 |
| MR MYERS |
If you want to see how Mr Myers works behind the scenes just click on the link. But what is truly fascinating is how much senior and mid ranking officer time has been wasted. Pooter should be surcharged for his stupidity!
Here, Mr Myers, can be seen working frantically on Pooter's mad idea.Myers working behind the scenes
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST – EIR-13-0029
Kensington & Chelsea Housing Proposals
1. What dates did Paul Phillipson and/or Gillian Beasley meet with officers, councillors or consultants (please specify with their names, job titles and organisation they represent) acting on behalf of the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea?
Paul Phillipson and Gillian Beasley had the following meetings:
• 25 October 2012 - Paul Phillipson and Gillian Beasley met with Derek Myers,
Chief Executive, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.
• 7 February 2013 - Paul Phillipson and Gillian Beasley met with Derek Myers, Chief Executive, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and Laura Johnson, Director of Housing Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.
Paul Phillipson had the following meetings:
• 2 October 2012 - Paul Phillipson and Adrian Chapman met with Laura Johnson, Director of Housing of Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and JaneTretheywey, Housing Strategy and Regeneration Manager of Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.
2. What areas of Peterborough were identified as places to house Kensington and Chelsea residents and what are the numbers estimated that each area could house?
There were no areas identified as places to house Kensington and Chelsea residents so there are no numbers estimated that each area could house. The response provided to Laura Johnson (Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea) by Paul Phillipson, dated the 30 January 2013, gives indicative build costs, recent shared
ownership costs and provides details of the contributions that would be required through the community infrastructure levy to respond to the exploratory questions the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea were raising with the Council. It also
clearly articulates our own current housing need and the response to Laura Johnson emphasises the requirement for additional social housing for existing Peterborough residents.
3. Please can you supply all written documentation (e-mails, letters and meeting notes or minutes) between Gillian Beasley or Paul Phillipson or Cllr Marco Cereste and any representative (councillors, officers or consultants of the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea)?
There is no documentation which exists between Cllr Marco Cereste and any representative of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.
Please refer to Attachment 1 for all the e-mails between Gillian Beasley / Paul
Phillipson and representatives of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.
There are no meeting notes or minutes from the three meetings which took place as they were only exploratory discussions. Mr Myers’ e-mail of the 22nd November 2012 sends a document which represents a proposition by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and not a joint proposition. At a meeting on 7 February 2013 the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea proposition was discussed. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea proposition was discussed and the main aspect of that discussion on 7 February 2013, revolved around mutual benefits of a collaboration between each authority other than housing.
These benefits included cultural exchanges between schools, sharing
the tri–borough safeguarding work with Peterborough City Council, sharing
Peterborough City Councils environmental work and potential energy benefits,
and finally liturgical, festival and museum links.
Where housing was discussed it was agreed to propose that exploration of this should take place if the mutual benefits above were established and working between our two authorities and if explored would include those set out in the open letter written by Cllr Cereste to the Peterborough Telegraph (also included in Attachment 1).
During that meeting Derek Myers undertook to draft a new proposition based on the discussion. No such document has yet been received and no further meetings have
taken place. It was further agreed that once that new proposition was received political briefings
by each Leader of their Cabinets and Groups would take place. If those briefings demonstrated a desire to proceed, the proposition would then be taken through the proper decision making process of each council.
A copy of the draft proposal referred to in Mr Myers’ email of 22nd November 2013 has a clear caption ‘not for publication’ and the requirement by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea that the email document may contain information which is confidential, legally privileged and/or copyright protected and intended for the addressee only. We therefore have considered this document to be excepted from disclosure in accordance with regulation 12(4)(d) which provides an exception to the duty to make environmental information available when the request relates to material which is still in the course of completion and relates to unfinished documents. The public interest test has been considered and in all the circumstances of the case the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing it. The RBKC provided this proposal on a confidential basis as it was not a fully developed proposition and the Council has decided to maintain that duty, particularly because a new document is to be provided based on an agreed proposal between the two Councils. Any proposal, as stated above, will at the appropriate time become public through the usual decision making processes of each Council.
