30 November 2006

The Somerton Town Plan - 1977

Recently I was fortunate to find a copy of the 'Draft Somerton Plan' dated March 1977 and it makes very interesting reading. Its also interesting to note that it was developed in conjunction with a widespread consultation process. Quoting directly from that document, it records the following:

p.42 - Informal Recreation
5.33 From the number of local clubs and societies - Somerton Town News lists over 30 - Somerton seems to have an exceptionally active local community. 50% of households responding to the questionnaire belonged to one or more local societies. On the face of it, it (Somerton) is well provided with meeting places for these groups; there are six rooms available, including the Parish Rooms, and excluding the several pubs which also play host to some clubs. The problem is that it (Somerton) lacks a meeting place of sufficient size to accomodate large numbers of people, for the Parish rooms can comfortably only take up to 100 people, which means that well-attended Parish meetings overload it.

p.67 - Recreation
12.2 In the questionnaire returns the public often commented on the contrast between the speed of residential development and the impasse in the provision of recreational facilities. Requests for more - a community centre and more sports facilities in particular - formed a significant proportion of the observations. At the public meeting many speakers suggested modifying existing and planned facilities to extend the range of facilities available.

p.67 - Standards of Provision
12.4 Line 12 - It was generally agreed that a larger village hall was needed.

p.68 - Conclusions and Recommended Policies
12.6 - Although the Sommerton community could make good use of both indoor sports facilities and a larger public hall, public funds for the provision of recreational facilities are in short supply.

Policy No.20
The planning authority upholds the principle of dual use of community facilities and would support use of the proposed sports pavilion for general community purposes; if agreement could be reached with the Playing Fields Committee on this basis, the Council would support an application for funds under the Village Hall Grants Scheme.



So what this document tells us is that Somerton's need for a larger community venue isn't a need that has been recognised relatively recently but has been apparent for at least 30 years. Its also interesting to note that, 30 years ago, local people were commenting on how quickly private development was taking place and how any community development was still stuck in an "impasse".

The difference between 30 years ago and today is that, today, Somerton has some funds available to undertake a project. So, today, it is more important than ever, that the widest, most inclusive debate is undertaken to ensure that what is finally delivered meets, as far as possible, the needs and aspirations of the community. What is currently being proposed is something that meets the limited vision of the Town Council and that is not 'local democracy' or anything near it.

Till next time.

Niall

29 November 2006

Somerton and sheep.

Its been a couple of days since the village hall meeting and that has given me time to think about what did or didn't happen. I was surprised at the passivity of the community in the face of some really outrageous statements by the Town Council. But maybe this is part of the Somerton problem - the community doesn't question. Anything that the Town Council says must be true. What I did notice is that anyone who did seek to contradict the Town Council's position was a) in the absolute minority and b) broadly ignored. If the situation wasn't so sad it might be really funny and I wonder if this speaks to Somerton's broader challenges.

The meeting was (poorly) attended by a majority of senior citizens. I don't know if anyone at the meeting was under forty but it certainly didn't look like it. So where is the wider community? Clearly they don't get involved and its useful to ask why not? Maybe the very nature of 'local politics', certainly as they are pursued in Somerton, just turns people off. The reputation of the Town Council is that of an exclusive clique run by three or four members where everyone else just follows along like sheep. The Town Council also has a reputation for speaking out of both sides of its mouth and the village hall meeting was a good example.

Much was made of the need to be positive and constructive, the suggestion being that anything else just isn't helpful. Yet two of the councillors present went out of their way to make bitchy comments about previous members of the council (who clearly disagree with the current approach). At the same time, the same councillors went to great lengths to tell the meeting just how much they were doing for local people and they were not being paid. I assume the idea is that local people are meant to be grateful. The same councillors also make much of the fact that, whilst they are unpaid, they are having to deal with staffers from the County Council who are paid vast salaries. This kind of self-justification only raises doubts about what councillors are really up to - 'Methinks the maiden protesteth too much'.

Even with my very limited experience of Somerton's Town Council, it is already clear that they do things in a most peculiar way. I'm reminded of that movie "Roadhouse" with Patrick Swayze - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098206/plotsummary - where a one-horse town is run by vested interests for their own benefit. I wonder if Somerton is like that? If it is then I'm definitely not looking to play 'Dalton'.

Niall

28 November 2006

Village Hall Meeting - 27th November 2006

Somerton never fails to surprise me. On the surface its a quiet west country town with quiet residents and a reserved demeanour. But still waters run deep as they say and last evening's meeting about the proposed town hall is a case in point.

The meeting was held under the auspices of the 'Somerton Community Hall Support Group' in order to report progress with 'the project'. The first half hour was taken up with an exhaustive Q&A session with a range of questions put to prominent town councillors. The questions dealt with the hall as if it were a live project yet the councillors made frequent reference to the fact that funding for the project would only be available if and when town assets were sold. And about that there was no certainty whatsoever.

That was an interesting position to take when, at the same time, the Town Council were also displaying three sets of drawings of what the proposed hall might look like. These drawings were not a set of rough sketches but a set of well laid out architects drawings, produced by Messers Boon Brown of Yeovil. So clearly, whilst the project hasn't any funding and whilst possible funding is entirely dependent upon other factors, the Town Council are issuing instructions to one firm of architects to draw up proposals.

Another interesting issue was that of a possible building budget. The figure mentioned last evening was £400,000 as this was the likely sum of money to be raised by the Town's sale of the Etsome Terrace site to the local Primary Care Trust. Now that deal has been abandoned before and there is no certainty that it will go through this time but the assumption is that the money raised in the sale will be used to build the hall. But there are a number of caveats around that sum of money.

Firstly, if the land is sold, any community hall project must be started within 3 years of the sale or the County Council has the right to claw back £140,000 of the capital. (They sold the land to the Town for the express purpose of building a new hall and this clause is inserted to make sure that the site or the funds arising from any sale will be put to that purpose.)

Secondly, the £400,000 is not unencumbered. Some £140,000 is 'profit' derived from the rise in land value since the Town bought the site. But the balance ie the purchase price, was funded through a loan which the Town is still paying-off and will be for some years hence. So, if £400,000 is brought to the party only about a third of that sum is 'free'.

Another point which was mentioned was how the building might be built or, more accurately, how the materials and labour might be purchased. It was proposed to the meeting that Tony Canvin, the well known builder and local and district councillor, would use his 'buying power' to negotiate the best deals. It was proposed that there would be no tendering evidently because tendering is a tedious process which doesn't offer any benefit.

Now this last point is interesting. If there isn't a tender document, how will the Town ever know what its getting for the money? If there isn't a tender document, how will the money be accounted for? If there isn't a tender document, how will the Town know what the specification should have been? The answer is that without a tender document the Town will never know what it paid for and there will be precious little accountability.

And this is 'local democracy' Somerton style. I wonder what the Audit Commission would make of it all?

More later.

Niall