I bumped into a Labour deliverer in Millbrook Road East on Monday and he kindly let me have one of his Labour election leaflets.
Labour have a track record of negative campaigning and spin in Freemantle so I was curious to find out what the issues they would be going on in the campaign.
True to form is was more fabricated partisan spin.
The two key lines of attack seem to be St Marys sports Centre and Free Bus travel across Hampshire. No surprises there.
Both are subjects that I have addressed in previous posts. Also there are no real differences in policy objectives between the Conservatives and Labour on the two issues.
Both of us want to provide sporting facilities In St Marys and both of us would ideally like free bus travel for pensioners traveling out of Southampton into the rest of Hampshire. The difference between us is that they are making wild promises about what they can deliver and we are being honest about what is achievable. St Marys sports centre is falling down and we have made some proposals for building a new centre. When I raised the subject at the last Council meeting it was acknowledged by the Council Administration that no additional capital funding had been put into the budget as a result of the Labour budget deal.
On free bus passes, the Council are introducing this in Southampton. We don't know what the cost is going to be or whether Government funding will be prove to be sufficient. We will have a of logistical issues to deal with. Integrating the use of the Council Smart Card with all of the bus companies and agreeing recharges will be a challenge. If we can link up with Hampshire in the future that will be great but at the moment no one is saying how that would be funded, least of all Labour.
I am pleased to say, where the Conservatives have knocked Labour, it's over areas that we have profound disagreement. (e.g. their cuts to social services provision).
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Friday, April 14, 2006
Lots and lots of leaflets and Labour spin
I have pretty much spent the whole day delivering leaflets for the local elections. I am totally exhausted. I have spent 7 hours wandering up and down driveways and climbing up stairs in blocks of flats and my legs really ache!
On the plus side I discovered lots of opposition literature. It seems the Labour Party have been out today too.
Some of the stuff in their election literature is pretty negative and knocks the Conservatives. So I thought I'd take the opportunity to rebut all the Labour allegations. The Labour leaflet in Freemantle doesn't say that much. There is a comment about leisure though which is worth mentioning:
Voting Tory means cuts and sell offs. Alec Samuels (Conservative group leader on the Council) is quoted as saying "We believe the private sector provides the solutions to the Council's Leisure problems."
I am not really sure whether he said that but I certainly do not have a problem with that quote. We absolutely want to involve the private sector in running leisure in the City. We want private sector expertise and money to improve leisure. A prime candidate has to be the municipal golf course. That could be so much better if a keen entrepreneur took over.
My parents live in Shirley. I have been round there this evening and they showed me the Labour leaflet that they have had. It has a list of criticisms of the Conservatives. Again I will give my thoughts.
1. They repeat the same nonsense about leisure.
I am not sure why the local Labour party profess to be so anti the private sector. There is nothing in what the Conservatives would do with Leisure in the City that Tony Blair would object to and both of Southampton's Labour MPs vote for just about everything TonyBlairs Government comes up with (Foundation Hospitals, PFI, Trust Schools etc.).
2. Tories say they would sell off Council Housing to a private landlord.
In fact the Government has skewed funding of housing so that it is not economically viable in the long run for Council Housing to remain in Council hands. The Government is doing everything it can to get Council's to sell housing to a private landlord. The shortfall in housing funding running up to 2030 is about 1/4 of a billion pounds in Southampton. Southampton Conservatives do think that tenants would be better of with a registered social landlord. However we didn't actually vote for this. Tenants were balloted on their views and the vast majority wanted to stay with the Council. The Conservative Group respected this. Furthermore plenty of Conservative Councils still manage their own housing stock.
3. Tory budget plans would slash council jobs, devastating vital services like road maintenance and street cleansing.
This simply not true. What we said was that we would be more disciplined with staffing given that its the largest part of the Council budget. In a tiny fraction of back office areas, we would not necessarily refill vacant posts. Road maintenance and street cleaning is a very high priority for us and we are keen to reverse the years of neglect to our roads from 20 years of Labour.
4. Tory councilors opposed extra funds to tackle anti social behaviour.
We didn't support the Labour budget which included a token increase in expenditure on anti social behaviour. However we are concerned about value for money unlike Labour. The City council is massively underfunded by Government which means that we struggle each year to fund everything we would like to do. We did include innovative proposals to get more special constables on the beat. Since Labour has come to power nationally the number of specials has halved. We are planning to scrap Council tax for specials. In Hull I understand that this has led to the recruitment of an addition 100 specials. If we could achieve that in Southampton it would make a massive difference.
5. Tory Councillors voted to with LibDems to prevent Southampton pensioners traveling free on buses across Hampshire.
The truth is that the Government requires all Councils to have free bus travel for pensioners and has provided some funding to help achieve this. Southampton introduced free buses on 1st April. The actual costs of introducing this are unknown and will be determined by how much the service is taken up. The scheme in Southampton only includes free travel out of the City to a select number of destinations. However it is free within the City boundaries. Extending the scheme beyond the City is of course desirable and everyone would want to see that. However it will cost a lot more money. If we can afford it in the future then I hope it will be implemented. Labour are running around telling everyone that they would have free travel all across Hampshire. They are saying this because one of their Councillors stood up in a meeting and proclaimed that it would be a good idea. However the extra funding was not in their proposed budget for the City in February. Also when they ran the City they actually cut subsidies to pensioners using the buses.
If you want to see how the Conservatives run councils you do not have to look far. Southampton is surrounded by councils run by us: Test Valley, Hampshire, New Forest. On the whole they are much better run than Southampton.
On the plus side I discovered lots of opposition literature. It seems the Labour Party have been out today too.
Some of the stuff in their election literature is pretty negative and knocks the Conservatives. So I thought I'd take the opportunity to rebut all the Labour allegations. The Labour leaflet in Freemantle doesn't say that much. There is a comment about leisure though which is worth mentioning:
Voting Tory means cuts and sell offs. Alec Samuels (Conservative group leader on the Council) is quoted as saying "We believe the private sector provides the solutions to the Council's Leisure problems."
I am not really sure whether he said that but I certainly do not have a problem with that quote. We absolutely want to involve the private sector in running leisure in the City. We want private sector expertise and money to improve leisure. A prime candidate has to be the municipal golf course. That could be so much better if a keen entrepreneur took over.
My parents live in Shirley. I have been round there this evening and they showed me the Labour leaflet that they have had. It has a list of criticisms of the Conservatives. Again I will give my thoughts.
1. They repeat the same nonsense about leisure.
I am not sure why the local Labour party profess to be so anti the private sector. There is nothing in what the Conservatives would do with Leisure in the City that Tony Blair would object to and both of Southampton's Labour MPs vote for just about everything TonyBlairs Government comes up with (Foundation Hospitals, PFI, Trust Schools etc.).
2. Tories say they would sell off Council Housing to a private landlord.
In fact the Government has skewed funding of housing so that it is not economically viable in the long run for Council Housing to remain in Council hands. The Government is doing everything it can to get Council's to sell housing to a private landlord. The shortfall in housing funding running up to 2030 is about 1/4 of a billion pounds in Southampton. Southampton Conservatives do think that tenants would be better of with a registered social landlord. However we didn't actually vote for this. Tenants were balloted on their views and the vast majority wanted to stay with the Council. The Conservative Group respected this. Furthermore plenty of Conservative Councils still manage their own housing stock.
3. Tory budget plans would slash council jobs, devastating vital services like road maintenance and street cleansing.
This simply not true. What we said was that we would be more disciplined with staffing given that its the largest part of the Council budget. In a tiny fraction of back office areas, we would not necessarily refill vacant posts. Road maintenance and street cleaning is a very high priority for us and we are keen to reverse the years of neglect to our roads from 20 years of Labour.
