Richard Normington supports Cambridge at growth hustings

Richard Normington, the Conservative Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Cambridge, joined representatives of the other main parties in Cambridge for a hustings on The Politics of Cambridge's Growth organised by the Federation of Cambridge Residents' Associations on Friday night. FeCRA will be publishing a record of the meeting on their website in a number of weeks.

On the disposition of power between the government and local authorities

While Labour's candidate said the balance was "broadly right", the Green party candidate focused on getting global green targets and the leader of the city council went on about Local Income Tax, Richard said that the balance was way out in favour of the government and that the Conservatives would shift large amounts back, including giving local authorities a 'general power of competence'.

Regarding the complex arrangements for local government financing, where approximately 80% of funds come from the government, Richard say we should "start with easy steps", such as to "ease back on ring-fencing".

On growth in Cambridge

Richard Normington reaffirmed his support for the Conservative policy of scrapping the Regional Spatial Strategy and allowing local authorities to form their own judgement about housing need and provision.

To a question about housing targets the Labour spokesman said that they were "not plucked from thin air" and that they had been debated and agreed. From where I was sitting in the audience I don't think this impressed anyone!

Asked whether he could be sure, as he had stated, that "the need for growth will be accepted without being forced by the government", Richard Normington pointed out that one of the reasons that housing always seems to be unwanted is that the governments rules mean it inevitably turns out to be what isn't needed, citing numbers for the massively increased proportion of new-builds that are poky flats with no gardens.

Richard also added that the Conservatives would provide incentives for communities to agree to development by allowing them to keep the proceeds of new council tax arising from it and some other revenue streams.

Richard and the Labour candidate rejected development on the Marshall site, although the Labour candidate failed to understand that the consequence of the government's targets was that if the council doesn't get on with it the government threatens "we will set up a quango" to force it through.

The Lib Dem wanted to develop the Marshall site while the Green didn't know. (The Green city councillor appears to be in favour.)

On infrastructure

The Green Party wasn't keen on the sort of infrastructure that the other candidates were - roads and utilities - he wanted everything to be with 10 minutes' walking distance. (Nice little utopia you've got there!) Richard Normington ridiculed this sort of protectionism that starts global and ends at the village boundary.

Labour's Transport Innovation Fund congestion charging blackmail was widely derided.

All the other candidates agreed that infrastructure needed to come first or at the same time as development; the current system of post-development levies was considered inadequate.

Richard Normington was scathing of the competence of the Lib Dem city councillors, citing their failure to understand their own system with respect to section 106 agreements at a recent area committee he had attended. One of the interlocutors reported that a Lib Dem had told him "we don't know where to spend it because we don't have any open space to put it!"

It was also pointed out that the developers of the Tim Brinton site in Coleridge have tried to reduce their s.106 contributions from £1.5m to £500k.

On two practical policies for green spaces, while the Green candidate put all his hope in his controversial Wicken Fen project, Richard said that he supports local "food producers not mosquito farmers" and that verges should either be "for trees and grass or cars but not both".

Labour's quango culture threatens Cambridge

Cambridgeshire is consulting again on how it should respond to the East of England Regional Assembly's latest proposed plan for enforcing massive housing growth on our area. Please do take part in the consultation if you get the chance - it ends on 31 October 2009.

This is really the wrong way to do things. We have an unaccountable body in EERA telling our local authorities what to do and then we have another one in Cambridgeshire Horizons trying to do the government's dirty work for us around Cambridge.

It is time for these quangos to go. Conservatives have pledged to abolish top-down housing targets. Of course we do need more houses, but we want to decide locally on what we need, and we need it to happen organically, with infrastructure so that we are not developing ghettos for the future. And if we want to see more houses of the kind we are lacking here (e.g. more than 2 bedrooms) then we need to get rid of the government's targets for density and hefty development taxes (AKA 'affordable' homes subsidised by buyers of 'unaffordable' homes).

Oh, and it would also help if the government stopped demanding maximum parking levels, tightened even further by local Liberal Democrats, resulting in every new development having inadequate parking right from the start.

Conservatives warned 11 years ago that Labour's housing plans (thank Prescott) would result in unsuitable sites being chosen for development, such as Marshall's Cambridge Airport, but were accused of scaremongering by Labour. With the Lib Dems cheerleading for the development, there's only one way to save Marshall - vote Conservative!

Bower's Blueprint #3 - No to forcing Marshall off the airport

This is the third of a series of posts on Bower's Blueprint for Coleridge - a set of pledges to which I would work if elected as county councillor on 4th June.

No to forcing Marshall Aerospace off the airport
I will resist plans to build high density housing on the site of Cambridge Airport.

Why are we opposed to development on the airport?
Marshall is a key local employer that provides training and opportunity for people in Cambridge; we do not wish to see it go.

We are concerned about the effect on traffic in the East of Cambridge from the development. Although a cynic might suggest the Lib Dems supported the airport for development as it is a long way from their voters in West Cambridge, they claim the proximity to the centre of Cambridge would make it ideal for a car-free development, as everyone can walk, cycle or use public transport. They would wish this fantasy to be enforced by providing no new major roads, limited car parking on the development and a congestion charge in Cambridge.

This is the same type of fanciful thinking that assumes nobody living in any new development will want to own a car if you don’t provide adequate parking. However the consultant's report looking at the transport effects concluded that even if a congestion charge was introduced (which we are of course completely opposed to), the effect on East Cambridge roads would be horrific, with the dualling of Perne Road, and even more chaos on Newmarket Road. In short, a terrible deal for existing Coleridge residents.

How did the idea come about?
The proposed development on Marshall’s Airport is a direct result of the Labour Government's top-down housing targets which mandate how many homes must be built in our area. Although local authorities were involved in deciding where housing should be built, coming up with the structure plan in 2001, which became the Regional Spacial Strategy for the East of England, it was clear from the sheer numbers the Government required that many unsuitable sites would be chosen.

Conservatives were the first to warn in 1998 that Labour's targets for increased housing (in the South, while bulldozing the North) would lead to the threat of Cambridge Airport being chosen for development. These warnings were dismissed by Labour initially as scaremongering but David Howarth's Lib Dems in Cambridge soon requested that the airport be used for 12,000 homes!

How likely is it to happen?
Marshall has tried to find a site to which to relocate its business, but has so far failed to do so. This is a major barrier as to date management have indicated they would like to keep the aerospace business close enough to Cambridge for most staff to transfer to the new site.

'Cambridge East' is the last of the fringe areas intended to be developed and with other fringe sites around Cambridge stalled due to the spectacular collective misjudgement about the housing market it seems unlikely that it will be built any time soon.

Who is driving it now?
Cambridge Horizons, which is a 'partnership' quango, has been bullying Marshall to hurry up plans to find a new site for its business with the threat that the land would be put back in the greenbelt and therefore not available for Marshall to develop itself at some point if it should want to. There seems to be a last ditch effort going on to force through the development.

What can Conservatives do?
The Conservative Party has pledged to scrap Regional Spatial Strategies and allow councils to rewrite their Structure Plans so that developments can reflect local needs and priorities. When Coleridge Conservatives discovered this policy we were ecstatic, as this really would save Cambridge!

This is only one part of radical plans by David Cameron to redistribute power from the centre back to local areas. It will help to end the culture in elected local government representatives of blaming other levels of government for all their woes instead of taking responsibility.

While we wait for what I hope will turn out to be a Conservative government I pledge to resist the existing plans for Cambridge East.

Quango can go!

A letter I sent to the Cambridge News following up their article on extensions to the Regional Spatial Strategy was published in today's paper edition, but not on-line, so I am reproducing it here:

Quango can go

The government is trying to impose a mind-bogglingly large number of homes on Cambridge on top of the excessive number already planned, via its undemocratic regional quangos.

While I am glad that the city Labour leader is questioning the latest figure (News, April 15), wouldn't it be better if he lobbied the government to follow the Conservative pledge to abolish top-down housing targets and put the responsibility back into the hands of accountable local councils?

We should try to kick the Regional Spatial Strategy into the long grass until we can have a change of government.

Andrew Bower
Coleridge Conservatives
Argyle Street
Cambridge

The pledge to abolish Regional Spatial Strategies and as a result allow local authorities to rewrite their local development frameworks is one of my favourite national Conservative policies (see Control Shift green paper on localism) and would be hugely beneficial to Cambridge, considering the threats of obscene over-development that are currently hanging over us.

City Council Annual Meeting

Yesterday was the City Council's annual meeting - and at this point of the year the group leaders make their annual statements, including the Liberal Democrats statement and the Labour statement about their priorities for the year ahead.

As I am not technically a group leader, I was only allowed to speak more briefly during the debate, and set out the areas Conservatives in the City would like to see some changes - see below.

Interestingly, the Green and independent have decided to form a group - and they made it very clear I wasn't welcome to join! Forming a group gives them various benefits, such as better access to briefings from officials, and the right to make an annual statement - in other words, for single Councillors such as myself and the Green Councillor from parties who field candidates across the City, being in a group could help me promote a City wide vision from our respective parties - not unreasonable when Conservatives secured 25% of the votes across Cambridge City this May. I had proposed a completely non-political grouping of the 3 individual Councillors, purely to secure the administrative benefits. By rejecting this, the Independent and Green have decided to form a political grouping, united by at least the policy of being anti-Conservative. I can think of many Conservatives in Castle work who will be surprised to discover the independent they voted for has actually made a point of being anti-Conservative from the start. But for the annual meeting, this grouping gave the Green party Councillor the opportunity to make an annual statement, but apart from attempted justification of why she had joined a group with an independent, there was nothing mentioned about the Green Party vision for Cambridge, or what they would like to do, given the opportunity. I have to say this was slightly surprising - it will be interesting to see how this confusingly named Green-Independent political group on the Council will develop.

Anyway, here is the Conservative Annual Statement Response - focussing on the key two themes I was elected on, namely putting the Council tax payer first, and insisting on high quality and transport infrastructure in new developments.

