brennon

The government is consulting on the introduction of a 'call for action' scheme that will give citizens the opportunity to raise a petition calling for a council to seriously consider taking action on a particular local issue.

However, before that system is in place, I would like to repeat my own previous calls for action.  A short while ago I posted an entry inviting members of the Wygate Park community to get involved in deciding if a new community centre should be built.

More recently I invited the community to get involved in determining how a new piece of public open space should be developed and what sort of equipment should be provided for our older youngsters, who currently have nothing to cater for their recreational needs.  Maybe people are having trouble visualising what I was going on about on this one, so I've found some pictures so readers can see what I mean.

My point is, that there are already a number of issues requiring input and involvement from the public, so they don't need to wait for any call for action system to be in place to get something done!

The two quotes below are taken from the RTPI (Royal Town Planning Institute) website and refer to the RTPI's position on house building quality.  The first complains about the quality of the house building being allowed by councils and the second congratulates the RTPI on its position and states how the Royal Institutes of British Architects wants to be involved in the debate on the quality of house building

Personally, the planning inspector's quote in the first really gets up my nose!  If there's one area that neither planning inspectors, RTPI, RIBA, CABE or any of the other so called experts in the field of planning seem willing to offer any practical advice on, is how to achieve good quality housing design.  This is especially the case when it comes to small rural authorities dealing with relatively small applications.  These organisations only seem to be interested in helping big authorities, with high profile and prestigious projects and the little guys are left to their own devices - until it's time to criticise.

Good design is probably the most difficult thing to achieve and when you have limited resources, as would be the case in a small department, the problem is even greater.  I don't believe any planning officer goes out of their way to allow a badly designed housing development to be built.  Also, to claim that meeting targets is the reason why bad developments get built, suggests an element of arrogance and even ignorance on the part of that particular expert.  It also ignores completely the practicalities of actually finding officers with the required skills and even more importantly, the drafting of robust policies to achieve good design.

Sometime ago I attempted to get a policy adopted, as part of our new Local Plan, that made it clear that we required the highest possible quality of design to be achieved on what I called our gateway sites i.e. those sites on the main entry points to a town or village and that give visitors their first impression of the place.  The Planning Inspector (from the same organisation Chris Shepley mentioned below used to work for) struck out this draft policy, stating that it was covered by other policies already in the plan.  Imagine my disappointment, then my anger, when I later found out that Peterborough City had managed to get just such a policy accepted by a different inspector.  So much for getting help with achieving good design from the experts!       

Financial Times, 15 December 2007
‘Councils pass 'bloody awful' housing plans.' Chris Shepley (in this instance quoted as a former chief planning inspector) and my good self offered up the RTPI's line that an over reliance on targets could come at the cost of the quality of their design. This was a well written and positive piece that advances the RTPI's position on raising the quality of urban design.
Financial Times, 21 December 2007
RIBA President, Sunand Prasad, writes into the FT to congratulate the RTPI on our position on housing quality. RIBA do not want to get left out of this debate and we are working with them on a number of initiatives.

I've also harped on about the issue of maximum parking standards before and the impact the new standards are having on rural developments.  My point here is, that introducing policies that have a negative impact on the look of a residential development once it is occupied, is just as bad as allowing one to be built using bad design.  However, would the experts accept that some of their policies can contribute to bad design? - I somehow doubt it.

Although I am a paid up member of the grumpy old men's club, I do occasionally let myself go and actually smile a bit and one of those occasions is Christmas.  Like everyone else, I don't really like the commercial bit and the pressure everyone is under to buy bigger and better, but just like everybody else I still do it.  What I do like though is the decorations and the chance to brighten up what is otherwise a rather miserable time of year, with its short days and long dark and often wet nights.  More a more people are putting up all sorts of lights and decorations on their houses, some as early as late November! and some a bit over the top, but who cares, it's bright, its cheerful and its fun to see. 

