Monday, January 07, 2008
Lib Dem School building....... oh dear
The Fib Dems latest comments on their website about how effective they are at building schools is a bit worrying They boats that:
1/3rd of the buildings were complete within 2 weeks of the target completion date
2 were built under budget
1/2 were within 4% of the budget.
That's hardly amazing.. in fact look at it this way:
[b]2/3rds of the schools they commissioned and had built were more than 2 weeks late;
all but 2 went over budget
50% went over budget by more than 4%[/b]
Now I am responsible for a building programme worth about £1bn per year. If I delivered 2/3rds of my projects late I'd be shot!
Why are they going wrong? well for a number of reasons, but the starting point has to be poor management of the contrac tual design and build process. MK Council is one of the last places to use something called a "Partnering Contract" which were recommended by the Egan Report in the mid-90's. They prefer the old-fashioned "Design & Build" where the architect is the lead designer, the constructors lack any responsibility for the design process, and the net result is you get snags in the build process that can otherwise be easily overcome, but the process is long-winded and expensive. You also don't get cost certainty from the outset of the project, and so costs escalate.
How would I solve this problem?
1. Use a partnering contract that allocates both risk and financial responsibility for carrying that risk to the involved parties. Everyone signs up to working in partnership, so there is a collective responsibility to resolve deisgn or construction problems as everyone shares the financial risk. It gets away from the "not my problem mate" mentaility. It also sets out an Agreed Maximum Price for the project, so you go into it instages without having committed to the full cost until you know what it will be. the net result, you don't then exceed your budget.
2. use modular technology. There are a number of companies who manufacture component build systems in factories that then put them together on site. It means you can work 24/7 and are not subject to weather delays. your supply chain is certain, and your ability to control time and cost is greater. The buildings are in effect, made in units in a factory, fully fittted, and then assembled on-site. They have a life of between 60-100 years, and are cost effective. In fact you wouldn't even know you were standing inside one that was made off-site unless someone told you they are now that good. Ask local system build manufacturer terrapin. They are a world leader in the technology!
3. Have a better understanding of programme management and outsource it to the professionals. If you are manufacturing a system build design then you can utilise manufacturing processes such as Lean Six Sigma. It manages in quality and manages out cost redundancy.
4. On time = lower c ost. You don't need to find alternative accommodation, bus children all around MK, and pay support staff more to feed/look after more students than the schools mopping up the over-demand of students take, not to mention the hammering on maintenance and degradation costs on the acillary equipment needed to feed/warm/service the buildikngs that are over-utilised while the new supply of schools is late.
The fact is, it can be done. With the school building budget being squeezed the last thing MK needs is more incompetence from the Lib Dems in delivering 2/3rds of new schools late, and over-budget.
1/3rd of the buildings were complete within 2 weeks of the target completion date
2 were built under budget
1/2 were within 4% of the budget.
That's hardly amazing.. in fact look at it this way:
[b]2/3rds of the schools they commissioned and had built were more than 2 weeks late;
all but 2 went over budget
50% went over budget by more than 4%[/b]
Now I am responsible for a building programme worth about £1bn per year. If I delivered 2/3rds of my projects late I'd be shot!
Why are they going wrong? well for a number of reasons, but the starting point has to be poor management of the contrac tual design and build process. MK Council is one of the last places to use something called a "Partnering Contract" which were recommended by the Egan Report in the mid-90's. They prefer the old-fashioned "Design & Build" where the architect is the lead designer, the constructors lack any responsibility for the design process, and the net result is you get snags in the build process that can otherwise be easily overcome, but the process is long-winded and expensive. You also don't get cost certainty from the outset of the project, and so costs escalate.
How would I solve this problem?
1. Use a partnering contract that allocates both risk and financial responsibility for carrying that risk to the involved parties. Everyone signs up to working in partnership, so there is a collective responsibility to resolve deisgn or construction problems as everyone shares the financial risk. It gets away from the "not my problem mate" mentaility. It also sets out an Agreed Maximum Price for the project, so you go into it instages without having committed to the full cost until you know what it will be. the net result, you don't then exceed your budget.
