Category: Uncategorized

The boys in Bluh ensconced in Swindon Borough Council are rapidly becoming the least conservative Conservatives in the country. What other Conservative controlled council would go for a government funded, local-government owned town centre regeneration? So far the only part of the regeneration of Swindon town centre to be privately funded is the rebuilding of the BHS store — which was never part of the New Swindon Company’s grand scheme. The big screen in Wharf Green belongs to the BBC. Repaving of Canal Walk and Regent Street is funded from government grants. Now the council is propping up the Union Square development by buying a car park for over £14M from developers Muse.

Last November, we were told that work on Union Square would be ‘starting on site in summer 2010’. As I said back then, never believe a project plan based on the seasons. Summer 2010 is here, but nothing’s happened, not even a planning application. As recently as December, Mr Bluh told us ‘We have the Union Square development going ahead’. As is so often the case, the easy way to tell whether Mr Bluh is spouting ignorant twaddle is to see if his lips are moving.

Last week, buried in a cabinet report ostensibly about lowering the charges at the council’s town centre car parks were options for splurging more of our money. The report makes it clear how ill-informed Mr Bluh’s earlier comments were.

It is clear that if the Council is unable to take up an option on the car park, the development would remain unviable in the current market. MUSE have indicated that they would mothball the project and unless there is a significant improvement in the economic situation, there would be unlikely to be any redevelopment for the foreseeable future.

And thus it is that the residents of Swindon once again find themselves at risk of picking up the financial tab for one of Mr Bluh’s grandiose schemes.

Hat-tip: Bogomil on TalkSwindon.

With the recent pronouncement that the housing targets of the Regional Spatial Strategy should nolonger be a material planning consideration, the Swindon Gateway Partnership may feel they’ve wasted their money submitting yet another planning application. Like its predecessors, the new application depends heavily on the targets of the Regional Spatial Strategy to justify concreting over much of Commonhead, near Coate Water. Lets hope that the dying Regional Spatial Strategy will take this development proposal with it to the grave.

Now, the developers may, rightly, point out that the development area in the new plan is little more than that identified in the Swindon Borough Council’s Core Strategy. But it is more. The development area in the new application extends slightly further south than the area the council identified for possible development. The developers also want to squeeze 960 little boxes houses into an area the council believes can only accommodate 750. More importantly, the Core Strategy was written to meet the targets in the Regional Spatial Strategy and at the moment is still only in draft. With the Regional Strategy now being hurriedly buried, the Core Strategy’s housing targets should also be seen as immaterial.

Swindon may well need many more houses to be built, but squeezing almost 1000 of them into this particular space at Commonhead is not the way to do it.

For those either disappointed or just not interested in 22 men kicking a ball around, today had the highlight event of Swindon’s sporting calendar — the duck race. On an overcast day, attendance was good (the event was washed-out a couple of years ago). It was even graced with the presence of a councillor, the cabinet member for children’s services, Mr Renard, seemingly trying to go incognito by donning a pair of sunglasses.

Duckwise, it was, apparently, a bumper year, with over 8000 entries, all of which were plucked from the water once the race was over. Despite there being two clear front runners at the halfway mark, they tired towards the end, with the race being an almost dead-heat between several hundred ducks.

I’d not been aware that social and community transport is a hotbed of international competition, with companies from other EU countries queuing up for a piece of the action. Indeed, given the strength of the UK’s bus industry — Stagecoach, First Group and National Express are all international operations with the only strong overseas presence in the UK being French state owned Transdev and imminently German state owned Arriva — and community transport being almost by definition transport services that are highly unviable commercially, it would be amazing if that ever were to be the case. However, Swindon Borough Council seems to believe that European community bus operators will be queuing out the door if they put out to tender the service currently provided by Swindon Dial A Ride.

’Tis odd that Swindon Borough Council is happy to apply European competition law to a small non-commercial transport operation, yet elsewhere claims it’s irrelevant to giving almost £½M to a company launching a service in what’s already a highly competitive industry.

Update, 22:11 Thursday 27 May. Apparently, the EU regulation being used by the council is one specific to public transport rather than the general competition-related regulations originally thought. But it’s a regulation that specifically defines ‘public passenger transport’ to exclude services such as social dial-a-ride services.

We have been told repeatedly by Mr Bluh that Swindon Borough Council’s decision to give Digital City a loan of almost £½M of our money was an ‘investment decision’. Indeed, the powers under which the decision was made with the involvement of most of the council’s cabinet were delegated powers for investment decisions. So it is rather surprising that the council has recently provided the following response to a Freedom of Information request.

