make me an award has been ignored by the council.’ Bouts of depression—personality clashes with councillors—an industrial injury, eh? It is an interesting definition that is exciting a lot of lawyers.

‘I’d been a chief officer since I was 32, and working in local government at senior level is no picnic, so I was used to the rough and tumble of political life,’ she says. ‘What I wasn’t used to was being personally attacked and undermined. It got to the point where I would wake up in the morning and feel physically sick at the thought of having to go to work.’

Bullying in the workplace is never acceptable, but this case is not just about bullying, it is about someone with an apparently fragile mental capacity taking on a demanding job with all the cut-and-thrust of party politics thrown in. Certainly, she now admits that throughout the costly saga ‘I can’t think of anything worse than someone with a severe mental illness [having] to be dragged though the courts system.’ And yet she has shown the mental strength to carry on her long battle against the council.

An external auditor’s report on the case concluded that that there were ‘flaws in the decision-making process whereby decisions were made with an over-emphasis on legal matters.’ That is, councils should not be too eager to call in lawyers at the taxpayers’ expense. But, it also concluded that ‘It is not unreasonable for a council to go to court to seek recovery of a substantial financial loss. The Council had incurred significant costs as a result of the employment dispute with Mrs Laird and it was appropriate to consider options for recovering losses.’ What is clear is that there was a succession of poor decision making and management at the council during this dispute and that the subsequent legal fees was allowed to spiral out of control with little regard for the cost to the taxpayer.

Certainly, locals commenting on the case have been far from charitable towards Mrs Laird. ‘This woman caused hell at the council,’ says one anonymous Cheltenham resident, ‘why should the ratepayer fork out for her malicious actions?’

Wiltshire Council Parking Fiasco

Dec 1st, 2011
by Tim Newark.
Comments are off for this post

In the vital shopping days leading up to Christmas, Wiltshire Council continues to hinder hard-pressed traders with their farcical parking charges policy, ignoring both popular protest and a ‘Show Some Sense’ local newspaper campaign. The latest twist in this sorry saga sees Wiltshire Council proffering a miserly 10p cut in parking charges in Trowbridge, Chippenham and Salisbury—after having increased charges by 300 per cent in some of their car parks!

Council leader Jane Scott was forced to introduce this 10p cut following a sharp shortfall in business for local traders, but the revised charges won’t formally come into effect until December 19th, leaving just six shopping days before Christmas. Nice timing!

Local residents have been unimpressed. ‘As if 10p will tempt anyone to pay for parking in any of these towns,’ said one. ‘It is pitiful to watch perfectly reasonable town centres having the life sucked out of them by supermarkets and out-of-town mega-stores with their free parking, whilst the local governments and planning agencies actually encourage the process with bizarre and unimaginative policies.’

In the meantime, traders and residents in Devizes are furious that Wiltshire Council is not introducing cuts to their parking charges. ‘Charges should be reduced in Devizes,’ says their Mayor, ‘because they are stopping people from coming into our town. I really can’t understand why Melksham has kept its two-hour free parking and Wiltshire Council hasn’t changed the parking in Devizes Market Place. We are very similar towns.’

Wiltshire Council cut the free parking in Devizes Market Place to just half-an-hour, hardly time to fill a shopping basket. ‘The feedback we have had is that retailers in the town are suffering as a result of increased parking charges,’ says the chairman of Devizes’ Chamber of Commerce, ‘in spite of Wiltshire Council putting it down to the general economic situation.’

Tim Newark, Bath & South-West TaxPayers’ Alliance

Bath councillors exposed

Nov 23rd, 2011
by Tim Newark.
Comments are off for this post

Finally, a response, on appeal, to my Freedom of Information request about Bath & North East Somerset (B&NES) councillors not paying their council tax. Shockingly, it has revealed that one Bath councillor has had to have legal action taken against him or her to recover the outstanding council tax. Who this is has not been disclosed.

Initially my FoI request was turned down by B&NES council, but I appealed and the Head of Audit, Risk and Information stated that the original refusal by the council ‘was applied incorrectly and the requested information should be provided to you.’ The information he passed on reveals that over the last two years a total of eight B&NES councillors have been sent reminder letters for late payment of their council tax—an amount totalling £3,429.55. Three of these councillors then had to be sent a second reminder letter—at taxpayers’ expense—for a total of £491. One of these then had to have legal action taken against them to recover the outstanding tax.