4. Tory councilors opposed extra funds to tackle anti social behaviour.
We didn't support the Labour budget which included a token increase in expenditure on anti social behaviour. However we are concerned about value for money unlike Labour. The City council is massively underfunded by Government which means that we struggle each year to fund everything we would like to do. We did include innovative proposals to get more special constables on the beat. Since Labour has come to power nationally the number of specials has halved. We are planning to scrap Council tax for specials. In Hull I understand that this has led to the recruitment of an addition 100 specials. If we could achieve that in Southampton it would make a massive difference.
5. Tory Councillors voted to with LibDems to prevent Southampton pensioners traveling free on buses across Hampshire.
The truth is that the Government requires all Councils to have free bus travel for pensioners and has provided some funding to help achieve this. Southampton introduced free buses on 1st April. The actual costs of introducing this are unknown and will be determined by how much the service is taken up. The scheme in Southampton only includes free travel out of the City to a select number of destinations. However it is free within the City boundaries. Extending the scheme beyond the City is of course desirable and everyone would want to see that. However it will cost a lot more money. If we can afford it in the future then I hope it will be implemented. Labour are running around telling everyone that they would have free travel all across Hampshire. They are saying this because one of their Councillors stood up in a meeting and proclaimed that it would be a good idea. However the extra funding was not in their proposed budget for the City in February. Also when they ran the City they actually cut subsidies to pensioners using the buses.
If you want to see how the Conservatives run councils you do not have to look far. Southampton is surrounded by councils run by us: Test Valley, Hampshire, New Forest. On the whole they are much better run than Southampton.
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Quingdao Tourism Agreement
I attended an event at lunchtime to mark the signing of a tourism agreement between Southampton and the Chinese City of Quingdao (with whom Southampton is twinned).
I was particularly interested to hear of the forthcoming international beer festival being held in Quingdao.
I was particularly interested to hear of the forthcoming international beer festival being held in Quingdao.
Tudorwood Development
I attended a drop in session at the Blue Keys Hotel in Northlands Road last night. It was arranged by Linden Homes to provide information to residents about the planned development of flats next door.
It was an interesting session and all the plans were on display.
If anyone has any concerns about the development or would like to discuss it, please get in touch.
It was an interesting session and all the plans were on display.
If anyone has any concerns about the development or would like to discuss it, please get in touch.
Sunday, April 09, 2006
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Dirty Lib Dem Election Tactics
This is an extract from "A Guide to Fighting Local Election" by Lord Reynard. Pretty outrageous!
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Local Elections - 4th May 2006
A full list of candidates for the City Council elections can be found here.
I am standing for re-election in Freemantle Ward. Freemantle's candidates are as follows:
Tom Flynn - Labour
Jeremy Moulton - Conservative
Darren Pickering - Green
Ann Russell - Liberal Democrat
I am standing for re-election in Freemantle Ward. Freemantle's candidates are as follows:
Tom Flynn - Labour
Jeremy Moulton - Conservative
Darren Pickering - Green
Ann Russell - Liberal Democrat
More on the Saints Pub
I have pretty much got to the bottom of this now. The bottom line is that if the Council wants to keep the pub open it can and it can veto any development (flats etc.).
The land is owned by the Council, who lease it to Enterprise Inns on a long lease (until about 2060) on a pepercorn rent of £300pa. There is a clause in the lease which says that Enterprise Inns must run a pub on the site. If they do not they are in breach of the lease. I.e. they cannot close the pub.
A planning application has gone into the Council to develop the site for flats. As the owner of the land the Council can say yes or no to flats regardless of whether planning permission is granted.
The decision rests with the Executive of the Council which is the Liberal Democrats. The Lib Dems are also campaigning to save the pub.
Bizarrely the Council was about to agree to sell the land to Enterprise Inns yesterday. Even more bizarrely the Lib Dems did not seem to know this was happening even though they were due to make the decision in a public meeting at 3pm yesterday!
Following pressure from the Conservatives the decision was deferred to allow for further discussion. This will mean that no decision is taken before the elections for the City Council on 4th May.
The decision will then be taken by whoever is in control of the Council (currently Lib Dems, although after May it could be the Conservatives).
