Forum Topic

Call Ins: Scrutiny Committee told of exclusion of evidence and investigation demanded

A very interesting Facebook post on OneChiswick today.  Significant questions arising as to governance of process and exclusion of evidence for the Call Ins tonight.  From the page:"It has been brought to our attention by many Residents, who having prepared and submitted extensive evidence in regard to the two Call Ins by Cllr Richard Eason and Cllr John Todd, have received notifications that the evidence has been excluded from your briefing packs.  No good reason has been offered.  Many have gone back to challenge and have decided to copy you all directly with that evidence.As you will appreciate, many residents diligently prepared evidence that would help members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee carefully consider whether the following applied when the Cabinet Members involved considered CEX 496 Streetspace Programme:1. Inadequate consultation with stakeholders prior to the decision;2. Inadequate evidence on which to base a decision;3. The action is not proportionate to the desired outcome;4. A potential human rights or equalities challenge;5. Insufficient consideration of legal and financial advice. It is evident that whoever has been involved at an Officer and Councillor level in reviewing the submissions has excluded much correspondence that addresses the 5 points above.  Do please look at all the evidence that has been sent to you directly by residents as it represents a picture of what is going on and why it was right for Cllrs Richard Eason and John Todd to call this decision in.Given the seriousness of this matter, we will be raising it with the Chief Executive and Head of Legal for LB Hounslow, and will be asking that a Complaint be formally registered and that an investigation started, post this Call In, into the procedures put in place for preparing material for your briefing pack.  Further you will, we are sure, be aware that this matter can be formally taken to the Local Government Ombudsman if the responses are unsatisfactory after the Council goes through its internal review processes."

Chris Soze ● 2159d23 Comments

Did you actually read what was on the council website about this meeting?"Residents/local groups are advised to submit statements they wish to make, or questions they would like to make to scrutiny@hounslow.gov.uk by 5pm on Wednesday 25 November 2020. These statements and questions need to directly relate to the decisions being called in, namely the decisions to:·      Approve the process for undertaking interim and final reviews on Streetspace schemes set out in section 3.4 of the cabinet report.·      Consider and approve, in principle, the proposed phase 3 Streetspace schemes, developed following further detailed analysis of the network, including as set out in section 3.5 and Appendix 3 of the cabinet report."It seems clear to me that the response needed to address either of these points.That isn't the same as having a rant about anything you didn't like.The call-in submissions themselves contain information that isn't relevant to those decisions, such as cycleway 9 and schemes that were approved over a year ago.

Michael Robinson ● 2159d

There's nothing local government likes better than hiding behind procedural niceties and couching communications with ordinary residents in terms which are impenetrable to all but the cognoscenti.

Bruce Hammal ● 2159d

This is an interesting response from Michael Robinson.  He states:"The call-in submissions themselves contain information that isn't relevant to those decisions, such as cycleway 9 and schemes that were approved over a year ago."Which clearly infers that he has seen, or knows what is in, the submissions that have been rejected.  A few questions arise:Is Mr Robinson an employee or contractor to the London Borough of Hounslow?  Is he partaking in the review and selection of which evidence should be provided to the London Borough of Hounslow.  If not an employee or contractor why is he involved in what information is in the submissions that are being rejected?Who is sharing that information with him and why?Simple questions that need simple answers

Chris Soze ● 2159d

This is an interesting response from Michael Robinson.  He states:"The call-in submissions themselves contain information that isn't relevant to those decisions, such as cycleway 9 and schemes that were approved over a year ago."Which clearly infers that he has seen, or knows what is in, the submissions that have been rejected.  A few questions arise:Is Mr Robinson an employee or contractor to the London Borough of Hounslow?  Is he partaking in the review and selection of which evidence should be provided to the London Borough of Hounslow.  If not an employee or contractor why is he involved in what information is in the submissions that are being rejected?Who is sharing that information with him and why?Simple questions that need simple answers

