Request for a meeting with the Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government
Attn. The Right Honourable Eric Pickles MP
Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government
Dear Secretary of State
We have been advised by Nick Gibb MP that he forwarded our e-mail of 19th May 2014 to you on 20th May 2015, in which we requested a meeting with you to discuss our concerns relating to the conduct of Arun District Council. We have had no response to date – 10 weeks later.
We also e-mailed you on 18th June 2014 and 10th July 2014 – again, we have had no response.
We did receive a letter from Brandon Lewis MP – but this did not address the concerns raised in our e-mail. We assume this must have been in response to earlier correspondence?
In order to provide context and to assist you in locating our communications we have appended our e-mails of 19th May and 18th June below, without appendices. Our e-mail of 10th July is not appended.
The purpose of this Freedom of Information request is therefore to establish if you have received those communications.
We therefore request copies of:
1. All of the appendices included with our e-mails (this will establish if our e-mails have been received. By your publishing them we will know that our complaint has been received.)
2. The letter from Nick Gibb MP in which he forwarded our concerns to you.
3. All internal communications relating to this matter, including e-mails, notes of meetings, notes of phone calls etc.
4. All communications between ministers or officers from DCLG and councillors or officers at Arun District Council relating to our complaint.
We are aware that the leader of Arun District council has connections at cabinet level and, if this presents you with a conflict of interest in any way, or if it is in any way responsible for the delay in responding to our concerns, then we would appreciate it if you could inform us.
FOI law requires public bodies to take account of requestor's preferred means of communication. Therefore, would you please publish any response to this FOI request to this WhatDoTheyKnow web address.
Yours sincerely
Roger Thomas
Hugh Coster
Terry Ellis
Tony Dixon
E-mail 18th June 2014
Attn. The Right Honourable Eric Pickles MP
Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government
Dear Secretary of State
Nick Gibb MP has recently forwarded to you our request for a meeting along with details of our concerns.
While you are considering this we thought that it might help if we brought you up to date on recent developments relating to a complaint made to Sir Bob Kerslake and responded to on his behalf by Richard Heaton, Permanent Secretary to the Cabinet Office.
Please find attached:
Letter following investigation by Richard Heaton, Permanent Secretary to the Cabinet Office.
E-mail from Cabinet Office outlining its recommendation following its Mystery Shopper investigation.
E-mail from Mr Dixon to Arun District Council.
We would like to take this opportunity to highlight an example of the smoke and mirrors the council uses in its dealings with the public:
Cabinet Office to Arun District Council - 1st April 2014:
“In the interest of achieving best value for money we therefore recommend that the Council should use this opportunity to re-visit the market by initiating a new OJEU process.”
Statement posted on Arun web site - 8th April 2014 :
“The Cabinet Office has confirmed it has not recommended that Arun District Council should initiate a new OJEU tendering process for the Regis Centre redevelopment...”
See http://www.arun.gov.uk/main.cfm?type=NOB...
Richard Heaton, Permanent Secretary and First Parliamentary Counsel to the Cabinet Office - 13th June 2014:
“The lead official on the case, Olaf Dudley, wrote to Arun District Council and yourself, on 1 and 2 April respectively, recommending that a new procurement should be initiated in the interest of achieving best value for money.”
Whilst this highlights the seriousness of our concern, it is, as you know, by no means the only issue we wish to bring to your attention. Others are equally serious, and we are very keen to meet you in order to outline in further detail our concern as to the way business is conducted at Arun District Council and the manner in which the Council treats the public
We look forward to your reply.
Yours sincerely
Roger Thomas
Hugh Coster
Terry Ellis
Tony Dixon
E-mail to Mr Gibb 19th May 2015
Attn. Nick Gibb MP
Dear Mr Gibb
Thank you for meeting with us on Friday and for hearing our concerns relating to the conduct of Arun District Council (ADC).
Thank you also for agreeing to take our concerns in person to Mr Pickles the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and to convey our request for a meeting with him so that we can present our concerns to him in person.
We are politically independent (and, as such, we are representative of the 98% of the population not affiliated to any political party) and we recognise the difficulty that this gives you with local Conservatives – thank you for agreeing to “park” the party politics, and to represent the legitimate concerns of your constituents to government.
