Tiverton House Update

I've spent a fair amount of time over the last few weeks working on the Tiverton House issue.

Tiverton House was built as recently as the 1980s as sheltered housing for the elderly. The Council has long needed to bring their sheltered accommodation up to modern standards, and in their wisdom the Lib Dems decided to flog off Tiverton House to the highest bidder, to fund improvements elsewhere in the City. 

At no stage in the process has the Council considered what effect unsuitable alternative uses would have on the local area, and pressed on with the sale in the midst of a recession regardless. Last December I wrote to senior officials pleading not to sell Tiverton House for student accommodation. I asked questions in Council - yes we need to bring it back into use after 14 months empty, but it needs to be a suitable use.

My pleas, along with those from other ward Councillors were ignored. At the end of March we were informed that exchange of contracts was imminent, the purchasers likely intended use was for student accommodation, and the Council was even going to let work start before contract completion in May.

Since then I have chased up concerns about unreasonable working hours, but mostly tried to understand what powers we as Councillors have to object to student accommodation, and to make sure local residents and Councillors get some say. About a week ago I had an irate phone call from the new owner of the site, wanting to know why I was criticising his plans, how do I know what local residents want, and I should stop opposing his plans. Having spoken to many local residents about this issue over the last few weeks, I am confident that high density student accommodation in this area is not what people want, and I will fight to ensure everyones voice is heard, not ignored as the Council has done to date.

This seems to be an issue we agree with Labour on, so on Friday, along with one of our three Labour Councillors, I met with a senior planning official to discuss the potential planning implications.

The situation is complicated by the fact that their has been no formal planning application submitted, but we are confident that a number of possible elements of the new owners plan (e.g. converting guest rooms or shared spaces into flats, creating new entrances) will require planning permission, and rest assured we will be doing all we can to ensure any such changes come before a planning committee so local residents and Councillors will have the best possible chance of opposing undesirable plans for the site, and make sure issues like parking and refuse collection are fully considered.

At the meeting on Friday we also discussed a number of other approaches to the problem and want to setup a series of meetings with other parts of the Council. We have also asked to see copies of the sale agreements and any other conditions of sale - if the Council has failed in its duty to protect local residents interests, we will be holding the Liberal Democrats to account, because it is their misguided decision to sell this property rather than refurbish it that led to the current intolerable situation.

Meeting Building Control

I've arranged to meet up with a Building Control officer at the Council today to talk about building control, its role and powers etc, along with one of our Labour ward Councillors.

We would like to be discussing Tiverton House, and what the potential building control issues are for that building, but unfortunately the City Council's legal officers have advised that because another Building Controller is already working on the project for the developer, the Council's own officer can't even discuss the specifics of Tiverton House in any way. All I am trying to do is ensure that there is some way that local residents are given a voice over the future of Tiverton House - so it is a blow that as a local Councillor I can't get proper access to the information required, but hopefully we can get something useful out of the meeting today.

When I questioned the Executive Councillor for housing over Tiverton House at last weeks Area Committee, she was completely unaware that we can't talk to Building Control about Tiverton House, nor did she seem aware at all of the chaos her decision to flog off the building to the highest bidder had caused - we did however hear that the money that was supposedly required to complete the refurbishment program for other sheltered housing may not be enough - there is still no clear plan for the redevelopment of Seymour Court... I think the message may be starting to get through though that local residents aren't happy.

Second Tiverton House Public Meeting

There was a second meeting for local residents to discuss the latest situation with Tiverton House on Monday at St Thomas's Hall. All four ward councillors were present, as was the owner of Tiverton House. I was also present to learn from the experiences of the many residents who were present. A representative of the owner of the Perne Road shops site was also present.

Tiverton House
As Chris has explained in an earlier post, the current situation is that a planning application has been submitted for minor works (splitting the warden's house into two flats and adding extra cycle parking) but the bulk of the work in turning the building from a residential home to student accommodation, that has been proceeding apace, is not being submitted as a planning application.

We managed to tease out little by little some morsels of knowledge about the owner's plans so we now know more reliably that:

• The owner has a verbal agreement with Anglia Ruskin University such that they will nominate student tenants to rent all of the flats in the block. The owner stressed that the university's policy of no student parking would apply.
• There will be 96 bedrooms.
• 37 rooms are being built on the second floor, i.e. in the roof, despite these not being visible on the plans accompanying the application.
  

The council's planning officer has suggested that the owner obtain a certificate of lawful use in order to satisfy residents' concerns about his development, but this would not be possible within the time before students are expected to take up residence in the new building.