I think the wider question is, should the Council have a policy on whether pubs like the Saints should stay open? This is where the Council owns the land but leases it to a brewery at a pepper corn rent as a social amenity. I am minded to say yes.
The land is owned by the Council, who lease it to Enterprise Inns on a long lease (until about 2060) on a pepercorn rent of £300pa. There is a clause in the lease which says that Enterprise Inns must run a pub on the site. If they do not they are in breach of the lease. I.e. they cannot close the pub.
A planning application has gone into the Council to develop the site for flats. As the owner of the land the Council can say yes or no to flats regardless of whether planning permission is granted.
The decision rests with the Executive of the Council which is the Liberal Democrats. The Lib Dems are also campaigning to save the pub.
Bizarrely the Council was about to agree to sell the land to Enterprise Inns yesterday. Even more bizarrely the Lib Dems did not seem to know this was happening even though they were due to make the decision in a public meeting at 3pm yesterday!
Following pressure from the Conservatives the decision was deferred to allow for further discussion. This will mean that no decision is taken before the elections for the City Council on 4th May.
The decision will then be taken by whoever is in control of the Council (currently Lib Dems, although after May it could be the Conservatives).
I think the wider question is, should the Council have a policy on whether pubs like the Saints should stay open? This is where the Council owns the land but leases it to a brewery at a pepper corn rent as a social amenity. I am minded to say yes.
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Pensions Row and Striking Council Workers
I had a meeting yesterday morning at the Council. I was expecting to have to push past a hoard of striking Council workers (Southampton's share of the 1m or 400,000 - depending on who you believe - public sector workers who went on strike yesterday). In the end I encountered one pleasant lady who handed me a leaflet. I suppose it was quite early in the morning.
Council workers are protesting against planned changes to the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS). These include moving the retirement age to 65 in all cases and scrapping the 85 rule (a rule that allows some scheme members to retire on full pension benefits if their combined age and length of service in the scheme adds to 85).
The LGPS is a funded scheme which means that each Council pays in money every year to ensure that there is sufficient money to meet all the liabilities, current and future under the scheme. It is estimated that nationally the scheme faces at least a £30 billion shortfall, equivalent to a £1,392 bill for every household in England & Wales. The scheme’s cost to councils has soared from £1.5 billion in 1997 to £3.5 billion last year.
This is one of the main reasons why Council Tax bills soar every year.
The problem is one of central Government's making and not the fault of local Councils, although local taxpayers are made to suffer.
Given many private sector workers could face having to retire at 69, it is not sustainable to continue to allow town hall employees in good health to retire at 60 on a full pension. With an ageing population increasing the cost of the existing scheme, hard-working families and existing pensioners simply cannot afford to foot the growing bill through ever higher council taxes.
The cross-party Local Government Association has commented, ‘the employee staff contribution compared to the employer council tax contributions are currently not balanced and this must be addressed. The council taxpayer simply cannot pay more. The changes to local government staff pensions are both needed and necessary. Unless action is taken in the very near future, the cost to individual council tax payers and local government because people are living longer will continue to rise’.
Council workers are protesting against planned changes to the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS). These include moving the retirement age to 65 in all cases and scrapping the 85 rule (a rule that allows some scheme members to retire on full pension benefits if their combined age and length of service in the scheme adds to 85).
The LGPS is a funded scheme which means that each Council pays in money every year to ensure that there is sufficient money to meet all the liabilities, current and future under the scheme. It is estimated that nationally the scheme faces at least a £30 billion shortfall, equivalent to a £1,392 bill for every household in England & Wales. The scheme’s cost to councils has soared from £1.5 billion in 1997 to £3.5 billion last year.
This is one of the main reasons why Council Tax bills soar every year.
The problem is one of central Government's making and not the fault of local Councils, although local taxpayers are made to suffer.
Given many private sector workers could face having to retire at 69, it is not sustainable to continue to allow town hall employees in good health to retire at 60 on a full pension. With an ageing population increasing the cost of the existing scheme, hard-working families and existing pensioners simply cannot afford to foot the growing bill through ever higher council taxes.
