That being the case, it’s important that as many ordinary people as possible get involved. Don’t leave it to someone else or you’ll risk self-appointed cliques getting more influence than you’d like - get involved and play your part.

The Wider Stakeholder Forum describes itself as “a consultative/scrutiny group, membership of which is open to any organisation voluntary, community, public or private, who delivers services or operates within Derwentside or any member of the community who is a service user.”

The next meeting of the Wider Stakeholder Forum will be held on 9th October, starting at 4.00p.m. in Consett.

If you are interested in taking part it is very important that you contact Janie Pollard on 01207 218 271, giving your name, contact details, telephone number and an e-mail address (if you have one), so that details can be forwarded to you nearer the date.

It’s no good leaving it till the last minute. If you do, you’ll miss the boat.

Not so the new county council’s blueprint which is to be discussed by the cabinet on September 11th. If the “taster” provided to the scrutiny overview committee is anything to go by it its just a rather vague recipe for “motherhood and apple pie”.

It was given a pretty effective panning by members of all political persuasions, frustrated that four months into the new council all we’re getting is buzz words and platitudes when what we really want to know is how we’re going to ensure that service standards don’t plummet across the county in April 2009. 

Of course, we’d prefer services to improve, but since it will take a miracle to maintain them in the first instance in the absence of any clear cut plans, improvements may have to wait!

There wasn’t much specific to report yet, but I sensed something of a change of mood which chimed in with some of the conversations I have had with medical professionals and administrators.

Being realistic we are not going to get back the General Hospital we had, but there seems to be an increasing recognition that there is a valuable resource in Shotley Bridge, capable of delivering more services that it curently does.

It’s to the credit to our district council that it has put money up to support the day surgery unit when it was most threatened, and has provided some budget to support ongoing promotion of the hospital and exploration of new opportunities. It has also set up the “Supporting Shotley Bridge Hospital” group to feed into the “STAKEHOLDER STEERING GROUP”.

This is a really important group which meets with senior executives from the NHS Trusts, representatives from both district and county councils, and hospital staff at all levels as well as local GPs. The more strength the group has, the greater its voice, so I urge anyone interested to join. The easiest way for internet savvy readers of this website to do it is by emailing k.earley@derwentside.gov.uk

You can also just turn up to the next meeting which is ay 6.00 p.m. on September 10th in the restauraunt of Shotley Bridge Hospital restaurant. It will be addressed br Dr John Levick, a local GP who is also chair of the Derwentside Primary Care Group. It should be well worth going to.

Sadly for me, councillors are excluded for the moment.

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 

One decision was particularly difficult. A proposal to use a former landfill site for composting of green waste was before the committee, and a site visit had been ordered.

On the one hand there is clearly a need for such composting on environmental grounds. On the other, there was a clearly inadequate and potentially dangerous access, and some wider questions about the suitability of the site.

The best thing about the process was that there was real debate. Local people put their case with passion, and it was clear that councillors were carefully weighing up the arguments before reaching their decision.

In the event I cast my vote for what proved to be the majority view. But if the decision had gone the other way I would still have been satisfied with the process.

I’m sorry if I’ve bored you by writing about something that has nothing to do with my role as your councillor. I just thought it was good to record the fact that there are good days at the office!

I’ll save venting my frustration for the next meeting.

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.

“Mr. Temple,

Our firm specializes in the design of aquatic facilities around the world and have designed many similar pools to the one (or two depending on the chosen option) you are considering. The general rule of thumb is the bigger the better…as long as you can support the increased costs that come from the increased water space such as chemical costs, electricity, and other utilities- not to mention the initial capital costs that it takes to build the pool. If I can be of any additional assistance please let me know. Best of luck with your project!”

I’ve responded and will be really interested to find out if Justin can help me track down some sound information on and workable examples of similar projects.

It’s good to know this website reaches parts that others cannot reach. We seem to be generating more enthusiasm from across the pond than from County Hall.

Mind you, great though it looks, I don’t think the design of of some of their local projects will quite suit the Consett climate!

For a bigger picture, click the picture or visit http://www.aquaticdesigngroup.com/portfolio.html 

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.

To date:

August 2007 the DCC declined an application to change the whole site to offices, hosted by Derwentside CVS, on the grounds that the only vehicular access, Larch Street, (a very narrow road that runs between Glenroyd House and the terrace of Medomsley Road) was inadequate and dangerous.

Nov 2008: Appeal lodged against the planning refusal.

Jan 2008: Appeal withdrawn and new planning application submitted with car parking at the front and shared access with Rosemount home for the elderly through an enlarged opening at the front.

Application accepted subject to limits on working hours and provision of plans for car-parking.

June 2008: Third Application submitted seeking to vary the terms of the planning approval as Rosemount had declined to share access with CVS/Glenroyd. The application involved creating a completely new access alongside the Rosemount entrance.

Application rejected by DCC on grounds of pedestrian and traffic safety.

Ag 2008: Appeal

Those who wish to make representations would be well advised first to consult the file at Derwentside Civic Centre any day Monday to Friday between 8.30 a.m. and 4.45 p.m.

They should then make their submission by September 9th (sending three copies) to

The Planning Inspectorate, Temple Quay House, 3/19a Eagle Wing, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol BS1 6PN

You must quote ref: APP/V/1315/A/08/2080021/NWF

I looked for it on the planning appeal portal but couldn’t find it, so I guess it will have to be a pen and ink job.

Regular hikers will be familiar with this picture. It shows the right of way going straight ahead. There’s just one problem. Alongside it is the “Bull in field” sign. In other words, there’s a theoretical right of way which is very different from the reality on the ground.

That’s exactly how I felt when I got back from my brief break to my council emails. The Monitoring Officer confirmed to me that, in her opinion, the constitution had not been subverted by the decision that Member Area Panels (MAPs) would not meet.

The constitution may say that that MAPs exist. The bull in the field (aka Labour’s built-in majority) proves otherwise.

And I feel just as protected by the rule book as I did in North Yorkshire.

There’s only one answer in the long run. We’ll have to get rid of the bull.