brennon

It's enough to make you scream!  The local papers are full of stories about our local tax office being closed - Hooray! I hear you cry, less tax inspectors in Spalding, score one for the over-taxed people of South Holland!

Allowing a public service to move away from the area where the people it is supposed to serve live, is typical of the disjointed, piecemeal and contradictory approach this government applies to public services over and over again. 

Firstly, they continually attack the motoring public by preventing them from parking outside their own homes, threatening to charge them for using the roads they've already paid for, increasing all the taxes on car use and finally by trying to make them feel guilty about causing global warming. 

They then go on to trumpet the merits of localism, telling everybody how things need to be done 'much closer to the people' so they feel empowered!  They also promote the need for sustainable development, that reduces reliance on the private car.

However, as soon as it suits them, they allow local services, such as Post Offices to be closed down and public service centres combined, such as the local magistrates courts, hospitals and now our local tax offices.  

On the basis of 'don't shoot the messenger', the tax officers are actually providing a valuable service to the people of South Holland, remember death and taxes are the only two certainties in this world.  So shunting them off to tax offices in other towns possibly as far away as Lincoln won't reduce anybody's taxes.  In fact it is possible that it will actually increase some because they won't be able to get the help they need to sort them out.

As I said, it's enough to make you want to scream, so here I go! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!   

Lincolnshire police are one of the police authorities under the spot light by government because of the 78% precept on the council tax they have set.  As well as claiming long term under funding as a cause, they also claim that their own survey showed that taxpayers supported an increased charge if it put more bobbies on the beat.  The under funding bit is no doubt right, given the shoddy treatment all rural areas get from Labour government's (after all that's where all the Tories live).

However, claiming a mandate from the public for this increase, when you didn't actually tell them how big the increase would be is frankly  - criminal!  The police should really know better.

Rebilling every taxpayer in South Holland will cost at least £30k.  Add another 6 local authorities to that and you can see how the bill will add up to at least £250k - who pays? Well, you and I do to start with and then SHDC have to try to get that money out of the already cash strapped Lincolnshire police authority.  No doubt the police will use their experience of the court system in this country (based on what they did being criminal remember) claim poverty and then ask 'the court' if they can pay it back at £2 a month!!!!!

All those people actively campaigning for a Forces Day, should take care not to take their eye of the real issue - conditions of service. 

This Government is renowned for its cynical opportunism and could see a prolonged debate, encouraged by Mr Brown's sympathetic noises on the subject, as a very good way of ducking all the real issues that have and continue to blight our military.

My 38 years in the RAF were punctuated by instances of outright bureaucratic bloody mindedness.  Whilst it would be easy to blame this on individuals, I don't believe that to be the case - it's much more fundamental than that.  The whole attitude towards the Armed Forces has always seemed to be based on a belief that once somebody has signed on the bottom line, they were expected to put up with whatever s..t the system decided to throw at them. 

This attitude wasn't just about expecting us to take the rough with the smooth and putting up with the crap when you were ‘in the field', on exercise or, occasional on operations, it was the same back at base and covered every aspect of the attitude of those in charge and who wrote the regulations.  Poor accommodation, poor allowances, (where they existed), petty regulations, staged pay awards, unequal treatment when serving along side civilians abroad; the list is almost endless. 

Perhaps that's what the Military Covenant is, you sign on, take the Queen's shilling (as it used to be called) and then you take whatever crap they throw at you and those now calling for this covenant to be restored, actually just want those who are complaining to shut up and keeping taking it!   

We are now hearing all the same complaints being aired, but this time on behalf of the military as opposed by them.  It's a great shame that some of those now very vocal ex-senior officers, were not willing to stand up and be counted when they were still in uniform.  Sadly, some of this short changing of service personnel has now actually killed and injured a number of them!

The majority of those with the clout to do something about all these inequities, have no experience of the military way of life and therefore no real understanding of just how much resentment exists amongst those who are treated as second class citizens as soon as they put the uniform on.  

These same people are also desperately seeking ways of avoiding spending any of the money that is needed to achieve long term solutions.  Encouraging the campaign for a Forces Day whilst making sympathetic noises about it, is a perfect diversion for them.  Don't be surprised if they keep the debate going for a very long time.

One small (expensive) defeat for us, one big everlasting blight for the residents! 

