Sutton Council leader warns of difficult future amid funding cuts

Sutton Council leader Ruth Dombey speaks to reporter Matt Watts Sutton Council leader Ruth Dombey speaks to reporter Matt Watts

Sutton Council’s new leader has said she will have to take more difficult decisions on the borough’s future than her predecessor, in the face of mounting financial pressures.

In her first interview since taking over from outgoing leader Sean Brennan, Ruth Dombey said, in the face of £23.3m of further cuts that must be found by 2016-17, she could not rule out council taxes rises or cuts to frontline services.

She admitted as savings had been made over the past few years in ironing out back room inefficiencies, deleting about 400 council posts, and changing council practices, in the coming years it would be more difficult to find the mammoth savings predicted.

She said: "We will have to be more creative. We will probably have to take some harder decisions than we already have in the past few years. We know money's tight but i'm an optimist, and I think there's a way out of this."

So far Sutton has remained relatively unscathed compared to some other London boroughs during the Government's austerity programme.

But Coun Dombey said the council may need to strip back the areas it operates in, in order to keep up levels of service in it's statutory duties, such as safeguarding the vulnerable, maintaining roads and providing rubbish collections.

Related links

She would not speculate on what areas the council might not take a less active role in, saying much depended on funding allocations from central Government, but said residents would be asked to do more.

She said: "What is clear is we will not be able to afford to continue to provide services how they are provided now."

Residents may have to do more in their local communities.

She said: "More people need to take on responsibility for what's on their front doorstep."

The council, under her control, will also look to continue to save money and improve services by expanding service sharing with other boroughs, deleting unnecessary posts and making the council more efficient.

It will also lobby the Government and Transport for London for greater control over how it spends its money.

She said she wanted to actively engage with communities to find solutions and get ideas on how the council can do better - saying the council "was not perfect" and would respond positively to criticism.

She will raise the borough's profile, look to bring more businesses here, creating jobs and investment, and income for the council.

The new leader said: "In the past we have maybe been too inward looking. We have concentrated on making the borough a great place to live. Now we have some of the best schools in the country, and good community networks. Now it's time to put us on the map and really encourage investment."

Coun Dombey spoke candidly on a number of the council's recent controversies:

Life Centre

She said: "It was foolish and overambitious to suggest the Life Centre could ever cover its costs. We have learnt a lesson.

"But it’s a centre that’s vital in engaging our young people. There are some amazing things in there. To engage young people now we need to do more than just provide a table tennis table in a dingy hall."

She said she wished the council did not have to pay Chelsea for its Chelsea Football Club Foundation to provide lifestyle facility at the centre but it would pay back "at least four times over" in its benefits to Sutton’s youth.

The High Street:

"I wish I had a tardis so I could go back and do it differently. Every time I walk down it I’m disappointed."

She refused to accept no one had been disciplined for the disastrous management and delivery of the project. She said 12 people working on the project were now no longer working on the council.

Orlit Homes

She said she could understand how horrible it was for homeowners to have to give up their homes, but they could not allow council tenants to live in the properties which flooded and had sewage ruining them, and homeowners would be better off in the long term by allowing the council to build them a new home.

The incinerator:

She said: "It's not a done deal. We will take the application on its planning merits."

She said that would include an assessment of health risks to residents.

When asked if she would live next to the incinerator, she said: "I would have worries living in Beddington as it is at the moment.

"I know residents desperately want improvements to the area and this is a way of providing a solution (through section 106 monies)."

Comments(11)

David7 says...
9:46am Thu 12 Jul 12

What is this Damascene conversion? What’s the motive? Rewriting history? Let’s dig deeper over this wallpapering of history.

Life Centre: ‘Mistake to predict it would cover its costs.’ The Glorious Leaderene has forgotten that the Council LIED in its own planning application by HALVING the estimated footfall to reduce the local impact, compared to its own business plan (evidence here: http://www.paulscull
y.blogspot.co.uk/200
9/03/council-pulls-f
ast-one-over-8m-pet.
html ). Indefensible.

The High Street: Have the 12 people who have left since been sacked? Or have they just moved on? Why did no Councillors’ heads roll?