I myself normally manage to put up a Christmas tree outside the front door, complete with lights and icicles along house and garage roofs.  Unfortunately, this year I ran out of time.  Firstly, due to two weddings within a week (both for the same couple, but that's another story) one in Holland.  Second, I have a heavy weight cold (actually I'm sure it's at least pneumonia with a touch of Beubonic Plague, but somehow I'm managing to soldier on).  So I've failed miserably this year.  However, there seems to be more and more people putting up lights at Christmas, so mine won't be missed (except by me).

Anyway, the point of this particular ramble is to say to all those who have put up lights this year, well done and keep up the good work.  Merry Christmas to you all and I wish you all a very healthy New Year.  I say healthy as opposed to prosperous, because there's not much point to being wealthy if you're not healthy!

I've just received an invite to a 'final' consultation event in Peterborough on the Housing Market Assessment that has been going on over the last 12+ months.  The idea is to assess where the houses should go, what type of houses should be built and by default, when they should be built, because at the end of the day it's all about demand.

Trouble is, what appears to be an easily defined and rather technical process also has a very abstract element to it.  Somewhat annoyingly for the experts, there is one element in the whole equation that makes it very difficult to arrive at any definative conclusions - people!  Yes, we are an awkward lot, drifting around the country buying houses at will and then moving on when the fancy takes us - how are the experts supposed to plan anything if people refuse to cooperate and do what's good for them? 

Seriously though, the government have encouraged the production of the regional housing market assessments, either as an attempt to justify their continued concentration on the South East as the only place to live or, as some way of proving that their local government funding bias is the right one - I don't know which!  One thing you can be certain of, the word sustainablity will be in there somewhere! 

What I do know is that I've got a 159 page document to read just about the housing market in South Holland and I think there's the same amount of information about each participating authority, Peterborough, Rutland and South Kesteven.  You can see for yourself by following this link http://www.peterborough.gov.uk/page-13398.

I also know that people in South Holland want to live in a decent home and although many of us want to own our homes, some people don't want to and such a choice must be available to them.  Affordable housing is the mantra of all politicians these days, both local and national and that includes both affordable to buy and affordable to rent. 

I just hope that all the data, statistics, charts and expert assessments contained in these documents, don't cause us to loose sight of why we started this whole process in the first place - people!

I was fasinated to read the story of Peter Hill, the now sacked and soon to be persona non-grata, British Chief Executive of Sri Lankan Airlines.  Although one could argue that he probably already had the luxury of financial security that made his response a little easier, the fact remains that this gentleman resisted the attempted abuse of power by his own bosses and placed his customers first.  Not only has this gentleman lost his job, but I understand he has lost the right to enter the country of his wife's birth - no small sacrifice for the principle of customer service.

For those not familar with the facts, Mr Hill was instructed, on 13 Dec, to make space on a commercial flight, that was already fully booked, for the Sri Laken president and his entourage, just because he decided he needed to fly home from Britain ahead of schedule.  This would of meant bumping 35 fare paying passengers at very short notice and Mr Hill simply refused to do that to the customers of the airline he has saved from decline.  See newspaper story at link below.  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article3074462.ece

I hope the Dubai Airline company that is running the Sri Lankan Airlines operations for them, now review this arrangement and realise that they are dealing with a government that has no respect for the customer service ethic and will abuse their powers whenever it suits them.

I have made my feelings known via the Sri Laken Tourist Board website at:  http://www.srilankatourism.org/lang/en/traveller/contactus.php  Hopefully, others will do the same.

Given Mr Hill's track record in moving this loss making airline in to profit, I hope he is snapped up by a British company in need of help as soon as possible (if he wants to be!).  I wouldn't want to see him forced out of one job and then forced in to another!.

Having had a go at the local press previously, watching the news this morning has inspired me to spread some more Christmas cheer, by turning my attention to the local television news coverage.  I'm not complaining about the lack of coverage for me personally this time (although that is a valid point! ), but about the fact that compared to ITV, our local BBC television station doesn't seem to know where Lincolnshire is, let alone South Holland and our biggest town, Spalding.

This is made graphically obvious by the weather map that is used on each programme. The map displayed during the ITV regional weather forecast normally shows the location of Spalding, thereby acknowledging it as the last town of any size, in this part of southern Lincolnshire, before one enters Cambridgeshire.

