Stockport Council News

http://stockportlabour.org.uk/resignation-cllr-mcauley-stockport-market/

Patrick McAuley

The resignation of Patrick McAuley

Council leader Sue Derbyshire asked Patrick McAuley to take special leave or be removed from his post on the councils’ Executive. This came after a meeting in which Patrick was aggressively abusive to the point Sue feared for her safety.

Unfortunately this was not an isolated incident with Patrick and he resigned from Stockport Council’s Executive soon after. He has since made a number of claims which are not true.

Our interest is not to ‘hound’ Patrick – we want him to be well and happy – but it is important residents have the facts about the claims so they can make up their own minds.

This is the statement from the Liberal Democrat group on Stockport Council:

At a meeting of Executive members on 7th April, Cllr McAuley became overly aggressive, shouted and had a threatening manner. Cllr Derbyshire felt very intimidated by him and decided to leave the room, fearing for her safety.

Similar situations involving Cllr McAuley intimidating other councillors have happened in the past. Cllr McAuley had initially performed well as an Executive Member but his performance deteriorated during 2015. So far in 2016 he has missed 18 key meetings, often citing health reasons. He has clearly been under much pressure in his public and private life.

As councillors are not employees and do not get “sick leave”, Cllr Derbyshire offered Cllr McAuley the equivalent of compassionate leave. However, because of the level of his aggression, she had to reserve the right to remove him from his office if he would not take leave. Unfortunately he has now chosen to resign instead.

Was Patrick ordered to bury a report regarding Stockport market?

No. Patrick says he ‘refused to bury a report’ but in his own resignation letter he highlights why the report he refers to was not ready for publication (“[the report was drafted] before officers had seen or even received the results of the consultation on the Market.”)

As Patrick acknowledges, the details of the consultation with traders did not even arrive until 7 April. This was the day of the meeting referred to above.

Everyone surely wants our historic market place and Stockport’s market traders to have a sustainable future. One where they are no longer reliant on an annual subsidy of more than £200,000 of taxpayer’s money. Consultations with the public and with traders have only just been completed. It seems Patrick is hoping to take advantage of genuine concern about the future of the market and is using it to distract attention from his aggressive and unreasonable behaviour.

Patrick claims he was offered “hush money.” Is this true?

No. You can see for yourself in the letter that Sue wrote back to Patrick the day after the meeting referred to above. Councillors are not employees and do not get ‘sick leave’. Cllr Derbyshire offered Patrick the equivalent of compassionate leave after he had missed 18 key meetings in the first three months of 2016 alone and was, sadly, no longer performing to the standard required.

Patrick claims he missed meetings due to his children being unwell. Isn’t it unfair to criticise him for this?

In the first three months of 2016 Patrick missed 18 key meetings citing reasons such as his health but some that he ‘forgot’ or ‘have assignments to get in’.

See for yourself the record of meetings and reason given for the absence.

Of course people miss meetings through health reasons from time to time. But most reasonable people would feel that after missing so many meetings, it was even more important to take the advice of the legal and subject experts at the Council. Particularly the advice on the important issues regading the market’s future that Patrick was ignoring.

Does Patrick have a point about the consultation on Stockport market?

As Patrick was the Executive member for issues regarding the market, this was actually his area of responsibility. Unfortunately the market currently does not makes ends meet. Over the last four years the Council has had to provide more than £800,000 of subsidy to cover costs. That’s why we want to do something about it.

Patrick complained that proposals did not completely remove the need to provide this subsidy. They didn’t. But the only way to completely remove the deficit would be to close the Market entirely. Surely this isn’t what anyone wants at all?

Patrick claims Neil Derbyshire is Sue Derbyshire’s campaign manager. Is this true?

No. Sue’s re-election campaign is managed by local activist Danny Langley and former Manor councillor Jenny Humphreys. The “imprint” on any leaflet issued by Sue or the Lib Dems in Manor ward lists “J Humpreys” as the publisher of the material. Jenny is Sue’s election agent and the main point of responsibility. As Sue’s husband, Neil volunteers to deliver leaflets, stuff envelopes, and send e-mails to the core team of volunteers regarding team meetings. He is not “Sue’s campaign manager.”

Patrick claims Neil Derbyshire demanded data of residents/voters/Lib Dem members – is this true?

No. Patrick made this claim in August when he himself was the subject of an internal complaint on his data handling. This was followed by Patrick’s resignation as the local membership secretary. In the seven months since making the claim, Patrick has not able to provide evidence of it.

