Forum Topic

Actualy Vlod I find this helpful because it bears out my own understanding. Some is allocated specifically and some sits in a great pot in the sky and is called upon at whim. The question in this case is how much was specifically allocated and how much came from the ethereal heights? Colm seems to be treading water on this point.I am glad the Conservatives at least made an attempt to track down S.106 monies. I would have thought that the Chief Legal Officer and Finance Director would have done this as a matter of course in the interests of prudent management of the taxpayer’s money – meaning that there was no need for great efforts as you describe. So the competence is in question in my own opinion.Labour generally in historical terms have such an appalling record of prudent money management that you wonder what initiative they are taking now.The next question which you may know, is are there annual reports in say the AMR which break down the figures in a way that Joe Public can understand.I think Colm is ducking and diving by avoiding my earlier question. He is being put on the rack by several people here and is not giving a fulsome answer. As he still is a Councillor and in his favour very active, I consider he should be able to and also wish to demonstrate that, instead of shilly shallying, there is a proper answer about a key subject that annoys many people (and possibly/probably annoys him too).I would not criticise him unduly if he did not know, but I would criticise him if he can’t be bothered to find out and then tell us.

George Knox ● 5283d

Hi LibbyI don't doubt for a minute that Acton and park Royal has a strong community. I appreciate that you and others didn't agree with our decision at the time to return to people their own money, but i would point out that we were not alone in wanting to do this. Every single labour cllr at the time voted for that decision as people at the time were struggling, and we all felt it was right to give them back their own money. Every member of the current Labour cabinet voted for it, with the exception of Cllr Hitesh tailor, who wasn't a cllr at the time. I have cut and paste info from a report on how the £6m cashback worked. there were huge benefits to this and it represented Value for money too. The VFM Premium initiative has gained national recognition. It was short listed in the national Local Government communications awards 2010 in the Value For Money category and is currently short listed by the Institute of Revenues Rating and Valuation awards in the Excellence in Innovation category. Other benefits that have been realised as a result of the initiative include: • A 12% increase in the number of people paying Council Tax by direct debit which is generating the Council savings of over £60,000 per year. Similar campaigns at other London councils have resulted in increase in direct debit payment of one to two per cent. • Improvements in customer records, have resulted in more accurate billing and therefore improvements in collection rates. • As a result of data-matching to ensure accurate payments, individuals with more than one property, and false claims for single person discount have been identified. • A number of potential benefit fraud claims are being investigated by Audit. This has resulted from investigation of instances where Post Office vouchers were not cashed, and reviewing cases where vouchers were cashed by benefit recipients outside the borough. This work has been highlighted by the Audit Commission as an example for good practice. • Further to the development of ICT systems that can manage Post Office transactions, discussions are on-going to switch benefit and other cheque payments that will reduce Council expenditure, reduce fraud, and give customer the benefit of the full value of the cheque (rather than part if cashed at cheque cashing companies). • Following developments as part of the project to link geographic references to all Council Tax properties to allow monitoring of encashments, further business and customer facilities have been displayed so that accounts with arrears can be displayed, and Ealing services and facilities can be displayed graphically for customers. • 33,374 people (97%) of the people without direct debits redeemed their £50 at Post Offices in Ealing (with a value of nearly £1.7 million) and it is likely that a large amount of this would have been spent locally. • Council tax arrears were reduced by £900,000 through direct credits of £50 to their accounts. This would have assisted with customer’s budgeting 7. Impact on the local economy Again, it is difficult to quantify the extent of the impact the VFM premium had on the local economy, but there is evidence that this was beneficial: • A survey of businesses found: o 82% said that the Spend Local initiative was a good idea o 67% said it was well promoted o 29% said they definitely had increased business as a result of the initiative Comments included “Extend this brilliant idea much longer” and “Well done Ealing Council”. • Both Council Tax and Business Rates collection at 31 March 2010 are top quartile in London for the first time. • Business Rates arrears have reduced by £736,000 at a time of national economic difficulty

Colm Costello ● 5283d

I think the whole business about S.106 money is utterly scandalous.The developers cough up cash for S.106 as part and part of the deal when they obtain planning permission. This was introduced years ago to try and stop crooked Councillors taking backhanders.Most of that money goes into a black hole and is dished out mysteriously some time later. Planning Officers are not interested in where it goes particularly. They just apply the formula and leave it to someone else to spend it. Trying to influence how it is allocated at the time of a planning permission is far more difficult than scaling a 10 metre pole of ice with your bare hands.What should happen in a democratic state is that the community should have far more influence on how it is spent. What should happen is that the Council should tell us the bottom line figure in the pot each and every year and then identify how much has been allocated and for what, and what still has to be allocated.I sometimes wonder if the Chief Executive knows how much is in the S.106 pot. I also wonder how much influence the Councillors have over the distribution or if indeed they do. If they do have influence, then it would also be possible to lean on them. Something for the Chief Legal Officer to chew over perhaps and then move the process from being reactive to being open and up front so that we can be more convinced that there is no room for skulduggery.Perhaps CC would like to tell us – but please keep the sound bite language to a minimum. And no use suggesting a letter to the Chief Executive. What is required is an explanation from a Representative of the People.And if you do not know by virtue of lack of experience, then time for you to do your homework and then respond on what is a key issue which affects a huge number of people.Let's see the metal you are made of without diverting us to other issues.

George Knox ● 5287d

Mr Holt. Can you tell me specifically where I have misled people here. Please quote me, otherwise if you continue to say I have misled and not provide any evidence, then you begin to look like you are trying to mislead people yourself. Your understanding of Section 106 is not bad. It is agreed between planners who work for the council and are given direction by their political masters. In the case of the £5.6m agreed this week, the political masters are this Labour council. We agreed a sum of £1,2m to Improve access to this station in 2009. If you read what i said in the original post and follow the link, that was made clear, That is £4.4m less than what Labour have now agreed to this week. Not a few years ago or in a few years time. This week. Section 106 can't be repurposed. That is not the point here or what has happenedhere. The point is this week Labour have if you like purposed £5.6m towards the building of a square in an area that most Ealing residents would not have a clue where it is, unless they work in the industrial estate that the station serves. North Acton Station is not Walpole park, the most popular public park in the entire borough. Of the £4.4m allocated to that park, £2.4m came from the Heritage lottery fund, the rest from Section 106 money. The entire £5.6m allocated to this square mext to North Acton all comes from Section 106 money. Do the maths yourself Mr Holt and tell me, which deal represents better value for money for the council taxpayer.

Colm Costello ● 5287d