The planning inspector has decided that the development in the sky, at Fleet Hargate, is legal because the council did actually give planning permission for the level of the dwellings, not just the roadway.  Because of this, we should not have taken enforcement action against these highflying houses!

The officers told us we probably wouldn't succeed, a specialist planning barrister advised us we probably wouldn't succeed, but we still gave it a go and got hammered!  Not only did we loose the three enforcement action appeals, we also had costs awarded against us - Ouch! on behalf of the taxpayers of South Holland.

The us in all of this is the development control committee and as its chairman, I of course take some responsibility for these lost appeals.  Some may well say that I should of stood shoulder to shoulder with the officers and the barrister and persuaded the committee not to pursue these enforcement actions - well actually, no I shouldn't of, not on this occasion anyway.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but the truth is that nobody can ever give you a categorical opinion when it comes to a complicated issue such as this.  Reports are always peppered with phrases such as ‘unlikely to be successful', ‘probably will not be supported', ‘may not be seen as a strong reason', etc, etc.  I'm not criticising those who write these reports, all they're doing is reflecting the uncertainties that can often exist in the planning system, especially when it comes to defending decisions at appeal.

In this case, the committee listened, we asked questions, we debated, we probed, we challenged, we even visited the site and took abuse from some people who weren't even directly effected (being given a hard time sometimes goes with the job, personal abuse does not!).  Even though the advice given to the committee was that enforcement action was unlikely to be successful on appeal, the committee still decided, on balance, to go for it, because we felt that it was the right thing to do.

Despite the risks, it seemed that we almost had a moral duty to at least try to fix things and you cannot base planning decisions on the fear of appeal, or everybody would be at it (a lot already are!).

Anyway, whatever hurt feelings exist within SHDC, these are nothing when compared to the lasting impact this ‘vague' planning consent will have on those who now have to live with this mistake.  I have no doubt that some resident at least, will be considering their next move and I have the feeling that SHDC hasn't heard the last of Fleet Hargate.

you can see the detailed decision by following this link Fleet_Hargate_decision.pdf

Recent publicity about the future of the Castle Sports Complex in Spalding has generated a lot of public interest and response.  Some of these responses have shown the different views that exist on the issue and have also demonstrated some of the contradictions.

A letter in the local newspaper, expressed concerns about the new leisure facilities being in an out of town centre location.  In contrast, a survey of users showed that the majority wished for the current facility to remain open until the new one is open for use.

You don't need me to point out the conflict between these two very legitimate viewpoints and the difficulty this creates when trying to ‘please all of the people, all of the time'. 

We are seeking to provide the type of modern leisure facilities that people tell us they want.  We are also seeking to address the under provision of some sporting facilities and to build in an element of future proofing - the last thing we want to see happen is for this whole exercise to be done again in 10 or 15 years, because the new facilities are too small and there's no room for expansion!  Add these goals to the user wish for the current facility to remain available until the new one opens and you soon realise that the current site is likely to be too small and that's only part of the story.

Although some people have gone on record as saying "it's a done deal", and the new site will be at Holland Park and the old site will be ‘given' to a local developer, this is not and has never been the case.  Holland Park has long been suggested as a possible site for new leisure facilities, simply because it is the next large area of development in Spalding and South Holland. 

At the end of the day somebody has to pay for these new facilities (£17m to replace like with like at today's prices) and although the taxpayer will always end up with a bill in one way or another, the more than can be done to reduce that bill the better.  The truth of the matter is, that we (the district council on behalf of the taxpayers) cannot afford to build a new leisure complex without using some existing assets, some help from the private sector, probably a large a dollop of good will and a following wind!

The letter said there is a need to seek the views of users and to consult on any proposals that might come forward - this is something we have done and will continue to do.  As a member of the cabinet working party on the leisure options and wearing my strategic planning hat, I have asked that phase two of the consultation process includes a proper sustainability appraisal and a sequential test for available sites.  Sorry about the planning speak but that what they're called! 

Sustainability will tell us about access, relationships to other development and various impacts, the sequential bit will tell us what sites are potentially suitable/available for such a facility.  At this time I have no idea what the outcome of phase two will be.  However, I do know that if we are to actually achieve our goal on this, there are going to be some very difficult choices to make and that ultimately we will, once again prove that, you can't 'please all of the people all of the time'!

