The Today programme on BBC Radio 4 this morning reported Wakefield as a council that intended to put through a 5% council tax increase for 2008/2009.
I thought that we were going to be close to the government cap but not that close.
You may have read my earlier posts about WMDC its use of money and the likelihood of a hole left as this Labour government hits its own budget problems.
Anyway we are close to the annual budget setting meeting next Monday when we will told by the leader of the council how important it is that we support his budget of 4.95% and formally be called upon to vote through the controlling groups budget proposal and agree that the Labour group can dip into peoples pockets to grab some more money.
Around these parts council tax has doubled in the last ten years, wages have not, pensions have not and many people who have been living on their own savings have seen them dwindle. Our other costs of living keep getting higher and higher and now we are expected to do our bit to turn the screw and accept the pain.
Well I think I need to put the people of the district first and they deserve better.
Thursday 28 February 2008
Town Tales ~ Space Aliens in Pontefract
Space aliens have been reported in Pontefract, last Friday afternoon there was a small tornado's worth of paper and plastic bags, bottles, pieces of cardboard, leaves and other bits of detritus mounded up in the market place. Where did this come from? Well obviously this is the space aliens at work.
I am reliably informed that the councils cleansing team had been working in the area until 2.30, so this obviously landed between then and 4.15 when I arrived. However the market stall holders who were in process of dismantling their stalls would probably have spotted the space ship if it had landed close at hand.
I am investigating and suspect that I will spend some more time there tomorrow trying to establish first contact if the aliens come back.
I am reliably informed that the councils cleansing team had been working in the area until 2.30, so this obviously landed between then and 4.15 when I arrived. However the market stall holders who were in process of dismantling their stalls would probably have spotted the space ship if it had landed close at hand.
I am investigating and suspect that I will spend some more time there tomorrow trying to establish first contact if the aliens come back.
Saturday 23 February 2008
People that choose to be counted
On Wednesday afternoon I spent what was a very uplifting two hours in the Old Court House in Wakefield Town Hall with the Mayor, another Councillor Colleague, two officers and the Deputy Superintendent of Registrations, with a group of 42 drawn from a league of nations including: Iraq, Iran, Albania, Kosovo, Vietnam, India, Pakistan, Russia and the Philippines.
These folk had been in the UK and had been working through the process of application for citizenship. Wednesday was the end of the process that concludes with the swearing of the oath that they will be faithful, loyal, law-abiding citizens of the Crown.
For many they had gone through significant challenges and perils over an extended period of time to reach this point. For most it was a very emotional and personal experience a high spot in life.
As I witnessed the solemnity, humour and joy that these people expressed it made me reflect on some of the people that I do meet who have little sense of the value of British Citizenship.
These folk had been in the UK and had been working through the process of application for citizenship. Wednesday was the end of the process that concludes with the swearing of the oath that they will be faithful, loyal, law-abiding citizens of the Crown.
For many they had gone through significant challenges and perils over an extended period of time to reach this point. For most it was a very emotional and personal experience a high spot in life.
As I witnessed the solemnity, humour and joy that these people expressed it made me reflect on some of the people that I do meet who have little sense of the value of British Citizenship.
One of those weeks... Part One.. Violence Physical , Mental and Drink related
Well I blinked and the week rocketed by. There were a number of issues that needed attention and I learnt some new things, some encouraging, some not.
My week started in the Kingswood suite at Wakefield Town Hall, with a group of other members of the Crime and Community Safety Overview and Scrutiny Committee where we were briefed about a series of Domestic Abuse initiatives that are being pursued to reduce amount of physical and mental abuse that takes place at home across the district.
We learned some thought provoking stuff such as the amount of incidents that are drink related or happen when a sporting event has not worked out the way some people want it to. We also heard of the amount of situations that when taken to court have fallen at the hurdle on the day. When the partner does not want to or will not give evidence. We also learned how police head cam footage taken at the scene during or immediately after an incident may help overcome partner withdrawal of evidence.
Troubling and pause for thought about the number of people of all ages that have been exposed to violence in the home.
The second briefing was about crime statistics across the district. Reported crime is reducing but violent crime, particularly the sort that's linked in to the night time drinks economy is a big issue.
Down in Wakefield where a scheme deploying Street Marshalls seems to be working to reduce the number of incidents that escalate into full blown brawling or assault.
Static in Pontefract where things just go ahead and hit critical without that sort of intervention. Apparently reported street incidents are down but violent offences remain constant. (That one really does not compute, maybe its because incidents with blood spilled are more difficult to ignore and therefore do get picked up.)