Bath TPA supporters protest outside B&NES Guildhall, with Tim Newark (centre) displaying his Freedom of Information request

We are all human and we all make mistakes, but councillors are elected by us to represent us and we are entitled to expect them to act with due responsibility when it comes to paying their council tax—the money that funds our local government. They should display leadership and lead by example—not delay or avoid paying their council tax. Can they not set up a direct debit payment?

Such information is only being revealed by FoI requests and yet elsewhere in the South-West there are signs that councils are trying to close down these avenues of legitimate enquiry. North Devon Council is introducing charges for material printed as part of FoI requests, as well as charging £25 per hour for public access to environmental information.

North Devon councillors say they are levying the charges to curb excessive requests made under the information laws, but their decision comes a month after the North Devon Journal used FoI requests to reveal that some of these councillors had made late payments of council tax. ‘They are obviously smarting from this exposure,’ says Bideford TPA supporter Graham Jones, ‘particularly as they were also claiming allowances at the same time.’

Tim Newark, Bath & South-West TaxPayers’ Alliance

Oslo Trip

Nov 22nd, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

Fact finding missions have long been the butt of many jokes. You name the subject, and it seems an elected or unelected official has been forced into arduous foreign travel to get that final piece of information to complete the jigsaw. In our report earlier this month, we highlighted the foreign jaunts council taxpayers in the Midlands have had to pay for, and now another one has come across my radar.

The recycling rate in Hull is currently at 50%. This is above the target 45%, and residents of the city are regularly told to ‘Recycle for Hull.’ Not content with this, some councillors recently went on a fact-finding mission to Oslo to see how Norwegians dispose of their rubbish. They have already visited Rotherham, Sheffield and Swindon to see how its done there.

This had angered Cllr John Fareham, the leader of the Conservative Group, as the councillors who travelled to Norway are a sub-committee of the environment scrutiny commission. This means they can only recommend. They cannot make decisions.

The cost of the trip was under £1000, but to defend it as cheap (as a councillor has done) is missing the point.

A group of councillors and officials drove to Stansted Airport, stayed overnight, then flew to and from Oslo in the same day, and then drove back to Hull. The people who can make decisions about this were not present. It has to be asked what did they find out that they couldn’t find out by research on the Internet, and a conference call on Skype?

If councillors spent our money in the same way they would spend their own, trips like this would not happen. All it achieves is two things. It makes councillors the butt of jokes, and gives the impression they have their snouts in the trough. I know that’s not true of the majority of councillors. If they don’t want to give the public that impression, they know what to do next time.

Leicester Mayor set for large pay rise

Nov 18th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

According to a report in the Leicester Mercury this week, the elected Mayor of Leicester is in line for a 78% pay rise. Sir Peter Soulsby (who stood down as MP for Leicester South to run for the job this May) currently receives a salary of £56K a year.

The Independent Remuneration Panel (IRP) has recommended his salary rise to £100K. His deputy is also in line for a large rise, as are the city’s forty seven councillors. It has recommended some savings too, such as scrapping vice-chairs of committees and the extra cash they receive. 

All of this is happening at a time when the council is looking to make savings of £100 million in the next four years. Sir Peter said, ”It’s right that an independent panel reviews pay, rather than myself and councillors.” He also went on to say, “It’s important to remember we now also save £250,000 a year due to no longer having a chief executive.”

I can’t disagree with anything he’s said. Scrapping the chief executive’s role has proved the council can operate without one. This still isn’t a justification for whopping pay rises for him, his deputy and councillors. It sends the wrong message to those 1000 council staff who have either been made redundant or are facing redundancy.

Town Hall Square, Leicester Councillors will vote on these pay rises next week. Hopefully, they will vote against them, and send the right message to Leicester taxpayers. If you live in Leicester, contact your councillor and tell them what you think. It is hard to justify these increases at the best of times. We are not living in the best of times. We are facing the most difficult economic challenges we’ve seen for decades. Leicester taxpayers cannot afford these increases, and for councillors to accept them would be a kick in the teeth for them, and for other council employees.

