Final consultation for draft Local Plan

Six weeks of public consultation on the final draft version of the city council’s Local Plan gets underway on Thursday 5 June.

This is the version of the plan that will be the basis for a public examination carried out by an independent inspector later this year. Full details and all the documents will be on the council’s website at www.canterbury.gov.uk/localplan.

Last summer, the council held 10 weeks of consultation on the preferred option plan. Nearly 7,000 comments were submitted, which covered a range of issues across the whole plan.

There was support for large parts of the draft plan, particularly policies relating to landscape, heritage, tourism and open space. The main objections related to the overall strategy and the development proposals, including the growth strategy for the district, amount and location of development, specific site allocations, capacity of local services and the ability to deliver the necessary infrastructure, and environmental issues.

As a result, the council has made some changes to the draft plan, partly to reflect additional information and comments that were received, and partly to ensure that the draft plan is consistent with national guidance (such as the National Planning Policy Framework) and evidence collected by the council over the last few years.

In the consultation starting this week, people will be able to comment on any aspect of the draft plan. But at the public examination, if anyone wants to object to parts of the plan, it will help the inspector if they can identify in their comments why they think the plan is not ‘sound’. Advice on how to go about making a comment is available on the council’s website.

Consultation is also taking place at the same time on the draft District Transport Strategy and Open Space Strategy. These are integral parts of the Local Plan and back up the whole plan process. Council Leader Cllr John Gilbey said:

“We have reached this point following several years of hard work and consultation, producing a Local Plan that we believe provides development in the most sustainable locations. And I am particularly pleased that we are proposing that several areas of the district should have Local Green Space protection.

This is now the final period of consultation before the public examination when the plan receives rigorous independent scrutiny, so I would urge people to make their views known over the next six weeks.”

The consultation will close on Friday 18 July. Copies of the plans will be available to view at the council’s offices in Canterbury and Herne Bay, in libraries across the district and at Whitstable Museum from 5 June.

A number of public information evenings are being held during the consultation period for people to learn more about the plans. They will take place starting at 7pm at:

• Monday 16 June – Herne Bay High School
• Wednesday 18 June – Spires Academy, Sturry
• Wednesday 2 July – Kent County Cricket Ground

CCC website 03 June 2014

John Gilbey’s blueprint for Herne Bay

The Leader of our Council has produced a blueprint for debate. As he says:

As a member of the City Council for 11 years and as Portfolio Holder for Regeneration for 9 years, I have had a unique insight into many issues across the District and the County.

I don’t have all the answers to questions that are asked and would never make such a claim, but I would like to use my years of accumulated knowledge to present my ideas for the future of the Canterbury District.

This is not a plan, or a proposal, these are merely my own personal thoughts, a blueprint to encourage meaningful debate on these issues. This is a document to encourage you to write to me with your views and opinions, to stimulate positive ideas on the ways forward for all of us.

After a little chat about how in love with the Local Plan he is, and how we will all be living in “garden towns”, basking in the glow of “sustainable urban design”, Cllr Gilbey goes on to focus on specific areas.

Here’s what he has to say about Herne Bay [with my comments] – do feel free to add your own comments below.

---

Herne Bay

The council will complete the town centre upgrade [after how many years, while you were portfolio holder for regeneration?] including moving the market and preserving some of the buildings currently in a state of decay [examples?]. There is a need to re-open some disused buildings and homes [examples?], and tax second homes appropriately [why, how, and how much?].

A proposal to open up Beach Street and rejuvenate that environment will also be completed [completed? has planning been approved?] as part of the upgrading of the town and in that context the sea front itself should be the subject of renewal/upgrading with analysis and decisions to be taken in the light of local views and aspirations [NO! it should be DRIVEN by local views and aspirations] on the future purpose of such an attractive location. We should widen the appeal and facilities of Herne Bay even further to encourage both tourism and business to provide local jobs.

We will have a solid foundation for a greater marketable attraction with all these planned developments. I strongly believe we should also support the Pier head activities [I think you mean the Pier stub – your Council has long since admitted it has no intention of rebuilding to the Pier head], satisfactorily resolve the future of the Museum [after YOUR Council cut its opening hours, following YEARS of neglect] and continue protection for the Downs [your Council is the ONLY objector to the village green application – village green status is the greatest possible protection under English law]. King’s Hall needs to be fully supported in its endeavours to become a self supporting venue for events while providing community facilities. The replacement of the Beach Huts at the base of the Downs should also be part of the package [NEVER!].

The Roman fort remains at Reculver need to be enhanced and protected. The general environment of the coast at Reculver needs firm and direct action to provide an environment worthy of the history, nature, culture and attraction of this unique area [yes, it could be a great place for a caravan site…]. Overall Herne Bay should strive to be a modern vibrant town that provides attractions and facilities for residents and tourists, both taking advantage of the seaside location. The Bends should always be protected as a valuable green gap and open space.

This council has, over the last 9 years made huge progress in Herne Bay and this is often forgotten about. We have renovated the clock tower (with the recent announcement there is much more renovation to come) [so how good was your first renovation?] and sea front flood defences [er, no – this was Environment Agency funded], we have enhanced the whole concept and environment of Memorial Park, designated large Queen Elizabeth II Fields which permanently protects green open spaces from development [it affords no such protection – QEII land can be developed on, if a matching area nearby is provided as a replacement – in contrast, a village green can NOT be developed, which is why the Council is objecting], upgraded the Leisure Centre facilities and cleared the pier head [knocked down a building which had become unsafe through Council neglect, and put down a poor tarmac surface]. We have built a sports centre at Herne Bay High School incorporating a roller hockey rink while also encouraging and supporting local involvement throughout. We have prepared an Area Action Plan for the Town Centre and work is now underway. With residents there is much to be done still to preserve and enhance the ambiance and economic well being of the Town but we are well on our way.

John Gilbey got out of the wrong side of bed Part 2

It would seem that John Gilbey’s Saturday didn’t improve. Having slain his traffic-related opponents with his mightier-than-any-sword quill pen, he then swivelled his attention to focus on those who simply would not follow orders – in this case regarding the supposedly independent commission he was thinking of setting up to waylay the referendum on governance. (Translation: moving away from elected dictatorship, towards something more like democracy.)

This press release is altogether punchier, even though it has fewer exclamation marks. It may read like a snarky comment on some social network site, but this is actually an official statement from the Leader of our Council.

---

Governance

A few weeks ago, we said that we wished to set up an Independent Commission to inform the public openly and completely about the various options with regard to the governance system of the council.  This totally transparent exercise, completed by a wholly independent commission would have enabled everyone with an interest in this admittedly remote subject to inform their vote in a referendum next year. Three of the four parties had agreed in principle to support a Commission.

With appropriate weasel wording, the Lib Dems believe that the public should not be informed until much later, after a petition reaches the required level – which they assure us will be reached.  This purely political manoeuvring means that the public will not be provided with information at an appropriate time.

Council decisions will always be made by the party with the majority of seats, whatever the governance system.  Decisions with the executive system are better-made, without politics and at appropriate speed and I therefore believe that we should be very wary of a return to the politically-charged committee system.  There would also be cost and officer-time considerations to assess under the various systems and I regret that these members have decided to reject the opportunity to inform the electorate.  Unfortunately it means that we cannot proceed without the full support of members for an Independent panel.  I am not going to support adding costs to the council without cross party agreement.

Finally, I would welcome any of the other Parties coming forward with a Policy rather than purely relying on opposition to anything the current majority group does.  This suggests simple laziness or lack of interest?  It has been going on since 2005 and perhaps even before that.

News Release – Saturday 15th March 2014, from John Gilbey’s website, and on Facebook

---

“Decisions with the executive system are better-made, without politics…”

I laughed till I stopped.

Cllr Gilbey’s wariness of a committee-based system makes me wary of the “independence” of his now-never-to-be Commission.

John Gilbey got out of the wrong side of bed Part 1

Our Precious Leader didn’t have a good start to Saturday by the looks of it. Someone or something, or possibly everything, had him riled and the solution was to let rip on his very own website and Facebook page.

It may be that he was displeased with the public reaction to his support for the proposed one-way system in Whitstable – some churlish ingrates have drawn unfavourable parallels with the Westgate Towers fiasco, er, trial. It may be that the Barham by-election result irked him.

Whatever the cause, the following tirade was the result. In my mind’s eye, I see it being accompanied by quite a lot of finger jabbing.

---

Westgate

Sadly I have to re-open this issue to fully counter accusations made recently about the traffic trial but everyone should be aware that activists and opposition councillors are still distorting the facts and being economical with the truth.

Remember the trial had the full support of both councils and many others and was a joint operation between the two councils.

Remember the decision to close showed exactly who was the dominant partner – as they should be as it is their responsibility.

Remember there were so many positive aspects to the trial and further work around Canterbury would have given us the much better traffic movement we sought.

Remember we could not introduce these additional features because we were in a trial phase.

For the record, we were given no option but to remove Councillor Hirst from the Conservative Group because of his behaviour.  He persisted in working as a county councillor to the great detriment of the City and his duties to the City. We could not persuade him that he had also been elected as a City Councillor.  He was never, as widely reported, removed because of his opposition to the Westgate Trial, the issues were historic prior to this event.

With the Chairman of the North Thanet Conservative association, we spent six hours in three meetings trying to keep him in the fold.  Sadly we failed, but it was never within my power to expel him from the Party.

There was no great dismissal as portrayed in the media and he was given ample opportunity to return to the party and resolve any issues he had. I have seen his written resignation letter to the Party.  He was a Conservative on Friday and joined another party on Monday, yet despite many accusations, I have never once smeared this individual in the press or anywhere else.  You must judge!

The recent by election saw this continuing accusatory behaviour. No Policies from the opposition, just lies, distortions and negativity. What a world we now live in!  What happened to serving the community and the electorate?

News Release – Saturday 15th March 2014, from John Gilbey’s website, and on Facebook

---

Jolly good question, that last sentence. I’ve been asking myself the self-same thing.

How to run a Council – the case for change

THE PRESENT SYSTEM

Canterbury has what is called a ‘Strong Leader and Executive’ system. This was adopted in 2002 after the government of the day made all councils choose between this and having an elected Mayor. The Councillors elect the Leader, who then chooses the Executive members, and can throw them off the Executive if they don’t say the right things or vote the right way. Key decisions are made by this small group, and often in practice by just the one person.

IS IT WORKING WELL?

Having decisions made by a small group, or even by one person, is supposed to make for speed and decisiveness. In practice it produces the opposite. Decisions made without sufficient thought, without proper consultation and without proper debate, arouse resentment from local people. Instead of swift action we then get a long drawn-out battle which could have been avoided. We’ve seen this on issues such as the Westgate Towers traffic scheme and Kingsmead Field in Canterbury.

WHAT’S THE ALTERNATIVE?

The present government, in the Localism Act 2011, gave councils the option of changing back to the earlier Committee System. With this system, the Council forms a number of committees each dealing with a particular area of issues. All councillors serve on one or more committees, and the committees make recommendations to the full Council for it to approve.

WOULD IT BE BETTER?

No system is perfect. In any system, the largest party is able to have the final say. But a return to the committee system would have these advantages:

• Decisions would be more thoroughly debated – all the parties would be represented on committees
• Decisions would be informed by a greater range of knowledge and experience
• All councillors would have an input into the decisions
• Councillors would all build up their own expertise by serving on committees. At present the time and effort of those who are not on the Executive is wasted.
• There would be greater transparency – key information and the real reasons for decisions could no longer be the preserve of a small group or a single person.

HOW COULD WE CHANGE?

If we got enough signatures on a petition, the Council would be required by law to hold a referendum in which local people could vote to change to the Committee system. The number of signatures needed would be 5% of the electorate – at present that’s 5,611. If that target were reached by the end of 2014, it would automatically trigger a referendum in May 2015.

---

To find out more, visit the Campaign for Democracy in Canterbury District at:

www.CDCD.co.uk

---

Council gerrymandering: Oh no we won’t! Oh yes they have.

Two months after saying that they would not submit any proposals in the boundary change consultation, our beloved leaders have, er, done just that.

A quick reminder: the Local Government Boundaries Commission for England (LGBCE) has been invited by our Council to review our local government arrangements. The LGBCE is looking at the number of wards, the boundaries and names of the wards, the number of councillors per ward, and therefore the overall number of councillors we have to represent us.

Back in October, Cllr Gilbey said:

“It is essential the setting of new boundaries doesn’t lead to accusations of gerrymandering or voter manipulation by the council. After discussions with colleagues, I have taken the view the council itself should step back and let the Boundary Commission decide the new wards based on its own studies and after giving detailed consideration to the opinions of any individual, group and parish council.”

Lo and behold, tonight (10th December) the Council will be presenting their proposals for boundary changes. They said one thing, and did another. Surprised?

---

Of course, some of the more cynically minded residents (and councillors) suggested at the time that the decision not to put forward a proposal was simply a ruse to avoid having to debate that proposal in public, in Council.

The more deviously minded suggested that the Council’s (i.e. the Conservative group’s) preferred option would be submitted to the LGBCE by a proxy, such as a local Conservative Association, presumably to be accompanied by some nodding and winking.

My guess is that the Blue Team have been a little rattled by the sensible-looking proposals from the local Red Team (38 councillors, one councillor per ward) and have decided that public debate is a price worth paying in order to have an Official Preference published.

Beach Hut Charges – have your say

Our beloved Council is reviewing the way it charges people for having huts on the public beach. Apparently they have had legal advice that the current arrangements fall short of best practice. This document spells out the background, and the proposed new charges.

In a nutshell, the rents go up, there’s no discount for being a local or for being a long-term owner, and the cost of selling a beach hut goes down. There’s a suggestion that these changes be phased in over two years.

The Council is asking three main questions:

1. What do you think of the proposed Beach hut rents for 2014/15?
2. Do you think the market rent should be introduced fully in 2014/15 or phased over two years?
3. What are your views on allowing beach hut owners to sub-let their beach hut?

This consultation is open to all residents (not just hutters or community groups), so if you have an opinion one way or the other, do be sure to let your Council know.

Budget = Cuts

Council bosses say increasing income and prioritising “core services” will be their focus as they battle with another cut in government grants. Parking charges will rise and the district’s share of council tax will go up by the maximum two per cent allowed (unless a local referendum takes place) as officials try to balance Canterbury City Council’s (CCC) budget.

The authority must slash £5.5 million by 2017-18, in addition to £4 million already found through savings from schemes including shutting Herne Bay, Whitstable and Canterbury Heritage museums for winter.

Although the amount of central Government grant to be awarded will not be formally announced until next month, CCC expects a cut of 13 per cent for 2014-15 – a reduction of £1.3 million from £10.2million to £8.9 million.

For the year 2015-16 the authority expects a further reduction of 16 per cent, taking the grant down to £7.5 million. Additional reductions are forecast at nine per cent for 2016-17 and ten per cent for 2017-18.

Council services have been ranked in order of importance to help work out where money should be spent and where savings can be made, but city council chief executive Colin Carmichael warned tough decisions lie ahead. He said:

“It is a very significant reduction and we can’t just carry on doing things the same way. We have to work out what our core business is. There is no way to just carry on squeezing everything and trying to find the extra savings. It will not work. Within the next few years, councillors have to make a decision on what we won’t do any more.”

Consultation on the new proposals will start after they have been discussed by members of the council’s ruling executive committee tonight (Thursday 7th Nov). They include raising parking charges in some city centre car parks by 20p an hour, and increasing the authority’s proportion of the council tax by two per cent, or about 7p a week for a Band D property. The hike would bring in an extra £170,000 a year.

Officials can boost income by making sure planned new homes are built, earning a portion of the Government’s new homes bonus. There is also rental income from Whitefriars shopping centre and other property, including the Military Road offices left empty by staff cuts. But Mr Carmichael warned that services would be affected:

“If people care enough about their local services they will get involved and they can find different ways of doing things. It has already worked with the Westgate Hall and it could work elsewhere. We also need managers within the council to come up with creative ways to reduce costs and increase income.”

No large-scale redundancy programme is planned, but vacant posts may not be filled and each department will continue to be reviewed. Each service has been set a 20 per cent savings target between now and 2016. Cuts could also be made to the civic office, with the Lord Mayor undertaking fewer engagements. The council may also now charge for any house or street renaming services. Council leader John Gilbey said:

“The world of local government funding has now changed forever. We have to accept that there is less money available.”

thisiskent 7th November 2013

Beach hut owners to start paying market rent

Canterbury City Council is seeking views on future charging arrangements for beach huts. Ongoing tenancy negotiations with Beach Hut Owners’ Associations prompted the council to seek external legal advice on its position. As a result, a number of changes are being made to beach hut tenancies and the associated fees.

The council’s barrister provided very clear legal advice that it is obliged to run its beach huts on a commercial basis and charge a market rent at the earliest opportunity – which is when the new tenancy agreement comes in to effect on 1 April 2014. Otherwise the council would not be acting in the best interest of general tax payers living in the district.

Operating commercially means that the council can no longer offer a reduced rate to residents of Canterbury district compared to non-residents, or offer the long term discount to owners who have had a hut for more than 15 years.

The council must also stop charging hut owners a ‘supplementary rental fee’ of five times annual rent should they sell their hut. This had been applied to try and keep annual rents down. However, instead of applying this charge (of anywhere between £1,380 and £1,840), the council will now only charge an administration fee of £463 to hut vendors to cover staff costs.

To ensure that the market rent is set fairly and independently, the council appointed an external valuation office to make that assessment. This work was carried out for the council by DVS, who operate on behalf of HM Customs and Revenue and who used rent levels at over 50 other comparative sites, amongst other information, to calculate the market value.

The current 2013/14 fees are £276 in Herne Bay and £368 in Tankerton per year. Subletting is not currently allowed and the cost of selling a hut is between £1380 and £1840.

DVS have advised that for 2013/14, the annual market rent for Herne Bay should be £475 and Tankerton should be £650 – payable by all hut owners. If subletting is allowed, the market rent increases by 20%. However, the cost of selling a hut would be reduced to £463.

The council is aware that the annual increases will be difficult for some beach hut owners. To help make this easier, the council is considering applying the move to market rents over the maximum acceptable period of two years – views on this are being sought as part of the consultation.

The consultation is also asking for views on the market rent set by DVS and whether sub-letting should be allowed or not. The matter will be considered by the Overview and Executive committees in December.

Chief Executive Colin Carmichael said:

“Having received the barrister’s clear advice, the council has a statutory duty to comply.”

Executive member for foreshore services, Cllr Peter Vickery-Jones, said:

“I am genuinely unhappy that we are having to put these proposals forward. We are mindful of how difficult this will be for some beach hut owners and we have done our level best to lessen the impact as much as possible.

However, we are obliged to take note of the advice given and I hope that owners will understand our position. I am keenly interested to hear responses to the consultation and these will be seriously considered in our debate.”

More information and details about how to respond to the consultation can be found HERE.

CCC website

Council Priorities: where will the axe fall?

Now we can all play Predict-a-Cut™ – it’s as easy as 1-2-3!

1. Download a copy of the Council’s priorities in handy spreadsheet format.
2. Tinker with the little buttons on the column headings to sort and filter the list. 
3. See which functions you think are most likely for the chop, and share your thoughts with the rest of the world using the comments below. 

Please note: statutory services must be carried out somehow, even if on a shoestring. Discretionary services can be cut altogether.

To get you started, here’s a list of the Discretionary services and functions, sorted by budget… so sharpen your axe and get chopping!

---

HBM

Council Priorities: where will the axe fall?

about a year ago

The Council’s priorities. Theirs, not ours.

about a year ago

Council’s priorities not secret, not confidential, just rubbish

about a year ago

Council’s priorities aren’t secret – they’re confidential!

about a year ago

Our Council’s secret priorities

about a year ago