"Its good to be back, but I know I have a huge sense of responsibility, both to the residents of Coleridge who have elected me to be here, and to the 25% of voters in Cambridge City who voted Conservative and are desperate for a Conservative voice on the Council.

As such, I would like to respond to the Leaders annual statement by highlighting the changes Conservatives would like to see to the City Council’s priorities.

My first comment is about a major omission. People are finally realising that they are paying more and more in tax, and have not received anything like commensurate improvements in public services. As the 10p tax row has shown, particularly those on low incomes are now really suffering from the tax and squander policies of the government.

Nothing in either the Liberal Democrat or Labour Annual Statements will give any comfort to hard pressed Council tax payers that the City Council will be providing relief any time soon from the hugely increased tax burdens they face at a difficult time.

Successful Conservative administrations such as at Hammersmith and Fulham have proved that Conservatives can make a real difference to the tax burden, actually lowering Council tax by 3% for the second year running, and now is the time for this Council to play its part and try to stop future City Council tax rises above the rate of inflation.

Conservatives would like to see a bottom up revue of all Council spending, to reduce costs, consider alternative forms of service provision, and make sure outcomes justify the money spent. As David Cameron said this week ‘politicians are just shockingly casual about public money and how it's spent.’

It is difficult in the short period of time to identify savings, but here are a few suggestions.

This Council could do worse than to start by looking at scrapping the poorly attended Area Committees, with unwilling and inexperienced Councillors being asked to consider planning applications late into the night – or at the very least remove planning decisions from these meetings and reduce their frequency.

When I was last a Councillor, I was suggesting that we should prioritise using information technology and our website to reduce the costs of communicating with residents and all other stakeholders, a plea turned down at the time. So it is good to see that 6 years later this has now made it into the ruling group’s priorities – there must be other ways of using technology to improve efficiency.

Climate change has suddenly appeared high on the Council’s priorities. As convinced as I am of the need for action, I am convinced that the real progress can only be made at a national or international level. Whilst there may be some value in considering about how climate change might affect us in Cambridge, spending locally to try actually reducing climate change must be subject to serious scrutiny to measure the outcomes compared to the cost to local taxpayers.

Through these measures and more, we need to remember who is paying the bills and put the Council Tax payer first.

The biggest issue facing Cambridge today is planning for the growth agenda. I find it difficult to avoid using the word Stalinist to describe our planning system. Central government dictates to local authorities how many houses must be built and where, along with all manner of other social engineering through planning policy guidance. Local Councils chip in with their own set of demands, not least the rush to grab as many allocation rights to property as they can, subsidised by those who can least afford it – hard working families in lower paid private sector jobs. The result is all too often hideous new development, with insufficient transport, fought tooth and nail by current residents, like those in Coleridge faced with the East Cambridge development who just see loss of green space and transport chaos on Perne Road, Cherry Hinton Road and Newmarket Road, with no upsides whatsoever. People want their local representatives to stand up to this system.

I have high hopes that the change of government, now less than 2 years away will give more power to local residents to genuinely control how new development is planned, so that developers and the local Councils must start appealing to what people actually want. In the meantime, this Council must do all it can to ensure planning policies result in high quality developments, with distinctive design, green open spaces and highest environmental standards. An above all, we must ensure sufficient transport infrastructure is in place.

And on this issue, we have seen a complete lack of leadership from the Liberal Democrat administration. They failed to oppose Guided Bus, and this Council told the audit commission it was working well with the County Council to deliver a mass transport system in the County. Yet they have sought to undermine the scheme at a local level, to the detriment of a constructive working relationship with the County Council. Stop sitting on the fence, you should either have opposed the Guided Bus and offered an alternative, or publicly support it now to help make it work.

There is a similar lack of leadership shown on the issue of congestion charging. If, as appears likely, you are in favour in principle of congestion charging, then have the courage of your convictions and tell people what you really think.

A Conservative Council would put quality of developments and sufficient transport infrastructure at the heart of its planning policies.

On other issues, I look with dismay at this Council’s performance on recycling since I was last a member – as neighbouring Conservative controlled Huntingtonshire and Peterborough have moved ahead. Residents are demanding more user friendly and efficient recycling system for the City, and we should be delivering on this.

At a very local level, residents see litter on the streets, and cars parked on the verges – the Council’s performance needs to improve on these issues.

Problems with anti-social behaviour blight many parts of the City. CCTV and bans on new licenced premises can help, but there must be limits to the use of such draconian measures affecting everyone. We need to be much better at recording specific incidents and responding to them, with zero tolerance of people causing problems, and reminding people of their personal and social responsibilities.

In summary, Conservatives will be scrutinising spending at this Council, looking for cost savings and putting the taxpayer first. We want to see the Council spend less time writing strategies, meeting targets for targets sake, and jumping on the latest bandwagons. We should concentrate on delivering basic services well and at the lowest possible cost for Cambridge residents of today, and for Cambridge residents of the future, we must get growth and development right."