As an advocate of alcohol exclusion zones outside or around licensed premises and holding licensees to account for selling to people when they are drunk or incapable I am going to keep following through on this one.
One conclusion that came from the day. Yes we need some of our own Street Marshalls in Pontefract, or at least enough police presence on the streets to make those streets a safer place to be.
My week started in the Kingswood suite at Wakefield Town Hall, with a group of other members of the Crime and Community Safety Overview and Scrutiny Committee where we were briefed about a series of Domestic Abuse initiatives that are being pursued to reduce amount of physical and mental abuse that takes place at home across the district.
We learned some thought provoking stuff such as the amount of incidents that are drink related or happen when a sporting event has not worked out the way some people want it to. We also heard of the amount of situations that when taken to court have fallen at the hurdle on the day. When the partner does not want to or will not give evidence. We also learned how police head cam footage taken at the scene during or immediately after an incident may help overcome partner withdrawal of evidence.
Troubling and pause for thought about the number of people of all ages that have been exposed to violence in the home.
The second briefing was about crime statistics across the district. Reported crime is reducing but violent crime, particularly the sort that's linked in to the night time drinks economy is a big issue.
Down in Wakefield where a scheme deploying Street Marshalls seems to be working to reduce the number of incidents that escalate into full blown brawling or assault.
Static in Pontefract where things just go ahead and hit critical without that sort of intervention. Apparently reported street incidents are down but violent offences remain constant. (That one really does not compute, maybe its because incidents with blood spilled are more difficult to ignore and therefore do get picked up.)
As an advocate of alcohol exclusion zones outside or around licensed premises and holding licensees to account for selling to people when they are drunk or incapable I am going to keep following through on this one.
One conclusion that came from the day. Yes we need some of our own Street Marshalls in Pontefract, or at least enough police presence on the streets to make those streets a safer place to be.
Sunday 17 February 2008
All we ever wanted was everything.
Have a look at Inspector Gadget's latest post.
Life is special, life is unpredictable, do what you can, value what you value.
http://inspectorgadget.wordpress.com/ or follow the link to Gadget's blog down at the bottom right of my page.
Life is special, life is unpredictable, do what you can, value what you value.
http://inspectorgadget.wordpress.com/ or follow the link to Gadget's blog down at the bottom right of my page.
Do we resist or agree to be sacrificed for dogma?
When I started to hear about the scale and the potential impact of the Bank’s proposal to install industrial wind turbines on Went Edge, like many I was startled. I know that there is a huge concern expressed about global warming and our future energy needs and that all the political parties have emerging views about the need to come up with viable alternative energy sources.
The more that I learned however, the more concerned I became that the people on the eastern side of the district were to be sacrificed for a tick in a government box and a bit of global posturing.
When you look at the implications of the Bank’s proposal there are a number of major reasons that under normal circumstances would rule out such a development. However over recent years our Labour Government has set out to erode the planning laws and guidance so that “things get done”.
In fact as I understand it Ministers only last week signed an order at council (Queens Council/Ministerial edict) which allows the latest big idea of Eco towns or Growth Points (urban extension as WMDC describe them) to utilize green belt so that the governments big new project of 3,000,000 new houses by 2020 gets delivered.
What is the linkage? Whether it is multiple industrial wind turbines over 425 feet high or 20,000 new houses they could arrive on a piece of green belt near you.
Peter Box, Leader of the Council has come out against Darringfield but has agreed to a Government scheme of Growth Points with target building up to 1900 new houses a year up until 2020, which will deliver more houses than Darringfield again predominantly in the Five Towns area and in reality this will take green belt or precious open spaces, will we have the infrastructure improvements? Well I am really not sure..
Whether it is industrial scale wind farms or massive housing developments it looks as if this Government is set to get its way in this part of the world because they can, unless we demand consultation and fight these tractor factory style targets.
Our local MP’ has gone on record about the need to meet the global challenge and quotes the Stern review as a compelling reason, she supports Government policy based on a report by an economist. I would feel more comfortable if Sir Nicholas was a scientist.
She was also the minister sponsoring Eco-Towns and the Growth Points programme that Wakefield is keen to support. One would hope that a constituency MP would support the needs of her people, but it seems to me that career and government programmes have a higher call on her and therefore apart from telling us that we will be consulted she gives no comfort when government inspectors overturn local democratic decisions and processes.
At this point people may feel that I am being political, biased and defeatist.
Well I have a clear view on what I think is going on. Defeatist no, we have to fight the Bank’s proposal and keep fighting until this flawed thinking runs out of steam.
