Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Peterborough City Council website

Letter: 'Neighbourhood councils are a local scandal' - 27/11/09

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 27 November 2009
With reference to your article about Neighbourhood Councils on November 23 ("Council boss defends area councils scheme)", here is my take on the position.
At the council meeting where neighbourhood councils were agreed, only five or six councillors (I was one of them) raised a note of concern about the additional allowances that this has generated (over £100,000 going to Conservative councillors withou
t any evidence of additional work).
It was clear that Cllr Cereste had no clue as to whether it would work or not, could not say where the money was coming from to fund it; under cross examination he was heard to say "I'm sure it will pay for itself in the end".

Hardly inspirational, evidence-based reassurance for taxpayers! But the nodding dogs won the day, and the following item on setting up Neighbourhood Councils (after the expenses were agreed) was not even debated!

Once the Neighbourhood Councils began, complaints from residents came across my desk about the lack of publicity for them. The agendas were set so that if you did go along, it was difficult to raise any points of your own. Neighbourhood Councils still have no power other than "consultees", despite the Council spin machine's (and Councillor Cereste's) attempts to imply otherwise.

Now Parish Councils, who clearly had not been consulted about the idea, are saying it might impinge on their role. And who can blame them, given that this idea just landed in May with no consultation, no feedback, no justification of the spending and no cost benefit analysis? In fact, the only certainty with it was that all the councillors who were going to benefit seemed very grateful to Cllr Cereste and very sure that they were already doing "lots of extra work" to justify the money.

As for the promise to scrap them if they don't work, isn't that just an admission that Councillor Cereste did not introduce them because he could prove that they would benefit the city? I doubt that those councillors now lining their pockets will nod through a scrappage scheme in the same way they eagerly stuck up their hands in May.

Any private business that operated like this would be in liquidation within months.

I just hope that local voters in West Ward next month and across the city next year turn out for elections to turn out these Conservative councillor personal wealth creation specialists; it looks like the MP expenses scandal all over again to me, but at a local level.
Stephen Goldspink
Councillor, East Ward
St Mary's Close
Peterborough




Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 27 November 2009 10:55 AM
  • Source: Peterborough ET
  • Location: Peterborough
 
Prev
1
2
1

waynesill,

27/11/2009 15:37:20
Would Cllr Goldspink be so against this if he had had his nose in the trough and been on the receiving end of this "Conservative councillor personal wealth creation" no I don't think so, sour grapes spring to mind.
2

woodcote,

werrington 27/11/2009 17:35:12
...and this is from a councillor who held a full time consultant's job and claimed full cabinet allowance.

After swapping parties he should stand for re-election
3

P.T,

27/11/2009 19:55:27
The idea works provided the public are allowed to attend, comment & take part in the meetings - being part of the Neighbourhood.

Some counties make these 'Neighbourhood' meetings available to a very restricted number of people.

Could Cllr Cereste confirm how he would run these Neighbourhood meetings.
4

Cllr Stephen Goldspink,

Peterborough 27/11/2009 21:46:15
Actually, Woodcote, my business plan for last year shows I set aside 48 days for Council work from 1/4/08 to 31/3/09, when I did not earn a penny as a consultant. OK I earned £16,000 for the 48 days, plus the 3 hours a week every week getting up at 4.45 work mornings to clear Council email before going to work on the 6.10 train to London. Plus working half of Saturday to read Cabinet documents. But, hey, call me a scrounger. Or imply I'm rich or greedy. But first, come and see where I live...
5

,

27/11/2009 21:58:16
Comment Reported Unsuitable By User
6

sanguinesid,

Close to St Mary's 27/11/2009 23:23:57
£16K for 48 days on an annualised basis equates to over $85000 pa. Not bad .
As for the other hours, what happened to good old fashioned service to the community?
7

,

28/11/2009 14:20:41
Comment Reported Unsuitable By User
8

,

28/11/2009 16:04:57
Comment Reported Unsuitable By User
9

StopTheWorldIWantToGetOff!,

28/11/2009 17:41:03
@6 - or £330 per day, or £30+ per hour.

Value for money? No
10

,

28/11/2009 18:17:26
Comment Reported Unsuitable By User
Prev
1
2

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.