Andy D'Agorne

Labour have recently had a photocall with the Transport Minister to try to give the impression that they would get funding to make the northern 'ring road' dual carriageway to 'ease congestion' What they dont say, and Lib Dems have so far kept quiet about is the fact that a Transport consultants report before the LTP 2 bid showed there is no cost benefit case that would get any support from the government for such measures. The only action that showed the remotest 'value for money' was to increase the capacity of the roundabouts - hence what the lions share of road spending in York is going towards over the next 5 years. Paul Hepworth from the CTC has summed up the arguments well:

The A1237 was designed & built by the Highways Agency, and intended as a local distributor. Hence the roundabouts rather than flyovers at intersections with radial roads. It was subsequently detrunked and the City of York Council has inherited responsibility for its upkeep. The City Council can never afford to dual it, despite what some readers may wish. Don't believe any canvassing local politicians that preach otherwise.
Dualling would ease congestion for about three years. Meantime the increased capacity would also unleash supressed demand, so increasing the number of vehicle journeys along it. End result - as much congestion on a dualled A1237 as there is today.
Road tax partly finances Highway Agency roads ie Mways and A roads. The A1237 is funded from Council Tax, to which we all contribute , whether pedestrians. cyclists or drivers.
Paul Hepworth Press Officer Cyclists Touring Club N. Yorkshire.

Cllr Ann Reid has also commneted on the Tory hypocricy on this, pointing out that the Tories on the Regional Transport Board voted against giving this project any support. Of course the irony is that the Lib Dems themselves made this pledge to dual the road before securing power in 2003 but have now found they are as powerless as any other party to make this foolhardy project a reality.

In spite of poor design and yet again some objectors not being notified of the date of the meeting (to which Cllr Reid commented that there was 'mischief making' behind the accusations) the planning committee approved the hostel building last night. Cllr Hill (Green) and Brian Watson (Labour) were the only members to vote against it.

The text of my representation as ward councillor is given below. It now has to go to Government Offices for approval as it is an appllication by the council to itself (remember what happened to Coppergate, the Barbican) so there is still the opportunity to press for a public inquiry.

To quote the report ‘ the riverside elevation still has the potential to harm the character of the conservation area and the setting of the Scheduled Ancient Monuments and Listed Buildings'.  

Thank you for this opportunity to speak on this important application. We all recognise this is an important decision, both in terms of getting the right facilities for the future occupants of this building, their neighbours and the knock on impact of the decision on the council's own agenda to develop modern purpose built premises for its staff. However in determining the application the committee must focus on whether or not the design is of sufficient quality and the public good justification strong enough to warrant demolishing a building in a Conservation Area and another that has a relevance to the views from a conservation area towards a group of our most historic buildings including part of the city walls and Fishergate Tower.

With regard to the application to demolish the front building HE 4.15 states " An application for listed building or conservation area consent should generally prove that the building is incapable of economic repair (through the production of a full structural survey and economic appraisal)" Members might like to ask for sight of this full structural survey. The comments relating to the revised plans for the front building from English Heritage on page 34 still express some concerns about the ‘engineering quality' rather than ‘vernacular feel'- this is not accurately reflected in para 4.5.2 of your report. Para 4.5.3 demonstrates that the Council's Conservation Officer (we don't have a Architectural Design officer any longer) still considers that the replacement building has less character than the existing one.

If we turn to the design of the main accommodation alongside the canal lock, again the comments from English Heritage on Page 34 on the revised scheme show it to be of poor quality and from my reading of the comments DETRIMENTAL to the setting of the Historic core conservation area when viewed from the Foss Canal Basin area, itself a conservation area.

within the conservation area boundary, those of us who were on the site visit will know it has weathered bricks and limited idiosyncratic fenestration, so that the eye is drawn in towards the more distant  cluster - English Heritage say that the white powder coated aluminium windows will be ‘GARISH AND OUT OF KEEPING... the top hung style and infill panel below would be HIGHLY INAPPOPRIATE and be VISUALLY INTRUSIVE  - Yet as English Heritage point out the elevation will be prominent and seen in the context of the Walls and the Eye of York and must thus attain the highest design and details: AT PRESENT THIS ELEVATION STILL FAILS THIS FUNDAMENTAL TEST.