2. use modular technology. There are a number of companies who manufacture component build systems in factories that then put them together on site. It means you can work 24/7 and are not subject to weather delays. your supply chain is certain, and your ability to control time and cost is greater. The buildings are in effect, made in units in a factory, fully fittted, and then assembled on-site. They have a life of between 60-100 years, and are cost effective. In fact you wouldn't even know you were standing inside one that was made off-site unless someone told you they are now that good. Ask local system build manufacturer terrapin. They are a world leader in the technology!
3. Have a better understanding of programme management and outsource it to the professionals. If you are manufacturing a system build design then you can utilise manufacturing processes such as Lean Six Sigma. It manages in quality and manages out cost redundancy.
4. On time = lower c ost. You don't need to find alternative accommodation, bus children all around MK, and pay support staff more to feed/look after more students than the schools mopping up the over-demand of students take, not to mention the hammering on maintenance and degradation costs on the acillary equipment needed to feed/warm/service the buildikngs that are over-utilised while the new supply of schools is late.
The fact is, it can be done. With the school building budget being squeezed the last thing MK needs is more incompetence from the Lib Dems in delivering 2/3rds of new schools late, and over-budget.
MK News last week ran this article:
Lone Labour voice argues against dumping elected mayor option in review of how the city is governed
Milton Keynes Council has thrown out proposals for a publicly elected mayor in favour of a more powerful leader.
Former Labour MP Brian White, now a councillor for StantonburyAt its meeting on Tuesday, December 11, Milton Keynes Council set up a working party to consider possible changes to democratic arrangements in the city.
This follows a Government Bill passed on October 30, which requires all councils to choose to have either an elected mayor and cabinet or enhanced leader and cabinet model.
The council chose to support plans to have an enhanced leader, who is elected by the council and would have the power to appoint his/her cabinet and determine the powers allocated to each councillor.
The cabinet is currently elected by the whole council.
The working party will look into the issue in more detail, as well as considering plans to review ward boundaries, to hold elections every four years instead of every three years out of four and, to review the number of members of the council.
The working party will also ensure that the public can give their views on any proposed changes.
However, Cllr Brian White believes these decisions should be made by the people of Milton Keynes in a referendum, rather than by the council.
"I just don't think it is right that councillors should be making this decision and not the people," he said.
"Councillors won't vote for an elected mayor as they will look after their own, the turkey wouldn't vote for Christmas.
"The people of Milton Keynes should choose who leads them.
"Why are they afraid of democracy?" He added that an elected mayor would provide the strong voice that Milton Keynes needs and, would allow the public and media to more easily hold the council to account if things go wrong.
Council leader, Cllr Isobel McCall said: "Except for one individual nobody supports having an elected mayor as it concentrates far too much power in the hands of one individual." She explained that even though an elected mayor may not be a member of the party with a majority in council, their power is such that they can force all kinds of decisions through.
"We have had several debates in the past but there has never been an appetite for an elected mayor," she said.
She added that the council will be reviewing all electoral arrangements in an attempt to make the system more simple for voters.
Cllr Kevin Wilson added: "The difficulty of having an elected mayor is that they would be super powerful and the potential for division with the elected councillors would be significant, as well as the potential for power being wielded in a heavy handed fashion.
"It would not be possible to replace an elected mayor for four years. There are no recall powers that would be available."
I have to say, I agree with the Council's decision in this regard. No surprise that it was a former Labour MP who will have voted on legislation to create that bohemoth of a beaurocracy and waste of time and effort known as the "London Assembly" that is in favour of a directly elected Mayor.
It does not, in spite of Cllr White's assertion, bring democracy closer to the people, in fact quite the opposite.
Look at the Regional Assemblies. I cannot think of a single purpose that is served by this administration other than to impose Gordon Brown's houses on us. Local planning decisions are taken away from local councils. How is this democractic? Would a mayor be any different? Of course not.
One example of democracy in action is the Wind Farm application. Using the democratic system of checks and balances the decision has been recalled to full council to debate the appointment of an [b]independant[/b] advisor and to set aside the flawed and biased report commissioned from White Young Green. Would this have been achieved if we had a "democractically" elected Mayor with quasi-presidential powers? I doubt it.