West Country MPs against rise in petrol duty

Nov 17th, 2011
by Tim Newark.
Comments are off for this post

West Country MPs are up in arms over any proposed rise in petrol duty. Speaking out in the House of Commons debate this week, Bridgwater & West Somerset MP Ian Liddell-Grainger said he would rebel against the government if they put up petrol prices by 3p in January. The debate came only days after we revealed the excessive motoring taxes that motorists are facing across the UK.

‘It is a no-brainer, there is no way the Chancellor can put it up – it is hard enough in rural areas without another 3p on a litre,’ the Somerset MP told the Western Daily Press. ‘As it is, petrol prices are too high and we need to find a way to get them down.’

‘We have a large number of haulage firms who are very concerned about the price of diesel,’ said Stroud MP Neil Carmichael in the Commons debate. ‘They are in turn passing it on to small and medium-sized firms and it is causing difficulties for them.’

Claire Perry MP drew attention to the lack of competition among filling stations in her Devizes constituency. Other MPs in the South-West demanding action against fuel taxes are Robert Buckland (North Swindon), Justin Tomlinson (South Swindon), James Gray (North Wiltshire), John Glen (Salisbury), and Tessa Munt (Wells).

It’s up to the Treasury now if they listen to the growing chorus of voices calling for a scrapping of the rise in fuel duty.

Tim Newark, Bath & South-West TaxPayers’ Alliance

A sad day for democracy in East Yorkshire

Nov 10th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

Council standards committees were set-up as a way of disciplining councillors who have brought their office into disrepute. They were designed as a way of investigating sleaze. What happened at a meeting of the Standards Committee in the East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC) yesterday proved once again that they are increasingly being used as a way of stifling debate, and forcing councillors to toe the line.

Conservative councillor Paul Robinson was censured not for something he said, but for two comments he allowed to be posted on his blog. One of the comments described Mike Whitley –  a political rival of Cllr Robinson – as an “absolute idiot” and another one said that in Mark Twain’s day, troublemakers were stripped, tarred and feathered before being ridden out of town. The person who made the comment then said that was not something he was advocating. A little tongue in cheek perhaps, but nothing that can be described as defamatory. Mr Whitley took exception to those comments, and reported Cllr Robinson to ERYC.

The case should have been thrown out immediately. It was clearly vexatious, but instead ERYC – which has form when it comes to wasting our money – took this case all the way to a standards committee hearing. The cost of this is unknown, although I will be sending a freedom of information request to find out. The punishment meted out was merely a wrap on the knuckles, and under the circumstances even that was a nonsense.

This case is very worrying on many levels. We elect councillors to speak their mind. If we don’t like what they say, we always have the opportunity to kick them out next time they stand for election. Councillors who do blog about their work and local issues are opening up channels of communication and debate, which is the hallmark of a free society. We may not like what other people write about us, but it is their right to do that. If I took exception at everything that is said about me, there wouldn’t be enough hours in the day for me to get on with my job.

Cllr Robinson was not accused of saying anything defamatory himself, which is why this charade is breathtaking in its nonsense. It eats at the heart of our democracy. It turns councillors into automatons, fearing if they say anything or allow people to leave comments on their blog, they will be hauled before the standards committee. It closes down channels of communication, and makes councillors less accessible. It makes them less likely to speak out, and stand up for what they believe in.

In a press release sent to me yesterday, Cllr Robinson ended by saying:

If ever there was an example of why the Government is right to abolish this expensive and misused system, this is it. Absolutely nothing has been achieved and no difference has been made apart from the taxpayers get the bill for someone to pursue a personal, vexatious political agenda. 

He is correct. Taxpayers are being forced to pick up the tab for another nail being hammered into the coffin of democracy.

 

False Economies

Nov 10th, 2011
by Tim Newark.
Comments are off for this post

The determination of local councils to cut libraries, street lighting, rubbish removal, and public toilets—the quality of our civilisation and what we pay our taxes for—rather than tackle their own waste on bureaucracy is breathtaking. Two stories in the South-West illustrate how they can get it so wrong.

