I felt compelled to write this blog post after reading a post in Ipswich Spy.
I have a lot of time for Ipswich Spy as I believe most of the time, they are observant and entertaining.
However some of the writers are too biased and obviously labourites. The recent post assuming that Spy knows how we feel about our group leader, John Carnall was, quite frankly a load of rubbish.
So for the record, John has always shown utmost respect to all the members, women and men. He has always listened to what I have had to say and respected my opinion. His experience is vast and he understands only too well, the politics and antics of the labour group.
His passion and knowledge of IBC finances is second to none and he has clear ideas of what should happen with taxpayers money.
Quite desirable I should think!
So Ipswich Spy, please don't make wide, sweeping accusations or judgments on our members until you get your facts right. Play fair and in return, you will be taken seriously by all parties.
As for St Margarets or any election, we always give support and mentoring to any new member and IBC have a quality training programme for new and existing Councillors. This is borne out by the fact we won an award! I was one of the Councillors, across party that helped to put it together.
Those elected are not left to flounder but perhaps the reality of the hard work, commitment may be too much for some. There can be no true planning for expectations. We can only impart our own knowledge and experience for this rewarding work.
Wednesday, 16 November 2011
Thursday, 10 November 2011
Letter to Paul Geater on Golden Key
9th. November 2011
The Evening Star.
This morning the planning committee of Ipswich Borough Council considered the future of the Golden Key in Woodbridge Road. As I felt that the issue was open to misinterpretation I abstained and it is this action that I wish to explain.
In my time on the committee I have come to respect the robust, open, good natured and essentially non-partisan conduct of our debates. This is the key to the strength of the decision making process and it is born out by the number of appeals that are resolved in favour of the committee’s decisions.
The unhappy effect of a recent canvas of local opinion by the Labour Party has the potential to undermine this strength. It comes about, firstly, because of the doubt that must inevitably fall on our future decisions. This follows from the fact that the survey was conducted under the auspices of the party rather than by ward councillors. Ward members have the right to represent residents and, if appropriate, to speak about their concerns. It does not imply from this that any wider group shares the opinion expressed. In the present case the involvement of the Labour Party opens the result of the survey to the interpretation that it is the considered view of all their supporters and of all of their councillors, whether it is the case or not.
Secondly, and possibly more importantly, is the naming of Tesco as the operator of the store if the application should be approved. It transpires that this misleading information is quite without foundation.
Thirdly, another matter that bears on the security of the result of the survey is the lack of any information about the scope of the survey, the size of the population canvassed and the results of the process. It is open to argument that without this data the process is not a survey at all because it is impossible to verify the statistical significance of the results.
It is but a short step from here to the erroneous view that more (possibly all) planning decisions are open political bias. We have no purchase on the opinions of the general populace. If we, the councillors are to protect the perception, as well as the realty of what we do, we must be like Caesar’s wife, above suspicion. As it is, the standing of the council as a whole and its officers is by inadvertence made less secure. There is no case for a repeat of this action.
For all of the above I felt that I had no option but to abstain; an action that cannot be assumed to reflect my views on the merits of the application.
From Cllr Stewart
The Evening Star.
This morning the planning committee of Ipswich Borough Council considered the future of the Golden Key in Woodbridge Road. As I felt that the issue was open to misinterpretation I abstained and it is this action that I wish to explain.
In my time on the committee I have come to respect the robust, open, good natured and essentially non-partisan conduct of our debates. This is the key to the strength of the decision making process and it is born out by the number of appeals that are resolved in favour of the committee’s decisions.
The unhappy effect of a recent canvas of local opinion by the Labour Party has the potential to undermine this strength. It comes about, firstly, because of the doubt that must inevitably fall on our future decisions. This follows from the fact that the survey was conducted under the auspices of the party rather than by ward councillors. Ward members have the right to represent residents and, if appropriate, to speak about their concerns. It does not imply from this that any wider group shares the opinion expressed. In the present case the involvement of the Labour Party opens the result of the survey to the interpretation that it is the considered view of all their supporters and of all of their councillors, whether it is the case or not.
Secondly, and possibly more importantly, is the naming of Tesco as the operator of the store if the application should be approved. It transpires that this misleading information is quite without foundation.
Thirdly, another matter that bears on the security of the result of the survey is the lack of any information about the scope of the survey, the size of the population canvassed and the results of the process. It is open to argument that without this data the process is not a survey at all because it is impossible to verify the statistical significance of the results.
It is but a short step from here to the erroneous view that more (possibly all) planning decisions are open political bias. We have no purchase on the opinions of the general populace. If we, the councillors are to protect the perception, as well as the realty of what we do, we must be like Caesar’s wife, above suspicion. As it is, the standing of the council as a whole and its officers is by inadvertence made less secure. There is no case for a repeat of this action.
For all of the above I felt that I had no option but to abstain; an action that cannot be assumed to reflect my views on the merits of the application.
From Cllr Stewart
Saturday, 22 October 2011
MP Dan Poulters views on Planning
I do not vet, edit, review or pass comment on other's posts. To make it clear those who may wish to place their messages on my blog, they are big and ugly enough to make their own minds up about how they want to reach out to the community.