Chris Howell suggested a petition for a development control forum so that residents might be able to have a chance to challenge the overall intensification of the whole site in advance of the planning application being decided.

The deadline for responding to the planning application is tomorrow, Thursday 6th August.

Perne Road/Radegund Road Shops
The owners of the shop buildings on the roundabout between Perne Road and Radegund Road were represented at the start of the meeting and showed a drawing of the complete redevelopment that they would like to do of the site. It is a larger and taller building and would mean the loss of the current style of building at the site.

The overwhelming concern is that action is needed as soon as possible because the site is currently a mess and attracts antisocial behaviour, but there is also some affection for the style and profile of the existing buildings and some concern about the extent of the proposed replacement.

The leaseholder of one of the shops does not want to move and has rejected a compensation package that was offered if they could move. There is another offer on the table and the owners of the site will know whether they can proceed with full redevelopment or will just refurbish at the end of September.

Tiverton House Planning Application Received

Some stop press news - a planning application was received by the City Council late last week for work on Tiverton House, but it is only for very limited works - the conversion of the former warden's flat into two flats, and the provision of 12 new cycle parking spaces in the existing garden. (I think there may be a couple of formalities before it is accepted as a valid application, so can't find it on the planning portal yet)

Having read through the application this morning, it looks to me like the new owner of Tiverton House is not thinking of making any further planning applications, and is intending to re-open the whole of Tiverton House for 'private sector rental' if this application is allowed.

I am urgently seeking clarification with the planning department of what advice has been issued to the applicants about what will be permissible with and without planning permission - significant works have already been undertaken and we want an on site meeting to check every detail not covered by the new application is permissible - there was some correspondence during the election period that the officers couldn't discuss due to election rules.

We believe that this application should really be considered as a change of use of the whole building (all the plans accompanying the planning application are for the whole site), and the application judged accordingly.

We will be working with other ward Councillors to try and maximise the input allowed from local residents - I would like a follow up public meeting to get into the details of what is permissible under planning law, and will be requesting the application is determined by Councillors rather than officers - likely to be at a future area committee.

More details when we have them.

Meeting Building Control over Tiverton House

We did meet the Council Building Control officer last week to discuss building control. In the event, although we couldn't discuss the specifics of Tiverton House, it was still useful.

Where there is a 'material change of use', building control regulations apply in all the following areas:

B1 (means of warning and escape) 

B2 (internal fire spread - linings) 

B3 (internal fire spread - structure) 

B4(2) (external fire spread - roofs) 

B5 (access and facilities for the fire service) 

C2(c) (interstitial and surface condensation) 

F1 and F2 (ventilation) 

G1 (sanitary conveniences and washing facilities) 

G2 (bathrooms) 

H1 (foul water drainage) 

H6 (solid waste storage) 

J1 to J3 (combustion appliances) 

L1 (conservation of fuel and power) -dwellings 

L2 (conservation of fuel and power – buildings other than dwellings) 

P1 and P2 (electrical safety) 

Many of which could be relevant for the proposed conversion of Tiverton House into student accommodation. 

There are however two problems - firstly, depending on how the work is done, there may not be a material change of use in building control terms - we will be monitoring carefully what happens here.

However, perhaps more importantly, under the building control regulations, the new owners of Tiverton House can and have used external approved building controllers rather than the Council's own building inspectors. As a result, the building controllers only have to deposit with the Council formal notices such as an initial notice that works are about to start, and a notice indicating compliance at the end.

To make it clear, there is nothing to say the developer or building controller will do anything other than apply the building control rules correctly and comply with them, but if they don't, the options to challenge this for a member of the public appear to be limited to say the least. 

The Approved Inspector scheme is run by the Construction Industry Council, so you would need to go through their published complaints procedure (if you thought building control regulations hadn't been applied properly). Trouble is, it is hard to see how you would know the regulations hadn't been applied correctly, as none of the plans are public (in the absence of a planning application...), nor do the public have significant means of redress in this case.

In conclusion, building control doesn't sound like an effective approach to regulating the development on the site - that is what the planning system if for, but we haven't given up on this line of enquiry, and it did open up one or two others...

Tiverton House Planning Battle Hots up

The planners at the City Council must dread opening their inbox when they see an email from Coleridge Councillors at the moment, but there are similar concerns to those expressed in the Mill Road Tesco situation over at Tiverton House. In both cases the developers, large enterprises that should know what they are doing, are just going ahead with plans that they arguably don't have permission for.