Switch to the BBC's Look North programme, that proudly(?) claims to be the ‘regional news programme for Yorkshire and Lincolnshire', and you will see that Lincolnshire appears to finish at Boston, (if you're lucky!).  The final urban area shown on the BBC weather map is in fact King's Lynn, which, the last time I looked, was actually in Norfolk.

If you ‘Google' Look North and click on the BBC - Look North - Yorkshire Lincs link (notice that they can't even be bothered to give us our full name) you are actually taken to ‘looknorthhull' - the clue is in the 'hull' bit. 

Peter Levy is the front man for this programme and along with his producers, appears to believe that the world revolves around Yorkshire and in particular Hull.  I know the studios are in Hull, so it's nice and convenient to just pop out of the front door, do a quick interview in the town centre and be back in time for tea and biscuits before the show goes out.  However, there is a world beyond the principality of Hull and the kingdom of Yorkshire and as the opening titles suggest, the programme is supposed to acknowledge this.

To be fair, they do occasionally venture this far and I do remember a TV crew complaining about the fact that they had a 2 hour drive to do the 2 minute interview with me on Gypsy and Traveller sites.  However, such coverage is rare and one wonders whether or not Lincolnshire would be better served by being associated with one of the other BBC regional TV stations.  We might at least get on to the weather map!    

Paranoid because despite having sent a couple of letters to our local paper recently, nothing has appeared.  Now don't get me wrong I don't believe my views are so important that other peoples letters should be binned in favour of mine, nor that what I say is actually of any interest to anyone but me!

However, I've never noticed before that the local paper has been bursting at the seams with news so much so that they were spoilt for choice.  Neither, that many of the letters that are published are of any greater merit than mine.  One particular letter that was ignored and that did surprise me, was one that referred to a very contentious issue, had been the subject of public (and editorial) comment and for which, I am the responsible elected member on our council.

I attempted to explain the situation as I saw it and explain what the council intended to do.  However, the editor decided not to publish it, as is his right.  I recently submitted another letter about wasting heat in local shops (see an earlier blog item).  Again, despite being a current issue, what with global warming and all that, this again appears to have been ignored.

Again, its up to the editor and it's not up to me or anybody else to dictate what our local press does or does not print.  However, I reserve the right to be miffed about it and to be paranoid if I want to be - so there!  That's the beauty of having a blog, you can get things off of your chest (right or wrong!).  

We have a contradictory situation going on in the ward at the moment.  On the one hand we are desperate to see an increase in the facilities available to the residents of the area, whilst at the same time have real concerns about an attempt to gain planning permission for a hot food takeaway.

The local Coop have done a great job in turning what was a very limited convenience shop, into a well stocked local shop that presents a genuine alternative to the local supermarkets.  However, as well as extending the supermarket, they have also added another small shop unit to the shopping centre and whilst the addition is welcome, it does create a quandry for residents.

The planning application for a second takeaway raises fears that the new one will make the existing one unviable.  In a town centre, this is called open competition and the planning system doesn't tend to get too involved in trying to restrict the numbers of a particular type of business that opens in a town centre. 

However, this is not a town centre, it's a small neighbourhood shopping centre and we probably need to look at things in a different way.  The application was refused when it came to the district council and is now with the Planning Inspectorate on appeal.

If anybody reading this has an opinion on this, they can make their feelings known via the planning portal website by no later than 24 December 07.         

I'm receiving a steady flow of letters at the moment regarding a planning application for migrant worker accommodation.  Normally I would not wish to make any comment on a live planning application, not only because I'm a member of the development control (DC) committee, but also because I'm the chairman.

However, the first time the application was in play, I was accused of pre-determination because I responded to a letter in the local newspaper.  Unfortunately, the accuser had not read my letter carefully and assumed that because I was suggesting that there was a need for this type of accommodation, I was by default supporting the actual planning application; this was not true then and it is not now.

For the last two to three years I have had a steady flow of complaints and objections pass before me as both a councillor and a member of DC about houses in multiple occupation (HMOs).  The DC committee has also refused a number of applications for low quality and poorly located migrant worker accommodation using often inappropriate recreational caravans.

