Re: Councils wasting money
I had an in-depth look into my council's accounts last year when they started a whole load of austerity measures that affected our environment but appeared to me to be wasting money. I wanted to understand how the provider had been procured. It was impossible to find out out exactly how decisions had been made, but it appears that most of the changes were agreed by elected councillors, much as they were in the Grenfell situation.
When residents questioned the environmental impact etc with the councillors some became defensive and others simply refused to answer.
But the accounts showed a complex assortment of grants and funding from a large number of organisations. It appears that central government tells councils they have to do certain things and then allocates money for this. It's a complex process to divert that money elsewhere.
So perhaps the canopy was part of some green construction funding because someone in government thought councils should build more environmentally friendly constructions and the council received a grant. Whoever worked out the cost did not understand how much it would cost to run each year, or maybe they were not listened to and now it's become an expensive white elephant. The people who made the decision are probably long gone.
So I guess the question is who should be making decisions about how to spend money? If we elect councillors are they the best people to represent our views in spending decisions? What if they don't represent our views or if they are poor at judging whether something is giving value for money to taxpayers? They usually vote on such projects.
Presumably the public can go to the meetings where they decide. I think these are planning sub-committees. I am not sure what arrangements there are in place now but when I had to go to a planning meeting about a local development years ago you have five mins to talk and then a red light would go on.