Paranoid as ever, I wish to expose yet another plot against the masses, by the elite of this country!  Blimey somebody pinch me I sound like an old Labour activist (old as in what they used to be like, as opposed to old as in what most of those interested in politics seem to be!!)    

Anyway, on to the serious business of being a grumpy old man (which doesn't mean I'm not right by the way!). 

Yet again the Budget has targetted the masses in an attempt to get the Government out of the financial black hole that is looming.  Unfortunately, as always, whilst financial slow down and rising prices are claimed to be a big problem for the officers (the Government) it's the poor bloody foot soldiers (you and me) who actually cop the bullets!  Who was it who said, "Lions led by donkeys"?

As one of those foot soldiers, I see the blunt instrument of using road tax to force us out of our big cars and in to little 'green' boxes or on to, where available, expensive, inadequate and inconvenient public transport, as no more than a massive con and another way of screwing money out of the masses.  This crude attempt to force us all to do our bit in the fight against global warming, will only hurt those who have tight budgets and willing and able to pay their dues, as long as those dues are reasonable.

As with the ever increasing cost of flying off to enjoy our hard earned annual holiday, it is only the ordinary folk who are likely to feel the impact.  The highly paid, the rich and those who do it at other peoples expense (including MPs) will hardly notice these increases.  Indeed, they may even be keen to see the carbon neutralising of the masses continue, because the more of us oiks and erks that are forced off of the holiday flights and roads, the more room there is for them!      

Yet another planning bill is going through the system at the moment (do you think the government keeps revisiting the same subjects over and over again in order to keep themselves busy now they've given away so many powers to Brussels?). 

Whilst the majority of the bill deals with applications for major infrastructure projects, the rest could have a very local impact.  As well as supposedly offering wider permitted development rights for domestic properties, the bill also proposes the introduction of elected member appeal panels and this is where I appear to have gone native! 

Elected member appeal panels dealing with minor applications, that have been refused under delegated powers, i.e. by the officers and not the committee, are a really bad idea!  This isn't just my opinion, I understand most local government planning officers and the Royal Town Planning Institute are also against.  Conversely, I understand than many of those in the industry are for this idea, as they seem to see members as easier to ‘persuade' than officers!  My reasons for being against are:

• It introduces a system of members second guessing their officer's professional opinion.
• By necessity, the panel will have to be made up of experienced members. The only source of experienced members will be the development control committee.
• Non-professional elected members will be delivering decisions that must stand up to legal challenge unless they have full support from the department they are challenging.
• When supporting the panel development control department officers will be effectively briefing members against their own colleagues.
• When a decision of the officers is endorsed by the panel the applicant will accuse the members of closing ranks.
• When finding for the applicant, there will always be a suspicion of seeking to undermine the officers, local politics coming into play or just plain bias ‘the good old boy' system.

The current system offers an automatic and theoretically free appeal system, to a completely independent professionally qualified Planning Inspectorate - How could an elected member panel possibly better that?

The only way these panels could possibly work and not sour the working relationship between the members and officers, is if they were populated by experienced members from a neighbouring authority, yet the Local Government Association is against this.  Apparently, the supposedly experienced members, who have been advising the LGA, are against such an arrangement and actually see these panels as means of strengthening local democracy - I can't see how.

On the wider front; this appears to be no more than another method of transferring cost and responsibility (blame?) down to local government without any form of resourcing - just like the licensing system. 

The majority of planning applications made are minor and the vast majority of these are determined under delegated powers. see  http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/developmentcontrolstats  Unfortunately, these are fairly large files and can take time to download for viewing.

I also have no doubt that the Planning Inspectorate at Bristol would be more than pleased to see the back of the tiresome little minor application appeals that clog up their system.  What professional planner wouldn't be happier dealing with the 3^rd runway at Heathrow than Mr and Mrs Smith's conservatory?

The quotes below have been lifted from what claims to be an overview document on Beacon Status councils and their outstanding performance in the area of supposedly all encompassing local strategic partnerships and local area agreements.  There were only three examples given and these quotes are extracted from two of them.

 "The partnership's work on equality and diversity issues is also outstanding, particularly in the field of inter-faith cohesion, where a comprehensive range of projects has been delivered to bring together (name of place removed) diverse communities." 

"Equalities issues, including sexuality and disability have been proactively addressed by the partnership which has developed high impact resources that have been shown to work in changing attitudes."

