First Spalding Road. Now Fletton Parkway!

Spalding Road is the A16.

The A16 from Peterborough to Spalding subsided and was closed (if I remember correctly before it opened) until remedial work was completed. It starts in Paston Ward and travels through Northborough Ward in the Peterborough unitary authority area (governed by Peteborough City Council).

It then enters the Lincolnshire County Council & South Holland District Council areas where it travels through county & district wards: Crowland & Deeping St Nicholas, Moulton (Weston and Cowbit) and Spalding St Mary’s

It also passes through the following parishes:
Newborough, Borough Fen (Peterborough)
Crowland, Cowbit, Weston and Spalding South (South Holland, Lincolnshire)

It travels through two parliamentary constituencies: that of Peterborough Borough and South Holland and the Deepings.

The Fletton Parkway is the A1139

The roadworks which are currently underway and which have hit a £4.5M size brick are within the following areas of local government:

parliamentary constituency: North West Cambridgeshire
unitary authority area: Peterborough City Council
unitary authority wards: Orton Waterville, Orton Longueville and Orton with Hampton
parishes: Orton Waterville, Orton Longueville (and an unparished area)

Further reading

New Listerner

http://www.newlistener.co.uk/home/city-announces-massive-cost-overrun-on-infrastructure-project-due-to-unforeseen-circumstances

Peterborough Telegraph

 

30th January http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/politics/politics-news/contaminated-soil-and-new-works-land-city-council-with-4-5-million-roads-bill-1-6549612

2nd February http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/politics/politics-news/councillors-hit-back-at-mismanagement-claims-over-added-4-5-million-cost-to-fletton-parkway-widening-1-6556083

Was there a Clerk of Works?

Oh!  Again.  Check out the last frame!

To the best of my knowledge Clerk of Works is currently not a role within the organisation structure of Peterborough City Council (I can’t find the role on their website). Happy as always to be corrected.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST – FOI-14-0299 A1139 Fletton Parkway

Although it looks from this document as if there were “site supervision and clerk of works functions” identified, it is clear that one contractor to the council appointed another contractor to the contractor to perform the roles. This is not the same as having one qualified person on one’s own team and begs the question who the possibly qualified person was. Happy as always to be corrected.

If Clerk of Works is the role which secures budgetary control (see above video), why isn’t Morson (the contractor apparently covering the role) picking up 100% of the £4.5M cost overrun?  One way to establish the reason for this would be to subject the relevant contracts and subcontracts to scrutiny by a person competent in law of contract.

Personally, if I were the council I’d bring the role of Clerk of Works straight back in-house to establish and secure a clear line of responsibility and management.  A good properly qualified person in this role could save the city a fortune over time.  I know that breathtaking achievements (even if you only count the beans) are often made, quietly and without a brass band, by people doing this sort of job for other organisations.

Information on the history of the role of Clerk of Works within Peterborough City Council’s remit very welcome.

Simon Machen says there was no reason to expect contamination. Previous scheme on the road had shown no problems #pborocc

— Joel Lamy (@PTJoelLamy) February 16, 2015

@PTJoelLamy ..no reason to expect contamination?

Route of Fletton Parkway last century. pic.twitter.com/TUOAWIRruN

— Fiona Radic (@FionaRadic) February 16, 2015

 

Peterborough City Council Full Council: 17 December 2014

This is a set of recordings of Full Council.  This list was made to help follow these recordings of the event, which are a bit fiddly to follow on Youtube.

The crackle and static are not coming from the recording: they are coming from the council’s own sound system. I am particularly interested in what readers think of this system, which I am given to believe was installed by Serco.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

Part 9

Part 10

Part 11

Part 12

Part 13

Hats off to Chris York, championing transparency and political accountability.  I think it is a tribute to Peterborough’s politicians and politicians elsewhere too, not just the elected councillors that making recordings of debates like this has become possible. As far as I am aware it was always legal, but people have been being slung out of public galleries over the past couple of years for recording events.

Faced with so many challenges, eventually Westminster was forced to make a ruling and councils now have no choice but to give permission. This is the first council meeting I have attended where there was no prohibition notice on the seats in the “Spectators Gallery”.

This shows how some of the best interactions happen behind the scenes and outside the chamber.  And some require the sort of skills and technical know how which might not be present in the chamber itself.  Well done Chris York.

What “NOT VOTING” sounds like in Peterborough

Spectators Gallery sign in Peterborough Town Hall showing the way up four flights of stairs

Last night I arrived at Council too late to catch the whole debate on the council’s plan to make a £1.2M annual saving by cutting the services it currently provides to Peterborough’s children.

But I was in time for the recorded vote.   Our local newspaper has already published this story but has not (so far) provided a list of who voted which way.  I suppose this information will eventually be published in the council’s very own minutes, but who ever reads those?