Contrast this with the conclusion in 5.1 ..'the building makes a neutral to positive contribution to the Central Historic Core Conservation Area and the replacement building is considered to be acceptable'  - what's this man on?

I'll now move on to Agenda item 4b again the whole report bears all the hallmarks of a rush job - try reading p 57 last sentence of  para 4.7.1

Or the top of page 50 -parking facilities reflect the council's minimum parking standard - Appendix 3 of the local plan states that car parking standards are a maximum!

Ive already talked about the comments from English Heritage, which are cut and pasted into this report. However it is clear that even our own conservation experts are unhappy with what is being foisted on us for expediency sake on this site that is TOO small to accommodate a 22 bed unit. P 47 - The riverside frontage remains austere with overlarge windows, uncomfortable mid height rails and uncharacteristic opaque panels below. Previous suggestions for achieving elevations with intrinsic interest and variety have not been fully explored.  Etc Hardly a glowing endorsement or example to set private developers wanting to build in our historic city. What will the World Heritage site assessors make of 'Galloway's Stonebow House' for future generations of tourists see?

Residents concerns

There are many concerns that are more significant to residents but sadly weigh less in planning terms - the loss of quiet enjoyment of a wonderful setting, loss of views from their flat bedroom window, fear for their personal safety when returning late at night along a narrow pavement with fast moving traffic coming round a blind bend on one side and a bridge parapet over the lock on the other. The officer report gives careful consideration to the potential risk to any highway users in cars, but no mention is made of the risk to hostel residents and their visitors taking the route that those on the site visit took yesterday across that dual carriageway. A ‘sustainable location' requires not just easy walking distance of the city centre but also a safe crossing point on the ‘desire line' route that we followed yesterday. What about the impact on the tourist industry in the area and the legitimate business interests of those providing for them? The reality is that this site has been selected because it is not use for much else, is difficult to adapt to modern requirements and is a bit like the places we find for travellers sites - next to sewage works, motorways and canals. Of course these are not the considerations this committee can take into account  -but the scale and massing and poor design in this most sensitive of locations should be enough justification for this committee to stand up for keeping York Special and not accepting second best from anyone.

Andy D'Agorne

Well not exactly fever, except for the candidates, trying to persuade the electorate that voting does matter. Its the time when us political animals develop a curious fascination for the design of letter-boxes, bells, buzzers, entryphones. We wonder why our grandparents bothered to fight wars defeating fascism when the todays generation cant be bothered to even arrange a postal vote or worse still vote for the BNP. It is important to remind todays generation that Hitler was elected on a tide of nationalist fervour. Irritation at political correctness and people from a different culture is not a reason for supporting such organisations - it is a known fact that racial abuse and attacks on minority groups increase wherever the BNP have got councillors elected.

So on Thursday May 3rd, if you have a vote please use it - in York you WILL be able to vote for a Green candidate wherever you live, and you will have one, two or three votes depending on the size of your ward. Polling stations are open from 7am-10pm, and if you forgot to post your postal vote just take it to a polling station in your ward or the Guildhall. Writing anything other than a cross or tick clearly against names is likely to result in your ballot paper being deemed as spoilt, so make sure you know how many votes you can use (you dont have to use them all!) If you make a mistake ask for another form or cross it out and make clear your intention but DONT 'initial' it as you are identifying yourself so it will be classed as an invalid ballot form!!

In some wards, the results could be very close, so dont think that your vote doesnt count- IT DOES!

Peace Protestors Case Adjourned Again as Prosecution must prove ‘Independence' of M*nwth Hill

(name edited in the interests of confounding their monitoring!) 

  After the adjournment of their trial in March, Sylvia Boyes and Helen John returned to court this morning to be informed that the Judge requires evidence from the Prosecution to prove that M* Hill is in fact an RAF base.