The reason I have done this is to highlight my continuing concern at the government's pre-occupation with the ‘equality and diversity agenda' and how this seems to be distorting the whole thrust of government policy making in respect of their attitude to government at the local level.

My own council went in to what I would describe as a flat spin about 12 months ago when our officers realised that our equality and diversity strategy was allegedly not fit for purpose.  We were told that out of a scoring system of 4 we would be lucky to get a 1 and that a huge amount of work and resource would be required to retrieve the situation.  My reaction at the time was not particularly welcome (the CX wasn't impressed!) and may have been a bit OTT as the saying goes.  Although I didn't actually use bad language, unlike other people in similar situations!  

However, to suddenly go from being an improving organisation with good prospects (our opinion) to being told we were rubbish, was not to be taken lightly - not by me anyway! 

The officers were of course ‘right'.  This was confirmed some months later by an external audit report.  The report on a totally unrelated subject, told us how well we were doing, but then went out of its way to criticise us for, guess what?  ‘Our failure to embed equality and diversity into everything we do'. 

Equality and fair treatment for everybody who comes in to contact with the council is something I have always sought, if not fought, to promote.  Anybody who knows me knows that if there is one thing I will get upset about, it's bias, favouritism or unequal treatment.  When referring to this sort of behaviour in the planning world, I call it ‘the good old boy' system. 

Of course there is a need to take a structured approach when there appears to be a weakness in policy or strategy.  However, having it forced down your throat and then being criticised when you don't swallow it whole and at the speed dictated, is far from the right way to ensure that something this important becomes second nature.  I always like to find parallels when criticising new intiatives and in this case I have three; Investors in People (IIP), Health and Safety and ISO 9000 .  All good ideas in principle, but all initially badly implemented and rushed through.  This resulted in resentment, cynicism and a tick box mentality amoungst those who were doing and those who were having it done to them!   

By way of proof (of sorts) I heard a Vox pop on Radio 4 the other day and although I didn't manage to register the location of the street survey, I did register the comments made by the citizens being asked their opinion.  The majority felt ignored and neglected by all forms of government and clearly felt that everything was being skewed in favour of ensuring that ‘immigrants' were being looked after.  Not exactly representative I know, but still food for thought.

I don't remember who said it...yes I do - good old Google!  The English philosopher Edmund Burke said, ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.'

RAF personnel walking around Peterborough in uniform, have been verbally abused and spat at by civilians opposed to British military action in Iraq and Afghanistan.  As with my previous blog entry about UCL students, I wonder how many of these 'principled' yobs would dare to behave the same way to the politicians that actually sent the troops to these places?

They wouldn't - because they are themselves complete cowards.  Whenever a senior politician is out and about 'doing his or her duty', they are invariably accompanied by others, if not actual police officers.  Under such circumstances, these yobs would no doubt become far less principled. 

the question I want to ask is - where were the good people of Peterborough when this abuse of our service personnel was going on?  Looking the other way?  Crossing to the other side of the road?  If there were any other citizens around, they obviously choose not to get involved and therefore allowed the evil to triumph.

Unfortunately, the recent pleas by politicians and ex-military officers, for the military to be more appreciated by the public, are likely to be a waste of time and effort. 

I joined the RAF in 1967 when we were actually required to travel in uniform when posted to a new unit.  Also, as a trainee with little money, it was never a problem getting picked up when hitch hiking home at the weekends in uniform (although I think it was actually against the regs).  The IRA put pay to all of that, with service personnel being ordered to keep a low profile for fear of a lethal attack. 

Even after that threat had diminished, it was obvious that the public mood, previously increasingly lukewarm anyway, was now completely cold.  In fact it was disappointing to have people look straight through you - it's not as if they saw the uniform everyday!

Although one old lady did recognise it as a uniform of some kind when she asked if I'd come to fix her car - she thought I was from the RAC!  Another friend got mistaken for an ambulance man one day!  The ever decreasing quality of the uniform (along with the MOD's version of dumbing down by the removal of various badges to save costs) had a lot to do with this type of mistaken identity.  However, that's another subject in itself and goes straight to the root of this country's attitude to its armed forces - don't get me started on the MOD bean counters who controlled everything but never did a days service in their lives - just like most of the defence ministers theses day!

Anyway back to the subject - politicians you can always rely on them to find a tangent to go off on! 