At a local level we need the political will to stop sacrificing our communities to government dictat. Whilst we have a local consensus about the Wind Farm, I am getting very mixed messages from our Labour controlled council and our MP about their position.
With regard to council we will only be sure of a result when we know that they are not block voting to support a government initiative, the electorate can alter the WMDC block vote and send clear messages on May the 1st by seeing ruling group heads roll.
At a parliamentary level we have had a Labour MP since 1935, if ever there was time for a change it seems to me that the next general election will give us a chance to look at electing a local candidate who has neither the distractions of a joint ministerial careers or the complication or of where the heart is.
My final comments are we need to stand and fight the current application and that people need to register their objections to this damaging and speculative development.
For the record my objection filed with WMDC planners for the Banks development is as follows.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Application Summary
-------------------
Application Number: 07/01338/FUL
Address: Westfield Lane (Land Off)
Darrington
West Yorkshire
Proposal:
Erection of 6 wind turbines, highway access, junction improvement and ancillary development.
Case Officer:
Becky Walker
Details
----------------
Name: Cllr G M Walsh - District Councillor Pontefract South
Address:
Town Hall,
Wakefield,
West Yorkshire
Postcode:
WF1 2HQ
Comments
--------
Submission Type:
Customer objects to the Planning Application.
Comments:
Based on studying the elements of this application and others of its type and having received representations from other elected members and members of parish councils and residents of Pontefract, East Hardwick, Darrington, Carleton, Wentbridge, Ackworth, Badsworth, Knottingley, Ferrybridge and Selby District, I wish to formally object to this application and ask that you put the following points forward to the planning committee for their consideration:
1. That application concerned is an inappropriate development in line with PPG2 Para 3.2 and 3.12 and as such this proposed development will be by definition a development on green belt that is harmful to the green belt, it further conflicts with local planning guidelines.
2. Visual Amenity: In PPG2 Para 3.15 it is stated that the visual amenities of the green belt should not be injured by proposals for development within or conspicuous from the Green Belt which might be visually detrimental by reason of their siteing, materials or design. At 125 metres in height it will not be possible to mask these six industrial wind generators from view and they will be visible from a distance and from several local locations including the West Park Residences and are therefore impermissible.
3. Archaeological impact.
I am advised by the past Chairman of the Council for British Archaeology (Yorkshire) that "the land has a number of archaeological sites beneath it, probably of Iron Age and Romano British Date. Building works of any kind will destroy these." This proposed application is likely to result in unacceptable damage to the Archaeological environment.
PPG 16 Section A 3. States Archaeological remains are irreplaceable. Further in section A 8. The guidance calls for planning authorities where nationally important remains whether scheduled or not, and their settings are affected by proposed development there should be a presumption in favour of their physical preservation.
The plateau has a significant number of finds and there are additional features still to be explored, some within 50 metres of this proposed application site and it should be remembered that further along the contour line of this edge of the hills as part of the A1M improvements an iron age chariot was discovered. As such on the grounds of preserving the important archaeology of the area this application should be rejected.
4.The villages of Wentbridge and Darrington and the smaller community of West Park already live with significant background noise caused by the flow of traffic on the A1/A1M which runs alongside the proposed location these generators will add further low frequency sound to the noise spectrum adding wind related low frequency and strobe effects which will have a particular impact on residents sleep patterns as other noises drop away through the night.
The group that provided the current DTI guidance on noise nuisance in 1997 have confirmed that the original guidance was based on typically smaller industrial wind generators than those selected for this proposal and the council therefore has a duty of care to confirm that the health and well-being of residents will not be damaged by this installation. If that cannot be done then this application should be deferred or rejected until such time as that may be possible.
5.The location adjacent to the A1 would also offer significant road safety risk particularly by the distraction of motorists through a section of the A1 with several exits and access points where driver concentration is critical. This linked to Bank's own comment about strobing effect and shadow flicker will create a significant danger especially on bright sunny days or at sunset and dusk.
6. In the UDP Volume 1 OL20 the WMDC policy on renewable energy states that "Proposals for the development of renewable energy sources will be permitted where it can be demonstrated that effects on:
i) The Local Community
ii) The Landscape of the area
iii) The Ecology of the area
iv) Existing and proposed land uses in the locality
Are Acceptable
It is clear from the amount of concern raised in local communities across the district and the number of individual objections raised by local residents that this application does not meet point i) of OL20
The application if approved will contravene national legislation listed 1 & 2 above and as such the loss of amenity and damage to the views across the green belt mean that the application does not meet point ii) of OL20.