The cross-party Local Government Association has commented, ‘the employee staff contribution compared to the employer council tax contributions are currently not balanced and this must be addressed. The council taxpayer simply cannot pay more. The changes to local government staff pensions are both needed and necessary. Unless action is taken in the very near future, the cost to individual council tax payers and local government because people are living longer will continue to rise’.
BBC Council Tax Quiz
Test your knowledge of town halls and the council tax with our quiz.
I got 9 right! (Excellent, polish up that mayoral chain)
I got the one about elected Mayors wrong. Why would any one know that?
I got 9 right! (Excellent, polish up that mayoral chain)
I got the one about elected Mayors wrong. Why would any one know that?
Pensions Row and Striking Council Workers
I had a meeting yesterday morning at the Council. I was expecting to have to push past a hoard of striking Council workers (Southampton's share of the 1m or 400,000 - depending on who you believe - public sector workers who went on strike yesterday). In the end I encountered one pleasant lady who handed me a leaflet. I suppose it was quite early in the morning.
Council workers are protesting against planned changes to the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS). These include moving the retirement age to 65 in all cases and scrapping the 85 rule (a rule that allows some scheme members to retire on full pension benefits if their combined age and length of service in the scheme adds to 85).
The LGPS is a funded scheme which means that each Council pays in money every year to ensure that there is sufficient money to meet all the liabilities, current and future under the scheme. It is estimated that nationally the scheme faces at least a £30 billion shortfall, equivalent to a £1,392 bill for every household in England & Wales. The scheme’s cost to councils has soared from £1.5 billion in 1997 to £3.5 billion last year.
This is one of the main reasons why Council Tax bills soar every year.
The problem is one of central Government's making and not the fault of local Councils, although local taxpayers are made to suffer.
Given many private sector workers could face having to retire at 69, it is not sustainable to continue to allow town hall employees in good health to retire at 60 on a full pension. With an ageing population increasing the cost of the existing scheme, hard-working families and existing pensioners simply cannot afford to foot the growing bill through ever higher council taxes.
The cross-party Local Government Association has commented, ‘the employee staff contribution compared to the employer council tax contributions are currently not balanced and this must be addressed. The council taxpayer simply cannot pay more. The changes to local government staff pensions are both needed and necessary. Unless action is taken in the very near future, the cost to individual council tax payers and local government because people are living longer will continue to rise’.
Council workers are protesting against planned changes to the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS). These include moving the retirement age to 65 in all cases and scrapping the 85 rule (a rule that allows some scheme members to retire on full pension benefits if their combined age and length of service in the scheme adds to 85).
The LGPS is a funded scheme which means that each Council pays in money every year to ensure that there is sufficient money to meet all the liabilities, current and future under the scheme. It is estimated that nationally the scheme faces at least a £30 billion shortfall, equivalent to a £1,392 bill for every household in England & Wales. The scheme’s cost to councils has soared from £1.5 billion in 1997 to £3.5 billion last year.
This is one of the main reasons why Council Tax bills soar every year.
The problem is one of central Government's making and not the fault of local Councils, although local taxpayers are made to suffer.
Given many private sector workers could face having to retire at 69, it is not sustainable to continue to allow town hall employees in good health to retire at 60 on a full pension. With an ageing population increasing the cost of the existing scheme, hard-working families and existing pensioners simply cannot afford to foot the growing bill through ever higher council taxes.
The cross-party Local Government Association has commented, ‘the employee staff contribution compared to the employer council tax contributions are currently not balanced and this must be addressed. The council taxpayer simply cannot pay more. The changes to local government staff pensions are both needed and necessary. Unless action is taken in the very near future, the cost to individual council tax payers and local government because people are living longer will continue to rise’.
Sunday, March 26, 2006
Buying the Civil Service Sports Ground
On Tuesday morning I am meeting with the Chief Financial Officer of the Council to talk about the Civil Service Sports Ground.
