Council get something right!! - Page 9

park381 · 07-03-2005, 18:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham Jones

Funding and the consequences of funding would not be a consideration for Planning or any officers to do with planning. The officers advice would be on H&S and access, character and all other legal regulations.

Is that not what I posted, if all the criteria were met by the application including DDA requirements the "Officers" would give the application a "yes"

Graham Jones · 07-03-2005, 18:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by park381

[/font]
That's a fair comment graham.
Just picked this one up from tonights Lancs evening telegraph
http://www.thisislancashire.co.uk/la.../NEWSACC0.html
This area was totally trashed during the market development, I know it needs re-vamping but why was it not made part of that market development, it was enabling work in the first place to allow for the new build, so as part of that contract it should have been made good on completion, total bad management on HBC's part.

Correct. Either £250,000 shopuld have budgeted into the MSD or the damage not incurred. The whole MSD was and is a disaster.

Graham Jones · 07-03-2005, 18:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by park381

Is that not what I posted, if all the criteria were met by the application including DDA requirements the "Officers" would give the application a "yes"

yes, it would get a yes advice on the bottom of the report then 5 Tories and 4 Labour Councillors would vote on it.[on legal grounds only that is]

Tealeaf · 07-03-2005, 18:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham Jones

Britcliffe asked me because he knows I am season ticket holder and wanted to 'spead the blame' AGAIN!!! I believe in consensus and the views of the other 15 Labour Councillors. They were for keeping the meeting as scheduled. It had been resheduled once by a fortnight originally to suit PB.

My view. My neighbourhood elected me and I accepted by putting my name forward. Dont like the heat get out of the kitchen. However my son would have really gutted to not have gone.

Can you therefore tell us how much it cost to defer the meeting, and if in the budget set for 2005/6, a sum is allocated to pay for future deferred council meetings to allow for Dingles/Walkers/Stanley footy matches, Britcliffes excuses, etc?

Graham Jones · 07-03-2005, 18:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acrylic-bob

Let me get this straight Graham, NWDA decided that it wants to give us a panopticon and plonk it in a public park, it then submits a planning application and provided that all the access and safety issues are covered the council is required to pass it, irrespective of the wishes of the people of the borough, who's only say in this is a half arsed "tick the box" consultation exercise?

sorry I missed this one.

The real decison takes place at Cabinet. Planning is only a legal check that it passes neccessary regulations/guidelines. Planning is very strict and narrow focused. Cabinet will have decided the big decsion prior.

Graham Jones · 07-03-2005, 18:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tealeaf

Can you therefore tell us how much it cost to defer the meeting, and if in the budget set for 2005/6, a sum is allocated to pay for future deferred council meetings to allow for Dingles/Walkers/Stanley footy matches, Britcliffes excuses, etc?

No unfortunately. Its our building so there was no cancellation charges or staffing charges because it was overtime. There ws some cost because it clashed with an Area Council in Clayton which had to be rescheduled. THe figure banded about was £1000 but I am not sure about that.

More importantly was the Rishton by election. If it had been called on the 5 May it would have cost £2,000 but now its next week it is £6,000. PB thinks the hight turnout of the 5th will mean a loss opposed to holding it next week means that Rishton has the chance to 'bash Tony Blair' before the general election and win a local seat. Is that honest politics?

Tealeaf · 07-03-2005, 18:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham Jones

sorry I missed this one.

The real decison takes place at Cabinet. Planning is only a legal check that it passes neccessary regulations/guidelines. Planning is very strict and narrow focused. Cabinet will have decided the big decsion prior.

But presumably the overall council is sovereign over "cabinet" and should sufficient Tories rebel against a cabinet decision and throw it out there is nowt that Britcliffe or anyone else can do.

Acrylic-bob · 07-03-2005, 18:32

>>Correct. Either £250,000 shopuld have budgeted into the MSD or the damage not incurred. The whole MSD was and is a disaster.<<

Which council department then is, in your opinion, responsible for not ensuring that the development was planned and managed correctly?

Graham Jones · 07-03-2005, 18:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tealeaf

But presumably the overall council is sovereign over "cabinet" and should sufficient Tories rebel against a cabinet decision and throw it out there is nowt that Britcliffe or anyone else can do.

IMHO Nigel Rix and Hyndburn First. Hyndburn First was cut to much slack and allowed to operate as a quango by PB and the Tories who wanted to move away from Labour Town Hall fiefdom. Except the beast had two heads. The rest is history. Welcome Blackburn and Darwen Council Regeneration Arm to run Hyndburn.

Graham Jones · 07-03-2005, 18:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tealeaf

But presumably the overall council is sovereign over "cabinet" and should sufficient Tories rebel against a cabinet decision and throw it out there is nowt that Britcliffe or anyone else can do.

No. Council has very few powers now. It passes the budget thats all. Plus any constitutional changes and passes the minutes of meetings. Thats it. Everything else ends at the Cabinet. Its a very closed system designed to fast track desicions.

WillowTheWhisp · 07-03-2005, 18:42

The Panopticon threat is something on many people's minds and a lot of us suspect it could end up leading HBC even further into debt. As Tealeaf says what about future maintainance and even the peripherals such as improving access to the site which doesn't come under the umbrella of MPAA?

Can't HBC just decide not to have a panopticon and then get on with life?

Point taken about your son being gutted if he couldn't go to a football match but would it have been possible for you to opt out of work if the match had been played in an afternoon?

Has he ever thought of supporting Stanley?

park381 · 07-03-2005, 18:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham Jones

yes, it would get a yes advice on the bottom of the report then 5 Tories and 4 Labour Councillors would vote on it.[on legal grounds only that is]

Thank you for that reply Graham

Graham Jones · 07-03-2005, 18:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tealeaf

Actually, Graham, its good to see a Councillor on here and making such a contribution. I wonder what your opinion is on that other colossal waste of money known as the HyndburnLife site?

I have only been there once. It was externally funded jointly with Pendle. It seems a bit glossy. What exactly is wrong with it as I don't know?

As for the chap that said I should resign and jumping out of decisions. I am not a dishonest person and I do not approve of dishonest politics.

Graham Jones · 07-03-2005, 19:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

The Panopticon threat is something on many people's minds and a lot of us suspect it could end up leading HBC even further into debt. As Tealeaf says what about future maintainance and even the peripherals such as improving access to the site which doesn't come under the umbrella of MPAA?

Can't HBC just decide not to have a panopticon and then get on with life?

Point taken about your son being gutted if he couldn't go to a football match but would it have been possible for you to opt out of work if the match had been played in an afternoon?

Has he ever thought of supporting Stanley?

I respect peoples views who have thought through the Panopticons and make an honest decision whether for or against. Was it Sarter who said progress comes from revolution and counter revolution?

HBCs debt is £27million. 33,000 Council Tax payers. About £800 each? Many loans taken out at fixed rate because of boom and bust of 80's and 90's, some as high as 14% fixed. Average Council Tax payment is about £130 to HBC. Even if we knocked 20 quid a year of the £130 it would take how many years to pay?

We cant maintain the coppice. sadly there are only two options Engish Nature as nature reserve and thats a long shot and funding I am not sure about and the substantially funded Regional Park. Yer makes yer decision, yer lives with it.

Stanley. We go when we can. It great to stand on terraces where you want to it and not be fleeced for simply being a foot fan. BTW last year the Labour Group voted to either reject all free tickets [with free bar] or accept them and donate every penny to charity. So if you see me in the bar, I'll be adding it all up and there will be a cheque given the Lab P Sec.

Graham Jones · 07-03-2005, 19:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by park381

Thank you for that reply Graham

I must qualify that: A yes providing it met regulations. Of course a no if it didn't.