Now, whatever your personal views on the influx of migant workers (often wrongly described as illegal immigrants) the fact is, that they are here and as EU citizens, they have that right.  The businesses that employ these workers tell us they need them and that without them they would have to look elsewhere or move to another part of the country.  I don't doubt that and I don't doubt that if all the migrant workers disappeared tomorrow, they would inevitably be replaced with casual workers from other parts of England which is how it used to be until the EU expansion of 3 years ago. See  http://www.migrantworker.co.uk/ for detailed info.

Back then mini buses full of manual workers would travel backwards and forwards to South Holland from places such as Sheffield, Derby, Nottingham, Birmingham and beyond.  These workers came backwards and forwards at all times of the day and night and on every day of the year, including Christmas Day.  The upside of this ebb and flow was that the majority of these workers did not need accommodation and therefore had little impact on the local housing market.  The downside was that having got paid locally, they spent their wages elsewhere and not in South Holland.

So, having accepted that these workers are needed and that they now travel from Eastern Europe instead of Nottingham and so will need somewhere to live; the question is, where?  HMOs?  the public say no, not next door to me, no, not in my street, no, not in my village, they work anti-social hours, they are noisy, they cause trouble.  So, now somebody has proposed providing purpose built accommodation.  Now some people are saying no to this type of provision.  They state, among several other reasons that, they should not be accommodated separately and should be integrated in to the community in order to promote cohesion!!

At this moment in time many of these migrant workers are being exploited by unscrupulous gang masters or staffing agencies.  These people are making a fortune by accommodating these workers in expensive but sub-standard caravans, disused buildings or even sheds and greenhouses.  Alternatively, they will buy up cheaper houses and pack them with workers paying a high rent and often hot bedding, so that two workers share one bed; one on days, the other on nights.

Bottom line is, these workers are needed and are here for the foreseeable future, they are being exploited and they are having an impact on the type of housing our young people want to buy.  The question is a simple one; if not here and if not there, then where?   

Listening to all the anger over the refusal of the government to support the back dating of the pay rise for English police officers, has given me a feeling of deja vu.  in the 90's military personnel were forced to get used to seeing their annual pay rise, as recommended by an independent pay review body staged in a way that reduced its real value. 

This didn't happen just once or even three times as I recall, but actullay became the standard practice.  As an example, a 2.5% pay rise awarded in April, would be split with 1.2% in April and 1.3% in November, making the overall rise less than 2% for the year and this during a period when inflation was running above 3%. 

At the same time the MOD would also make sure that they increased all the charges they made for the often sub-standard single and married accommodation they so graciously provided.

So whilst I can empathise with the police on this, it should be remembered that compared with virtually all other public sector workers (and especailly the military) they started relatively high in the public sector pay stakes, had benefits that few other public sector workers did (a rent allowance that paid many a mortgage) and overtime rates that were generous to a fault.

Better news for Wygate Park residents is the probability that the pedestrian crossing promised for the road called Wygate Park (confusing to have an area and a road called the same thing isn't it!) will be in place by Spring 2008.  Like the traffic lights on Pinchbeck road, this has been paid for by the developers and without this money, the highways dept would not have supported it because of a lack of funds and because it didn't meet their proven need criteria.  Luckily as soon as somebody else is picking up the tab, the criteria becomes a lot less important!!

At this point I will offer you a piece of my homespun wisdow on the subject of highways.  Planning used to be the Cinderella service within the council, used by everybody but seriously under appreciated and always an easy target for the critics.  That situation has changed in recent years and planning has now become a great deal more central to the council's activities.  Unfortunately, even though planning and highways are run by different areas of local government, highways has always been the Cinderella area of Planning and that still seems to be the case.  Always underfunded, never praised and seldom appreciated - who'd be a highways officer!!!!!!

A major source of aggravation for drivers entering Spalding along Pinchbeck Road are the traffic lights at its junction with Woolram Wygate.  They've been a pain since they were installed due to the very limited space for drivers turning right in to Woolram Wygate.  More than four cars or one lorry and nothing can go straight on, result traffic backed up to as far back as Enterprise Way (400 or 500 meters at a guess).

