Thread by @TownCloseEmma

nerdy🧵for anyone interested in how decisions about transport and travel are made for #Norwich

For the last month I have been trying to get answers about the status of the "Transport for Norwich" committee that I am a member of 1/2

The committee is made up of 4 Norwich based cllrs (2 x city, 2 x county 3 Lab, 1 LD) and 4 Norfolk Tories. The Chair is County Cabinet Member Martin Wilby (Tory).

When the committee was formed we were invited to join a decision making committee 2/2

Meetings took place remotely as covid legislation allowed. When the govt refused to extend that legislation and insisted that decision making meetings took place in person, Transport for Norwich cttee (previously called transforming cities cttee) continued to meet online 3/

This struck me as a bit odd, however we were assured that this type of meeting is one of the ones that could continue to meet online and tbh there was so much community work to focus on I didn't go and read the constitution (I mean, who does, right?) 4/

At the last meeting a controversial scheme was voted through. There were two options on the table. Option A met all of the policy and funding criteria perfectly, and was preferred by the local cllrs (me & Cllr Stutely who both sit on the cttee) & was the officer recommendation 5/

As local cllrs we had done extensive engagement with residents & stakeholders including online & in-person meetings & walked the route with residents. We fed all this work in to the meeting and reasons for preferred option (in-line with the POLICY & FUNDING guidance) 6/

much to our *surprise* the 4 non-Norwich Tories voted for the weaker option B, and the Tory Chair used his casting vote. The 4 Norwich-based Cllrs voted for the evidence-based option A. 7/

Reasons cited for their support of option B were outside of the policy and framework guidance (the policy is to encourage modal shift, and make walking and cycling safer. it is not to provide parking for parents who drive their kids to school) 8/

some of the reasons cited were so ludicrous that you would imagine that the needs of small children who go a private school in some way differ from the needs of children whose parents do not own a car and get them to early years provision right across the city 🤔/9

I felt strongly that the reasons stated for the decision sat outside of the policy and funding decisions that the committee is there to implement.

So, after the meeting I asked a question to the council about how come a decision making meeting is meeting online 10/

I was told it wasn't a decision making committee after all, in fact the committee "advises" the cabinet member.

Wow. News to me. So, onwards.

So will cabinet member have to make a delegated decision of "advice" he has been given by cttee (that member thought was a decision) 11/

Yes.. there will be a cabinet member delegated decision.

okayyyy, so then that will be subject to call-in to scrutiny committee, like any other cabinet decision?

Yes

Then I waited for a while, and eventually a delegated decision from the cabinet member was forthcoming /12

So, I called in that decision & it was heard at yesterday's scrutiny committee. Of course as usual the Tories all closed ranks and imposed this weak, watered down option on the city.

But that's not the end of it? What about all the other (non) decisions the cttee has taken? 13/

I have been through all cabinet member delegated decisions and cannot find any for any of the previous "transforming cities" meeting 'decisions' that took place during remote meetings.

So the question remains on what legal basis is that work taking place? 14/

Some schemes are complete. Others the road is literally being dug up.

Democracy and scrutiny is important.

This has been a land grab by incompetent Tories to impose their will on Tory-free Norwich

They’ve rather fucked it up, haven’t they?

END (for now!) /15

*update*

yesterday was the scheduled meeting of the Transport for Norwich Committee.

Our first job is to agree the minutes of the last meeting. This is how all previous committee 'decisions' have been recorded in the minutes "the committee resolved to" /16

The 'decision' from January's meeting had been recorded as "agreed to recommend to"

But that isn't what we did. This decision has been worded differently using hindsight... retrofitted to try and cover up a major governance error /17

So I refused to agree the minutes, explaining why.

Worryingly, two Tory members of committee had already showed their agreement the minutes were accurate!

The Chair Cllr Wilby took advice from council's legal officer who agreed the minutes should be withdrawn /18

Then cttee was given a verbal announcement by the council legal officer under "urgent business" to inform us that in fact we are not a decision making body, we give advice to the Cabinet member who is the decision maker. /19

This did not meet the criteria for "urgent business"

The problem had been known about since I raised questions after January's meeting, and got the matter brought to March 23rd Scrutiny

We should have had a written report in advance /20

This raised more questions than it gave answers.

What about all the previous non-decisions the cttee has made?

The city cllrs had agreed to participate in a joint decision making cttee

They wished to seek advice from their own monitoring officer & independent legal advice /21

It also raised questions for other district councils, so you would think their cllr representatives might want to take advice from their monitoring officer or council leaders?

But no, South Norfolk Tory said she was sure all was really ok and it was "naval gazing" /22

I don't think seeking clarity of the legality of decisions that you have been involved in as a Cllr and ensuring proper governance is "naval gazing". It is the role we are elected to do.

The County Council has got itself in to an embarrassing mess, so we made a suggestion /23

Given the mess, let's avoid making things worse and adjourn this meeting so all committee members can take proper advice and ask the Cabinet member to take a written report on governance to Cabinet and (supposedly) partner councils #damagelimitation /24

That proposal was seconded, and the vote split 3/3 so the Chair used his casting to vote to continue with the car crash.

I had already made it clear that I would withdraw from the meeting as not prepared to participate in such ambiguous and ridiculous circumstances /25

so Labour councillors withdrew from the meeting.

It turned out that meant the meeting was no longer quorate.

But that didn't stop the Tories. They decided to carry on regardless anyway. /26

The whole shit show can be viewed here (meeting starts at 3 mins 40) and is worth 11 minutes of your time



The EDP report is here edp24.co.uk/news/local-cou… /27