You will have read in the Advertiser (or possibly have heard on Radio Newcastle) that only a “vociferous minority” of people in Consett have a problem with the decision to build an Academy on Belle Vue.

It’s quite a big minority. Today I sent off a paper based petition with 955 signatures to be added to the 519 on the Number 10 website asking for an inquiry into the way the site was chosen.

I’m sure that somewhere at County Hall there’s a sack containing 1500 letters applauding the choice of site. Or perhaps not.

We should remember that supporters of the plan are claiming support from the ”silent majority” so by definition there will be no record of their feelings. Forget snail mail and email. The county’s current method of communication must be telepathy.

Long time readers of this site will know that Consett Scouts have been needing to replace their premises for some time. Their well-used HQ building came to them second-hand from The Consett Iron Company in 1960 and 50 years later it has reached the point where it can no longer be repaired.

Reluctantly they have decided that their earlier replacement plans were not achievable, and they have scaled them down to the still exceptionally daunting task of raising £200,000 to replace the building.

Can you help them? They’re looking for any kind of support they can get, from fund raising events up to help from someone with experience of fund-raising grant applications because they’re certainly going to need to enlist the support of some major charitable organisations - or find some local benefactor with a passion for what scouting can do for young people.

Take a look at their website here . If you can help, they’d be overjoyed to hear from you.

100 years of scouting in our town is too important a tradition to lose.

Not everyone will have read page 166 of Ceefax yesterday, but if you did you will know that the Supreme Court made a ruling which could be very relevant to the application to have the Belle Vue field treated as a village green.

Clearly there’s a long way to go on the Belle Vue application - the barrister to run the independent enquiry has not been appointed yet - but yesterday’s court’s decision on Coatham hinged around the idea of whether people had used part of a golf course for their recreation “as of right”, even though they had always given way to the golfers. The Judges decided that they had.

With regard to Belle Vue the county council has argued that local people have used Belle Vue “with consent” rather than “as of right” which will no doubt be a major topic of the enquiry (if a bit obscure to most people), but it was interesting to see that in The Guardian today the Open Space Society was quoting Belle Vue as one of the sites which could be affected by the decision of the Supreme Court.

You can view the article here

The County Planning Committee will decide on the application for outline Planning Permission for Consett’s Academy at a meeting starting at 2.00 p.m. on March 9th.

The report can be read in full here

I’ve skim read it, and my first reaction is that it reads more like a report from the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) team than a report by the Planning Department.

The report is full of BSF marketing language like “The Government’s academy programme has transformation at its heart” and when it bumps into inconvenient truths it glosses over them. For instance, for the first time there is an admission that the leisure facilities will be little more than half the size of the present facilities but this is followed by the assertion “nevertheless, the space within the centre would be flexible and multifunctional and equipped to a high standard to perform the required roles.” That’s a remarkable conclusion for our planning officers to reach since there are no plans available!

Similarly the report recognises that a bat survey should have been done. It hasn’t, but that doesn’t seem to matter that much. You can’t help wondering if it would have mattered more if the applicant had been anyone other than the county council.

Finally, the responses ran at 128 objections, 5 in favour. The remarkable thing is that around 50 of those objections came from people who live at some distance from the site. That is a very unusual pattern - but gets no comment. Some people pretend that it’s only people who live near the site who object. The reality is that people from all around the area think it’s madness.

If I had a pound for every time I’ve heard ”we are where we are” I’d be a very rich man. It’s the constant refrain of the county council and others with regard to Consett’s future, and particularly the Academy issue. It dominated the meetings I attended on Wednesday evening.

My first meeting was to look in on the GVA Grimley “Masterplan” exhibition where they explained carefully that the siting of the Academy and Leisure Centre was not up for discussion - and then went on to talk about many other things that could form part of the Consett masterplan; from parking to parks, from arcades to market stalls. I’m sure that some interesting ideas will come out of it. If there were a budget to implement the masterplan I’m sure some interesting action could also come out of it. Unfortunately, according to the county council cabinet, there is no such budget.

The next meeting was for parents of children who will be affected by the arrival of the Academy. It was disappointingly sparsely attended and there was little new that readers of this blog will be unaware of.

Apart from ongoing debate about the site, the strongest reaction I picked up was a common feeling that starting the Academy in 2011 before its new building is built is very unpopular, and the proposal to move into the new building in January 2013, in the middle of a school year, is a no-no for many people.

I found this an uncomfortable meeting. When this academy comes - and I’m still opposed to it coming to Belle Vue - I want it to be the best possible school for our young people. I continue to be opposed to it starting in the existing school buildings as a split site school - contrary to every assurance we were given until the county council rolled over in the face of its big brother in Westminster insisting that the academy started sooner than a new building could be built. Finally I will oppose the county council seeking planning permission which covers the whole of Belle Vue when it claims that it only needs about half of the site for the Academy and Sports Centre Buildings. That’s plain dishonest.

That’s why I can’t accept that “we are where we are”. We are where we have been put. Even Durham University accept that because they made it clear that they didn’t want to open the Academy until the new building was up.

Blackmail and haste have characterised this business from Day One:

1. “If you don’t accept an Academy for Consett you can’t have a new school”
2. “If Consett doesn’t accept an Academy, it will stop all the other schools in the county from being re-furbed because government will pull out of the funding”
3. “If the new Academy doesn’t open in the existing buildings in 2011 the government will stop the money for all school building in County Durham”

Now fears are being voiced about whether, post-election, the funding could be in jeopardy. The implication is that if the planning application is opposed, or the Village Green application pursued, the Academy may end up running in the existing buildings indefinitely.

Communities which are blackmailed are always fearful of what will happen if they stand up to their blackmailer. But people who do stand up to blackmail usually find that the consequences are less damaging than they feared.

That’s why we should not accept that “we are where we are”. We are where we have been put - and if things don’t work out as the people who put us there intended, the blame will be with them. The blackmailer is the wrongdoer. The victim is not.

Regular readers will remember that some months ago a detailed application was submitted seeking “village green” status for the open space on Belle Vue.

The process has now reached the stage where the county council’s Head of Legal and Democratic Services has recommended that “a suitably qualified Barrister be appointed as an Inspector to hold a Public Inquiry for the purpose of receiving and assessing evidence, thereafter to provide a report and recommendation to members of the Licensing Committee”.

This report will go to the Committee on Tuesday 23rd. It meets at Chester le Street Civic Centre at 2.00 p.m.

Regular readers will also remember that in the case of officer recommendation to build the Academy at Belle Vue the minutes recorded the fact that “Cabinet members advised that they could not overlook officers recommendations”. I trust that the same respect will be shown towards this officer recommendation.

If you’d like to read the whole (very short) report to the committee you will find it here

Some of you may recognise the picture from a leaflet put through your door to advertise yet another consultation by your altogether consultative county council.

This time they have employed Groundwork to find out how you would like the “green space around the Belle Vue site” to be improved. I couldn’t help thinking the picture suggested rather a lot of earth movement!

The public drop-in sesion will be at Consett Community Sports College (formerly Blackfyne School) on Tuesday February 9th between 3.30 and 7.30.

I’ll be going with my own shopping list which will include:

• The green space being protected - by not giving planning permission to use the whole site for Academy and Sports Centre as is requested on the current planning application. This application puts the site boundary along the very kerbstones of Villa Real Road. Instead, how about granting Belle Vue field Village Green status?
• Provision of additional litter and dog pooh bins, together with a campaign of education and enforcement. If we all took responsibility the Belle Vue green space would be improved dramatically.
• Some sympathetic planting of shrubs and bulbs.

I’m sure you’ll have some more imaginative ideas.

I’m sure you’ll also have some difficulty in believing the county’s new found interest in our views about everything except where the academy and sports centre should be sited. Have they never heard of the elephant in the room?

The first week of the month is a busy one for me as three local residents’ groups all meet in it - but at least they’re on different days!

It’s not always easy to get motivated to go out, what with frost and fog, but it’s always worth going because the people who make these groups function are all people who want to make a difference. So here’s a quick portrait of each.

First Tuesdays are the Berry Edge Residents’ Association meetings at the YMCA. This is a very localised group who represent the interests of the original streets in Berry Edge; Albert Road, Alexandra Street, Berryedge Road, Constance Street, Edith Street and the immediate area. They’ve seen many of the changes they have worked for take place - the latest, still under construction, is an island to help cross Albert Road - and are now considering their next project(s). If you live in the area they’d be delighted to see you and hear your ideas.

First Wednesdays are the turn of the Consett North Partnership, also in the YMCA. This partnership serves the whole area of the old district council’s Consett North ward which is roughly bounded by Sherburn Terrace, Front Street, Generation Way, Aynsley Terrace, Fairways and Villa Real Road. Their big project at the moment is work in the Blue Heaps area, and they’ve just gained funding for improvements of the path from Aynsley Terrace to Blackfyne. That’s just a start with further improvements planned. They’re also planning a Race Night to raise some much needed funds just to keep the partnership going.

First Thursdays are the turn of the newest of the three: Benfieldside, Blackhill, Bridgehill and Shotley Bridge Partnership which meets at Blackhill Baptist Church. Only a relatively small part of their “patch” falls within my county council division - Blackhill to the south of Durham Road and south east  of Pemberton Road - and those projects are the ones I know best. They include an environmental clean up and a Sunday buffet and entertainment for some older residents.

I often hear people complain about the loss of community spirit but the first week of every month reminds me that reports of its death are greatly exaggerated. Long may these groups continue. And if you want to be put in touch with any of them just let me know and I’ll do that.

Flickr photo courtesy of ell brown, Birmingham

Today I spent some time with consultants working on the GVA Grimley Masterplan for Consett. I was pretty frank about the frustration I and many others feel at having a masterplan for the town drawn up after important development decisions have been made.

I doubt if I was the first to make the point but having made it it is important to feed into this process because there are many other issues in Consett that need addressing. The county is spending £70,000 on this consultation. It would be mad for people not to feed in their hopes, their vision and their concerns about issues like:

• Opportunities for employment 
• The range of shops available in the town
• Management of car parking (which doesn’t have to mean charging for it)
• Development of the market
• The range and location of housing
• The retention of open space
• Activities for young people
• Provision of public toilets
• Public transport

and all the other things which matter to the people who live here.

You’ll be pleased to know you too can have your say. On Thursday February 11th you can drop in to Consett Library anytime between Noon and 8.00 p.m. Please put it in your diary. The more people who go and express their views, the more chance we have that the consultants will hear the real opinions of Consett. They’ve heard from the thirty or so people on their “list”. It’s important that they hear from you.

Monday offers addicts of community meetings a glut of opportunity.

From 4.00 till 8.00 you can drop in at Consett Community Sports College/Blackfyne to see the plans the county has for Belle Vue. It’s important that people do that. Those who intend to oppose the plans need to have a very clear view of what they are. Those who back building on Belle Vue still need to make sure that the plans are as good as they can be.

From there you can hot-foot it to the Demi for a Police Consultative Meeting from 7.00 - 8.00. It’s your chance to hear how things are from the horse’s mouth, and to put in your two-pennyworth.

For those who want a bit of light relief and some Christmas cheer you can try the combined carol service at the Methodist Church and see your councillor type-cast in a role as one of the grumpy old men. It was the county wot done it to me, honest!

I’m a step closer to getting hold of the Insight report into the Berry Edge Sports Centre proposal.

After another meeting of the legal beagles, apparently I’m to be allowed to have sight of the report (minus, of course, the bits that have been blacked out). Not yet, of course - but hopefully by next Friday after dotting I’s and crossing T’s.

No previous deadline has been met - or nearly met - in this saga to date so I’m not holding my breath.

I am looking forward to reading the report when I get it, though. It’s hard to imagine the county council cabinet spending so much money on a report just to leave it collecting dust on a shelf - unless, of course, it said things the cabinet didn’t want people to hear.

I’ll start with the ugly.

Yesterday I had a phone call from a lady from out of the area who had had a penalty notice for parking in the “shoppers car park” beside the Victoria Centre in Consett between 7.00 p.m. and 9.40 p.m. on Sunday night. She had been to watch her son at the Empire. There was no possible loss to the owners of the car park from her parking - because the shops whose interests they say they are protecting were all closed. I have referred her case to Durham County Trading Standards.

The good.

Hilary Armstrong MP’s secretary rang me to get the low-down on the subject. I’m hoping that Hilary will now use her influence to put some pressure on the landowner at least to remove the restriction at night. It’s absurd, unreasonable and very probably illegal. Whilst I had hoped for an earlier intervention, it’s better late than never.

And the bad?

I have still had no reply from the car-parking company. No doubt they think silence is the best defence. It’s easy to ignore people hundreds of miles away who you never have to meet - and if they reply they may incriminate themselves.

When Shakespeare’s Prospero taught the monster Caliban how to speak in “The Tempest”, he was no doubt hoping that Caliban would sing his praises. Caliban’s response was direct and angry:

“You taught me language; and my profit on’t
Is, I know how to curse.”

When Durham County Council set up its Area Action Partnerships it was probably hoping to collect plaudits.

No doubt it was therefore as disappointed as Prospero when a very well attended meeting of the Derwent Valley Partnership voiced its dissatisfaction with the decision to build the new Academy at Belle Vue, and then watched as the board members voted 13 - 0 (with six abstentions, including both Labour county councillors) to support the Consett Green Spaces Group in their opposition to building on Belle Vue.

I continue to hear a variety of views as to how the cabinet reached its perverse decision, but remain bemused as to why a political party should persevere in enraging its natural supporters by forcing on them what they clearly don’t want. Is it a death wish? Answers on a postcard, please.

There’s an emerging pattern for those of us who have written to the county council about the sham choice of academy sites.

If you write in with a general complaint about the lack of a public meeting and the short timescale, they tell you how pleased they are you wrote and how good they are because they extended the period. (Oh, yes, and of course you views will be taken into consideration).