The review of the ecology of the area does not have sufficient time spread to take account of the seasons and the ecology of the area and therefore point iii) of OL20 cannot be tested, as such the application should be deferred or rejected subject to a more detailed and extensive ecological review.
Finally on OL20 the application adversely effects existing and proposed land uses in the area in its impact on existing public footpaths and other rights of way, walks and the rides on Went Edge from the Equestrian Centre at Westfields' West Field Lane, Darrington, WF8 3AQ, the proposed future alteration to the path of the A1M by the Highways Agency and the Eco-Towns proposal of Darringfield and therefore does not meet the test of point iv) of OL20.
Note OL20 remains listed in the Secretary of States direction of September 2007 is valid and should be given sufficient weight to reject when considering this application.
7. PPS 22 Principle 1.iv States that the wider environmental and economic benefits of all proposals for renewable energy projects whatever their scale are material considerations that should be given significant weight in determining whether proposals should be granted planning permission.
Even taking account of that principle, there is insufficient environmental and economic benefit or national benefit provided by this particular application to set aside OL20 and that whilst taking account of PPS22 this application does not meet the vigorous tests mentioned in that document and should be rejected accordingly.
These are my initial points of objection and should give sufficient grounds for rejection, please note however that I propose to put additional specific points forward for the consideration of the planning committee.
Geoff Walsh
District Councillor - Pontefract South Ward 13
Deputy Leader - Conservative Group WMDC
If you have not already registered your concerns about this proposal with WMDC planning department or our MP, please do so as soon as you can.
The more that I learned however, the more concerned I became that the people on the eastern side of the district were to be sacrificed for a tick in a government box and a bit of global posturing.
When you look at the implications of the Bank’s proposal there are a number of major reasons that under normal circumstances would rule out such a development. However over recent years our Labour Government has set out to erode the planning laws and guidance so that “things get done”.
In fact as I understand it Ministers only last week signed an order at council (Queens Council/Ministerial edict) which allows the latest big idea of Eco towns or Growth Points (urban extension as WMDC describe them) to utilize green belt so that the governments big new project of 3,000,000 new houses by 2020 gets delivered.
What is the linkage? Whether it is multiple industrial wind turbines over 425 feet high or 20,000 new houses they could arrive on a piece of green belt near you.
Peter Box, Leader of the Council has come out against Darringfield but has agreed to a Government scheme of Growth Points with target building up to 1900 new houses a year up until 2020, which will deliver more houses than Darringfield again predominantly in the Five Towns area and in reality this will take green belt or precious open spaces, will we have the infrastructure improvements? Well I am really not sure..
Whether it is industrial scale wind farms or massive housing developments it looks as if this Government is set to get its way in this part of the world because they can, unless we demand consultation and fight these tractor factory style targets.
Our local MP’ has gone on record about the need to meet the global challenge and quotes the Stern review as a compelling reason, she supports Government policy based on a report by an economist. I would feel more comfortable if Sir Nicholas was a scientist.
She was also the minister sponsoring Eco-Towns and the Growth Points programme that Wakefield is keen to support. One would hope that a constituency MP would support the needs of her people, but it seems to me that career and government programmes have a higher call on her and therefore apart from telling us that we will be consulted she gives no comfort when government inspectors overturn local democratic decisions and processes.
At this point people may feel that I am being political, biased and defeatist.
Well I have a clear view on what I think is going on. Defeatist no, we have to fight the Bank’s proposal and keep fighting until this flawed thinking runs out of steam.
At a local level we need the political will to stop sacrificing our communities to government dictat. Whilst we have a local consensus about the Wind Farm, I am getting very mixed messages from our Labour controlled council and our MP about their position.
With regard to council we will only be sure of a result when we know that they are not block voting to support a government initiative, the electorate can alter the WMDC block vote and send clear messages on May the 1st by seeing ruling group heads roll.
At a parliamentary level we have had a Labour MP since 1935, if ever there was time for a change it seems to me that the next general election will give us a chance to look at electing a local candidate who has neither the distractions of a joint ministerial careers or the complication or of where the heart is.
My final comments are we need to stand and fight the current application and that people need to register their objections to this damaging and speculative development.
For the record my objection filed with WMDC planners for the Banks development is as follows.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Application Summary
-------------------
Application Number: 07/01338/FUL
Address: Westfield Lane (Land Off)
Darrington
West Yorkshire
Proposal:
Erection of 6 wind turbines, highway access, junction improvement and ancillary development.
Case Officer:
Becky Walker
Details
----------------
Name: Cllr G M Walsh - District Councillor Pontefract South
Address:
Town Hall,
Wakefield,
West Yorkshire
Postcode:
WF1 2HQ
Comments
--------
Submission Type:
Customer objects to the Planning Application.
Comments:
Based on studying the elements of this application and others of its type and having received representations from other elected members and members of parish councils and residents of Pontefract, East Hardwick, Darrington, Carleton, Wentbridge, Ackworth, Badsworth, Knottingley, Ferrybridge and Selby District, I wish to formally object to this application and ask that you put the following points forward to the planning committee for their consideration:
1. That application concerned is an inappropriate development in line with PPG2 Para 3.2 and 3.12 and as such this proposed development will be by definition a development on green belt that is harmful to the green belt, it further conflicts with local planning guidelines.
2. Visual Amenity: In PPG2 Para 3.15 it is stated that the visual amenities of the green belt should not be injured by proposals for development within or conspicuous from the Green Belt which might be visually detrimental by reason of their siteing, materials or design. At 125 metres in height it will not be possible to mask these six industrial wind generators from view and they will be visible from a distance and from several local locations including the West Park Residences and are therefore impermissible.
3. Archaeological impact.
I am advised by the past Chairman of the Council for British Archaeology (Yorkshire) that "the land has a number of archaeological sites beneath it, probably of Iron Age and Romano British Date. Building works of any kind will destroy these." This proposed application is likely to result in unacceptable damage to the Archaeological environment.
PPG 16 Section A 3. States Archaeological remains are irreplaceable. Further in section A 8. The guidance calls for planning authorities where nationally important remains whether scheduled or not, and their settings are affected by proposed development there should be a presumption in favour of their physical preservation.
The plateau has a significant number of finds and there are additional features still to be explored, some within 50 metres of this proposed application site and it should be remembered that further along the contour line of this edge of the hills as part of the A1M improvements an iron age chariot was discovered. As such on the grounds of preserving the important archaeology of the area this application should be rejected.
4.The villages of Wentbridge and Darrington and the smaller community of West Park already live with significant background noise caused by the flow of traffic on the A1/A1M which runs alongside the proposed location these generators will add further low frequency sound to the noise spectrum adding wind related low frequency and strobe effects which will have a particular impact on residents sleep patterns as other noises drop away through the night.
The group that provided the current DTI guidance on noise nuisance in 1997 have confirmed that the original guidance was based on typically smaller industrial wind generators than those selected for this proposal and the council therefore has a duty of care to confirm that the health and well-being of residents will not be damaged by this installation. If that cannot be done then this application should be deferred or rejected until such time as that may be possible.
5.The location adjacent to the A1 would also offer significant road safety risk particularly by the distraction of motorists through a section of the A1 with several exits and access points where driver concentration is critical. This linked to Bank's own comment about strobing effect and shadow flicker will create a significant danger especially on bright sunny days or at sunset and dusk.
6. In the UDP Volume 1 OL20 the WMDC policy on renewable energy states that "Proposals for the development of renewable energy sources will be permitted where it can be demonstrated that effects on:
i) The Local Community
ii) The Landscape of the area
iii) The Ecology of the area
iv) Existing and proposed land uses in the locality
Are Acceptable
It is clear from the amount of concern raised in local communities across the district and the number of individual objections raised by local residents that this application does not meet point i) of OL20
The application if approved will contravene national legislation listed 1 & 2 above and as such the loss of amenity and damage to the views across the green belt mean that the application does not meet point ii) of OL20.
The review of the ecology of the area does not have sufficient time spread to take account of the seasons and the ecology of the area and therefore point iii) of OL20 cannot be tested, as such the application should be deferred or rejected subject to a more detailed and extensive ecological review.
Finally on OL20 the application adversely effects existing and proposed land uses in the area in its impact on existing public footpaths and other rights of way, walks and the rides on Went Edge from the Equestrian Centre at Westfields' West Field Lane, Darrington, WF8 3AQ, the proposed future alteration to the path of the A1M by the Highways Agency and the Eco-Towns proposal of Darringfield and therefore does not meet the test of point iv) of OL20.
Note OL20 remains listed in the Secretary of States direction of September 2007 is valid and should be given sufficient weight to reject when considering this application.
7. PPS 22 Principle 1.iv States that the wider environmental and economic benefits of all proposals for renewable energy projects whatever their scale are material considerations that should be given significant weight in determining whether proposals should be granted planning permission.
Even taking account of that principle, there is insufficient environmental and economic benefit or national benefit provided by this particular application to set aside OL20 and that whilst taking account of PPS22 this application does not meet the vigorous tests mentioned in that document and should be rejected accordingly.
