People power in N12

When Barnet Council make an experimental traffic order, which can last for up to 18 months, they don't have to consult as an affected party can make representations at any time in the first 6 months.

However, it is a little arrogant, if not slightly stupid, to increase the restricted hours for residents 

from Monday to Saturday 9am to 5pm 

to a daily 9am to 9.30pm

when residents in the zone generally have not asked for any change. Mr Mustard thinks that residents of the two roads which envelope Solar House, into which St Barnabas Church has moved, did raise concerns with the council. The first that most residents knew of the plans was a leaflet through their door just before the new arrangements were about to start and the rush also bothered them. The vicar of the church didn't know and was horrified that they could be the indirect cause of bad feeling. The three ward councillors didn't know either which is rank bad manners on the part of council officers (staff) as it is councillors who are first in line to take the flak.

Why was the experimental order necessary? It was assumed that the church would generate lots of unwanted parking in residential roads seven days a week which doesn't seem that likely. What the council should have done was to:

1. survey out of hours and weekend parking occupancy.

2. let the church services commence.

3. re-survey the parking occupancy to see which, if any roads, were affected.

4. consult with affected residents about proposals for new hours and/or days.

As it happens the church seems to be very well run. The vicar asked the congregation what they should do and they do have 57 spaces of their own to start with. The congregation have decided to use the Lodge Lane car park on a Sunday as it is a 4 minute walk and far nearer than the roads in which the ridiculous new hours were introduced and then withdrawn on the their first day, such as Woodhouse Lane, Torrington Park where it abuts Friary Park & half of Sandringham Gardens which runs into Summers Lane and in which no-one would ever have parked for visiting Solar House.

So now we have a council which has introduced an experimental order, put up all new bay signs and then on the very day that the new restrictions came into force used the Chief Executive's powers to suspend the order that only came into that day at 9am. Councils keep complaining that they are short of money and yet they waste tens of thousands by introducing ill thought out and self evidently unwanted changes. Each bay sign costs something in the region of £70 and there will have been hundreds of them because every bay in 19 roads needed the times changed. Luckily it seems the old signs had not yet been consigned to the scrap metal skip and they have now been put back up again.

Mr Mustard was in a meeting with a resident last week and it looks like the council are now going to be faced with a well organised group of residents who are not going to be pushed around. If the church congregation behaves as considerately as they say they will, there isn't going to be a problem which needs further controls in any case.

Any resident of the NF CPZ who gets asked to respond to the annual council satisfaction survey isn't likely to be complimentary.

When will council staff start to understand that they are public servants, not our masters, and the public are not going to put up with every stupid idea they dream up.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard 

Libraries - workshop on 1 December & please give generously

Here is an opportunity for you to give generously of your time and of your money.

Workshop advertised on Streetlife

A workshop to minimise the potential impact, why does Mr Mustard think that any suggestion of not making the cuts but instead raising council tax would not be acceptable feedback? Would Mr & Mrs Awkward please attend.

Fund raising for a Judicial Review

The CPZ charges campaign recently returned £100 to Mr Mustard as the case was won and fighting fund donations were returned so he has recycled that (as a permanent donation) into this equally worthy case.

Our ruling councillors have completely forgotten that what they are engaged in is public service and one of their mantras has been "deliver better services with less money" which certainly doesn't apply to the Library service (which is less money to deliver a far lesser service, in terms of hours and quality) and it doesn't apply to anything which includes the magic word, no, not 'please' but 'commissioning' which can have all the funds it needs, as Mr Reasonable has amply demonstrated and as this vacant post (anyone miss Craig Cooper?)

which the General Functions Committee will doubtless rubber stamp the extra money for, shows. 

The previous incumbent was Claire Symonds who worked closely with Chris Naylor before he moved to Barking & Dagenham, and guess what, Claire has been fortunate to get a new post there (What a waste of fees to Penna when Chris or Claire could simply have picked up the phone and done the deal for free). 

The salary merry-go-round really needs someone to put the brakes on it. Here is an idea about salaries Mr Mustard doesn't suppose that there is a cat in hell's chance of Andrew Travers showing such leadership. He is happy to be proven wrong.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

an expert critique of the Barnet Libraries consultation

Topline Findings From Research Into Barnet Council's Library Reforms by MisterMustard

Barnet Libraries Consultation: A Sham

Barnet Libraries Consultation: A Sham

A Joint Letter from the Barnet Bloggers to the Leader of Barnet Council

Barnet Bloggers are appalled by reported plans to outsource libraries and make them available to commercial exploitation to companies such as Starbucks and Waterstones. The real purpose of proposals to cut and shut libraries in Barnet is now clear.

In April 2013, a High Court ruling found that Barnet Council had failed in its obligation properly to consult residents over the imposition of the whole scale privatisation of local public services, known then as ‘One Barnet’.

The Judicial Review which had reached this conclusion found that legal challenge had been brought too late, and therefore the two massive contracts with Capita, agreed by the Conservative administration, are now in place for a period of at least ten years.

After narrowly being returned to power the new administration has, as predicted, rushed ahead with new plans to outsource most of the remaining services, at the same time as launching plans to impose devastating cuts in budget.

As a result, we now face devastating plans to slash the funding of our library service by a staggering 60%, a disproportionate and punitive amount which is clearly agreed as a means of preparing the argument for yet another act of privatisation.

Councillors have been presented with a report with three equally damaging options for the future of Barnet Libraries, and residents encouraged to take part in what we believe to be a deeply flawed and subjective consultation process, one which an independent report has described as not fit for purpose:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/253017634/Topline-Findings-From-Research-Into-Barnet-Council-s-Library-Reforms

Now we are faced with new information which, if true, would suggest that far from learning the lessons of the Judicial Review, the authority’s latest consultation process, as well as being deliberately designed to minimise opposition to the three options, is itself a complete irrelevance, and that the outcome of the council’s consideration of the three options is already agreed in principle, if not in detail.

And if this is dialogue is typical of the way in which potential business partners negotiate with the authority, it would also raise serious and wider questions over the integrity of the procurement process in Barnet, past and present.

http://wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/exclusive-so-others-can-get-cut-of.html

Whatever the opinions of residents, it seems that there will be closure and sale of library buildings, and the outsourcing of our library service, engineered so as to provide opportunities for commercial exploitation by private contractors.

Such an outcome would be simply unacceptable, and indeed would be an unlawful decision taken in complete disregard of the democratic process.

We ask Councillor Richard Cornelius, leader of the Conservative administration, immediately to halt the discredited consultation currently in place, remove the library proposals from the budget cuts about to be imposed, and to launch an independent investigation into the alleged subversion of the due process of democratic engagement that should decide the governance of our borough, and hold the authority to account in a way that is fair, and transparent.

Derek Dishman
John Dix
Theresa Musgrove
Roger Tichborne

The Parking Consultation looks flawed, if not illegal

Barnet Council have carried out a parking consultation. Here are the questions &

answers to what methodology should be used to work out permit prices in the future:

which is a little hard to read so Mr Mustard has multiplied the sample groups by the percentages to give you real numbers, which are

so clearly, following the consultation, residents want a flat rate not a rate based upon vehicle emissions (on which they are already being taxed extra by Central Government if they have an inefficient car - road tax and petrol duty).

That though, isn't how consultations work in Barnet. Someone, whether it is a councillor or an officer is impossible to work out from outside the council, is hell bent on foisting an emissions based pricing structure upon us.

Here is what Officers (staff, except they seem to forget their role) are recommending to tonight's Environment Committee (do come along, Hendon Town Hall, 7pm) 

So because about 70% of respondents quite rightly and logically agreed that reducing air pollution was a laudable aim (and was the question put into the survey for the very purpose of bending the permit price structure to someones pre-determined idea?) Officers (staff) are recommending to councillors that they go with an emissions based pricing structure (Mr Mustard feels a Judicial Review coming on) which hopefully councillors will reject.

Where Mr Mustard thinks that the Officer's (staff member's) thinking is flawed is that the question about air pollution was at Q1 and the question about permit pricing was at Q10 so respondents already had air pollution in mind when answering Q10 as they had already been asked to think about it and so their choice was an informed choice.

This is how consultations are run in Barnet. If they don't give the right answer, the answers will be bent to fit the aim. A disgrace and possibly illegal.

The library consultation is now upon us. Expect a "yes" answer to the following actual question:

"A library service that makes knowledge and information easily accessible"

to be interpreted as, "local communities were delighted that with an unstaffed library opened by a pass they could visit the library at 4am if they so wished".

You have been warned. Read Mrs Angry of Broken Barnet on the subject of nonsultation.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard