Eric Pickles' long-awaited 'localism' bill is on its way. The Big Society is coming to a town hall near you!
One measure announced to day is the Community Right to Buy for vital community assets under threat, giving a window to allow a community bid to be put together.
Cambridge - and the rest of the country - has seen failing pub companies sell currently unprofitably pubs for housing, claiming that they are impossible to run profitably, just because they have failed to do so. New owners could in many case make a big difference but don't get an opportunity.
While Cambridge city is still well served for pubs, rural areas being much worse affected, it won't survive losses going on at the current rate. Recently we've had the Duke of Argyle and The Jubilee go and the Queen Edith and Portland Arms under threat. There are more.
It's not just pubs that could be saved by this new right - shops and community centres could be helped too. It's no panacea, planning changes are also needed - the Lib Dems in Cambridge must take responsibility for shaping our local planning rules badly - and communities will inevitably not always be able to get exactly what they want, but it is a welcome innovation.
By the end of this parliament could Eric Pickles shape up to be the best thing to have happened to local civic life in Britain since Joseph Chamberlain?
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Conservation area for Romsey?
The city council is consulting on a possible 'conservation area' for Romsey Town or a link with the existing Mill Road and St Matthews Conservation Area to cover the whole of Mill Road.
There will be a public meeting and exhibition in St Philip's Church, Mill Road, at 7.30pm on Thursday 2 December including a talk by Allan Brigham. The exhibition will also be available between 10am and 4pm on Friday and Saturday.
The report on the scheme and response form are not yet online but should appear shortly. Call the City Council Historic Environment Team on 01223 457168 for more information.
A conservation area would extend existing planning restrictions to require permission for a range of demolition and alteration work and tree works that otherwise would not require it and requires full rather than outine applications to be made so that it will be possible to judge an application on the basis of whether they will fit into their surroundings.
There will be a public meeting and exhibition in St Philip's Church, Mill Road, at 7.30pm on Thursday 2 December including a talk by Allan Brigham. The exhibition will also be available between 10am and 4pm on Friday and Saturday.
The report on the scheme and response form are not yet online but should appear shortly. Call the City Council Historic Environment Team on 01223 457168 for more information.
A conservation area would extend existing planning restrictions to require permission for a range of demolition and alteration work and tree works that otherwise would not require it and requires full rather than outine applications to be made so that it will be possible to judge an application on the basis of whether they will fit into their surroundings.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Snow and Rustat Avenue collections
It was good to see that the city's refuse collectors managed to get out this morning. A couple of exceptions were Rustat Avenue and William Smith Close where the blue bins could not be collected due to ice. They will attempt collection tomorrow (Tuesday) instead.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Mill Road Winter Fair
Mill Road Winter Fair is back on Saturday!
Mill Road will be closed to traffic from Tenison Road to Coleridge Road during the hours of the fair, 10.30am to 4.30pm, 4 December.
Personally I'm looking forward to my old favourite of one (or two) of Andrew Northrop's hot dogs. Let's hope it's a nice crisp day like today - blue skies and no wind!
If anyone would like to help the organisers, such as by stewarding, get in touch with them through their website.
Mill Road will be closed to traffic from Tenison Road to Coleridge Road during the hours of the fair, 10.30am to 4.30pm, 4 December.
Personally I'm looking forward to my old favourite of one (or two) of Andrew Northrop's hot dogs. Let's hope it's a nice crisp day like today - blue skies and no wind!
If anyone would like to help the organisers, such as by stewarding, get in touch with them through their website.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Civic Affairs Committee
The fight for transparent local government was taken up yesterday evening at Cambridge City Council's Civic Affairs Committee.
I had sought and been granted permission to film the committee meeting. Thank you to the committee chairman, Cllr Boyce.
Cambridge City Council Civic Affairs 15 November 2010 from Andrew Bower on Vimeo.
The main business of the meeting was agreeing the calendar for the year's council meetings and the outcome of a review of polling district boundaries. Top psephologist Cllr Colin Rosenstiel was in his element at this point, although fortunately we were spared a treatise on the single transferrable vote. The polling district boundary review is important to ensure that it is convenient for everyone to vote and that excessive queueing leading to people not being able to cast their votes is avoided. Some changes were agreed.
