Fence Sitting or Pre Determination

As a local councillor, the other day I was accused (among many other things) as sitting on the fence. A very common complaint made against Councillors, so why is it that Councillors are very careful about getting behind a local campaign group, wishing to build or not to build, this or that, here or there.

Well the simple answer is that they are banned from doing so, by law.

Many from outside Councils I’m sure are now asking what!

Councillors currently are governed by a set of rules set out in the Local Government Act 2000 and Local Authorities (Model Code of Conduct) Order 2007, which members and councillors must abide by.

Within these documents is a section about what is called Pre Determination.

This in part, is what it says:-

“Predetermination is where a councillor’s mind is closed to the merits of any arguments which differ from their own about a particular issue on which they are making a decision, such as an application for planning permission. The councillor makes a decision on the issue without taking them all into account.

If councillors are involved in making a decision they should avoid giving the appearance that they have conclusively decided how they will vote at the meeting, such that nothing will change their mind. This impression can be created in a number of different ways such as quotes given in the press, and what they have said at meetings or written in correspondence.

Rarely will membership of an organisation on its own, such as a national charity, amount to apparent bias. This is unless the organisation has a particular vested interest in the outcome of a specific decision that a councillor is involved in making, or the decision is quasi-judicial in nature.”

Some extreme but true examples:

·        Members of South Cambridgeshire District Council were warned that they may be disqualified from discussing a proposed new site for a mobile phone mast if they themselves used a mobile phone, and could not comment on a proposed new park and ride scheme if they owned a car.

·        Candidates standing for election to Reigate and Banstead Council were warned against discussing a controversial decision to close a local swimming pool and sell the land for housing, because to express a view would exclude them from voting on the issue if elected.

·        An independent councillor on Rushmoor Borough Council was prevented from voting at full council on a proposal to turn the Farnborough Aerodrome into an executive jet centre, because he had expressed his opposition to the plans during his election campaign.

·        Councillors on North Shropshire District Council were discouraged from expressing their views on plans to introduce parking charges in three local market towns until a final decision was taken, for fear that to comment before the vote could leave the council open to legal challenge. This was despite the plans to introduce parking charges provoking lively debate among local residents.

So before having a go at your local councillor, for what sounds like a luke warm endorsement for your campaign, remember he or she has to play the game by the rules or be banned from playing.

The good news.

Local Government Minister Grant Shapps has stated that :-

“The Localism Bill will change the law to allow councillors to campaign on local issues and champion the needs of their residents - ending widespread and long-standing uncertainty among councillors, leaving them free to better represent their communities.”

Street Trading

Last week Penzance Town Council’s General Purposes Committee had a hard decision to make regarding a Street Trading Licence. Although the issuing of Street Trading Licences is a Cornwall Council decision (more on this later) the town council is consulted.

The application was for a stall in Market Jew Street, by Lloyds Bank, operating for up to seven days a week selling Olives and other related items.

When considering a Street Trading Licence the most important area that is taken into account by the committee are the goods being offered for sale, if there is a business already operating from a shop/retail premises selling the same or similar items in close proximity to where the applicant wishes to trade, we have to consider the effect the issuing of the licence would have on that business.  

The reasoning behind this is, we, as I’m sure most others do, want as many retail shops to remain on our High Street as possible.  As a street trader will have a commercial advantage, in that they do not have the fixed overheads associated with maintaining a retail outlet i.e. rent, business rates, insurance, electricity etc. The shopkeeper’s viability could well be severely affected by the granting of a street trading licence, which pays a one off fee per annum.

Whereas the opening of a shop selling the same or similar goods, over which Councils have little or no control, is a commercial decision for the shopkeeper.

In this case there are two retail shop’s selling a similar range of goods in immediate proximity to where the applicant wished to trade.  Not withstanding this, the vote was tied and came down to the casting vote of the acting chairman; a post that I had stood down from at the last meeting, the recommendation was for refusal.

I can think of few areas that Town & Parish Councils could manage better than Cornwall Council than Street Trading Licensing.

The local clerk’s office could discuss with applicants before they submit their application, the criteria on which it will be judged, offer alternatives, explain developments that are in the planning stage, the applicant could still submit the application, that’s their right, but an application could be managed better. It would enable Town & Parish Councils to encourage street trading in areas of the Town that could do more to assist Town Centres to remain viable.

Do I think that Cornwall Council will hand over the managing of Street Trading to the Town & Parishes, no, they see it purely as a revenue stream and as such something to hang on to.

For the record I voted in favour of the granting of the licence, Cllr P Rendle was Chairman. 

Update: My thanks to Cllr A Wallis for pointing out that Street Trading is a Statuary Duty, so Cornwall Council can not pass to Town & Parish Councils. One, for the Localism agenda maybe.  

Core Strategy

Don’t know what’s it all about, I read something in the paper, it won’t effect me, I can’t be bothered, it’s only something Cornwall Council are doing, it won’t  mean anything, it will be forgotten in a few months, it’s just another consultation.

Comments above ring a bell?

So why is the Core Strategy important?

Well, within this document is the future of Cornwall, the future of your town or village, even for many your street.

Identified within this document are the sites scattered throughout the Duchy as to where housing is going to be built, developments take place and there are a lot of them.

Doing nothing now is not an option. In favour or against if YOU do not make your views known NOW it will be too late.

Let’s jump forward a year or two.

Developer wants to build 400 houses on a site, which is just across the road from where you live, currently the site is used by you and all your neighbours to walk the dog, children play there, it’s the only bit of green space open to all on the edge of the estate where you live.

Planning application submitted by developer, you form an action group, write to newspapers, set up website. Lobby local councillor, councillor asks what colour do you want the doors, what?

Cornwall Council officers at the planning meeting, point out that the site was identified within the Core Strategy as suitable for housing, at the consultation on the Core Strategy 100% of the comments for this site were in favour, (there may have only been two comments, both from developers). Local councillor has nowhere to go, can object, but it’s in the plan, no one objected.

Cornwall Council wants to build 48,000 houses and their media department is working overtime to convince you and me that these are needed. Read here about that need. 

When you look at the Core Strategy, imagine that every area marked as an area for development is actually an outline planning application, if you want your view to be heard NOW is the time. 

Penzance Harbour Options Review

Yesterday afternoon I went along to the Penzance Harbour Options Review, and good fun it was, got to meet lots of old friends, had a good chat with a lot of people. The turn out for the Review had been very good, with over 350 having turned up by 2 pm so with 7 hours still to go,  I’m sure it went very well.

So what did I learn, I should point out that I spent over 20 years of my working life at sea, but I’m no expert, but it would seem that hidden within Penzance is the greatest gathering of marine engineering, sea transport, harbour design experts in the world, if, as I’m sure there is, an International Conference on Harbour Design, Penzance would be very empty. I spent some time speaking with an old friend, he did not claim to be an expert, but as he gets to drive the Scillonian, his views were good to hear.

All the usual suspects were there, spouting as to why their scheme was the only one that would work, accusing everyone else, ( Town Council, Andrew George, Friends of Penzance Harbour, True Friends of Penzance Harbour, Chamber of Commerce, et al ) of doing this or not doing that, so all in all proper consultation.

As an exercise in consultation and engagement the Harbour Review Board could not have worked harder, having been as open with what they have been doing, as anybody could be, they came to this process with a blank sheet of paper, (much decried by some, who went out of their way to misinterpret their intentions), a limited amount of money and a very tight timetable. They brought in Hydra as consultants ((true experts) to cries of what do you need a bunch of consultants for? Well if you don’t know the answer to that, you really don’t have any idea), who had not been involved with the previous scheme, but already had a lot of information from work carried out for Penwith DC in the past, cutting both costs and time.

The presentation boards were good, in that options were put next to each other so a comparison between the options could be made.

I’m told that after yesterday all the comments will be taken into account and final options prepared.

Now if only we could get those, from all sides, to just stop for a minute, engage their brains, look at what’s on offer, see this as the start and not the end of redeveloping the Penzance Harbour area, use their energy in a more positive way, we just may get somewhere. Hope springs eternal. 