Cornwall Council’s economy and environment committee recommended they cut funding to 114 of its public toilets in order to save £1.1million, but as soon as news of this got it out, it caused outrage from local taxpayers. The council has now agreed to reconsider the proposal, but a local councillor is wary. ‘This, at face value, is great news,’ he said. ‘The problem is: what does further consultation mean? Will it be along the line of the “take them over or they close” to the parish and town councils? If any local council does agree to take them over, will there be the right financial package in place?’ So, a case of appearing to make cuts, but just sifting the burden on to another branch of local government.

In the meantime, Swindon Borough Council has switched off 140 streetlights to save £20,000 a year. A highly questionable way of saving taxpayers’ money, as the TPA has already demonstrated. That would be bad enough, except that elsewhere in the borough 140 lights are being left on for a road going nowhere. Streets lights costing more than £300 a month are blazing away along a stretch of newly constructed road not yet open to the public.

‘The council should not be leaving street lights on for no reason, wasting hundreds of pounds each month,’ says an opposition councillor. ‘What is even more galling about this is that there are people in Swindon who are having their street lights switched off in order for the council to make savings, so it seems ridiculous that these street lights are being left on.’ Indeed, 433 lights turned off over the summer have had to be turned back on because of concerns over public safety!

Tim Newark, Bath & South-West TaxPayers’ Alliance

Bath Action Day

Nov 7th, 2011
by Tim Newark.
Comments are off for this post

On Saturday, November 5th, Bath TPA supporters gathered to put a rocket under the position of B&NES’ Chief Executive. At a busy Farmers’ Market at Green Park Station, they collected a number of signatures calling for the next Bath council boss to take a pay cut of £50,000 from the current sum of £210,000 (including pension benefits) to £160,000.

Bath TPA supporters (left to right), Matt Showering, Ben Lodge and Tim Newark show the signatures for their petition collected at Bath’s Farmers’ Market.

Many locals, fed up with high wages being spent on senior council officials rather than frontline services, called for an even bigger pay cut.

Ben Lodge collects signature from Bath stallholder.

This demand has had broad support from across the political spectrum in Bath, including a recent letter in the Bath Chronicle from the local Green Party calling for the same council wage cut.

Matt Showering collects signature from Bath stallholder.

It was sparked by the incoming Chief Executive of Islington Borough Council, Lesley Seary, volunteering a pay cut of £50,000 to bring her wage down to £160,000. ‘We are committed to tackling inequality in all its forms,’ she said, ‘and putting money back in the pockets of our residents.’ If it’s good enough for her, why not the next Chief Executive in Bath?

Tim Newark, Bath & South-West grassroots coordinator, collects signature from Bath stallholder.

Vicky Newark collects signature from Bath stallholder.

Tim Newark, Bath & South-West TaxPayers’ Alliance

Hull Action Day

Nov 3rd, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

Last Wednesday I wrote about our new campaign to end KCOM’s monopoly in Hull. Last Saturday a group of us were out on the streets of Hull collecting signatures for our petition (you can sign the online petition here).

We got a great response. There is no doubt that almost everyone in the city wants a choice in who supplies their telephone and broadband services. This was the message coming back to us over again. We also know people feel they are paying too much, and suffer from poor download speeds.

One member of the public also told us how the company she works for recently lost business as they were unable to accept chip and pin payments because of a fault on the line. She said it took two weeks to repair the fault.

Dominique Lazanski and I met with KCOM on Monday and presented our case to them. It was a productive meeting, although as you will no doubt appreciate, there were some differences of opinion. To give you an example, they were unaware of the problems of broadband speeds during a recent electrical storm, although they did say they would investigate this issue.

When you add up the costs of broadband, and the problems many of us experience, this can easily add as a disincentive for those who are thinking of relocating their businesses in the city, or for those who want to start a new business. When broadband goes down in this way, it causes serious disruption for not only members of the public, but also for businesses.

Taxpayers in Hull not only want, but need to benefit from competition. It is vital for any local economy. We will be doing everything we can to achieve this goal.

UPDATE:

I have been contacted by KCOM, and have been informed that according to their records the business I wrote about was suffering from a fault in their hardware, and it was not a fault with the line. They have also informed me that unless there was a lightning strike on an exchange or on the underground or overhead copper cabling to your home, an electrical storm shouldn’t affect your broadband, however I have still not received an explanation as to why there was a problem with the broadband service on Tuesday 25 October which did occur during an electrical storm.

 

Photographs courtesy of Carl Minns

Getting our money back from Icelandic banks

Nov 2nd, 2011
by Tim Newark.
Comments are off for this post

Good news potentially for council taxpayers as they look set to get back, finally, their money invested in Icelandic banks that collapsed in 2008. Last Friday’s decision by Iceland’s Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by Glitnir bank’s winding up board against an earlier judgement by the Icelandic District Court in favour of UK depositors.  It now leaves the way clear for councils throughout the South-West and elsewhere to reclaim their money.

‘It’s very good news,’ says Cotswold District Council’s leader, hoping to now recover their £2 million. ‘It will help keep council tax down and help us to protect front line services. Many local authorities had funds with Icelandic banks.’

To keep legal fees down, local authorities have been using one firm of lawyers and estimated that the total legal cost will be below one per cent of the outstanding amount. Gloucester County Council also hope to regain taxpayers’ money from the decision. ‘This will mean the council will be able to recover approximately £10 million, which will be used to pay off some of the council’s debt,’ says their Strategic Finance Director.

The decision includes money deposited in Landsbanki, which was recently looking to sell off some of its assets, including a majority shareholding in frozen food store Iceland. Other South-West councils who hope to regain some of their—I mean, our money—include Somerset County Council that had £25m in Icelandic banks, Plymouth City Council with £13m in deposits in Heritable, Glitnir and Landsbanki, Bristol City Council with £8m invested in Landsbanki, Wiltshire County Council with £8m in Heritable, North Somerset Council with £3m at Landsbanki, and Cornwall County Council with £5m also invested in Landsbanki.

At the time it was claimed that local authorities had not been reckless with taxpayers’ money by chasing higher interest rates advertised in Icelandic banks and depositing over £840m. Many of their highly paid finance directors said that no one could have foreseen the catastrophe coming their way. But that is not true. I recall reading articles in the Sunday Times financial pages earlier in 2008 expressing doubts about the stability of Icelandic banks. So much so that I warned my cousin who had his life-savings in one Icelandic account. He withdrew his money in the nick of time. If I could see it, how come all those other council hired experts didn’t? Surely, that’s what they’re paid for?

Tim Newark, Bath & South-West TaxPayers’ Alliance

North & North East Lincolnshire Councils save £1.3 million

Nov 1st, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire Councils have announced a deal to share housing and council tax administration. It is expected this will save taxpayers around £1.3 million.

This is a very welcome move, and it again proves what we have been saying that when councils share back-office functions, significant savings can be made. If is also worth noting that each council will maintain its own records, and only designated employees will be able to access information from both councils, so data protection laws are adhered to. 

The £1.3 million savings are possible because 21.4 full-time equivalent posts will no longer be needed, and those staff will be offered redeployment elsewhere. Overall in time this will bring down staff numbers, and importantly, will avoid redundancy payments as staff leave of their own accord, or retire.

I have spoken to many people over the last few months who worry that sharing services means the end to their council. They fear that it will mean the creation of super-councils who will not understand and appreciate local concerns. I hope this news will allay some of their fears. Deals like this one help protect those important, local, front-line services that many in our communities rely on.

What this deal also proves is it is possible for opposing political parties to work together. North Lincolnshire is controlled by the Conservatives, and North East Lincolnshire is controlled by Labour, where it is the largest single party. By putting political differences to one side, these councils have proved taxpayers can get a better deal for their money.

Do we need as many MLAs?

Oct 28th, 2011
by Rosie Greer.
Comments are off for this post

In an article earlier this year, Lee Canning wrote how in Strabane there were only 1664 electors per councillor. It appears that it’s not just in councils in Northern Ireland where there are a small number of voters per elected representative. The Northern Ireland Assembly is exactly the same.

Let me start by giving you some facts and figures about the other devolved nations – Scotland and Wales.

There are 3,985,161 people eligible to vote for MSPs in the Scottish Parliament. With a total of 129 members, this works out at an average of 30,893 voters per member. In Wales, the electorate for AMs in the Welsh Assembly is 2,302,300. With a total of 60 members, this works out at an average of 38,372 voters per member.

