Forum Topics

Worthy of consideration?

Several times on this forum the way Hounslow Council now conducts its business has been questioned. In the past few months we have seen several examples of very unhappy residents banging their collective heads against an intransigent wall of officers with elected members seemingly incapable or unwilling to intervene.Hounslow now has the 'cabinet' model where a few members with portfolios for specific areas have the power invested in them, and officers have had more and more power delegated to them, even though none of them were elected to represent us. The previous committee set-up might have been slightly more bureaucratic but it seems to me that it at least had the merit of giving each and every councillor a role and a purpose. It also gave all councillors an opportunity to have an overview of what the issues were in other wards apart from their own and to give them some consideration at budget setting time, it also afforded members the chance to ask about and probe officers reports and recommendations, something that appears to have gone the way of the Dodo. Now it seems from recent experience that officers call the tune and members just quietly acquiesce, never mind the locals they said they wanted to represent. This cabinet system seems to have disenfranchised not only the public but a lot of elected councillors as well.It now seems the tail wags the dog. From a conversation I had today I gather some authorities have had a change of heart and reverted back to the 'old' way of doing things, from where I am I'd say it's way past time Hounslow took a good, hard look at what the hell they are doing, because looking at this forum and W4 I'd say there are a lot of very unhappy bunnies out there. None of what goes on fills many of us with much confidence in the political system, time for a change?  

Vanessa Smith ● 4218d4 Comments ● 4217d

Horse Play in Isleworth?

There has been much comment on various threads about the leasing of a public amenity in Northcote Avenue, Isleworth, to a private individual for the grazing of horses without, it would appear, any kind of prior consultation with erstwhile users or local residents.Following on from said comment I decided to take a look for myself at what little documented evidence there is available around this decision.The document which refers can be viewed at http://democraticservices.hounslow.gov.uk/documents/s109338/CO%20Grazing%20licence%20Northcote%20Ave.pdfAccording to this "Chief Officer Delegated Approval" - signed by Hounslow's Director of Regeneration, Economic Development and Environment - the grazing licence was agreed "with the permission from Leisure Services, who manage the land and Lead Ward Member Cllr Sampson".I have a few questions arising from this:1. Unless the rules have changed since I was a Hounslow councillor (up until May 2010), only the relevant Cabinet (former Executive) portfolio holder may take a Single Member Decision.  Such a decision cannot be taken by a simple ward member, only members of the Cabinet have the right and such decisions must only be taken by each respective councillor within the orbit of his/her area of Cabinet responsibility.  Councillor Sampson's portfolio, as listed on the Council's website, is "Communities and Economic Development".  The relevant portfolio area for this issue would presumably be "Public Health and Leisure", which is held by Councillor Sachin Gupta.  Why then has this decision been signed off by Cllr Sampson as opposed to Cllr Gupta?2. Again when I was a councillor, there was no such thing as a "Lead Ward Member".  All three ward members had equal status.  When and by what means was the office of "Lead Ward Member" created and where has this decision been publicised?  Who appoints/elects a "Lead Ward Member"?3. Lead Ward Member or no, we have established that the appropriate portfolio holder was Cllr Gupta and not Cllr Sampson.  Why then did the Director of Regeneration, Economic Development and Environment solicit, or at least accept, the signature of the wrong Lead Member on the document?  Was Cllr Gupta consulted about this process and if so why was he not asked to sign the document?4. Why has the Leader of the Council not intervened to correct any of the errors above?  Should we assume from his silence that he is happy with the handling of this matter, including the apparent undermining by a senior officer of Cllr Gupta?5. Ditto Councillor Ruth Cadbury, the prospective parliamentary candidate.  Has she taken an interest in this development and the ever increasing concern that it is provoking amongst the surrounding community, from which she presumably aspires to attract votes?5. Why was there no public consultation prior to the decision when it impacts upon the residents of an entire estate and a few more people besides?  Bearing in mind that the Council is presently employing Community Engagement Officers on substantial salaries, is it reasonable that very highly paid senior officers could "forget" to consult dwellers on an entire estate before removing from them a much used amenity?  Was this omission not spotted by ward members, lead or lesser, at the time?6. In her early posts Vanessa Smith, who has been following this matter throughout, seems to be of the view that senior officers have been running this show over the heads of elected members, and implies that this is the impression given to her by elected members themselves.  And yet one of the ward councillors is named on the document as having authorised the approval given to a private resident to use the site for grazing.  This would appear contradictory, so what is the truth on this please?7. Was the applicant to whom the grazing licence has been granted known to any of the councillors or officers prior to this decision?  Does he/she have any connection to the estate?  If so, would it be reasonable to me to assume that this fact was declared prior to the decision having been signed off?That's enough to be getting on with, hopefully somebody in authority on this Council may be able to shed some light on this for me.  Many thanks.

Phil Andrews ● 4285d332 Comments ● 4219d