PFLA Commentary

In early December 2005 we asked the council to explain how it had reviewed the costings for a possible two and three tier model. The figures were new in March 2005 and had not been consulted on during the Stage one consultation. We asked for the methodology used and the costing documentation.

We had to remind them about this later in December and we finally got the documentation, though not an explanation of the methodology, on 13th January 2006.

In the light of serious concerns raised by the content of that document we asked for a short briefing paper to be circulated to Scrutiny Committee on 19th January 2006. The council officers and Cllr Wright made a limited and incomplete response and we therefore sent to the reconvened Scrutiny Committee meeting on 26th January 2006 a list of questions arising from the previous answers. They were not answered and we were told they would provide a written response. To date they have still not done so.

In the light of the inadequate answers we faxed them on 30th January 2006 stating our concerns as to what the documentation suggested about the way in which the costs review was carried out and stating that for three reasons we felt councillors would have been misled by the figures. We asked for a proper response to the points we were raising and said that if they were not answered within 3 days we would seek the court's permission at the hearing to add to the two grounds a further ground - that councillors would have been misled by the figures they were given in April and that this could have affected their decisions as to whether they believed the plans were affordable. Although officers and lead councillors had ten days before the hearing in which to clarify the issues which we had raised they apparently could not do so and told us instead they would seek an adjournment to address them and require us to pay more money into court.

The night before the hearing they faxed a draft statement and on the morning of the hearing presented a full statement to us 15 minutes before the hearing containing arguments which could not be properly analysed on the spot. As a result we asked, and were given permission to proceed with one of the three arguments in support of the fresh ground. The Council at that point was claiming that it would need a further month to respond even though it had just produced a statement on it. By the Monday the Council were agreeing they could do it in two weeks although the judge clearly wondered why, given they seemed to be so pushed for time. Needless to say they took the two weeks, leaving us a week to respond which we have done.

To chat about this now in the forums - click here