Herewith something from Dan Pouler MP about planning issues:
Dr. Dan Poulter's views on the housing situation in Ipswich:
"I wanted to outline my position and that of the Government on a few key issues to do with planning.
There must always be a presumption for brownfield over Greenfield development, and I will always do all that I can to preserve Suffolk’s natural heritage and countryside. Under the previous Labour Government’s system of divisive, top down house building targets, local councils were forced to accept unnecessarily high centrally imposed housing targets, which often encroached into green belt land. The current Government has scrapped these housing targets, and it will now be for local councils and local communities to decide what level of development is appropriate.
An example of the previous Government’s undemocratic planning system can be seen in the proposed Ipswich Northern Fringe mass housing development plan, where up to 15,000 houses and flats could be concreted over the green belt to the North of Ipswich, against the wishes of the local community. Whilst I am in favour of increasing the stock of affordable housing in Suffolk, so that young people are not forced to move away into neighbouring counties such as Essex in order to find a place to live, we must make sure that this is done in a way that is in keeping with the rural character of Suffolk, which demands small scale housing developments with affordable homes on town centre brownfield sites, and also appropriate locations in rural villages. The National Planning Policy Framework shows a similar commitment to affordable homes, families and young people, but development will not be allowed if it is clearly in conflict with local housing plans, or environmental safeguards.
As a part of its proposals to give local people more control over the way in which their communities are developed, the Coalition Government has introduced the Localism Bill. This bill is currently passing through Parliament but has not yet come into law. In future, local communities will have much more say in local planning decisions, and I believe this to be a good thing as it will allow houses to be built where it is required, and in a way that is in keeping with local character.
Finally, it is worth commenting that there will be some parts of the country that will see speeded up planning applications and processes, particularly where the Government is committed to improving the jobs and transport infrastructure. We are very lucky that in East Anglia, Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft have been earmarked as a green growth hub and enterprise zone; this will bring in around 1500 new jobs. Together with those jobs there will be some additional housing and homes, particularly for workers and young families, and in these circumstances I believe it is appropriate for planning to be fast tracked, as it is to the massive benefit of the local economy.
I hope that this reassures you that the Government’s reforms will meet the needs of local people, and that the rural heritage integrity of Suffolk is safe. Please be assured that this is an issue that I care strongly about, and I will fight to ensure that the changes deliver positive results in Suffolk, and I shall continue to fight against the imposition of 15,000 new homes in the North of Ipswich under the previous Government’s plans."
Herewith something from Dan Pouler MP about planning issues:
Dr. Dan Poulter's views on the housing situation in Ipswich:
"I wanted to outline my position and that of the Government on a few key issues to do with planning.
There must always be a presumption for brownfield over Greenfield development, and I will always do all that I can to preserve Suffolk’s natural heritage and countryside. Under the previous Labour Government’s system of divisive, top down house building targets, local councils were forced to accept unnecessarily high centrally imposed housing targets, which often encroached into green belt land. The current Government has scrapped these housing targets, and it will now be for local councils and local communities to decide what level of development is appropriate.
An example of the previous Government’s undemocratic planning system can be seen in the proposed Ipswich Northern Fringe mass housing development plan, where up to 15,000 houses and flats could be concreted over the green belt to the North of Ipswich, against the wishes of the local community. Whilst I am in favour of increasing the stock of affordable housing in Suffolk, so that young people are not forced to move away into neighbouring counties such as Essex in order to find a place to live, we must make sure that this is done in a way that is in keeping with the rural character of Suffolk, which demands small scale housing developments with affordable homes on town centre brownfield sites, and also appropriate locations in rural villages. The National Planning Policy Framework shows a similar commitment to affordable homes, families and young people, but development will not be allowed if it is clearly in conflict with local housing plans, or environmental safeguards.
As a part of its proposals to give local people more control over the way in which their communities are developed, the Coalition Government has introduced the Localism Bill. This bill is currently passing through Parliament but has not yet come into law. In future, local communities will have much more say in local planning decisions, and I believe this to be a good thing as it will allow houses to be built where it is required, and in a way that is in keeping with local character.
Finally, it is worth commenting that there will be some parts of the country that will see speeded up planning applications and processes, particularly where the Government is committed to improving the jobs and transport infrastructure. We are very lucky that in East Anglia, Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft have been earmarked as a green growth hub and enterprise zone; this will bring in around 1500 new jobs. Together with those jobs there will be some additional housing and homes, particularly for workers and young families, and in these circumstances I believe it is appropriate for planning to be fast tracked, as it is to the massive benefit of the local economy.
I hope that this reassures you that the Government’s reforms will meet the needs of local people, and that the rural heritage integrity of Suffolk is safe. Please be assured that this is an issue that I care strongly about, and I will fight to ensure that the changes deliver positive results in Suffolk, and I shall continue to fight against the imposition of 15,000 new homes in the North of Ipswich under the previous Government’s plans."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)