Camden Federation of Tenants and Residents Associations Problems

Taken from http://camdenfedmark2.wordpress.com/

Governance issues

" When some staff members discovered their jobs were at risk they inappropriately manipulated the management committee (Directors) into agreeing to alter the already enhanced Redundancy Policy of the organisation.

By way of example, the result of this inappropriate action meant that if a member of staff was entitled to say £2000 redundancy compensation, they have would have received over £8000 instead. Please note that the equivalent statutory amount would have been £1700. 

It is also important to note that these exorbitant enhancements were decided by the directors at the same time they were negotiating the possibility of transferring one member of staff over to the Council.  This meant the Council would have inherited this potential liability. 

The crucial point here is the apparent deception on the part of the management committee towards the council at that time."

Apparently the CFTRA has been taken over by militant far leftists/unionists. 

Some of their council tenant rep comrades use bullying, intimidation, manipulation and lies to get their own. 

They tell lies to the police about others in order to try and get their targets arrested. 

They appear to have various council people in their pockets. 

They are heavily into back scratching.

Are these the types of tenants who really represent (or are representative of) the majority of council tenants in Camden - as they like to give the impression they do?

They don't represent me. 

Camden Association of Street Properties (CASP) Threats

The below is a copy of a threatening letter a Camden Association of Street Properties (CASP) committee member sent out to another resident, in an attempt to improperly get money he isn't entitled to. This tactic is one of the CASP 'in-gangs' Modes of Operation. 

The words complained of by the author aren't libellous because no individual was named or identified and as an unincorporated association casp has no legal identity of its own ie  'casp' doesn't legally exist, only its individual members do.

The author is also incorrect (deliberately so in my view)  in other area's  - explanation in red written below incorrect parts

7 April 2007

Mr XXXXX XXXX

Editor

Camden Council Tenant site

Dear Sir

LETTER BEFORE CLAIM REGARDING “CAMDEN COUNCIL TENANT SITE” AND MALICIOUS E MAIL SUBMITTED BY MS TRACY MORGAN

I am writing to you in order to lodge a serious complaint regarding a malicious and libellous email that appears in the email page of your site.

As editor of this site and registrant of it with the server, you are personally responsible for the editorial content of the site and also any libellous contents of emails that may be posted.

The email from Ms Morgan, who incidentally has published libellous material on another site, which has recently been removed by Geocities, maliciously alleges that CASP Committee members, of whom I am one, have fraudulently used accounting funds.

I consider that the following malicious remarks are clearly libellous of Committee members, and other Council Officers, as well as myself.

 “In Jan 06 at its AGM a borough-wide residents association failed to produce its Annual Statement of Accounts, which would have detailed the groups income and expenditure for the previous year. Despite it stating in this groups Constitution that it would produce this Statement for all its members to see, this group did not do so and even went on to receive further funding from Senior housing officers.”

This statement is patently untrue, as CASP isn’t a limited company and has no obligation to publicly produce its accounts.  In any event, Camden Council controls its funds. The casp constitution states very clearly that casp will produce its accounts at its agm. Camden council does hold the funds but allows tenants direct access to the funds via sending them cheques or giving them council procurement cards.

“I have a copy of this groups Statement of Accounts and I see evidence of fraudulent accounting and excessive spending. No wonder this group didn't want its members to see its accounts! This voluntary group coincided their Annual General Meeting with the timescale for funding bids being agreed.

 When this false accounting was queried Housing officers denied that funding even existed and that the statement of accounts I received is invalid!!! Quite a Jackonary story to say the least!

 Not only do I find the fraud committed by this group unacceptable, and which clearly shows that these people cannot be trusted, I find Housing Officers attitudes for  'inventing' stories to cover up bad practice very worrying and very irresponsible.  Apparently as informed by a high ranking council officer, fraud is the 'nuts and bolts' of the Council and it 'does not matter'. Does not matter?”

This is a very serious libel against both all of the other Committee members and myself at the time.

It clearly imputes that Committee members have had access to funding and have fraudulently and dishonestly used that funding for criminal purposes.

In addition, it suggests that Committee members have been guilty of false accounting, a serious fraud offence under section 17 of the Theft Act 1968 carrying a maximum of seven years imprisonment.

Again, Camden Council controls all funding, and all items of expenditure are agreed by the Committee, unlike CFTRA where the Committee didn’t have proper control over the financial expenditure of the company. There is no evidence that the casp committee agree's the casp expenditure. When I was on the casp committee no such thing happened.

In view of the continued publication of this serious defamatory libel, I must therefore request that you immediately remove this email from your web site, and pay a sum of damages for this scurrilous publication.

I look forward to receiving your proposals for settlement in full and final settlement of this matter within the next fourteen days.

Failing which, a Claim for Libel and an Injunction ordering the e-mail’s removal from your site and restraining its continued or further publication will be sought from the High Court.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully

Terence Ewing

Planning Agreements

http://camden.gov.uk

Planning agreements (Section 106 agreements)

Where a major development is proposed, we may enter into a planning agreement with you to try to offset any potential adverse impacts.

The information below provides further details about when a planning agreement is required, what information these agreements should include, and where further information can be found.

When is a planning agreement required? Where a proposed development is likely to have an adverse impact on the local community, we may try to offset the potential impacts by entering into a planning agreement (commonly known as a “Section 106” agreement) that requires you to complete (or fund) additional works or activities. This may include providing affordable housing, sports and leisure facilities, employment and training or procuring local goods and services.

"As a matter of law the Council cannot enter into a Section 106 Agreement with itself"

Apparently any local group wanting to get some of the the section 106 money has to fill in one of these forms HERE.

"The facilities provided must be open to the general public with no membership restrictions, and have wide public and community benefit."

"The organisation must demonstrate that they have consulted its users/local community"

" S106 funding is available for capital projects only.  Revenue funding towards on-going running costs is not available."

"S106 monies may only be spend on facilities where the new development has, at least in part, contributed to the need for the facilities, the need for which has arisen as a result of a new development taking place."

BLR Redevelopment & RDCP

Webcast of the Development Control committee meeting held on Thursday 21 March 2013 HERE, 

Agenda Item 7(4) Housing and Adult Social Care: Planning application for the site 121-211 Bacton Low Rise estate, 113a, 115 and 117 Wellesley Road and 2-16 Vicars Road Gospel Oak NW5. HERE

113a Wellesey Road is the council owned hall run by Bacton Low Rise TRA and Wendling TRA. 115-117 Wellesy Road is the Gospel Oak DHO site. 2-16 Vicars Rd are council owned workshops.

Approximately £68m is cited as the development cost. 

To the east of the site is the junction of Grafton Road and Vicar’s Road, with Grafton Road at this point extending over the rail line. 

To the south are further residential properties along both sides of Vicar’s

Road (a combination of Victorian properties, blocks of residential flats and the vicarage building on the junction of Vicar’ s Road and Wellesley Road), the Grade II former St Martin’s Church Hall (now a French School) and the Grade I listed St Martin’s Church. 

To the west of the site is the 22 storey Bacton High Rise Tower

residential block of flats (No’s 1-120 Bacton).  

 

Dorian Cortesi chair of Barrington Crt TRA gave a deputation to the committee on behalf of the 9 local organisations neighbouring the development site. 

He isn’t against the application, the deputation is specifically about section 106. He is referring to section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 HERE  
 

Section 106 Obligations and the Community Infrastructure Levy HERE 
The Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 HERE

Place Plans HERE

The CIL is money that " developers of larger sites pay to the council to reduce the impact of the development. Developers sign a S106 agreement as part of their planning permission. This is a legal document that specifies what the money is spent on and where. For example, S106 money is used to make improvements to highways, parks, public transport, schools." 

 

The gist of the deputation as I understand it is that during the consultation period when the council were engaging well with the wider community on the proposed redevelopment the section 106 money was not mentioned. 

Meanwhile the council has been working with one group (the Real Deal Community Partnership (RDCP)) on how to spend a significant amount of the money – all other local groups where excluded. They didn't know until recently that the RDCP  had been selected by the council to play an active role in the allocation of places spaces provisions. The existing council forum (I'm guessing he means the original informal gospel oak community partnership) was in place and overlooked in favour of the rdcp.  

