For more on Cornwall Council collusion, waste, ineptitude, tax cash thrown and Matthew Taylor (now Lord Taylor of Goss Moor) loans and shenanigans, see Ken's "Incinerator" report further down.
Cornwall Council's annual accounts for 2018/19:
We have obtained a full copy of the authority's accounts and can forward them by e-mail to anyone who wants a copy. In the meantime we have circulated relevant pages and a brief breakdown summary, which included the following info:
The Council’s long and short-term debt is £728,209,000 (page 21)
Interest paid was £101,716,000, which works out as £1.94 million a week (page 63).
Senior employees, strategic officers, salaries and pension contributions amounted to £1.5 million a year. (Only detail available).
There are a total of 201 employees (civil servants), on salaries between £50,000 and £180,000 a year. Included in this figure are 5 on between £100,000 and £150,000 a year, and 6 on between £150,000 and £179,999 a year (page 90)
Redundancies cost £3,869,000 (page 91)
Waste contracts, disposal and collection, cost £56,500,000, £1.08 million a week.
Just a thought, we now have 21 employees with job titles as Directors; what do they all do?!!
The poor level of governance being conducted by Cornwall Council today continues to be one of the most discussed subjects in council taxpayers’ everyday conversations, where there is a considerable and special emphasis on the control of their council tax. Never has so much distrust and controversy existed, as it is today where the fault appear to be the cultures that have eaten away at normal democratic process brought about by Unitary with the blame for this firmly placed at the inexperienced top level of civil servants now employed.
Certain members have personally experienced the lowering of levels of competence and democratic process in various departments and we have also now seen a trickle of councillors now agreeing with the few who have had the courage in the past to speak up and admitting all is not well at County Hall. The buck stops at the top where in my opinion the problem lies.
First and foremost we witness irregularities such as breaches of the 1972 Local Government Act procedures where recently we saw an employee chairing a council meeting, totally inappropriate and unconstitutional. Also we regularly see employed officers attempting of inflict policies much to the detriment of democratic process, policies should be made by elected members not employees. Taxpayers are entitled to ask, considering the top heavy and well-paid senior civil servants now employed who are supposed to be well versed in local government procedures, why is such conduct allowed.
Following the Council leader’s invitation to the public to submit more questions to the council which initially resulted in a good response, it only travelled a short path before being torpedoed at later meeting when its chair announced that the council would not be replying to supplementary questions at meetings in future. Transparency took another blow when taxpayers were reminded that they were only allowed two questions a year. This beggars belief considering so much controversy concerning accountability and transparency is taking place at County Hall where the flippant reference to the Kremlin is gradually becoming warranted.
Another noticeable culture now in practice and goes on unchecked, more often than not is when cabinet members answer questions from the pubic they read out officer prepared answers while not necessarily agreeing with what they are reading out. Something not right here, why do elected members put up with it? Democracy and transparency continues on its slippery slope.
Langarth “Garden Village”
This project along with the Truro Pydar Street Redevelopment, apparently will require £159 million, which has to be borrowed, is surrounded by controversy, confusion and questionable practice continues along its bumpy and questionable path, a situation widely expressed as “Shenanigans”. Knowing that path as many of us do the label of “Shenanigans’” puts it mildly. The reality is this project has involved controversy, collusion, treachery, pressurising of landholders and untold questionable conduct. If something is not right it is not right, this project is not right on most fronts.
Is it planned to build 2700 houses, or 4,000? The figures keep changing, Although elected members have not approved the change to 4,000 houses, the figures are used as and when appropriate. Have the land been purchased or not? have the impact on infrastructure been considered? Have health, education services and climate change been considered? Have the water and sewage problems been resolved? Have all these issues been logically taken into consideration? Climate change and the loss of over 600 acres acres of good food producing farmland, have these been logically considered? not a chance. Questionable motives have driven this project from day one. In the opinion of many the project management and the shenanigans surrounding it resembles a script for a murder mystery and will not take a genius to unravel. This project has no place in a democratic society, too many negatives and questions. Many will understand what we are saying.
We now find this project could well be affected by the recent announcement from the Public Works Loan Board (PWLB) that its interest rate will increase by a whole one per cent, described by some as Whitehall throwing a hand grenade into local authority borrowing plans. We remind that it was only in May that the National Audit Office announced it was investigating the growing trend of councils borrowing from PWLB to fund property investment. A comment from David Green, client director of treasury advisor Arlington, states “that this will price the PWLB out of the local authority market”.
This project should be of interest to all council taxpayers as, if successful, would surely result in increased council tax for many years to come. You have been warned.
Audit Committee Meeting.