If a new school is built on the St Marks site then the field could become playing fields for the new school and for use by the local community. Government money to build a new school might become available in 2009/2010. In the budget Gordon Brown announced an aspiration to put more money into schools (raising investment to the level of the private sector). Hopefully this means the City will get the money is hoping for in 2009/2010.
My view is that if the new school is popular with all parties (Church of England, LEA, residents, parents etc.) and that we are confident that Government funding is on its way, that we should obtain the land as soon as possible. This way it can be used by St Marks and local people in the meantime.
The Friends of the Field are about to do a wide ranging consultation on local peoples' views. Local people's views should be the driver for what the land is used for. However in the meantime I will be doing all the back ground work to ensure that we understand all the financial implications of the various options.
I have done a relatively small survey of my own. The results are still coming in. When I have them all back I will publish the results on this site. Initial indicators are that hardly anyone wants housing, and people are evenly split between school playing fields, a community hub and a park. The main message is that the land should remain a green field and residents should be able to use it. These are two things that I whole heartedly support! More to follow...
If a new school is built on the St Marks site then the field could become playing fields for the new school and for use by the local community. Government money to build a new school might become available in 2009/2010. In the budget Gordon Brown announced an aspiration to put more money into schools (raising investment to the level of the private sector). Hopefully this means the City will get the money is hoping for in 2009/2010.
My view is that if the new school is popular with all parties (Church of England, LEA, residents, parents etc.) and that we are confident that Government funding is on its way, that we should obtain the land as soon as possible. This way it can be used by St Marks and local people in the meantime.
The Friends of the Field are about to do a wide ranging consultation on local peoples' views. Local people's views should be the driver for what the land is used for. However in the meantime I will be doing all the back ground work to ensure that we understand all the financial implications of the various options.
I have done a relatively small survey of my own. The results are still coming in. When I have them all back I will publish the results on this site. Initial indicators are that hardly anyone wants housing, and people are evenly split between school playing fields, a community hub and a park. The main message is that the land should remain a green field and residents should be able to use it. These are two things that I whole heartedly support! More to follow...
Save the Saints! (SOS)
I have been to the Saints Pub in Redbridge this weekend to support the campaign to keep the pub.
The land is owned by the Council and leased to Enterprise Inns plc who sub let it to a tenant. They now wish to kick the tenant out and develop the site for flats.
I think that the pub is real community asset for the area. In the last few years 7 pubs have closed in the area.
The council is ploughing thousands of pounds into Mansel Park to help improve the area. They are putting in new sports facilities and hopefully this will encourage more teams sports. The local football teams etc. need somewhere to do drink and socialise after a game.
I met up with my colleague Matt Dean who is very experienced publican and is standing in Redbridge for the Conservatives in May's elections. He is doing sterling work in the community and hopefully with Matt's help we can save the pub or even get Enterprise Inns to invest in even better pub for the area.
The land is owned by the Council and leased to Enterprise Inns plc who sub let it to a tenant. They now wish to kick the tenant out and develop the site for flats.
I think that the pub is real community asset for the area. In the last few years 7 pubs have closed in the area.
The council is ploughing thousands of pounds into Mansel Park to help improve the area. They are putting in new sports facilities and hopefully this will encourage more teams sports. The local football teams etc. need somewhere to do drink and socialise after a game.
I met up with my colleague Matt Dean who is very experienced publican and is standing in Redbridge for the Conservatives in May's elections. He is doing sterling work in the community and hopefully with Matt's help we can save the pub or even get Enterprise Inns to invest in even better pub for the area.
Monday, March 13, 2006
Freemantle Charity Golf Day
I spent Sunday afternoon at the driving range at Hedge End, practicing my swing before the Freemantle Charity Golf Day on 30th April. Its to raise money for an epilepsy charity and is held at the Municipal Golf Course. A lot of the Shirley/Freemantle pubs enter teams.
Sunday, March 12, 2006
Next Week's Meetings
Next week is a very busy week!