There are also knock-on implications for candidates' tellers when overlapping sets of polling numbers are in use at the same building but the chief executive made it clear that she would only consider the impact on voters, even though tellers play an important role in increasing turnout at elections.
The interesting part of the meeting, however, was a public question from Cambridge resident Richard Taylor. Mr Taylor had been influential in getting a recording protocol put in place at the city council and sought to ask why he had been singled out in being banned from filming meetings while a complaint against the council was being investigated and to offer some insights into the restrictive nature of the agreed filming protocol and how that is likely to put off broadcasters and other journalists from participating.
I fully support Mr Taylor's campaign for openness and transparency in the way that the proceedings of meetings are recorded. As he points out, the minutes often omit key factors in deliberations such as which councillor said what.
I also believe that members of the public who seek to influence public policy by addressing such meetings should be accountable for their contribution; if they wish to raise a confidential concern that can be done directly with their councillor but the determination of policy ought to be public. However, as with Mr Taylor, I was of course willing to take all direction given by the chairman of the meeting. In this case I was allowed to film public questions although Cllr Boyce kindly advised me not to for the sake of not being dragged through the courts by members of the public. As the only public speaker Mr Taylor indicated his willingness to be recorded, although having agreed a position for the camera in advance I didn't have an opportunity to pan to capture Mr Taylor's contribution visibly.
The Chief Executive's answers to Mr Taylor were not entirely satisfactory and the ruling Lib Dems had little to say on the matter although he was supported by helpful contributions from opposition councillors.
I hope that we will see more meetings recorded in future - turning up to long meetings to hear individual items is a time consuming occupation so we should find ways such as this to increase participation in local politics.
Also available: Higher bitrate Flash video download (Main - 449MB) (End - 49MB)
I had sought and been granted permission to film the committee meeting. Thank you to the committee chairman, Cllr Boyce.
Cambridge City Council Civic Affairs 15 November 2010 from Andrew Bower on Vimeo.
The main business of the meeting was agreeing the calendar for the year's council meetings and the outcome of a review of polling district boundaries. Top psephologist Cllr Colin Rosenstiel was in his element at this point, although fortunately we were spared a treatise on the single transferrable vote. The polling district boundary review is important to ensure that it is convenient for everyone to vote and that excessive queueing leading to people not being able to cast their votes is avoided. Some changes were agreed.
There are also knock-on implications for candidates' tellers when overlapping sets of polling numbers are in use at the same building but the chief executive made it clear that she would only consider the impact on voters, even though tellers play an important role in increasing turnout at elections.
The interesting part of the meeting, however, was a public question from Cambridge resident Richard Taylor. Mr Taylor had been influential in getting a recording protocol put in place at the city council and sought to ask why he had been singled out in being banned from filming meetings while a complaint against the council was being investigated and to offer some insights into the restrictive nature of the agreed filming protocol and how that is likely to put off broadcasters and other journalists from participating.
I fully support Mr Taylor's campaign for openness and transparency in the way that the proceedings of meetings are recorded. As he points out, the minutes often omit key factors in deliberations such as which councillor said what.
I also believe that members of the public who seek to influence public policy by addressing such meetings should be accountable for their contribution; if they wish to raise a confidential concern that can be done directly with their councillor but the determination of policy ought to be public. However, as with Mr Taylor, I was of course willing to take all direction given by the chairman of the meeting. In this case I was allowed to film public questions although Cllr Boyce kindly advised me not to for the sake of not being dragged through the courts by members of the public. As the only public speaker Mr Taylor indicated his willingness to be recorded, although having agreed a position for the camera in advance I didn't have an opportunity to pan to capture Mr Taylor's contribution visibly.
The Chief Executive's answers to Mr Taylor were not entirely satisfactory and the ruling Lib Dems had little to say on the matter although he was supported by helpful contributions from opposition councillors.
I hope that we will see more meetings recorded in future - turning up to long meetings to hear individual items is a time consuming occupation so we should find ways such as this to increase participation in local politics.
Also available: Higher bitrate Flash video download (Main - 449MB) (End - 49MB)
Friday, November 12, 2010
Local Planning Document Defective
In a rare case of them actually turning down a development Lib Dem councillors are crowing at how they appear to have 'saved' the Queen Edith pub from demolition at yesterday's South Area Committee.