To recap - the new owners of Tiverton house are carrying out extensive works on the building, for which they have not applied for a certificate of lawful use, nor received any planning permission (yet).

What they have done is to work from very early in the morning, sometimes until 9.30pm at night, put velux windows in the roof, installed huge steel girders, created vast amounts of additional bedroom space, and the only planning application is to convert the warden's flat into 2 flats, and to create cycle parking for about a dozen bikes - they think they can get away without planning permission for any of the other works.

The developers wanted the Council's opinion on the relevant planning issues, so the Council has written to them and placed their response on the planning file. Some extracts from the letter and my comments:

"I see from the drawings submitted that there are more external changes than were suggested when we met. For all that, the changes to openings within the walls and the introduction of some glazing to existing doors (albeit that they were previously fire doors), appears to me to be minor and not to, “materially affect the external appearance of the building”. Clearly however, this can be a personal view and not one necessarily shared by others."

On its own maybe, but not immaterial in the context of all the other changes.

"The alteration to the roof by the introduction of the velux rooflights is, again, a change, but the issue is whether it is one that, “materially affect(s) the external appearance of the building”. The legal test is whether the change will be visible from a number of normal vantage points and the materiality of the change must be assessed in relation to the building as a whole and not to a part of the building in isolation. Having had the advantage of seeing the rooflights in situ, which clearly can be seen from a number of normal vantage points, I am personally of the view that given the expanse of roof involved, and the angles at which much of the roof is seen, the rooflights do not materially affect the external appearance of the building taken as a whole. However, as I said when we met, that is a personal judgement only and may not be shared by others, including Members."

Indeed, this member of the Council does think there is a significant visual impact.

"As a general matter, it would appear that there are inconsistencies between your earlier drawings and what is happening on site and it would be useful to have a correct set of drawings with the planning application."

It would indeed be useful.

"As the planning application already addresses the matter of some cycle provision, I am of the opinion that those matters could be included within the current planning application and considered by Committee on 3 September, provided the information is forwarded shortly. In saying this I am conscious that the current application shows very different provision from that shown on the plans that accompanied your letter.

It is also my understanding that the provision being shown is considerably less than that being suggested by Environmental Health colleagues and I have some reservations about location relative to some of the accommodation. In visiting other accommodation (albeit occupied by students), I have been very conscious of how much space is required and how a site can rapidly deteriorate when the proper provision is not made at the outset."

It is going to be very difficult to get appropriate levels of cycle parking, car parking and refuse collection areas on such a small site considering the increase in bed spaces planned.

"What is also at issue, however, is whether the changes being undertaken are an intensification of the use of the site that constitutes a change of use requiring planning permission. As I have said before, it is a matter of fact and degree. On the surface, the increase in numbers of bedspaces from in the order of perhaps 40 to 96 bedspaces would appear to be significant and would constitute a change of use"

I couldn't agree more - 40 bedspaces of sheltered housing to 96 bedrooms likely to be occupied by students - surely this intensification constitutes a change of use that requires a planning application covering the whole scheme, so that residents and Councillors can get across the view that what is planned for the site it totally inappropriate and shouldn't be allowed.

I hope there are some Lib Dem Councillors reading this - to understand how angry local residents are with their decision to flog off Tiverton House to the highest bidder with no regard for the use planned for the site, and see how the planning situation is now panning out, with local ward Councillors desperately fighting to ensure there is some form of meaningful input for local residents on the substantive plans for the site through the planning system.

Pavement Politics

Had another interesting evening speaking to local residents this evening. Pavements are the type of problem Councillors like to fix. In reality there is a limited amount of money available each year for the purpose, so how it used to work when I was a Councillor was that Councillors are asked to nominate the worst areas in the ward, and footpaths were fixed in order. Everyone would like perfect pavements (but almost certainly wouldn't want to pay for them), and sometimes complaints are about streets that are a long way from worst in the ward. But when you get complaints about footpaths 3 times in 50 yards of canvassing, something has gone wrong. Some of the pavements in the area were merely bad. In parts they were downright dangerous.

This has been reported to the Council via FixMyStreet - be interesting to know if this is just something that inexplicably hadn't been reported before, or is something that is thought to be an acceptable state of repair for the time being.