At the recent meeting held on Friday 4th October, which was attended by independent auditors Grant Thornton, we saw exchanges being conducted on Christian name terms, which did not do much to inspire confidence in the level of independence that should have been present in this situation. It is interesting that not one of the council’s cabinet members attended. Surely this involves their responsibilities. This appears to be too cosy for us.
Newquay Airport.
While the spaceport commands most attention normal operations continue with increased flights and destinations along with providing parking for Thomas Cook aircraft now idle.
No new news on aircraft control equipment replacement or staff recruitment has been published to date. However it still needs taxpayer’s money to keep it afloat.
There appears to be an abnormal turnover of employees and there is a report of a union being called in to investigate the reported level of bullying.
Enquiries to the airport manager have failed to generate a response. This is not surprising, as this conduct has been experienced in the past. This says it all.
Newquay Cliff repairs.
We now learn that earlier repairs to the cliff slip at the Great Western beach involved the use of sub-standard material. This failure could have had significant consequences as regards to public safety and it should not be brushed aside, this blatant negligence by Cormac/Cornwall Council as regards to its responsibilities as required by Health and Safety and the CDM Regulations 2015, warrants an inquiry and retribution. The faulty materials will be replaced in November at no cost to the public. However this has presented a danger to the public during the recent holiday season.
Trees cut down in Truro.
Residents of Beechwood Parc, Truro, are furious after a row of trees at the entrance to their homes have been cut down without warning, are claiming the level of destruction could have a detrimental effect on wildlife and climate change. Cornwall Council has informed residents the removal of the trees was above board. This site known locally as The Vineyard still involves controversy and confusion with the barns and other remains.
Traveller site at Liskeard
Cornwall has allocated around £1.75 million for a dedicated traveller park with modern amenities on a site at South Treviddo, near Liskeard, close to the A30. This, when completed, will accommodate up to 30 caravans at any one time. Taxpayers are saying the money could be better spent on affordable homes for Cornish people. Time will tell.
Finally, Ken Rickard's (Chair CWFSDB) monthly report on that holy grail of Cornwall Council waste (both figuratively and literally!): the Incinerator!
Controversy continues with the news that 1278 tonnes of MSW (waste) was sent to landfill in this year during a shutdown, and with the publishing of the Suez report on the failure of the electricity generating steam turbine and other parts, which occurred after only twelve months of operating.
The landfill of MSW took place when the incinerator was shutdown for repairs. The contractor, Suez, will pay landfill taxes amounting to £115,000. However we see no consideration or allowance for additional transport costs or additional emissions, which adversely effects climate change.
The 19-page report compiled by SUEZ reported the three damaged parts in detail, however it did not explain the root cause of the damage. One is entitled to question the reason for this lack of clarity, it is situations such as this that raises doubt and supports engineers opinion that the incinerator project was the most cheapskate they had ever worked on, and that we, the community, should not be surprised if it blew up at some stage. We are aware that whereas a foreign company was the main contractor and it engaged at least ten different sub-contractors who employed at least twelve different nationalities on the construction. We now learn that various parts of the plant came from all over Europe and some parts as far away as Brazil. It is well known that the incinerator has a rolling grate, not the most commonly used in MSW incinerators, most likely to be the cheapest, would not be surprised if it is the next to breakdown. This overall situation did no bode well and is far from an ideal situation, there is no doubt that Cornwall’s council taxpayers were sold a white elephant, a human, financial and environmental disaster.
This questions whether Cornwall Council engaged the necessary ‘policing’ as required by the 2015 Construction (Design and Management) regulations before and during construction, and/or it has the appropriate paperwork to support its compliance. Will follow this up, time will tell.
My request for sight of the engineers' report on the root cause of the turbine failure has not yet borne fruit; it has not yet been completed, due to legal complications.
On Thursday 3rd October, I was interviewed by Radio Cornwall at 8am, to comment on the incinerator turbine failure and the land-filling of over 1,200 tonnes of waste. On the same day I was interviewed at 2pm by ITV about the same subject, this was after ITV (while at county hall) had asked my ward member if he would like to comment on behalf of the people of St.Dennis, but had bluntly refused. It just speaks volumes. At least he would have been indoors and being paid, while I was up at the village church in the wind and rain giving an interview on behalf of the village people, unpaid. Was I annoyed? Not really, just disappointed.
Questions on Waste Issues
On the recommendation of a Cornwall Council Strategic Director I submitted nine questions and two statements for information to the recent CERC Liaison group meeting, this sadly did not materialise as it was supposed to, my statements were not presented, three questions could not be answered, apparently they fell outside of the remit of CERC community forum, however there were Cornwall Council officers and a councillor present who should have been aware of the answers, others answered were not as positive as they could have been, in fact some bordered on contempt.
These meetings are now going to be held annually because of a lack of interest and attendance. No doubt the lack of interest is because of the aggressive nature of these meetings, along with intimidation and negativity frequently experienced in the past. Not a sign of positive transparency, just another tick box exercise.
A democratic process? Not a chance.
With communications and transparency being far from ideal, Suez have promised this will be improved. My experience is that where waste is concerned, both Suez and Cornwall Council are reluctant to be open, positive and transparent, when taxpayers seek information. This has been the experience of many.
I have been invited to submit an article to the UKWIN annual meeting being held in London in October and to the Air Quality News conference being held at the Lords cricket ground in November. In both cases I submitted my past article “ A Blatant Failure of Duty of Care” about the Council’s failure to monitor the dangerous emissions in our local atmosphere. The same article that was submitted to the Observer newspaper, have not seen it published yet. Any feedback will be circulated.
New Waste Contract
We have recently heard that Cornwall Council has agreed to spend an additional £62 million on funding new vehicles and waste food caddies ahead of the new waste collection contract and its proposed change of procedures.
These latest plans are basically about trying to improve recycling rates, while cost of recovery remains in doubt, with recovery value rates for paper, plastics and cardboard at an all time low along with the closure of certain markets, loss of income being a certainty; it is difficult to see how finances can be balanced. This could result in being a drain on resources for many years to come.
Now apparently all is not well, apart from failing to include the actual cost of hiring the contractors in the initial feasibility study, it is now found this cost will exceed the allocated budget. This has now brought a re-think bringing further consultation which do not include the collection of food waste as an option, do not be surprised if plans for the collection of food waste is scrapped. Unbelievable incompetence along with unitary confusion.
This recycling fiasco all stems from employed officers past conduct, over ten years ago, who, after waving the white flag, surrendered to the advances of SUEZ, resulting in collusion, as proven by a member of parliament, during which the contractor took full advantage by going hell bent on pursuing what appears to be a financially biased contract that favours the contractor. This has proven to be a financial burden and bone of contention to Cornwall taxpayers ever since. The local Member of Parliament at that time Matthew Taylor applied for a PFI funding loan on the pretence that it would improve recycling, and once the loan was received, as we all know, it was used towards the waste contract with Suez. The recycling dinosaur has raised its head again.
In 2010, at the public inquiry which followed Cornwall County Council’s planning Committee refusal of the incinerator's planning permission, defendants' submissions included evidence that the 240,000 tonnes per year incinerator was over sized as far as Cornwall’s waste requirements were concerned. A situation that has now come home to roost as the incinerator now also requires 40,000 tonnes of waste per year from Devon County Council, to keep both lines working; this involves a round trip of 160 miles, creating cost and the inevitable emissions that contribute to climate change. But, what do you know?! It does bring in additional income to Suez.
If the latest plans to introduce weekly recycling and waste food collections ever come to fruition, this will also reduce feedstock for the incinerator still further. The significance is that the cost of building the incinerator of this size was significantly more than it should have been, in fact millions of pounds more, a considerable additional cost to council taxpayers, far more than what it should have been. All resulting from employed civil servants who, apart from maladministration of taxpayer’s money, were incompetent, in collusion with the contractor and displayed totally unacceptable conduct, as proven by a MP’s FOI requests. The incinerator is a human, financial and environmental disaster, with the only winner being the contractor. The officers involved have long since gone and have left accountability to those in office now, to weave an embarrassing web of untruths, while fighting with their consciences pretending all is well while knowing it is not. Certainly conduct not compatible with transparent and democratic governance.
Air Quality
I have asked the Environment Agency to clarify certain responsibilities involving pm 2.5 emissions and dioxins; I will circulate any positive response. Air Quality continues to be at the top of our priority agenda and it is hoped to compile and publish a report to local communities. It will include explanation of the present air quality monitoring and Cornwall Council’s blatant failure to adhere to part four of the 1995 Environmental Act. In the mean time the pm 2.5 emissions in the ambient air continues to contribute to cancer, heart and lung decease and asthma, and along with dioxins continue to add serious adversity to public health. Unfortunately time will tell.
Waste Miles.
While Suez brings in 40,000 tonnes of MSW a year from Devon County Council, Cornwall’s commercial waste is taken for landfill to Devon and further afield. Apparently it is cheaper for commercial waste to be land-filled in Devon than it is to be disposed of in the incinerator, all because of the high tonnage rates Suez charge for commercial (not contract) waste. The Suez cash machine dictates, not the customer or the contract. Logic, where are you?
Our Prime Minster
Boris Johnson has pledged support for the Times ‘clean air for all’ campaign and will include it in his first Queens Speech; he has committed himself to legally binding targets to improve the quality of air we breathe. Hope Cornwall Council takes note, we live in hope.