Council officers were not asked to investigate possible investment into Digital City (UK) Limited. Officers were only asked to consider the provision of a loan.

So if in the council’s now stated view this was not an investment, how legally could the decision to make the loan have been made under delegated powers applying only to investment decisions?

Having succumbed to the need for sleep just half an hour before the first Swindon election result came through, it was refreshing to wake up to blue parliamentary representation, but a disappointment that in the local council elections the administration had not been punished for the way it has frivolously wasted our money on vanity projects whilst having to makes cuts to other more important services, such as street cleaning. The local election results are, of course, not typical. In an average year turnout is never much more than 30%. Being at the same time as a general election bolstered that to over 60%. Despite that, the overall outcome, in terms of candidates elected, was almost unchanged from the last time these candidates stood.

From the Swindon general election results, it was apparent that local presence helped: Mr Tomlinson converted a notional red majority of 2,675 into one for him of 7,060 — a swing of over 10% — whereas Mr Buckland managed only a majority of 3,544 where before Ms Snelgrove had a notional majority of only 1,493 — a swing of ‘only’ 5.5%.

Our new MPs now need to prove themselves and their commitment to put constituents before party. Some of us have unfinished business with Swindon Borough Council for which their support is expected.

You would think that Ms Tomlinson would have sufficient confidence in her son Mr Tomlinson — well known for his assured media performances — not to heckle his opponents during a public debate. You’d think that the likes of Ms Tomlinson and Ms Foley would recognise Mr Tomlinson’s ability to defend his own record against an unjustified attack by the government’s representative in South Swindon, Ms Snelgrove, on scrutinising Mr Bluh’s wifi deal and not feel the need to indulge in a slow hand clap of his opponent. You’d be wrong.

At last night’s question time event at the Wyvern Theatre chaired by the Adver’s Mr King, the lesser lights of the blue nest were on their most puerile and infantile behaviour. Mr King may not have been the best chairman in the world — allowing the candidates to make speeches in place of answers and allowing Ms Snelgrove to waffle on for as long as all the others put together — but the blue rent-a-mob heckling from the back were doing their candidate no favours. The public were there to hear a debate, not to have one side of it drowned out.

And what did we learn from that debate? Aside from the rowdiness of the blues and the willingness of Mr King to allow many questions from the reds own party members, very little. Both Mr Tomlinson and Ms Snelgrove were well practiced, well briefed public performers — no surprise there. Mr Hooton and Mr Hughes were less confident but reasonably well informed, though Mr Hooton claims to disagree with rather a lot of his party’s own policies. The other two candidates that were on show last night seemed to know neither their own policies nor Swindon very well. I now know that all six candidates can read from a pre-prepared script; I also know that two can do little else. In short, I have a better idea of who I definitely won’t vote for, but nothing to convince me that one of the others should get my vote.

With work continuing to put railings around the whole of Faringdon Road Park, the timing of the new order restricting alcohol consumption in the park almost seems coordinated. It’s as though it’s part of a concerted effort to beautify the area. The only concern is where will the hardened outdoor daytime drinkers go next? As more of central Swindon has drinking restrictions imposed, the main effect is likely to be to move the problem to the next nearest open area. Already the Westcott Place recreation ground has gained a few regular drinkers. They are now likely to be joined by a few more.

Forget disreputable deals between Mr Bluh and Mr Montaut on referring Swindon Borough Council’s wifi deal to the District Auditor, this is what the auditor should be examining. The letter below was submitted to the Audit Commission in February.

Transactions between Swindon Borough Council and Digital City UK Ltd.

Background

Swindon Borough Council has provided a loan of £450,000 on commercial terms to Digital City UK Ltd (registered no. 06990831). In return for that loan it has received a 40% equity stake in the company. If the loan is repaid within 2 years, Avidity Consulting Ltd (registered no. 06990825) has an option to purchase 5% of the company’s shares from the council for £1. Avidity Consulting already has a 25% stake in the company. The other shareholder is aQovia UK Limited (registered no. 06846037), which holds the remaining 35% of the company. Digital City UK Ltd is intending to install wireless internet across the entirety of the borough of Swindon.

The decision to make the loan was made by three council officers with the approval of two councillors who are members of Swindon Borough Council’s cabinet.

I have a number of concerns in relation to this undertaking.

1) Both Digital City UK Ltd and Avidity Consulting Ltd were incorporated on 14 August 2009 as ‘off-the-shelf’ companies. They became active on 22 September 2009 and 21 September 2009 respectively. They thus have negligible track record. aQovia UK Limited was incorporated on 13 March 2009, appears to have become active on 16 September 2009 and thus also has limited track record.

