- with HP Sauce naturally....
It seems that prime fat spitting porkies are again flying all over the place this Panto Season. [Oh no they're not!]
Jolly Cllr Seaton has joined the ever growing list the PBROTRIB is keeping, and that various Town Hall Pravdas, and the historically proud but now cowed once a week newspaper wish to bury, note that in jolly Cllr Seatons email list he excludes the PBROTRIB
We put it to Cllr Seaton that he is deliberately misleading the residents of Peterborough, suggesting the free spending financially out of control Blue Sky Limited company set up by the PCC is dormant but according to a search at Companies House company number 07781846 Blue Sky Peterborough Limited is still active... is this the mystery company? We put the PCC to proof as to where all the funding for an LGA exhibition in June 2013 in Manchester was sourced and who on the PCC Audit Committee sanctioned the huge expenditure?
For the avoidance of any doubt, the exhibitors blurb is reproduced below.....
Why was the monitoring officer sacked, or was she pushed, the exit was after all very rapid...?
From: Cllr Seaton David <David.Seaton@peterborough.gov.uk>
Date: 6 November 2013 18:15:43 GMT
To: Cllr Cereste Marco <Marco.Cereste@peterborough.gov.uk>
Cc: Cllr Allen Sue <Sue.Allen@peterborough.gov.uk>, Cllr Arculus Nick <Nick.Arculus@peterborough.gov.uk>, Cllr Ash Chris <email@example.com>, Cllr Casey Graham <Graham.Casey@peterborough.gov.uk>, Cllr Dalton Matthew <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Cllr Davidson Julia <Julia.Davidson@peterborough.gov.uk>, Cllr Day Sue <Sue.Day@peterborough.gov.uk>, Cllr Elsey Gavin <Gavin.Elsey@peterborough.gov.uk>, Cllr Fitzgerald Wayne <Wayne.Fitzgerald@peterborough.gov.uk>, Cllr Fletcher Michael <email@example.com>, Cllr Forbes Lisa <Lisa.Forbes@peterborough.gov.uk>, Cllr Fower Darren <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Cllr Fox John <email@example.com>, Cllr Fox Judy <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Cllr Goodwin Janet <Janet.Goodwin@peterborough.gov.uk>, Cllr Harper Chris <Chris.Harper@peterborough.gov.uk>, Cllr Harrington David <David.Harrington@peterborough.gov.uk>, Cllr Hiller Peter <Peter.Hiller@peterborough.gov.uk>, Cllr Holdich John OBE <email@example.com>, Cllr Jamil Mohammed <Mohammed.Jamil@peterborough.gov.uk>, Cllr Johnson Jo <Jo.Johnson@peterborough.gov.uk>, Cllr Khan Nazim MBE <Nazim.Khan@peterborough.gov.uk>, Cllr Knowles John <John.Knowles@peterborough.gov.uk>, Cllr Kreling Pam <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Cllr Lamb Diane <email@example.com>, Cllr Lane Stephen <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Cllr Lee Matthew <email@example.com>, Cllr Maqbool Yasmeen <Yasmeen.Maqbool@peterborough.gov.uk>, Cllr Martin Stuart <Stuart.Martin@peterborough.gov.uk>, Cllr McKean Dale <Dale.McKean@peterborough.gov.uk>, Cllr Miners Adrian <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Cllr Murphy Ed <Ed.Murphy@peterborough.gov.uk>, Cllr Nadeem Mohammed <Mohammed.Nadeem@peterborough.gov.uk>, "Cllr Nawaz Gul* (No Direct E- Mail Link)" <email@example.com>, Cllr North Nigel <Nigel.North@peterborough.gov.uk>, Cllr Over David <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Cllr Peach John <email@example.com>, Cllr Rush Brian <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Cllr Saltmarsh Bella <Bella.Saltmarsh@peterborough.gov.uk>, "Cllr Sanders David* (No Direct E- Mail Link)" <email@example.com>, Cllr Sandford Nick <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Cllr Scott Sheila OBE <email@example.com>, Cllr Serluca Lucia <Lucia.Serluca@peterborough.gov.uk>, Cllr Shabbir Nabil <Nabil.Shabbir@peterborough.gov.uk>, Cllr Shaheed Asif <Asif.Shaheed@peterborough.gov.uk>, Cllr Sharp Keith <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Cllr Shearman John <John.Shearman@peterborough.gov.uk>, Cllr Simons George <George.Simons@peterborough.gov.uk>, Cllr Stokes June <June.Stokes@peterborough.gov.uk>, Cllr Swift Charles OBE <email@example.com>, Cllr Sylvester Ann <Ann.Sylvester@peterborough.gov.uk>, Cllr Thacker Paula MBE <Paula.Thacker@peterborough.gov.uk>, Cllr Thulbourn Nick <Nick.Thulbourn@peterborough.gov.uk>, Cllr Todd Marion <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Cllr Walsh Irene <Irene.Walsh@peterborough.gov.uk>, Beasley Gillian <email@example.com>
Cllr SEATON writes:
Subject: Re: Letter from Stewart Jackson MP to Cllr Cereste
Dear Fellow Members
In light of the exchange of letters, [Cllr. Seaton] wanted to share with you my briefing to the Evening Telegraph provided today in response to the individual questions they asked us about the statements made by Stewart Jackson in Parliament yesterday.
For the avoidance of any doubt this is not our response to everything Stewart said - just our responses to the specific questions the newspaper asked. As you will see below, and note from the letter sent by Cllr Cereste, we will be writing an open letter to Stewart addressing all of the inaccuracies.
I also wrote to Stewart about the Empower conclusions prior to his statement to Parliament - that email was acknowledged and confirmed he had received them.
DavidWe have always sought to work closely with Stewart Jackson MP, who represents constituents in our city. Regrettably, we do not recognise the renewable energy plans nor the process that he describes.
Nor do we accept the accusations and insinuations that he has levelled at this council and its officers using his parliamentary privilege. Particularly as he has never attended any council meetings held in public on this subject, at which he could have made his comments.
Peterborough City Council has always been very open to all ideas regarding renewable energy and ways in which the city council can generate additional income for the benefit of all in the city.
We have met Mr Jackson on a number of occasions to brief him and discuss his plans and are due to meet again to continue our discussions. We have not put any obstacles in the way of this process whatsoever, quite the reverse.
We are perplexed that at a time when energy is one of the top issues for the country, that greater recognition has not been given to the financial burden this is also placing on local authorities and the efforts of councils such as ours to protect frontline services at a time of unprecedented financial pressure.Mr Jackson’s speech, in Westminster, contained a number of inaccurate, misleading and inflammatory statements. It is particularly regrettable that despite providing accurate information to Mr Jackson, he has chosen to make a number of statements without checking them first or knowing them to be incorrect, inaccurate or baseless.
Mr Jackson has not raised any new issues. Nor have the points he made helped provide clarity to this extremely important topic. Almost all of the statements made by Stewart Jackson have been properly and fully answered in public over recent months.However, in the interests of accuracy, we would like to address a number of the points that Mr Jackson made, which we hope he will be choosing to make directly to the city council, outside of Westminster, at the first available opportunity.
These are as follows:
Accusations of planning ‘sleight of hand’
This is untrue.There has been no sleight of hand whatsoever in the way that Peterborough City Council has dealt with its planning applications. The three sites are geographically separate; hence require three separate planning applications.Criticisms of consultation process
The city council chose to run a full public engagement process between June and December 2012 prior to submitting its planning applications.
The public then had a further, formal, opportunity to give comments to the Local Planning Authority. This consultation was nearly twice as long as the mandatory 21 days and was open for 43 days in order to allow for the Christmas period, so it is absolutely clear that there was no pressure placed on the LPA to rush its consultation or unduly compromise its independence. Mr Jackson is aware of this. The Secretary of State, if he was concerned about three separate applications instead of one, could have called them in but has chosen not to do so.Criticisms of financial predictions
The city council has always been prepared to release any and all information, bar that which is commercially confidential. This remains the case.
All financial assumptions have erred on the side of caution and been prudent throughout. Financial models and predictions are not solely those of the city council, but of its technical and financial advisors, Deloitte and Davis Langdon.
Financial predictions have been kept under review and updated figures presented to the recent Scrutiny Commission for Rural Communities.
The financial predictions have been considered by Empower Community an organisation that Mr Jackson and others introduced to the council.
A joint statement has been agreed on the projects and an extract is set out below. Mr Jackson was provided with a copy prior to making his statement in Parliament.
‘The council, its advisors and Empower Community met on 9 October 2013 to continue discussions on the above projects.The outcome was:1. The council shared key elements of its financial model. Empower Community was apprised of the key assumptions underpinning the model and the appropriateness of their inclusion. For example:· The density of solar array build out on the sites due to constraints such as buffer zones and drainage· The cost of grid connections· The capital costs of build outEmpower Community agreed that these assumptions were prudent and that the financial model should produce a meaningful operational surplus for the council.’The parties agreed to meet again on Friday 25 October to take this forward but Empower had to cancel the planned meeting due to other business commitments. We are meeting again on Wednesday 20 November to take the matter forward.
The outcome will be to present to Scrutiny and Cabinet an alternative set of proposals from Empower Community. This will include the appropriate level of financial data disclosure that both parties believe is commercially acceptable, and will include an update on the council’s financial projections.It is important to recognise that the view of Empower Community on the council’s financial projections, which is set out in the joint statement, supports the council and its advisors financial projections.
Conflict of interests and ethically questionable conduct
The Leader of the Council has declared all interests that he is required by law to declare. The register of interests is publicly available and has been regularly updated to reflect any changes in his interests. Where questions have been raised regarding any of the Leader’s interests he has sought legal advice from the council’s Monitoring Officer, Kim Sawyer, and made public declarations at meetings regarding his interests. In all respects the Leader has been conscientious in complying with his obligations as a member of the council.
No complaint has been made by any person that the Leader [Cllr Marco Cereste] has any undeclared interests.
The city council refutes in the strongest terms the insinuations that Mr Jackson makes regarding both the leader and certain council officers. Such comments are baseless and unbefitting of a Member of Parliament and we ask that the accusations are backed up or withdrawn.
The fact that the Head of Resources is also the Managing Director of Blue Sky Peterborough (BSP) has no bearing on any conflict of interest. BSP is wholly owned by the city council and is currently dormant.There is no conflict of interest when employees of the council are appointed to companies owned by the council. Blue Sky Peterborough is a company which is wholly owned by the council. As such the council is the sole shareholder. This means that the interest in the company is held by the council’s members. As the interests of the company and the council are aligned there is no conflict of interest.
BSP can only act on any business mandates that the council requests it to.
To deal with such perceptions in the cabinet award for the EnPC to Honeywell the report specifically considered the issue. Details of which are a matter of public record.
The Head of Resources’ marriage to the person who was, at one point, the monitoring officer, also does not, and has never, had any bearing on the project. Recognising the potential for baseless accusations such as this, the person in question delegated authority for this project and has now, in any case, left the city council.
The Chief Executive and Monitoring Officer have written 7 emails to two correspondents explaining in detail the position on this and have also offered to meet with them which both correspondents have declined to do.
Mr Jackson’s comments descended into gossip and conjecture when he remarked about the ‘conspiracy theories’ pointing to the potential for land to be sold to property developers for housing.The city council is proposing to use the land for solar energy for 25 years. It has no intention to sell the land.
In summary, while the city council respects Mr Jackson’s right to oppose its proposals, it is extremely disappointed by the inaccurate and misleading statements with which he has attempted to back up his arguments. We are also disappointed that such arguments have not been made in person or at any of the many public meetings, but via Westminster.
We are also disappointed that Mr Jackson’s comments have not helped in the clarity of the debate, but instead resorted to cloud the issues with insinuation and gossip, while paying scant regard to the facts.
We will be writing an open letter to Mr Jackson in due course to correct a number of his assertions directly in the hope that we may have a more accurate and meaningful debate on this issue.
On 6 Nov 2013, at 17:16, "Cllr Cereste Marco" <Marco.Cereste@peterborough.gov.uk> wrote:Dear StewartPlease find attached a response to your letter.RegardsMarcoCllr Cav. Marco Cereste OSSI OMRILeader of the CouncilPeterborough City CouncilTel: 01733 452481Fax: 01733 452680Please consider the environment before printing this emailDear Marco,Please see the attached letter for your attention, which is self explanatory.Kind regards,Stewart JacksonMP for Peterborough
QUESTION TO CLLR. SEATON IF BLUE SKY LIMITED IS CURRENTLY 'DORMANT' why did it exhibit at:
LGA ANNUAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION MANCHESTER 2-4 JULY 2013 and misleadingly placed the following public statement in Conference literature???
Blue Sky Peterborough, wholly owned by the council aims to be the first public micro utility in the United Kingdom which will hopefully put Peterborough one step closer to becoming the UK’s Environment Capital as well as providing income to protect front-line services in the city. The key areas for the ESCo are the implementation of an Energy Performance Contract; renewable generation; and the micro utility future.
A critical success factor has been a coherent strategy focusing on the integration between commercial considerations and the public sector’s due process in order to take advantage of either market or regulatory derived opportunities.
The Council’s advisory team, comprising of Pinsent Masons (Legal), Davis Langdon, an AECOM company (Technical) and Deloitte (Financial), had to be cognisant of the following issues: commercialization, bankability, structuring and compliance when it comes to the tactical deployment of initiatives.
Understanding how these issues interrelate and maintaining clarity of the risk interfaces is another critical success factor.
• Compliance – Covers regulatory and development alignment of the renewable energy assets.• Structuring – Looks at the contractual arrangements underpinning the delivery of energy to end users, defining the flow of capital and revenue and the ownership of assets.• Bankability – Seeks to ensure that the majority of risk is mitigated through commercialising risk, ensuring that the project is suitably evolved and that the technology, input, output and returns contribute to a sufficiently high energy yield that will achieve an attractive internal rate of return (IRR) for investment.• Commercialisation – Involves building the business case by combining the compliance, structure and bankability outputs. These provide the evidential layer required to make informed decisions in a timely manner.
Our approach has started to deliver results:
• 1 megawatt of photovoltaic (PV) roof installations across Council owned commercial and school properties;• Procurement of a four year solar PV framework for deployment across the Council’s property and asset portfolio;• Procurement of an Energy Performance Contract (EnPC) for deployment of energy efficiency measures across the council’s property portfolio;• Sourcing a third-party (equity) finance partner for the EnPC contract;• Developing land assets owned by the council for a 32 megawatts onshore wind and a 16 megawatts solar farm;• Integrating BSP into major urban regeneration projects facilitating sustainable development.
This is a unique commission that has pioneered a new approach for resource constrained public sector bodies to create new revenue streams, reduce carbon emissions and embrace the forthcoming growth agenda.
Question to Cllrs Cereste & Seaton and all members of the Audit Committee. How busy, and how much public money does Blue Sky Peterborough Ltd have spend in order to lose its Companies Act dormant status?
+++PORKIES ALERT +++ PBROTRIB believes the Company Number for Blue Sky Peterborough Limited is 07781846 and is shown at 8th November 2013 as being active. Not dissolved. Not dormant!
google.com/+JulianBray 01733 345581 ## RSS feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/ParkFarmNeighbourhoodNewsTel01733345581PeterboroughcambridgeshireUk POLICE 101. Emergency 999. Crimestoppers 0800 555 111.