Tuesday, 12 February 2013
Friday, 8 February 2013
Wednesday, 6 February 2013
Monday, 4 February 2013
Letter to Thetford and Brandon in relation to Thetford Area Action Plan
The recent legal efforts on behalf of Shadwell Estate against Breckland Council would have surely passed by many in our town. But for those that have been involved, or merely watching the process known as the Thetford Area Action Plan (TAAP) or ‘Growth Point’ generally, there is now fading hope that growth will materialise in the way that many people had initially anticipated.
Shadwell challenged Breckland in the courts over the Thetford Area Action Plan with the support of a majority of Thetford Town Councillors. Not surprisingly the Conservative members of the Council would not go against the District Council – putting the interests of Breckland ahead of the Town, not for the first time. The primary issue that was challenged was in relation to the Stone Curlew and the bizarre fact that house building is being prevented towards the south of the town due to the presence of the Stone Curlew – a protected bird. This was despite evidence of stone curlews nesting in other locations, on land set to be built on no less, and a belief that the whole process was so unfair. But so what? Why should the town of Thetford be so concerned about this? If the houses are built on one piece of land or another, they will still be built. Two reasons really; if the new houses that we are to receive as a town are so grouped together in one area they will surely be more prone to becoming their own isolated community, not an integrated and mutually beneficial part of Thetford. The greater the new housing is spread around the town, and the greater the focus is on regenerating areas for housing, the greater the benefits for Thetford. Personally, I would have loved to have challenged the plan on its complete failure to deliver the meaningful regeneration of the existing areas of Thetford that so badly need it, or the support for our High Street that is yet to materialise.
For all this talk about localism and giving power back to local communities, it is clear from this episode that, to a very large extent, communities can still be dictated to by authorities like Breckland where there is little opposition. With their massive majority of 47 Councillors out of a total of 54, it’s no wonder that Breckland feel so able to charge around doing whatever they like with little concern. I sincerely hope that one day people will realise that their opportunity to change the outlook for our town comes but once every 4 years – when all 54 District Council seats are up for election. This is no desperate plea to vote Labour, but majorities of whatever party are not healthy – vote Labour, or Green, or Lib Dem, or Independent, or Monster Raving Looney Party if you must, but the only way Breckland, and therefore Thetford will be governed in a more democratic and sympathetic way will be when those that have power, appreciate what they have been given to a greater extent and fear that they might one day lose it.
Shadwell challenged Breckland in the courts over the Thetford Area Action Plan with the support of a majority of Thetford Town Councillors. Not surprisingly the Conservative members of the Council would not go against the District Council – putting the interests of Breckland ahead of the Town, not for the first time. The primary issue that was challenged was in relation to the Stone Curlew and the bizarre fact that house building is being prevented towards the south of the town due to the presence of the Stone Curlew – a protected bird. This was despite evidence of stone curlews nesting in other locations, on land set to be built on no less, and a belief that the whole process was so unfair. But so what? Why should the town of Thetford be so concerned about this? If the houses are built on one piece of land or another, they will still be built. Two reasons really; if the new houses that we are to receive as a town are so grouped together in one area they will surely be more prone to becoming their own isolated community, not an integrated and mutually beneficial part of Thetford. The greater the new housing is spread around the town, and the greater the focus is on regenerating areas for housing, the greater the benefits for Thetford. Personally, I would have loved to have challenged the plan on its complete failure to deliver the meaningful regeneration of the existing areas of Thetford that so badly need it, or the support for our High Street that is yet to materialise.
For all this talk about localism and giving power back to local communities, it is clear from this episode that, to a very large extent, communities can still be dictated to by authorities like Breckland where there is little opposition. With their massive majority of 47 Councillors out of a total of 54, it’s no wonder that Breckland feel so able to charge around doing whatever they like with little concern. I sincerely hope that one day people will realise that their opportunity to change the outlook for our town comes but once every 4 years – when all 54 District Council seats are up for election. This is no desperate plea to vote Labour, but majorities of whatever party are not healthy – vote Labour, or Green, or Lib Dem, or Independent, or Monster Raving Looney Party if you must, but the only way Breckland, and therefore Thetford will be governed in a more democratic and sympathetic way will be when those that have power, appreciate what they have been given to a greater extent and fear that they might one day lose it.
Sunday, 3 February 2013
My thoughts on car parking charges & that 7.8% proposed Council Tax increase
I don't like paying tax. Who does? I argue constantly against increasing Council Tax at meetings of Thetford Town Councils Finance Committee - a significant number of people that I represent have little spare cash and Council Tax bills represent a big chunk of total monthly expenditure for many. You may be surprised therefore that I have discussed with my Labour colleagues on Breckland and agreed that we should support the proposed increase in Breckland's share of the Council Tax. As I explained to the EDP, it is a necessary measure to avoid a level of cuts across the District that would be very severe. Percentages can be a tad misleading, as a 7.8% increase whilst it sounds a lot - against a backdrop of "freezing Council tax" or rises "capped at 2%" - will still only equate to a yearly rise of £4.98 for a Band D property. Many Norfolk and Suffolk Districts already charge over £100 per property, so the Breckland level still represents good value, and I do not believe in cheap party political point scoring so I will not criticise the Councils Conservative administration for this. However, can you imagine if there was a Labour Government in charge at the moment? Every Council up and down the country, Breckland included, would be complaining constantly about the "Labour Government" and their cuts to essential Council services. We do not have a Labour Government currently, we have a Conservative led one, and their cuts to Councils have been absolutely extreme - a level unimaginable under a Labour Government. This has forced Councils to make cuts to services that many would have regarded as untouchable. Is there widespread criticism from Conservative Councils? of course not, although some have broken ranks and spoken out. Some still keep peddling the absolute nonsense that "this is all Labours fault" - a line that fades ever more as we move away from the 2010 election and the myth slowly unravels.
For all the noise about "Breckland listening" and "showing leadership"(George Freeman MP) in relation to car parking charges, it is clear that this decision is thanks to the people. Breckland Labour Group teamed up with hundreds of local residents, businesses and other organisations to co-ordinate a petition that attracted over 15,000 signatures. Watton Chamber of Trade collected over 5,000 in addition to this. That's over 20,000 opposing the introduction of car parking charges - that's more than voted Conservative in the May 2011 elections in Breckland. It would have been electoral suicide for Breckland to introduce car parking charges - and they know it, which is why it was abandoned.
Comments to EDP in full: "I am delighted with the news regarding car parking charges. This is something the Breckland labour group fought very strongly for as this would have a massive detrimental effect on our towns. It is disappointing that so much money and time was wasted on such an ill-conceived idea. The level of council tax increase proposed will be disappointing for many, but it was something that was consulted upon and it is a necessary measure to prevent even further cuts to essential services. The way in which this Conservative led government is starving local councils of vital funds whilst granting a tax cut to millionaires is frankly outrageous."
A critique of Norfolk Conservatives from somebody that knows them well....
Fascinating comments regarding Norfolk Tories on my Facebook page. This is from a lady that used to know them very well:
Margaret Eastham: "Came in at the end Mike, my spies having been there all day. Met Bert Bremner who looked shell shocked and asked whether I could have ever guessed it was that bad. Oh yes! You have to be in the thick of it to see how they work. I wouldn't spit on most Tory Councillors if they were on fire and I was Chloe Smith's agent in the General Election. Take that as you wish. I would vote for my Tory MP but the days of voting for these ghastly specimens are over. Not one of them (save for John Dobson) objected to Murphy's behaviour when he was riding roughshod over the whole of Norfolk. Now that he has been uncovered many of them are squeaking about how awful he is. Too little too late".
Mike Brindle: "The Tories are interested in power; most of the rest of us are interested in providing services, and that includes most Independents. I admire what you have done, Margaret: we need more people in politics with principles like you".
17 hours ago · Like
Margaret Eastham: "My father served the Crown abroad in a position far senior to that of an MP. Throughout my young life it was continually instilled in me that the higher up the ladder you climb the more of a servant you become. My father considered himself throughout his working life to be a servant of the people. The difference between his attitude and that of the Tory Councillors, not just at County level is marked and very worrying. Good luck to all those standing in May and my earnest hope is that the poison in County Hall will be lanced".
Saturday, 2 February 2013
The 100 day countdown....
For those of you that follow me on Facebook you will no doubt be aware that I am counting down the 100 days to the Norfolk County Council elections by posting something relevant each day, it's a bit like an advert calendar for the election - but with no chocolate as your reward! I think most people have found it quite interesting so far. I will collate the Facebook posts in groups of 10 and post here on this blog for you to see, so here's days 99 - 90.
there's now just 99 days to go until the Norfolk County Council elections; I'm very much hoping that you will support myself and Brenda Canham in those elections to become your Norfolk County Councillors for Thetford - to make sure that you are able to use your vote, how about signing up to vote by post? you might be busy on polling day, away on holday, unwell or at work - anybody can now vote by post! Just visit www.aboutmyvote.co.uk - it's so simple! Let me know if you want further info
just 98 days to go until the Norfolk County Council elections..... there are two County Council seats for Thetford, do you know which one you live in???? Thetford-West is the whole of the Barnham Cross area South of the river, running up and including Redcastle Estate, over the river to include Abbey Estate, Monksgate area, Liberty Gardens and Ladies Estate - and everything in between all of those areas - it's a huge area, approximately 8-9,000 voters - can I count on your support?
Just 97 days to go until the Norfolk County Council elections - following on from yesterday's post - Thetford East Ward contains the whole of the Town Centre, Redgate etc and the whole of Cloverfields, Norwich Road Estate, Fairfields and Woodlands - make sure you are registered to vote and consider applying to vote by post for the election on 2nd May 2013
96 days until the Norfolk County Council elections; do you know where your polling station is in Thetford? There's 9 in total!
95 days to go until Norfolk County Council elections; today I've been with Labour colleagues from across Norfolk discussing everyone's priorities for the upcoming election- what do you think should be the priorities for Thetford that myself and Brenda Canham fight for should we be elected??? Let us know!!
94 days to go until the Norfolk County Council elections and I thought I would share with you the results from the last time these seats were up for election: May 2009, Lib Dem - 934 votes, Conservative - 882, Labour (Terry Jermy) - 706. Turnout just 27.49% of all registered voters. So as you can see I've got a fight ahead of me to get myself elected and I will really be counting on the support of each and every one of you x
93 days to go until the Norfolk County Council elections; Thought I would share with you the election results for Thetford-East from 2009. Conservative: 1036 votes, Lib Dem: 665 and Labour - Brenda Canham - 387 votes - turnout was just 29.84% for this ward last time - so you can see that Brenda has quite a challenge to win, both Brenda and myself will need all of your support come polling day on Thursday 2nd May 2013, and in the weeks leading up to it
Day 92 was a very busy day: went to Dereham in the morning to discuss the Council ward boundaries - which are being reviewed, anyone got any thoughts? And then last night was full meeting of Thetford Town Council - lots of issues discussed. Conservative candidate for Thetford-West was present again in the audience - nice of him to make the trip from his home in Attleborough to attend #justsaying hehe
Day 91; do you know the political composition of Norfolk County Council??? There's 84 Councillors in total representing the whole of Norfolk. 62 of them are currently Conservative, 9 are Lib Dem, 6 are Green, 5 are Labour and there is 1 Ukip. That's right - 62 out of 84 are Tories!!! Time for a bit more of a balance don't ya think??? Remember that come May 2nd! X
90 days to go until the Norfolk wide elections; do you know who your current Norfolk County Councillor is???
Monday, 21 January 2013
Just 100 days to go until the Norfolk County Council elections...!!!
With just 100 days to go until the election, I am pleased to announce that I have been selected to be the Labour Party candidate to contest the Thetford-West Division of Norfolk County Council. I am also pleased that Brenda Canham has been selected to contest Thetford-East. The election takes place on Thursday 2nd May 2013. I would like to get elected to Norfolk County Council to provide a strong voice for Thetford on a variety of really important issues including roads & transportation, children & youth services including education, adult social care and adult education to name but a few. Over the next 100 days I hope to give lots of updates about the campaign, and details about our pledges for Thetford. The important question is; Can you help?! This will be a hard task! There are approximately 16,000 voters in Thetford which is a lot of people to talk to and a lot of leaflets to deliver. If you can help with leaflet delivery, would like to display a poster, convince your neighbours and family to vote – let me know! Will you be supporting us? If so, please sign up to vote by post now! I am hoping to build a team of people to help get myself and Brenda elected - we can only do this with your support, let the campaign commence!! x
Saturday, 19 January 2013
Views of Barnham Cross - 17th January 2013
Have been rather ill this week, but was glad to be feeling better by Thursday so that myself and Angus could take the dog for a walk around the Barnham Cross area to enjoy the snowy scenes and get some pictures. Christmas card photos for next year sorted already! haha
Sunday, 6 January 2013
Fasinating views posted online re: Moving Thetford Forward
Views from a resident of Thetford posted online recently;
Just after Christmas, I posted several questions on here concerning Breckland Council, Moving Thetford Forward and its relation with Thetford Town Council. Several people have commented including present day Councillors ie Terry Jermy, Corinne Fulford, Mike Brindle and Robert Kybird. Only Robert can really answer the questions in fairness, as he was, as far as I can make out, the only Councillor involved with all the three Boards mentioned above.
I haven't really had any answers. Remember we are talking way back and,so therefore, have had to draw my own conclusions, which are these. And apologies if they are so obvious but it needs to be said.
1. The representatives hand-picked to form MTF were all yes men.
2. Robert cannot show any minutes as there are not any for public view. As one person involved at the time said to me 'Jane, if you wanted to know something, you had a private chat with them. If you did not agree - tough. There was nothing you could do'. Hence nothing was minuted in the TTC minutes.
3. Because it was a different era then, ie no Facebook involvement or Twitter for that matter and certainly not the transparency we have today, they must have had a field day. They decided how to spend, originally nine million pounds and then reduced to seven, all that money on Thetford; the majority of them not living anywhere near; and certainly not with their hearts in the right place.
4. I cannot find any breakdown of the costs of any of the developments that MTF have decided upon. King Street, Haling Path, The Bus Station et al. Are they ,locked behind closed doors too?
5. They had NO OPPOSITION.
Enough already. I am just about containing my anger. As I say, it was different then but we have not got to allow this to happen again. There is nothing we can do about the above, BUT we can do something now. We have another two years before TTC Councillors come up for election. I say to the present Councillors, with the greatest respect, if you are not there for the right reasons, if you are not willing to be transparent in your dealings, if you are quite happy just to sit and not use your voice, then maybe you should consider coming off. I do not wish to appear rude but times , they are a'changing.
If any other the above is wrong, then correct me. Share comments that you see on Facebook with your friends. I hate the word 'proactive' because it sounds like a margarine, but that is what we have to be, in my very humble opinion! We have to change as well.
Just after Christmas, I posted several questions on here concerning Breckland Council, Moving Thetford Forward and its relation with Thetford Town Council. Several people have commented including present day Councillors ie Terry Jermy, Corinne Fulford, Mike Brindle and Robert Kybird. Only Robert can really answer the questions in fairness, as he was, as far as I can make out, the only Councillor involved with all the three Boards mentioned above.
I haven't really had any answers. Remember we are talking way back and,so therefore, have had to draw my own conclusions, which are these. And apologies if they are so obvious but it needs to be said.
1. The representatives hand-picked to form MTF were all yes men.
2. Robert cannot show any minutes as there are not any for public view. As one person involved at the time said to me 'Jane, if you wanted to know something, you had a private chat with them. If you did not agree - tough. There was nothing you could do'. Hence nothing was minuted in the TTC minutes.
3. Because it was a different era then, ie no Facebook involvement or Twitter for that matter and certainly not the transparency we have today, they must have had a field day. They decided how to spend, originally nine million pounds and then reduced to seven, all that money on Thetford; the majority of them not living anywhere near; and certainly not with their hearts in the right place.
4. I cannot find any breakdown of the costs of any of the developments that MTF have decided upon. King Street, Haling Path, The Bus Station et al. Are they ,locked behind closed doors too?
5. They had NO OPPOSITION.
Enough already. I am just about containing my anger. As I say, it was different then but we have not got to allow this to happen again. There is nothing we can do about the above, BUT we can do something now. We have another two years before TTC Councillors come up for election. I say to the present Councillors, with the greatest respect, if you are not there for the right reasons, if you are not willing to be transparent in your dealings, if you are quite happy just to sit and not use your voice, then maybe you should consider coming off. I do not wish to appear rude but times , they are a'changing.
If any other the above is wrong, then correct me. Share comments that you see on Facebook with your friends. I hate the word 'proactive' because it sounds like a margarine, but that is what we have to be, in my very humble opinion! We have to change as well.
Sunday, 16 December 2012
Christmas Newsletter 2012 (page 1 - 5)
Use the link below to view a copy of my 2012 Christmas Newsletter;
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-vSuqEZvPHmUjBYZHJLQy11Tmc/edit
Saturday, 15 December 2012
Friday, 7 December 2012
Sale of Breckland land at MacKenzie Road - notes from Overview & Scrutiny Commission meeting; 29th November 2012
This item has been called-in at the request of the Ward Representative on the grounds that it is a controversial matter and it is important that the proposal to take the matter forward is carefully considered - further scrutiny of the options would hopefully confirm that this proposal from Council officers is the best solution for the problem and that the authority would be acting with the wider interests of the local community at the forefront of its considerations.
The following documents are attached for information:
Copy of the Executive Decision Notice as published and called-in
Copy of the report
Minutes:
The Chairman asked the Vice-Chairman to introduce this matter as he had ‘called in’ the decision. A note outlining the reasons for the call-in had been tabled. The Vice-Chairman advised that Councillor Armes had been dealing with the issue as Ward Member and he asked her to speak on behalf of residents.
Mrs Armes explained that the problem had commenced in 2010 and she had become involved following her election as one of the Ward Members for Saxon Ward in 2011.
As no Commission Members had visited the site she passed round photographs to give a sense of the area of dispute. This formed part of a piece of wooded land belonging to Breckland Council on which ‘Mr R’ had been parking his cars. At times access to two footpaths had been blocked.
Mrs Armes asked why enforcement action had not been taken at an early stage. She considered that the Authority had not been sufficiently strong in preventing misuse of its land. If that land was now sold at auction she believed it would set a dangerous precedent. There was little amenity space in the area and the woodland was much used by residents. If the land was sold she thought other residents might apply to purchase parts of the land to extend their gardens.
She reiterated that it would be wrong to auction the land and to continue to allow its use for parking. She suggested a site visit.
The Vice-Chairman said that it was clear that there were a number of issues in the area which were complicated by neighbour disputes. There were two principle issues:
had the misuse of the land been addressed robustly enough; and
was an auction the fair way to deal with disputed land?
He had called the matter in because he thought it would set a precedent and because he knew that residents did not feel that it had been enforced properly and that the sale was just to resolve the dispute. On the contrary, he thought that the sale would escalate the problem and be a tacit endorsement of the misuse if sold to the person flouting the law. It was also unfair as there was no regard to the ability to pay.
If it was the Council’s approach to dealing with members of the public who abused Council land not to protect that land, what was to stop abuse of further areas of land? Would future enforcement action be compromised? He thought it was important to debate the Council’s responsibility for protecting public land.
The Chairman noted that the Council did not get involved in neighbour disputes and that it was the issue of selling the land that was to be debated.
The Executive Member for Assets & Strategic Development sought to put the matter into context. He said that the Council owned over 5000 pieces of land in Breckland. The unfortunate Land Management Officer had the onerous job of controlling those 5000 pieces of land.
The Active Land Management exercise had identified a lot of encroachment which had not always been known about before. The piece of land under discussion was designated open space. It could not be sold for any other purpose, so any applications for extensions to gardens would not receive planning permission for change of use.
The Land Management Officer gave some background information. The encroachment was on a small part of a relatively large area of land. When a complaint had been received the internal encroachment procedure had been initiated and external legal advice had been sought.
The recommendation by officers to Members had been to dispose of the small piece of encroached land as it had no strategic importance to the Council and was protected as open space. It had minimal value and its sale would relieve the Council of management and maintenance responsibilities. Under the Active Land Management scheme the Council was seeking to dispose of land identified as having no strategic value.
The Asset & Property Manager confirmed that the enforcement option had been considered but would have been a very costly route both in management time and cost resources. It was a small piece of land with nominal market value, designated as open space and with no strategic value but high management cost. He urged the Commission to consider carefully that if it was retained and enforcement action taken that would come at a price. The pragmatic and business like solution was to dispose of the liability giving equal opportunities to bidders to purchase it.
The Executive Member for Assets & Strategic Development noted that in paragraph 1.3 of the report it referred to an easement by prescription which meant that even if enforcement action was taken Mr R might retain the right to park on the land.
Mr Bambridge sought confirmation that if the land was sold public access to footpaths could not be blocked and the land could not be fenced. It was confirmed that without planning permission for change of use fencing could not be erected.
Mr Carter thought that the land did have a value and that selling it would just shift the responsibility and cost.
Councillor Bowes asked if it would set a precedent if the land was sold and asked if other pieces of land had been sold by auction. The Executive Member for Assets & Strategic Development said that some land was being sold as people made applications. Other land had been transferred to Parish Councils at nil consideration. Some people had attempted to register land with the Land Registry because they had fenced it. It was a very difficult job for the Land Management Officer.
The Chairman was concerned that even if the land was sold, the Council might be required to take enforcement action if Mr R continued to park on it as it would be a breach of planning law. The Executive Member disagreed, saying Mr R would not require planning permission to park his cars if he had a prescriptive right. He went on to say that he made a lot of delegated decisions and he considered each one carefully. He had thought that selling the land was the best option in this case.
The Vice-Chairman sympathised about the number of pieces of land and the problems associated with them. However, in this case the residents had approached the Council for support in protecting the land and had not received it. The lack of action had increased the cost.
He was saddened by the language used; saying the land had no strategic value when it was obviously valuable to the residents. The Council had a duty to protect Public Open Space. The prescriptive right had not been determined. The real issue was that there had been encroachment onto Council land and nothing had been done about it.
Mr Bambridge was concerned that the purchaser of the land could apply to move the Rights of Way but it was confirmed that the footpaths did not actually cross the land.
Mrs Jolly noted that although the land to be sold was very small it formed part of a much larger area which might have future strategic value as a ransom strip.
Mrs Matthews wondered why the problem had only come to light now if the parking had been taking place for 20 years.
The Chairman thought that the nub of the issue was that the recommendation was based on there being a ‘likely’ prescriptive easement. He did not think a decision should be taken without unequivocal evidence. It was clear that the land did have importance to the people in that part of Thetford. If there was no prescriptive right and the land was sold and the owner stopped public use it would be a problem for the Council.
Mr Kybird agreed and said that the factory site to the rear had potential as a redevelopment site which enhanced the land’s strategic value in terms of providing additional access to that site possibly by a cycle way in future.
Mr R Richmond completely agreed. Mr Joel asked what alternatives were available.
The Scrutiny Officer advised that the Commission could recommend that the decision maker reconsidered their decision or refer the matter to Council.
The Land Management Officer advised that the correct process had been followed regarding enforcement and legal advice had been sought. She could only give advice on the information she had been sent. That information was limited and had been supplied by the complainant. The amount of years that the land had been used as a car park was not known. The Solicitors acting for Mr R said that they believed he had a prescribed right. They had not provided any evidence.
The Chairman asked the two Ward Members what evidence they had and Mrs Armes advised that Mr R had lived in the house for 13 years but she could not say how long he had used the land.
Mr Rogers proposed that the matter be deferred and Mr R asked to produce evidence. Mr Kybird said that Mr R would have to prove that he had encroached on every piece of the land.
The Executive Member explained that the Council had no legal right to ask Mr R to prove his prescriptive right.
Members debated the possibility of taking enforcement action or of putting in posts to restrict access to the land. It was pointed out that they were likely to lead to costs for the Council. Another suggestion was to offer the land to the Town Council, but the Land Management Officer advised that the Town Council were unwilling to assume responsibility for land with any encumbrances.
The Vice-Chairman seconded Mr Roger’s proposal to defer the application and the Executive Member was happy with that and hoped that the necessary information would be forthcoming.
RESOLVED to defer the decision and delay the sale until the matter could be reconsidered with more evidence on the period of time that the land had been used by Mr R at the next meeting of the Commission.
Thursday, 6 December 2012
Problems along Elm Road thanks to work by BT
Dear Norfolk County Council Officer
I hope you are well.
As you will be aware I have been complaining about the state of the pathways around Elm Road for sometime. Imagine my suprise therefore when lorries turned up to work on the pavement along Elm Road. I enquired and found out however that they were from BT and would be digging up the area for pipework to be installed/replaced.
Do they need to notify NCC in advance of such action? what arrangements are in place to notify residents in advance?
Whilst the confusion that ensued at the start of the work receeded, myself and other residents are particularly disappointed at the finished pathway - see attached photographs.
The area looks a complete mess, with the pathway looking very messy, loose chippings, and the road itself still with loose bits of tarmac and the road not adequately cleaned in my opinion (Sand that was used for the works was just dumped straight onto the road).
Does NCC have a view in relation to this? and to what extent can you request that they come back to tidy the area sufficiently?
Terry
Thursday, 29 November 2012
Land dispute at MacKenzie Road
There have been disputes between neighbours regarding the plantation near to MacKenzie Road for a number of years. Various Councillors have been involved at one stage or another and the issue has seen many twists and turns.