These are my initial points of objection and should give sufficient grounds for rejection, please note however that I propose to put additional specific points forward for the consideration of the planning committee.
Geoff Walsh
District Councillor - Pontefract South Ward 13
Deputy Leader - Conservative Group WMDC
If you have not already registered your concerns about this proposal with WMDC planning department or our MP, please do so as soon as you can.
Thursday 14 February 2008
Finally off the fence
Yesterday, the Leader of the Council took an opportunity to say how very very cross he was about the Eco-Town proposal.
He went on to tell the gathered council that the cabinet had already made this clear in October and if we (the opposition members) had read the papers we would have seen that.
He went on to do something that he is doing more and more as he starts to realise that people are keeping track of him and his council and that there is real opposition to his administration. He did a controlled burst of ranting and letting off steam.
It would seem that he does not feel that it is helpful to involve the media in situations such as the Darringfield proposal and he criticised me for doing that.
By all accounts it all got pretty snarky.
Shame of it was that I was not there to see him doing his act. I was travelling on business and only had time to follow this through today.
Anyway after looking at the cabinet papers that he had referred to I penned the following which I then circulated as an open e letter to all members of the council.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Subject: Open Letter Cllr Box - Wakefield Metropolitan District Council and Eco Towns
Dear Councillor Box,
I have revisited the cabinet papers of 30th October and as a result have four simple questions for you.
Following the cabinets meeting of the 30th October, other than an agreement to endorse the options appraisal that WMDC should submit a Growth Point Status proposal for the Five Towns and your plans “for an urban extension” with up to 19,000 carbon neutral homes over ten years, there is no indication of any clear action to communicate your groups view on the Eco-Towns issue to government.
1 When, where and how did WMDC formally notify DCLG that it did not wish to participate in their Eco-Towns proposal and the Wakefield view that such a town could not be achieved within the existing spatial policy framework?
2 When the government advised WMDC on the 11th of January that there was a proposal for an Eco Town that had been put forward that impacted the eastern side of the district in Ward 13 why did WMDC, unlike other authorities take no action to inform or brief elected members or the people that could be impacted?
3 When on the 18th of January I specifically asked Cllr Jeffrey for information about the proposal for an Eco Town called Darringfield (a question submitted by email which was also copied to you) why did she wait two weeks before referring me to officers instead of finding out for herself?
4 I understand from colleagues that the Eco-Town matter and this councils opposition to it was only finally discussed in cabinet on the 12th of February in time for your press release on the 13th , why did you not act more decisively to resolve this, why was this scheduled for a point after the government had planned to shortlist?
Colleagues tell me that you were unhappy that the media became involved in this process and you criticised my actions in bringing this to their attention. It seems to me that but for John Grogan MP releasing the information and for Selby District briefing their elected members, the people of Wakefield would still be in the dark about this situation and only now can they start to comprehend the likely impact of an Eco-Town on the district if government chooses to overrule you. and if Housing Growth Point Status for the Five Towns is accepted.
You talk of open government and have several press officers at your disposal, I would have thought that if you had wished people to know about this situation in a more timely manner you could have done something about it.
Geoff Walsh,
Councillor - Pontefract South
Deputy Leader - Conservative Group WMDC
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If he had actually got his act together he would have found that we could have given him a lot of support.
In any case I am determined to see that folk on my patch get consulted and that the people of Wakefield are not let down by this lot.
This will go on and on until we get to the bottom of this fiasco.
He went on to tell the gathered council that the cabinet had already made this clear in October and if we (the opposition members) had read the papers we would have seen that.
He went on to do something that he is doing more and more as he starts to realise that people are keeping track of him and his council and that there is real opposition to his administration. He did a controlled burst of ranting and letting off steam.
It would seem that he does not feel that it is helpful to involve the media in situations such as the Darringfield proposal and he criticised me for doing that.
By all accounts it all got pretty snarky.
Shame of it was that I was not there to see him doing his act. I was travelling on business and only had time to follow this through today.
Anyway after looking at the cabinet papers that he had referred to I penned the following which I then circulated as an open e letter to all members of the council.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Subject: Open Letter Cllr Box - Wakefield Metropolitan District Council and Eco Towns
Dear Councillor Box,
I have revisited the cabinet papers of 30th October and as a result have four simple questions for you.
Following the cabinets meeting of the 30th October, other than an agreement to endorse the options appraisal that WMDC should submit a Growth Point Status proposal for the Five Towns and your plans “for an urban extension” with up to 19,000 carbon neutral homes over ten years, there is no indication of any clear action to communicate your groups view on the Eco-Towns issue to government.
1 When, where and how did WMDC formally notify DCLG that it did not wish to participate in their Eco-Towns proposal and the Wakefield view that such a town could not be achieved within the existing spatial policy framework?
2 When the government advised WMDC on the 11th of January that there was a proposal for an Eco Town that had been put forward that impacted the eastern side of the district in Ward 13 why did WMDC, unlike other authorities take no action to inform or brief elected members or the people that could be impacted?
3 When on the 18th of January I specifically asked Cllr Jeffrey for information about the proposal for an Eco Town called Darringfield (a question submitted by email which was also copied to you) why did she wait two weeks before referring me to officers instead of finding out for herself?
4 I understand from colleagues that the Eco-Town matter and this councils opposition to it was only finally discussed in cabinet on the 12th of February in time for your press release on the 13th , why did you not act more decisively to resolve this, why was this scheduled for a point after the government had planned to shortlist?
Colleagues tell me that you were unhappy that the media became involved in this process and you criticised my actions in bringing this to their attention. It seems to me that but for John Grogan MP releasing the information and for Selby District briefing their elected members, the people of Wakefield would still be in the dark about this situation and only now can they start to comprehend the likely impact of an Eco-Town on the district if government chooses to overrule you. and if Housing Growth Point Status for the Five Towns is accepted.
You talk of open government and have several press officers at your disposal, I would have thought that if you had wished people to know about this situation in a more timely manner you could have done something about it.
Geoff Walsh,
Councillor - Pontefract South
Deputy Leader - Conservative Group WMDC
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If he had actually got his act together he would have found that we could have given him a lot of support.
In any case I am determined to see that folk on my patch get consulted and that the people of Wakefield are not let down by this lot.
This will go on and on until we get to the bottom of this fiasco.
Tuesday 12 February 2008
Darringfield Update
Well we are still waiting for a definitive briefing from WMDC on Darringfield.
You may recall from an earlier post that I learned that we were not being told because the DCLG asked Wakefield not to.
The thing that concerns me is that whilst the people of Selby District are into active discussion about Willow Green and its implications the people in my district have not had the opportunity to look at the Darringfield proposal seriously, and there is very little local comment as a result.
Apparently there has been a discussion in Cabinet today and I am expecting a formal announcement from WMDC that whilst they are in favour of Growth Point status (see my last post about hats and stuff) they are opposed to the establishment of an Eco Town at Darrington.
It still remains to be seen why it has taken so long for them to react.
You may recall from an earlier post that I learned that we were not being told because the DCLG asked Wakefield not to.
The thing that concerns me is that whilst the people of Selby District are into active discussion about Willow Green and its implications the people in my district have not had the opportunity to look at the Darringfield proposal seriously, and there is very little local comment as a result.
Apparently there has been a discussion in Cabinet today and I am expecting a formal announcement from WMDC that whilst they are in favour of Growth Point status (see my last post about hats and stuff) they are opposed to the establishment of an Eco Town at Darrington.
It still remains to be seen why it has taken so long for them to react.
Friday 8 February 2008
Eat my hat part 2
Friday afternoon at 4pm in the Nelson Room at Pontefract about 25 local worthies Walsh included gathered to hear the conclusions of the Transport Consultation that was put on following our MP, the Minister getting caught out in an aspiration, rather than a commitment on the parlous state of the roads and traffic problems in Pontefract.
The meeting was Chaired by Trevor, the local councillor up for re-election in May and the Interim Director of Transportation and Highways came to talk with us. The MP arrived about 20minutes later and talked at us.
Firstly I must say that I was really impressed with Ian the Interim Director. Sensible and practical and got across to all his view that it was time to get something done.
This was the very first meeting that I have attended where it was admitted that Pontefract does not have a Transport Strategy which accounts for the reason why it has not been able to get any of the problems taken seriously. When it was suggested that the Pontefract Master plan has a Transport dimension, I had the opportunity to query and get agreement that the Master planning consultants did not have the budget to do anything.
I also asked where the funds would come from? I had hoped that the Minister would hang around to answer that one, but having blown in she blew out before I got the chance.
It was possible to get confirmation that something that I had heard was actually happening in that WMDC officers are having discussions with Department of Communities and Local Government (the Ministers former department before she moved over to the Treasury)with a view to making the Five Towns a DCLG Growth Point which would attract some infrastructure money.
For Growth Point read places where government gets to drop shed loads of new houses (possibly even Eco Houses), this very much tends to confirm my suspicions as to why people were keeping quiet about Darringfield, they want to be able to have a big headline on funding to pat away peoples objections about the areas critical infrastructure shortages.