Having managed to persuade the developers to pay for improvements some three + years ago, I find it incredibly frustrating to discover that the highway authority has yet to make any progress on the final design work using their private partners.  They haven't even got their favourite excuse to fall back on on this occasion because somebody else is picking up the bill.

Highways depts. seldom gets any good press, when things are going well, nobody notices or acknowledges it and when things are going badly, everybody queues up to give them a kicking (a bit like IT departments actually!).  Unfortunately, situations such, as this one do nothing to improve people's perception of the dept and they should really try harder to avoid taking over three years to fix their mistakes.

If you're one of those frustrated drivers, I can only advise you to write to them and encourage others to do the say.  Even as an elected member, I'm still only one voice and only a district councillor.

I'm sitting here (Weds 12 December 2007 at 8.30pm) watching a programme on BBC 1 called Cars, Cops and Bailiffs.

The bailiffs in the title work for Westminster City Council and are pictured roaming the streets of the borough looking for cars with outstanding parking fines on them.  These people are enforcing parking laws designed to make people comply and behave in a responsible manner thereby benefiting all of us.  Anti-littering laws exist for the same reason, so when I watched one of these bailiffs, named Michael, slap one of their nice sticky labels on to a Porsche, that had £1100 of fines on it, and throw the backing paper on to the ground under the car, I was suitably outraged at the apparent hypocrisy of the situation!!! 

I hope somebody from Westminster City Council was watching this (if they weren't, I can tell them where to find some video evidence) and will ensure that this law enforcer gets his just desserts for becoming a law breaker.      

Terry H, our CX, has beaten me to the punch on this one, but the issue is so serious that it's worth repeating again (and again and again!).

The government have told us how much money they will graciously give back to the taxpayer, having extracted from them in various devious ways over the previous year.  The money is called a grant and goes to the local authority to pay for the majority of services they are required to deliver.  The remaining amount of money that is needed is raised via council tax and this is where the challenge (according to government) the stich up (according to me) comes. 

Not only are councils required to provide more in the way of services, they are being required to provide it with less grant in real terms and to make savings on top of that.  The hypocrites that run the current government are busy squadering money right left and centre to such an extent that they have had to reduce the amount of money they provide to local government. 

The increase in grant from last year is just 1% inflation is about 2.3% I think.  They have also told us to find cashable savings of 3% par annum.  Meanwhile they continue to find ways of transferring responsibility for things that other people used to do to councils.  Licensing used to be done by the courts, healthy living - shouldn't that be the Primary Care Trust?, Safer Communities - wasn't that the reason Bob Peele formed a police force?, reducing the rubbish that goes to landfill - isn't most of that actually commercial waste? which is completely ignored by central government.

I could go on, something I'm really good at!

The latest planning application for the ongoing development of Wygate Park has been submitted and the exciting bit is the prospect of seeing a decent sized piece of public open space (POS) being provided at the heart of the area.  I was going to call it a community, but it has a long way to go before it becomes anything like!

 The POS will offer the first piece of space at Wygate Park where youngsters can kick a ball around without it ending up in somebody's garden, hitting somebody's fence and hopefully without getting shouted at by somebody or other for making too much noise or for simply hanging around!  Don't get me wrong the kids can be a pain and can be very annoying, but that's what kids do, I know I did (a very, very long time ago).  What we need to do is provide places for them to do what they do without getting hassle for it.  A place to let off steam, get some exercise and get away from adults!

The challenge is to get the right sort of kit in place for the use of the older kids.  Until now the best we've manged to provide anywhere, is toddler's play areas and a basketball hoop.  This POS application gives us a once in a lifetime opportunity to provide a propoerly designed and laid out play area for the 8-14 year olds that live in and around the area.  If anybody in that age range is foolhardy enough to be reading this then let me know what you think about this and what you would like to see provided.  If your a parent with kids in the age range please take some time to ask them this question on behalf and get back to me either through this blog, the district council or even snail mail.  