St Erth Park and Ride

Today I watched the Strategic Planning Meeting from Cornwall Council on its plans for a Park and Ride at St Erth. (Planning officer favourite for the year)

Whatever the merits of this plan, my overriding impression was that not enough, well planning, had gone into it.

Remembering that the applicant is Cornwall Council, you would have though the officers would have some idea of what was going on outside of their offices, public meetings etc. But no.

The officers did not seem clear as to what the park and ride was for, one saying it’s to relive traffic in St Ives, then it’s Penzance and later still Penwith, it’s for tourists, no commuters, to take traffic off the A30.

How many cars will use it, we don’t know. 

How will it be funded once in place, don’t know. 

Can you buy a parking ticket and train/bus ticket, we haven’t looked at that.

How much will it cost to park, we don’t know. 

Which busses will serve the park & ride, the bus companies have indicated that they have no plans to divert busses to the site. Park and no Ride?  The 300 will go to the site, (the 300 is the open top circular route, summer only service).  

How will you address access to the site, lights on the A30, will this not cause congestion, we don’t know. 

What about the narrow bridge? 

How will a pedestrian get to the site?
And so on, you get the idea I'm sure.

Cornwall Councils bacon saved by late intervention of legal suggesting a site inspection, stops what looks like  a refusal. Decision deferred. 

Now a bit of a rush to do some planning and issue Hymn sheets before the next meeting. 

Sainsbury’s Sec 106 Update

Sainsbury’s Sec 106 Update

I have blogged before about the Sec 106 agreement for Penzance here, and what a bad deal it was for the town, in brief, out of the £1,935,315 that was on offer, only £15,000 went to the town directly.

Since this offer was put to the town by a joint team from Sainsbury’s and Cornwall Council, the Town Council has held meetings to discuss the proposals, with a different set of officers from Cornwall Council assisting with the legal aspects and other issues, following these meeting a different set of proposals were agreed to be put forward. At a further meeting between Sainsbury’s and first set of officers, these revised options were put forward.

Park & Ride

Original offer:

 Dedication of Land for 250 space Park & Ride site with access through store site and £1.2m to construct the Park and Ride.

Revised Offer:

Safeguard land for a 250 space Park & Ride site for a period of 5 years and the contribution of £1.2m (BCI Indexed) to construct the facilities either on site or within the area.

Explanation:

This revised offer provides for the facility to be delivered but enables time to establish, as part of a wider transport strategy for Penzance, if the site is the right location and best park and ride solution for Penzance.

Justification/Background: 

The need for a Park and Ride was originally identified in the Penwith Parking Solutions Report 2005; and subsequently in the Aecom Study (2010) and the draft Penzance and Newlyn Framework (2011).

The above is very important, as I don’t think many people realise that when you go along to one of Cornwall Councils “Consultations” and look at the pretty maps, and fill in the loaded questionnaire, what happens next. Your views are added into a report, report accepted by Cornwall Council, that’s it, you have agreed that Penzance needs a Park & Ride, all the sites identified as being possible for development are now development sites, developer comes forward with application, outcry from everyone, but because you did not object at the “Consultation” you have already agreed to it, it’s in the plan. So when you go to a “Consultations” ( very few do) look at what it is you are agreeing to.

Park and Ride facilities encourage more people to make trips by bus.

 In addition to this proposed facility, there is a proposal to consider the feasibility of providing a Park and Ride facility at Eastern Green which forms part of the draft Penzance and Newlyn Framework (2011).

The Park and Ride site would be targeted at longer term parkers such as employees, day-trippers and ferry passengers thus freeing up parking capacity for short term parkers such as shoppers and other users of the town centre.

The siteing of a P&R at Eastern Green could also provide the option of walking or cycling along the beachfront into the town centre. However its final location and introduction should be part of a wider strategy that has considered complementary actions such as: rationalising parking in central Penzance, establishing a residents parking scheme and a public parking pricing strategy designed to increase the sustainability of the park and ride and discourage inappropriate long-stay parking in and around the town centre particularly the impact of employee car parking within the existing residential areas which will be achieved through the draft Penzance and Newlyn Framework (2011).

Pros: 

• The revised offer provides for the delivery of the facility but offers flexibility in its execution.
• It fits well with the proposed Transport strategy within the draft Penzance and Newlyn Framework (2011).
• Opportunities to support other town centre initiatives/developments
• Potential to alleviate existing parking pressure in Penzance
• Replaces ad-hoc and unmanaged parking solutions within the town to enable economic and regeneration benefits.
• Existing scheduled bus services provided by First and Western Greyhound pass the site
• Site offered is accessible and available on the main approach to town
• Development provides new destination which should be attractive to commercial bus operators
• The Section 106 offer allows flexibility over delivery.

Cons: 

• Early implementation would rely on current bus service level which might not meet target users needs
• Will require strong marketing and support to ensure people use it.

Bus Stops & link Jelbert way

Original Offer: 

Contribution of £213,000 to cover cost of constructing bus stops and pedestrian link between store and

Jelbert Way

Revised offer:

Contribution to cover cost of new bus shelters, pedestrian link and real time information. Savings achieved (to be confirmed by Sainsbury’s £150K) from not constructing lay-bys.

Opportunity for funding to be transferred to other town centre mitigation measures.

Bus Fares

Offer: 

Contribution of £75,315 to subsidise reduced fare stage on buses between site and town centre for a 15 year period

Revised Offer:

£75,315 to subsidise a reduced fair stage from Lugvan to Penzance via Eastern Green and return.

This bus route is under threat, part of the proposed Sainsbury development falls within Lugvan Parish. Will enable people from Lugvan/Longrock to access Penzance Town Centre on a subsidised bus route.

Linkage Improvements Offer: 

Contribution of £225,000 to cover costs of linkage improvements on A30

Current Position: Financial offer remains same but Sainsbury’s to revise proposals to focus on changing environment on A30. e.g reduction of  carriageway widths and provision of better pedestrian links along carriageway to enable reduction in speed limit.

Justification/Background: 

Approach to Penzance is widely accepted to be very poor.

The carriageway looks like an urban motorway with little thought or space given to pedestrians and other users. 

The Framework seeks to create a prominent “boulevard” with enhanced pedestrian, cycling and landscaping features to improve the environment and provide a high quality gateway into Penzance enticing visitors into the town rather than past it.

Pros:

• Proposed reduction in speed from 50 to 30mph between Branwell Roundabout and new store roundabout.
• Improved safety and environment for pedestrians and cyclists.
• Initiates the transformation of the entrance to Penzance.
• First phase towards significant environmental and visual improvements.
• Better pedestrian and cycle routes improve sustainability and health.

Cons:

• Funding proposed would not deliver the complete transformational change envisioned for all of the A30.
• Will require further contributions from other development and sources to improve whole length between Bramwells and Chy-an-Mor.

Replacement Signage

Offer: 

Contribution of £20,000 for replacement signage as required by Highways Agency

Current position:

Highways Agency to advise if costs can be reduced and if so any savings to be savings to be transferred to other mitigation measures.

Justification/Background: 

Signage on the A30 Trunk Road currently directs users to the Heliport site. The loss of the service from the site means these signs will need to be modified. This is a must do requirement.

Pros:

• Required to properly inform traffic users

Cons:

• This is a development cost  rather than of wider public benefit

Contribution to Business Improvement District (BID) Set Up

Offer: 

Contribution of £35,000

Revised Offer:

Contribution of £35,000 to be used to enhance the vitality and viability of the town centre through alternative means.

Justification/Background:

 BID identified by Stakeholders as appropriate. 

It may however be beneficial to review all options available to boost the town centre; alternate opportunities need to be allowed for in the audit of how the contribution is utilised.

Pros:

• A degree of flexibility exists over how the £35,000 is used to enhance the vitality and viability of the town centre.
• A BID could be an option
• Intended to be self financing after start up
• Intended to provide a wider impact than a town centre manager function
• Shown to be successful in other Cornish towns
• Led by local businesses
• Other options need to fully explored first to maximise the effectiveness of the whole town centre contributions package.

Cons:

• Funding will have to be identified to a specific activity that is CIL  compliant
• Need to gain support from local businesses.

Subsidised Town Centre Car Parking

Offer: 

Contribution of £152,000

Current offer:

Contribution of £152,000

Flexibility over the timing and use of the contribution to allow the Town to develop a strategy to secure the maximum benefit from the contribution.

Justification/Background:

Most popular element from Stakeholder meeting.

Based on previous events this would allow up to 19 full day free parking events across all car parks in the town centre. Alternate mixes could include a focus on specific car parks such as Causeway Head which would enable the funding the be used on more days.

Pros:

• Popular
• Can significantly boost town centre trade especially if used strategically and in conjunction with other town centre events, activities and marketing
• Within Councils control – has backing from Cornwall Councils Community Transport Manager.

Cons:

• Expensive and will only support  a number of events
• Requires advertising to be effective

Specialist Advice and Support to Penzance Town Council

Offer:

Contribution of £15,000 for Penzance Town Council to promote the vitality and viability of town centre.

Revised Offer:

Contribution of £15,000 remains but scope widened over funding use providing it remains CIL compliant.

Justification/Background: 

Opportunity for Town Council to have access to technical expertise to help develop strategies and initiatives.

Pros:

• Expertise can be invaluable and prevent pitfalls
• Raises and focuses awareness of potential current opportunities

Cons:

• Lack of support from Town Council
• Needs a clearer focus on delivery of practical benefits that will help enhance the town centre rather than focusing on strategies or reports for reports sake.

From the above you can see that this is a major change in the proposals, Sainsbury’s are currently talking to their legal team to ensure that these revised proposals meet all the requirements of a Sec 106 (Cil) agreement, and are robust enough to withstand a legal challenge from other developers.   

Housing

Cornwall Council in its core strategy claims that over the next 20 years we need to build a minimum of 45,000 houses to meet our housing needs. This is the minimum, it would actually like to build 85,000. Why, what is this housing need.

In 2001 the total population of Cornwall was 501,300, and in 2010, 530,900 so in that period the population increased by a total of 29,600 during a time of economic growth, remember during this time, we had the strangest celebration I’ve ever heard of, Cornwall qualified for ‘Objective One’. Lets celebrate we are one of the poorest areas in Europe, millions were to be spent in the area, well we all know what happened, at the end of that time, Celebrate again, we qualify, for Convergence Funding, why, because we are one of the poorest areas in Europe. But I digress.

An increase in population of 29,600. (As a guide Shropshire, a rural county of the same size as Cornwall had an increase in population of 10,200, its 2010 population 293,400)

But as with all figures, it’s not the whole story.

Where did this increase come from? Were a lot of children born?

Well no, in the 0 = 18 age range the figures were 110,200 back in 2001 and had risen to 110,522 by 2010, a total increase of 322, so not a lot was going on during long cold nights. If this housing is for our children, they will get a lot each.

With so much economic activity going on, the numbers in working age groups must have shot up, well no, again, for the 16 – 65 age range, the population increased by a whopping 13,757.

Just a 2% increase in working age population and in here is one of the most damming set of figures of all.  In the 50 -60 age range, people at the top of their profession, the senior managers, the big earners, the number living in Cornwall dropped, yes dropped by 5,300 in this same period.

So, where did all the growth come from, as we can see from the 50 – 60 age range, we did not get older and retire, we got older and left.

   

Yes, as expected all the big growth came in the over 60’s the number rising by 22,406, but as so many in the 50 – 60 age range left, this was not internal growth, a high percentage had to move in, and that’s the problem.

If, the economy of Cornwall remains as it is, or gets worse, the more likely, the housing need we are fulfilling is not there, the economy will not support it.

Yes, I know that many people living here can not afford to buy a house, that houses are not affordable, but they are affordable just not to us, so the problem is not a housing crisis, it’s an economic crisis and the building of thousands of homes will not and has never solved that.