At least those RAF personnel who are being subjected to public abuse know of a 'reason' for this happening, however pathetic and inexcusable it might be.  In contrast, what about the attacks that take place on our firemen and firewomen everyday?  What possible excuse can there be for attacking a group of people who have no other purpose in life other than saving life and protecting property? 

Again, the lack of public support when incidents such as these happen is shocking.  Why aren't local people out confronting the yobs and louts who are carrying out these attacks? As always I ask, where are the parents of these kids, many of whom are no more than 9, 10 or 11 years of age? - down the pub, or wacked out at home on cheap the same supermarket booze their kids are drinking no doubt!

It looks like members of the students' union at University College London (UCL) need a spell in the Army to improve their aim!

Students voted to sever all links with the military.  Also, they've passed a motion attacking the Government for "waging an aggressive war overseas" in Afghanistan and Iraq.  See the story at:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/08/nmilitary208.xml

So, these students ban the people who are required by law to follow the orders of the politicians, but only moan a bit at those actually giving those orders. 

It looks to me like these students need to improve their aim so that their outrage can be directed at the right targets - the politicians who authorised and directed the military action.

Perhaps it's because at some point in the future, having gradated with their very expensive degrees, instead of putting them to a useful purpose in support of the country's economy, they will want to become politicians themselves.  Never a good idea to upset those you might need to help you climb the greasy pole in the near future, however principled you might be!

As a council we are shouting loud and proud about how yet again we have managed to push our share of the council tax down.  Less than 3% for the SHDC bit and closer to 10% of the overall take, than the 11% of last year.  I know the Conservatives have always marched to the drum of less taxation, but at some point we have to ask how low can you go before you start to become ineffective and unable to deliver even the basics?  We probably aren't there yet, but given the level to be set this year and the ever increasing levels of external costs such as fuel for our refuse freighters, insurance premiums, utility bills, the cost of borrowing, the reduction in returns on investments, how will this prudent budgeting look in the middle of the year?

We have a really difficult choice to make soon in respect of our leisure options, with everybody with an opinion, seeming to support a brand new, bigger and more wide ranging provision.  All this to be provided whilst the old one remains open and available to the community!  As it stands it is difficult to see where such a huge amount of cash, £17m just to replace like with like, could come from without dipping very deeply into the pockets of our taxpayers at some point.  So whilst less than 3% this year is a very comfortable figure for us politicians to be touting around the bazaars, I'm beginning to ask myself how much longer this will be the case?

On the subject of this year's council tax bill, our 2.75% is completely over-shadowed by Lincolnshire police's 78.5% precept.  This may or may not be capped by central government and if it is every taxpayer in Lincolnshire will have to rebilled. It will cost about £30k to rebill South Holland taxpayers and this bill will eventually be picked up by the Police Authority.  So not only will they not get the full amount they want, they end with a net loss because EVERY district will be rebilled and £30k is probably one of the lowest figures!  Follow the link below for the official position form South Holland District Council on this potential crisis.

 http://www.sholland.gov.uk/council/counciltax/news/ImportantCouncilTaxInfo.htm

I had a letter from the management of Springfields Outlet Centre yesterday (after a second letter to them).  See my earlier blog entry of 24th November 07.

My letter complained to them about the lunacy of having wide open shop doors on freezing cold days.  The response was disappointing to say the least.  Apparently these doors are left open in all weathers because you and I, the customers, like it that way!  We are apparently too lazy to open the door when we want to enter or leave a shop and if they are kept closed, we will put off shopping there - what a load of rubbish!!! 

If every shop had to keep their front doors shut, on pain of an environmental impact fine, it would be a level playing field for all retailers.  What are the customers going to do if they find ALL the shop doors closed?  starve to death? go without the latest mobile phone?  not buy the latest piece of fashionable clothing?  Of course we're not going to go without - we're going to open the shop door!

Talking of rubbish (of rubbish I said!), as a district councillor, I may soon be ‘encouraged', by central government, to impose yet another stealth tax on residents, based on the amount of rubbish they fail to recycle.  This concern over rubbish going into landfill sites is completely understandable and is all part of the Global Warming debate.  So, having a retail centre manager tell me that it's okay to have very expensive to produce hot air flowing out of the wide open shop doors of what will soon be 40+ shops, winds me up to say the least! 