So thanks for the opinion Cllr White, but I'd prefer to see a system of Leader and Cabinat, however flawed, as it is a better system than the one being proposed.
The article also talks about boundary changes and all-out elections. I do support this notion. I have said before it is confusing to have 2 councillors or more representing the same Ward, especially when they can (and often are) in different political parties. Take Olney as an example, with 2 councillors, one Conservative and one Lib Dem, but BOTH representing the same town. Surely it would make more sense to have Olney North/South or Olney East/West with only one councillor representing a smaller geographic Ward with an equal population split. If the ratio is 1 councillor to 3000 residents, rtather than have 2 councillors for the same 6000 residents of Olney, splt the Wards so that they have 3000 residents each as a sole charge. It makes more sense than the current system. Equallly the "election in 3rds" or a 3rd of the council's seats being elected each year for 3 years out of 4 and then no elections in the 4th year is confusing. People want to have a system whereby they know who represents them and when they are due for re-election. It is a system that favours the Lib Dems because of the confusion it causes, and they want to keep it!
As I said last year, it is time for a change!
Lone Labour voice argues against dumping elected mayor option in review of how the city is governed
Milton Keynes Council has thrown out proposals for a publicly elected mayor in favour of a more powerful leader.
Former Labour MP Brian White, now a councillor for StantonburyAt its meeting on Tuesday, December 11, Milton Keynes Council set up a working party to consider possible changes to democratic arrangements in the city.
This follows a Government Bill passed on October 30, which requires all councils to choose to have either an elected mayor and cabinet or enhanced leader and cabinet model.
The council chose to support plans to have an enhanced leader, who is elected by the council and would have the power to appoint his/her cabinet and determine the powers allocated to each councillor.
The cabinet is currently elected by the whole council.
The working party will look into the issue in more detail, as well as considering plans to review ward boundaries, to hold elections every four years instead of every three years out of four and, to review the number of members of the council.
The working party will also ensure that the public can give their views on any proposed changes.
However, Cllr Brian White believes these decisions should be made by the people of Milton Keynes in a referendum, rather than by the council.
"I just don't think it is right that councillors should be making this decision and not the people," he said.
"Councillors won't vote for an elected mayor as they will look after their own, the turkey wouldn't vote for Christmas.
"The people of Milton Keynes should choose who leads them.
"Why are they afraid of democracy?" He added that an elected mayor would provide the strong voice that Milton Keynes needs and, would allow the public and media to more easily hold the council to account if things go wrong.
Council leader, Cllr Isobel McCall said: "Except for one individual nobody supports having an elected mayor as it concentrates far too much power in the hands of one individual." She explained that even though an elected mayor may not be a member of the party with a majority in council, their power is such that they can force all kinds of decisions through.
"We have had several debates in the past but there has never been an appetite for an elected mayor," she said.
She added that the council will be reviewing all electoral arrangements in an attempt to make the system more simple for voters.
Cllr Kevin Wilson added: "The difficulty of having an elected mayor is that they would be super powerful and the potential for division with the elected councillors would be significant, as well as the potential for power being wielded in a heavy handed fashion.
"It would not be possible to replace an elected mayor for four years. There are no recall powers that would be available."
I have to say, I agree with the Council's decision in this regard. No surprise that it was a former Labour MP who will have voted on legislation to create that bohemoth of a beaurocracy and waste of time and effort known as the "London Assembly" that is in favour of a directly elected Mayor.
It does not, in spite of Cllr White's assertion, bring democracy closer to the people, in fact quite the opposite.
Look at the Regional Assemblies. I cannot think of a single purpose that is served by this administration other than to impose Gordon Brown's houses on us. Local planning decisions are taken away from local councils. How is this democractic? Would a mayor be any different? Of course not.
One example of democracy in action is the Wind Farm application. Using the democratic system of checks and balances the decision has been recalled to full council to debate the appointment of an [b]independant[/b] advisor and to set aside the flawed and biased report commissioned from White Young Green. Would this have been achieved if we had a "democractically" elected Mayor with quasi-presidential powers? I doubt it.
So thanks for the opinion Cllr White, but I'd prefer to see a system of Leader and Cabinat, however flawed, as it is a better system than the one being proposed.
The article also talks about boundary changes and all-out elections. I do support this notion. I have said before it is confusing to have 2 councillors or more representing the same Ward, especially when they can (and often are) in different political parties. Take Olney as an example, with 2 councillors, one Conservative and one Lib Dem, but BOTH representing the same town. Surely it would make more sense to have Olney North/South or Olney East/West with only one councillor representing a smaller geographic Ward with an equal population split. If the ratio is 1 councillor to 3000 residents, rtather than have 2 councillors for the same 6000 residents of Olney, splt the Wards so that they have 3000 residents each as a sole charge. It makes more sense than the current system. Equallly the "election in 3rds" or a 3rd of the council's seats being elected each year for 3 years out of 4 and then no elections in the 4th year is confusing. People want to have a system whereby they know who represents them and when they are due for re-election. It is a system that favours the Lib Dems because of the confusion it causes, and they want to keep it!
As I said last year, it is time for a change!
Friday, January 04, 2008
Emberton Wind Farm
I attended the Planning Committe meeting on 17/12/07 that approved this scheme. Rather than go through a blow by blow account, I'll bullet point some of my observations and end with the letter that was published in the Citizen on 27/12:
Tuesday 18th December 2007
Dear Editor
The decision taken last night by the Planning Committee of Milton Keynes Council to approve the environmentally disastrous wind farm in Emberton can only be described as the wrong decision made on a wind farm application at the wrong time, proposed in the wrong place. Indeed Cllr John Bint summed the situation up quite succinctly when he suggested that what the committee was being asked to decide upon was destroying “first division countryside for fourth division wind (power)”.
I believe that the process itself was fundamentally undermined by the quality of the advice given by officers to the elected members. Inexperienced in determining wind farm applications the decision was taken to obtain advice from White Young Green partners, a consultancy well known in the property sector as being one of the more aggressive supporters of development. Asking WYG to offer advice on whether or not to approve the decision to press ahead with such a damaging scheme was akin to asking turkeys their views on the abolition of Christmas: a foregone conclusion before they began. Indeed having read their submission it is apparent that it weighs less heavily on the arguments against the development as for. Cllr Bint got less than satisfactory answers from WYG’s representatives on the accuracy of the photomontage and questions went unanswered as to why 125m turbines were necessary if, as YourEnergy claim, technology is advancing. I urge BLEW to consider mounting a legal challenge as a matter of urgency and seek to have the decision referred to a Judicial Review.
But what of the community? Emberton is a village in conflict with itself. The Parish Council and the majority of residents have expressed their opposition to the scheme. Indeed 86% of residents polled by the Parish Council wanted the application turned down. Petsoe has been the scene of angry protests in recent months and this has not been helped by one or two residents attempting to give the false impression that there is muted support for the scheme within the village, claims that are only leading to resentment and ill feeling. The challenge now to the village is to try and reconcile itself and to try and heal the divisions that exist. As a resident I will do all I can in the coming months, however I think it is important to recognise that the blame for what has happened does not rest with individuals but with YourEnergy who have cynically sought to exploit Government subsidy with utter indifference to the consequences to the village. Should this scheme go ahead the residents of Emberton will have to try to find a way to put recent events behind them. I doubt very much that once YourEnergy have repaid their venture capital and run off with their subsidies leaving behind their monstrosity wind turbines, un-productive and thus un-maintained and left to rot as they no doubt will be, you will not see the “caring, considerate face” of their PR machine attempting pacify the community as they will be long gone and onto their next “project”. How sad that not enough of our Councillors recognised the dangers in time to prevent the potential devastation their decision will no doubt cause.
Yours faithfully
Keith Fraser
Conservative Party Spokesperson
Sherington Ward
- Many of the "pro-windfarm lobby" in attendance were from outside M K. In fact the couple sat next to me had travelled from outside Kettering in Northamptonshire.
- Their behaviour was quite odd to say the least. One man was sat on the front row with 2 big green stickers stuck to his forehead, while the other campaigners who had been bussed in were sat all holding up A4 posters with "Vote Yes" on them. Cllr Isabella fraser (LD) commented in the chamber that the presence of so many people from outside MK was obviously intended to put undue pressure on the committee and that she fgound it quite intimidating.
- Cllr I Fraser also commented on the deluge of papers submitted the day of the hearing from YourEnergy to be verging on being out of order, and that it was impossible to consume so much information in such a short space of time.
- Cllr John Bint (Cons) quite rightly attacked the bias of the paper submitted to advise council officers as being biased and inaccurate. He also pointed out that WYG's own website extols their ability to obtain planning consent for contentious schemes in areas of outstanding natural beauty and as such they were not likely to giv e a balanced opinion. He then went on to examine the bias in their report, noteably the inaccuracy of their photmontage.
- Cllr Bint made the observation that WYG were recommending that we trade "first division countryside for 4tyh division wind (power) generation".
- The Labour members voted en bloc in favour of the scheme in line with their party's n ational policy mandate.
- Cllr Barbosa (LD) made a tangenital point about Portugal that was, frankly fatuous, and how we had to act to prevent the UK from becoming the kind of arid dustbowl that he was used to in that country before voting for the scheme.
- Cllr Chris Williams (LD) made a pantomime show of waving in his arms in the air in indecision before voting for the scheme. It was obvious that he took the matter so seriously (sic).
.
Tuesday 18th December 2007
Dear Editor
The decision taken last night by the Planning Committee of Milton Keynes Council to approve the environmentally disastrous wind farm in Emberton can only be described as the wrong decision made on a wind farm application at the wrong time, proposed in the wrong place. Indeed Cllr John Bint summed the situation up quite succinctly when he suggested that what the committee was being asked to decide upon was destroying “first division countryside for fourth division wind (power)”.
I believe that the process itself was fundamentally undermined by the quality of the advice given by officers to the elected members. Inexperienced in determining wind farm applications the decision was taken to obtain advice from White Young Green partners, a consultancy well known in the property sector as being one of the more aggressive supporters of development. Asking WYG to offer advice on whether or not to approve the decision to press ahead with such a damaging scheme was akin to asking turkeys their views on the abolition of Christmas: a foregone conclusion before they began. Indeed having read their submission it is apparent that it weighs less heavily on the arguments against the development as for. Cllr Bint got less than satisfactory answers from WYG’s representatives on the accuracy of the photomontage and questions went unanswered as to why 125m turbines were necessary if, as YourEnergy claim, technology is advancing. I urge BLEW to consider mounting a legal challenge as a matter of urgency and seek to have the decision referred to a Judicial Review.
But what of the community? Emberton is a village in conflict with itself. The Parish Council and the majority of residents have expressed their opposition to the scheme. Indeed 86% of residents polled by the Parish Council wanted the application turned down. Petsoe has been the scene of angry protests in recent months and this has not been helped by one or two residents attempting to give the false impression that there is muted support for the scheme within the village, claims that are only leading to resentment and ill feeling. The challenge now to the village is to try and reconcile itself and to try and heal the divisions that exist. As a resident I will do all I can in the coming months, however I think it is important to recognise that the blame for what has happened does not rest with individuals but with YourEnergy who have cynically sought to exploit Government subsidy with utter indifference to the consequences to the village. Should this scheme go ahead the residents of Emberton will have to try to find a way to put recent events behind them. I doubt very much that once YourEnergy have repaid their venture capital and run off with their subsidies leaving behind their monstrosity wind turbines, un-productive and thus un-maintained and left to rot as they no doubt will be, you will not see the “caring, considerate face” of their PR machine attempting pacify the community as they will be long gone and onto their next “project”. How sad that not enough of our Councillors recognised the dangers in time to prevent the potential devastation their decision will no doubt cause.
Yours faithfully
Keith Fraser
Conservative Party Spokesperson
Sherington Ward
