Stage 1 Complaint to Shepway District Council, with regards to decision 16/051 and report C/16/51.

Below is the text of an email I sent to Shepway District Council today:

I wish to make a Stage 1 formal complaint, under the Corporate Complaints Procedure, about the conduct of Shepway District Council and its Officers with regards to decision 16/051 and report C/16/51.
The nature of my complaint is as follows:

1) That Shepway District Council's Parish Charter commits to "Providing a minimum of 6 weeks for consultation on any district wide or specific issues that affect parishes". That the consultation outlined in report C/16/51 took place between 22nd April 2016 and 16th May 2016, thus failing to comply with the commitment made in the Parish Charter. It is therefore my contention that Shepway District Council officers failed to adhere to the provisions of the Parish Charter during the process of consulting on the Sandgate East CPZ.

2) That report C/16/51, produced by Fred Miller, was both misleading and inaccurate. It was misleading because it failed to outline the objection of Sandgate Parish Council to the scheme, whilst implying that the Parish Council supported the scheme by noting that "With the help of the Parish Council, the proposals were widely publicised". It was inaccurate in that it suggested that parking on the maintenance gangway would be covered by the proposed pavement parking ban. Sandgate Parish Councillors Tim Prater and Robert Bliss had previously received advice from Beverly Dempster that there was no legal recourse for banning parking on the gangway without gaining ownership of, or leasing, the affected land. The report was also inaccurate because the alleged increase in the level of parking provision was predicated on the assumption that the new double yellow lines on Castle Road only removed the ability to park in places where one could not reasonably park. It has however long been the custom and practice of drivers to park on the affected stretch of Castle Road, thus meaning that there will in fact be a reduction. It is therefore my contention that Fred Miller failed to "provide appropriate advice" to the Cabinet member upon which to base decision number 16/051, as outlined in Part 8.3 2.1 of the Council's Constitution.

3) That decision number 16/051 was not made available to the public and Councillors on the Scrutiny Committee in a timely fashion. The decision was taken on 30th September 2016. The publicised link to the decision was not working as over October 3rd 2016. I raised the issue on Twitter on that day, receiving a response on October 5th to say that the link was now working. This amounted to a delay of three working days. On this basis, Councillors should have been allotted five clear working days after October 5th to call in the decision. The deadline for call in should therefore have been October 12th. To my knowledge this was not the case, although the District Council website states that the deadline was extended to Midday on Monday October 10th. Officers of the Council therefore failed to give Councillors sufficient time to consider whether or not the decision should be called in, as outlined in Part 7.3 2. of the Council's Constitution.

4) That on October 5th I contacted the Council in my role as a Parish Councillor to ascertain whether or not there would be an extension to the period allotted for calling in decision number 16/051. Officers of the Council failed to respond to that request and have yet to do so, despite responding "Hello Cllr Fuller. Thanks for this; we will see what we can do. Kind regards." to a request made later that same day. It is therefore my contention that officers failed in their commitment to "Ensuring an officer from the relevant service responds to specific queries/issues raised by parish councils", as outlined in the Shepway Parish Charter. It is also my contention that officers failed to "ensure courteous, efficient and impartial service delivery" as outlined in Part 8.3 5.2 of the Council's Constitution.

5) That, as a result of multiple requests from members of the public, with advice from Parish Councillors and the relevant District Councillor, three Scrutiny Committee members attempted to call in decision number 16/051. That Chief Executive Alistair Stewart deemed the call in requests invalid after the end of the call in period. That Alistair Stewart failed to give Councillors sufficient advice and time to amend their requests in order to satisfy the provisions of Part 7.3 3. of the Council's Constitution. That the decision to deem the call in invalid prevented sufficient scrutiny of decision number 16/051 and served to create resentment and ill feeling for Shepway District Council among residents of Sandgate Parish and Sandgate Parish Councillors, as evidenced by recent comments on the Streetlife social network. It is therefore my contention that Alistair Stewart failed in his responsibility to maintain "good internal and external relations", in that he created a negative perception of the Council as a result of his decision. This is one of the responsibilities outlined as being within the role of Chief Executive at www.shepway.gov.uk/media/3630/Chief-Officer-and-Head-of-Service-Responsibilities/pdf/Chief_Officer_and_Head_of_Service_Responsibilities.pdf. It is also my contention that Alistair Stewart failed to "provide appropriate advice" to the Councillors who attempted to call in decision number 16/051, as outlined in Part 8.3 2.1 of the Council's Constitution.

I would be grateful if you would confirm receipt of this complaint, including confirmation that it is valid under section 2.1 of the Corporate Complaints Procedure, and keep me apprised as to the progress of the investigation, including providing me with contact details for the investigating officer(s).

Please do let me know if you have any queries about the nature or detail of the complaint.