If you write in asking why the Genesis site at Berry Edge is not being considered you will get one or more of several alleged reasons like these:

1. It is remote from the town centre and will therefore do less for town centre regeneration 

2. It is further away from other community facilities like the sports centre

3. It would not serve the community as well as Belle Vue and Crookhall.

4. It will be further for puils to travel

So far no-one who I’ve spoken to has had land contamination given as a reason - probably because there is known to be contamination at Belle Vue and Crookhall.

With four reasons like these, I thought I’d invite you all to post your reply to these four “reasons” by clicking comment at the head of this story - and if you haven’t written into County Hall yet, please do by clicking on this hyperlink . As far as I know the Labour Party has still to select Hilary Armstrong’s successor. Whoever gets that unenviable task needs to feel that standing in Consett while the bulldozers move onto Belle Vue or Crookhall will be a recipe for electoral defeat. The more letters we send in, the less confident they will feel.

By the way, current scores on the “straw poll” to the left are Genesis site 24, Crookhall 3, Blackfyne 1 Belle Vue 1

Yesterday’s Cabinet confirmed that they are to go ahead with a Dog Control Order so that owners of dogs fouling public land can be fined £80 (£50 if paid within 14 days).

I welcome this harmonisation across the county and the idea of enforcement. I hope they will also run a campaign to change hearts and minds, however. Street Wardens can’t be everywhere and we need people to take the issue on board themselves.

Promoting Civic Pride will work with some people. Educating people about the real effects on health, particularly children’s health, will work best with others.

There will always be some people who take no notice of such campaigns. There will always be people who have no consideration for anyone but themselves. They’re the ones I want to see fined, but punishment by itself has never been enough to improve the world.

If you’re interested in this area have a look at the Keep Britain Tidy education campaign on dog fouling. They claim that an effectively run campaign can cut the problem by 40%. That would be a good start.

Take a look at this . Perhaps it will inspire you to lead the campaign.

The Boundary Commission wants to re-draw the boundaries of council electoral divisions across the county. The problem is that some divisions simply have too many voters, others too few.

This may seem pretty dull stuff, but the important question is, how happy (or unhappy) would you be if you found yourself moved from, say, Consett North to Benfieldside - or Leadgate and Medomsley to Benfieldside. I mention that only because Leadgate and Medomsley and Consett North are both “over-size”. Benfieldside is the reverse.

Most oversized of all is Consett South and Delves Lane, which contains almost enough electors to justify three councillors.

It’s all in the melting pot. And now is the time to say your piece if you want to by adding a comment to this site.

We all find that time disappears without much to show for it, but the ”disappeared” clock at the Bus station is a miss.

After enquiries I understand that its return should be only a matter of weeks away. Its reinstatement is supposed to be scheduled for the week after the next Bank Holiday.

I’m very much hoping this is true. It will save me stone-walling the question again at the next Consett North Partnership meeting on June 3rd at 6.30 pm at the YMCA. 

Just in case you’ve forgotten what it looks like, I’m indebted to Consett Junior School for providing an excellect image of it on their website.

Consett Sports Centre is back on the agenda for Thursday’s meeting of the county council cabinet. Read the rest of this entry. Read the rest of this entry.

One of the biggest planning decisions for a few years was made today - and made in opposition to Officers’ recommendations. That decision was to approve the application by Tesco to build on the Gensesis site opposite McDonalds. Read the rest of this entry.

If you live more than 150 yards from Number One roundabout feel free to move on now - unless of course you like stories of the little man triumphing over the big corporations, in which case feel free to read on. Read the rest of this entry.

I now have the response to the question of what is intended to happen with the Werdohl twinning arrangement. I quote verbatim from an email from Brian Stobie, the county’s International Officer:

“The Chairman, Leader and I have been meeting regularly with District Council colleagues and with the Friendship Group.

What is proposed is that the Friendship group becomes the sole contact with the Werdohl council and that the group applies to the new county authority for both a grant towards admin costs and also to offset some costs of exchanges. The grants are subject to consideration as part of the Local Government Review budget process.

I hope that this is useful. The Leader has clearly stated to all parties that he wants to see the twinning links continue post April 2009. The Chairman has also written to both Derwentside and Werdohl Councils to outline the proposition and to invite comment.”

I’ll update this if and when I get any further news.

 ”Who/where Werdohl will be twinned with after next April, when Derwentside ceases to be an administrative area?

 Do you know? Does anyone in the town have this on an agenda?”

 An email I received tonight asked me these questions - and like many questions I get asked I don’t know the answer, but I’ll try to find out.

One reason for putting it on this blog is that I know it is read by some very well informed and influential people. If they let me know the answer it will short circuit lengthier enquiries.

It’s a good question, and typical of the hundreds of little issues that will have to be faced up to (or get lost) over the coming months and years.

My correspondent, and many other people in this town, have very happy memories and long term relationships arising from the twinning with Werdohl - and is the relationship between the people of Stanley, Consett and Werdohl to disaapear just because Hazel Blears MP on her travels through government decided to ditch Derwentside?

I hope not. Local communities are much too important to be left to the Department of Communities and Local Government.

The imminent destruction of Derwentside District Council lends urgency to the question of whether Consett should seek to have a town council.

A couple of years ago Stanley, quite narrowly, voted for such a council. Whether it was necessary or not at the time is a moot point, but certainly Stanley now looks to have a head start on Consett in the new “unitary world” in tems of having an elected town wide forum.

 Durham City is certainly going down that line.

What is really surprising is the lack of discussion on the subject, and the lack of investigation of the possibilities.

I’d be really interested in hearing people’s views.

Philosophically I favour the principle of a town council - elected representatives can be booted out and that is fundamentally better that a system where unelected representatives need be answerable to no-one.

In practice, though, unless there is a clear idea of the responsilities and roles such a council would take on - and enough people wanting to undertake the role - there’s a risk of an expensive and ineffective talking shop. No-one would want that.

I’d be delighted to hear any views - by comments on this blog or direct email.

The recent story in “The Advertiser” about Watling Woods has generated a lot of interest, verbally and by email. It involves a planning application to build a double-glazing factory which would involve the loss of three acres of Watling Wood in Leadgate.

In fact, as a decision outside my ward, and since I don’t have a place on the Development Control Committee, it’s an issue into which I will have no input, but I thought it might be useful for readers to know more about the planning process - and the parts they can and cannot play.

Planning applications are available online on Derwentside’s website. This one is at http://www.derwentside.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=8427&step=4&ref=1/2008/0543 People are also entitled to go into the Civic Centre to see the file. 

New Planning applications are listedeach week at http://www.derwentside.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=8427&step=5

People who want to object are entitled to do so, but it’s very important for them to recognise that the objection must be on planning grounds. The Development Control Committee is not allowed to take other grounds into account.

Here’s a list of the sort of things that are planning grounds:

As important is the following list of things that aren’t planning grounds for an objection. Putting them in an objection won’t help, but will damage your case by reducing its effectiveness:

• The perceived loss of property value
• Private disputes between neighbours
• The loss of a view
• The impact of construction work or competition between firms
• Restrictive covenants
• Ownerships disputes over rights of way
• Fence lines etc
• Personal morals or views about the applicant.