Cllr Valerie Leach cabinet member for Regeneration and Growth and ward cllr for Highgate has been involved in project meetings about the development. She says “we asked the real deal community partnership to take a lead because they are the one’s being most affected by the redevelopment” 

The rdcp 'real dealers' seem to be: (I say seem to be because the rdcp website HERE doesn't identify who the directors of the rdcp are so I am working with a deputation the below group gave that seemed to persuade those responsible in the council,  that they are the group that should be recognised as the gospel oak community partnership, hence the name): 

Bacton Low Rise TRA – Dave and Simone Lewis and Sarah Robbins (the estate that is being demolished)

Kiln Place TRA –Rita Thorpe and Jackie Kanaris

Maitland Park TRA – Lynne Bateman

Wendling TRA

Chair of Gospel Oak DMC, - Terry Wigget 

CASP  

Bobby Armstrong  - Grafton

Onto the meeting where after the presentation had been given, members of the development committee asked questions: 

Cllr Paul Braithwaite says “my main area of concern … There is no doubt here that (makes ref to a deputation) the community does not feel that this process is being transparent….. I got the impression from Cllr Leach that fortunately this is redeemable". 

Cllr Braithwaite goes onto to say " I think it is a concern of this committee of the engagement of community (I think he means the "other" wider community) in the allocation of the section 106 money and indeed engagement with the cllrs..." he goes on to make reference to Maiden Lane Estate - the council had many problems (from the councils side of things) in getting tenants to agree to the councils plans for the estate and it took many years to get to the planning application stage.  

“ ... this real deal community partnership, and it is apparent that quite a few of the resident bodies felt that that it came out of left field, the real deal community partnership has been in a steady dialogue and are quite heavily engaged in making recommendations, so I would really like Stuart Dilley to come back to us on on going transparency and engagement on the 106 money and why it is that real deal community partnership have been elevated and given special treatment to date.” 

Council legal officer states “ there is no legal requirement to consult on the section 106 …. As a matter of law the council can’t delegate expenditure, section 106 money to other parties”(my emphasis) 

Stuart Dilley (senior housing officer) says “the council has asked the real deal community partnership to look at opportunities for committing the 106"  

Cllr Braithwaite “can I come back again on the real deal community partnership and can it be explained to us why they have enjoyed, lets say, this exclusive relationship …”
 

Stuart Dilley “ the real deal community partnership was set up by the community"  … 

NB the development committee chair said “ members have the capacity to direct officers on how to spend the section 106 money…." 

What is clear, is that there are two different "communities" at loggerheads here: the rdcp ( a handful of council tenants who are chums of old and any 'chancers' who may come along - it seems) who the council for whatever reason other than the official "we asked the real deal community partnership to take a lead because they are the one’s being most affected by the redevelopment" favours and the wider community ie other affected council tenants, private tenants, businesses, community groups etc. 

I don't believe it was the council who approached the rdcp about working with the council - the other way round more like it, and regardless of what any council person says the council does have an "agreement" with the rdcp - whether its in writing or verbal (a wink and a nod) I don't know.   

There is a danger I think, that the rdcp "agreement" with the council will turn out to be like the one the council has with the other council tenant group of 5 - the district management committee's (dmc's) who have an "agreement" with the council to allocate money to themselves - but the council "holds" the money and allows tenant reps direct access to it either by way of a council procurement card or a cheque sent to the tra to be deposited in the tra bank account. No annual accounts produced at their agms. 

Has the ultimate aim been the section 106 money, which as far as I am aware won't be released until the development is well underway - a few years at least, but who knows with Camden council what may happen.

Update
The councils lib dem members  don't seem happy about the shenanigans going on in Gospel Oak ward regarding the rdcp and the section 106 money and have, according to official documents for the upcoming full council meeting to be held on Monday 15 April 2012 HERE, put the following question to the Cabinet member for Regeneration and Growth cllr Valerie Leach:

" There is growing concern over the democratic deficit over the use of Section 106 funds. Residents, community groups and councillors often have no idea where - or even if - the money was spent.  

How much money has the Council administered under Section 106 agreements over the last three years?