For me, there are two principle issues that should concern Councillors, and in particular members of the Overview & Scrutiny Commission.
These two issues are;
1. Was the approach by officers to addressing the misuse of the land sufficiently robust? And naturally linked to this, is the Breckland policy on enforcement in relation to misuse of public land adequate?
2. Is it correct that where there is disputed land of this nature; is a sale by auction the most appropriate, and fair way to deal with the issue?
To many people, certainly in the minds of residents of MacKenzie Road, this situation will appear as if it is a case of Breckland Council “washing its hands” of its responsibility to protect publicly owned land from misuse. This belief is further compounded by the seeming desire of the Council to pass on the ownership of the land, and therefore transfer the issues, to the highest bidder in an auction.
Should the land be sold, the disputes between the neighbours would not be resolved. Should either one of them be the winning the bidder – the issues would surely escalate?
Is there not a tacit endorsement of the misuse that’s occurred by not only failing to address the misuse, but also potentially formalising that misuse should the land be sold to the person that has been flouting the law thus far. There is seemingly no regard for either party’s ability to pay, and therefore the unfairness of the action that has been proposed.
The most concerning aspect of this whole situation, and approach to dealing with it, would surely be the precedent that it sets. I.e. A member of the public misuses a piece of publicly owned land and the Council tasked with protecting it chooses not to address this. What’s to stop that resident from acquiring that particular section of land, and then repeating the misuse further along, potentially acquiring further portions of land. To what extent would future enforcement action in this area be undermined by the approach that has been adopted?
Wednesday, 21 November 2012
Tuesday, 13 November 2012
Flagship Housing letter re: garage issues
To, Chief Executive, Flagship Housing Group
Increasingly, I am being forced to contact Flagship staff to report concerns relating to Flagship owned garage blocks across Thetford.
Recently I reported concerns regarding a garage in the Fir Road block that was once more full of rubbish – after only recently being set on fire, and also reported the presence of a gas cylinder on the roof of one garage further along – photographs attached of both examples.
Whilst I can commend the response of your officers when dealing with specifically reported matters, this should not need to occur with such frequency. Surely there should be a more pro-active plan in place to ensure that garage blocks that you are responsible for are regularly checked and any concerns addressed?
There is also a much wider issue here however, and that concerns the long term future of these garage blocks as there has been a very evident decline in their condition over the past 12 months.
Whilst I can appreciate that in many cases the garage blocks are destined to become housing developments, (having myself been involved in the Barnham Cross Regeneration Steering Group for the past 6 years), there is little prospect that anything will change in the short-term due to budget cuts, particularly with regard to cuts at the Homes & Communities Agency. Leaving the garages to fester for this length of time is simply not an option.
I would urge Flagship to look very seriously at the issue of garage blocks across Thetford and work with the local community and to think outside the box to establish a solution to help keep them cleaner, tidier, and safer for all local residents.
Yours sincerely,
Councillor Terry Jermy
Increasingly, I am being forced to contact Flagship staff to report concerns relating to Flagship owned garage blocks across Thetford.
Recently I reported concerns regarding a garage in the Fir Road block that was once more full of rubbish – after only recently being set on fire, and also reported the presence of a gas cylinder on the roof of one garage further along – photographs attached of both examples.
Whilst I can commend the response of your officers when dealing with specifically reported matters, this should not need to occur with such frequency. Surely there should be a more pro-active plan in place to ensure that garage blocks that you are responsible for are regularly checked and any concerns addressed?
There is also a much wider issue here however, and that concerns the long term future of these garage blocks as there has been a very evident decline in their condition over the past 12 months.
Whilst I can appreciate that in many cases the garage blocks are destined to become housing developments, (having myself been involved in the Barnham Cross Regeneration Steering Group for the past 6 years), there is little prospect that anything will change in the short-term due to budget cuts, particularly with regard to cuts at the Homes & Communities Agency. Leaving the garages to fester for this length of time is simply not an option.
I would urge Flagship to look very seriously at the issue of garage blocks across Thetford and work with the local community and to think outside the box to establish a solution to help keep them cleaner, tidier, and safer for all local residents.
Yours sincerely,
Councillor Terry Jermy
Monday, 12 November 2012
Redcastle School fence saga - letter to County Hall
To, Director of Education, Norfolk County Council
I wish to write and formally complain regarding the recent actions of Redcastle Family School and its Headmaster – Dr Andrew Sheppard.
For many years a section of the school field that has been unused by the school has been enjoyed by local residents – partly as an area for residents to walk their dogs and partly used by young people from the Redcastle community as recreational land. There is a distinct lack of green space available locally due to the high density of housing around Redcastle so this piece of land has been greatly valued and appreciated.
In addition to this, the land in question surrounds the Thetford Community Ballpark and therefore it is important strategically to gain access to the site for things such as grass cutting equipment, emergency access and a route for other vehicles needing to service the site.
The School recently installed a new fence to block off access to the top half of the field (the side closest to the school). Although there was no consultation with the community, or the Ballpark committee this action seemed somewhat logical and many people just went along with it.
Local people then became aware that the school intended to fence off the lower half of the field as well and prevent access entirely. Myself and several other Councillors raised concerns directly with the school about this having been contacted by numerous local residents expressing concerns.
Councillors asked for a meeting with Dr Sheppard to discuss the proposals and asked for more community consultation to occur. Despite our objections, the school rapidly progressed with these proposals and the fence was erected within days.
This has created considerable upset and anger around the wider community and does little to improve the school’s reputation in the community. The erection of the fence has also caused users of the Ballpark considerable challenges as there is now no way to retrieve footballs that go out of the Ballpark enclosure – the schools suggestion of collecting stray footballs the morning after by visiting the caretaker is completely unworkable.
The three community football coaching sessions delivered by the Thetford Community Association have been totally undermined by this action and their request for a key to the new gate to enable football collection to occur during the sessions has been denied. Further, at times when sessions occur the coaches are able to prevent young people from attempting to climb the fence, but at all other times, young people are left with a choice of attempting to climb the fence or likely to lose their football – many naturally attempt to climb the fence which creates a very real health and safety issue. In addition to this, our volunteers who keep the Ballpark site clear of rubbish etc. are now no longer able to access the field area to pick up any litter that may blow onto the field and the area will inevitably deteriorate visually. We are currently not sure how maintenance machinery, including grass cutters etc will be able to access the site – presumably a key will be granted, or we will be “let-in” when convenient.
From a Ballpark Management Committee point of view, they were not informed that fences that were erected by and paid for by the charity would be removed by the school and replaced with alternatives that they felt were more appropriate.
All of this results in a very bad feeling. There is no burning need for the school for this piece of land and there is ample space for the school, Ballpark and wider community to work alongside each other. The lack of respect and courtesy afforded to the schools’ neighbours – both the Ballpark committee and the wider community has been deplorable. At a time when schools are being encouraged to be more engaged with their community, when the ‘extended schools’ concept is being promoted, and when this aspect of school life is increasingly a part of Ofsted considerations, this action is clearly a retrograde step for the school.
I have invited local residents to view this letter and sign to say if they support its content. Names of those supporting the letter and therefore the complaint have been attached.
Yours sincerely,
Councillor Terry Jermy
Saxon Ward Councillor & Member of Thetford Community Association
Monday, 5 November 2012
Planning Meeting report re: Supermarkets
REVIEW OF BRECKLAND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING THAT DISCUSSED THE
TWO SUPERMARKET APPLICATIONS FOR THETFORD
It was of course inevitable that at some time there would be a major planning application in relation to my ward that I needed to attend the planning committee for. Had I not been at a conference in Manchester I would have attended the earlier October planning meeting to speak on behalf of residents about the proposals for Riverside Walk (bus station moving,new hotel & shops etc). After having registered to speak at the planning meeting on Monday in relation to the Asda development for the old Tulip site it turned out that I needed to attend as a Committee member – I’m the ‘substitute’ for Councillor Sylvia Armes who was unable to be present (there’s 12 members of the Committee which is politically balanced to reflect the same composition of the whole Council, so there are 10 Conservative members of the
Committee, 1 Labour and 1 Independent. Sylvia is the Labour member, and I’m her
substitute if for any reason she is unable to attend).
I prepared in advance what I wished to say as one of the three Saxon Ward representatives on Breckland Council – my speech can be found online for those that wish to read it;
http://www.jermysjournal.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/my-comments-re-asda-to-breckland.html
I thought long and hard about whether or not to support the proposal and spent many hours researching and deliberating - I am sure the majority of Councillors up and down the Country do the same when faced with similar issues. Do you support something that would potentially bring jobs and investment to your community and bring back into life a currently unused area or do you hold out for what you believe to be right – sticking to adopted policies, supporting the high street and raising concerns re: road infrastructure, public transport, the environment etc....?
I ultimately spoke against the development, and voted against both supermarket proposals. So why did I come to the conclusion that I did? Firstly, both supermarket applications have been floating around for some time. I believe one of them was submitted around February this year. Large applications contain big piles of
background paperwork and information which is a lot to discuss and weigh up so with two combined – this was even more so the case. As is often the case, the devil is in the detail! Let’s be clear; the role of the Planning Committee is not to decide if Thetford should get another supermarket or not, or, whether that supermarket should be an Asda or a Morrisons or a Lidl or anything else for that matter. Their role is to decide if the application in front of them conforms to adopted Council policies and whether or not the proposal would enhance or deteriorate the area where it is to be built, whether or not there are safety concerns or environmental considerations and to be aware of economic benefits and risks. With both supermarket applications there are, in my opinion, two fundamental issues and a number of other important considerations. With the Asda development for the old Tulip site – the proposal would see the loss of land designated for manufacturing and industry. Thetford has developed as a manufacturing town and we have seen the gradual erosion of such land over the years. Nearby businesses objected to this proposal and one of the documents that I read on the Sunday before the meeting was this one:
http://planning.breckland.gov.uk/images/ocella_dv/dv_pl_files/3PL_2012_0213_O/3PL_2012_0213_O-NC_3.pdf
(Link doesn’t appear to work every time so go to www.breckland.gov.uk – click Planning Application search on the right hand side, click ‘search for planning applications’ – use planning reference number - 3PL/2012/0213/O. Open up the documents section. Click next at the bottom – and then click ‘view’ on the local representations link under the Trox UK representation – this will take you to the Indigo report for Two Sisters). The nearby ‘Two Sisters Foodgroup’ objected very strongly to the Asda proposal as they have wanted to acquire the Tulip site to enable their business to expand – their submission details how they applied to purchase the site but were unsuccessful, and they reaffirmed their desire to purchase in their letter although it should perhaps be noted that the Agent for Asda (Location 3 Properties) said at the meeting that the Two Sisters offer for the site was not nearly enough - large supermarket chains can of course afford to pay more and the
owners of any land will inevitably want to get the most amount of money for their land or perhaps Two Sisters were offering too little money deliberately – I am not in a position to judge either way. Now, it is also not the job of the Planning Committee, or indeed the Council to favour one business over another. But, this is a manufacturing business wishing to expand in Thetford – so in a broader sense this should be welcomed. But also, it is a manufacturing business concerned with poultry meat processing which is important to the wider Breckland economy so there are likely to be wider benefits. The Two Sisters submission states that should they be allowed to expand, they would create 250-300 more jobs on the site (they already employ approx 500 people after having invested £30 million in coming to Thetford) So, the number of jobs that they could create is the same as the Asda development, but, considering that should Asda proceed, then Lidl have said that they would not proceed with their plans for a new store just along the road (re-stated at the meeting) and therefore the 60+ jobs that this development would have created would be lost. It should of course be noted that these job totals are estimates, and are not full-time equivalents – many of the jobs will be part-time and of course in both examples the majority would be low paid. However, in short, using the land for manufacturing as intended would have created more jobs than a new supermarket. It is also very important to consider how the proposals could impact on Thetford High Street – the report by NLP that was submitted as part of this application revealed that each supermarket (Asda and Morrisons) would take away approximately 20% of expenditure from Thetford High Street, i.e. millions of pounds. Therefore, it is quite conceivable that the store would result in even more job losses in the High Street and further vacant shop units (Thetford shop vacancy rate is approx 16% currently). The reason that the two new supermarkets would not be permitted is due to the massive impact it would have on Thetford high street – apparently one store (20% loss of revenue) is permissible – but two is not – I am sure there are many that would feel a 20% loss would on its own be disastrous for many retailers. With regard to the Planning Committee meeting itself, and the Councillors concerned – many people have been deeply critical of them – unfairly so in my opinion. I was struck on Monday
by how many Planning Committee members were genuinely interested to know how
Thetford residents felt about the two proposals. Several committee members asked me “how does the town feel about this?” and “what are local peoples thoughts?” and “how does this relate to Thetford growth strategies?” That was very encouraging. One panel member also asked during the debate for the views of Thetford Town Council and expressed surprise that no body from Thetford Town Council (either a Councillor or member of staff) was present to speak on behalf of the town – there were of course 3 members of Thetford Town Council on the Planning Committee as they happen to be also Breckland Council members (myself included), this also included our current Mayor, who also happens to be Chairman of the Town Council Planning Committee, but he did not feel the need presumably to speak separately in this capacity about the proposals, which is somewhat unfortunate. Nevertheless, the fact that local views and the views of the locally elected Town Council were sought is somewhat heartening.
