The last chance for is fast approaching you to register to attend the consultation event on how local needs should be served in the unitary authority.

Action Area Partnerships (AAPs if you’re into jargon) are the Big Idea built into the original proposal to create a unitary council. They will be tasked with delivering the promise made by the county of “Greater choice and voice over services through more locally-focused and action-oriented ‘area action partnerships’, as successors to existing district-based local strategic partnerships.

Your chance to find out more and have your say in Consett is on April 29th at St Patrick’s Church Hall, starting at 6.00 p.m.

You can’t just turn up, though. Spaces are limited and to book your place you need to ring Janie Pollard on 01207 218271.  Alternatively email j.pollard@derwentside.gov.uk

Before you turn up you may want to do your homework by consulting http://county.durham.gov.uk/sites/lgraks/Attachments/consult%20document.pdf to put yourself in the picture - or not.

Derwentside doesn’t have much longer to exist, but it seems a real pity if it goes down without ever having had a question asked to a member of the executive and answered under this heading: http://www.derwentside.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=4570

Idly looking at the page I thought I’d go to Councillors FAQs - only to find it completely blank.

I just can’t imagine that there’s no-one in Derwentside who wants to know how the decision was made as to who got offered “brown-lidded” garden waste bins, and who didn’t. I can’t believe that no-one is interested in how many people have been fined for dog-fouling or fly-tipping. I can’t believe that no-one has wanted to know why Belle Vue Swim Centre needs to be replaced.

The reason why I can’t believe it is because I’ve heard all these questions asked myself!

So rather than let Derwentside go down with its executive thinking that no-one is interested in what it is, and has been, doing, why not ask the question you’ve always wanted to?

OK, so you probably guessed right that the Labour Group would not suspend normal party politics and so allow my motion for meetings of the Member Area Panels (see below) to be called. I think the vote was something like 65 - 35.

Sure, the constitution goes by the board. Sure, many members voted “against” even though they probably actually favoured the motion for local councillors to have some say in local issues. But no doubt they’re proud to display that “they” have more votes than “us”. It’s just a pity to have good aguments ignored because they come from the “wrong side”.

Just in case you’re not sure what the MAPs were meant to do, here’s their role as defined in the constitution:

• to deliberate issues of a local nature and promote members’ participation and involvement in local community activity;

• to feed back to Cabinet issues of local concern;

• to facilitate partnership working at the local level with other public and voluntary agencies and to provide a political input by local County Councillors into Local Strategic Partnerships on the basis of County Council policy, planning and strategy;

• to maintain an overview of Community Development in the District area and in particular to advise on priorities and provide County Councillor support into local community regeneration partnerships;

• to inform the expenditure of budgets delegated to chief officers for area-based initiatives.

So if you can see that those things aren’t happening in your area, you know who to blame. All the guilty parties will be named in the Council Minute Book. 

The most absurd thing, however, was to watch the Conservatives. I’m beginning to wonder what motivates them since they seem to have abstained on almost every issue raised at council. Fortunately no-one in Derwentside has to worry since none were elected here, but if I had voted for them I’d be worrying about exactly what I was getting for my money. I may be doing them an injustice, of course. Perhaps they really didn’t know whether they supported the constitutional right to local democracy!

I won’t let it rest here. In my book you can only ignore the constitution in a dictatorship - and the people of County Durham won’t stand for that.

You may spot the literary illusion - OK, I used to be an English teacher - but the title of Graham Greene’s book is a fitting description for the current Durham County Council.

For years the Member Area Panels (MAPs for short) have met to give the chance for county councillors from each district to meet together, discuss issues, allocate resources and plan within their districts. It’s been an essential part of keeping the “local” in local government, so important that it’s enshrined in the constitution of the county council.

Since the last county election, however, none of the MAPs have met. There’s been no official announcement, no change to the constitution, just a deafening silence.

That’s why I’m moving a motion at the county council meeting tomorrow for the MAPs to be re-convened. And I’ve taken the unusual step of writing to every county councillor in Derwentside to ask them to support the motion because there are things we need to be doing, important issues to decide, and not the least important of those is the issue of Consett Sports Centre. Wouldn’t it be a good idea for the Derwentside MAP to meet and hammer out any differences we may have in the interests of ensuring decent sports facilities for Consett?

There are other things to decide, too. Road repairs and the programme for the next financial year could be discussed. Car Parking policy will need to be sorted out by the new authority because it’s too late now for the District Council to face up to it, and the sooner we start talking realistically about that future, the better the chance that we get some action before the town centres in Consett and Stanley are finally strangled to death.

That’s why I hope that every councillor in Derwentside will back the re-formation of the member area panels. And by tomorrow night I’ll know if I’m just a born optimist, or whether most councillors are actually in it to achieve the best for their area just as I am.

There was a time when Prime Ministers made announcements to Parliament, and then they were published in the press.

There was a time when council leaders made announcements to councillors, and then they were published in the press.

That was because there was respect for electors, and a recognition that the votes they cast for their representatives (whether for the party in power or not) counted for something.

Those days are gone. P.R. has replaced the old-fashioned notion of democracy.

Earlier this year I found out who the county council cabinet was to be from the Northern Echo. On Saturday I discovered that the new county council wanted to know how local people thought that power and influence should be passed back to them, and would be holding public consultation events - through the Northern Echo. Two days later I received the information from the leader of the council!

The Labour county council cabinet could not make it plainer that they have no respect for “back-bench” councillors. In doing so they could not make it plainer that they have no respect for their electors either.

But that’s why I love the old-fashioned notion of democracy. All parties that take the electorate for-granted get their come-uppance in due course. It can’t happen too soon for me.

I like elections, but even I am concerned at the prospect of yet another election in 2010. Sadly it seems to be becoming more and more likely as the Boundary Commission sets out on a review of County Durham.

If it carries out its intention it will mean that we’ve had District elections in 2007, County elections in 2008 and County again in 2010.

Yes, theBoundary Commision does have a point that the current two members per ward has produced too big a county council to work well. 126 councillors is too unwieldy. Yes the Boundary Commision does have a point that the numbers don’t add up, with some wards having many more voters than others. But what’s wrong with the idea is that we’re supposed to be working together to create a new unitary council to begin in 2009, and holding another election in 2010 means that:

• Nothing will be properly “bedded in” and it will be impossible for anyone to judge the new county’s performance so soon
• Another election will have big financial costs
• The worst thing, though, is that councillors will have their eyes on the coming election instead of making the new council work. Political in-fighting and back-stabbing could irreparably damage the new council even before it’s out of the blocks

If that’s the way its got to be, however, that’s the way it will be. And if elections come in 2010, local Lib Dems will be up for it.

At the meeting of Durham County Council today the Labour Party showed that it had learnt nothing from its mauling at the ballot box.

In this blog a week or so ago, I said we would learn a lot today, and we did. Rather than hold out an olive branch to the opposition, the Labour group offered Liberal Democrats, Conservatives and Independents nothing by way of a cabinet post.

When it came to the positions of Chair and Vice-Chair of the prestigious scrutiny committees they again offered nothing to Liberal Democrats, Conservatives and the larger Independent Group, but did offer two vice chairmanships to the tiny rump of independents (6 in all) who have lined up behind John Shuttleworth from Weardale.

Call me an old cynic if you like, but doesn’t that smack just a tiny bit of using the power of patronage to bring on board just enough extra votes to make sure that they have protection from any minor rebellions in the ranks?

Ironically, round the fringes, our Group Leader, Nigel Martin, and I were both appointed vice-chairs of a non-executive committee but I would gladly have swapped mine for one of our group getting a place in cabinet. That would have offered real hope that the County Council was going to adopt a positive and constructive approach to building the new unitary council. What we saw today offers no such hope.

Derwentside’s “Transition Plan” proposes transferring land valued at £10 million to Derwentside Homes.

As the plan makes clear, the council has already agreed in principle to transferring land worth £2.4 million to Derwentside Homes. I voted in favour of this, accepting the argument that since Derwentside Homes had already bid for a grant of just over £2m to build affordable homes on it and would themselves have to invest a further it, it would provide a route to rapid expansion in the provision of affordable housing. The council’s argument is that this “transfer at nil value” - a gift to you and me - will generate expenditure of £8.3m within the district.

I am much less happy about transferring another £7.6 million’s worth with no evidence of similar investment being imminently available. Whilst it might result in further affordable housing at some point in the future, it would also tie the land up in the hands of just one housing provider with limited resources to develop it, and would inevitably remove the flexibility of the unitary council to use the land in other initiatives and ways to create affordable housing.

We need to be very careful that in a desire to preserve a “legacy” within Derwentside we don’t cut off our nose to spite our face.

I’d be really interested to hear your views on this proposal.

Tonight’s Annual Meeting of Derwentside District Council will probably be the usual round of appointments to committees with a bit of political jockeying at the edges. It may all be over in quarter of an hour (depending on how long Alex Watson’s “State of the Union” message takes).

In amongst it, however, we will receive the “Transition Plan” in which Derwentside District Council seeks to leave its mark upon, and its legacy for, the local area. It may all sound a bit dry but in a series of posts I hope to share with you some of the very important issues involved.

Item 1.1, the three year “Family Intervention Project” is unique in the county as a support and enforcement project set up to work with the most serious perpetrators of anti-social behaviour in the district. Its aim is to improve the lives of the families themselves by bringing them stability, increased opportunity and a reduced risk of homelessness. At the same time it aims to improve the lives of their neighbouring communities. Full external funding has been secured for this year, but will reduce over the next two years.

This leaves the question of how the funding gap of £20K next year and £70K the year after is to be made up. It will also present a challenge, if the project is successful and cost-effective, as to how to make its work permanent.

So it’s going to be vital that councillors stay alert to what’s going on and help the new unitary authority to make the right judgement. There’s never been a more important time for Derwentside’s councillors to keep their eye on the ball. And there’s never been a time when it was harder to maintain motivation.

I don’t know if Alex Watson OBE, leader of Derwentside District Council, reads this website (or whether he’d want to admit to it if he does) so he may be unaware of my “First 100 Potholes” target. Nevertheless, I have to congratulate him on notifying Durham County Council of a most impressive pothole  to the rear of Duncurin House (the old Medical Centre on Medomsley Road).

Strictly speaking this one doesn’t qualify for my competition as it is in a back-street, but it is impressively apalling and capable of doing some serious damage.

We’re now a week into my campaign for pothole action from the Highways Action Line, and I’ve had to send a chaser since my original email is still unacknowledged. This is not a promising start.