In these circumstances, considering the lack of history, trading records and accounts for Digital City UK Ltd, Avidity Consulting Ltd and aQovia UK Ltd, I would expect Swindon Borough Council’s due diligence to pay particular attention to the plans of Digital City UK Ltd. Much of the information in relation to this has been withheld by the council on grounds of commercial confidentiality. However, in a Cabinet Member Briefing Note to Councillor Mark Edwards (Cabinet Member for Finance and Benefits) and Councillor Roderick Bluh (Leader of the Council and Chair of the cabinet), dated 12 October 2009, that was made available to Swindon Borough Council’s Scrutiny Committee meeting of 14 December 2009, it is stated that:

“The success of the company, particularly in the early stages, and consequently the potential for Swindon Borough Council to achieve a return from its shareholding will depend to a large extent on the success of the marketing campaign. A formal marketing plan has not yet been developed, but a Brand Consultant and Marketing Specialist have been informally assisting the project and will be formally engaged once the company is live.”

It thus appears that at the time the decision to invest £450,000 was made, the plans of Digital City UK Ltd were not yet well formed. Furthermore, the response by the council in relation to diligence (in the minutes and annex to the minutes of that Scrutiny Committee meeting), appear in tone, in my view, to be dismissive rather than suitably detailed.

2) The Managing Director of Digital City UK Ltd is Mr John Richard Hunt (commonly known as Rikki Hunt). He is also owner of Avidity Consulting Ltd which is providing consultancy services to Digital City UK Ltd, and a non-executive director of Swindon Commercial Services Ltd (registered no. 06969563) which is Swindon Borough Council’s direct services company and the main contractor to Digital City UK Ltd for installation and maintenance of its wireless network.

Mr Hunt is also Chair of Swindon Strategic Economic Partnership (SSEP), which is charged with implementing some of the council’s social inclusion objectives under the Swindon Local Area Agreement, including the Swindon Digital Challenge proposal, and a non-executive director of The New Swindon Company Ltd (registered no. 04509901) of which Swindon Borough Council is a major funder, and a board member of the Swindon Partnership which is tasked with producing the Swindon Local Area Agreement.

By virtue of his close association with Swindon Borough Council and in particular the SSEP, Mr Hunt may have been in receipt of privileged information in relation to the council’s and SSEP’s plans for widening access to the internet. As a consequence of this it is possible that a conflict of interest could occur in his company’s approach to the council. Under Section 175 of the Companies Act 2006, a director has a duty to ensure that they avoid a situation in which they have, or can have, a direct or indirect interest that conflicts, or possibly may conflict, with the interests of the company. In light of that Act and of the sixth of the Seven Principles of Public Life, I would expect, given Mr Hunt’s close connection with Swindon Borough Council that, as part of its due diligence, the council would ensure that no such conflict had occurred. However, the information made available to the public by the council provides insufficient evidence that this assurance was obtained.

3) Mr Hitesh Kumar Patel was appointed director of Digital City (UK) Ltd on 26 September 2009. Mr Patel is also Group Director Business Transformation and in that capacity one of the authors of the Cabinet Member Briefing Note to Councillors Edwards and Bluh, dated 12 October 2009 and mentioned in (1) above, that recommended providing the loan of £450,000 to Digital City (UK) Ltd. There is no mention of this directorship in the briefing note, nor in any of the other information presented to Swindon Borough Council’s Scrutiny Committee meeting of 14 December 2009. As Mr Patel’s directorship pre-dates his advice to Councillors Mark Edwards and Roderick Bluh, in the absence of further information to the contrary this would appear to present a conflict of interest which, under the Seven Principles of Public Life, Mr Patel had a duty to disclose.

4) It has been repeatedly stated publicly by the council leader, Roderick Bluh, in comments reported in the local press that this was a delegated ‘investment’ decision, and this is also mentioned in the Cabinet Member Briefing Note shown to the Swindon Borough Council Scrutiny Committee. Mr Hitesh Patel has also stated that the decision to provide the loan was made by the Director of Finance (Mr McKellar), the Director of Law and Democratic Services (Mr Taylor) and himself, the Group Director Business Transformation.

The delegated authority for such a decision originates from resolution (5) at Minute 28 of the Cabinet meeting of 23 July 2008, subsequently ratified by full Council on 13 November 2008.