Quiet a lot actually, if the letters pages of our local newspapers are anything to by.  Elected members can oft be heard lamenting the lack of interest shown by the public, when it comes to most 'civic' issues.  Even when a controversial issue such as the location of proposed Gypsy and Traveller sites arises, it is often only a relatively small number of people in the potentially affected areas that take any real interest.

It is therefore refreshing to see a good number of people taking the time to express their views on the naming of our new community ‘hospital'.  I say ‘hospital' because I'm sure that in the early days the PCT were trying to avoid using this term to describe the new facility, for fear of giving people the impression that they were getting just that.  They wanted to place more emphasis on it being a facility for the provision of ‘access to a range of health care professionals as opposed to somewhere with beds!  (although there will be a few).

Anyway, the point that I have managed to stray from (as usual) is the name to be given to this new facility.  South Holland boasted for many years a fully functioning hospital named the Johnson, located in the heart of Spalding.  The name is from a local family, the Johnsons, that many people still remember very fondly, if only because they actually built the hospital for their community.

Although those building the ‘hospital' have asked the question, there really is no question to ask.  The new hospital should simply be called; The New Johnson Hospital.  That is what people are saying they want and that's good enough for me.  I really hope the PCT is listening!

We had a meeting of the LDF Working Party today and as is often the case we managed to stray off of the agenda!  Nobody to blame (if that's the word) but myself as I am the chairman!!  However, the reason for the departure was fully justified and gave us the opportunity to reinforce members concerns about the attitude being displayed towards South Holland in respect of flood risk.  The map on the right shows the EA's (unsophisticated) view of South Holland.

As it happens South Holland is very well protected from its biggest source of flood risk, by the Internal Drainage Boards.  The experts talk about fluvial and tidal flood risk along with rapid inundation and of course extreme weather events - bottom line is; in South Holland, it can come from below, it can come from above or, it can come from the sea and the rivers.  Above and below are pretty well covered by the work of the drainage boards and the sea and the rivers are mainly covered by the Environment Agency.  This is a huge simplification, but hopefully you get the picture.  The unique aspect for South Holland is the from below bit.  We are low lying in the first place and much of the land is kept dry by the Internal Drainage Boards, so without them the Fens would return to being wetlands and marshes.  You would be amazed how many people don't know that (allegedly that includes some government ministers who have related responsibilities).  

South Holland is carrying out a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment to update the information we already have in respect of where it is safe to build and where it isn't.  Unfortunately, and this is what I am talking about in the title, the flood risk threat we now face is more to do with perception and understanding than it is to do with any sudden increase in water levels.  If people are to continue to invest in South Holland and those already here are to continue to believe that they have a future here, we must ensure everybody understands what measures are already in place to protect them and what work is being done to maintain and where necessary enhance these.

The LDF Working Party, when considering future development in South Holland, has a crucial role to play in helping to keep this issue on everybody's radar screen and more importantly, ensuring that the issue of resourcing is raised in a timely and proactive way.  Likewise the residents of South Holland can help by informing the district council of areas of existing flood defence that might be in need of attention or that have been subject to any form of degradation. 

A recent edition of Local Government First (issue 362) had two stories on page 2 that demonstrate the contradictions that exist in central government's attitude to local government.  The first one refers to the government's intention to set up an unelected body of so called 'experts' to speed up the determination of planning applications for national infrastructure projects, such as airports and motorways.

The item directly below it refers to people power taking over.  This boasts proudly about the pilot projects transferring public assets, such as unused or underused buildings to 'local ownership'.  Hazel Blears is quoted as saying "There's no better advocate for local people than local people themselves.....".  Sorry, but I thought 'local' government was about 'local' people being voted for by other 'local' people to represent the interests of the 'local' people.  As with these things call local area agreements, everything that central government is doing in relation to local government, seems to be designed to undermine district council's, by proposing the transfer of many areas of district council responsibility to higher or lower organisations. 

These wolves in sheep's clothing seem to be saying to me as a district councillor, that my commitment to representing the best interest's of the people who elected me is inadequate.  Or, that the way I represent the people's interests, is actually an annoying inconvenience to central goverment ambitions and that they need to find a way of working around me and all the other elected members.