This matter needs investigating at the highest level because of Cllr Mrs Brown’s (the leader of Arun District Council) personal connections to the government’s Cabinet. For this reason, we also request that you do not disclose details of this complaint to Arun District Council until the matter has been presented to the Secretary of State.
We are concerned that Arun District Council is, quite deliberately, refusing to accept the requirements of the Localism Act and to properly engage with the public.
To summarise the points we raised with you:
Roger Thomas raised concerns with DCLG in 4th October 2013 and, as a result, an investigation was commenced by Wendy Slinger of DCLG who was initially very helpful. (See appendices 1, 2, 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b and 5). Suddenly, Wendy Slinger became very defensive and denied having commenced the investigation (which became an "enquiry") and stated that an investigation is outside the remit of the DCLG. We are concerned that undue influence may have been applied to halt the investigation. We would add that Wendy Slinger did advise Hugh Coster during a telephone conversation on this matter that the proper course of action, if we require DCLG intervention, was to make requests for a meeting with Mr Pickles through our local MP. This is why we are approaching you for assistance now.
A Freedom of Information request has revealed that an investigation is within the remit of the DCLG see DCLG website: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati... under "priorities" which states: "ensuring Council Tax payers get value for money and making their local council accountable to them"
Also see Localism legislation: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011... Chapter 7 "Standards" para 27(1) which says: "A relevant authority must promote and maintain high standards of conduct by members and co-opted members of the authority."
The documents showing the investigation conducted (in part) by the DCLG were provided by both the DCLG and by ADC. See https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c... for full details.
Indeed, Eric Pickles, the Secretary of State told the BBC Panorama programme on the Tower Hamlets Mayor that he had the powers to investigate Councils and Councillors and to put inspectors into Councils to conduct an investigation. We believe that this should happen at Arun.
We are concerned that DCLG may be colluding with ADC in covering up the fact that an investigation took place. We are also concerned that the investigation was stopped, after it had commenced, for reasons that are, as yet, unclear.
We are also concerned that Arun has issued information to the DCLG that is not true in order to subvert or avoid further investigation. In particular Mr Thomas made a special point to the DCLG that Arun had ignored the results of its own regeneration consultation which showed a total majority no vote to the three major elements of the proposals, being the multi-screen cinema, flats and hotel (see point 3 in Hugh Coster's email to Wendy Slinger below). Arun did not respond to this, diverting the issue to other questions, and instead quoted a highly selected section (18 people) of ONE small survey which totalled just 362 people. This is an improper distortion of the truth which was not followed up by the DCLG, even when it was brought to Wendy Slinger's attention by Hugh Coster. This sort of distortion of the truth is unacceptable in the real and business world, and should be unacceptable in the political world too.
In an exchange of letters in the local newspaper the Chief Executive of Arun District Council, Mr Lynn, publicly offered to meet Mr Thomas and his supporters saying: “we would welcome a meeting with Mr Thomas and the local residents he claims to represent so that we can discuss any concerns regarding this matter further” (Bognor Observer 21st November 2013) . Mr Thomas then accepted this (thereby forming the basis of an agreement or contract between them) saying: “thank you very much for your invitation and I accept it gladly. I will find a suitable venue for this meeting to fit us all in and advise you of the address.” but once Mr Lynn realised that meeting Mr Thomas' supporters effectively meant a public meeting he reneged on the commitment and introduced new conditions, wanting the meeting to be held in private. This is improper behaviour for a public servant, and Mr Thomas wishes Mr Lynn to adhere to the original agreement so that Mr Lynn's responses may be open and transparent to all. This is entirely reasonable and within the spirit of Localism.
In December 2013 Tony Dixon wrote to the Cabinet Office mystery shopper scheme to ask them to investigate the conduct of Arun District Council with regard to the regeneration proposals for Bognor Regis.