How many of these distributions been raised with the Cabinet Member? How many have been raised with ward councillors?

At what level are officer decisions actually being made? 

Does she acknowledge that in light of the great frustrations around the huge Gospel Oak regeneration schemes – amongst many others – much greater clarity should be given and much greater input from local people should be routinely sought?"

And a motion

"  This Council notes that the decision making process for the spending of Section 106 funds allocated for public benefit in a particular ward is still shrouded in mystery for coun cillors and constituents alike.

This Council agrees that once Section 106 funds are deposited with the Council, the decision to spend them is best taken by the appropriate ward councillors while respecting the s106 allocation agreed by Development Control Committee. Ward councillors will be required to consult their constituents about their proposed decision through consulting their Area Action Group." 

Wonders whose idea it was to set the 'real dealers' up as a private company and why the rdcp so easily - it seems, managed to persuade the responsible people in the council that it was a good idea to work with the rdcp initially on job/fair days and then entering into what could be termed as a shady "shadow" section 106 allocation "agreement" with the RDCP - at the exclusion of all others?

Surely by setting themselves up as a private company (with no liability to speak of), the 'real dealers' where expecting (had been promised?) significant sums of public money to come their way?  

Popcorn anyone?  

PS some council tenant reps (the shadow cllrs) have been known to turn up at the town hall and other venues where council business is being conducted - in order to tell council members what they should or shouldn't be doing.  

Statutory Tenant Scrutiny Panels

REPORT TITLE: Scrutiny Progress Report

Report of: Director of Housing and Adult Social Care

SUMMARY OF REPORT:

This report provides HASC Scrutiny with a further update on the Council’s requirement to provide a of tenant scrutiny, as supported by the Localism Act 2011 and the revised regulatory framework for social landlords.

Report HERE

Apparently some tenant groups (the dmc's) support the rogue Camden Association of Street Properties (CASP) having a member on the new tenant scrutiny panel. I don't.

Because of the behaviour of the casp 'in-gang' over the years of lying about others to anyone who will listen including the police, the  intimidation, manipulation and generally throwing their weight around at it seems every opportunity they get, I don't believe casp deserves to  have any members on the panel.

I refuse to recognise the panel as legitimate (or use it) if any CASP member is on it.

For far too long the casp 'in-gang' have intimidated, bullied and duped other tenants and cllrs into getting their own way and I for one am saying a big NO to the casp thugs.

Socialist Workers Party Rape Allegations

Special report: Did Socialist Workers Party cover up NINE rapes?

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294198/Special-report-Did-Socialist-Workers-Party-cover-NINE-rapes-Kangaroo-court-cleared-official-raping-teenage-member-scandal-goes-far-deeper.html

 According to the report " the SWP did not recognise Britain’s ‘bourgeois’ system of justice".   

Councillors for Hire

Councillors for hire who give firms planning advice

Telegraph investigation: Councillors across England are offering themselves for hire to property developers who are hoping to take advantage of relaxed planning laws which come into effect within weeks.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9921344/Councillors-for-hire-who-give-firms-planning-advice.html

Trade Union Membership

According to a FoIA  request HERE Camden council has the following number of senior managers/chief officers who are members of UNISON:

Department
Children, Schools and Families 366
Culture and Environment 371
Finance 290
Housing and Adult Social Care 742
Law and Governance 19
Strategy and Organisation Development 37
Total 1825

The councils chief officers: the chief executive officer, the director's of departments and their assistants who according to the councils 2012/13 statutory Pay Policy Statement "are accountable for driving the delivery of the Council’s vision and priorities".

DMC Members Expenses

Angela Spooner who is Camden councils Head of Tenancy Services which is part of the Housing and Adult Social Care directorate has apparently been persuaded by the chairs and vice chairs of the 5 district management committee's to increase the £40 per quarter (£160 pa) that they as chairs and vice chairs receive from the landlord in out of pocket expenses. Report HERE

As volunteers and in relation to the dmc's they are entitled to claim back such incurred expenses as travel and child minding  - fair enough. 