Having worked out your objections, and whether they stack up on planning grounds, you need to send them to the Planning Department where they will be logged and summarised for the committee.

If you weren’t logging on for an education, no doubt you’ve been disaapointed in this article. But if you ever want to object to a planning application you’ll find it very useful.

One thing’s for sure. If you aim an objection in the wrong direction you’ll certainly miss the target.

Didn’t you dread the words “could do better” on your school report. It usually meant that you weren’t performing apallingly, but was nevertheless always a critical comment.

In fact it’s simply a statement of fact - except for those lucky folk, councils, governments etc which have attained perfection. That group is always smaller than it thinks it is!

Derwentside falls somwehere in the middle when it comes to a national survey of environmental standards. The ENCAMS survey was produced recently, and if anyone would like a copy of Derwentside’s results just email me.

The district was rated GOOD in terms of fly-tipping, fly-posting and graffiti. This bears out my own experience of the excellent work done by our streetscape teams who tackle these problems.

It was SATISFACTORY in terms of detritus which is “small items of granular or organic material (grit, old leaves/blossom fall, sand etc)”.

It was POOR in terms of litter. Uglier still, 4% of that litter was “faeces” - dog dirt to you and me.

At the environmental health committee we discovered that across County Durham there are about 80 street wardens and others responsible for control and enforcement in these areas. My understanding is that Derwentside has just two dog wardens and no litter enforcement officers. I (and the rest of your councillors I hope) will be pushing for the “harmonisation of standards” across the county which we are promised under the unitary council to mean a greater share of that control and enforcement to be brought to work in our district.

I wasn’t able to be at the Derwentside District Executive meeting today which was to decide whether it would back this environmental improvement project, but I understand it’s good news for the residents of Berry Edge and so for the ward as a whole.

The retiring Berry Edge Residents Association chairperson, Dominic Haney, has told me that the executive agreed in principle to making the requested £10K available. The approval is subject to having the other funding in place, resolving any outstanding ownership issues, and possibly having to get approval from Durham County Council under the “business as usual” rules.

Most encouragingly Dominic said, “On the whole the cabinet were very supportive of the project and congratulated the residents on their work.”

As secretary of the residents association I’m delighted that the project moves another step towards reality.

If you are free on Monday afternoon at 4.30 you might be interested to go to the meeting of Derwentside’s Executive in the Council Chamber.

Of particular interest to this ward is the report on “Community Groups - Applications for financial support” which will address the question of whether Derwentside should give some financial support to this project which the Residents’ Association have been working on for over a year. I quote the report in full:

2.5 Berry Edge Gardens

2.5.1 I have received a request from Councillor Owen Temple on behalf of a group of residents seeking to refurbish an area of land adjacent to Berry Edge Gardens inConsett.

2.5.2 The residents group is currently attempting to raise resources to facilitate the environmental improvement of an area of land creating a community garden for the benefit of residents in the area. The land in question is currently overgrown and not maintained and although attempts have been made to identify the owners of the land, ownership currently remains uncertain.

2.5.3 The group have estimated the cost of the work associated with the improvement they wish to carry out to be approximately £50,000 and have asked the Council to contribute £10,000 to the cost of this activity. The group have made a number of requests to different organisations to assist with the funding of this work including Project Genesis Trust and Dysart and they have requested that the District Council consider the contribution of £10,000 to the project which would both assist in the encouragement of other organisations to contribute and clearly represent a significant proportion of the estimated total cost.

2.5.4 Although the ownership of the land is in question, I am advised that the group are aware of this and if necessary will take the required action to ensure relevantinsurances are put in place to mitigate any future challenge which may be received either during or once work is completed.

2.5.5 Unlike the previous three requests, not all of the funding to facilitate this activity is in place and Members may wish to consider agreeing in principle to this request subject to other funding being generated, and ongoing revenue cost implications identified and agreed.

2.5.6 Recommendations - That Executive agree in principle to the contribution of £10,000 to the cost of regeneration of this area of land in Consett subject to other funding being identified, enabling the full cost of the project to be put in place.

The title of Item four of the next cabinet meeting at the County Council is a bit ironic - “Business as usual - Consett Sport Project - Report of County Treasurer”.

The only this that is “as usual” about this is delay.

It’s more than five years since this project was supposed to be set in motion, but a lack of openness about the finances, and clinging to a pipe-dream of an all singing, all dancing Sports Village long after it was clear that the finance wasn’t there, has resulted in the project being put at the mercy of the County Council Cabinet.

You might think that with four Derwentside-based councillors in that cabinet Consett’s interests would be well looked after. You’d be wrong. Instead, old rivalries between the district and county council threaten the new facility.

The notes for this section of the cabinet meeting read: “Purpose of report - the report seeks approval to appoint consultants to examine proposals by Derwentside District Council to design and build a sports facility.”

That sound ominously like civil-service-speak for kicking it into the long grass. 

Make up your own mind by clicking this link: http://www.durham.gov.uk/durhamcc/etech/DCCMinutes.nsf/6fe09dd7d993002780256aef003c01ab/f2ffabd7442a1fc6802574aa004ee04d?OpenDocument 

I’ve had a number of approaches from people regarding the proposed new swimming pool which will be a 25 metre pool and therefore smaller than the current pool. There is also to be a 12 metre learner pool.

According to the presentation to the council, opinion is split down the middle. General users of the pool have called for the retention of a 33 metre pool, but the Amateur Swimming Club have called for a 25 metre pool because “any other size disadvantages swimmers when training for competitions.”

Then you add funding into the mix. Apparently Sport England are prepared to contribute towards a 25 metre pool, but not towards a 33 metre pool. A 33 metre pool by definition costs more so this is an obvious “double whammy”.

Now the User Group have suggested a “compromise arrangement” where there is an 8 lane, 25 metre pool with the 12 metre learner pool attached at one end. The pools would need to be divided by some kind of moveable boom which could be withdrawn at certain times to allow swimmers a longer and bigger pool to swim in. This would allow the 25 metre training facility that the swimming club desire, whilst also enabling a bigger pool to be provided for general swimming at certain times.

If it’s possible, the attraction is obvious. What I’m particularly interested to find out is whether such a facility exists anywhere else and, if it does, what the cost implications are.

As always, I’d be interested in your views and, more especially, any expertise you have in this area.

I’ve been contacted by a resident asking my views on the name for the new county.

My response was that on a personal level (rather than any party agreement that we may reach in the future) I prefer County Durham Council because I’d prefer that the new authority doesn’t start with the old name tag.

There’s a real risk of the new council mistakenly thinking it’s “business as usual” – which it isn’t.

The resident then sent back this very interesting response: “Well, its a really interesting argument if you are sad like me. I agree with you actually. All the other councils going through reorganisation have followed the same pattern - the name of the county followed by the word “Council”. So we have Northumberland Council, Wiltshire Council, Shropshire Council and Cornwall Council. Following the same pattern, that would make us County Durham Council.