Normally they hide behind the rigidness of the planning rules, the quasi-judicial planning process and their fear of the (exaggerated) cost of rejections going to appeal and being awarded to the appellant. However, in this case the Lib Dems seem to have rejected the application (10/0815/FUL).
Planning decisions currently can only be made with reference to national and local planning guidelines. The Lib Dems in Cambridge are responsibile for our own local plan but the plan is defective. It offers:
This is just the start of the problems. With 'affordable housing' quotas limiting housing for those in the middle band Cambridge is quite simply a planning disaster zone. Conservatives have been battling the Lib Dems over planning for years, both centrally and in clashes in Lib Dem-held wards like Trumpington. We won't stop holding them to account.
Meanwhile we'll see if the Queen Edith really is saved or if a new application is forthcoming or an appeal is lodged. It is frustrating when large pub companies and breweries try to argue that planning permission for housing is justified on the basis that they haven't been able to run a good business - let a smaller business or independent publican have a go!
Normally they hide behind the rigidness of the planning rules, the quasi-judicial planning process and their fear of the (exaggerated) cost of rejections going to appeal and being awarded to the appellant. However, in this case the Lib Dems seem to have rejected the application (10/0815/FUL).
Planning decisions currently can only be made with reference to national and local planning guidelines. The Lib Dems in Cambridge are responsibile for our own local plan but the plan is defective. It offers:
- No protection for pubs.
- Inadequate defence for Cambridge's distinct heritage and low skyline.
- A crazy rule limiting the number of parking spaces permitted per new dwelling to less than one.
This is just the start of the problems. With 'affordable housing' quotas limiting housing for those in the middle band Cambridge is quite simply a planning disaster zone. Conservatives have been battling the Lib Dems over planning for years, both centrally and in clashes in Lib Dem-held wards like Trumpington. We won't stop holding them to account.
Meanwhile we'll see if the Queen Edith really is saved or if a new application is forthcoming or an appeal is lodged. It is frustrating when large pub companies and breweries try to argue that planning permission for housing is justified on the basis that they haven't been able to run a good business - let a smaller business or independent publican have a go!
Monday, November 8, 2010
Realism and Denial at the Guildhall
I don't think much of the way the Lib Dems run Cambridge City Council; their approach to growth, planning and transport are wrecking the city and their fortnightly bin collections, relentlessly-increasing council tax and approach to 'affordable' housing are not helpful.
But the realistic attitude towards the need to rationalise public spending they have adopted since the formation of the coalition is commendable. It's certainly a refreshing change from the fantasy economics of just a penny on income tax to solve all ills that we are used to from the Liberal Democrats.
The mantle of denial about public finances is taken up by Cambridge Labour, whose budget amendments have often attracted Conservative approval in the past. Sadly today's debate on the Medium Term Strategy descended into national party political point scoring by Coleridge's new Labour councillor and other Labour councillors.
Labour councillors presented no alternatives and made no constructive suggestions for improvements to the strategy, except possibly on homelessness, but that sounded more like a scaremongering dig about changes to housing benefit.
We really do need better debate than this at the city council, and I urge Cambridge residents to support Conservative candidates at the next local elections to ensure a centre-right common sense voice on the council.
So I support the plans in the main, but would entreat the council to look afresh at all parts of spending, making sure we are only doing what benefits residents - start by dismantling apparatus focused on satisfying former government targets.
But the realistic attitude towards the need to rationalise public spending they have adopted since the formation of the coalition is commendable. It's certainly a refreshing change from the fantasy economics of just a penny on income tax to solve all ills that we are used to from the Liberal Democrats.
The mantle of denial about public finances is taken up by Cambridge Labour, whose budget amendments have often attracted Conservative approval in the past. Sadly today's debate on the Medium Term Strategy descended into national party political point scoring by Coleridge's new Labour councillor and other Labour councillors.
Labour councillors presented no alternatives and made no constructive suggestions for improvements to the strategy, except possibly on homelessness, but that sounded more like a scaremongering dig about changes to housing benefit.
We really do need better debate than this at the city council, and I urge Cambridge residents to support Conservative candidates at the next local elections to ensure a centre-right common sense voice on the council.
So I support the plans in the main, but would entreat the council to look afresh at all parts of spending, making sure we are only doing what benefits residents - start by dismantling apparatus focused on satisfying former government targets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