In Northern Ireland, there are 1,223,139 on the electoral register, and with 108 MLAs, this works out at an average of 11,325 voters per member.

Although they are paid less than their Scottish and Welsh counterparts (£43,101, as opposed to £57,521 and £53,852 respectively) you do have to ask the question why Northern Ireland needs so many MLAs. Their constituencies are small, so they won’t deal with as much casework as MSPs and AMs. There doesn’t appear to be a record of attendance available, so we don’t even know the amount of work they do for their salaries. So would it be beneficial to cut the numbers?

I ask this question not just as a cost saving measure, which it undoubtedly is, but because anyone who has served on large committees knows that the more people trying to speak, the harder it is to do business. During the EU Referendum debate in the House of Commons on Monday, there were many MPs who did not get a chance to air their views. This was despite MPs being restricted to speeches of 5 minutes – which went down to 4 minutes – during the course of the debate.

If you halved the number of MLAs, they would still have fewer constituents than their Scottish and Welsh counterparts. As the number of MPs will be reduced to 600 after the next general election, it is also time to think about reducing the number of MLAs?

Do we need as many MLAs?

Oct 28th, 2011
by Rosie Greer.
Comments are off for this post

In an article earlier this year, Lee Canning wrote how in Strabane there were only 1664 electors per councillor. It appears that it’s not just in councils in Northern Ireland where there are a small number of voters per elected representative. The Northern Ireland Assembly is exactly the same.

Let me start by giving you some facts and figures about the other devolved nations – Scotland and Wales.

There are 3,985,161 people eligible to vote for MSPs in the Scottish Parliament. With a total of 129 members, this works out at an average of 30,893 voters per member. In Wales, the electorate for AMs in the Welsh Assembly is 2,302,300. With a total of 60 members, this works out at an average of 38,372 voters per member.

In Northern Ireland, there are 1,223,139 on the electoral register, and with 108 MLAs, this works out at an average of 11,325 voters per member.

Although they are paid less than their Scottish and Welsh counterparts (£43,101, as opposed to £57,521 and £53,852 respectively) you do have to ask the question why Northern Ireland needs so many MLAs. Their constituencies are small, so they won’t deal with as much casework as MSPs and AMs. There doesn’t appear to be a record of attendance available, so we don’t even know the amount of work they do for their salaries. So would it be beneficial to cut the numbers?

I ask this question not just as a cost saving measure, which it undoubtedly is, but because anyone who has served on large committees knows that the more people trying to speak, the harder it is to do business. During the EU Referendum debate in the House of Commons on Monday, there were many MPs who did not get a chance to air their views. This was despite MPs being restricted to speeches of 5 minutes – which went down to 4 minutes – during the course of the debate.

If you halved the number of MLAs, they would still have fewer constituents than their Scottish and Welsh counterparts. As the number of MPs will be reduced to 600 after the next general election, it is also time to think about reducing the number of MLAs?

Bristol’s clever thinking

Oct 27th, 2011
by Tim Newark.
Comments are off for this post

Clever thinking at Bristol City Council as they propose replacing two costly night bus services with a shared-taxi scheme. Instead of catching night buses to Avonmouth and Henbury after midnight, Bristol residents will be able to share a taxi ride from the same bus stop for a flat £4 fare. This will serve the dual purpose of cutting £50,000 in bus subsidies and providing a much-needed boost to the city’s hard-pressed taxi drivers.

‘This will be something good that we can do for the taxi trade in Bristol,’ said a Bristol councillor. ‘It should save the taxpayers a bit of money and actually provide a better service to the public as well—if it works this will be a good all round win.’ The six-month trial measure has been welcomed by Bristol’s taxi drivers and goes before the council’s cabinet for approval tonight.

In contrast, in Somerset, Taunton Deane Borough Council seem to have been undone by their own environmental projects to cut the amount of cars entering Taunton’s town centre. Thanks to spending million of taxpayers’ money on a second park-and-ride scheme to the east of the town, parking fee revenues have dramatically fallen by £600,000. It hasn’t helped either that they have also spent more money turning the Castle Green car park into a public square and green space.