Another big issue in this area is the Council's closure of Tiverton House. As a non-Councillor, it is hard to keep on top of all the issues considered by the Council, so where better to find information than on the Council's website. Typing 'Tiverton House' into the search box on http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/, and you would think this is a currently available facility (that has just had its lift refurbished!). As a Councillor, I pleaded that the Council should focus its e-government efforts on making comprehensive, reliable and relevant information available on the website - looks like there is still a way to go, but then the Lib Dems did pride themselves on putting their most IT clueless person in charge of the relevant committee (as it was felt more important to sympathise with those who are less IT able than to make competent decisions...). I digress - from a google search for "tiverton house" cambridge, (can't bear to put in a link, lets call it "Cambridge Pravda" some way down the first page of results) I can work out what has happened. Whilst Labour are bemoaning this closure, they might want to ponder the effect of targets and onerous standards from government on the provision of sheltered housing. Anyway, I still can't find out what is likely to happen to the site now - and local residents are concerned about the effects of possibly living next to a large building site...

Around Coleridge

Been a busy of couple of days with on-site meetings looking at some of the long standing ward issues:

Grass verges
The East area committee has allocated £25,000 to each ward including Coleridge to tackle problems with grass verges. Last night 2 of our 4 Councillors met (in the rain!) with a City Council officer, to talk about how we can use this very limited amount to help in the main problem area around Chalmers Road and Birdwood Road.

It won't be possible to repair all the verges, and the suggestion was that some of the money could be used for some yellow lining on Birdwood Road (especially round the junctions) that could allow some verges to be protected, and for some of the (much narrower) verges in Chalmers Road to be tarmaced, but with some new trees planted as well. Whilst there isn't the cash to pay for additional dropped kerbs (and it would be unfair on those that have had to pay for this work themselves), I suggested we look into whether a bulk deal on dropped kerbs could be negotiated to see if any residents would like to pay for improved access to drives, with the Council then being able to repair the verges with some hope of them surviving. Very early days, but hopefully plans for some improvements (if not a complete solution) should be forthcoming in due course for public consultation.

Perne Road Shops
As previously reported, the developer has put plans for the Perne Road shops redevelopment on hold until the finance markets improve. They are however working on putting hoardings around the site, and have offered to contribute to some artwork on the hoardings and building. Working with one of our other Coleridge ward Councillors, there was an on-site meeting today with teachers from Coleridge Community College, and a representative from Cambridge Curiosity and Imagination, a charity who work on community public art projects. The plan is for the school to work with the community and produce some public art. Hopefully the school will be taking this project forward with CCI, and with the support of local Councillors.

Tiverton House
Finally, at 7pm this evening, there is a residents meeting at St Thomas' Hall, Ancaster Way to talk about Tiverton House, with updates on the current (much improved) situation, actions since the last meeting, and a plan for the start of the next academic year. All local residents (including Tiverton House!) welcome.

Tiverton House

In response to queries on the doorstep in the Tiverton Way area, I've asked the Council about future plans for Tiverton House, and in summary, this is the situation:

1) Disposal was approved in November 2007 by the Lib Dem City Council. A sales agent was appointed, and the final residents left in March. There has been some work going on to prepare sales materials.

2) The Council has not yet received any planning enquiries from interested parties but these are expected very soon as the full information packs are being sent to prospective purchasers

3) The planning officer is clear that there isn't any option other than residential use .There are two likely outcomes either the building will be retained and adapted internally to upgrade the flats and eliminate the design idiosyncrasies or it will be demolished and the site redeveloped residentially.

4) the Council as vendor would be unlikely to put constraints on the disposal as the main requirement is to maximise the sale receipt.In the case of internal adaptations and refurb the potential for nuisance for local residents should not be great . In the case of redevelopment there could be the normal impact associated with a building site but the Council as planning authority would can set working hours limits and require the developer to work to the considerate contractor scheme

So in short, it isn't clear yet what will happen to the building or the site, but I'll be keeping on the case when there is some more news to make sure the impact on local residents is kept as low as possible.

Action meeting on The Forum

On Thursday night I attended a meeting held by the Tiverton Estate Residents' Action Group. The meeting of minds was called to try to get to grips with problems associated with The Forum, the ARU student accommodation block converted from the old Tiverton House residential home.

Coleridge Conservatives were represented by me on the panel, in place of Cllr Howell (who was representing the Conservatives in a public debate on student funding by prior arrangement) and also by Tim Haire, who has been working on this issue.

The panel included three city council officers, community beat sergeant Sgt Mark Kathro and a PCSO - I was impressed to see their commitment to the situation, which after all must be occupying a significant amount of their weekly work.

