In May 2008 I was appointed as Chairman of one of the Licensing Authorities Sub Committees that administer the contested reviews and licensing applications under the Licensing Act 2003. The more time that I spend on Licensing issues, the more examples that I see of how the Act has made many peoples life much worse. Extended opening, drinks promotions, increasing noise nuisance issues linked to the smoking legislation all serve to impact the quality of peoples lives.
This week I am spending time with members of the Neighbourhood Policing team, looking at issues that they face and trying to get a sense of additional options to try to resolve some of the difficulties. If you wonder what I am on about the Home Office have a nice bit of night time reading here, with some surprisingly workable solutions.
The problem is that we need to build a real common purpose to get things sorted. I feel another new years resolution coming on.
Sunday, 25 October 2009
To the inquiry > Went Edge continued..
For the last two weeks a Government Inspector has been conducting an inquiry linked to Bank's Renewables appeal at the unanimous rejection of their application for 6 Industrial Wind Turbines on Went Edge one of our few remaining bits of Green Lung on the very edge of West Yorkshire.
Those who have been travelling with me over the last couple of years will have seen the process from a "consultation" in 2007 through to ultimate rejection by the Wakefield MDC Planning Committee earlier this year.
The appeal inquiry is taking place in Wakefield Town Hall and is getting to the point where the Inspector is to go out and walk the turf so to speak.
There have been cases made by Bank's legal team, three council representatives and our Barrister and the two action groups who have been working on this from more or less day one. Over the last week members of the public have been making their representations and on Friday I submitted a representation on line to the planning inspectorate, which Inspector's schedule allowing I hope to be able to speak to on Monday.
The Inspector will be visiting ground zero and various view points on Tuesday and will be hearing summaries on Wednesday. By the end of the week he should be retiring to write his report.
On balance I believe that the majority of real and well founded argument has come from the "Interested Parties" WMDC, PWAG and the West Park Action Group.
Banks have had some fumbles with one of their experts admitting that he had not visited the location until he had completed preparing his evidence. Then under question from the PWAG Barrister it became apparent that his evidences description of site location was wrong "to the east of Westfield lane" turns out he got his east and west mixed up and I think he may have had the map upside down.
I hope that the Inspector will have more than enough well founded objections to be able to recommend rejection. However on Friday all sides had to discuss conditions. This is plain wrong this is about what may be done to ameliorate the situation if the Minister decides to approve Bank's varied proposal for 5 x 125 metre turbines. I suggested that it might be a good idea if they could fit some sort of star wars cloaking device, but the flaw would be that the turbines will not generate enough reliable electricity to "switch on the cloaking device".
My representation on behalf of the community is here
I believe that the Inspectors report is due to be presented to the Minister in the Spring and three years on I hope we will be able to get on with our lives. Hopefully our MP will be able to get the point across to her colleagues that this is neither practical,viable or wanted.
Those who have been travelling with me over the last couple of years will have seen the process from a "consultation" in 2007 through to ultimate rejection by the Wakefield MDC Planning Committee earlier this year.
The appeal inquiry is taking place in Wakefield Town Hall and is getting to the point where the Inspector is to go out and walk the turf so to speak.
There have been cases made by Bank's legal team, three council representatives and our Barrister and the two action groups who have been working on this from more or less day one. Over the last week members of the public have been making their representations and on Friday I submitted a representation on line to the planning inspectorate, which Inspector's schedule allowing I hope to be able to speak to on Monday.
The Inspector will be visiting ground zero and various view points on Tuesday and will be hearing summaries on Wednesday. By the end of the week he should be retiring to write his report.
On balance I believe that the majority of real and well founded argument has come from the "Interested Parties" WMDC, PWAG and the West Park Action Group.
Banks have had some fumbles with one of their experts admitting that he had not visited the location until he had completed preparing his evidence. Then under question from the PWAG Barrister it became apparent that his evidences description of site location was wrong "to the east of Westfield lane" turns out he got his east and west mixed up and I think he may have had the map upside down.
I hope that the Inspector will have more than enough well founded objections to be able to recommend rejection. However on Friday all sides had to discuss conditions. This is plain wrong this is about what may be done to ameliorate the situation if the Minister decides to approve Bank's varied proposal for 5 x 125 metre turbines. I suggested that it might be a good idea if they could fit some sort of star wars cloaking device, but the flaw would be that the turbines will not generate enough reliable electricity to "switch on the cloaking device".
My representation on behalf of the community is here
I believe that the Inspectors report is due to be presented to the Minister in the Spring and three years on I hope we will be able to get on with our lives. Hopefully our MP will be able to get the point across to her colleagues that this is neither practical,viable or wanted.
Monday, 24 August 2009
Town Council for Pontefract?
In the 1970s at the point when the Yorkshire Ridings Councils were being wound up and in West Yorkshire the Metropolitan Districts came into being a number of ancient Borough Councils ceased to exist and were subsumed by the newly created Metropolitan District Council.
Smaller Townships remained but broadly on a Parish Council/Town Council basis. In the case of WMDC it continued to work from what had been the seat of regional government in Wakefield. The district was split up into 21 wards more or less equal in population and three councillors were elected for each ward. Pontefract as one of the larger historic towns because of its size and as a former Borough Council had six District Councillors and I became one of those in May 2006.
Over the last couple of years a local group of people have been striving to build up a head of steam to enable a review to see if the public wish to see the creation of a new Parish/Town council under the 2007 Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act, the potential outcome would be the creation of a new layer of administration with tax raising powers. This has now reached the point where a review is taking place to see if the Parish should be created which could then be called a Town Council.
So imagine my surprise to see a new item from Bill O'Brien, the secretary of the self styled Pontefract Forward group in the 13th August edition of the Pontefract & Castleford Express, especially so when I read what appears to be a complete about face on his part, let me first say that I agree completely with him that a Parish Council for a Town of the size and history of Pontefract is not appropriate and I welcome his desire for people to "object to it so that it does not happen" and that people should vote no when the voting slips arrive on your doormats over coming weeks.
On stepping aside as MP of Normanton so that Ed Balls could become an MP, he threw himself back into local politics and this big project of well over 18 months has raised peoples hopes, expectations and now because he triggered the public process outlined in the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, has generated a bill of several thousand pounds for Council Tax payers to meet. If he had really understood where he was taking people he would have realized that the outcome if successful could only initially result in Parish status.
Yes, he can get the name changed to Pontefract Town Council, yes the Chairman could be called a Mayor, yes there can be ceremonial activities and Mayoral regalia but what is created is not really a Mayoralty and whilst some people have signed up for it there are many who do not want the extra burden he has proposed. To set up an additional layer of administration and with tax raising powers but with the narrower powers of a Parish Council even if it is then called a Town Council with 20 Councillors does not make sense and I am glad he finally admits that he was wrong.
If Bill really does want to see the 1970's status quo returning to a time before he was a elected a Wakefield Councillor and future MP, the better path for him would be to use his contacts in government, perhaps to persuade Ed Balls or our MP to sponsor an Act of Parliament or lobby government for a charter for a council with broader powers, closer to that of a Borough Council.
Meanwhile people do want value for money, a sense that taxes are spent wisely and that Pontefract draws down its share of resources. The six existing Pontefract Councillors elected by the community need to get on and address problems and concerns, building positive change that takes account of local peoples needs and priorities so that they feel better about Pontefract and its future.
Smaller Townships remained but broadly on a Parish Council/Town Council basis. In the case of WMDC it continued to work from what had been the seat of regional government in Wakefield. The district was split up into 21 wards more or less equal in population and three councillors were elected for each ward. Pontefract as one of the larger historic towns because of its size and as a former Borough Council had six District Councillors and I became one of those in May 2006.
Over the last couple of years a local group of people have been striving to build up a head of steam to enable a review to see if the public wish to see the creation of a new Parish/Town council under the 2007 Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act, the potential outcome would be the creation of a new layer of administration with tax raising powers. This has now reached the point where a review is taking place to see if the Parish should be created which could then be called a Town Council.
So imagine my surprise to see a new item from Bill O'Brien, the secretary of the self styled Pontefract Forward group in the 13th August edition of the Pontefract & Castleford Express, especially so when I read what appears to be a complete about face on his part, let me first say that I agree completely with him that a Parish Council for a Town of the size and history of Pontefract is not appropriate and I welcome his desire for people to "object to it so that it does not happen" and that people should vote no when the voting slips arrive on your doormats over coming weeks.