These expenses will rise to £100 per quarter (£400 pa) from June 2013, to be paid to them automatically upon them becoming chair/vice chair at the dmc's agm's in June. No need for receipts, the money will be paid into their bank accounts.

Apparently the chairs and vice chairs of 5 non statutory, unincorporated council tenant associations are called "officers" and they have something called "duties".

The 5 dmc Constitutions doesn't say what the chairs/vice chairs duties are.

The dmc's rely on the council for all their funding and support and are told who they must have as members and whatever else the landlord says other than the few occasions when the landlord puts on a show of taking notice of what they say.  It helps that some dosh/benefits  is on offer and and that they are given titles. 

I think its very pretentious, but it seems to suit some.

I predict this will lead to the chosen members of the statutory tenant scrutiny panel to want the same level of (more than out of pocket) expenses. Some of the present dmc chairs/vice chairs may even turn up as members of the tenant scrutiny panel. Lets hope the panel members are chosen for their integrity and trustworthiness and not because undue pressure has been put upon others to have them on the panel.

Gospel Oak ward by-election

Following the resignation of Sean Birch (1 of the 3 Labour ward cllrs of Gospel Oak) a by-election will be held on 14 March 2013 HERE

The candidates so far:
Maeve McCormack (L) HERE
Leila Roy (C) HERE

Leila Roy of the militant far left, most deplorable (in my opinion) council tenants group in the borough the Camden Association of Street Properties (CASP), and the bogus (in my opinion) Gospel Oak community partnership THE REAL DEAL COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP. 

This is too funny.

A left wing coup or just lots of distasteful back scratching? 

Update
Other canditates:
Constantine Buhayer (Green)
Stephen Reid Dorman (BNP)
Laura Noel (LD)
John Reid (Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition)

Update
Labour candidate won the election. 27.16% turnout HERE

Oh well.

Most read Posting

The most read posting on this website is the one titled Terence Ewing

Mr Ewing is one of the 'in gang' committee members of the council tenants group called the Camden Association of Street Properties or CASP for short, who Camden council have been funding and supporting for the last 9 or so years.

Casp is a far left political group who appear to be the militant arm of the trade unions who have connections to Camden council. 

The gang bully, manipulate, lie and intimidate to get their own way.

Apparently they are protected.

Rutland County Council Legal Action Against Members

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Rutland-County-Council-plans-legal-action/story-17829181-detail/story.html

Saturday, January 12, 2013

By Tim Healy

A council has voted to take legal action to stop three councillors from allegedly harassing senior staff.

Rutland County Council has set aside £90,000 to seek an injunction against Richard Gale, David Richardson and Nick Wainwright.

The trio have been accused of sending e-mails to chief executive Helen Briggs that, according to legal advisers, "are very likely to amount to harassment".

The councillors, who formed Rutland Anti-Corruption Group (RACP), have repeatedly called for her to launch an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the suspension of a senior officer last summer who, hours later, took his own life.

Ms Briggs has explained to the councillors the widow of the officer wanted the circumstances of the disciplinary action against her husband to remain confidential.

The council claimed the group had also sent it baseless e-mails alleging officers had manipulated land deals, flouted financial rules and regulations and had tried to manipulate the award of contracts.

The council voted on Thursday to seek the injunction. Twenty-three backed the motion, three abstained.

Members also backed a motion to support officers who wish to bring legal action for harassment against the three councillors.

Speaking after the meeting, leader Roger Begy said: "The £90,000 is an insurance policy. Should our senior officers sue us for constructive dismissal, that could cost us £250,000.

"We have a chief executive and staff team who are simply doing their jobs to the best of their ability.

"Of course they should be subject to scrutiny and challenge as that is the basis of local democracy.

"However, they should not have to put up with false allegations about their conduct and regular questioning of their integrity."

A report by lawyers Bevan Brittan said the actions of RACP were damaging the ability of the council to recruit outstanding officers, hampering efforts to secure funding for education and recreation and distracting senior officers.

Councillors Begy said: "As councillors, we have to protect our staff and this decision sends out a strong message. Now we have to move forward."

The council decided to defer a claim for defamation against the group.

It decided to monitor all communications with the group through a single point of contact, subject to review by the chief executive, and that members of RACP must use the council's secure e-mail system.

Alan Duncan, MP for Rutland and Melton, said: 'The council has been forced to take this entirely proportionate action in response to the disgraceful conduct of these three councillors.

"Their campaign of harassment went far beyond legitimate and open scrutiny of the council.

Local Authority Trading

According to the 2011/12 Annual Statement of Accounts HERE (pages 103-5), Camden council has a number of trading 'companies' which operate on a commercial basis:

• Camden Building Maintenance
• Building Control Service
• Commercial Waste Service
• Street Markets 
• On-Street Parking
• Camden Transport Services
• Other un-named trading units. 

2011/12 net profits  £29. 428m

The power for Local Authorities to trade through a private company on a commercial basis (in function related activities) is contained within the Local Government Act 2003 HERE.

The Local Authority (Goods and Services) Act 1970 HERE  gives LA's the power to trade with other public bodies.

More info HERE on LA's trading and charging powers.

Lying, Devious Tenant Reps

Some politically ambitious council tenant reps in Camden are known for telling lies about other people and just about everything else. Quite serious lies at times. They tell them to the police and to the courts. At times they are able to manipulate others into backing up their lies.

When dealing with the council, who they rely on heavily for support, funding and recognition being a chronic liar doesn't matter, lacking in integrity does not matter. 

When it comes to running an organisation in a capable, professional, open manner they fail miserably, but that does not matter as capability has never been a requirement when it comes to the council.

Where they excel though is in manipulation, deception, intimidation and pretence. They like to play the innocent victim always being set upon by others for no reason at all.

They will for example, if confronted about their behaviour, play up to the camera (cctv)  by putting their hand up to protect their face to make it look like they are anticipating being physically assaulted, or by dramatically stepping back to make it look like they have been shoved. The thespians. 

They will I believe, use anything to gain sympathy to keep up the appearance that they are innocent saintly figures of other peoples malice . I believe they seek to control everyone including those in 'authority' above them, which in Camden council's case seems to be an easy thing for them to do.

Some have criminal convictions for drugs and fraud offences, and don't appear to have changed their mentality or associated harmful behaviour despite putting themselves up as representatives of others and with it the expectation of being honest and trustworthy.

They have their supporters, lackies and useful idiots (tenants, cllrs, council staff) - criminal gangs usually do don't they? 

They will in some cases buy support by offering to help out someone who has a problem with the council. This is called soliciting. They use a befriending tactic on gullible or unsuspecting people to get them on their side and hopefully compliant if a favour is asked of them.

In some ways I pity for them only because they seem to live their lives constantly attacking, using and deceiving others. I don't think they are in good places to keep doing that. Whatever drives them the means seems to justify the end.

I do not recognise these types of tenant reps as representing me or deserving of being legitimately recognised by Camden council. I do not respect them nor do I believe  they are deserving of respect.

Camden council, the enabler of abusive, demanding, manipulative tenant reps.

Thank goodness though most tenant reps in Camden are I believe decent people who wouldn't stoop as low as these types repeatedly do.

Public Contracts

The Public Contracts Regulations 2006 HERE

DMC Registration & Access to Funds

The first mention by the council of Financial Regulations I came across  appeared in September 2012 in a report to the DMC's titled Tenant and Leaseholder Engagement Strategy priorities and accreditation scheme for Tenant and Resident Associations HERE.

In relation to access to council funding the report states "4.4  Groups who are not formally registered with the Council cannot access funding under the Council’s financial regulations."

With this in mind and guessing that these regulations have been in place for some years, a tenants group whose registration lapsed at the end of June 2012 and which according to council documents has not be renewed were able in Sept 2012 to get two dmc's to agree to give the group funding of £5,000 (Kentish Town DMC)  and  £7,500 (Hampstead DMC).

On other occasions funding that has been agreed by dmc's (tenant reps) has been sent out by council employee's in the form of cheques - directly to tenants, which according to information gained from Camden council under the  FoIA is also against the rules "DMC's have access to funding but they are not entitled to spend the money directly  ... the DMC's  make recommendations on how the money that has been allocated to them should be spent. The decision making in terms of the spending of the money is then taken by Council Officers". 

Please note that whatever the reader may think the above means doesn't actually mean what most reasonable intelligent people may take it to mean.  Its council speak for the opposite of what they do in practice as the council doesn't like to follow rules if they can get away with not doing so.

Best value councils, which Camden council is one, are by law supposed to continually improve their performance. This means having lots of competent directors and managers pushing forward improvements. That's what they are generously re-numerated to do.

Update
The group whose dmc registration had lapsed at the end of June 2012 and who where able to get hold of dmc funding are now registered with 4 of the 5 dmc's - according to the Jan 2013 dmc documents.

NB from the Constitutions of the dmc's its hard to understand how borough wide tenant groups can be dmc members as they not local to each dmc area. 

The Constitution of Kentish Town DMC: 
2.  Membership and Voting Rights
a)  Each Tenants’ and Residents’ Association (TA) registered with the Council within the area of the DMC (My emphasis) may elect one representative and one substitute representative, the latter being entitled to vote only in the absence of the full member

Hampstead DMC: 
2.  HAMDMC MEMBERSHIP AND VOTING RIGHTS
(a)  Each Tenant and Resident’s Association (TA) within the area of the DMC (my emphasis) and registered with the Council shall elect one of its members as
a DMC representative, together with one substitute representative, the
latter being entitled to vote only in the absence of the full member.

Holborn DMC:
2.  HDMC Membership and Voting Rights
a)  Each Tenants and Residents’ Association (TA) registered with the Council and with its membership entirely within Holborn (may emphasis) may elect one representative and one substitute representative to HDMC at their Annual General Meeting, the latter being entitled to vote only in the absence of the full member.

Gospel Oak DMC:
 2.  MEMBERS VOTING RIGHTS
a)   Each Tenant and Residents’ Association (TRA) registered with Camden Tenants Participation Team within the area of the DMC (my emphasis) , shall elect one of its members as a DMC representative, together with one substitute representative, the latter being entitled to vote only in the absence of the full member.


Camden Town DMC:
2.  Membership and Voting Rights
a)  Each Tenants and Residents’ Association (TRA) registered with the Council within the area of the District Management Committee (my emphasis) may elect one representative and one substitute representative, the latter being entitled to vote only in the absence of the full member.

The above Constitutions where agreed by each of the 5 dmc's in June 2012 but the Camden Association of Street Properties (CASP)  who are a borough wide group, whose (registered) membership is through out the whole borough thus outside of each dmc area where able to obtain dmc funding. How much longer is this farce going to carry on?

Council Leader Sarah Hayward & Disappearing Things

According to the below linked article Clr Sarah Hayward claims that a letter from the government that promised the national Temperance Hospital as housing has 'gone astray' and is making all sorts of claims.

The disappearing letter and the disappearing 'gospel oak community partnership'. Either somebody is trying to undermine Clr Hayward or she is showing herself to be rather 3rd rate?

HS2 rail bosses backtrack on pledge to build council homes on site of disused National Temperance Hospital HERE

Neighbourhood Planning

What is neighbourhood planning?

http://www.camden.gov.uk/ccm/content/environment/planning-and-built-environment/two/planning-policy/neighbourhood-planning/neighbourhood-planning.en 

 

Communities can now prepare neighbourhood plans to influence the future of their areas. These allow communities to set out their vision for their local area and general planning policies to guide development in their neighbourhood.

If the applications are agreed by the council, the Neighbourhood Forum can then write a Neighbourhood Plan for the designated Neighbourhood Area. Please note that this is not a consultation on the Neighbourhood Plans themselves. If a designation is made, no other organisation or body may be designated for that neighbourhood area until that designation expires or is withdrawn. 

The Neighbourhood Planning (Referendums) Regulations 2012 HERE

The Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 HERE 

 

Gospel Oak Regeneration - Real Deal Community Partnership

Gospel Oak (GO) ward in Camden is classed as one of the greater deprived area's in the borough. What this means isn't clear to me.

Camden council has it seems finished the initial stages of a second attempt at establishing a properly functioning, accountable, transparent and capable "community partnership" (a local strategic partnership) for the GO ward who can take on responsibility for making some official council decisions about who and what gets to be funded within the catchment area. 

After a couple of years of consultations and meetings with the locals (including steering groups) at the end of March 2012 Clr Sarah Hayward, then cabinet member for Communities, Regeneration and Equalities made an official decision about the partnership HERE .  She agreed the formal setting up of a partnership board - as an independent group (whatever that means).

A few months later at another steering group meeting (July 2012) it was stated by a council employee that the "decision to delay the establishment of a  G.O Community Partnership for period of 6 months; after that the decision will be reviewed" and that "in the meantime the steering group will focus on 3 key issues : Transport, Local Economy & Health" . 

Whereas Clr Theo Blackwell (Cabinet member for Finance) "advised that the work of the council is not to replicate work which may already have been done by the RDCP"

Who might the RDCP be?

The RDCP is the "Real Deal Community Partnership"  - a 'group' of seemingly unknown people who where pushed forward by various council tenant reps to be the official and formal partnership board.

Forward to 20 Sept 2012 and REAL DEAL COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP (RDCP) LIMITED: Company No. 08222980 is registered at companies house as a private limited by guarantee company. It doesn't state what the nature of its business is. Odd.

Can't wait to see how this one pans out.

Update
Rumour has it that the casp 'in gang' and supporters are attempting to expand their 'empire' from that of being the pretend representatives of over 6,500 plus council street property households - endorsed and funded by the land-lord Camden council, to being over-lords of the Gospel Oak ward via an "alternative" regeneration partnership. It can't be true.

Update
Apparently the RDCP will be working with the councils housing department on various issues.

The Bacton low rise redevelopment HERE might have something to do with the political game playing that has been going on.

Update
Over Kings Cross way a forum has been set up HERE for the community to come together to do what Gospel Oak way is failing miserably to do. The forum is open about what its objectives are which is in stark contrast to the ridiculous games that are being played in Gospel Oak.

The link HERE tells you what Local Strategic Partnerships are.

PS Gospel Oak ward clrs are Sean Birch, Larraine Revah and Theo Blackwell all Labour. TB is also the cabinet member for Finance and lurking in the background is Labour clr Julian Fulbrook who is the cabinet member for Housing.

Update
Could it be that what was supposed to have been set up in Gospel Oak was  a Neighbourhood Forum? Others are being set up across the borough using specific legal powers under the Localism Act 2011 which include regulations.

The RDCP calls itself a charity, but isn't a registered charity.

The rdcp's website doesn't state who its directors and staff are or give out any information on the particulars of the agreement it has with Camden council. Not a good start.

NB as mentioned above, the membership of the RDCP isn't clear, but as an aside I think its worth mentioning that for many years some tenant reps relentlessly made complaints to the council about the cftra (ie the people who where at the time running the cftra). Anything the cftra wasn't doing 'right', they complained about. I think it was a matter of "any excuse will do" and any "lie will do" to make personal attacks on the cftra people.

The cftra did at one time have quite an informative website with minutes of their meetings,  names of members/directors and staff and such like, and the particulars of agreement they had with the council.

Update
The RDCP seems to be speaking as the voice of the majority of Gospel Oak ward residents etc - at the exclusion of the minority.

Ironically I suspect the rdcp was set up by a minority group - without actually knowing or caring about what the majority think, which just about sums up how some underhanded politically ambitious groups in Camden operate and are supported and funded by Camden council.

Update
The rdcp doesn't appear to be a Community Interest Company HERE 
which according the the linked website  
" limited companies, with special additional features, created for the use of people who want to conduct a business or other activity for community benefit, and not purely for private advantage. This is achieved by a "community interest test" and "asset lock", which ensure that the CIC is established for community purposes and the assets and profits are dedicated to these purposes. Registration of a company as a CIC has to be approved by the Regulator who also has a continuing monitoring and enforcement role." 

Update
Have to laugh.

Camden council agreed to help the rdcp in setting up in Nov 2012, two 'job fair' type days for local residents, but claims to have no agreement/contract with the rdcp. Odd.

Participatory Budgeting

Communities in the driving seat: a study of Participatory Budgeting in England
Final report HERE