Some further justification is given by claiming that the centre is committed to recycling some of the excessive packing the retail industry creates and by the production of 10% of the energy need for the new shops and the hotel from 'renewables'.  What isn't said, is that this is only being done because the new planning regulations require this as part of the permission to build - if we didn't make ‘em, they wouldn't do it!

We had an informal briefing for portfolio holders on Monday, one of the issues raised was the county council's 'unhappiness' with South Holland's response to their requests for education contributions from new development.

The county council has a statutory duty to provide educational services to the Lincolnshire community. They also take the lion's share of the council tax bill that everybody is about to receive.  Therefore, asking for a financial contribution from a new development, is not something to be imposed on an applicant without careful consideration.  It certainly isn't something to be done just because they ask!

As chairman of the development control committee, I accept some responsibility for both challenging these requests and for the committee's current response to these requests.  I understand the reasoning behind the education authority's request, Lincolnshire is very badly treated by central government when it comes to the grant received each year and if there are any opportunities to make-up this deficit, they should be explored.  See a previous entry on under funding.

However, despite the DC committee having made it very clear that the county council needs to show not just how much money a new development should contribute, but also, and this is the crucial bit, where it will be spent.  Now I don't think that's too much to ask, after all the county insist that they need this cash to meet the extra education demands that will be created by the new development.  So why is it so difficult to go the next step and tell us where the money will be spent?  Even more disappointing, is the fact that the county council seem unwilling to accept the committee's current position and seem to need our chief executive to spell it out for them! 

Some of our neighbours have already acquiesced to these requests and this is probably why South Holland being identified as one of the ‘awkward squad'.  I'm all for ‘partnership working', but the county needs to do their bit as well, otherwise it becomes a very one-sided partnership.  So until the county gets the meassage, long live the awkward squad!   

Some commentators are suggesting that the e-petition on the Downing Street website, that attracted 1.8 million signatures, might of had some influence on the government's decision to put the national road pricing scheme plans on to a dusty shelf in some civil servant's office for the foreseeable future.

Oh, if only that were anywhere near reality!  This government likes consultation, what they don't like is listening to people who don't agree with them.  Far more impressive than 1.8 million electronic signatures, was the estimated 1 million who marched through London to protest against going to war in Iraq - and look how the government responded to that! 

The road pricing idea is shelved because they can't make it work, not because you and I think it is the completely wrong way to treat the motoring public, many of whom have no choice but to use their cars to access the essentials of everyday life, e.g. work, medical, food, school and, if they've got any money left - lesiure.

As usual it would be the ordinary folk of this land forced off the roads by such schemes, not those who have so much money they wouldn't even notice the extra cost to driving their £50k+ cars.  Neither would it matter to those who can get somebody else to pay, like MPs who would no doubt cook up yet another member's allowance scheme to ensure that even the trip to their second homes for a weekend break, was somehow paid for by the taxpayer's of this country. 

Did you know that you can be a nosey neighbour  and find out what's going on in your street planning wise?  The South Holland District Council web site has a mapping facility that allows you to find a location by postcode or address and then see what planning permissions are in place.  Just in case you are interested in using this facility, I've listed below a step by step guide on how to use this facility.

Note:  Unfortunately, the mapping system is not yet compatible with Internet Explorer (IE) version 7, which many people will now have.  However, to get around this problem you can use an alternative web browser (as these things are called) such as Firefox.  Firefox is free and I know some people actually prefer it to Internet Explorer (blasphemy, don't tell Bill Gates I wrote that!).

To get a copy of the Firefox web browser follow this link ,

http://www.mozilla-europe.org/en/products/firefox/

click on the download option, make a note of where you download it to, click on the downloaded file to unpack it and then follow the on screen guide. 

If you don't want to change over from IE to Firefox permanently, watch out for the bits where it says do you want to make it your default browser and click on the No option.  Installing Firefox does not remove or disable IE, it just changes the default Browser that is loaded whenever you decide to go online.  So if you wish you can swop between the two at any time.

Once you have installed Firefox, look on the Windows, Start, All Programs listing to start the program up.

Now back to where we started, finding out about planning applications in your street, community or even the district.  If you are using IE6, carry on as you would normally, if you are now using Firefox start the program, now navigate to the South Holland District Council website.

http://www.sholland.gov.uk/

Now follow the step by step guide planning_apps_blog.pdf