Where housing was discussed it was agreed to propose that exploration of this should take place if the mutual benefits above were established and working between our two authorities and if explored would include those set out in the open letter written by Cllr Cereste to the Peterborough Telegraph (also included in Attachment 1).
During that meeting Derek Myers undertook to draft a new proposition based on the discussion. No such document has yet been received and no further meetings have
taken place. It was further agreed that once that new proposition was received political briefings
by each Leader of their Cabinets and Groups would take place. If those briefings demonstrated a desire to proceed, the proposition would then be taken through the proper decision making process of each council.
A copy of the draft proposal referred to in Mr Myers’ email of 22nd November 2013 has a clear caption ‘not for publication’ and the requirement by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea that the email document may contain information which is confidential, legally privileged and/or copyright protected and intended for the addressee only. We therefore have considered this document to be excepted from disclosure in accordance with regulation 12(4)(d) which provides an exception to the duty to make environmental information available when the request relates to material which is still in the course of completion and relates to unfinished documents. The public interest test has been considered and in all the circumstances of the case the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing it. The RBKC provided this proposal on a confidential basis as it was not a fully developed proposition and the Council has decided to maintain that duty, particularly because a new document is to be provided based on an agreed proposal between the two Councils. Any proposal, as stated above, will at the appropriate time become public through the usual decision making processes of each Council.
It seems to me that when there is no space in the area other locations should be looked at
ReplyDeleteThere is plenty of space if you open your eyes.
DeleteThe brutal reality is that the cabinet would prefer to encourage the development of a block of luxury flats destined to be lived in a mere handful of days each year than a block of "normal" housing to house those in need.
All local authorities practice social engineering through the planning system. The outcome of planning decisions therefore says much about the kind of borough those "running the show" apparently want to live in. In the case of RBK&C they appear to want to turn the borough into the plaything of the mega'rich.
A clear example of a Leader who overstayed his time and was forced to generate ideas so that he could pretend to be busy and find work for Officers. It could have been worse.
ReplyDeleteThis madness had obviously gone further than we understood at the time. Thank good ness that the Dame got hold of it and put a stop to it
ReplyDeleteFOI is one of the great sources of information for the Dame. And of course the Council website and its often revealing insights into the profligate and irrelevant activities that mushroomed during the Cockell dictatorship. Another powerful source of insight is the main Council Meeting and the many other Committee meetings that are open to the public to attend, observe and learn
ReplyDeleteand fall asleep
DeleteGlad to see that the Dame is on top of new technology. The extra filter now included in the website shields readers from the annoying spam that Inspector Palmer had started to send the Hornet way
DeleteCome now Anonymous 10.46, we know how you spend Council meetings - checking your shares on Sharescope, and occasionally making inappropriate comments that the Mayor more than once has had to ask you to apologise for or withdraw.
DeleteWe've had plenty of complaints about it from the public gallery.
Quite.
DeleteIt's actually quite surprising just how many Councillors spend Council meetings "passing the time" given that it is very obvious to anyone in the public gallery what they're actually up to.
Such as: reading the Evening Standard, bringing their "real" work to Council meetings, playing with their Blackberry (there's only so much time you can realistically spend checking email), surfing the net on their iPads, checking their share portfolio (you know who you are), playing computer games (note to the culprit: playing Puzzle Bobble during Council meetings does not justify your taxpayer funded Councillor's allowance).
These Councillors should do everyone a favour and just not turn up. They never contribute to meetings in any meaningful way (occasionally braying like a donkey is not a meaningful contribution). And their constituents could then use the attendance register to identify the chaff from the wheat.
It is horrible to find out how Council tax is used and all the mad cap schemes that get dreamt up as a way to spend hard earned taxes. Tories should not be doing this kind of thing - it is what old Labour and Bennites are supposed to get up to
ReplyDeleteWhat a naive person you are. Cockell and Moylan fanaticised that they were reborn Victorian philanthropists with the bottomless pit of Council Tax. They even created a £200 million piggy bank (overtaxing residents) to fund their vanities like Exhibition Road and importing pink granite from China
DeleteIn other words: a clear demonstration of political ineptitude.