Sadly Anglia Ruskin University had refused to send someone to contribute to the meeting. We are of the view that proper engagement by the university with residents is essential to solving the problems at the site. ARU had already refused a request by Coleridge Conservatives for a meeting. It did transpire that ARU had met with council officers, but while this news was welcome, they need to be prepared to talk with residents and councillors.

Mr Ellis Hall of the Tiverton Estate Resident's Action Group outlined problems facing the community around Tiverton Way, divided into:

• road congestion
• litter and refuse
• lack of student facilities
• lack of guidelines & information for students
• lack of student supervision
• noise and sleep disturbance

It is crystal clear to anyone who was at this meeting, or prior meetings concerning the planning situation prior to conversion, that the residents around Tiverton Way welcome the students at The Forum and wish to have good community relations. No-one can accuse residents of scapegoating students; there is no 'fuddy duddy' reaction going on, it is just that a minority of students seem to be behaving without regard to their fellow students and residents.

To me it seems that the solution must involve annual briefings for students, the presence of senior students (non-first year, preferrably postgraduate, students who oversee their peers) in the building and the presence of a couple of student representatives on a consultative committee with other local residents.

We hope that ARU will start to engage with councillors and residents to solve this problem. Well done to the action group for their thorough work and for taking a balanced and non-confrontational approach.

What next for Tiverton House?

I am currently trying to find out the latest update from the Council about interest from potential buyers in Tiverton House, but it looks very much like it is still for sale.

It could be worse, but the building is already covered in ivy, and I've just reported an abandoned fridge there.

The Lib Dems running Cambridge City decided to sell off the former sheltered housing on the open market some time ago. That decision was never going to be a great one, but it is looking worse by the day. If there is, as I suspect, a lack of serious interest in the site, the Council should be urgently coming up with a new plan. It is a travesty if the City Council is allowing one of its own properties to remain empty for long periods of time when there is such demand for housing in the City.

Tiverton House finally sold

The City Council has exchanged contracts for the sale of Tiverton House, and is expected to complete the sale in mid-May. Unfortunately, the Council has ignored pleadings from Coleridge ward Councillors of all parties and has proceded with a sale to a new owner who we understand intends to use it for student accommodation.

The Lib Dem Executive Councillor took the decision some time ago to sell on the best possible commercial terms, and as a result requests not to sell the building for student accommodation without consulting local members were ignored. We think there was an opportunity to put reasonable conditions into the sale contract that may have helped avoid some of the problems with student accommodation that have occurred elsewhere in the City.

As yet it is unclear the extent of any works required on site - I don't think the new owner is looking to demolish completely and rebuild - although there will be some refurbishments in the immediate future. So we don't yet know if we will get a chance to challenge any plans through the planning process, although we will be scrutinising carefully any proposals the new owners bring forward.

Tiverton House

Last night at Full Council I again questioned the Council's policy towards Tiverton House, and urged the Council to come up with an alternative plan should they not be able to sell the property to bring it back into residential use.

The Lib Dem Executive Councillor for housing confirmed the scandalous situation that the property has now been vacant for 14 months, and refused to give any assurances that they would give up plans to sell it off, claiming they were again in negotiations with a purchaser. How are we supposed to pressurise owners in the private sector of empty buildings like flats above the Perne Road shops if the Council holds empty property like this?

I'm looking in to where they are with sales negotiations, to try and find out what any prospective new owners propose to do with the building.

Tiverton House still for sale

There has been some bad news on the empty property front - all the potential buyers of Tiverton House have fallen through, and the Council has now put the building, former sheltered accommodation for the elderly, back on the market.

Rather than make expensive refurbishments to bring up to current standards, the Council decided to try selling the building with a view to using the money to fund other refurbishments elsewhere in the City. A number of bidders proposing different uses were in the frame, but they are now back to square one.

I have raised concerns for a while that the Council wouldn't be able to sell the building, and was also worried about some of the proposed uses from potential purchasers. They better have a plan 'B' in place in case they can't sell at the right price, to bring the property back into use.

The Council leaving residential property empty makes it all the harder to put pressure on private developers, like the owners of the shops and boarded up flats on the Perne Rd/Radegund Rd junction. Clearly there are huge problems in both the residential and commercial property markets at the moment, but I am trying to (re)arrange a meeting with the owners via their agents to see what the prospects are for bringing forward a redevelopment scheme.

Progress at The Forum, Tiverton Way

I was at the latest meeting organised by the Tiverton Estate Action Group for interested parties to review progress mitigating the impact of the new student residence, The Forum, which replaced Tiverton House.

Good progress was reported from the November meeting which I had also attended. In particular the owners, Whitfield Group, had made successful efforts at solving some of the problems at and around the site.

Coleridge Conservatives have found that residents of the estate still report a significant problem with students' cars parking (which is not permitted by Anglia Ruskin University), there are still some noise problems and it remains to be seen whether much of the improvement is simply down to the cold weather.

But things are clearly looking much better than they would have done had residents not taken such a strong lead in bringing together relevant groups to solve the problems that have resulted from the Lib Dems' failure to dispose of council property appropriately and a broken planning system that deprived local people of a say. Residents have also at last been granted an audience with ARU.

It is hoped that further planned measures will help with relations with students, particularly in the next academic year.

Well done to local residents and thanks to Whitfield Group for their cooperation.

Lib Dems try to bring in Congestion Charging by the Back Door

The Sustainable Communities Act started as a private members bill promoted in the House of Commons by Conservative Nick Hurd MP, and received cross party support. It aims to promote the sustainability of local communities, covering economic, social and environmental issues. There were high hopes it would help Councils to protect independent shops on local high streets, and saving posts offices or community pubs.

The City Council recently held a workshop to discuss the act and how the Council might try use it, and came up with a list of possible actions – none of which would help protect local shops, post offices or other things that build sustainable communities or the local economy, but instead a list focussing on misguided environmental measures, some of which can only be described as barking, and that have the potential to do real damage to the local economy. But this list seems to have been taken seriously, as it is now featuring in an agenda item at Monday’s strategy and resources scrutiny committee. From http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/public/councillors/agenda/2009/0316sr/14.pdf

Short list of potential proposals for consideration by Panel
1 Enable the Council to positively discriminate in favour of local companies/suppliers when procuring, where this would have local and/or sustainability benefits.
2 Give the Council the power to ban the use of plastic bags or ban free plastic bags in shops – charge to deter their use
3 Require supermarkets to give priority to local food producers and have food packed locally
4 Give the Council the power to ban single occupancy cars from certain routes at certain times
5 Return traffic planning to the City Council. Local areas to enact their own traffic restrictions (assumes existing funding stream also moves)
6 Give councils powers to make local decisions on road pricing rather than under the control of central government
7 Give Cambridge city council Integrated Transport Authority powers under the Transport Act to secure better regulated public transport
8 Charge supermarkets (e.g. Sainsburys, Tesco) retail parks and offices for their car parking space and let Councils reinvest the money on local services
9 Change current legislation to allow the local authority to keep all revenues from council house rents for the improvement and new build of council houses in that authority.
10 Let councils keep business rates to spend locally
11 Make it easier to bring empty homes back into use
12 Give councils powers to charge higher council tax for second homes that are not occupied for most of the year perhaps to help fund more affordable homes

I can see some potential for making progress on reducing plastic bag use, but otherwise there are some real shockers in here.

Yes it is terrible that half the Council tenants’ rents are shipped off elsewhere, but tell me the Council isn’t already doing everything it can to protest about this.

“Make it easier to bring empty homes back into use” – from the Council that has kept Tiverton House empty for 14 months! They can already use compulsory purchase to bring homes back into use, even if the owner is trying to make improvements and neighbours aren’t complaining, such as on Auckland Road in the City. What more do they want - take a 4 week holiday and come home to find the Council has taken your home off you?

“Require supermarkets to give priority to local food producers and have food packed locally”. Supermarkets already do promote locally produced food – as a response to consumer demand. But insist food is packed locally – what planet are these people on? Do they have any idea how it is that our supermarkets are full of a wide variety of food at cheap prices. What next - a state controlled National Food Service anyone?

But it’s the transport measures that have the potential to do real damage to business, as many have been in considered and rejected in the past, and all have the potential to do real damage to the local economy. Last Council meeting, we passed a resolution calling on Cambridge University Press to do all it can to avoid job losses in Cambridge. Now we are telling them that their staff shouldn't drive in to work without finding someone to share the journey with, could be charged for entering the City, and then charged to park when they arrive at work. Employers won’t have to worry about needing to make people redundant – they will find it impossible to find staff prepared to work in Cambridge.

City Conservatives are fighting hard to ensure congestion charging is ruled out for Cambridge – the last thing we need is the Lib Dems trying to bring it in via the back door through the Sustainable Communities Act. And what a wasted opportunity to use what should be a very useful bit of legislation...