Monday night we have our Conservative Council Group meeting ahead of Wednesday's full Council meeting.
Tuesday is the Resources Scrutiny Panel. We will be looking at the Council's plans to outsource IT and Customer Services to a private company and assessing how the project is progressing.
Wednesday is full Council. I notice the Labour Party have tabled a motion about lighting in Watts Park. This is a subject close to my heart. I have been calling for measures to improve safety in the parks at night for sometime. The Conservative Group suggested that lighting should be improved and made budgetary provision in our February budget proposals. These were rejected by Labour and the Lib Dems. I intend to speak in the debate.
Thursday night is Southampton Test Conservative Association's AGM.
Monday night we have our Conservative Council Group meeting ahead of Wednesday's full Council meeting.
Tuesday is the Resources Scrutiny Panel. We will be looking at the Council's plans to outsource IT and Customer Services to a private company and assessing how the project is progressing.
Wednesday is full Council. I notice the Labour Party have tabled a motion about lighting in Watts Park. This is a subject close to my heart. I have been calling for measures to improve safety in the parks at night for sometime. The Conservative Group suggested that lighting should be improved and made budgetary provision in our February budget proposals. These were rejected by Labour and the Lib Dems. I intend to speak in the debate.
Thursday night is Southampton Test Conservative Association's AGM.
Meeting the Polish Community
I had a really positive meeting with an outreach worker who helps the new Polish Community in Southampton. It was very insightful and interesting. There are now over 14,000 Polish people living in the City and places like Freemantle are quite popular for those settling here.
Freemantle has a Polish shop on Foyes corner and a Polish hairdresser.
St Marks school held a successful evening a few weeks ago, where Polish families were invited along.
Freemantle has a Polish shop on Foyes corner and a Polish hairdresser.
St Marks school held a successful evening a few weeks ago, where Polish families were invited along.
Civil Service Sports Ground - more meetings
Last week I had two meetings regarding the sports ground.
Firstly was the meeting of the Freemantle and Shirely Community Association. This was a well attended meeting and lots of good ideas were expressed.
A committe has been set up to produce a survey which will go to Shirley and Freemantle residents seeking their views on the field.
A number of public meetings have been held about the field but as yet no wide ranging formal canvass has been done of local people's views. There seem to be 3 main ideas for what can be done with the land:
1) Playing fields for a new school and the community.
2) A public park.
3) A community hub with sports facilities.
Secondly I had meeting with members of the Local Education Authority and with the Cabinet member for Children's Services (Cllr Anne Milton - Lib Dem). This explored in more detail the option of building a new school on the St Marks site. If this were to happen it would be very expensive however the City Council is expecting large amounts of funding from the Government in 2009 for secondary education.
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Monday, February 27, 2006
Survey Results from Public Meeting - Civil Service Ground
Some info from Cevn Vibert on peoples' views from the recent public meeting at the URC in Shirley Road:
In favour of a Community Hub: Yes = 24 (89%), No = 3 (11%)
In favour of housing: Yes = 1 (4%) , No = 22 (96%)
In favour of a mixture of housing: Yes = 9 (36%) , No = 16 (64%)
Sample Size = 29 (those voting on entry)
There were estimated to be 75 people at the meeting.
In favour of a Community Hub: Yes = 24 (89%), No = 3 (11%)
In favour of housing: Yes = 1 (4%) , No = 22 (96%)
In favour of a mixture of housing: Yes = 9 (36%) , No = 16 (64%)
Sample Size = 29 (those voting on entry)
There were estimated to be 75 people at the meeting.
Saturday, February 25, 2006
Shirley Road Safety Improvements
Work on the Shirley Road safety improvements will start on 27th February and it is expected to be completed in May. The work will involve resurfacing of a section of Shirley Road's footway and carriageway between the junctions of Alexander Road/Sir Georges Road and Landguard Road/Andover Road.
In addition, two pedestrian refuges will be installed to act both as a speed reduction feature and also a pedestrian crossing point. I can email a copy of the scheme plans if anyone wants to see them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
