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

Parking charges consultations

what parking in Barnet is all about - follow the money

Before you read this blog post, you should read Dr Julia Hines's blog on the question of consultation in Barnet as it was reading her post on Barnet's somewhat dilatory approach to consultation (Mr Mustard's description, not Julia's) that prompted Mr Mustard to get on with his response, which is as follows:

Update friday: Mr Mustard lost his marbles for a short while and forgot to tell you that the below letter is in response to the following council consultation

Council website consultation

---

Dear Mr Sunderland

Streetscene fees & charges 2014/15

Consultation response

Events - private functions

Scrap the idea and all charges. Parks are communal and should remain so.

Parking permits

Call back to process card payment for services. £21.

The charge is excessive. It is 5 minutes work at most to accept a card payment. No business that charged this sum would survive for long. This charge discriminates against the poor, the elderly and the disabled who may not have access to computers. The charge is a penalty. It cannot possibly achieve its stated aim to encourage the use of other methods by those people who do not have access to other methods.

One Hour Parking Voucher - £2 per voucher

This is another excessive level of charge which discriminates against the same members of society as above. Car parking in Chipping Barnet costs a different amount per hour depending upon where you are.

If you wanted to park for the maximum 4 hours in the Moxon St car park it would cost you £8 in vouchers but only £2.50 using PayByPhone.

If you wanted to park all day in the Fitzjohn Avenue car park it would cost you £21 in vouchers but only £3.95 using PayByPhone.

If you wanted to park for 4 hours in the Stapylton Rd car park it would cost you £8 in vouchers but only £2.50 using PayByPhone.

If you wanted to park for an hour in the High St it would cost you a £2 voucher but only £1.30 using PayByPhone.

The same goes for 1/2 hour vouchers.

Residents permits

Pricing has returned to the pre judicial review level as the council was held to be revenue raising. What the council should do is calculate the cost of providing residents permits which were sold to us on the basis of them only covering their costs when the C zone CPZ was introduced in about 1988. The initial annual cost was £5. The council should establish the cost of the permit team, and the stationery cost, and then divide by the number of permits issued per annum and that should be the permit price. The answer will be much less than £40.

There is no basis for charging more for a second or third car as that would be to raise extra revenue which is not allowed. I also see no proper basis for limiting the number of vehicles per property. A family house containing 2 adults and 2 grown up children, all of whom need a car for their work, should not be discriminated against when they are making such economic use of housing stock.

Amendments to permits £21 and permit refunds £21

These charges are far higher than the cost of the action being taken. They should be drastically reduced, if not removed altogether

Three month temporary permit £252

This outrageous amount is absurd being 6 times the cost of a permit that lasts 4 times as long. Surely no-one actually pays it?

Housing permits £nil, £42, £73

I see no basis for housing permits being a different price to residents permits as they are essentially the same providing a permit to park in a certain zone.

Doctors permit £200

This provides a permit to park in a designated space adjacent to a surgery. These will almost certainly be inside a CPZ. It might be better and fairer, and make better use of road space, if Doctors were instead included as if they were residents and given the permit of the zone that they work within at the same cost as a resident as most of their house calls are also likely to be within that zone and this would allow more flexible use of available space.

Community permits

There is no mention of these on the council website.

Business permits £256/£73.50/£525/£840

I can see no justification for these excessive amount as the benefit obtained is one car space for each permit the same as for a residents permit and there are far fewer business bays than there are residents bay within  the same CPZ. These charges are simply profiteering from businesses.

---

Feel free to cut and paste any of the above response and send it to cory.sunderland@barnet.gov.uk Be gentle with him, he works very hard.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard