28 February 2010

Whither democracy

My recent experience of the democratic process, or, more accurately, the regulation of the democratic process has offered me little comfort with regard to what we may expect of both our elected representatives and of those who are meant to regulate them.

As a result of my Freedom of Information enquiry to Somerset Waste Partnership , I lodged a complaint against ex-County Councillor Pauline Clarke with regard to her activities in acting as a go-between on behalf of Mr A H Canvin and in respect of his development proposal for a Household Waste facility at Badger's Cross. I wasn't very surprised to receive a letter dated 12th February from Somerset County Council's Monitoring Officer, Ms Catherine Witham, informing me that the Assessment Sub-Committee had concluded that there was no evidence to support the complaint.



So, from this decision, it is now fair to assume that all County Councillors are willing to undertake promotional activities for private developers without informing their electorate.

The second interesting enquiry relates to the Register of Member's Interests held at South Somerset District Council and specifically relating to the entry in that Register made by DCllr A H Canvin. In early February, I was informed by the Monitoring Officer at District, Mr Ian Clarke, that DCllr Canvin had been requested to update his entry in the register. On the 5th of February that entry registered 'no interests' and on the 24th February SSDC emailed me the updated Register entry which, again, disclosed 'no interests'. Now, as I understand it (and I'm sure that the legal beagles will correct me if I'm wrong) landholdings comprise an interest which should be declared and, although I'm no expert on these matters, DCllr Canvin does own significant landholdings within the SSDC administrative area. So what do I make of this?

Well, its difficult to understand how such matters are regulated but it does make me wonder just how much faith I can put in the 'Register of Member's Interests' currently held and maintained by SSDC. There are 60 DCllrs sitting on SSDC and I wonder if there are others who, similar to DCllr Canvin, have 'no interests' to declare? Is it that there is no penalty likely to be applied to any oversight with regard to the Register? Its hard to tell but this is just another example of how the electorate, if they care enough to enquire, will find out precious little, leaving them completely in the dark until the planning application falls through their letterbox.

Till next time, I'm Niall Connolly

26 February 2010

Colourblind

19 February 2010

Forward Planning

The continuing planning interest around Badger's Cross caused me to consider what the future for Badger's Cross could look like were it to be seen as a Bancombe Road Mk2. The image below shows the outline of the current Bancombe Road Industrial Estate (marked in RED) superimposed on an aerial view of Badgers Cross. The YELLOW outline shows land currently in play as areas for development.



Obviously there is plenty of space available in the immediate vicinity to accomodate further expansion and it also shows just how big an area such a development would take up. As with the Bancombe Road Estate, there would be a need to widen the roads which would be required to service such a site and this in itself would have a huge impact on local amenity.

Many large developments are achieved in smaller bites and the real impact of such developments is only seen, as in the case of Bancombe, when the development is years down the road from its inception. This is the best reason for Somerton to undertake a serious review of the local plan in order to establish where, on the outskirts of the Town, future development might be expected.

Looking at this view of Badger's Cross, a recycling centre would only be the first and very small step.

Till next time, I am Niall Connolly

Gleeful

If you are a 'Glee' fan, this guy, Sam Tsui, is pretty good:


And if you want something to do with your hands, try this:


Enjoy

Niall

14 February 2010

Valentine's evening at the Parish Rooms

A ticket without any points..


In the background, Peter WinterHart and the Sunset Cafe 5


Sorry Doll. I've got to make someone an offer they can't refuse!

11 February 2010

What is 'public interest'?

The letter from Porter Dodson, on behalf of Mr A H Canvin, raises interesting issues with regard to what may and what may not be reasonably discussed in public.

In the first blog entry dated 28th November 2006 I described a meeting which reported progress on the Community Hall project. What caught my attention was a statement by Cllr H E Keenan regarding funding and expenditure relating to the 'Community Hall'. Quoting from that original blog entry:

"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."



The conduct of this meeting, and the many meetings that I attended subsequently, raised serious doubts in my own mind with regard to the way in which Somerton Town Council was being administered and regulated. The possibility of conflict raised by (ex)Cllr Keenan and with regard to (ex)Cllr Canvin, continued to raise questions with regard to decisions enacted by the Town Council.


Enquiries into these matters are, in my view, enquiries into matters of 'public interest' as they involve the expenditure of public money, taxpayer's money, money which was provided to Somerton Town Council for the Community of Somerton. These enquiries were brought to a sharp focus by the asset swap where Somerton Town Council exchanged land at Etsome Terrace for Unit 8 Cary Court. This transaction posed possible conflicts between Mr A H Canvin's position as a local landowner/property developer/contractor and his position as a Local Councillor.

The letter I have received from Porter Dodson is more a function of the conflict between, on the one hand, Mr Canvin's position as both an influential local businessman and, on the other, his positions as a District and (ex)Local Councillor than it is a function of my comments upon that conflict. It is regrettable that, rather than clarifying the conflicts between these positions, he clearly wishes to suppress any and all debate or comment. Equally regrettable is the fact that neither he, nor Somerton Town Council (pre 27th October 2009) did anything to address those conflicts.

In conclusion, I am reminded of the legal opinion which (ex)Cllr Canvin was personally involved in, with regard to Somerton Town Council's response to my Freedom of Information enquiries. In response to (ex)Cllr Canvin's briefing, the legal opinion states:

"I have not read any of Mr Connolly's correspondence on the broad subject but I imagine that he will say throughout all this that it is a free country and he has rights - of access to information, free speech, etc. In principle, he does but we will have to look at the ways in which that freedom can be limited or denied."


Till next time, I am Niall Connolly

10 February 2010

A lawyer writes.........

9 February 2010

Who represents who?

The debate about the siting of the Little Acorns nursery on the Bancombe Road Trading Estate has raised another specific issue which only came to light when I read the Minutesof the Area North Committee held on 22nd October 2008.

In those Minutes, (ex)County Councillor Pauline Clarke spoke in support of the application and used her position (as Portfolio Holder at Somerset County Council responsible for Children and Young People) to re-inforce her support of the application. Having read the Minutes of the meeting in their entirety, (ex)CC Clarke made no other contribution to that meeting. So, the question that occurs to me is, did (ex)CC Clarke attend the meeting with the sole purpose of supporting that application and, if so, why? Was that application of such individual importance that it would justify her attendance or was her attendance requested and, if so, by whom?

I'm also struck by part of the Officer's report where, under 'Considerations' the Officer states that a key consideration is: "........... the introduction of a key town centre use away from a preferred location." In saying this, the Officer was drawing attention to the siting of a facility on a trading estate as opposed to within a town centre location, as it was originally. Moving the nursery facility to an industrial estate on the edge of town also guarantees vehicle use because few parents are going to walk their children to Bancombe whereas the original town location would have been very convenient. But the underlying issue here is that yet another 'town centre use' was being moved away from the traditional town centre, leading to the further decay of the centre of Somerton.

There is another aspect to the original location of the nursery facility, next door to the Somerton Garage site. That site is coming into play as part of probably the biggest development site within the town and it might have been seen, by the developer, as useful to relocate the day nursery in advance of the trucks moving in.

So the question remains as to exactly who represents who? When (ex)CC Clarke went to the Area North Committee, exactly whose interests was she representing? The community's interests or those of more interested parties. The same question can be asked about her involvement in promoting the Badger's Cross HWRC proposal. Councillors bear a heavy responsibility in such matters and it is to be hoped that they consider their electorate, first, last and always.

Till next time, I am Niall Connolly

6 February 2010

Planning for a playgroup

The planning application for Change of Use at Unit 14a Wessex Park was discussed at the Area North Committee of South Somerset District Council on Wednesday 22nd October 2008. The Members in attendence were: Patrick Palmer (Chairman), Jill Beale, Keith Ronaldson, Ann Campbell, Jo Roundell Greene (to 4.25p.m.), Tony Canvin, Sylvia Seal, Roy Mills, Sue Steele, Paull Robathan, Derek Yeomans.

The following text is extracted from the Minutes of that meeting. (Italics, bold text and or links are mine - ed.)

08/03055/COU - The change of use of building from light industrial (Use Class B1) to an indoor childrens play centre (Use Class D2) at 14A Wessex Park, Bancombe Road Trading Estate, Somerton, Somerset TA11 6SB

The Planning Officer advised that although the Economic Development unit supported the application and there was no precedent being set as other units on the estate had diverse uses, his recommendation remained of refusal because of the likely conflict between pedestrian and commercial traffic. He noted the objections raised by the Highway Authority as the access, parking and turning facilities were not completely separate from the other nearby industrial units, however, as the estate was privately owned, they had no actual jurisdiction although he asked Members to take account of this.

As permitted under the new Code of Conduct, having previously declared a personal and prejudicial interest, Councillor Tony Canvin addressed the Committee. He said that amendments had been made to the parking area to accommodate a safe footpath to the entrance of the unit. The business would create 5 or 6 new jobs and the main use of the facility would be afternoons and weekends whereas the majority of deliveries to the other nearby units took place in the mornings. He then left the room and took no part in the discussion or voting on this item.

Mr D James, occupier of a nearby unit, said there was no alternative access to his unit other than through the site and his agricultural engineering business attracted heavy goods vehicles and tractors on a daily basis. He said the proposed parking area was not separated from the main access area and there was a potential for children running in front of vehicles.

Mrs P Clarke, County Councillor, spoke in support of the application. She reminded the Committee that they had given permission for a children’s day nursery less than 200m from the site, which was a great success and although there were other small business units nearby, their main business and vehicle activity would be in the mornings, when the indoor play area would not be operating. She said the segregated footway meant there would be no need for children to cross the car park, and, as Portfolio Holder at Somerset County Council responsible for Children and Young People, she would not be supporting the application if she thought is was in any way dangerous.
Mr M Walrond, the applicant, said that safety and access to the nearby units was his main concern and although he expected the indoor play area to be busy outside of normal working hours, he would be willing to cone off part of the car park for large deliveries if necessary. He said the outside area of the unit had always been designated as a car parking area and the only difference would be the presence of children.

The Ward Member, Councillor Jill Beale, referred to other indoor childrens play areas located on trading estates in the area. She felt the additional safety measures proposed overcame any objections and she recommended granting permission.

During discussion varying views were expressed. Whilst the majority of Members felt the proposal was sound and would be an asset to the town, some expressed deep concern at the safety of children in the car parking area.

In response to Members questions, the applicant confirmed that no children over the age of 10 would be allowed entrance, all children must be accompanied by an adult and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) would inspect and certificate the premises annually. This was a condition of their insurance.

The Development Control Team Leader also confirmed that obtaining RoSPA certification could not be tied to a planning condition, nor could an age limit of the children attending.

It was proposed to grant permission, with conditions regulating the layout of the parking area and pathway to the unit, that the land and building only be used as an indoor play area and no other purpose, and that the unit remain within the ownership of the applicants. On being put to the vote, the proposal was carried (voting: 6 in favour, 2 against, 0 abstentions).

RESOLVED: That planning permission be GRANTED for the following reasons:-
The proposed change of use is considered to be an acceptable form of development, which meets an identified need, has no detrimental impact on employment provision locally and is not considered to result in a conflict between pedestrian and commercial traffic, which would be prejudicial to the safety, amenity and convenience of users, in accordance with the aims and objectives of policy VIS 2 of the Regional Spatial Strategy, policies STR1 and 49 of the Somerset and Exmoor National Joint Structure Plan Review and policies ST5, ST6, MC5, MC6 and ME6 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006.

So, there you have it. The Officer's recommendation was for refusal on safety grounds. Pauline Clarke and Jill Beale were, on the other hand, convinced that the application was perfect. And, as Pauline Clarke pointed out, 'she would not be supporting the application if she thought is was in any way dangerous'. Even Tony Canvin couldn't see any problems.

Who got it right? You make up your own mind.

Till next time, I'm Niall Connolly

4 February 2010

The big man came calling...........

Everyone gets visitors and I'm no exception but Wednesday afternoon's was a bit of a surprise. One of the local big men came on a rather curious mission which was to get M&B to publish some information about an incident on the Bancombe Trading Estate which had reportedly taken place earlier that day. The story, as reported, goes something like this:

A truck, owned and operated by Viridor, had undertaken a maneuver which brought it into close proximity with children (in a car?) who were ariving at or leaving the Little Acorn's day nursery at Unit 14a Wessex Park on the Bancombe Trading Estate. Words were exchanged with the driver of the truck and my visitor had subsequently become involved, going as far as phoning up Viridor and demanding the sacking of the truck driver. My visitor then went on to explain that he wanted me to publish this story on M&B as it was an illustration of exactly why the Household Waste Recycling Centre should be moved to Badger's Cross.

So, I've been kind enough to report the story but I've also done a little bit of thinking about it and one question comes to mind. Who was dumb enough to dump a day nursery in the middle of an industrial estate and not imagine that there might be incidents like this? So, in the pursuit of honest reporting, I went and had a look at SSDC's planning decisions on the subject and the consideration of this particular application (to site the day nursery in the middle of the trading estate) referred exactly to this sort of problem.



Considerations:
The proposal is for the change of use of an existing light industrial use to a children's' indoor play area. It is considered that the key considerations are impact on loss of employment land and the introduction of a key town centre use away from a preferred location, accessibility of existing units on site and pedestrian safety.

Conclusion:
To conclude, no objection is raised to the proposal on economic grounds. It is considered to be meet an identified need and have no detrimental impact on employment provision locally. However, it is not felt that this should override the concerns regarding safety within the site. It is considered that the proposed development is likely to result in a conflict between pedestrian and commercial traffic, which would be prejudicial to the safety, amenity and convenience of users. Even though the County Highway Authority have only been able to make a recommendation in this case, it is considered that as a responsible Local Authority, the only option is to recommend refusal of the scheme.

RECOMMENDATION :
Refuse Application

Compare that perfectly reasonable view to the view of Somerton Town Council when it considered the same application on 26th August 2008:

Minute 4559 PLANNING: 08/03055/COU - The change of use of building from light industrial (Use Class B1) to an indoor children’s play centre; 14A Wessex Park, Bancombe Rd Trading Estate. No Objections

So Somerton Town Council saw no possibility of threat or conflict placing a children's day nursery in the middle of a busy industrial estate. And now, the predicted conflicts are being used by interested parties in order to seek to close not the whole of the industrial estate but to close one particular activity, the Household Waste Recycling Centre. And it is, of course, coincidental that the alternative location, Badger's Cross, is being developed by the developer of the Bancombe Trading Estate. Just a bit too transparent for my liking.

Till next time, I'm Niall Connolly

3 February 2010

Another one from my file.....

The tsunami of information continues to produce little nuggets and insights into the workings of the Old Somerton Town Council. In August of 2008, not long before the deal to swap the Etsome land for the Tin Dunny, I wrote to Somerton Town Council and asked some probing questions about, amongst other things, the Etsome sale. To save you looking it up, the letter I wrote is reproduced below:


I never received a reply to this letter but Somerton Town Council, in the form of the two-headed Keenan/Canvin, certainly gave it some thought. So much so that they instructed their Clerk to pen a missive to a firm of solicitors in order that the firm of solicitors could refuse to answer my enquiries. An extract of the letter to the solicitors is reproduced below:


So, what I learn from this is that the Old Somerton Town Council (aka the Keenan/Canvin regime) didn't want to answer the questions and clearly hoped that some explanation of the procedures would buy me off. What is strange is that the solicitors never got around to writing to me and the questions remain unanswered today. But, with the thaw in relations, I'm hoping to finally receive answers to these questions and I'll be publishing the information here.

But I'd point you to question 5 in my original letter and tell you that the answer to that question is 'No'.

Till next time, I'm Niall Connolly

1 February 2010

Retirement Somerton

This evening saw the presentation and explanation of the Retirement Villages planning proposal and, once again, there was an exceptionally good turn-out with, by my estimation, 120 people in the audience. Once again, the Dunny car park was full.

Andrew Gunn, a planning officer from SSDC, is to be congratulated for walking into the lion's den and he handled the presentation will humour and patience. Some of the audience seemed to think that he was representing the applicant but, by the time I left at 8:10pm, he had managed to navigate his way through the questions and had retained his composure in doing so. 10:10

Andrew walked the audience through the key elements of the scheme and it was clear from his comments that, at present, the Planning Authority isn't exactly wild about the proposal. Which is good new for this evening's audience because they weren't wild about it either. The main issues under fire were:

The 'massing' of the proposal ie the physical bulk of the buildings compared to the (lesser) bulk of the adjacent buildings.

The capacity of the development (85 beds) and the likely level of parking demand which will be generated and not catered for within the site itself.

The relationship between the proposed development and the roads into which it will vent and which will also service it.

There were other issues raised but these three seemed to me to be the major issues of concern. At the end of the day, the application is for what is, in effect, a glossy and gated care-home. The application recognises the relationship between age and infirmity and seeks to address that issue. However, Somerton may not be the best location for this proposal, partly because of the chosen location and partly because of Somerton's existing, and limited, GP service. There is no doubt that this application, were it to come to fruition, will inevitably put additional pressure on local health-care resources which are already in need of expansion. (Langport's GP practice occupies excellent and extensive premises which are being extended further.)

For my money, its a stunningly boring proposal. It looks like the sort of thing that a developer would conjure up if they didn't really have enough money to do the job well. A number of the audience commented on the fact that the only part of the proposal which was well detailed was drawing of the gates which looked suspiciously like those you might find in front of a crematorium.

But there was another serious aspect to this evening's meeting and that was illustrated by the age range of the audience in the hall. From what I could see, the youngest member of the audience, with possibly one exception, was Cllr Sam Mildon. The rest of the audience was from the opposite end of the age range and exactly in the target age range for Retirement Villages. There are younger people in Somerton but you wouldn't think it going by this evening's audience and that poses a problem and a challenge. How do we bring younger members of the community into the audience for a meeting like this evening's? As we age, certainly beyond middle age, we become more set it our ways, more resistant to change, less capable of considering or accepting anything that doesn't conform to our likes or dislikes. An audience that is almost exclusively approaching, at or beyond retirement age risks presenting a view that is too rigid, too resistant to change, unwilling to consider challenging alternatives.

In fact, why do we need 'Retirement Vilages' when Somerton already is one?

Till next time, I'm Niall Connolly