Formal challenge of Ipswich Borough Council’s decision falls through despite claims of ‘deliberately omitting key information’

A council’s decision has gone ahead after a formal challenge claiming a leader deliberately omitted information fell through.

Cllr Ian Fisher, leader of Ipswich’s Conservative group, called in a decision made by the council’s executive members earlier this month to progress with the procurement of stock condition surveys for the council’s homes.

This meant the decision could not be ratified before yesterday evening’s meeting when members of the council’s strategic overview and scrutiny committee were able to examine how it was reached.

During the meeting earlier this month, Cllr Fisher said conducting the surveys in-house by the council’s officers could be cheaper than paying someone else to do it and argued there was insufficient information to make an accurate decision.

A few days later, at his request, several pages of new information were put together explaining why the council did not pursue the in-house option.

The new information revealed the cost of conducting the surveys in-house would be just over £1.3 million over five years, as opposed to the £637,500 for the procurement option approved by the executive.

However, Cllr Fisher argued this information should have been made available to executive members in the first place so an informed decision could be taken and claimed Cllr Alasdair Ross, who put together the initial report along with officers, had been ‘deliberately omitting key information’.

Cllr Fisher added: “The fact none of this was available to the Executive members before the vote, and it was not discussed at the meeting clearly shows that the in-house option was not given due consideration.

“Decisions are supposed to take place in the open, not behind closed doors. The public wants to see that decisions are questioned – that the best decisions are made.”

Cllr Ross addressed this by saying papers would take months to produce if officers looked at every option, adding sometimes certain options had to be dismissed so that more work could be done on those that officers deem best.

He also suggested that if reports were longer due to having more information, councillors would not read it all.

Defending the decision, he added: “I think [officers] have done a fantastic job and will continue to do so.”

Responding to several questions asked during the meeting, Cllr Ross stressed current pressures on council staff, the wider inspections market, and the need for expert independent surveyors, were all taken into consideration when compiling the report presented to the executive.

Cllr Fisher was not asked any questions.

Committee members were not asked to discuss whether they thought the decision was the right one, but rather its process and whether the executive had enough information to make an informed decision and whether other options had been given due consideration.

Most councillors seemed to believe a longer report was not needed.

Cllr Tracy Grant said: “If we had to debate every single area of a report, we’d be in meetings from 9 to 5 every day — at some stage, we have to trust our officers.”

Cllr Philip Smart added: “There’s a lot of experience in the officers and the portfolio holders as well, that’s something we have to bear in mind.”

“Based purely on resources alone, it would not be practical to expect going the extra mile on every executive report.”

The only one to deviate from this was Cllr Tony Blacker, who said, in his job, a report like the one executive members were presented, would not have been enough.

He added: “It’s not enough to make a decision, if the decision lies with the portfolio holder, that’s fine, if it lies with the executive, then the executive needs the information to make an informed decision.”

No motion to take the decision back to executive or full council was proposed meaning the initial decision was upheld.