Tiverton Planning Application

The planning application submitted for Tiverton House can now be seen on the public access through the Council website and should also be available through the planning portal. The reference number is 09/0595/FUL.

The Forum Trolley Park

I found four supermarket trolleys outside The Forum yesterday. These have now been reported and will hopefully be removed soon. Please let us know if you live in the Tiverton Way area and are experiencing any other issues relating to this student accommodation formerly known as Tiverton House.

Vote Bower this Thursday!

It feels like an age since I resigned from the Council - I've only had a very limited role in the by-election planning, but know the huge amount of effort being put in by the Conservatives, as I currently share a house with the Conservative candidate! I would like to share my thoughts on the campaign.

There are only two serious parties contesting this election - the Conservatives and Labour.

The Green party leaflet I read made me amused and cross in equal measure - amused at the (frankly actionable) libel that I had abandoned my belief in small government, and had resigned because I opposed coalition attempts to bring the budget deficit under control. Angered at the suggestion they alone were fighting on issues like protection of grass verges, and the implication that they somehow support police enforcement of speed limits. At East Area committee, the Green party leader fought all the way to _stop_ the police enforcing speed limits, describing it as a scandalous waste of resources.

Local Conservatives disagree with the Greens on that issue - but you would never guess the Greens position from their leaflet in this campaign. For the record, I have never seen any evidence of actual Green party campaigning on the ground in Coleridge on any local issue.

When it comes to the Lib Dems, Coleridge residents really need to know what policies they stand for in Cambridge - the more you learn about them, the less reason people in Coleridge would have to vote for them. They support development on the airport, which would result in massive increases in traffic in Coleridge, that they would like to see mitigated by the introduction of a punitive congestion charge designed to force Coleridge residents out of their cars, regardless of the suitability of any alternatives.

As if that wasn't enough, they oppose the upgrade to the A14 as well - which could have been a key reason why the government couldn't support the plans - thanks a lot Mr Huppert... As the people responsible for local planning in Cambridge at the Guildhall, it is their policies that result in poor quality new buildings, garden grabbing, lack of open space on new developments, lack of car parking and poor local transport networks. Finally, they made the disastrous decision to sell Tiverton House to the highest bidder, despite our warnings appeals beforehand of the chaos that would follow.

The Lib Dems normally pop up in by-elections, bring in resources from miles around and claim that a candidate you never heard of before the campaign is the hardest working local campaigner ever. They really don't deserve residents support in Coleridge.

UKIP will likely again be pulling up the rear - appealing to Conservative voters, who like the Conservative candidate hate the waste, corruption and lack of accountability of the EU, but as in previous elections, UKIP's only possible contribution in this election will be to help Labour get elected to the City Council (where, trust me, very few of the decisions at all have an EU aspect...)

And so to Labour...

Labour got the public finances into a mess, planned for huge cuts before the general election without telling us where the axe would fall, and now they still have no plan, whilst claiming to oppose pretty much every attempt to reduce the deficit. This is nationally, but parties do matter in local government - it gives you some idea how your Councillor is going to represent you, particularly when the Labour candidate appears to be a Labour activist first and foremost. When the difficult decisions are being made at our local Councils, they need proper scrutiny from Councillors who are working from the basis that cuts to public spending are necessary, and it is about making difficult choices. I fear the approach of another Labour councillor, if elected on Thursday, will be to oppose every measure to reduce spending to make political capital, and avoid real Councillor scrutiny of decisions when it is most needed.

I very much enjoyed working with the Labour Councillors in Coleridge - some you saw more than others in the ward, and we obviously disagreed at a policy level at the Council on many an occasion (like when they voted in favour of introducing congestion charging!). But they were clearly committed to local, community politics, and being good local representatives. It may well have been a democratic choice (albeit new Labour style democracy), but I can't help feeling the some in the Coleridge Labour team may be disappointed with the candidate they ended up with. A contoversial student politician, studying in Cambridge on a relatively short term course, and living in the City Centre, who seems to see politics as a tribal battle of ideas, and not the role that local Councillors are most involved in - that is standing up for local residents in the ward you represent, and trying to get the Councils of whatever political persuasion to get action on the local issues.

One of the reasons why I decided to resign mid year, rather than wait until the local elections next May is that I think it is really important that residents have active Councillors looking out for their interests - I simply couldn't have remained in office knowing I wasn't giving my best.

Andy Bower is by far the best candidate at this election to make sure this work continues, and Coleridge residents concerns are put to the top of the pile at both the City Council and the County Council. It made an immense difference to the vigour with with Coleridge interests were represented having Councillors from two different parties elected for the ward.