Orlit Homes: Proper, but grossly mishandled communications and totally insensitive to the residents’ representations. But happy to add £50k to the legal budget to fight them (see story here: http://www.suttongua
rdian.co.uk/news/981
0761.Sutton_Council_
begins_forced_home_s
ales/ )

The Incinerator: Croydon Council are behaving as if the deal is done, and working behind closed doors and beyond democracy – even though the site is in Sutton. Does the Glorious Leaderene not talk to her oppo at Croydon and ask questions? And Section 106 money will not deal with the proven health risk (but Beddington will be prettier, so that’s all right). If the wind stays from the north, it won’t be the Labour voters to the east in North Croydon getting the pollution, but the LibDems to the south... (Info here: http://insidecroydon
.com/2012/06/14/publ
ic-excluded-from-sec
ret-incinerator-risk
-meeting/#more-6911 )


Matt, you need to get some steel in your questions if you ever want to move on from local rags. Drill these people to their souls and uncover and print their fibs. No doubt the Westminster Council-hired PR was just out of shot.

Readers, do your own digging and don’t be fooled by PR stunts, humbug mea culpa and downright lies.

David7 says...
9:54am Thu 12 Jul 12

Dame Nostradamus:

“Foolish to suggest Life Centre would cover its costs.”

But...

“Chelsea’s £59k will pay for itself at least four times over.”

Oh yeah?

Giles C says...
10:30am Thu 12 Jul 12

Is she serious?
So the life centre was an over optimistic project that was always going to cost the taxpayers a huge sum of money?
Sutton High street in the leaders words is a disappointment....Ar
e we living in a parallel universe here or will the taxpayers of the borough finally realise the financial incompetency of the Lib Dems?

Michael Pantlin says...
11:24pm Thu 12 Jul 12

So we are being groomed for more big trouble ahead. Will the difficult decisions include cutting councillors from three a ward to two and scaling back their big allowances as "we're all in this together"?

Michael Pantlin says...
11:27pm Thu 12 Jul 12

It's infinitely more important to Save our St. Helier District General Hospital in its present form than to save the dead in the water Life Centre which is kept going only by being on life support system.

Michael Pantlin says...
11:30pm Thu 12 Jul 12

How long before the smoothie directors and PR men tell us that breathing the fug from the incinerator 24/7 will actually improve our respiratory health?

Lamorak III says...
12:59am Fri 13 Jul 12

So the Tories were right and as we suspected all along the Liberal Democrats have basically lied.... so no change there.

Michael Pantlin says...
7:30am Fri 13 Jul 12

Michael Pantlin wrote:
It's infinitely more important to Save our St. Helier District General Hospital in its present form than to save the dead in the water Life Centre which is kept going only by being on life support system.
http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/news/article-
2172642/Kane-Gorny-C
oroner-blames-incomp
etence-NHS-staff-pat
ient-dies-dehydratio
n.html
Example of the better care we'll get when the NHS Destroyers reduce St. Helier to a Cottage Hospital and force us to get urgent care at St. George's.

Giles C says...
7:31am Fri 13 Jul 12

The dministration are going to try and make out that the incinerator decision is nothing to do with them....and they think it will wash.
It will be referred to the secretary of state and it will be his decision even though the LDs want it for the heat and power for Hackbridge. I am sure though the people of Beddington North will continue to vote for the yellow men and women...they always do!!!!

Michael Pantlin says...
8:16am Fri 13 Jul 12

Whether of not the plume fug is toxic there's no denying it is "second hand air" and if it's thought that most of the air we breathe is second hand anyway then it will be third hand. The prevailing wind won't always blow it into the entrance of Mayday Hospital, when it reverses we will be getting it in Sutton and I don't want it thanks. Put the waste for burning on a train and take it to existing incinerators eg one in Kent where there are no problems. A railway siding can be constructed as part of the development off the Hackbridge Line and move the rubbish in the already proved and effective yellow binliner trains that run everyday taking London landfill to Calvert.

Giles C says...
8:37am Fri 13 Jul 12

Michael Pantlin wrote:
Whether of not the plume fug is toxic there's no denying it is "second hand air" and if it's thought that most of the air we breathe is second hand anyway then it will be third hand. The prevailing wind won't always blow it into the entrance of Mayday Hospital, when it reverses we will be getting it in Sutton and I don't want it thanks. Put the waste for burning on a train and take it to existing incinerators eg one in Kent where there are no problems. A railway siding can be constructed as part of the development off the Hackbridge Line and move the rubbish in the already proved and effective yellow binliner trains that run everyday taking London landfill to Calvert.
I couldnt agree more with you Michael...why when the cost of taking the landfill to an existing site in Kent is less than what is proposed didnt they agree to it?
Because there is an ulterior motive..thats why.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree