Cake Today Or Cake Tomorrow?

Last month's Full Council meeting saw Labour take the reins at Cecil Square. 6 weeks on and we are back to approve (or not) the Budget along with a few other important issues. Kick off 7pm on Thursday.

First up is a presentation from Stuart Bain, the Chief Exec of East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust, on the proposed transporting of patients with life-threatening emergencies from Thanet to Ashford. Hopefully the Councillors will have some questions prepped and we will see some more fleshing out of what’s behind the move, other than the obvious...

Next up is the Leader’s Report which usually throws up a row of some sort. I doubt this will be much different. Heck, it’ll probably be worse now the Conservatives have more Councillors than Labour..

Continuing the theme of rowing, the Budget comes up. As you will all have seen theres been a battle over the events budget and floral grants, which eventually saw Cllr Driver leaving the Labour Group. So this really matters and its really important the right decision is made. The relevant bits of the reports are the following:

“New Homes Bonus – The Council will receive £536k of New Homes

Bonus in 2012/13 and each of the following five years. It will also receive

additional sums for any further new homes built. It is proposed that some of

this funding is used to cover the events budget (£165k) and floral grants

(£20k). However, it is expected that future allocations of Formula Grant

may be top-sliced to fund the reward of the New Homes Bonus and it is

therefore possible that this funding may be needed in future years to offset

this reduction. If there is insufficient New Homes Bonus funding to meet the

cost of events and floral grants in future years, then these budgets will be

removed.” (page 16)

“There is no surety around future allocations of the New Homes Bonus as the

Formula Grant may be top-sliced in future years to fund the New Homes Bonus

scheme – the impact on Thanet of any top-slicing is unclear at this stage. There

is therefore some concern over using this funding to support the budget over the

medium term. There must be a clear understanding that if the funding is not

available, then the events and floral grants budgets will be removed.” (page 31)

So we know this pot of money isn’t going to be around for long. Even Cllr Rick Everitt conceded that this funding may not be around for long. Add the very real possibility of going into recession again (some argue this has already happened) and I would suspect that what we are to receive this year is about all we will receive.

While Labour has tried to play the Conservative position as OTT austerity, Neil Hornus straightforwardly argued at Overview on this that it was about being prudent with the money the Council has and I agree with him. Its not about depriving Thanet of the ability to attract people. Cllr Martin Wise made the point that the New Homes Bonus was considered by them a “safety net”. The Conservatives on the other hand are arguing that Labour at the first time of asking is throwing money around and putting at risk financial stability. Seeing how the economic news gets gloomier by the day, the decisions having to be made now are ones that normally would be rejected out of hand. I’d rather we hung onto the money for this financial year until there is more certainty about the economic picture and in particular the funding the Council can rely on. There are tough decisions to be made and sacrifices are being considered, but isn’t that what we elect them to do?

In the report it is noted that for the first two months of this coming financial year, the current car parking fees will remain. Proposals are expected before Full Council on the 19^th April with changes taking effect from 1^st June.

Once that one’s put to bed, Hartsdown Park, with the Cabinet’s recommendations. There’s been a lot of talk about this one too. Going into the meeting the expectation was of a compromise, which did indeed appear. During the Cabinet meeting it was said that the Conservatives were against granting leases, but I rather doubt that’s the case. Certainly there’s been nothing in the public to back that up. What will happen? I would imagine it’ll pass though of course the Independent Group will decide this one. The recommendations were the following:

“1.   Area A - Recommended the extension of the current lease from 10 to 24 years;

2.   Area B - Recommended refusal of granting a lease for an extended area for a football pitch as this is too intrusive in Hartsdown Park;

3.   Area C - Recommended the removal of this area from the proposal or at most grant a small extension to the current car park in line with the plan that has been circulated. This would require the developers to seek an alteration to the current planning condition on parking provision;

4.   Area D - Recommended agreement to the development of a lease within the current football ground area for the construction of a hotel in line with the approved planning application, but to negotiate the reduction in the lease period required to the absolute minimum necessary. The developers will need to provide specific financial information that demonstrates the need for the required lease period for which they have asked;

5.   Area E - Recommended the extension of the lease for the current five-a-side pitches and car park from 15 to 24 years, to coincide in timing with the main ground lease.”

Im sure the public gallery will be full so best get in early.

Planning Committee 18th Jan (Preview)

Before hitting the preview itself, there are some changes to a couple of Committees. Cllrs Hart and Poole have been replaced by Cllrs Matterface and Alexandrou on Planning and Cllr Johnston is replaced by Cllr W Scobie on Governance and Audit. Cllr Shirley Tomlinson continues to sit in for Cllr Goodwin on Planning.

                 -------------------------------------------------

Some big ticket items on the Planning agenda for this coming Wednesday. But first, a site visit in Beacon Road to deal with. There was some debate about it so this one could go either way. The recommendation was to approve.

Richborough Power Station’s possible demolition comes up next. The impact on the environment through deposits within the towers is a key consideration here. Dover District Council is looking into this one but only on the point of Highways. Luke Edwards of Thanet Waves has blogged about this. Recommendation to approve subject to safeguarding conditions.

Western Esplanade, Broadstairs follows, with plans for a three storey building of 5 flats. It comes before Planning because it comes onto previously undeveloped land. The biggest concern seems to be one of the access from Waldron Road but KCC raised no objection on that. An ambitious application, its up for approval.

A couple of applications in near-neighbouring sites at Ryder Avenue, Westgate, then we are onto the refusals starting with the Barrett site on Tivoli Road, Margate. Brought to Planning by Cllr Lodge-Pritchard, the proposal is for it to be used by Pilgrims Hospice for retail and storage. In theory a great idea, problem is that it’s a warehouse in an industrial area… Its just not suitable.

Chambers Wall Farm, St Nicholas-on-Wade is the next one, brought up by Cllr Mike Roberts. I don’t know the area (readers got any opinions?) so I'm running off the report, it’s a proposed conversion of the barn but due to the flood risk and seeming to be unsuitable for the area, the Officer reckons refusal.

At this point a motion is planned to boot out the public and press because the Westwood Estate is up last with proposed changes to the Section 106 Agreement and that includes some exempt info. As we know the economic downturn has hit everyone hard and the Council has already been approached with a plan to amend the planning consent for this area with regard to the scheduling of construction which I recall came before Planning a couple of months ago. This one is more about the financial contributions and sizing of the buildings themselves, so well worth a read of the agenda papers on that item.

More King's Men

Obviously the news has been doing the rounds that Cllr Ian Driver has quit the Labour Group to join the Independents. It’s been clear for some time that he’s not been entirely comfortable in the Labour Group, so while for others this is a huge surprise, for me it wasn’t. A sign of this is the reaction he was getting at Overview over the Budget motion on Tuesday evening, backed by Tory Cllr Jo Gideon but being slammed by former Labour colleagues over Labour’s amendment to the Budget regarding floral grants and events budget. I say well done to him for walking and hope he finds it a bit better for him with the Indies.

This will lead to the inevitable discussion over whether a by-election should result. I’ve always thought there should be but more recently I’ve changed my mind. Unless there’s a really good reason for a by-election, it’s frankly not worth the hassle. The Council doesn’t have the resources anyway, not to mention that if a Cllr changes allegiance, their card will be marked and remembered for the next election.

Originally I was planning not to visit the next topic but it would seem odd not to comment, given the subject has brought so much attention to the blog.

The next big story of the week has been Cllr John Worrow getting picked for the new role of TDC Equality and Diversity Champion, which is quite a mouthful. It would be churlish not to say well done to him for getting the gig, though I would love to know the process behind his appointment. I hope this job will be treated properly, rather than being used as justification to continue his pointless campaign against North Thanet Conservatives over the supposed homophobia within the Party. 

Budgeting Scrutiny

A very important Overview & Scrutiny meeting held last night with some food for thought.

The RNLI presentation highlighted the problems that the RNLI was having getting to the water at the moment due to local traffic blocking access. It also outlined its future plans. The Panel passed a motion calling on the relevant Cabinet Member to discuss the problems on access to the water with KCC and to report back.

Next up was a controversial discussion about EKO. Controversial for a couple of reasons. Firstly there was debate about whether all this information should be “restricted” and thus not available for the public to read (I made a point about this in my last post). Basically the argument in favour of restriction is that EKO is a joint venture and therefore TDC cannot unilaterally release the information without the agreement of KCC. For all the talk of the public need to see this restricted information, as the only person in the public gallery during that item, I didn’t feel that strongly about its release. This sort of information will come out in its own time and as was pointed out very clearly, the information put to Members were not the final version. Cllr Ian Driver raised some eyebrows by predicting the information would make its way to the press “by tomorrow morning” though made it clear he wasn't saying he was about to leak restricted information.

The more important issue brought up was over the future of EKO itself. Labour Members questioned whether there should be a future for EKO given the apparent lack of results for the substantial investment poured into it. The Membership Agreement comes up for review after 5 years. A motion was put (this wording is subject to change as the minutes are published) to say that the review should be brought forward, with a view towards TDC withdrawing from it, to “disinvest” as one Cllr put it. It was a 7-7 split with the Chair voting with the motion. This one has a long way to go…

The budget debate carried on very much as it did during the Cabinet meeting. There was some more explanation as to where the money is coming from and what is expected for the future which I found useful in framing the debate that’s been taking place. I’m not going to say too much more right now as I want to dedicate a post to it next week. That said, we had perhaps a little too enlightening a comment by Cllr Driver that “nothing turns me on more than a nice floral display”.

The motion for a Working Group about Electoral Registration was passed but with a reduced membership from 7 members to 5 instead. One point that came out of this was that the use of time through the meeting had been too heavy during the EKO and budget debates which meant that very little time was left to discuss the remainder of the agenda. I agree. It did seem to be at times a one Member meeting and that however entertaining that Member was, there were too many speeches rather than questions.

The discussion about Individual Cabinet Member Decisions aka Urgent Decisions barely happened, which is a shame because there is a real debate to be had about this. A Working Group was rejected in favour of a comprehensive report. Good call.

There are a lot of Working Groups already in existence and there needs to be proper consideration of alternative forms of scrutiny other than a Working Group. The heavy workload on those in Scrutiny has meant that there was little real choice about having one and for example with Urgent Decisions, the motion they took was in effect the only one really available.

Next meetings are Planning Committee and Full Council next week. Im hoping to do previews for both. We will see...

Overview & Scrutiny Panel 10th Jan

Quick preview for Tuesday evening’s Overview and Scrutiny Panel meeting. Plenty for Members to consider so should be an interesting one and with enough items to provide some moments of spice. Looks like a full house is expected, which is always nice to see.

A few presentations taking place with the RNLI commenting on the possible relocation of the Lifeboat House to the Main Sands from the Rendezvous.


Next up is Matt Hyland from East Kent Opportunities, though the public agenda pack is a little empty when it comes to information on this. Half the reports being put together are confidential and the rest will be part of the presentation.

Then we have the Budget, with Cllr Rick Everitt doing the talk and consideration of the past years performance. Looking at the Panel’s membership and what was said at the Cabinet meeting last week, it’ll be interesting to hear what Members have to say.

Next up is the establishment of (deep breath) an Electoral

Registration Process Review Working Party. Be warned readers, to protect myself against the threat of RSI, I will only use the shorthand ERPRWP in future… Basically this follows on from Cllr Will Scobies online analysis about missing voters and aims to give advice to the Electoral Registration Officer when it is due to report back on 1^st May.

Then we have consideration of Individual Cabinet Member Decisions. This follows on from the decision over Leslie Hotel in Cliftonville. The Ward Councillors (Cllrs Hart, Aldred and Clark) felt they weren’t properly consulted about it and Members felt similarly. It’s a fair cop. There’s always been a bit of fuzziness about this. The solution could be to place restrictions on the use of this process but the Leslie Hotel one I recall was a decision which had to be made with some haste because of the area. Perhaps we will hear some more info about the process at the meeting tomorrow. It’s possible we will have another Working Party to look into this, and no, I’m not going to print the name. Perhaps we can have a Working Party into the stupidly long names for these things…

We finish up with some housekeeping items on things like a report on the work programme and the Forward Plan. 

Dear TDC Councillors...

“The Campaigner” – Cllr John Worrow - revealed last night that the author of the Facebook comment referring to “backs against the wall know what I mean” was Cllr Goodwin. This comment was published some time ago and originally the full message was published by Cllr Worrow (there was nothing offensive in that missing part) in his “Cllr Goodwin NAMED” post.

Cllr Goodwin is one of the first Councillors I met way back in 2003 and I’ve not one bad word to say about him. He is the sort of Councillor I hoped to be when I stood for Salmestone Ward back in 2007 and if I’m lucky, he’s the sort of politician I might be down the line.

He is also extremely ill.  

Cllr Worrow has crossed a line in doing this. At least before this, those accused could defend themselves and show that he was wrong. In this case, Cllr Goodwin isn’t able to. There are few rules in politics but one of them is that you NEVER attack someone who is unable to respond. Cllr Worrow makes it sound like he’s being generous to Cllr Goodwin, but all he's doing is dragging this out for his own benefit.

I’ve made it clear from the outset that I won’t tolerate homophobia, or any other form of discrimination, in the Conservative Party. If I come across it, I will expose it and rout it out along with anyone peddling those outdated views. There’s no place for it anymore. Anyone coming across this, please let me know (details are on the profile).

Cllr Simon Moores and I have both been attacked for apparently being homophobic, but no evidence has ever appeared to justify this. Cllr Worrow threatened me with both a solicitor and the police (within the space of 4 hours) just before Christmas.

I think it’s a disgrace that someone can call themselves a Thanet District Councillor but treat other Members with such disrespect. Add to that the bullying of a member of the public and you have a member who brings the Council into disrepute.

Every Councillor must ask themselves whether they think it’s acceptable that a Member of their Council behaves like this. Labour, Conservative, Independent, I don’t care what colours you carry, surely this is NOT something we want to see.

Save Dreamland Campaign

Out on a walk round Margate to see how things as far as rubbish collection and street cleaning were going (more on that soon) and made a pass by the High Street, where Labour Councillors and supporters are eagerly collecting signatures for a petition on Dreamland which can be found here.

I’m happy to support the petition and I encourage readers to go meet Will Scobie’s team to sign up. He is providing updates on his blog. This really is an issue where we should all, regardless of political allegiance, be in agreement.

For those of you who want to read the Statement of Case being put by the Council in this upcoming Inquiry, it can be found here

Leasing Into 2012

This coming Thursday sees some big issues come before the Cabinet.

First up is the Budget. There have been changes since the last form of the Budget appeared, particularly in the fees section. Given so much of this report is going over my head, I’m going to give a pass on it this time round and come back to it when it comes before "Extraordinay" Full Council on the 19^th. It’s not like the Cabinet is going to vote it down…

The Pierremont Park development has had a rocky road so far but looks to be getting there. I haven’t followed the story particularly closely but given only 10 responses came in for the consultation on this – and even then some of those comments are a little pushing it - you have to wonder if there’s really such a problem with it. I say give them the lease and wish them the best of luck.

Similarly with Margate FC, this has had a less than straightforward course, understandable perhaps. I touched on this a couple of weeks ago (last paragraph - Ed) and I still feel the same. This item isn’t being treated quite the same as Pierremont as there are different parts here and so different lengths of leases could be granted for different sections. Along with that, there is no officer’s recommendation, which basically leaves it up to the Cabinet to decide for itself. 

Fort Road Hotel rounds things off, where its been a bit disappointing really. A few options on the table. Compulsory Purchase Order maybe? Looking at a Margate Building Preservation Trust could be a better option leaving aside a CPO. Hopefully 2012 will bode well for that building.

Cllr John Worrow’s campaign on alleged homophobia by North Thanet Conservatives continues unabated. The reference to Margate West has been removed re. the Facebook comments, but the news that he’s been offered legal advice by an "organisation" has been added (or maybe not looking at it now). If it’s the same guy he went to about “Mucho Worrow”, he might want a second opinion…

The fact is, we all have stuff posted on Facebook which might be seen to be rude or offensive, if someone was really looking to be offended. Even a comment like “a boy like you likes Kate bush? lol ;) xx” could be seen as stereotyping, even though it’s really quite harmless. A sense of humour in politics is important, especially so if you are high profile.

Anywho, welcome to 2012, readers. Hopefully I’ll have enough inspiration to post round the year. Don't forget to buckle up. 2012 is going to be a fun ride!

Dear Readers...

There has been heated debate regarding Cllr John Worrow in the past handful of days here on Ville Views. As Ive reported and as was updated by him, the threat of legal action hangs over this blog with regard to the “Mucho Worrow” blog entry and the comments after. I published a housekeeping post to make it clear what I would and would not allow and I am thankful to those who have supported my stance.

I have tried, away from the blog, to discuss with him the situation in an effort to avoid the threat and to improve relations. I have been reasonable with him and tried to find common ground. I thought this had been found until I asked him to withdraw his threat of legal action against me. He responded with an implied claim of harassment against him.

I must make it absolutely clear to everyone reading this that there is no basis to this claim as I have made no threats towards him or acted in any way which would be seen as harassing him.

It’s possible that legal action will be taken, though I don’t believe it to be the case. I defend my right to hold politicians to account, whether it be comfortable for them or not. I have stayed within the law while doing so and I have not done anything which could reasonably be seen as improper.

I still believe that despite this the tension can be resolved and better relations can be built. The housekeeping rules remain as they are and I ask those commenting to be respectful of others whatever their argument. Calling people “bigots”, while not offensive, is something I’d like to see less of. Prove it through the argument itself not the name calling, please.

Housekeeping

I enjoy writing this blog and I hope you all enjoy reading it. I have one of the loosest editorial controls on the blog deliberately because I want this blog to be open to everyone to contribute as they wish, whether they agree with what I say or not.

Once readers get upset about comments, it can easily escalate as we’ve seen and I’m not interested in that sort of attention. I have other things I want to be blogging about, like the street cleaning issue in Margate Central or following the latest twists and turns in the Margate Seafront Saga. As we know the budget is coming soon and I’m definitely going to be putting aside blogging time for that one. Another thing I want to explore in my blogs is the reform of local government which affects all of us, linking to the Big Society idea.

Mulling over what’s been posted here in the past day, I again make it clear I will not amend my post and will not delete the comments. One comment made reference to the taking of legal advice and offsite there’s been talk of further action. I understand why it might be considered but it’s wholly unnecessary. Such talk should stop.­ I hope upon proper reflection that the author of that comment will come to the same conclusion.

I will not tolerate offensive posts and will delete them if I feel they’ve overstepped the mark. I have no patience for discrimination on this blog whatever the type. However I will not be pushed into deleting things without very good reasons. I won’t be neutered. 

Mucho Worrow

The blogsphere has been pretty active with a lot of talk and back and forth action therefore this blog is quite a bit longer than originally planned.

While it’s understandable that the ousted Conservative Group will feel annoyed at what’s happened, the fact is that it is now the Opposition and the sooner they adjust to this new situation the better. The talk on other blogs started off as banter but as the debate post the car parking press release showed, it’s now spilling over into the sort of thing which I’ve complained about in the Council Chamber. This baiting of people is childish and needs to end. It does no one any good apart from Labour who can sit back and enjoy the spectacle. The Conservative press release was fairly light on detail and looking at the resultant debate more facts are needed, so we should really wait to see how Labour’s plans lie alongside its updated budget plans due soon.

Did Cllr Worrow ask for a Cabinet position? Does it really matter? The tone of the denouncing has been OTT and the critics should save their energies for the real battles ahead. Cllr Worrow has rolled his dice and done what he feels is in his best interests. I don’t know him that well but I think it was a big mistake, short term gain for long term mistrust.