Having spent all this taxpayers money discouraging cars, the council now wants to make up this shortfall in revenue by charging Taunton’s taxpayers even more to park on their own streets by increasing the cost of short-term parking—just the sort parking that is aimed at shoppers—and introducing Sunday parking fees. Local traders are up in arms about this further blow to their businesses. It seems that some car-hating councillors just can’t do without the money drivers bring in…

End KCOM’s monopoly in Hull

Oct 26th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

If you live in Hull and some of the surrounding areas (the 01482 dialling code) instead of having a BT telephone line, your services are provided by KC – part of the KCOM group. When municipal telephone exchanges were brought into the national network, Hull was the exception, and it remains the exception to this day.

Taxpayers in Hull are forced to use KC every time they want to make a call from their landline, or access reliable broadband from a fixed line. If other companies call you and offer you a cheaper service, as soon as you say you’re from Hull, they apologise for disturbing you, and put the phone down.

This monopoly has been allowed to continue, with telecoms regulator OFCOM ruling as recently as 2008 that the people of Hull are getting a fair deal. The truth is: they are not.

In July this year, my colleague Dominique Lazanski wrote how OFCOM had ruled where BT has a monopoly (generally in rural areas) it must reduce its wholesale prices to other Internet Service Providers (ISPs) by 12% below the rate of inflation. Today we are launching a campaign calling on OFCOM to rule in the same way regarding KC. Taxpayers in Hull are paying over the odds for telephone and broadband bundles compared to what other companies charge. I personally pay £40 a month for unlimited telephone calls, and 150 gb of broadband per month. Other companies who operate outside of the Hull area offer similar deals for around 25-30% less.

In the 2008 report, OFCOM correctly stated that other ISPs were not being prevented from entering the market in Hull, but because the population was relatively small, it was not in their commercial interests to do so. The report also stated that the wholesale charges KC were offering were similar to BT. Since its ruling in July though, the same arguments do not apply. Reducing wholesale prices by 12% below the rate of inflation would make the Hull market more attractive, and thus open it up for competition.

We believe taxpayers in Hull deserve a better deal, and have set-up a petition for you to sign. If you live in the Hull area, you can meet-up with us on Saturday from 11.30 am in Queen Victoria Square in the city centre where we will be collecting signatures for the petition. If you have some time to spare, please contact me if you can help us.

Competition will help the economy of Hull by driving up service quality and lowering bills for everyone, leaving taxpayers with more money to spend as they wish. This is good news for everyone, especially businesses who are already struggling during these hard economic times.

Blame the cuts, say two of Hull’s MPs

Oct 25th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

A report in the Yorkshire Post says Humberside Police has recorded one if the worst crime rates in the country. Between June and August this year the force ranked in the bottom three for violent assaults causing injury and incidents of criminal damage, and is among the worst 10 for serious acquisitive crime and domestic burglaries.

Not good news for those of us who live in Hull, East Yorkshire, North and North East Lincolnshire. There may be many factors that explain this, and Humberside Police have promised to give those explanations, but the story has provided some politicians a platform to blame government cuts.

Karl Turner, MP for Hull East has this to say:

“These figures are worrying but not surprising. I have regular contact with Tim Hollis and I believe he is doing the best job he can with drastically reduced budgets. It is disingenuous of the Government to state that the quality of policing will be not affected when savage cuts to police officer levels are taking place. It is simply not possible. I am deeply concerned that as the cuts take further hold crime will continue to increase in Humberside and the public will ultimately end up paying the price.”

Diana Johnson, the MP for Hull North and Shadow Home Office Minister, also waded into the debate, once again blaming government cuts

I have a lot of time for Karl, but he knows he is being disingenuous. The budget has been reduced, but that has not had a massive impact on police numbers in June, July, and August this year. Figures given to me by Humberside Police state that from 1 April – 31 August, 27 police officers have left the force due to funded reductions. It is also worth noting that not all of them were front-line officers. A reduction of around 1% can hardly be described as savage.

The country is suffering from a debt crisis. People are losing their jobs and their homes. This doesn’t mean we are more likely to go out and commit a violent assault, or cause criminal damage.