The concerns raised relate not to the original OJEU (Official Journal of the European Communities) tendering process, but to what has gone on since the original contract award – and Mr Dixon asked the Cabinet Office to investigate whether a decision taken by the council to extend the development agreement, made with full knowledge that the value of the scheme is now reduced from the £106 million original contract award to £25-£40 million, constituted a breach or infraction of the OJEU tendering process (or contract law?) i.e. are there any obligations on the council to meet the terms of a contract awarded through an OJEU tendering process?
The Cabinet Office duly investigated and stated in 3 e-mails:
2nd April - “Cabinet Office has subsequently recommended that a new OJEU process should be initiated, and the Council’s representative has confirmed that they will make all officers and members dealing with the matter aware of this recommendation.”
4th April – “We made the recommendation earlier this week for the Council to consider.”
8th April – “Where contracts have been entered into several years ago and under which work has not yet commenced, we recommend that authorities consider if they continue to represent best value for money and that a new procurement is initiated if they do not.”
Arun District Council published a release on its web site that said:
“The Cabinet Office has confirmed it has not recommended that Arun District Council should initiate a new OJEU tendering process for the Regis Centre redevelopment, despite claims made by Bognor Regis Civic Society.
The Cabinet Office Mystery Shopper scheme provides an informal route for concerns to be raised about public procurement issues. The Cabinet Office accept these referrals on an anonymous basis with the aim to discuss issues with contracting authorities and where necessary make recommendations based on good procurement policy and practice.
The Cabinet Office has confirmed that it did not investigate the original contract award and that there is no suggestion from the work it has done that its award was not made in accordance with the Public Contracts Regulations or the EU Directives on public procurement. The department therefore confirmed that the e-mail circulated from Bognor Regis Civic Society is not correct in this respect.
Councillor Mrs Gillian Brown, Leader of Arun District Council, said: “The Cabinet Office has conceded that the information given to Mr Dixon was untrue - Arun District Council has not breached the terms of the OJEU on tendering regulations. Nor has it been investigated for doing so.
“Therefore I would like to make it clear that while the Council has extended the developer agreement with St Modwen, no other decisions have been made so Arun District Council has not breached any regulations and any allegations made along these lines are completely without substance.
“We are pushing for a full apology and are very disappointed with the Cabinet Office for putting information out into the public arena which was completely untrue.”
The council publicly states that the information provided to Mr Dixon is untrue and that no investigation has taken place. Which, if true, calls into question the integrity of the Cabinet Office Mystery Shopper service and the officers concerned.
You described the investigating officer to us as a “junior clerk”. We wondered how you knew this and, if you are correct, it raises concerns that government public procurement investigations are being carried out by “junior clerks”.
You have been copied in on a formal complaint to Sir Bob Kerslake (see appendix 7) calling for a high level investigation. It is anticipated that he will investigate the legal and procedural matters.
Mr Pickles still needs to consider the ethical matters relating to the conduct of the council. The council is proposing to “short change” the people of Bognor Regis by making a decision to allow the developer to bring forward revised proposals that constitute a substantial reduction in the contracted investment in their town. This needs bringing to Mr Pickles’ attention urgently.
Mr Dixon also brought to your attention a Freedom of Information request he made to the council in February 2012, raising concerns that Littlehampton might be receiving favourable treatment when compared to Bognor Regis, when it comes to funding provided by Arun District Council.
It is quite clear that the council did not want to provide the information and that it was “ducking and diving” with the Freedom of Information Act. It took 16 months and two interventions by the Information Commissioner’s Office before the council provided the information.
Please see here for full details: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...
This is just one example of how the council “ducks and dives” with the provisions of the FOIA and we want to draw this to Mr Pickles’ attention. We can provide further examples if required.
This is an e-mail from Bognor Regis Civic Society to Wendy Slinger of DCLG dated 7th November 2013 which represents the legitimate concerns of residents of Bognor Regis. There is no indication that these issues were addressed at all.
“Dear Wendy,
Good to speak to you earlier today.
Firstly, we would like to emphasise that we are a properly constituted Society of local residents with some 250 subscribing members and over 1,000 supporters, and with a Constitution approved by the Civic Trust and a proper annual election procedure conducted at a public AGM. In accordance with our Constitution we are non-political and we wish to emphasise that we are not interested in local political issues at all. We are only interested in the well-being of Bognor Regis and the surrounding area.
We hold monthly public meetings at which issues of local concern are debated, and not only do we gain insight as to the feelings of local people through these, but also because most of our members and supporters have lived in this area a long time and have wide connections. As a result we gain a great deal of feedback as to local knowledge, views and opinions, and we take care that the views we express as a Society are always in line with these. Nevertheless, Arun District Council persist in calling us the "vocal minority" and being, at times, extremely disparaging about us and our right to express these views. We do not feel that this is at all the attitude that a Local Authority should adopt, and certainly not in line with the "Big Society" or Localism.
Our principal complaint about Arun District Council is that it entirely fails to listen or pay attention to the opinions or wishes of Bognor Regis people. In no way does the Council seem to have adopted the spirit of "localism", and we would very much like Mr. Pickles to instruct Arun that the Big Society and Localism does not stop with them, but carries on down to the lowest rungs of the ladder, being the public themselves. We could give a great many examples of Arun's arrogant attitude, but in connection with Bognor Regis Regeneration matters, a few are:
1. Ignoring a petition of nearly 11,000 signatures asking them not to build a Multiplex Cinema on their land. Even if they had technical reasons for not accepting the totality of the petition, the sheer weight of numbers should have given them reason to find a compromise. But they didn't.
2. Ignoring a petition of 10,158 signatures asking them not to build flats on the last remaining seafront leisure site in the heart of the town which they themselves designated the "leisure heart" and the "jewel in the crown". Once again there has been no compromise, in spite of the large number of signatories.
3. Ignoring the results of their own regeneration consultation, where their 3 surveys, totalling 5,098 people showed a 26% majority NO vote to the Multiplex cinema, also majority no votes to the flats and the hotel. They claim that the majority YES vote of the under 35s in ONE of their surveys justifies this, but that survey was of just 362 people, in which just 18 (eighteen) people were under 35! This is hugely and unfairly selective and unrepresentative, and entirely wrong.
4. Ignoring a petition of over 2,000 signatures asking them to abide by their own consultation results, as shown in 3. above.
5. Refusing to come to public meetings in Bognor Regis organised by ourselves in order to allow them to explain their views to the public, listen to the public, answer questions and enter into debate. In the last two years we have invited the Leader of the Council to come to such a meeting 10 times and have always been refused. On one occasion we gave her the option to name a date of her own choosing so that the problem was not lack of available time, but she still refused. Arun has held only one such meeting of its own in that time, and that was restricted attendance by ticket only, questions in advance in writing only, and no debate allowed. Unsurprisingly, few people attended.
6. Setting up, funding and relying on the regeneration views of a group that meets in secret, publishes no agendas or minutes, has no constitution or (they admit) legal existence and professing that this is a "partnership organisation". It is not, because the majority are not elected by anybody and are representing only themselves or their businesses and legitimately constituted residents groups such as ourselves are excluded. The decisions taken are put forward by Arun through an ex-employee who is paid by Arun to run the group (through another organisation) and inevitably all is agreed by them. This is in no way a legitimate partnership group and is no more than a sham, designed to deceive onlookers into thinking they are "working with local people".
7. At last night's (6th November) meeting, because the public were unhappy at the loaded nature of the questions in the previous consultation (devised by the Developer and Arun), an amendment was proposed that the next one should be devised and conducted by an independent market research company. This was voted down by the ruling majority along party lines, but no explanation was given as to why there should be any objection to an independent and impartial company doing this work. This inevitably leads to suspicion that there is an intention to (at the very least) control the questions and hence the results.
There are a great many more issues we could name, but I will not go on for the moment. Please, however, do not assume that this is the totality of our dissatisfaction with the way Arun has treated the people of Bognor Regis. Please also do not assume that we are just "complainers" or "campaigners". We always wish to be positive and pro-active and we have a great many ideas as to the way the Town can be regenerated. However, Arun District Council will not listen at all.
In 2000 we carried out a great deal of research work and created a Masterplan for the regeneration of the Town. This, however, was completely ignored by Arun, who eventually paid consultants £50,000 to do exactly the same thing. We continually say we wish to work with Arun, and the principle of working with Local Authorities for the good of the locality is incorporated in our Constitution. However, Arun continues to ignore us and the people of Bognor Regis.
As stated above, the simple solution lies in Arun being instructed to genuinely and fully adopt the principles and spirit of the Big Society and Localism -- in particular by fully engaging with the people of Bognor Regis. If Mr. Pickles would be good enough to let them know of his interest in this matter and his views, it would help a very great deal.
If you need any more information, please do not hesitate to get in touch. You may be interested to have a look at our website, as shown below, which has a number of pages on regeneration issues and much more besides.
With kind regards,
Hugh Coster
Deputy Chairman.“
If Mr Pickles wants to understand the council’s attitude towards the Bognor Regis Civic Society he should take a look at this Facebook page which, we believe, was created by an Arun Cabinet member and features comments from a number of Arun councillors. https://www.facebook.com/groups/20254734...
We think it’s quite clear that the council is pursuing some sort of grudge against the Civic Society and its members.
This is an e-mail from Terry Ellis of Littlehampton to Nick Herbert MP dated 2nd May 2014 which represents the legitimate concerns of residents of Littlehampton:
“Dear Mr Herbert
Although we are not in your constituency, the Local Plan decision on housing will impact on Littlehampton, so we are seriously concerned regarding the proposed 2,000 houses in BEW, 600 in Angmering and a 1,000 in The West Bank.
On behalf of many people who have signed to the aims and principles of the Littlehampton Community Charter, (some 2,000 individual signatures and 66 Groups, Societies and Traders in Littlehampton) I would like to thank you for coming along to the ADC Full Council meeting in Littlehampton.
You will now be acquainted with the manner in which ADC takes into consideration the views of the residents. We have for many months been trying to get ADC to hear and understand the views of the residents of Littlehampton and feel very aggrieved at their handling of matters.
Some of the matters are outlined below. As we do not appear to ever get anywhere, we are looking for assistance in this matter and felt that as you witnessed firsthand their attitude to this, that perhaps you can give us some guidance in how to tackle this District Council.
Their attitude to the Government’s localism opportunities is extremely bad as they simply pay lip service to it or just seem to ignore it. The manner and statements regarding the Localism Act, in which ADC is riding roughshod over Government legislated localism, is disgraceful.
I have said they are morally, intellectually and financially bankrupt and are funding everything by selling off piece by piece property and land in Littlehampton. They want to sell the Town’s Swimming Pool and Leisure Centre off. They want to sell off the Windmill Theatre and Cinema Centre. They want to sell of the Town’s main car park, St Martin’s, to private developers. They originally wanted to sell of part of Norfolk Gardens for housing development. They want to claw back and sell land run by Littlehampton’s Sunnyfield Caravan & Camping site, making it commercially unviable. It just goes on.
They NEVER seem to listen or even hear what our two local MP's say.
They NEVER consult with the people of Littlehampton - so how do they claim to represent us.
One other problem is coming to mind, when asking questions at Council meetings they never answer the question, merely trot out a reply that suits them and makes them look good and as there are never any chances to ask supplementary questions at that meeting, they know they can get away with it.
They will not attend open meetings where the Residents can debate with them.
Ham and River Ward in Littlehampton suffer from serious deprivation, which is among the worst in the South East.
ADC cancelled the Windmill Inspire Leisure Cinema provisions, after a request by ADC for Inspire Leisure to reduce costs, this was against the wishes of the people and it is only due to the efforts of the people that we have the cinema re-opened.
ADC under the current leadership has taken over 9 years to implement a Local Plan and still has not done so. Part of that plan is the St Modwen scheme, which will include a Multiplex Cinema, we were at meeting of East Preston Parish Council where the Chair of ADC stated that Littlehampton is included in the catchment area for this Multiplex. It is not the same as having a Cinema in Littlehampton and is a fob-off against the development on the existing Windmill site.
Has allowed the regeneration of Bognor Regis to develop into a farce with no substantive decisions after 6 years and been prepared to let this continue year on year
Ruined the Littlehampton Neighbourhood Plan, with a last gasp intervention with the Independent Examiner, and still refuses to have this matter sorted out so we have a Neighbourhood Plan.
Against the wishes of the people ADC has stated that they were keeping the Swimming Pool Land and the Sportsdome Land to ‘Develop’.
Tried to close down the Bowling Green and Tennis Courts at Maltravers Park
Not have any communication with the Traders regarding the Pier Road work
ADC are trying to cram in houses in the Wick area, on an already developed site, against the wishes of the local residents and Littlehampton Town Council.
We seriously need assistance in dealing with this District Council and your advice would be welcomed, now that you have seen them in action.
With best regards
Terry Ellis, Littlehampton”
See appendix 8 for a letter from Littlehampton Town Council to Arun District Council relating to the closure of the Windmill Cinema.
This is what Littlehampton Town Council has to say on its web site about the manner in which ADC has undermined its neighbourhood plan.
LTC’s web site says: “Arun District Council in a representation to the examiner outside the formal arrangements for commenting argued that to ‘enable the relocation of the leisure centre they need to retain the appropriate flexibility on possible uses in order to assist the funding of the new facility’. In other words they want to be able to redevelop the site. This representation was not shared with everyone until after the examiner’s report had been circulated. The examiner accepted this late representation by ADC and has recommended the removal of the restriction of use for leisure purposes”
The clause in question was designed to ensure that, in the event of the Littlehampton Swimming and Sports Centre being relocated to elsewhere in the town the site would be preserved for leisure use only.
Obviously, the stakeholders in the Neighbourhood Plan can no longer recommend it to their residents and, if it were to go through to referendum, they would be put in the position of opposing the very document they helped to create!
Cllr Mrs Brown, leader of Arun District Council said:
“This is very positive news for the residents of Littlehampton who have been involved throughout the process of creating this Plan. However, it is very disappointing for local residents that Littlehampton Town Council have yet to agree to the examiners recommendations. This will delay the opportunity for residents to have their say as the referendum will have to be postponed.”
You see how it works now – Arun have amended the document but it is all the fault of the Town Council that the referendum will now be delayed whilst it takes legal advice.
At Full Council, on 30th April 2014, residents from Wick presented a petition opposing plans to build council houses in open spaces on an existing estate. Towards the end of the meeting councillors put forward a motion to represent the interests of those residents.
Please have a look at the web cast (Reference point: 4 hours, 7 minutes) and view for yourself the outrageous comment made by Councillor Dendle who said he might have supported the motion if it had come from a different member but “I certainly won’t support a motion from a cynical parliamentary candidate”.
The debate was very short because the Conservative Group proposed that “the motion now be put”. In doing so they deliberately prevented opposition members from representing the interests of those residents. It was a clear case of party politics over the concerns of local residents.
What chance to those residents have of a fair hearing with such infantile party politicking from a cabinet member. All they need is a council that will give them a fair hearing.
We have brought to your attention many legitimate concerns from both the Bognor Regis and Littlehampton perspectives and we now call on you to convey in person our request for a meeting with the Secretary of State so that we can present our concerns to him in person.
We would also like to thank Councillor Wells, Mayor of Bognor Regis, for attending the meeting as an independent witness.
Yours sincerely
Roger Thomas
Tony Dixon
Hugh Coster
Terry Ellis
Copy: Councillor Wells
Dear Department for Communities and Local Government,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Department for Communities and Local Government's handling of my FOI request 'Request for a meeting with the Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government'.
We have not received a response to this FOI request. Therefore, we have no alternative now other than to request an internal review.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/r...
Yours faithfully,
Tony Dixon
Dear Department for Communities and Local Government,
Can you please provide an update on this internal review.
Yours faithfully,
Tony Dixon
Dear Department for Communities and Local Government,
As requested previously, can you please provide an update on this internal review.
Yours faithfully,
Tony Dixon
Our reference: 503417
Your reference: F0008083 Information request
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr Thomas and Mr Dixon
Plesae find attached our response to your request for an internal review
of Freedom of Inoformatin requests F0008083 and F0007961.
Yours sincerely
Maewyn Cumming
Chief Knowledge Manager
[email address]
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now