We are the only county in Egland that use the prefix “County” and I am proud of that so that would rule out one of the choices in the consultation which is Durham Council.

Some of the original county council (Members and Officers) want to keep Durham County Council. They have been putting misinformation about that it would save £2 million if nothing changed. This figure comes from their original bid and like most of the financials in the bid, it is just made up.

Besides, even if they kep the same name, everything arising from the previous district councils will need to be re-branded anyway.

The “old guard” argue that re-branding all county council things would cost a fortune. They cite the 600 buildings that they own. However, nearly 400 of these are schools which are not branded as Durham County Council anyway.

They also argue that Durham County Council is a historical name that we should preserve. Well, it might be, but two things stand out. 1) the new authority will not be a county council and 2) Durham County Council is hardly historical at all. The current boundaries only go back to 1997 when Darlington formed a unitary council. Before 1974, the county council also included Stockton, Hartlepool, Sunderland and Gateshead.

I suppose that, in medieval times, Durham also included large parts of Northumberland too.  So which historical county or county council are they referring to?

The worrying thing is that the misinformation that they are putting out is having an effect on the public, and the larger percentage so far have voted for Durham County Council. However, I suspect that, like you, the new Leader and Chief Executive want to start with a clean sheet and will go for a re-branding anyway.

Please feel free to add your comments.

With local government change going on across large areas of the country, Consett is not alone in finding its plans put under threat by the need to get approval from from Big Brother at County Hall. Students of these things may be interested in the following link: http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/News/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=News&tBrand=edponline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED28%20Jul%202008%2020%3A36%3A13%3A657 

What this means is that those who want the proposed Consett Sports Centre to go ahead will be well advised to exert maximum pressure as soon as possible. Delay is the enemy in this matter.

I have been told that all the the information about the proposals has now been submitted to the county by the district council, and that Hilary Armstrong MP is supporting the district council’s position (and getting a pressurising post-bag from constituents). I hope that last bit is true, though I’ve yet to hear anything in public to corroborate it. Can I ask that you write to Hilary Armstrong MP to ask her position, and that she goes public on it? http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ is an effective way to get your message through and have it monitored.

I know that not everyone is convinced that the proposed Consett Sports Centre is the best that can be achieved. I can only say that the status quo is not an option because the swim centre in particular will not last long - and that a £15m bird in the local hand is a whole lot better than a a flock of as yet unthought of birds in a distant bush.

There are no post offices scheduled for closure in Consett North ward - not that surprising given that the only Post Office in the ward is Consett Post Office. There are two, however, quite close by at Castleside and Medomsley.

Post Offices play a vital role in community life so this is important to us all.

The county council is organising three special meetings across the county;

Tuesday July 22nd: Shotton Hall, Peterlee. 6.00 p.m.

Thursday July 24th: St Patrick’s Church Hall, Consett. 6.00 p.m.

Saturday July 26th: County Hall, Durham 10.00 a.m.

Unfortunately I cannot make the first two, but will be at the Durham one. If you get to the Consett one I’d be pleased to get any feedback.

The following statements have all been issued to the local press. I publish them without comment or alteration.

Councillor Watts Stelling, Derwentside District councillor & Durham County councillor: “We are happy to support the scheme. Ideally we would have been able to accommodate even more uses with the new centre but this was simply unaffordable. The proposal is deliverable, will mean that there is no disruption to the current facilities and will provide a modern centre with lower running costs.”

Councillor Alex Watson, Leader of Derwentside District Council: “We hope that Durham County Council will agree to the delivery of the new centre. There is no doubt that we need to replace the existing facilities which are in very poor condition, as a matter of increasing urgency and the scheme that has now been agreed has the best balance between content, costs and future development potential. We have a realistic timescale set out for delivering the project but any delays would be expensive – current construction inflation means that some £60,000 would be added to the costs for every month of delay.”

Councillor Simon Henig, Leader of Durham County Council, “The proposal is something that the new unitary authority will need to look at very carefully particularly given the need to keep Council Tax levels across County Durham as low as possible.”

Councillor Bob Young, Durham County councillor, speaking on behalf of himself and County Durham councillors Clive Robson, and Jane Brown; “We have major reservations about the current proposals and believe the plan has been hastily produced as a knee-jerk reaction to the original strategy and plan being unable to be funded.”

“We consider this to be an inferior plan although we have to admit that we have not been privy to all the details as we as county councillors have not been consulted.

“Many community organisations also feel aggrieved as likewise they have never been adequately consulted. ”

What people can be assured of is that we  are committed and enthusiastic to deliver for the residents of Consett new sport and leisure facilities but they must be for all, not for a few.”

Councillor Owen Temple, Derwentside District councillor & Durham County councillor; “We have taken a great deal of trouble to ensure that we have all-party support for a project that will clearly meet the needs of the vast majority of the users of our sports centres. It is disappointing to read negative comments from local representatives that could prejudice future leisure provision at a time when our existing facilities are approaching the end of their working life and the Government is strongly advocating the health benefits of sports and leisure activities.”

If anyone has logged onto this story hoping for salacious stories of councillors making a site-visit to Consett’s lap-dancing club they will be disappointed.

In a low-key debate councillors considered a request from the Department of Culture, Media and Sport for views on the subject. In my view we came up with entirely reasonable recommendations that the Licensing Act 2003 be amended to:

1. Allow greater regard to public opinon and allow a more flexible interpretation of the “in the vicinity” rule which ruled out contributions from many interested parties when the issue arose previously.
2. Provide more specific criteria with regard to the siting of premises close to schools, churches, community and youth centres.

There was no great moral outcry or dramatic gesture politics, however.

Whilst I felt at the time of the application made two years ago that it was carelessly put together, and should have been subjected to more rigorous conditions, I have to admit that I have not been aware of particular disturbances or anti-social behaviour arising from the establishment. That being the case, I don’t see it as my, or the council’s, duty to be more heavy handed towards one person’s taste than towards another. That’s why I was happy to vote the same way as everyone in the council chamber - an unusual degree of unanimity.

As always, I’d be interested in hearing your views.

Consett’s proposed new Sports Centre has just attracted its most influential critic to date, Councillor Bob Young of Consett South. He is quoted in Thursday’s Northern Echo saying “we have reservations” about the proposals. http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/misc/print.php?artid=2377218

That’s a fascinating use of “we”. It could be the “royal we”. It could be the Labour County Council Cabinet “we”.

The “we” it certainly is not is the majority of local county councillors. I know that because most of the new county councillors, like myself, are currently district councillors and voted for the proposals. And I’m confident that the “we” is not the residents of Consett who know that their old facilities are crumbling and desperately want them replaced.

It matters a great deal who the “we” is, because since the coming of the new unitary council these proposals have to be agreed by Durham County Council’s Treasurer. I don’t expect he’ll make the decision on his own. You can bet that the decision gets made in the county council cabinet, a cabinet which contains both Councillor Bob Young from Consett South, and Councillor Clive Robson from Consett North. Based on that a fair deal for Consett sports enthusiasts should be assured. But only if they raise their voices to back the proposals.