Chris Soze ● 2159d

Really Bruce? It seemed quite clear to me.  It looks like some are just reading into it what they want to read rather than what is actually written, and just using it as a excuse to rant.Here is a simple version:- the Hounslow cabinet took decisions on the evaluation process of existing schemes and proposed new schemes- those decisions are being 'called-in' for scrutiny- therefore responses need to be about the decisions being called-in for scrutiny.  Namely the evaluation process for existing schemes and proposed new schemes.More detailed information on the evaluation process and proposed new schemes is referenced.And to explain further, the committee can't overturn those cabinet decisions.  They can only request cabinet re-evaluate those decisions.Given there should be a process to evaluate schemes, I can't see the cabinet deciding to change the decision to say there shouldn't be a process.  The future schemes are moot anyway as there isn't funding for them, so if they do come up with changes to this, that isn't a big dealIf you don't like the schemes, maybe you should be asking questions of the Chiswick councillors who could have called-in the decision to implement schemes in the first place, but didn't.

Michael Robinson ● 2159d

The response from Chris Soze demonstrates again that he hasn't actually read the information on the council website.If he had read "APPENDIX 4 - Call In Reasons - Call-in led by Cllr Todd" then he would have seen this includes a section "Cycle Lanes Chiswick High Road".  The terms of the committee are stated as "No questions or statements will be accepted on the C9 scheme".  That part of the submission will therefore not be relevant.Then additionally, Cllr Todd's document references measures on Stile Hall Gardens and Wellesley Rd.  As I am a resident on one of those streets, I know that these schemes have already gone through 3 consultations, the final statutory consultation was issued in September 2019 and the decision to implement made in October 2019. This decision was made using a permanent Traffic Management Order, not an Experimental Traffic Order as other schemes have been. Therefore this also isn't relevant to the call-in as the decision was made over a year ago.  Cllr Todd could have called in the decision at the time, but he didn't.This is a classic example of the 'tinfoil hat' conspiracy theories being put forward by some people, making accusations of insider information when in reality, they couldn't be arsed actually reading material publicly available on the council website.I realise that actually reading publicly available council documentation isn't the most thrilling thing in the world and inventing batshit conspiracy theories is far easier for some people.

Michael Robinson ● 2159d

What are the details of the Labour Party call in.The lead signatory to the request is Cllr Richard Eason who represents Isleworth, and the others are Gurmail Lal, Afzaal Kiani, Puneet Grewal, Amrit Mann, Javed Akhunzada, Surinder Purewal and Mohammed Umair. Eight signatures are the minimum required to secure a call in and opposition councillors are claiming that the move has more widespread support in the Labour group on the council.

Bernard Allen ● 2159d

Richard Eason actually represents the  Osterley & Spring Grove Ward and not Isleworth

Paul Fisher ● 2159d

Bernard, all the documentation is on the Hounslow website... look for monthly calendar and all the documentation is listed for today's meeting.If you like, you can even look at all the meetings for months to come...

Michael Robinson ● 2159d

Not my  mistake Paul

Bernard Allen ● 2159d

Michael you obviously have skills and patience I don't possess! It's no wonder ordinary folk just don't get involved - and that's the way many councils like to keep it.From a personal perspective I would maintain that my submission  included complaints which were most certainly within the scope of the call-in. I admit that I included concerns that weren't (relating to undue influence) but I think it is morally wrong if that led to my entire contibution being disallowed.

Bruce Hammal ● 2158d

This is an interesting response from Michael Robinson.  He states:"The call-in submissions themselves contain information that isn't relevant to those decisions, such as cycleway 9 and schemes that were approved over a year ago."Which clearly infers that he has seen, or knows what is in, the submissions that have been rejected.  A few questions arise:Is Mr Robinson an employee or contractor to the London Borough of Hounslow?  Is he partaking in the review and selection of which evidence should be provided to the London Borough of Hounslow.  If not an employee or contractor why is he involved in what information is in the submissions that are being rejected?Who is sharing that information with him and why?Mr Robinson these are simple questions that need simple answers!

Chris Soze ● 2158d

PS Michael - how do you know there is no funding for future schemes?I thought that in the light of the roaring success so far Hounslow have applied for another round of DfT money. I'm pretty sure this was as said by either Steve Curran or Hanif Khan.

Bruce Hammal ● 2158d

Michael Robinsons post on this thread is both interesting and relevant but, by accident, reveals how LBH is intending to ignore all resident views that do not accord with LBH's preconceived views.It should be pretty obvious that for most road closures/LTNs/cycleways it is vital to take a holistic view of the overall effect on traffic movements.  Closing a road may simply shift traffic onto a different and more dangerous road for example.  When, as is the case in Chiswick, there are a series of changes then the holistic view has to take into account the cumulative effect of all the changes.On that basis the effect of CS9 and/or the current roadworks to implement it could have an effect on the called in decisions.  If LBH are simply rejecting any submissions that mention CS9 impacts that is wrong.  Being a cynic my suspicion is that is exactly what LBH has done

Justin Stephenson ● 2158d

Indeed Justin, it further suggests the gaming of the system by a few professional or serious lobbyists who are fully privy to the workings and procedures and are close to the key decision makers. Others are excluded.

Paul Green ● 2158d

The simple answer is that Chris Soze / David Riley (could they be the same person?) can't be arsed reading information publicly available on the Hounslow website.  Either than or he has read it and is incapable of comprehending it.If he had read "APPENDIX 4 - Call In Reasons - Call-in led by Cllr Todd" then he would have seen this includes a section "Cycle Lanes Chiswick High Road".  The terms of the committee are stated as "No questions or statements will be accepted on the C9 scheme".  That part of the submission will therefore not be relevant.Then additionally, Cllr Todd's document references measures on Stile Hall Gardens and Wellesley Rd.  As I am a resident on one of those streets, I know that these schemes have already gone through 3 consultations, the final statutory consultation was issued in September 2019 and the decision to implement made in October 2019. This decision was made using a permanent Traffic Management Order, not an Experimental Traffic Order as other schemes have been. Therefore this also isn't relevant to the call-in as the decision was made over a year ago.  Cllr Todd could have called in the decision at the time, but he didn't.This is a classic example of the 'tinfoil hat' conspiracy theories being put forward by some people, making accusations of insider information when in reality, they couldn't be arsed actually reading material publicly available on the council website.I realise that actually reading publicly available council documentation isn't the most thrilling thing in the world and inventing batshit conspiracy theories is far easier for some people.

Michael Robinson ● 2158d

There is no money for future schemes  as no additional funding has been announced for Hounslow or any other London borough.Any money that may be available in the future won't come close to funding the list of schemes outlined in the 'Phase 3' document.  In my opinion this looks more like an overall aspiration (or wish list) and there would need to be an additional round of prioritisation and decision making about what comes next should money become available.

Michael Robinson ● 2158d

Agree with Justin and Paul.I don't see how anyone should need to read Paragraph 4, subsection 3.1a and then refer to the footnotes not to mention Appendix 4 specifically article 5.2 (recently superseded by 5.2a including the new 5.3 and 5.4 not yet published) all to let their thoughts be known. Michael is a geek when it comes to this type of minutia but it should not be required for anyone who wants to respond. Something smells fishy.Why not a simple question: why should this be scrutinized?

David Lesniak ● 2158d

Michael are funds available for the removal of any of the temporary measures which are subsequently adjudged to have failed or proved unwanted? Perhaps you could have a dig around and find out. So far nobody has been able or willing to tell me.

Bruce Hammal ● 2158d

Anything done under an Experimental Traffic Order must be capable of being reversed.  None of the measures done by Hounslow are expensive - signage that can be used elsewhere, planters that can be used elsewhere, cameras that can be moved elsewhere, barriers that are held in stock anyway. There is no expensive construction so most of the money is paying for people's time.Cycleway 9 is being funded by TfL.  They may ask for their money back if that is taken out unduly quickly without good cause, as may be happening in K&C.

Michael Robinson ● 2158d

Oh what a tangled web we weave....Thanks anyway.

Bruce Hammal ● 2158d

BruceAnd Michael Robinson and his pals, are masters of obfuscation, deception and deflection when it comes to answering straightforward questions. Shakespearan characters would be turning in their graves !

Loraine Pemberton ● 2158d

"If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment." Ernest Rutherford, Physicist.

Bruce Hammal ● 2158d