Despite what I have said above about saving energies, he posted an entry on his blog accusing the North Thanet Conservative Association of supporting a homophobic Councillor. This entry has since been deleted but the allegation was made nonetheless. Now, I’ve met my fair share of Thanet Cllrs and spoken to most of North Thanet’s Tories. I know Cllr Worrow will come across this blog. I want to know which Cllr he is talking about and which people in the Association supported him. If Cllr Worrow is unable or unwilling to name these people, then he should withdraw his accusations. Given he has now set up a Facebook Group “Thanet Campaign Against Homophobia In Politics!" which originally included racism in its title, clearly he has not dropped his allegation, therefore I want to see him come clean about who he is talking about. If what he was talking about is right, he should have no fear in naming these people.

The news emerging today of Flybe’s decision to stop flights from Manston will definitely require some attention from Councillors. With less operators using the airport, more doubts are placed on the requirement of night flights. As Labour has already stated that it will implement its manifesto commitments from earlier this year, this news is surely another nail in the coffin of night flights. Some serious thought is now needed as to the airports future.

There are genuine debates to be had about the change of administration that have nothing to do with Cllr Worrow (really!!). I didn’t report it in the Hart’s Changes post but Cllr Jo Gideon made a very strong point about the fact that the funding streams are being directed to encourage growth rather than to simply spend on deprivation. This debate saw the biggest difference in thinking between Labour and the Conservatives and is something that is worth mulling over. Another similar debate will spring up relating to the reform of the Business Rates regime to allow some local adjustment. These are debates which actually do matter to locals and I hope more attention is paid to these issues rather than the actions of one Councillor.

Earlier today Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet members made their way to Hartsdown Park as part of consideration of leases for the Margate FC plans. I really don’t understand what the problem is. A Council would have to be mad to refuse a lease, so the debate is over the length of it. Again the length matters little because no council would grant a lease for say 25 years but not renew it once that period ends. To the fans this sounds like another barrier being put in front of them and on a base level it’s strange. The Council granted planning consent for development without a sniff of trouble but might refuse a lease? Really??

Keeping Margate Central Clean IV

As readers will know, back in August I emailed the Council about a number of concerns I had regarding street cleaning, particularly in the south of Margate Central. Eventually most of them were dealt with and I praised the Council for their work. One of the ones not dealt with by the Council when I was blogging about them at the time is the following, outside Central Studios on Park Place (photo taken in August).

Well, the great news is that its been cleared, by who I don’t know, but all the junks been got rid of and the weeds at the end cleared away completely. A really good job done.

As an update to a couple of those Ive had a big issue with in the Milton/Byron Avenues area, here are a couple of photos taken yesterday. I hope Cllr Alan Poole as new Cabinet Member for Environmental Services will take appropriate action to ensure a lid is kept on it since they are such hotspots. As I said with Cllr Moores, I completely understand there are constraints on the ability of the Council to act and the budget is of course stretched. However there is a duty for the Council to act. Seeing as fancy new “footpath” signs have appeared, this point is underlined.

I'll defnitely be blogging about this again.

The Twilight Zone

A curious Planning Meeting last night. To get the headline out of the way, the Planning Committee decided that their mind was not changed by the upgraded listing of the Scenic Railway and that they would have accepted the change to the scheduled timing of the works. But that only tells part of the story...

First up we’ve had some changes in the Committee Membership with Cllrs Hart and Poole replaced by Cllrs Nicholson and David Green, though both attended the meeting. Certainly no dumbing down on the Labour side then. 

There was criticism of the two mock-ups of the proposed store showing one, the height of the development in scale to the Scenic Railway, including the 4m height difference between the two (arguing that Arlington should have been in the image) and second, the image of the store without the hotel section (arguing that the positioning of the store being behind Dreamland Cinema was wrong). While I normally agree with that Councillor and have great respect for him, I must disagree with both criticisms. Arlington is off to the right in the first image so doesn’t really count and as the plans show, the store would creep behind the left side of the Dreamland building.

Harvey Patterson spent his time discussing a letter of objection from Richard Buxton Solicitors, though the word dismissing might be more appropriate. Normally I’d defend his advice giving because he’s usually right on the money but seemed to be off his game last night and a little more agitated than normal. He criticised the publication of the letter online. I read the letter online pretty much as soon as it was published and I have no issue with it appearing online. There’s definitely a public interest and the Members of the Committee should be aware of it.

To reiterate what I said in the preview, this Public Inquiry came only because of the referral to Full Council which was in itself necessary given the legal complications that were appearing. I hear from elsewhere that in fact this Public Inquiry was merely a threat to push the Committee into accepting the application and to ease its process, and that once that approval was given the Public Inquiry would be dropped. We shall see if that is the case in due course.

A Councillor made a comment that the letter to Cllr Poole from June (see “Pooleing Around”) was inaccurate in its description of that meeting’s vote as being decided on the Chair’s casting vote and that instead it was a normal vote. Sorry but that’s not true, it was a 7-7 tie and the Chair’s casting vote decided it. The letter was right.

Im not really one for attacking my own side but I’d be a hypocrite if I didn’t name Conservative Cllr Binks who spoke against the development back in June (words along the lines of “I cannot support this application”) but voted in favour, much to the surprise of those watching the meeting who had done the maths and expected the motion to be defeated. Her mind had not changed last night and neither had her vote in favour of the development.

As readers will know, I support the Arlington development and want to see it do well, but that I believe the Arlington House works must be done prior to the store construction since the resident’s needs should come first, especially when residents are highly concerned about Freshwater’s willingness to adhere to its obligations towards its tenants. I don’t agree with the second vote taken last night. As the reports and the advice given last night made abundantly clear, Freshwater didn’t really have a particularly good reason other than “minimising disturbance”, in itself not very convincing. In fact during the debate it was made clear that they would be satisfied with the current schedule, so Im unsure as to why a change should be necessary...


Discussion of Ramsgate Sport Centre's proposed extension seemed to focus on the possible increase of confrontations that might be caused between pedestrians and cyclists by shortening the footpath following behind Paradise Avenue from a width of 3 metres to 2 to allow for more shrubbery. I kid you not... An amendment was made to avoid that and it passed.

Cllr Nicholson’s comment of “a step into the Twilight Zone” pretty much summed the meeting up, indeed the last meeting of the year. 

Here It Comes Again

This coming Wednesday sees the Arlington Tesco’s issue come before Planning Committee as part of the Public Inquiry process. The application has come to Public Inquiry because the application took too long to go through the system and therefore the applicant is claiming non-determination. This meeting is to decide on how the Planning Committee stands in relation to two aspects, firstly the upgrading of the Scenic Railway’s listed status and second, the timing of the works themselves. The report for this can be found here.

The last time this application came before Planning those were the two aspects being decided on, but was referred to Full Council on grounds of “transparency and accountability”. I agree with the decision the Committee came to. As the report makes clear, the relevant Manager was not authorised to take into account, under delegated powers, the upgraded listed status of the Scenic Railway, therefore this had to come before the Planning Committee, even if it didn’t change anything in the Committee’s mind.  As for the second problem, of the timing of the works, the proposal was at Freshwaters insistence not the Councils. Add to that the talk of the possible listing of the site and referral to Full Council seemed a good decision. Even with the current political set-up and considering the possibility that the application could eventually have been voted down, I still back that vote. In any case that vote is basically void and it’s up to the Planning Inspectorate now.

As for the application as a whole, I’ve not really published a settled argument, basically because I’ve struggled to come to one. On balance, I support the application and see it to be the best opportunity for redevelopment of the site. I know there was an alternative scheme proposed but given the current economic situation, I’m not convinced on it, and that’s a shame. Yes, there’s going to be an impact on businesses nearby and there will be parking issues, but given that anything built on this site would attract high numbers of traffic and given the awkward location, it’s going to be the case pretty much whatever is put there. There’s doubt at whether Freshwater will act honestly with the residents of Arlington House, but that’s more to do with the associated legal agreements than the main plans and can be dealt with by the Council Officers.

I know other bloggers have commented that they would have preferred to see a smaller proposed store and I agree. The reality is it’s not on the cards. We must consider the application as a whole and be careful not to lose this chance of fully redeveloping the site.

Pooleing Around

As readers will know Ive blogged a couple of times about “negativing conditions” in planning applications, firstly in relation to Arlington where Cllr Poole (now Deputy Council Leader) proposed an amendment to a condition which would have meant deliveries would be banned between 11pm and 7am, and secondly in relation to the China Gateway application, where he proposed a condition banning the use of HGVs on the site between 11pm and 7am. Both times, the motions were refused as they were deemed to be negativing ones, that they would be unreasonable to the applicant. Both times he made it clear he disagreed with the legal advice and felt that they were legitimate conditions to make.

I commented after the China Gateway meeting, held on the 16th November that Councillors should have been aware of the rules on this after the first time it came up or found out for themselves how things stood. Cllr Everitt, newly appointed Cabinet Member for Performance, made a point during debate of the China Gateway application that the advice should be sent out to Committee Members so that they know in advance how the rules apply. Strange, because they were sent the advice in June!

The Arlington application was deferred to the Secretary of State on the 15^th June 2011 after Cllr Poole’s motion was declined. He objected to it strongly enough to write a letter of complaint about it the next day. The day after that (17^th June) Cllr Poole received a letter from Harvey Patterson, Corporate & Regulatory Services Manager, which provided in some detail the reasons behind the decision not to proceed with the motion. Reading the letter, I recognise the reference to Circular 11/95, as I commented on that document when I blogged about the China Gateway application. On the bottom it shows the letter was cc’d to the Chair and Members of the Planning Committee, which would have included both Cllrs Everitt and Poole and indeed the new Council Leader Clive Hart.

The letter can be found here

Now, why did they make such a fuss at the 16^th November Planning meeting when they had already been made aware of the legal basis for the refusal to proceed with negativing motions way back in June?

Hart's Changes

So, we have a Labour administration in TDC, something new for me, since I came to politics proper just after the 2003 elections. Congratulations to the new Council Leader Cllr Clive Hart and Deputy Leader Cllr Alan Poole. A revealing meeting, showing a snapshot of what the next 3 1/2 years has in store. Change has definitely come to Thanet, that’s for sure. Whether it’s what is in Thanet’s best interests or not,  well, that’s another matter entirely, but we shall see in due course. Strange sat with bloggers extraordinaire Luke Edwards and Tony Flaig. Even stranger for a Tory Councillor to point us out during the meeting. You’re welcome, I guess!

A lot of shouting across the Chamber again, with multiple interventions by the same Members who have points of information, clarification, or obfuscation...pretty much whatever puts off real debate. I’ve seen it in the past and complained about it before with relation to Scrutiny and nothing has changed. From the sounds of things the audio system is ready to roll and we might expect recordings of the meetings to be placed online. I completely support this. I hope readers will look out for these recordings to listen out for how their elected Councillors speak. Is this the sort of thing YOU want to see? PM Questions on Wednesday afternoons is understandable but this is our local Council.

In the past I’ve avoided naming and shaming but this sort of thing needs to stop. It makes the Council look awful and if their residents saw this they wouldn’t approve. It’s childish and wholly inappropriate. I’m talking both about Conservatives and Labour here.  Labour Councillor Peter Campbell of Central Harbour Ward shouting at a Council Officer that the decision not to debate the motion on night flights during the July Full Council meeting was “corruption” was way out of line. He had no right to make that claim and no evidence at all.

What sort of change can we expect? Well, a motion were passed to set up a Members Working Group to work out how bad the issue of runaways is. This is an issue I personally care about, so when I see duplication of roles or functions, I don’t like it much. I want to see clarity, where the system is streamlined enough for there to be efficient and quality input.  I will definitely be blogging about this in the future.

John Worrow got his wish with his proposed free half hour car parking scheme. I don’t agree with this idea given how every High Street will want their version of this and the budget is stretched enough. At least it brought some light relief to Members who had been having an ideological battle over the future budget and who was or was not to blame for it. Pretty much everyone had a good laugh at Cllr Worrow, so at least there’s agreement on that issue…