Those politicians who are eager to blame the cuts should read what Mark Littlewood, Director General of the Institute for Economic Affairs, has to say in his Daily Mail blog. In it, Mark says:

“The government plans to reduce state expenditure by about 3% before the next election. In real terms, for every pound being spent by government by Gordon Brown when he left office, David Cameron intends to spend about 97p by May 2015. He may not even succeed in this modest objective.”

If every time some statistics are quoted, politicians are going to jump on the bandwagon of blaming the cuts, we will never have a serious debate about the problems facing this country.

Turn that light out!

Oct 24th, 2011
by Andrew Allison.
Comments are off for this post

It’s around 10 o’clock in the evening, and it’s been a long day, so you decide to go for a couple of beers at your local pub to unwind. You get chatting to some friends, and you leave at midnight. Because you are a responsible citizen, you left your car at home, and made the 15 minute journey there and back on foot.

Sound familiar? I’m sure many of us have done this before. The only problem if you live in Derbyshire is next year the council may have decided to switch off the street lighting, so you may need a torch to find your way back.

(but not after midnight!)

This is the latest wheeze from Derbyshire County Council to save money, although when you read comments from Cllr Simon Spencer, cabinet member for highways and transport, it seems he is more interested in reducing carbon emissions than protecting the safety and security of council taxpayers.

According to a report in the Yorkshire Post, Derbyshire County Council is responsible for 89,000 street lights, but the council has drawn up proposals to turn off 40,000 of them between midnight and 5.30 am, and around 900 permanently. Senior councillors have stated this will save 2,000 tonnes of carbon every year – the equivalent of taking 625 cars of the road. With costs of motoring rising, and drivers collectively being overtaxed by £17.9 billion a year, I imagine those 625 cars will come off the road anyway, as people struggle to pay their bills.

It is estimated switching the lights off will save £200K a year. If the council would like any suggestions on how to save that amount, it can look at our Town Hall Rich List, or its own accounts. In 2009/10, there were 103 council officers earning in excess of £50K a year. This figure rose in 2010/11, to 126, despite a pay freeze. Rather than looking inside its organisation, and reducing the tiers of management, it instead looks at ways that will impact on front-line services – and street lighting is surely one of the most basic front-line services there is.

If you want to have your say on this matter, you can do so by contacting the council. You have until 6 December.

Cirencester’s naked revenue raiser

Oct 21st, 2011
by Tim Newark.
Comments are off for this post

For a long time, we were all fed the line that council parking charges were not merely another tax on residents but were ring-fenced for the purpose of improving the local transport system. Now Cotswold District Council (CDC) has done away with this pretence and is keen to introduce Sunday and overnight parking fees in all its car parks. It seemed a ‘fair way’ to raise local income, said one councillor, and ‘could net the council as much as £50,000 per year’.

Local business representatives were not so keen and put up a fight against the proposal, with the result that it was scrapped in all Cotswold car parks except one. ‘In the light of the economic projections,’ said a district councillor, ‘we feel that now is not the time to extend or increase parking charges.’ It is the last thing that hard-pressed town centre shops and businesses need.

Good news, apart from the one exception—the Brewery Car Park in Cirencester. This was thought to be a potential money-spinner and CDC still wanted to introduce the off-peak charges there. Cirencester Town Council, however, was not so enthusiastic and threatened taking legal action against the decision. ‘I hope we will be able to move forward in a positive way,’ said a town councillor diplomatically, ‘to achieve a car parking policy which will support the vitality and viability of Cirencester.’

Cirencester mobilised people power to fight the off-peak parking charges and local campaigners raised a petition signed by nearly 3,000 residents and 450 businesses against CDC’s parking plan—dubbed ‘a naked revenue raiser’ by one protestor—but their efforts fell on deaf ears at a packed district council meeting earlier this week when the cabinet rejected their concerns. ‘We accept the concerns of members of the public and stakeholders both in Cirencester and surrounding areas,’ said the Cabinet Member for Environmental Services—and then proceeded to ignore them.

Overnight and Sunday charges will be imposed, whether the citizens of Cirencester like it or not. Still, there is one practical consideration that could undermine all this. ‘If we’re going to enforce in one car park with free ones nearby,’ noted one councillor, ‘who is going to pay?’ Doh!

← Earlier Posts

Switch to our mobile site