Andrew Cooper Speech to Kirklees Full Council 15/1/2020 - Corporate Peer Challenge - Kirklees Council

The Corporate Peer Challenge Report on Kirklees Council produced during their visits back in July is a really interesting read conducted by Councillors and Senior Officers from around the country. As you would expect it is a mixture of good and less good and areas for improvement. That is the point of the exercise. There’s praise in the report for the Chief Executive and the Council Leader and recognition for the ambition in the Huddersfield Blueprint. There are also observations and  suggestions for changes.

One of the most perplexing statements in the report for me was this one,

“ The Cabinet and senior leadership team work well together, however sharper delineation of roles between Cabinet Members and senior officers needs to be articulated as there is some confusion between the roles of Members and officers. Members should develop policy and officers should implement and deliver it.”

Talk about stating the rather obvious! What could have prompted such a statement. Perhaps things like when senior officers do the media and TV interviews particularly when there is bad news. It also indicates to some degree that there is a lack of political direction in the cabinet or parts of the cabinet. This is worrying. People go to a lot of trouble to get elected So if and when they are and they don't have an agenda and are simply officer lead it is disappointing and a waste of peoples valuable votes.

The action to address this point that the Council has decided to take makes no reference to the Cabinet at all and instead defaults to addressing the relations between all members and officers. This is wilfully and conveniently misinterpreting the recommendation from the Peer Review Team.

Another part of the report states that

"The business community is keen to work with the Council and its voice needs to be strengthened as currently they feel outside the tent."

I guess this may reflect the poor communication that many indoor market traders feel they have had regarding their future in the Huddersfield Blueprint. Or perhaps the creation of One Huddersfield and the excellent work they do is partly a reflection of the need for business to develop a stronger voice when dealing with the Council. Of course there is a danger that if you have a "We know best" approach you are by your very nature going to exclude all sorts of people, businesses, Councillors from other parties and anyone who disagrees with you. Maybe the statement in the Report that says there is a

"outmoded paternelistic approach which the peer team heard still exists in some parts of the organisation"

is a big part of the problem and if that is reflected in some Senior Politicians then that is a cause for concern and stands in the way of us being a modern forward thinking Council that is open not only for business but for fresh ideas and approaches.

The Peer Report also asked us to review our electoral arrangements

"Consider reviewing the electoral cycle to bring it in line with councils that have adopted a longer, more stable electoral pattern with the strong leadership model".

The UK Government has a 5 year cycle (usually!) North Yorkshire County Council has 4 year electoral cycle, many Principal Councils have a 4 year electoral cycle, our Parish Councils have a 4 year electoral cycle but not us. I appreciate the arguments made about accountability to electors but former leaders and Chief Executives of this Council have identified the continual cycle of annual elections as a barrier to good and sometimes difficult decision making. I also think we will have better quality elections if we have them every 4 years. Parties will be able produce manifestoes that demonstrate a programme of activity that could seek radical and positive change. Timidity and risk averse decision making would be less likely. As the report says

"The peer team identified a lack of risk appetite in the Council, which could constrain the Council’s pace and ambition. A bolder approach to risk and opportunity is required throughout the organisation and existing governance processes should be strengthened to support this.” 

So my suggestion would be that we establish as well as the Corporate Risk Register we already have a Corporate Opportunities Register where we systematically look at the opportunities that this Council could take to put up front to Councillors showing what we could do if we had the capacity and political will to do so.

Use Starbucks 'Bucks' for flood defences



Richard Benyon MP addressing the LGA Flooding meeting



I was chairing the Local Goverment Association Annual Flooding Conference on Thursday. Floods Minister Richard Benyon (pictured) came along to tell us he hadn't resolved the issue of making insurance affordable for homes in flood risk areas and that the introduction of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems for new build houses would be delayed supposedly due to lobbying from the building industry over costs.

He went on to bemoan the fact that the private sector were not pulling their weight in providing funds for partnership funding for flood defence projects. I suggested that in lieu of their zero tax bill that Starbucks be approached to significantly contribute. This went down pretty well with the audience which included plenty of Tory Cllrs. He promised to take this idea to Cabinet but to be fair I think he thought I was joking. I wasn't.

LGA Environment and Housing Board Report – June 2012

Flytipping on farmland

This Environment and Housing Board was in Birmingham to coincide with the LGA Annual Conference. It was half the cost of travel to London which I was pleased about. I suggested they held some meetings in Huddersfield – a nice central location.

The revised Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Local Government Association was up for discussion. There had been concern that DECC had on occasions implemented relevant policies (such as changes to Feed In Tariffs) with little or no consultation with Local Authorities. I made 2 contributions on the proposed shared statement between DECC and LGA. One to acknowledge that Councils had been the instigators of many of the leading energy efficiency projects that have occurred in recent years and that it is they and not central government that have the expertise and experience to deliver action on climate change.. Another point I made was that simply reducing local authority estate emissions on its own was not enough. If this was achieved simply through the sale of old energy inefficient buildings this and not through improvements to the existing stock this would not necessarily mean any reductions in carbon emissions in the area just a transfer of those emissions from the public sector to the private sector.

DEFRA are to hold a Flytipping Summit in July. One proposal on their agenda is to encourage Councils to exempt farmers from costs for disposing of flytipped materials. This proposal is fraught with difficulties. A small minority of unscrupulous farmers could effectively run illicit waste disposal businesses at no cost to themselves. There is also the question as to why should we exempt farmers as opposed to any other private landowner and why should cash strapped local authorities shoulder the cost of disposing of this waste. We should be focussing on the problem of flytipping not letting one particular group off the costs of paying for it. This proposal from DEFRA looks like an unworkable non starter.

The ongoing welfare reforms was another contentious issue on the agenda. The proposed benefits cap, the size criteria for under occupied rented housing and benefit payments no longer go to private landlords but straight to tenants all seem designed to make life more difficult for those on low incomes and to generate more homeless families and suffering. Government seems to have developed these policies  believing there is a mass availability of alternative cheap accommodation in other areas and that households would be able  to move many miles to  find a job in another area with cheaper accommodation.  The broad thrust of this was that households in London and the South East would move from the overcrowded and expensive south to the cheaper North where there are apparently lots of jobs. Clearly  a policy not in any way related to the real world.

I informed the meeting that I had been in touch with Councillors in Calderdale asking for feedback on issues arising from the recent floods  in my capacity as the Chair of the LGA’s Inland Flood Risk Working Group. Todmorden, Mytholmroyd and Hebden Bridge were badly affected by the recent floods and I am keen to ensure our contacts with DEFRA on flooding issues are informed by real life experiences from people and communities affected.

LGA Environment and Housing Board Report

A new understanding between LGA and DECC?

It was a lively Environment and Housing Board in May. The LGA produced a campaign plan entitled ‘Housing the Nation’ to lobby government to give Councils more powers to encourage new housing in their areas. One of the weaknesses of the campaign, in my opinion, was the lack of any emphasis on the need for more social housing to rent. Purchasing a house is beyond the reach of many people particularly young people. You have to question the wisdom of encouraging someone to spend an increasing proportion of their income over their entire working lives to purchase a home. We need a change in culture in the UK away from the dubious virtues of ownership to one where a secure affordable rented home is a serious option. There was an interesting and indeed surprising suggestion that came from one of the Conservative members to have an increasingly punitive tax on land where planning permission had been granted but development had not commenced. I christened it the ‘Tesco Tax’ due to their large land banks of land where building had not yet taken off.

The renewal of the LGA’s Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Department of Energy and Climate Change provoked a lot of comment. The MoU was one where the 2 bodies were supposed to share intelligence and information on current policy developments and work together on action to tackle climate change. One bone of contention was the illegal cuts in the Feed In Tariff for solar PV which had been pursued with no reference to the LGA and had cost Councils many thousands in preparing for large scale solar projects which were now defunct. Clearly the MoU had been disregarded by DECC here. There were other examples which brought into question DECCs real commitment to buy into the MoU. There was general agreement that we needed to secure more assurances from DECC before renewing the MoU. One suggestion I made which was well received and accepted was for the LGA to establish another MoU but this time with industry. The interests of the microgeneration and energy efficiency sectors and local government coincide in a number of areas. We both want to see action on the ground and our principle common constraint is the policies of central government. Approaching DECC with a common message could give more weight to both organisations. I’ll let you know how it progresses.

'Flood RE' - will it help areas at risk of flooding?

Armitage Bridge Flood 2008

If you want to know whether or not Climate Change is real and getting worse don't listen to Friends of the Earth, don't listen to the Campaign against Climate Change and whatever you do don't listen to the Green Party! You want to go the people who really know, none other than the Association of British Insurers. As representatives of the insurance industry the ABI have a vested interest in assessing the risk and likelyhood of flooding events and understanding what action has been taken to mitigate those risks. As we all should know changing weather patterns are upon us. We have longer, heavier rain events, flash flooding and the consequential damage to property.  This has had a real impact on Armitage Bridge in the ward I represent as a Kirklees Councillor but hopefully measures the Council has put in place and action taken by local people will limit the risk of flooding in future. So far so good!

For  a number of years now there has been an agreement, called the 'Statement of Principles' between the Government and the ABI which has ensured that many homes at risk of flooding have received reasonable levels of insurance. This agreement runs out next year but households are already seeing the consequences of this as the cost of  their renewal premiums drops through their letterbox. One householder in Runnymede was quoted £10,000 for their home insurance due to flood risk. So what can be done to address this problem? In the short term we need to do all we can to reduce the impact of flood and heavy rain events though strategically placed resevoirs, sustainable urban drainage systems and putting measures in place which reduce damage to homes at risk of flooding through flood secure doors and higher electrical sockets. It almost goes without saying that we need to take ongoing urgent action to reduce our carbon emissions but the issue of insuring homes remains.

Last week, as Chair of the Local Government Associations Inland Flood Risk Working Group I facilitated a meeting last week between DEFRA, the Association of British Insurers and Councillors from around the country who had been badly affected by flood events. The ABI's proposal to government is called 'Flood RE' where government will underwrite the cost of insurance for major flood events. It is estimated that the cost to government could be around £100- £200 million per annum. It is based on a similar agreement between Government and the ABI called ' Pool RE'. 'Pool RE' is nothing to do with pools of water, or Religious Education come to that, but is how the government helps the insurance industry insure property against the risks of terrorism events. Basically Flood RE is a guarantee by government that they will step in if flood events occur and help with cost. I've asked to see the details of 'ABI's 'Flood RE' proposal so the the Local Government Association can comment and if happy with it lend its support to the document.It seems a good principle for government to 'underwrite' the risk to the people they represent who find themselves in dire unaffordable circumstances due to no fault of their own. DEFRA is due to report back in 'Spring' this year. Admittedly I don't feel Spring has really sprung yet but we should know something shortly I guess.

Flood Risk Management Group meeting - January 2011

I had my first meeting as the new Chair of the Local Government Association’s Inland Flood Risk Management group this month. On the face of it a bit outside my comfort zone but some of the flooding issues experienced by householders in the Armitage Bridge part of the Newsome Ward have highlighted to me some of the real concerns people have who have gone through flooding events.


The attendees represented an array of Councillors for whom this area is a real passion and officers who grapple with flood related issues on a day to day basis including the National Flood Forum, the Environment Agency, DEFRA officials. So it was a very well informed gathering and an ideal place to get acquainted with the issues. I put the officers from DEFRA and the EA at their ease by telling them I was keen for us to have the meetings questions put to them and answered in a Select Committee fashion with lots of probing to get to the nub of concerns. They seemed suitably pleased by this and they defended the government as best they could.

One real bone of contention was the issue of how Insurance Companies approached flood risk. Insurance companies are approaching the insurance of properties for flood risk not on the basis of flood risk but on postcode. So you could have one property which could be at low/no risk of flooding and then further down the road a property at high risk. Both could be insurance blight areas. In fact this issue affects hundreds of properties in Runnymede which are completely unaffordable to insure for many householders and it would appear that their local MP isn’t desperately fighting their corner on this issue. Following flooding you would assume that Insurance companies would be keen to make areas ‘resilient’ to flooding in future by getting electrical sockets raised and having flood resistant flooring installed. You’d be wrong as Insurance Companies generally want things restoring to their previous state including low electrical sockets etc. Bonkers. I have suggested that there could be a 'green deal' type finance approach to paying for flood hardening measures for 'at risk' homes. A 'Wet Deal'?

The first actions I have asked for is a letter to the Association of British Insurers about the issue and a request for a meeting with the Minister along with other concerned Councillors and officials.