On stepping aside as MP of Normanton so that Ed Balls could become an MP, he threw himself back into local politics and this big project of well over 18 months has raised peoples hopes, expectations and now because he triggered the public process outlined in the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, has generated a bill of several thousand pounds for Council Tax payers to meet. If he had really understood where he was taking people he would have realized that the outcome if successful could only initially result in Parish status.
Yes, he can get the name changed to Pontefract Town Council, yes the Chairman could be called a Mayor, yes there can be ceremonial activities and Mayoral regalia but what is created is not really a Mayoralty and whilst some people have signed up for it there are many who do not want the extra burden he has proposed. To set up an additional layer of administration and with tax raising powers but with the narrower powers of a Parish Council even if it is then called a Town Council with 20 Councillors does not make sense and I am glad he finally admits that he was wrong.
If Bill really does want to see the 1970's status quo returning to a time before he was a elected a Wakefield Councillor and future MP, the better path for him would be to use his contacts in government, perhaps to persuade Ed Balls or our MP to sponsor an Act of Parliament or lobby government for a charter for a council with broader powers, closer to that of a Borough Council.
Meanwhile people do want value for money, a sense that taxes are spent wisely and that Pontefract draws down its share of resources. The six existing Pontefract Councillors elected by the community need to get on and address problems and concerns, building positive change that takes account of local peoples needs and priorities so that they feel better about Pontefract and its future.
Thursday, 30 July 2009
Sad and thoughtful time
Two young men from Castleford have been killed in Afghanistan in recent days. Both leave loved ones in mourning with a sense of sadness and loss across the community. On Monday hundreds of people attended the service for Rifleman James Backhouse at Holy Cross Church in Airedale and thousands lined the streets of Castleford to show their respect. While the funeral for Rifleman Backhouse was taking place the news broke that Bombardier Craig Hopson, also from Castleford, was killed on Saturday in Helmand as he was out on patrol scouting out a suitable location for a polling station.
Update: Here is a link to article following the funeral for Craig Hopson. People displayed a whole range of emotions, with a strong degree of commitment to our armed forces personnel.
For those visitors who want to learn more about the British Legions work please go here.
Update: Here is a link to article following the funeral for Craig Hopson. People displayed a whole range of emotions, with a strong degree of commitment to our armed forces personnel.
For those visitors who want to learn more about the British Legions work please go here.
Thursday, 5 March 2009
UPDATED Went Edge wind farm application refused.
After two years of checks and reviews that planning committee met today to decide the application by Banks Developments for 6 industrial wind turbines each 125 metre high. There had been huge concern expressed across the community with over 2000 objections received from the villages and communities around Went Edge.
Officers recommended refusal and a number of people made representations on behalf of their communities and I spoke for people across the district and asked that it be rejected due to impact on the green belt, loss of visual amenity and overbearing impact on local communities.
The decision is in and it was a unanimous vote to refuse. Banks say they will appeal, I hope local democracy wins.
UPDATED.........
Banks have appealed and a Government Inspector has been appointed to prepare a report for submission to a Government Minister who will then decide. There is to be a public enquiry which the Inspector will hold in October. For more information please follow this link to PWAG.
Officers recommended refusal and a number of people made representations on behalf of their communities and I spoke for people across the district and asked that it be rejected due to impact on the green belt, loss of visual amenity and overbearing impact on local communities.
The decision is in and it was a unanimous vote to refuse. Banks say they will appeal, I hope local democracy wins.
UPDATED.........
Banks have appealed and a Government Inspector has been appointed to prepare a report for submission to a Government Minister who will then decide. There is to be a public enquiry which the Inspector will hold in October. For more information please follow this link to PWAG.
Budget Day dawned
Monday afternoon at 2pm the Full Council sat to review and hopefully approve a budget. The ruling Labour Group were proposing a 3.8% increase. We did not agree, they won the day with the backing of Lib/Dems and Independents and the people of the district will pick up the bill.
We tabled an alternative where funds were taken from reserves to underwrite the budget proposal which would have reduced the bill to a 1.8% increase, our view is that reserves are for a difficult times and we knew of initiatives under way that would recover the monies used.
We tabled an alternative where funds were taken from reserves to underwrite the budget proposal which would have reduced the bill to a 1.8% increase, our view is that reserves are for a difficult times and we knew of initiatives under way that would recover the monies used.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