Again, this is likely to be a diversionary tactic – it is in fact Patrick that has been written to with a warning regarding the Data Protection Act 1998.

As for Neil Derbyshire, he is not a party member, has never asked to be given data, and would not be provided with data of residents or local party members.

If Patrick was aggressive to Sue as you claim were there witnesses and have you involved the Police?

Unfortunately it has been necessary to speak to the Police. There were witnesses in the meeting and the statement above is one agreed by all of the people at that meeting, except Patrick. Clearly no one has any interest in a witch hunt but no one should fear for their safety at a council meeting.

If Patrick is publishing things on the internet and in e-mails to residents which are not true, can’t you do anything legally?

Regrettably it has been necessary to seek legal advice regarding defamation. We have also liaised with the Information Commissioner’s Office because it appears Patrick has abused local residents’ personal data for his own ends in breach of the Data Protection Act, and with the Electoral Commission.

Is it fair you mentioning Patrick’s health?

Patrick has been perfectly frank, truthful and open about his health and we have tried to provide every support. Some of this he has rejected. Our hope is that out of the political sphere and the inherent pressures of representing residents he can thrive.

Nevertheless Stockport Lib Dems’ priority has to be the safety of its members. More than one local party member has expressed concern about being at meetings Patrick might attend. His behaviour has been completely unacceptable, and Sue was left with no choice but to remove him from the Executive if he did not take the offer of special leave.

If you have a question regarding claims you have heard that have not been covered here, contact us via info@stockportlibdems.org.uk.

——————–

missed meetings

In the first three months of 2016 Patrick McAuley missed 18 key meetings.

January
4 January 2016: Meeting: Portfolio briefing, Reason for absence: “I completely forgot about the meeting.”
13 January 2016: Meeting: Town Centre Committee. Reason for absence: None given, substitute arranged.
14 January 2016: Meeting: Executive Briefing Meeting, Reason for absence: None recorded
18 January 2016: Meeting: Portfolio briefing, Reason for absence: Patrick cancelled the meeting 3 minutes after it had begun.
21 January 2016: Meeting: Executive Team Meeting, Reason for absence: None recorded
25 January 2016: Meeting: Portfolio briefing, Reason for absence: Patrick cancelled the meeting 9 minutes before the meeting was due to begin.
28 January 2016: Meeting: Full Council, Reason for absence: None recorded

February
4 February 2016: Meeting: E & E Scrutiny, Reason for absence: None given.
4 February 2016: Meeting: Executive Team Meeting, Reason for absence: None recorded
4 February 2016: Meeting: Executive Briefing Meeting, Reason for absence: None recorded
8 February 2016: Meeting: Portfolio briefing, Reason for absence: Patrick cancelled the meeting 15 minutes before the meeting was due to start: “I’ve got two assessments tomorrow I need to revise for I don’t see anything urgent on the agenda is there anything urgent?”
16 February 2016: Meeting: Executive, Reason for absence: None recorded
25th February 2016: Meeting: Executive Team Meeting, Reason for absence: None recorded

March
7 March 2016: Meeting: Portfolio briefing, Reason for absence: Patrick cancelled the meeting with less than one hour’s notice: “I’m going to have to cancel this meeting again, as I’m not well again, which means I won’t be at committee either.”
7 March 2016: Meeting: Health Scrutiny, Reason for absence: unwell (see above)
10 March 2016: Meeting: E & E Scrutiny Agenda, Reason for absence: None given.
10 March 2016: Meeting: Executive Team Meeting, Reason for absence: None recorded
10 March 2016: Meeting: Executive Briefing Meeting, Reason for absence: None recorded

Notes

Portfolio briefings
These do not appear in the Council website but are essential for a Portfolio holder to carry out their role. They usually involve a number of senior officers so if they don’t happen are quite disruptive and a waste of valuable time.

Scrutiny committees
Executive members do not appear on the list of attendees to scrutiny committees they are there so members of the Council can question them on Portfolio issues. Attendance is expected of Portfolio holders.

Executive Team Meetings
The Executive meets to discuss the issues and work collaboratively. Attendance is a part of Portfolio responsibilities. Meeting times had been re-arranged to suit Patrick’s external commitments.

Executive Briefing Meetings
Wider briefings with the most senior officers of the Council on issues that are coming up for future consideration, again crucial to the role of Portfolio holder.