“That the Treasury Management performance for 2007/08, be noted, and the Council be recommended to approve the proposed change to the Annual Investment Strategy, as detailed in paragraph 2.6.7 of the joint report (In respect of joint venture arrangements, to permit the Director of Finance and the Director of Law and Democratic Services, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Resources, to invest in such schemes provided that the overall terms of the arrangement are suitably advantageous for the Council, subject to the Soft Loan Accounting requirements contained in the 2007 Statement Of Recommended Practice.).”

with paragraph 2.6.7 of the ‘joint report’ being

“In order to pursue its regeneration objectives, the Council is planning to enter into a series of joint venture arrangements with private sector partners. There may be circumstances in which it is advantageous in financial and risk terms for the Council to consider acting as banker for a scheme, subject to the terms and exposure being acceptable. In this context, it is proposed that the annual investment strategy is amended to permit the Directors of Finance and Law and Democratic Services, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Resources, to invest in such schemes provided that the overall terms of the arrangement are suitably advantageous for the Council, subject to the Soft Loan accounting requirements contained in the 2007 Statement Of Recommended Practice.”

Whilst the decision may have been within the letter of this resolution, it does not appear to have been within its spirit. The decision was not made in pursuit of regeneration objectives, but, according to the Cabinet Member Briefing Note, primarily in support of social inclusion and sustainability objectives. Also, the decision was not made as a consequence of a decision by the full council or cabinet to implement town-wide wireless internet access, but as a result of the company approaching the council seeking investment.

5) If this decision were not within the scope of investment decision described in (4), the council’s constitution does permit delegated decision by individual cabinet members in certain circumstances. That delegated authority is specified on page 5 of the constitution:

“To speed-up decision making and to allow the Cabinet to concentrate on major matters, Cabinet Members have the delegated power to make day-to-day decisions in relation to the areas within their portfolio.”

Given that the decision to loan £450,000 and take a 40% share in Digital City UK Ltd for the purpose of it providing boroughwide wireless internet was announced with a press release on 16 November, and the launch of the service in Highworth was by a member of the parliamentary opposition’s shadow cabinet and accompanied by further press coverage, it seems to me that this decision is firmly in the class of ‘major matters’ for which the delegation described on page 5 of Swindon Borough Council’s constitution should not occur.

6) Swindon Borough Council is allowing Digital City (UK) Ltd to send and receive commercial and private internet traffic via its own Local Authority access point(s) to the internet. I am concerned that this may have serious implications under the Government Code of Connections (’CoCo‘), and that Swindon Borough Council may be inappropriately subcontracting or reselling internet service supplied to local authorities.

Whilst none of these issues individually may be cause for great concern, taken together I believe they are sufficient to warrant further investigation. Given the complicated nature of company law I would like the audit commission to examine the commercial relationships mentioned above and clarify whether they are appropriate and represent acceptable and best use of public money.

A deal has been done between Mr Bluh and Mr Montaut, apparently in an attempt to suppress further scrutiny of Swindon Borough Council’s dealings with Digital City (UK) Ltd.

I have reached an agreement with the Labour Group Leader that as and when the wi-fi project, which is fully supported by both the Conservative and Labour Groups, has been finally cleared by the Scrutiny and Audit Committees then in the interests of allowing the wi-fi project to move forward without further damaging publicity, without incurring additional costs to the taxpayer and to stop the enormous amount of officer time being spent on this issue to date, I will ask the external auditor to confirm the findings of the internal audit report and also to confirm that due process has been followed throughout. It is time to allow this fantastic, innovative opportunity to get properly underway to deliver for Swindon.

There’s nothing fantastic about squandering local taxpayers’ money, Mr Bluh; nor in being so careless in the deal that much of what councillors and council officers have said on the matter has turned out to be untrue; nor in investing in a project so laxly run that even though it was eight months behind schedule and had to ask for its loan conditions to be relaxed, the company board had not met. And just how arrogant it is of Mr Bluh to think the District Auditor needs his permission to investigate. As I noted a couple of days ago, the District Auditor has already been asked to investigate the wifi deal.

What has this acheived for Mr Montaut? Nothing, just an external enquiry that would have happened anyway.

I have been calling for an external enquiry for months now, because this council needs to focus on the things that matter to all Swindoners, like getting value for money for our council tax payers and ensuring that our public services are working to suit the needs of our townspeople. With the external auditors now investigating the Conservative administration’s wi-fi deal, I believe the council can do this.

That sounds to me like Mr Montaut, the chair of the Swindon Borough Council’s Scrutiny Committee, wants to abandon scrutiny of this deal.

The role of the chair of a council’s scrutiny committee is to hold the council administration to account. To shirk that responsibility through worthless back-room deals like this is a shameful failure.