Boyes (62) and John (68) were eventually charged last year under Section 28 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (SOCPA) after entering the US spybase on 1^st April 2006, the day the legislation came into effect.

Both women wanted to show that the new legislation was designed to target Peace Protestors who oppose war, nuclear weapons and the presence of US bases in Britain. M*nw Hill is a US spy base that has been operating in north Yorkshire without any democratic accountability or scrutiny for over forty years. The base is the largest of its kind in the world, monitoring all electronic communications which are then relayed to the US National Security Agency. Tied into the US' Missile Defence' system, M*nth Hill is a key part of America's global military plans.

Boyes and John have worked with Yorkshire CND to protest against, and seek further information about the base for many years.

Sylvia Boyes said;

"We have long argued that (the base) is not an RAF station. The SOCPA legislation has been introduced to criminalise legitimate protest in order to protect a US spy base. It's very positive that the Judge is prepared to hear evidence that takes issue with the role and operations of the base, and that our perspective on the role of the base is being taken into account.

Helen John said;

"Calling the base ‘RAF' is a convenience which allows the US to illegally intercept all communications without impunity for their own military and economic agenda. We hope that our action will raise some very difficult questions for the British and American administrations who have allowed this cosy relationship to develop in secrecy over the past 50 years."

The next Court Management date is Friday 8^th June, when a new trial date will be set.

1)   Yorkshire CND is a campaigning organisation, leading the national CND campaign against 'Star Wars', the US Missile Defence programme. http://www.yorkshirecnd.org.uk/

2)   The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) is one of Europe's biggest single-issue peace campaigns, with over 32,000 members in the UK.       CND campaigns for the abolition of nuclear weapons everywhere. www.cnduk.org

At the last full council meeting before the elections this week, the Greens proposed a motion calling for an explicit commitment to exclude 'Energy from Waste' - incineration - from any future waste plan for the City of York. The Liberal Democrats at least had the decency, or more likely political nouse not to use the  'refer to executive without debate' mechanism but to put their own amendment to water it down to simply state the 'preferred treatment option of mechanical and biological treatment'. What was a surprise was seeing that denizen of open government and critic of the new constitution Cllr Dave Merrett standing up on the Labour benches to propose that the proposal be referred to the Executive for an officer report. This is in spite of the fact that just such an 'officer report' updating the Executive on the latest situation with the Waste PFI bid was considered by the Executive on Mar 27th (and, as would normally be the case, by the Shadow Executive the week before!) There was a little confusion on the top table - something unscripted happening that the whips had not had the opportunity to plan for- but then the proposal to refer was defeated. It was then the turn of at least one Labour councillor to have to whisper to their Leader to check how they should vote before they abstained, on both the amendment and the amended motion, so we still dont know what 'Local Labour' as opposed to Tony Blair's Labour think to the idea. Meanwhile the Lib Dems entertained themselves by referring to a quote from a Sheffield Green councillor supposedly 'supporting incineration' - she had of course been mis-quoted and lampooned by the Sheffield Lib Dems who actually signed the £35m contract for the new incinerator in Sheffield that was built to replace the more polluting existing one closed in the late 1990's as uneconomic to bring up to stricter EU emission standards. Sheffield extracts some recyclates at the plant (steel, glass etc) but only offers a monthly 'blue bin' collection of paper and card for householders.   If you want to read more about local opposition to incineration, see other entries in this section or visit www.noburner.co.uk

Wording of our motion

"This council confirms its opposition to any form of incineration of York's municipal waste. Key concerns include:

1. The effect of emissions on human health and the environment;

2. The fact that incineration contracts with private companies create a demand for waste

This detracts from the objective to reduce the amount of waste that is produced, and the secondary objective to recycle as large a proportion of the remainder as is possible and efficient in terms of environmental impact.

The council also opposes any other form of treatment involving burning (such as forms of mechanical biological treatment that produce refuse derived fuel for burning), as the concerns expressed above apply in each case.

This council notes the significant achievements of the city in increasing recycling, through the work of the council and community groups such as the Friends of St. Nicholas Fields and the York Recycling Network. The council will support the work of such groups wherever possible.

The council notes that measures on waste reduction are almost always more financially efficient than the construction of large treatment facilities, and that recycling creates more jobs than incineration.

The council further notes that as recycling rates increase around the country, incineration is falling further out of favour. Norwich City Council has recently confirmed its opposition to incineration, joining the councils of Essex, Lancashire, Bath and Milton Keynes, among others. Furthermore, this council calls upon the Government to introduce legislation to reduce waste at source by strict regulation and taxes on packaging."

»1:02 PM    »1 comments (0 )     »Send entry    

Posted by: andydag    in: Dealing with our waste

This appeared in the Press on April 5th, but has failed to make it onto the Press archive website, so for the record it is here:

No hope of a Barbican pool' - Greens chief

Green councillors have claimed there is now no hope of building a swimming pool on the Barbican Centre site- because the land the council still owns is too small. The Press reported yesterday how Labour leader Dave Merritt had pledged to examine the documentation behind an agreement to sell the Kent St coach park, to see if it could be revernsed. The land was not incuded in City of York Council's £6.385m sale of the rest of the site to Barbican Venture (York) Ltd, but will be sold for £1m should planning permission for a budget hotel be granted within 2 years.   But Green Party councillor Andy D'Agorne, pictured, said the plan was a non starter because the coach park was too small for even a community pool. He said " I think Cllr Merritt is being either naive or misleading in saying that, because the land is too small for a pool. We are in agreement with the objective. It's just that the information we have been given suggests it is not possible.  We still think it is important to have a city cetre pool and we agree with Labour on that. But we do not want to mislead people into thinking that changing the ruling group will mean there is going to be a pool at the Barbican."    

Yesterday I had the privilege of joining a party of York College staff on a tour of our nearly complete new college building. We all had to put on the boots jackets and hats which always makes for a good photo, but the prime interest for most was to be able to see in reality rather than on a plan where we will be working from September. Uppermost in my mind was how we will be able to change the culture to one where students take a real pride in their learning environment and staff can be more positive about their tools of the trade - change is always threatening so if it is not the lack of parking worrying staff it is the amount of paper they will have to dispense with to shoehorn us all into our little corners.  Me in what will be my new office location!

3rd Apr 2007

Labour's pool promise evaporates

The Lib Dem Council has finally sold off the Barbican site, putting paid to any remaining hopes that the land could be kept for a swimming pool.

Contracts were quietly signed with Barbican Venture Ltd at the end of last week.

The money from the sale will be used to finance the new swimming pool at Oaklands. Local Green councillors supported attempts to keep swimming on the present site but the sale of the land has put paid to everyone's hopes, including the promise to keep a pool open on the site made by Labour last week. Green Councillor Andy D'Agorne described Labour's plan as "laudable but impracticable, even if the money could be found".

He said, "Last year the Green Party looked at all possible ways for keeping options open for future swimming provision, including the plan recently put forward by Labour to keep part of the site and look for funding sources. However the sale agreement that the Lib Dem administration has just signed means this option has gone. The remaining site is too small, even if the planning permission for a hotel on the site were to be turned down."

Green candidate for Fishergate and founder member of York Sport & Leisure Campaign, Dave Taylor, added, "The campaign aimed to broaden the focus onto the needs for sports facilities across the city, and to get cross party support for sport. Now that the Lib Dems have forced through an eleventh hour deal to secure the new pool at Oaklands funded by overdevelopment of the Barbican site we need to reaffirm the need for better city centre public sports facilities including swimming."

Greens say that the Council's aspiration for a new pool at the University of York will not answer the continuing need for central sports facilities and will be pressing for land to be identified at either Hungate or York Central to replace the Barbican facilities.

For the first time ever, any resident of the City of York will be able to vote Green on May 3rd in the local elections. This will give us our first real test of the level of support across the city for Green Party policies. Our on-line manifesto will answer some of the questions and no doubt coverage in the local media will focus on key campaign issues. Greens are as disappointed as anyone about the Barbican fiasco, but we will also try to portray positive messages about what we stand FOR not just how bad the decisions of the ruling Liberal Democrat group have been.