Full Council
The monthly meeting of all councillors. Executive members are expected to attend and take questions from members of the council.

New roadbuilding brings infill development.

This is a letter sent from Little Bollington Parish:

“Dear Residents

PROPOSED CHESHIRE GATEWAY DEVELOPMENT

Please send your comments to Cheshire East Closing date:
5pm, Tuesday 19 April

A well attended Parish Meeting on 11 April agreed to
encourage everyone to make a response to Cheshire East Council about the
proposed Cheshire Gateway development. This is a proposal for a major
commercial development on land in and near Little Bollington.

The proposed development is on two adjacent sites: the
western site of 25 hectares (63 acres) is bounded by the M56/A556/A56 and Spode
Green Lane; the eastern site of 9 hectares (22 acres) at Yarwood Heath is
bounded by the M56/M56 slip road/A556. The proposal for development is made by
Tatton Estates, a major owner of land in the area around Tatton Park.

Cheshire East Council have prepared a detailed report on
the proposal dated March 2016. The report proposes as follows:

1. the eastern site be removed from the Green belt
and safeguarded for future development.

2. The western site remain in the Green Belt.

Cheshire East Council are in the final stages of
preparing the Local Plan. This sets policy and strategy for future development.
The plan is open for consultation and responses are invited by 19 April. The
Local Plan will be based on the above recommendations, subject to any changes
following consultation responses.

The land owner is likely to respond to the Local Plan
consultation and call for both sites to be removed from the green belt
immediately.

The Parish Meeting will also respond, to ask that both
eastern and western sites remain in the green belt. The Parish Meeting calls on
all residents to do the same. It is important all residents respond in their
own words to ensure to a high number of individual responses.

Please send your response on the Local Plan consultation
before the deadline of 5.00 pm, Tuesday 19 April.

A short list of important points to consider in preparing
responses is below.

An online response is preferred via this website: http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/lpspcv

Or you can send an email to: localplan@cheshireeast.gov.uk

Or you can write to:

LOCAL PLAN CONSULTATION, Cheshire East Council, 1st
Floor, Westfields, Middlewich Road, Sandbach, CW11 1HZ

The consultation is open to all members of the public.
Please encourage others to respond.

FURTHER INFORMATION AND ADVICE

Short list of important points to consider in preparing
responses

Cheshire Gateway & the Green Belt

I support the recommendation for the Cheshire Gateway
western parcel (PSS1201a)to remain in the Green Belt.

I strongly oppose the recommendation to remove the
Cheshire Gateway eastern parcel (PSS1201b)from the Green Belt and to
include this as safeguarded
land for possible future development.

The western site must not be removed from the Green Belt.

The eastern site should not be removed from the Green
Belt at this time.

The Green Belt

The Green Belt should not be compromised.

It is essential to protect the Green Belt in this area
/the area lies just beyond the edge of the major conurbation of Manchester /
the green belt is a valuable resource for the people of Manchester / the Green
Belt provides a buffer around the Manchester conurbation / the urban sprawl of
Manchester must not be allowed to spread indefinitely/ ….

Little Bollington and area

Little Bollington is a particularly attractive area /
quiet residential area / small rural settlement / small village community / ….

The area is surrounded by rural amenity sites which will
be seriously adversely affected by any commercial development. These include
the Dunham Massey Estate, the Tatton Park Estate, the Bridgewater Canal, many
popular local footpaths, etc.

Provision for future development

It is inappropriate to take the major adverse step of
removing land from the Green Belt now to make provision for possible
development requirements for a date which is at least 14 years in the future.

The needs for development in the future are far from
certain. / It is not possible to predict the economic and development needs of
the area more than 14 years in the future. / It is generally recognised that
plans that extend for more than 5 years are of little value it is not sensible to plan now for a period
beyond 2030 /….

Astra Zeneca have moved many staff and operations away
from their Alderley Edge site in Cheshire East. The released office and
manufacturing space has not been occupied. This makes good provision to meet
future demand.

The full Cheshire East report on the Cheshire Gateway
proposals can be seen at this website – scroll down to Further evidence: Item 13m .

http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/lpspcv

Please let me know if you want to see a copy the Tatton
Estates prospectus for the Cheshire Gateway development.

Many thanks

Mike Reed

Parish Clerk, Little Bollington

clerk@littlebollington.org“

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/council-bosses-stockport-hit-back-11180220