It should also be noted of course that no residents from Thetford attended the meeting to witness proceedings or to speak, either in favour or against the two proposals and only the Thetford Society through Stuart Wilson submitted anything in writing – a couple of local businesses wrote in, as did Thetford Grammar School – but nothing from Thetford residents or retailers – is our town really so apathetic? Clearly not judging by the comments that have flowed in after the meeting, but people really do need to get engaged and get active in things like this in advance, rather than criticising once it’s all a bit late. With regards to the Mundford Road development, which was confirmed at the meeting to be for a Morrisons store – this was recommended for refusal by the officers (they had recommended the Asda one for approval). This is land that is designated as the Thetford Enterprise Park (TEP) – I’m told that it was once planned as a Science Park. The theory has been that this location could take advantage of its excellent location next to the dual carriageway and Thetford’s geographical position close to Cambridge, Snetterton and the Hethel Engineering centre and become a hub for high tech industry creating high tech jobs –
something that we really need to aspire to in Thetford. We must try to advance and create more high paid, high skilled jobs. The site however needs considerable infrastructure investment to become usable – particularly infrastructure in relation to power. Now I am really not an expert in these matters, but I believe that in order for the TEP site to become usable, investment of some £9million is required – basically to ensure that the site has sufficient power as we are reaching the point in Thetford where investment in power really is needed before any further growth can occur – the new houses to the North of Thetford have similar issues. The argument to allow a supermarket to go ahead in this location – again on manufacturing/employment land – was because allowing this to happen would provide the much needed infrastructure to “open up” the remaining site. The supermarket would consume 22% of the enterprise park but the investment would act as a catalyst to promote further usage. There are fundamental flaws with this however; The infrastructure investment
is nowhere near what is required – the proposal included a new access road and roundabout – but did not substantially address the power issue and there would also be no guarantee that the remaining site would be used for the purpose that it was intended. Indeed, if 22% of the site was to be used for retail, then what would stop the remaining 78% of the site being used for such a purpose? Precedent can be a very dangerous thing. Could we see the creation of a further out of town retail centre that could massively undermine the high street. With the final stretch of the A11 to be dualled shortly there now stands a more realistic chance than ever that the dream of the Enterprise Park could finally be realised. But, in a similar situation to that of the manufacturing land, we could find ourselves without any land for these proposals to happen, and be a town of supermarkets on the periphery and charity
shop land in the town centre with the population restricted to primarily low paid, low skilled jobs or commute out of town – or worse, leave the town altogether, So the outcome?: 9 of the 12 strong committee members voted to against both supermarkets – 3 did not vote – including the Chairman, who does not tend to vote unless he needs to use his casting vote. A fairly clear verdict. The reason given? An unacceptable
loss of employment land. Step forward Planning Officers.... reason not robust enough = nervous committee members. One of which proposed to ‘un-do’ that decision – within
minutes of making it, and a majority supported this (I did not, as did a number of others). Step forward a proposal to ‘defer’ post applications, rather than reject – again, a majority supported this (I did not, as did a number of others). So now we have two deferred applications, that will be debated over at a future date. Hopefully by which time some of the other issues will have hopefully been addressed, but surely neither application will be able to address the fundamental issue that they will be building on designated employment land?
TWO SUPERMARKET APPLICATIONS FOR THETFORD
It was of course inevitable that at some time there would be a major planning application in relation to my ward that I needed to attend the planning committee for. Had I not been at a conference in Manchester I would have attended the earlier October planning meeting to speak on behalf of residents about the proposals for Riverside Walk (bus station moving,new hotel & shops etc). After having registered to speak at the planning meeting on Monday in relation to the Asda development for the old Tulip site it turned out that I needed to attend as a Committee member – I’m the ‘substitute’ for Councillor Sylvia Armes who was unable to be present (there’s 12 members of the Committee which is politically balanced to reflect the same composition of the whole Council, so there are 10 Conservative members of the
Committee, 1 Labour and 1 Independent. Sylvia is the Labour member, and I’m her
substitute if for any reason she is unable to attend).
I prepared in advance what I wished to say as one of the three Saxon Ward representatives on Breckland Council – my speech can be found online for those that wish to read it;
http://www.jermysjournal.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/my-comments-re-asda-to-breckland.html
I thought long and hard about whether or not to support the proposal and spent many hours researching and deliberating - I am sure the majority of Councillors up and down the Country do the same when faced with similar issues. Do you support something that would potentially bring jobs and investment to your community and bring back into life a currently unused area or do you hold out for what you believe to be right – sticking to adopted policies, supporting the high street and raising concerns re: road infrastructure, public transport, the environment etc....?