Perhaps you’d like to email Councillor Young at bob.young@durham.gov.uk or Councillor Clive Robson at  clive.robson@durham.gov.uk and let them know what you think. I am sure they’ll be interested in your views, just as I will be if you email me at owenlibdem@oltemple.f2s.com . If you’re not sure who your councillor is, or how to contact them, you can find out at http://www.writetothem.com/ .

I went to a meeting of the Young People’s Forum tonight at the Civic Centre. What a pleasure it was - even though they weren’t expecting any visitors.

They were putting together some ideas for the July 21st meeting with councillors. Unfortunately I can’t get to that one, but it was really encouraging to hear the things they wanted to promote. Of course there was plenty of banter, but underneath it were some very positive ideas.

I won’t spoil their thunder by mentioning any of their ideas here, because that’s for them to do on July 21st, but I hope they get a good turnout of councillors on the day.

It just reminds me that we’ve got to keep fighting the anti-youth culture which exists across Britain. The culture that brands youngsters as anti-social. The culture that thinks it’s impossible to get young people interested in anything important, because all they want is to be out binge drinking. The culture that will end up with us getting the young people we deserve if we’re not very careful.

The sooner we start listening to young people, the sooner we’ll start hearing what they think really is important. And we might just learn something from them!

Today the Development Control Committee of Derwentside District Council unanimously turned down the latest variation of the CVS’s many applications for Glenroyd House - and I’m pleased about it. I should be. I went to argue the case for refusal.

I have never believed that the outdated and delapidated building was the right place to house the Citizens Advice Bureau and CVS. It’s too large, access is too difficult, it’s the wrong design for the purpose - but despite all that because I value the work of the two organisations I have sought to accommodate a compromise. I suppose you could say, though, that I finally lost patience with the latest sloppy application (for the second time they applied for 24 hour working “by mistake” and the revised application was only necessary because they had applied for permission through an access that they had not actually negotiated a firm agreement on). If you’re going to bend over backwards for applicants you want to be sure they are going to be good neighbours. I stopped being convinced of that as I watched these applications pile in because good neighbours take care - and good neighbours talk to each other.

I was also mindful of the fact that in nine month’s time, when Derwentside District Council ends, there will potentially be some vacant space in the Civic Centre with proper access and extensive parking, in a building designed for a variety of office based functions.

In the event, though, the two things that finally persuaded me to speak against acceptance of the application were these;

1) the extra entrance which would have been needed next to Rosemount would have meant pedestrians (many of them children on their way to school, and others elderly) having to negotiate a width equivalent to a dual carriageway with vehicles potentially entering and leaving in different directions around them.

2) Decades ago the road was busy enough to have three side-roads blocked off to prevent entrance onto Medomsley Road. Now conditions are worse, and at this point of the road there is often double parking outside the shops, and delivery wagons abandoned in the carriageway whilst unloading.

Of course, that may not be the end of it. The applicants could appeal, though which of their three applications they’d be seeking to get approved only they could tell us. Or pehaps it will be yet another new one.

For five years we’ve been waiting for a resolution of this. I just hope this latest refusal will lead to the County Council making the hard decision. The building and its access are past their sell-by date. The site needs redeveloping in a way that enhances the area, and that means selling it and redeveloping.

The first week of the month is an opportunity for you and your councillors to get down to local issues, because on the first Tuesday of each month the Berry Edge Residents Association meets, and on the first Wednesday the Consett North partnership. Both meet in the YMCA at 7.00 pm.

Last night’s meeting of Berry Edge Residents Association heard a report from the police about crime and anti-social behaviour. The bald statistics  are that there were 194 incidents in the Consett area, with 12 of them in Berry Edge, but there was some good news in that the spate of arson and TV cable cutting seems, for the moment at least, to have stopped under intense police activity.

At the same time some people learnt for the first time that there are “Streetsafe” boxes for residents in the area to leave letters to the police with discretion and no need for direct involvement. They can post their concerns and information in boxes at Consett Community Sports College (formerly Blackfyne School) and at Tesco. Others learned the number 0845 6060365 for non emergency police response.

Ongoing issues included the Berry Edge Gardens project and the progress towards an island or other assisted way of crossing Albert Road.

Perhaps as important as the individual issues, however, is the strengthening of community that happens amongst this group of people committed to maintaining, protecting and progressing the area in which they live.

If that sounds like something worth doing, you could come to tonight’s meeting of the Consett North Partnership, also at the YMCA, at 7.00 pm. This body covers a rather wider area, defined by the district council ward boundary, but it’s still not a large community just covering most of Consett itself as well as Number One.

Readers of this site will have noticed the disappearance of three mature trees from the grounds of Glenroyd House. Certainly some of the old folk at Rosemount have, because when they lost the trees they also lost the birdsong that brightened their lives.

What people may have missed, however, is the significance of this destruction. A look at http://www.derwentside.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=8427&step=4&ref=1/2008/0329 will show you the reasons for it.

Apparently, the CVS sought planning approval for a shared entrance with Rosemount before they actually had the agreement of the owner of the land. That agreement was refused, so now they’re back to the drawing board.

There are a number of disturbing features about the new application - apart from the fact that the applicants don’t seem able to organise themselves, let alone anyone else.

• The application is for 24 hrs a day working despite the fact that a clear restriction was placed on the previous application to limit working hours to 8.30 a.m to 6.00 p.m.
• To put the parking spaces where they are on the plan three more attractive flowering trees will have to be cut down
• Despite this the application states that there are no trees adjacent to the development which are important in terms of the landscape character
• A double entrance here will double the disruption and danger to the many pedestrians along this stretch of Medomsley Road

Please have a look at it yourself and let the Planning Department know your feelings.

I have spoken with the Deputy Returning Officer who confirms that he spoke yesterday with the Labour Party Agent for these elections who had admitted the “error of fact” I complained of. The Deputy Returning Officer was unable to advise me as to what action the Labour Party will take to correct it! I promise that when (I remain an idealist) I receive their apology, I will post it here.

I spoke to a journalist to tell him of the situation. He was frank. There was nothing he could do because to publish this story ”would be seen as bias on the eve of an election”. When I countered by asking if it would therefore be foolproof to lie on the eve of an election he simply asked when an untruth becomes a lie. I hope you’ll agree with my response - it’s when you know that something is untrue but go on saying it.

With that in mind, if anyone has evidence of the “Consett’s Choice” leaflet being delivered after 1.30 yesterday I’d like to know.

 One interesting thing to note: the readership of this website has soared recently. I don’t know who you are, but if you are:

an ordinary voter in Consett; I’m pleased you’re investigating where to place your two votes

a Labour supporter; I hope you’re embarrassed about how far the once great and principled party has fallen

a Lib Dem supporter; thanks. We’ve has such terrific support throughout the last year that we are confident, with one last push, Consett will elect its first Lib Dem county councillors tomorrow.

At 8.40 this morning I went to the council offices to prove that the Labour Leaflet “Consett’s Choice” contained at least one untruth. Council officers confirmed that Lib Dem councillor Bob Cook had indeed attended the scrutiny meeting we were accused of not turning up at. The error in the leaflet is, as far as I know, undisputed even by the Labour Party.

At 9.40 I hand delivered a letter to the Labour Agent’s home address demanding that no more of these untruthful leaflets were delivered, as well as asking for a retraction and apology.

 At 11.30 the same leaflet was shoved through my door. That tells you how much the local Labour Party value truth.

On Thursday Consett will judge who to trust with their future. I hope they will judge well because the future is bleak if they re-elect Labour.

Readers may have received a scurrilous Labour Leaflet entitled “Consett’s Choice”. Liberal Democrats in Consett North should be flattered that Labour is so worried by our election campaign that they have had to resort to mud-slinging. Its sad, but common enough from politicians under pressure.

The problem with this leaflet, though, isn’t just that it slings mud. It is actually factually incorrect. Of course we didn’t “fail to show” at the scrutiny meeting in which an update was provided on the plans for Shotley Bridge Hospital. It’s true that I was in London for a work commitment that I couldn’t get out of, and had sent in my apologies well in advance. In the meantime Liberal Democrats were represented by Bob Cook, the other Liberal Democrat on that committee, who was there throughout the 5 minute presentation.

Similarly inaccurate is the claim that “your Independent and your Lib Dem councillors both received £20,000 to spend on schemes in Consett.” Actually all three district councillors, including the Labour leader of the council (Alex Watson), were allocated £60,000 to be spent on ONE project. You may remember this because we publicised it in a Focus leaflet (and on this website). Because your district councillors are decent people with the interests of Consett at heart, despite coming from three different parties we co-operated and agreed that the money would be invested in a recording studio based at the YMCA to benefit all the music-makers in the district, young and old. We sought to publicise the outcome through the Durham Advertiser and Chronicle Extra because it was a non-political decision. The project is now under way.

I could go on, but I expect you get the gist of it. The recent leaflet is a desperate last throw by people who see their days are numbered. I certainly hope they are, because Consett needs principled councillors who communicate honestly with their voters. Now that’s a pledge Natalie and I are happy to make to you.

The other night my friend Dominic Haney, Chairman of the Berry Edge Residents Association, rang me up.

“Have you seen the Labour Leaflet?” he asked angrily. What had upset him was the section LABOUR LISTENS AND TAKES ACTION. Amongst the claims was “Community Gardens plus improved kerbs and footpaths at Berry Edge”.

Here are some Facts:

Fact: Before the District Elections in May 2007, the residents association were told they could only have the area greened up if they accepted a car park as part of it. Reluctantly they agreed.

Fact: No sooner was the election over than the money to do even this “disappeared”.

Fact: The Residents Association itself, in co-operation with the Groundwork Trust, by long consultation, hard work,  and careful grant applications to Awards for All (Lottery Fund) and Durham County Urban Renewal and Renaissance Initiative have raised over £30,000 towards the project.

I know these are facts because I act as secretary to the Berry Edge Residents Association.

If these are the facts, you can decide what is fiction and what is fantasy.

And finally ………

I took this picture of a kerb in Berry Edge over a year ago, thinking it might be useful for a future Focus leaflet.

I thought I’d better use it now because obviously it will soon have been replaced as a result of all the money that has been “secured” to improve footpaths, kerbs and carriageways in the coming year.

Lets hope the money doesn’t “disappear” like the last set of pre-election promises. A broken pomise simply worsens people’s cynicism about politics and politicians.

Click picture below to see the protesters: When local people heard that the end of their terrace on Medomsley Road was to be turned into an accountant’s office they were horrified. It would snarl up the parking and make getting out of their back street even more difficult. But what could they do? Wasn’t it all decided already?

They approached me as their Liberal Democrat councillor to help them organise their protest. Twenty six letters of complaint hit the council offices. At the planning committee, armed with their arguments, I put their case so forcefully that even though council officers had recommended the plan to go ahead the committee rejected it unanimously.

So far so good, but spirits sagged when the accountants hired a planning consultant to appeal the decision. Defeat loomed as residents read the professionally put together appeal. Could ordinary people really persuade the Inspector to back their protests against the so-called experts?

Working together with me again they showered the inspectorate with well argued letters explaining why he should reject the appeal.

On March 18th residents got the good news that they had won. It’s a small victory but a big political lesson. Teamwork and persistence pay. Liberal Democrats specialise in both.

Tenants of Derwentside Homes are receiving the frightening news that their rents are to rise by 6.6% this April. Justifying the rises Derwentside Homes issued a staement saying “The Housing Corporation will assess Derwentside Homes to ensure that they comply with the guideline limit specified”.

That will be no comfort to hard-pressed tenants wondering how to make ends meet. I have notified the Press about this apalling situation and very much hope they will publish our condemnation.

Under the heading “Lib Dems slam Rent Rises” my statement reads, “Whichever way you look at it, this inflation-busting rent hike is an unbearable burden for households, many of whom have seen their wages pegged back below inflation. It confirms the worst fears of tenants who only a year ago were persuaded to sack their council landlords on the promise of a brighter future. At least when their homes were in the hands of the council they knew who to blame - and how to punish them.”

Regular readers of this blog may recognise each of these pictures.

The first is the footpath opposite Number One Club. A local resident reported it to be seriously littered and I contacted the streetscape team. They were out promptly, and a quick comparison with the earlier picture will show the difference they made.

The next is the railings outside the old TSB. This wasn’t an eyesore, but it was dangerous with the top rail hanging loose and splaying towards the road.

The County Council Highways Action Line not only took action but kept me informed of progress and were as good as their word. Now the railings are doing what they were designed to do - protecting pedestrians rather than threatening motorists.

And finally, here is the offending tip at the heart of our town where the team from the Environment Department of Derwentside District Council scaled the heights to remove the collection of bags that had been dumped up there.

Again, the team acted very quickly and kept me informed.

OK, so it’s not Paradise Regained, and none of this would have been necessary if all of the people in the area had behaved with consideration to their neighbours and their community. But what it does show is that if we stay alert and point our public servants in the right direction, they are wlling and able to help. My thanks to each of the teams who have helped us all in this way.

As your councillor, it certainly gives me some satisfaction to watch even these small improvements. I hope it does the same for you.

I’ve had two responses to my complaint to Peter Reynolds at Derwentside Council about tipping at the back of the Empire.

The first was a promise of action, together with some new pictures showing the willingness to dump stuff anywhere. Did they climb the ladder specially to dump stuff up there?

The second I print below, telling me that the area has been cleared.

“I understand that this site has now been cleared.  The complaint was dealt with by Ian Redshaw within Environmental Health who used our powers under Section 78 Public Health Act 1936 (Scavenging of common courtyards).

The yard was cleaned up on Wednesday 20th by our General Services operatives and the costs charged to Environmental Health.  They will in turn reclaim that sum by billing all the properties who open onto the area for a proportion of the amount.  This has been done in the past on a number of occasions when refuse has built up in the area.  Discussions will continue on the case as it is expected that we may need to do it again in the future.  A lot of the problem seems to be caused by market traders using this area as a dumping ground for their refuse on market days.”  

I’ll be down with my camera tomorrow to see if I can let you have a shot of the improvements. Obviously, though, we’re going to keep an eye on the problem. It won’t go away unless there is a long term resolution.

I’m sorry that no-one else has commented on Dominic Haney’s call for a referendum on the projects for the Capital Initiative Fund which makes £60,000 available to spend on a project in Consett North Ward. However, as prmised here’s my reply:

Dear Dominic,

Thank you for your email and the excellent research you have done in this area.  As you know, I attach great importance to the principle of community involvement in the decision making process, a process which requires regular communication and effective media. Representative government can only occur where there is a free and two way flow of information. On the other hand representative government cannot work if each and every decision is made by a universal popular vote because in that case representative politics has ceased. Clearly representative government is not the only form of government that could work, though I think it is fair to say that it is the method almost universally adopted by those nations that are normally described as democratic, with referenda used only in a relatively small number of situations, mostly those with a simple binary Yes/No decision. In the

  Actually I do support the use of referenda for very important decisions, especially constitutional ones, which is why Liberal Democrats called for a referendum on the question of whether

 Sharp-eyed residents of Consett North ward may recognise this footpath which suffers from litter, along with many other spots in the area. If you can’t quite place it, click on the image for a bigger picture.

I’ve notified the district council ”street-scape” team of the issue and will be looking out for it to be tidied up in the next week.

The problem was brought to my attention by someone when I was out and about delivering Focus leaflets, and emphasises again to me how important that two-way communication is.

If you’ve got a particular spot in the ward which suffers from litter please let me know exactly where it is and I’ll do my best to get the problem sorted. Better still, send me a picture and we can make this a regular spot on the website.

Glenroyd House has finally got conditional permission for a change of use for a limited part of the building. That part will become offices for Derwentside Community Volunteers and the Citizens Advice Bureau.

 Changes of access to make an entrance alongside the current Rosemount entrance, together with a much more limited use of the building, made the application more acceptable to councillors as a whole.

 I myself had written to the committee requesting that two conditions were applied:

• Limitation of hours to use between 8.30 a.m. and 6.00 p.m.
• Rear access via Larch Street other than for deliveries to be prevented by locking gates

I’m pleased that both limitation of hours and requirement to regulate traffic at the rear entrance were included in the conditions, as well as the requirement for a detailed revised scheme for parking.

 I also understand that this agreement will result in withdrawal of the appeal against the refusal of the previous application. That will both save the council time and money, and prevent the risk of a successful appeal. That in turn saves local residents from the possibility of the unfettered development previously sought. 

 I have no doubt that a permanent home for both the Derwentside CVS and Citizens Advice Bureau in Consett will benefit local people. It was also important, however, that the interests of Glenroyd’s immediate neighbours were taken properly into account.

Provided that the two organisations now deliver on their promises for the buildings and the grounds, this eyesore should be returned to useful service for the people of Consett, and a pleasant “treed” space in this key central location.

The accountancy practice which applied for a change of use at 279 Medomsley Road has appealed against the council’s decision to refuse the application.

 Basic details of the case can be seen at Derwentside District Councils website on http://www.derwentside.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=8427&step=4&ref=1/2007/0614 . Full details and all papers relating to the case can be viewed by appointment at the Council Offices.

 Many local residents have objected to the proposals on the grounds of increased traffic in the back street and parking difficulties, which is fundamentally why the planning committee turned it down.

 If you want to make your opinions known to the Planning Inspectorate, you should first visit the council offices to make sure you have a good grasp of the issues, and particularly the grounds of appeal which hinge around:

1. Disputing that the change of use will increase traffic or parking problems
2. Stating that the traffic dangers have been overstated
3. Arguing that local residents had not claimed “loss of amenity” and that that was a ground for refusal “concocted” by council officers.

Communication with the Planning Inspectorate about this case can be made on paper or electronically through http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?casename=APP/V1315/A/07/2058102&caseaddress=COO.2036.300.2.8879612

This week’s Development Control meeting on Thursday December 13th at 2.00 p.m. sees Glenroyd House return to the agenda.

In August an application to turn the whole building into offices, accessed just via the narrow sidestreet (called Larch Street), was knocked back unanimously by the Development Control Committee. That decision is now under appeal at the Planning Inspectorate.

The new application is for a much more limited use of the building and would involve the Derwentside Council for Voluntary Service and the Citizens Advice Bureau using a smaller part of the building for their office activities. Crucially the application proposes a new shared access with Rosemount Care Home. This is a much safer access as it is sited away from the bend and can be made wider than the Larch Street access.

This, allied to the greatly reduced number of rooms to be used (and therefore reduced numbers of staff and visitors) makes the application much more acceptable in my eyes. If you want to look at it and make your own judgement, just click this link: http://www.derwentside.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=8427&step=4&ref=1/2007/0901

Even though the application is much better than the previous one, however, I have written to ask the committee consider two additional conditions. One is that the hours of operation are limited to 8.30 a.m. to 6.00 p.m.. The other is that the rear entrance onto Larch Street has locked gates. The application says that fewer than two delivery and maintenance vehicles a week will us the Larch Street entrance; in that case, only locked gates will prevent other users from using this inadequate access and causing the problems that caused residents so much distress over the original application.

As its secretary, I attended the regular monthly “first Tuesday” meeting of the Berry Edge Residents Association on December 4th. The meeting sought to progress two items that have been on the agenda regularly during the life of the association: the parkland and waste ground to the rear of Albert Road, and some arrangement to make it easier for people to cross busy Albert Road.

Berry Edge Gardens

 The meeting received an outline of the joint partnership between the residents association and Groundwork West Durham and Darlington  to transform the area into “Berry Edge Gardens”. The first step is to seek an Awards for All grant from the Big Lottery fund to organise consultation with residents and draw up proposals for greening the whole area, part of which is currently a wasteland.

Crossing Albert Road

On the issue of a possible island or other arrangement to ease the crossing of Albert Road, especially for the elderly, infirm, or parents with young children, County Councillor Clive Robson had received results of a second traffic survey on Albert Road. On average 5639 vehicles per day had used the road of which around 105 recorded speeds above the limit. The written report by the highway engineer raised a number of problems with regard to possible solutions and offered little positive hope. Councillor Robson would seek further information from him, however, in the hope of being able to move this forward.

The next meeting of Berry Edge Residents association will be on January 8th, 7.00 p.m. at the YMCA in Parliament Street.

At last the government has got something right on this whole unitary debacle. We know they got it wrong when they believed the County Council’s claim that local people wanted just one “super-county” council for the whole of County Durham, but give them some credit - they spotted something fishy in the way the County Council was trying to change its proposal after the event.

As a result we will have elections in May 2008 to elect new councillors to shape the direction of the all new, all singing, all dancing council! These councillors will then continue as members for the first four years of the new council, meaning that they will be elected for five years in total.

 Whichever side you were on, for unitary or against it, we should all be pleased that the setting up of the new council will not be left in the hands of its original architects. We need a breath of fresh air to blow through County Hall.