Any way it looks like there will be a follow up meeting in June or July, I wonder if Trevor will chair that one?
Seems hardly likely if people actually work out what his administration are doing to the area!
Somebody reassured me, my hat is safe at least this year.
The meeting was Chaired by Trevor, the local councillor up for re-election in May and the Interim Director of Transportation and Highways came to talk with us. The MP arrived about 20minutes later and talked at us.
Firstly I must say that I was really impressed with Ian the Interim Director. Sensible and practical and got across to all his view that it was time to get something done.
This was the very first meeting that I have attended where it was admitted that Pontefract does not have a Transport Strategy which accounts for the reason why it has not been able to get any of the problems taken seriously. When it was suggested that the Pontefract Master plan has a Transport dimension, I had the opportunity to query and get agreement that the Master planning consultants did not have the budget to do anything.
I also asked where the funds would come from? I had hoped that the Minister would hang around to answer that one, but having blown in she blew out before I got the chance.
It was possible to get confirmation that something that I had heard was actually happening in that WMDC officers are having discussions with Department of Communities and Local Government (the Ministers former department before she moved over to the Treasury)with a view to making the Five Towns a DCLG Growth Point which would attract some infrastructure money.
For Growth Point read places where government gets to drop shed loads of new houses (possibly even Eco Houses), this very much tends to confirm my suspicions as to why people were keeping quiet about Darringfield, they want to be able to have a big headline on funding to pat away peoples objections about the areas critical infrastructure shortages.
Any way it looks like there will be a follow up meeting in June or July, I wonder if Trevor will chair that one?
Seems hardly likely if people actually work out what his administration are doing to the area!
Somebody reassured me, my hat is safe at least this year.
Tuesday 5 February 2008
And on it goes....
It looks very much like Darringfield has gone through to the next stage of Government assessment. Problem is that we are still waiting to be formally told by WMDC what they actually know about this.
Philip and I were invited in to meet the Deputy Leader of the ruling Labour group last night, unfortunately her schedule got in the way??
So as yet we are still waiting to find out what they know and what the council's position is on the Darringfield proposal. Meanwhile people are getting more and more concerned about where this is going.
Philip and I were invited in to meet the Deputy Leader of the ruling Labour group last night, unfortunately her schedule got in the way??
So as yet we are still waiting to find out what they know and what the council's position is on the Darringfield proposal. Meanwhile people are getting more and more concerned about where this is going.
Friday 1 February 2008
Why the silence?
Well actually it appears that the local council did not tell us about Darringfield because when they were told on the 11th of January, someone in the Department of Communities and Local Government asked them not to pass it on.
Thankfully if officers at Selby District were asked not to they chose to do the right thing and informed elected members, in any case Selby MP John Grogan issued a press release on the 15th of January and as people say further oop north "there was a rabbit away".
So why would a Labour controlled council, with a Labour Minister whose constituency is ground zero, who was then sponsoring Minister for Eco-Towns one of the first projects announced by the lovely Gordon, our new Labour Prime Minister and general good egg, not tell the people and elected members of Wakefield Metropolitan District Council about a proposal for a new town of up to 20000 new homes and 40,000+ new people, which if built could cause a collapse of a fragile infrastructure, an overcrowding of local roads and would mean that a new hospital that is not due to open until 2010 is already not fit for purpose?
Could it be the local elections in May?
Well your guess is probably as good as mine!
I may know more about this soon as Philip and I have been offered a briefing on Monday night.
Undoubtedly there is more to come on the saga of Darringfield and Eco-Towns.
Thankfully if officers at Selby District were asked not to they chose to do the right thing and informed elected members, in any case Selby MP John Grogan issued a press release on the 15th of January and as people say further oop north "there was a rabbit away".
So why would a Labour controlled council, with a Labour Minister whose constituency is ground zero, who was then sponsoring Minister for Eco-Towns one of the first projects announced by the lovely Gordon, our new Labour Prime Minister and general good egg, not tell the people and elected members of Wakefield Metropolitan District Council about a proposal for a new town of up to 20000 new homes and 40,000+ new people, which if built could cause a collapse of a fragile infrastructure, an overcrowding of local roads and would mean that a new hospital that is not due to open until 2010 is already not fit for purpose?
Could it be the local elections in May?
Well your guess is probably as good as mine!
I may know more about this soon as Philip and I have been offered a briefing on Monday night.
Undoubtedly there is more to come on the saga of Darringfield and Eco-Towns.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
