Blog
Read All About It!
THE DOSSIER – Part 6 Errors and Omissions in Ms Kim Burns Assistant Local Government Ombudsman
(Bindmans refused to progress my complaint against the Local Government Ombudsman – were they right to do so?)
1. She states “As I have seen no evidence to suggest Cabinet or the Overview and Scrutiny Committee received inaccurate information about cycling figures when making its decision to approve the scheme and there is no evidence cycling figures were the motivation for the traffic scheme I have no grounds to criticise the Council.” She ignored the “overarching aim” of the Ambitions Bid all about cycling figures and the projections in Appendix 9 where Sustrans, the national cycling charity commissioned by the Council factored into them the exponential growth of cycling in London.
The figures given to me by the Project Manager for the scheme as reason for the scheme were consistent with its “overarching aim”, and he actually says so in a letter that he sent to Mr. C. Thorpe on 4 December 2014 “we are tasked with growing cycling in the city to a significant proportion of all trips under five miles. On numbers this could easily mean that to be successful we will need to see up to 3,000 cyclists a day using this corridor to comply with 20% of all trips under five miles.”
She is happy to dismiss all of this and ignore the professional survey conducted by Duncan Young showing that only ab out 70 cyclists a day use the High Street. She also ignores figures in National Cycling to Work Statistics 2001 -2011 and its implications for Newcastle. This does suggest that the Cabinet received inaccurate information and were very much an important part of the motivation.
2. In relation to Salters Road Car Park she states “…As I understand it the Council’s parking data was based on the use of cameras rather than relying on paid parking data ….in the event Cabinet received detailed background papers which included an overview of the reduction of spaces in the car park, residents’ concerns about that and the proposals to provide parking elsewhere.”
She ignored the photographic evidence I sent her showing that the car park is full in an evening. There is reference to alternative parking on Moor Road North and South <para10.9 of Newcastle City’s response to the LGO> and “parking outside existing properties to the South of the High Street where the residents currently park on the cycle lane.” These options have no merit whatsoever. The City Council says that its survey suggests that only 44% of visitors to Gosforth are car based, 41% on foot, and 66% public transport, cycling and walking. <10.25 Newcastle Council’s Response to the Ombudsman>. These figures cannot be right at all material times.
Ms Burns ignored the letter from Duncan Young of 12 June and the details of the 2,142 responses of those travelling to the Gosforth High Street with figures that call them into question. Much more seriously she ignored my reference to the new Gym and to the 78 organisations that use Trinity Church as a city hub. Any survey there in the evening – a pity it was aborted <p31-33> – would totally invalidate the city’s survey. Not many people would go to meetings in Trinity Church on foot on a cold and wet winter’s evening. Nor would they go by bicycle. Most likely by car and by bus and, if by car, they would need a nearby car park.
My own particular concern here is the difficulty to be faced by the Tyneside Decorative & Fine Arts Society that I used to chair. It meets in Trinity Church. It has nearly 200 members mostly over 50, often women on their own. (The pages of Newcastle Council’s Response to the LGO are un-numbered. I have discovered that the page with numbers 10.21 to 10.25 was omitted from the documents sent to me, but included in the documents sent to Mr. C. Thorpe. In both cases paragraphs 9.10, 9.11, 9.12, 9.13, 9.15, 10.26.10.27. 10.28 and 10.29 were redacted, apart from “internal correspondence between the Council’s solicitors dealing with the scheme attracts professional legal privilege” that was also omitted.)
3. I have specifically drawn attention to the City’s Protocol to provide “an integrated and evidence based means of partners working together to determine priorities in the city.” She ignores the fact that there would not appear to have been any market research among motorists in the city confirming their willingness to use a bicycle instead of a car for all their journeys under five miles.
4. I have specifically drawn attention to the City’s commitment to “open government” and in Core Value 4 making “transparent decisions.” She ignores the fact that their “overarching aim” in relation to cycles and motorists was not detailed in the consultation process and she finds no fault in the city’s consultation procedures. I pose this question: Paragraph 10.20 of the Council’s Replies to the LGO states “The changes are essential to ensure that the optimum network benefits are realised from the current programme of works to the Great North Road”. Was the whole consultation process here predetermined?
