Recent Issues
Local Government Association (LGA) Independent Group
The PAB is a member of the Local Government Association (LGA) Independent Group and was interested to see this letter sent to the Secretary of State following the recent elections:-
"The Rt. Hon. Eric Pickles MP |
05 August 2010 |
Local Government Association (LGA) Independent Group: electoral reform issues
The Independent Group at the LGA can provide support to councillors in England and Wales whose authorities are in membership of the LGA and who are not Conservative, Liberal-Democrat or Labour party councillors.
The Independent Group held its Annual General Meeting as part of the LGA Summer Assembly and Conference in Bournemouth recently. At that meeting two motions for debate were agreed with the result that I have been asked to write to you on behalf of the Independent Group to give you sight of the issues concerned and the resolutions. I set these out for you below and would be grateful if you could let me have an early response to the issues arising so that I can report back to our membership.
Timing of local and national elections
Our group members feel strongly that holding both local elections and national elections on May 6 this year worked to the detriment of, firstly, a sufficient focus on the criticality of the local elections and, secondly, to the particular detriment of Independent and smaller political party candidates in the local elections because of the excessive focus on the national elections and the three largest political parties on the part of the media. We also think that large numbers of electors involved in local elections were not aware of the different purposes of the two ballot papers provided. As a consequence many good candidates, irrespective of party, lost their council seats on what were, in effect, national considerations.
LGA Independent Group members would like to see the timing of UK local elections and any, UK national elections or referenda changed so that they do not occur on the same day. Independent Group members feel that the precise timing of the two sets of elections – that is the amount of time occurring between local and national elections - should be negotiated further with national and local politicians.
Voting reform in local elections
The national Government is planning a referendum on voting reform with the prospect of a move to a form of Alternative Vote in national elections. The LGA Independent Group considers that a similar change to voting methods at the local level would benefit Independent and smaller political party candidates where they are disproportionately disadvantaged under the current voting system. The electorate would have more confidence that where they cast their vote for an Independent or smaller political party candidates, alternative voting will increase the chances of these candidates being elected. With the current system, the electorate may feel that a vote for an Independent or smaller political party candidate might be wasted
LGA Independent Group members would like to see the referendum planned on changes to the voting system at national level on the Alternative Vote extended to seek views from the electorate on whether they would like to see a similar change in the voting system extended to local elections.
Many thanks in advance for your time and attention to this letter
Keith Ross OBE
LGA Independent Group Leader
Local Government Association Vice-Chairman"
FLOODING AND THE DRAINAGE PROBLEMS THAT FOLLOWED JULY 2007
Like many parts of the country, Cheltenham residents suffered as a result of the unprecedented rainfall on that dreadful day in July 2007.
Prestbury village, for example, lies at the foot of the surrounding hills and has always been vulnerable to flooding. Nevertheless, a lot of the flooding problems had been caused by poor and inadequate drainage facilities, which PAB local councillors had been highlighting for a number of years.
It took the floods of July 2007 to make the Highways Department and the Environment Agency to realise that what we had been saying for years had now finally come home to them that the drainage was poor.
Soakaways, for example, are fine in dry weather but utterly useless when continuous rainfall makes the ground saturated.
We pointed out constantly, that drains spaced fifty yards apart were not capturing the water that fell and more drains were needed fifty feet apart.
Surrounding ditches, we told the authorities, needed to be kept clear of debris and dredged on a regular basis, and, we pointed out time and time again that additional housing developments in unsuitable locations only added to the flooding problems.
Our pleas and advice only fell on deaf ears.
We had persuaded both Tewkesbury Borough and Cheltenham Borough Councils to invest in land drainage projects for the longer term. Against the opposition from some councillors who preferred to spend the money elsewhere, we managed to get both councils to invest in a land drainage scheme. The joint cost of both schemes was nearly £1million and a lot of work was done for the money. The problem was that both councils started to lay the pipes at different parts of Prestbury village and we finally finished up with two sets of pipes lying in the ground for several years waiting for the councils, the county highways and the environment agency to come up with a final scheme that would connect up the two sets of pipes.
Like many instances in the past, it took a disastrous flooding situation to make these councils and agencies wake up to the fact that there was a major flooding problem in Prestbury. PAB councillors argued with councils and agencies for months after July 2007 to act seriously with the Prestbury problem, but it wasn’t until the PAB Group wrote to the Secretary of State explaining the situation and our concerns that things started to happen.
Five separate drainage schemes have been introduced in various parts of Prestbury, some small and some large. More drains are appearing and areas that had no drains at all, or very few, are now enjoying their areas without the constant fear of flooding.
In September 2010, the link up of the two sets of pipes will take place together with other flood defence measures, which will divert surface water away from homes.
A great achievement for the PAB Group and shows what can be done.
NEW POWERS FOR LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO STOP ‘GARDEN GRABBING’
The government have implemented the commitment made in the Coalition Agreement to decentralise the planning system by giving Local Authorities the opportunity to prevent overdevelopment of neighbourhoods and ‘garden grabbing’.
Two important statements that will result in amendments to the Planning Policy Statement (PPS3) which effectively, in planning terms, shapes the places where people live and work and supports wider social, environmental and economic objectives and for sustainable communities.
As a result of the recent announcements changes to PPS3 are as follows:-
- Private residential gardens are now excluded from the definition
of previously developed land in Annex B of the statement.
- The national indicative minimum density of 30 dwellings per hectare
is deleted from paragraph 47 of the statement.
The Secretary of Statement emphasised that ‘it was for local authorities and communities to take decisions that are best for them, and decide for themselves the best locations and types of development in their areas’.
Whilst this sounds good on paper, the PAB Group are concerned that the local planning authorities will continue to take the decisions based on the excuse that they have consulted with the community and unwanted and destructive back garden proposals will continue to be granted. Local planning authorities and planning committees are not well-known for abiding by, or, working to planning policies in their areas, which is why so many local residents are frustrated by the planning system.
In Cheltenham, the PAB Group will continue to encourage the local planning authority to work to the local plan policies to ensure protection of local environments and the amenities of adjoining land users.
Underground Parking
Cheltenham Borough Council like many other local authorities is short of land for development purposes. Each L.A. is required to demonstrate a 5 year supply of residential land for development. Whenever Borough boundaries are tight the pressure to demonstrate a 5 year supply becomes increasingly more difficult. Cheltenham is in such a delicate position, which is why the P.A.B. Group constantly urges the Borough Council and its planning department to amend its policies to force developers to provide underground parking instead of the easy option of providing surface parking.
Cheltenham Borough Council, like adjoining local authorities, will be required to produce up-to-date development plans to guide future sustainable development and safeguard environmental, social, economic and other key interests, as will Tewkesbury Borough and Gloucester City councils. An updated Joint Core Strategy document is currently under consideration, which, if approved, will change the landscape map of the County with its proposals.
The big test for the P.A.B. Group is to make sure that any changes do not harm significant parts of the Green Belt around Cheltenham and we make even greater effort to use ‘brownfield’ land before green open spaces are used. Whilst we agree that derelict sites are used first, we continue to campaign vigorously for surface car parks in the town to be replaced with underground facilities, which would free-up land on the surface for residential, retail and other employment purposes. If this was pursued by Cheltenham Borough Council and included as a top priority in its Civic Pride aspirations and endorsed with appropriate policies, then the demand to build on green spaces and Green Belt land would be greatly reduced.
A recent landmark Public Inquiry into a planning appeal by the Gloucestershire NHS Trust to allow the Cheltenham General Hospital to build a multi-storey car park close to the town’s open-air Lido was dismissed. In the period leading up to the eventual submission of a planning application by the NHS, P.A.B. councillors urged the hospital management to go for underground parking for the reasons expressed above. Freeing up land currently used by parked cars is a nonsense when land for extensions of the hospital is nearly exhausted. Furthermore, multi-storey car parks are not things of beauty no matter who designs them.
Our pleas for underground car parking fell on deaf ears and we still have a problem for visitors to the hospital as well as the long-suffering staff. The P.A.B. Group Leader wrote a letter to the Editor of the local newspaper following the dismissal of the appeal and we produce it below for information.
Dear Editor,
There is no doubt that the car parking situation at the General Hospital is appalling, not only for visitors but for the staff as well. The situation is not new because we have known for many years that the numerous additions to the original hospital building would mean that the parking situation would become increasingly worse.
Whilst patients, visitors and staff will be disappointed with the decision of the planning inspector, the end result was not unexpected because the visual impact of a multi-storey car park on the area and particularly the Lido was too much. And, secondly, multi-storey car parks are not known for their architectural features, which often meant that they are reluctantly accepted as a facility to serve only as a means to an end.
The question is whether there is an alternative to endless surface car parking across Cheltenham without having to revert to multi-storey car parks. The answer, of course, is that there is providing the will is there and the developers are prepared to spend money on underground parking.
Developers will always argue that the cost of underground parking is too much, but, whilst profit is important, so is the character and appearance of an area.
But, notwithstanding that important point, we must also accept that we will soon be running out of residential and employment building land within the borough and unless we grasp the nettle by insisting that car parking is only allowed below ground in new developments then more attempts to build multi-storey car parks will be on the way.
PAB councillors tried desperately to persuade the hospital management and their agents to seriously consider underground parking when the discussions and seminars took place prior to the submission of a planning application. We failed in our mission even though we pointed out the vast areas of opportunity that could be made available.
If it isn’t cost that is used against our suggestions it is usually the poor quality of the soil below ground, or, the power of the mighty River Chelt that prevents the digging out by the contractors.
Pointing out that the Hyde Park underground parking is successful in spite of the River Serpentine, or, the underground parking below part of the lake at Annecy, our twin town in France, has little or no impact with local developers.
So, what is the answer? It seems to me that nothing short of new legislation from Central Government, changing, or, adding to planning policies a section dealing with underground parking is needed.
The need is urgent before we run out of land.