Andy has played a very active role in Conservative campaigning in Coleridge over the last three years - he knows the issues, and has been persuasive in moving them forward, with myself, and at the County Council.

Cambridge City needs a Conservative voice - to stand up for lower taxes, smaller, better run government, development of Cambridge with the consent of local residents - that makes sure we have enough transport of all types, and preserves and enhances the quality of the City - in short it needs someone like Andy Bower.

He is the only candidate in this election with a track record of action in Coleridge - I would urge residents of all partys and none to support Andy this Thursday.

Decision Time!

Polls open at 7am tomorrow (Thursday) for the County and European elections. Remember, you do not need you polling card to vote, just turn up at the polling station if you are on the register. Postal votes (carefully completed per the instructions) can be delivered to you usual polling station as it is now too late to post them - we have heard of some delays in the post so this will be your only chance to vote if you haven't yet sent back the postal vote form.

If you are reading this to help you decide which way to vote, here is some guidance!

Firstly, we are not asking you to take on trust that we are already involved in the big issues in Coleridge - we would urge you to browse the blog postings we have made over the last year to give you an idea of the areas we have been working, and the lines we have taken. Andrew Bower has been actively involved in many of these issues. In no particular order:

Hills Road/Guided Bus

Tiverton House 

St Johns Post Office closure

Rustat Road parking issues, and the related Station Area redevelopment

Congestion Charging

Empty building, Perne/Radegund Roundabout

Cycling

Scrutinising the Folk Festival ticket fiasco

Policing and general crime/antisocial behaviour

New mosque plans

Mill Road Tescos?

Area Committees decision making

Speeding on residential roads in Coleridge

Council Tax

Grass verges

Planning and housing issues

And many, many more local issues!

Back to the local elections in Coleridge. Our simple manifesto, Bowers Blueprint, outlines the key issues facing us locally at this election.

1. Keeping Council tax down  A real difference between Labour, who think government spending is the answer to everything, and the Conservatives who think the tax burden is already too high, and government spending must be brought under control.

2. No to a Cambridge congestion charge  Coleridge Conservatives have total opposition to congestion charging in Cambridge, a tax the government is trying to force on us, that will hit the poorest hard. Andrew will do all he can to stop this charge.

3. No to forcing Marshalls off the airport Labour's housing targets are trying to force Marshalls off the airport, with the rapid expansion of the City this would imply, the special character of Cambridge is at risk. Andrew wants the County Council to look forward to a possible Conservative government that will give local people a real say over the future development of Cambridge, and put these plans on hold.

4. A Conservative voice on the County Council - with no Conservatives from the City currently on the County Council, Andrew will be a really strong voice for action in Coleridge if elected.

5. Working hard for Coleridge We have a great track record of working hard in Coleridge ward. Your Labour candidate will have split loyalties, as Labour's parliamentary candidate in rural south Cambridgeshire.

And finally, if you get this far, a bit about the politics of these elections. Coleridge is a very close battle between Labour and the Conservatives. A vote for someone other than the Conservatives will risk Labour winning in Coleridge. UKIP have no chance of winning locally, so if you normally vote Conservative and decide to vote UKIP for some inexplicable reason, you will be more likely to end up with a Labour Councillor (and one who is currently also trying to become Labour MP for South Cambridgeshire, so is likely to have divided loyalties at least over the next year!). 

In Europe, the Conservative MEPs have a fantastic record of standing up for British interests. They are about to leave the EPP grouping, where many members favour the European constitutional treaty (Lisbon treaty) that Gordon Brown broke his election promise to hold a referendum on, and will form their own more eurosceptic grouping. UKIP think they might do well this time in the European elections - its hard to see why. Of the 12 UKIP MEPs elected last time, 1/3 have left or been expelled. One elected in the Eastern region last time has been charged with false accounting and money laundering, anther, Ashley Mote was found guilty of 21 counts of fraud and sent to jail. The ones that have avoided prison have a track record of voting against British interest in Europe, such as voting to allow French and Spanish trawlers fish in British protected waters. They are a truly bizarre choice of protest party for the European elections. 

Whatever you think of what we have to say, please make sure you do vote. It is a bit cliched but people have fought and died, and in some parts of the world still are fighting to bring democracy, the chance for everyone to decide who will govern us - this is your chance to take part. That said, I've know Andrew personally for a while, he is capable and motivated by the desire to do better for local residents. I think he will make a fantastic representative for Coleridge and I urge you to support him!