5. I have also specifically drawn attention to Core Value 4’s commitment to “risk management.” She ignores the considerable anxiety being expressed by those who would know best whether the High Street is likely to suffer, namely those actually earning their living there, and accepts without question the assurance from the Council that the High Street will benefit. She ignores the health and safety risk of placing narrow cycle lanes alongside heavy traffic on a main arterial road with cyclists inhaling toxic, carcinogenic diesel fumes from the many buses, lorries and diesel-engine cars proximate to them. She also ignores the health and safety implications of allowing parking on that road in the evenings which the City Council contemplates.
6. She ignored the absence of cost/benefit analysis in relation to the road works at the Junction of Salters Road. In the circumstances there were never going to be any.
7. She ignored the facts on the ground in relation to the complex reasons for the chronic congestion in Gosforth High Street <> and she declined to accept that dramatically increasing the number of cyclists to about 3,000 cyclists a day especially in rush hour providing only very narrow cycle lanes for them to ride on would add to the congestion not reduce it by virtue of there being fewer cars; and she declined to accept that this would constitute a health & safety risk for the cyclists.
8. One of the most reprehensible aspects of Ms Burns decision, endorsed by all of her colleagues was her total failure to resolve the conflict between the facts on the ground as described by the Newcastle Council and evidence contradicting them, notably the number of cyclists around, the reasons for chronic congestion on the High Street, the way people get to the High Street, the availability of parking spaces in Salters Road car park in the evenings and alternative car parking spaces if the number of spaces in the car park is halved. A visit to Newcastle, not just a paperwork exercise, could have resolved that conflict one way or another. Her failure to do so is reprehensible.
9. Bias here is not just an inclination. There is no neutrality here. She has deliberately loaded the scales against the citizen. The wording of her final decision is the same as the draft. She clearly paid no attention to the contents of my response to the draft. <>This is the fourth time in my life I have had to flag up in the system of government a “lousy, stinking hypocritical charade.” That is what this is.
PS Just spotted LGO’s own procedure “The Assistant Ombudsman will seek the prompt input of the Executive Director and/or Ombudsman direct (and not through the Executive Assistants) on all cases: where there is no established precedent where the proposed settlement is contentious or involves a particularly high financial component, and where our case handling has potentially put our reputation at risk.”
AND BINDMANS, IN BREACH OF CONTRACT WITH ME, REFUSED TO DRAFT THE PRE-ACTION PROTOCOL LETTER NECESSARY TO INITIATE JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMANS BECAUSE I HAD NO CASE!
Latest Posts:
- Please get the message. Prioritise fast chargers for EV for 21st Century travel. Cycle lanes are for yesterday. — You now have all-revealing photos and Next Door.co.uk’s 79% Gosforth poll. Cycle lanes are not the future. I have been trying to flag this...
- “Crap” Cycle lanes increase the toxic fumes on Gosforth High Street, Newcastle and scarcely any cyclists! UGH — THIS IS AN UNHOLY MESS! Not the only one. Gosforth High Street is a section of the main arterial road that starts at the...
- Do’s and Don’ts for Human Rights Lawyers … and Play Fair 🙏 — PLEASE SHARE
- My last word in the matter. This IS a black mark on the legal profession — I asked a firm of solicitors to draft a pre-action protocol letter that an assistant Local Government Ombudsman said I should secure from a...
- THE WORLD OF LABOUR’S LAWYERS AND THE REAL WORLD -A JOURNEY OF DISCOVERY — Why do some lawyers think that I am wrong, and why do I think that they are? And they do think it. One lawyer...
- Do not Scrap GCSEs. Give pupils a choice of their exam! Let all children achieve. Respect diversity – Ignore inequality. Aspire to a degree or 5 Stars — When I was the chair of Governors of Barbara Priestman School – it was a great school for children with physical disabilities and learning...
- Seek and you will find — Are you, like me, tired of Andrew Marr and Emily Maitlis constantly flying like vultures over a dying body? Look for people when they...
- I don’t think Karl Marx would have been a Rotarian — I am not a badge person. I do not usually wear my Rotary badge. Most Rotarians do. Maybe I feel it looks a bit...
- Why did I write and stage “Death of a Nightingale”? — Why did I write and stage Death of a Nightingale for a month in the New End Theatre in London? The answer at 3...
- My 4th Student Podcast Part 2 Cycle Lanes & Sustrans. The media’s best kept secret — Student Podcast No 4 Part 2 exposes the cycling lobby, Sustrans, responsible for idiotic pop-up cycle lanes nationwide. It calls the £2bn spend on...
Leave a Reply