Council u-turn sees Yarm get its new play area after all

A rare U-turn by Stockton Council means that a new play area will be built at Leven Park in Yarm, just days after it was announced that the plans would have to be shelved.

For the past three years, local councillors have been working on plans that would see a new play area - the first, in fact - delivered on the east side of Yarm.

Although the funding has been in place from the outset, the scheme has been beset by a number of delays following consultations held with residents which saw a number of revisions made to the plans (most controversially, the addition of CCTV to allay residents' fears of the area attracting anti-social behavior).

However, at a meeting last week attended by myself and Councillor Sherris, officers from Stockton Council made it clear that they were no longer in a position to pay for the ongoing maintenance of the park and, unless another soure of funding could be found, the plans would have to be scrapped.

It goes without saying that when the outcome of the discussions were detailed at that evening's meeting of Yarm Town Council, the atmosphere was less than jovial.

A combination of further pressure from councillors as well as from dismayed residents led to a further meeting arranged for Tuesday evening, once again attended by myself and Councillor Sherris.

After much negotiation, Stockton Council agreed to reverse their position and to pay for all of the play area's maintenance and CCTV monitoring, everything except for the regular cleaning of the area which is to be paid for from local councillors' ward budget for, at least, the next three years.

It's mildly amusing to see all and sundry attempting to take the credit for securing the u-turn, including the so-called Yarm Residents' Association, the content of their website ostensibly written by Walter Mitty (Thurber's fictional character oft thought of as the Mayor of fantasyland and described by American Heritage Dictionary as "an ordinary, often ineffectual person who indulges in fantastic daydreams of personal triumphs").

Nevertheless, it would be wrong for the credit for finally securing the play park to go to anybody other than Councillor Sherris, who has been the scheme's driving force since day one and continues to work hard with me in endeavouring to secure long-term funding for the area's maintenance.

It is hoped that the new park should be installed and ready to go before the schools break for summer, but I hope to have this confirmed in the next few days.

Stockton Council approves council tax hike

Stockton Council last night approved its budget for 2013/14 agreeing in the process to a referendum dodging 1.9% increase in council tax.

An alternative budget proposal from the Conservative group of councillors which would have seen council tax levels for 2013/14 frozen was regrettably, but nevertheless predictably, defeated. Interestingly, even though the Lib Dem and Ingleby Barwick Independent (IBIS) councillors voted with Labour to increase residents' council tax bills not one councillor from IBIS contributed to the debate nor even attempted to justify their voting for the hike.

Put in a national context, even amongst those other councils who have also opted to increase their council tax rates, the average rise was just 0.8%. In a local context, neighbouring Hambleton and Durham councils are yet again freezing their rates.

In the Stockton Council's press release early this morning, the Leader of the Council, Bob Cook, said, "we simply cannot afford the additional £2million cost that the [council tax] freeze would have over the next three years."

What councillor Cook neglected to include in his press release was the fact that the Labour / IBIS coalition cabinet did manage to find an additional £4.7million to throw at the council's Stockton High Street vanity project. You will, of course, draw your own conclusions as to what this says about Labour's priorities.

As a result of Stockton Council's program of efficiency, improvement and transformation (EIT) reviews - launched under the then leadership of Conservative councillor Ken Lupton - the council has been able to absorb some £31 million in savings already, with scant impact on services. The council is now a much leaner, more efficient body following the EIT initiative.

However, the difficult questions the council now faces are not simply ones of further reductions in funding, but rather questions of political courage.

When it comes to making further efficiencies, the low hanging fruits have already been plucked. The potential areas from where further savings can be found are not as immediately apparent as they once were. Much more creative thinking and, yes, tough decisions, are needed.

Last night the council found itself at a crossroads (or more accurately, a T-junction).

One path was undoubtedly more challenging to tread, with obstacles to be tackled head on and overcome, this being the path to a council living within its means and not passing an ever-growing buck to the taxpayer.

The second path was a much less daunting prospect, smoothed as it was by the ever-diminishing content of taxpayers' wallets. There is no need to live within your means whilst on this path; you simply increase your means to match how you live.

Faced with choosing the path of financial prudence, of doing right by the taxpayer, councillors from Labour, Liberal Democrats and IBIS instead joined forces to choose the path of cowardice and easy decisions.

An unnamed councillor who voted for last night's budget

But then again, what's new?

We shouldn’t be freezing councillors’ allowances; we should be cutting them

It was reported over the weekend that Councillor Bob Cook, the leader of Stockton Council, is to recommend freezing councillors’ allowances for 2013/14.

Big deal.

Given the current economic climate, and particularly in light of changes to council employees’ pay and conditions in recent years, the very idea of increasing councillors’ allowances in unconscionable. So suggesting a freeze is hardly groundbreaking stuff, but welcome news nevertheless, right?

A little background first. Stockton Council currently spends around £800,000 each year on councillors’ allowances.  The lion’s share of this is accounted for by the basic allowance of £9,300 paid to each of the borough’s 56 councillors.

Although this basic allowance has been frozen since 2010/11, it had risen substantially in preceding years, from the £6,150 payable in 2007/08 – a rise of 50% in just three years.  Furthermore, the current basic allowance is, according to the borough’s Independent Remuneration Panel, nearly £1,000 more than the average annual allowance paid by comparative councils.

To put the basic allowance into a regional context, the figure of £9,300 is calculated on the basis of councillors ‘working’ an average of 15 hours each week.  This amounts to a full-time equivalent annual income of nearly £23,000.  In comparison,  the average income of residents throughout the North East is just £20,800 p.a., with 52% of residents earn less than £15,000 p.a..

In his press release lauding his own proposal to freeze allowances, Councillor Cook played down the resultant ‘savings’ from councillors not giving themselves a pay rise as “not a lot of money”.  (Interestingly, he then went on to say, “we have to do all we can” despite failing to even float the idea of actually reducing allowances, let alone recommending such a move!)

In any event, if the ‘savings’ from his idea are “not a lot”, then let’s find a way to increase them.

Instead of a freeze, I would like to see allowances paid to councillors CUT. A 5% reduction in allowances across the board would see savings of around £40,000 overnight (and I mean genuine savings, not the ‘savings’ Cllr Cook refers to despite the fact his proposal wouldn’t actually see the council pay out any less money).  A further saving of  £33,500 could also be found, again overnight, by abolishing the Special Responsibility Allowance paid to the vice chairs of the council’s select committees.

Over the next couple of years, councils the length and breadth of the country face continued challenges to make further efficiencies and savings.  Within Stockton, this has already led to senior council officers talking about further redundancies to come, many of them compulsory.

I grant you, not even the savings from my suggestions amount to a king’s ransom, but they could be implemented immediately and the savings used to protect a handful of jobs.  Whilst 3 or 4 jobs may not be significant to the council in the grand scheme things, they are to those people currently being paid to undertake them.

Of course, much more substantial sums could be saved by conducting a wholesale review of the council’s governance arrangements, particularly the number of elected councillors. I’m only guessing, but I suspect the vast majority of people would happily see a reduction in the number of councillors throughout the borough and would find it difficult to notice any subsequent negative consequence.

Unfortunately despite repeated calls from Conservative councillors to undertake such a review, our pleas have fallen on deaf ears.

But, then, that’s hardly a surprise.

When Labour councillors issue press releases boasting of how they are protecting their own incomes by freezing allowances, yet they refuse an offer of government assistance to freeze the council tax bills of hard pressed residents, that tells you all you need to know about Stockton Labour's priorities.