Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident questions council tender and role of security after meeting notice
Summary
At Gloucester City Council’s cabinet meeting a resident, Mr. Daugherty, challenged the decision to award a long lease to the highest bidder and complained that a circulated email and extra security/police presence at a previous meeting unfairly labelled him; the managing director said extra stewarding followed social‑media posts calling for mass protest and there was no intelligence specifically about him.
A resident identified in the meeting as Mr. Daugherty questioned why Gloucester City Council awarded a long lease by tender to the highest bidder, saying the decision disadvantaged local businesses and later complaining that an internal email and additional stewarding and police patrols had left him humiliated.
Mr. Daugherty asked why the council had "gone with the highest bidder on the tender process" and said the circulation of an email ahead of a meeting had led others to view him as "a thug or a criminal." He told cabinet that, despite being in partnership with the council, his name had been singled out and that the security response made him feel unfairly targeted.
The council's managing director replied that officers had been briefed about a significant number of potential attendees and had seen social‑media messages calling for mass protest and for people to "overwhelm the council." He said he increased stewarding for that meeting and informed the police, who "decided to alert patrols to pass by and ensure any public attendance was peaceful," and added: "I had no intelligence concerning Mr. Daugherty or his family himself, and the decision I took had nothing to do with him personally."
On the tender matter, the Chair explained the leasehold was marketed and shortlisted by professional advisers Bruton Knowles and that the award followed their recommendation and established tender practice; the council said the successful bidder would operate activities such as a car boot from the site.
Separately, Mr. Daugherty pressed why the audit review of the procurement process had not yet begun. A councillor replied the audit and governance committee runs independently of the executive and schedules its own work programme; the councillor said the committee had agreed to start the review and would examine the process once it had concluded in full. "This review is being run by the audit and governance committee who operate independently from the executive," the councillor said.
Next steps: cabinet recorded the exchange and said the independent audit and governance committee would progress its review; no formal vote or amendment of the tender decision was recorded during the meeting.
Article provenance: topic introduced in public questions by Mr. Daugherty and responded to by the managing director and a councillor.