ReplyDeleteNot so. More like corruption
DeleteRemind me, who once said the Council's work deserved to be out in the open?
ReplyDeleteAnd here we documents exempted from a FOI request.
Hypocrisy. They've heard of it.
What dreadful English
DeletePerhaps.
DeleteThe point remains: those pontificating about transparency should not withhold information from the public. RBK&C is very fond of doing both.
In practice many other local authorities are far more transparent and they pontificate a lot less.
Perhaps! It is dreadful - The fact you and others let this pass without jumping down the authors "throat" says it all.
DeleteTwo legs good, four legs bad
Perhaps some of us can see past the poor English to the meaningful message the author clearly intended to convey?
DeleteI suspect the message is simply not to your liking. If so shooting the messenger will do you little good.
Dame, this blog is too long for busy Councillors to read. Please revert to your habit of short, sharp, reporting. Thank you very much
ReplyDeleteI fear it is I who was responsible for this... and lack of edit.
DeleteMy excuse is that I am travelling, but thought it of such import that I asked the Dame to publish 'as is'.
For a man of Myers's guile and intelligence to be sucked into this madcap scheme is a puzzle... though we can expect this sort of idiocy from Cockell.
So please don't blame the Dame!
The misuse of exemptions under FOI is an old trick that many councils, including RBKC routinely use to withold embarrasing material, and I would say that in this case the public interest in disclosure far outwighs any alleged public interest in non-disclosure of the information/documents requested.
ReplyDeleteThe person who made the initial request can and should appeal the decision to withold and demand a review of that decision. If the outcome of the review remains the same (which it probably will) they can then complain to the Information Commissioners Office.
It is more than likely that the ICO will find in favour of the applicant and order the authority to release the witheld documents. Unfortunately it may take several months of waiting time to arrive at that point, which is why the local authotities use the exemption trick in the first place, but it would be well worth persisting on amatter off such importance as this.
We are entitled to know what these so-called public servants have been up to with the powers we have entrusted to them.
Citizen Smith
The ICO route should be used, the damaging material obtained, and the Daily Mail primed.
DeleteCllr Paget-Brown needs to be in no doubt that residents and council tax payers will not tolerate this kind of stupidity that was a hallmark of the Cockell administration. Local Councils should do the bare minimum to serve residents economically and not indulge in this kind of property development and speculation
Will Cllr Dent Coade write to the ICO
DeleteLabour are too busy playing with their own train set in North Kensington to do anything meaningful like stand up for residents facing social cleansing.
DeleteThe supposed Opposition is a total waste of space!
I can't be the only one thinking that this whole sad affair makes the 'homes for votes' issue with Shirley Porter in Westminster seem like an innocent activity can I?
ReplyDeleteAt least she did not entertain her mates to dinner on the council tax at the Four Seasons Restaurant in New York. But then with the Tesco £ millions behind her (her dad was the founder of the Supermarket) she was not short of the pennies. She was just power crazy and deluded that she owned the world
DeleteIf this scheme had gone ahead there would have been T Dan Smith opportunities for the promoters
ReplyDeleteMyers is pulling in £250k per year and has a £2 million pension pot, courtesy of the tax payer. Mrs Myers pulls in another £180k as a Civil Servant in Whitehall and she is inflation proofed too. Cockell has a bigger problem. Pay down from £160k per year to £45K from the LGA (and that quango is on the skids - Councils are pulling out and Central Govt funding is being cut) and the reptile has a tiny pension pot. So he is motivated.......
DeleteAll of this puts the Paget-Brown Administration into perspective. Much more damage limitation. The odd crack smoking Cabinet Member a curiosity by comparison. Strength to Nicks elbow
ReplyDeleteGreat to see the Dame digging away. This is a major scandal for the national press to pick up. It is not only the Commons and the House of Lords that needs a clean up
ReplyDeleteJust make sure that Pooter goes nowhere near the Lords so that it fouls up again
Delete