So, since several people have asked for a breakdown, here are my gleanings  from the Spectators Gallery:

CON    Arculus, Nick    ABSTAIN    West
CON    Casey, Graham    ABSTAIN    Orton Longueville
CON    Lee, Matthew    ABSTAIN    Fletton
CON    Maqbool, Yasmeen    ABSTAIN    West
CON    Simons, George    ABSTAIN    Paston
CON    Sanders, David    name heard but unable to hear response    Eye & Thorney
CON    Allen, Sue     name not heard    Orton Waterville
CON    Cereste Marco    name not heard    Stanground Central
CON    McKean, Dale    name not heard    Eye & Thorney
CON    Walsh, Irene    name not heard    Stanground Central
CON    Dalton, Matthew    NOT VOTING    West
CON    Day, Sue    NOT VOTING    Paston
CON    Elsey, Gavin    NOT VOTING    Orton Waterville
CON    Fitzgerald, Wayne    NOT VOTING    Bretton North
CON    Goodwin, Janet    NOT VOTING    Orton Longueville
CON    Harper, Chris    NOT VOTING    Stanground East
CON    Hiller, Peter    NOT VOTING    Northborough
CON    Holdich, John (OBE)    NOT VOTING    Ghinton & Wittering
CON    Kreling, Pam    NOT VOTING    Park
CON    Lamb, Diane    NOT VOTING    Glinton & Wittering
CON    Nadeem, Mohammed    NOT VOTING    Central
CON    Nawaz, Gul    NOT VOTING    Ravensthorpe
CON    North, Nigel    NOT VOTING    Orton with Hampton
CON    Peach, John    NOT VOTING    Park
CON    Rush, Brian    NOT VOTING    Stanground Central
CON    Scott, Sheila    NOT VOTING    Orton with Hampton
CON    Seaton, David    NOT VOTING    Orton with Hampton
CON    Serluca, Lucia    NOT VOTING    Fletton
CON    Stokes, June    NOT VOTING    Orton Waterville
CON    Thacker, Paula    NOT VOTING    Werrington South
CON    Todd, Marion    NOT VOTING    East
CON     Over, David    NOT VOTING    Barnack
LAB    Forbes, Lisa    FOR    Orton Longueville
LAB    Jamil, Mohammed    FOR    Central
LAB    Johnson, Jo    FOR    East
LAB    Khan, Nazim (MBE)    FOR    Central
LAB    Knowles, John    FOR    Paston
LAB    Martin, Stuart    FOR    Bretton North
LAB    Shabbir, Nabil    FOR    East
LAB    Shearman, John    FOR    Park
LAB    Thulbourn, Nick    FOR    Fletton & Woodston
LAB    Murphy, Ed    FOR    Ravensthorpe
LAB    Sylvester, Ann    FOR    Bretton North
LD    Fower, Darren    FOR    Werrington South
LD    Sandford, Nick    FOR    Walton
LD    Shaheed, Asif    FOR    Walton
LD    Davidson, Julia    name heard but unable to hear response    Werrington South
PIF    Miners, Adrian    declared interest, so unable to vote    Dogsthorpe
PIF    Ash, Christopher    FOR    Dogsthorpe                                                                      PIF    Fletcher, Michael     FOR    Bretton South
PIF    Fox, John    FOR    Werrington North
PIF    Fox, Judith    FOR    Werrington North
PIF    Harrington, David    FOR    Newborough
PIF    Saltmarsh, Christabel    FOR    Dogsthorpe
PIF    Sharp, Keith    FOR    North
PIF    Swift, Charles (OBE)    FOR “but confused”    North
PIF    Lane, Stephen    name not heard    Werrington North

I found it very difficult indeed to pick up the voices of the Conservative councillors last night.  It was a very muffled vote.  I was unaware that “NOT VOTING” was an available option.  I wonder whether or not the Conservatives on the council understand what “ABSTAIN” means?  If they do, then why did they choose to say “NOT VOTING”?  The Chair announced that 23 people voted FOR and that 29 people abstained and that nobody voted against the motion.

I haven’t caught everyone’s response so I know there are errors and some omissions in this list.  Please feel free to correct or explain these if you can (comments are open).  The sound system available to councillors is so bad that many struggle to make it work properly.   People in a meeting may feel confident to signal their vote to the chair, especially if their views are already very well known.

According to the newspaper “a motion to defer closing the centres so that alternative proposals can be considered was carried following a vote and the issue will now be decided at the next meeting of the council’s cabinet.”  But the motion, as I understand it, was proposed by Cllr John Shearman (LAB) and he made a point, immediately prior to the vote, that the motion was to “recommend that Cabinet defer any decision until alternative proposals are proposed, considered and consulted on.”

Well done Peterborough’s opposition.  Last night “spectators” had the pleasure of witnessing over a quarter of Peterborough’s councillors actually holding the executive to account.  I have never seen this before.

This is what it looked like to another observer: http://parkfarmneighbourhoodwatch.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/childrens-centres-first-for.html

Here is a photo of the opposition standing up to demand a recorded vote:  http://terry-harris.photoshelter.com/gallery-image/Full-Council-Childrens-Centre-Closures/G0000xzhmtuMp.a4/I0000UNVajRUjfiU

But the big question now is will Cabinet pay any attention at all to the wishes of Council when it meets on Monday at 10am?

incineration decision: a first response

unofficial poster

Yesterday I wrote to my ward councillors.  Today I opened an email, sent last night at 20:51.   My first response!  Here it is:

“I have evaluated all your points & have complete confidence in the Council to do the right thing. If you had your way, we would all be living in caves.

Cllr Pam Kreling”

Who is she?  Here she is.  (and the email address she used to respond!)  This is one of my ward councillors, and she serves on no fewer than eight council committees, including Planning and Environmental Protection, Audit and, of all things: Strong and Supportive Communities.

Party Election Broadcast from Green Party