I ultimately spoke against the development, and voted against both supermarket proposals. So why did I come to the conclusion that I did? Firstly, both supermarket applications have been floating around for some time. I believe one of them was submitted around February this year. Large applications contain big piles of
background paperwork and information which is a lot to discuss and weigh up so with two combined – this was even more so the case. As is often the case, the devil is in the detail! Let’s be clear; the role of the Planning Committee is not to decide if Thetford should get another supermarket or not, or, whether that supermarket should be an Asda or a Morrisons or a Lidl or anything else for that matter. Their role is to decide if the application in front of them conforms to adopted Council policies and whether or not the proposal would enhance or deteriorate the area where it is to be built, whether or not there are safety concerns or environmental considerations and to be aware of economic benefits and risks. With both supermarket applications there are, in my opinion, two fundamental issues and a number of other important considerations. With the Asda development for the old Tulip site – the proposal would see the loss of land designated for manufacturing and industry. Thetford has developed as a manufacturing town and we have seen the gradual erosion of such land over the years. Nearby businesses objected to this proposal and one of the documents that I read on the Sunday before the meeting was this one:
http://planning.breckland.gov.uk/images/ocella_dv/dv_pl_files/3PL_2012_0213_O/3PL_2012_0213_O-NC_3.pdf
(Link doesn’t appear to work every time so go to www.breckland.gov.uk – click Planning Application search on the right hand side, click ‘search for planning applications’ – use planning reference number - 3PL/2012/0213/O. Open up the documents section. Click next at the bottom – and then click ‘view’ on the local representations link under the Trox UK representation – this will take you to the Indigo report for Two Sisters). The nearby ‘Two Sisters Foodgroup’ objected very strongly to the Asda proposal as they have wanted to acquire the Tulip site to enable their business to expand – their submission details how they applied to purchase the site but were unsuccessful, and they reaffirmed their desire to purchase in their letter although it should perhaps be noted that the Agent for Asda (Location 3 Properties) said at the meeting that the Two Sisters offer for the site was not nearly enough - large supermarket chains can of course afford to pay more and the
owners of any land will inevitably want to get the most amount of money for their land or perhaps Two Sisters were offering too little money deliberately – I am not in a position to judge either way. Now, it is also not the job of the Planning Committee, or indeed the Council to favour one business over another. But, this is a manufacturing business wishing to expand in Thetford – so in a broader sense this should be welcomed. But also, it is a manufacturing business concerned with poultry meat processing which is important to the wider Breckland economy so there are likely to be wider benefits. The Two Sisters submission states that should they be allowed to expand, they would create 250-300 more jobs on the site (they already employ approx 500 people after having invested £30 million in coming to Thetford) So, the number of jobs that they could create is the same as the Asda development, but, considering that should Asda proceed, then Lidl have said that they would not proceed with their plans for a new store just along the road (re-stated at the meeting) and therefore the 60+ jobs that this development would have created would be lost. It should of course be noted that these job totals are estimates, and are not full-time equivalents – many of the jobs will be part-time and of course in both examples the majority would be low paid. However, in short, using the land for manufacturing as intended would have created more jobs than a new supermarket. It is also very important to consider how the proposals could impact on Thetford High Street – the report by NLP that was submitted as part of this application revealed that each supermarket (Asda and Morrisons) would take away approximately 20% of expenditure from Thetford High Street, i.e. millions of pounds. Therefore, it is quite conceivable that the store would result in even more job losses in the High Street and further vacant shop units (Thetford shop vacancy rate is approx 16% currently). The reason that the two new supermarkets would not be permitted is due to the massive impact it would have on Thetford high street – apparently one store (20% loss of revenue) is permissible – but two is not – I am sure there are many that would feel a 20% loss would on its own be disastrous for many retailers. With regard to the Planning Committee meeting itself, and the Councillors concerned – many people have been deeply critical of them – unfairly so in my opinion. I was struck on Monday
by how many Planning Committee members were genuinely interested to know how
Thetford residents felt about the two proposals. Several committee members asked me “how does the town feel about this?” and “what are local peoples thoughts?” and “how does this relate to Thetford growth strategies?” That was very encouraging. One panel member also asked during the debate for the views of Thetford Town Council and expressed surprise that no body from Thetford Town Council (either a Councillor or member of staff) was present to speak on behalf of the town – there were of course 3 members of Thetford Town Council on the Planning Committee as they happen to be also Breckland Council members (myself included), this also included our current Mayor, who also happens to be Chairman of the Town Council Planning Committee, but he did not feel the need presumably to speak separately in this capacity about the proposals, which is somewhat unfortunate. Nevertheless, the fact that local views and the views of the locally elected Town Council were sought is somewhat heartening.
It should also be noted of course that no residents from Thetford attended the meeting to witness proceedings or to speak, either in favour or against the two proposals and only the Thetford Society through Stuart Wilson submitted anything in writing – a couple of local businesses wrote in, as did Thetford Grammar School – but nothing from Thetford residents or retailers – is our town really so apathetic? Clearly not judging by the comments that have flowed in after the meeting, but people really do need to get engaged and get active in things like this in advance, rather than criticising once it’s all a bit late. With regards to the Mundford Road development, which was confirmed at the meeting to be for a Morrisons store – this was recommended for refusal by the officers (they had recommended the Asda one for approval). This is land that is designated as the Thetford Enterprise Park (TEP) – I’m told that it was once planned as a Science Park. The theory has been that this location could take advantage of its excellent location next to the dual carriageway and Thetford’s geographical position close to Cambridge, Snetterton and the Hethel Engineering centre and become a hub for high tech industry creating high tech jobs –
something that we really need to aspire to in Thetford. We must try to advance and create more high paid, high skilled jobs. The site however needs considerable infrastructure investment to become usable – particularly infrastructure in relation to power. Now I am really not an expert in these matters, but I believe that in order for the TEP site to become usable, investment of some £9million is required – basically to ensure that the site has sufficient power as we are reaching the point in Thetford where investment in power really is needed before any further growth can occur – the new houses to the North of Thetford have similar issues. The argument to allow a supermarket to go ahead in this location – again on manufacturing/employment land – was because allowing this to happen would provide the much needed infrastructure to “open up” the remaining site. The supermarket would consume 22% of the enterprise park but the investment would act as a catalyst to promote further usage. There are fundamental flaws with this however; The infrastructure investment
is nowhere near what is required – the proposal included a new access road and roundabout – but did not substantially address the power issue and there would also be no guarantee that the remaining site would be used for the purpose that it was intended. Indeed, if 22% of the site was to be used for retail, then what would stop the remaining 78% of the site being used for such a purpose? Precedent can be a very dangerous thing. Could we see the creation of a further out of town retail centre that could massively undermine the high street. With the final stretch of the A11 to be dualled shortly there now stands a more realistic chance than ever that the dream of the Enterprise Park could finally be realised. But, in a similar situation to that of the manufacturing land, we could find ourselves without any land for these proposals to happen, and be a town of supermarkets on the periphery and charity
shop land in the town centre with the population restricted to primarily low paid, low skilled jobs or commute out of town – or worse, leave the town altogether, So the outcome?: 9 of the 12 strong committee members voted to against both supermarkets – 3 did not vote – including the Chairman, who does not tend to vote unless he needs to use his casting vote. A fairly clear verdict. The reason given? An unacceptable
loss of employment land. Step forward Planning Officers.... reason not robust enough = nervous committee members. One of which proposed to ‘un-do’ that decision – within
minutes of making it, and a majority supported this (I did not, as did a number of others). Step forward a proposal to ‘defer’ post applications, rather than reject – again, a majority supported this (I did not, as did a number of others). So now we have two deferred applications, that will be debated over at a future date. Hopefully by which time some of the other issues will have hopefully been addressed, but surely neither application will be able to address the fundamental issue that they will be building on designated employment land?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)