We must be doing something right - this morning our 'photocall' was impeccably timed with everyone sorted into position by 9.43, the sun suitably located etc as the Press photographer appeared on cue, somewhat amazed that he did not need to start herding cats to get a half decent picture. Pictures taken, and radio interviews provided, we cleared the steps before any tourists arrived for the 10am opening of Cliffords Tower. We then retired to a nearby cafe to finish signing nomination papers and plan the next round of canvassing and leafletting activity.

 One of the hazards facing us at election time is the silent dog behind the front door.

Having had a near miss yesterday with a dog whose upper teeth my fingers touched the front of, perhaps this contribution from another Green activist is easier than the method I adopted today  (folding leaflet ever smaller to get enough resistance when faced with resistant flaps and brushes):

 Essential leafleting kit

     I have some offcuts of wood which are ideal for pushing leaflets 
through letter-boxes.  Some of you may recall that I had an 
altercation with a dog through a letter-box on a previous occasion, 
and I required a trip to hospital as a result.  So I am a bit 
sensitive on this issue.  So far, yesterday and today, I have 
collected three dog-bites on my stick and three near misses, one of 
my assailants being an Alsatian.  Another assailant was a little old 
lady who was so strong that she pulled the stick through the letter 
box:  but she kindly relented, opened the door, and gave it back.  
She said it was her dog that captured the stick, but the deep 
indentations look to me to have the imprint of false teeth.

     The sticks are 1/8 x 3/4 x 12 inches, and they are ideal for 
pushing the rather flimsy current stock of leaflets through doors, as 
follows:

1)   for letter-boxes with stiff moustaches, fold the leaflet roughly 
once and push the double thickness through with the stick;

2)   for letter-boxes with internal flaps that push the document back 
out again if you use the above method, place the stick within the 
folded document and push it through past the internal flap - say, 6 
inches - with the leaflet folded on the stick single thickness.  This 
is the bit that dogs enjoy.  Sometimes, if the leaflet won't detach 
itself from the stick, rotating the stick or wiggling it helps. Dogs 
(and maybe little old ladies) like that even better:  so hang on to 
the stick tightly.

My own travel-worn stick, with its trophy bites (and it may acquire more) is required to go over our mantelpiece as a trophy. Let battle commence!

North Yorkshire is one of the authorities shortlisted for consideration to become a unitary, taking over the powers currently held by the district councils of Scarborough, Rydale, Harrogate, Hambledon,Richmondshire Craven and Selby etc. So would this make for more efficient straightforward local government or make it more remote and less accountable? Here's a financial analysis of the implications from a Yorkshire Green:  

Accountant shows New Unitary Authority will massively increase Council Tax Bills

An accountant and expert in Local Government finance has claimed that the savings claimed for the new unitary authority are all "smoke and mirrors".

The figures were produced by NYCC in their bid to be a unitary authority. In a detailed analysis of the figures published by North Yorkshire County Council. Mr Leslie Rowe MBA FCCA an accountant from Richmond in North Yorkshire revealed glaring omissions from the Council's figures.

Mr Rowe commented "Rather than a saving, I believe the new unitary authority will increase costs by £100m, adding £443 to every council tax bill in North Yorkshire. The figures produced by NYCC just do not add up. They fail to take fully into account the huge redundancy costs for the 4,600 district council employees, as well as the new computer systems and training needed to produce unitary council tax and other commitments. The bid was made in January 2007 and despite anomalies in the figures, the Government has given them the go ahead to move to the consultation stage. Mr Rowe comments "This Government is well known for under-estimating the costs of projects such as the Millennium Dome, the 2012 Olympics and a national I.D. card system. It is no surprise that they failed to see the glaring omissions in the NYCC bid. Unless of course, they are turning a blind eye to these omissions in order to further their own political objectives of reducing local democracy in North Yorkshire?"

Mr Rowe's analysis is based on the NYCC submission entitled "A New Council for North Yorkshire" which runs to 118 pages. Buried within that are the figures NYCC claim will show a saving. Mr Rowe's analysis of those figures is as follows:

1. None of the figures quoted have detailed costings attached, so may only be "wishful thinking" at best. If NYCC believe these figures to be correct, they should provide the costings behind them.

2. The first saving that NYCC claim is £2.7m a year on reducing the number of chief executives from eight to one. That would make the average pay of a chief executive in the District Councils £386,000, an over estimate of about £300,000. This also ignores the much bigger salaries and support staff that will be have to be provided for the new chief executive and heads of department of the bigger unitary authority. In reality, any saving made will be marginal at best.

3. Central and corporate services £3.4million. These include finance, legal & democratic services, HR and training, property and asset management functions and ICT. Rather than significant savings being made in the delivery of these services, there will have to be significant new systems and training needed to cope with the increased powers of the unitary authority, such as Council Tax bills. These new systems and training will cost at least £50m and cause considerable disruption, swallowing up any savings on current expenditure and a whole lot more.

4. Integrated service functions £7.5million. The assumption that the management of all the functions currently provided within District Councils would move to a unified service delivery model without considerable additional cost is naïve at best. The efficiency benefits of centralising back office processes would again be swallowed up by new system costs and a deterioration of the direct customer access currently offered by more local district councils is inevitable.

5. Organisational related costs and overheads £0.4million. Certain specific costs are associated with the eight existing authorities for being in business, for example, external audit fees. The Council admits that the costs incurred by one council will be higher than any of the eight individual authorities. Accommodation costs, IT costs and other support costs, even for a reduced overall workforce will be higher, as new accommodation will have to be found or built in Northallerton. In addition the cost implications of the community engagement proposals have to be added. Selling off historic district council offices and other assets to property speculators may make savings, but this would blight the centres of many of our towns and destroy local communities and businesses.

6. NYCC claim other unspecified savings such as:

* major procurement exercises;

* adopting flexible working practice based upon the use of new technologies with associated rationalisation of office accommodation;

* reviewing the scope to streamline back-office processes through e-government and customer relationship management software; and

* efficiencies from merging related front-line services (for example, nursing and social care staff).

These can all be achieved under the current structure and are irrelevant to any argument for a unified authority.

7. There is no guarantee that the unitary authority will be more cost effective than Districts in relation to caseload based services and front-line delivery. For example, the cost of council tax collection is likely to increase, not decrease, as a new unified system will have to be developed.

8. It is the height of cynicism for NYCC to claim that there will be additional non-cashable savings as professional staff and managers will need to invest less time in partnership working arrangements. A whole new raft of partnerships is to be established with Parish Councils and Community Forums, far in excess of the number of partnerships with Districts Councils that are being abolished!

9. NYCC recognises that there will be significant transitional costs incurred in creating a unitary council in North Yorkshire. All of these costs have not been properly identified, and are severely under-estimated.

Transitional costs are estimated by NYCC to be £13.5million incurred over a period running from Year 0 (2008-09) to Year 3 (2011-12). But redundancy costs alone for the 4,600 staff employed by the district councils are likely to exceed £50m (based on the average salary in the public sector and an average 26 weeks redundancy payment - these figures are available). Early recruitment to the management team of the new unitary authority, and the considerable costs of project work and new systems for unified service delivery will also have to be factored in. I estimate that total transitional costs will not be less than £100m.

10. Rather than efficiency savings of approximately £14million per annum,

 there will be net increased costs of at least £100m which will equate to an increase, on the Council's own figures of approximately £443 per council tax payer. This is in addition to the 6% additional cost of the unitary authority to the residents of Hambleton District that is already admitted by NYCC.

So, rather than reduce costs, it is claimed that the new unitary authority will massively increase costs and will result in an inferior service, as well as reducing democracy for the people of North Yorkshire. Citizens of North Yorkshire are urged by Mr Rowe to express their dissatisfaction by sending an e-mail to structures@communities.gsi.gov.uk as soon as possible."

ENDS

Promoted by Leslie Rowe, 73 Richmond Road, Brompton on Swale, Richmond, North Yorks. DL10 7HF on behalf of himself.