Tag Archives: Greenbelt

Anston Parish Game of Thrones April 15 2013

2 Replies

It’s a calm and peaceful evening in Dinnington, there’s beer in the fridge and the latest episode of Game of Thrones to watch on telly. I however decide to eschew this masterpiece of slashing, blood and heaving bussomry, Anston Parish Council beckons and the game is afoot!

The meeting kicked off with Cllr Crowther in the chair for finance and general matters, 3 Borough Cllrs were present along with the usual supporting cast, Cllr Beck watching from the side-lines. Stuart Thornton opened with some concerns on grants that have been issued but we moved swiftly to the main session as more Cllrs and public arrived.

Mr Beck took the chair to announce a presentation by RMBC highways maintenance, it was explained to us that the budget for repairs is 5 million quid or thereabouts and that roads are regularly surveyed and repaired as funds allow. Residents raised concerns about the quality of repairs and work carried out by utility companies. The officer defended his position saying that funds often meant repairs had to be temporary and overall contractors do a good job. Lack of money and equipment means the Council cannot always provide the service we would like, but they do their best.

I have to say this was received with not a little bit of scepticism.

Cllr Ireland commented that RMBC do a good job but the roads are rubbish, not quite sure how you can have it both ways! Cllrs Burton and Dalton held their tongues throughout.

A question came from a resident asking about a sustainability impact assessment for building work near the Butterfly House. Cllr Burton jumped in and said that there were no plans to build near the Butterfly House, to which Stuart enquired about just how much Borough Cllrs know about the future sites and policies document that isn’t supposed to be out yet and details the decimation of our green belt?

I can assure everyone that all Borough Cllrs know exactly where the next big building sites are going; they went for a briefing on it ages ago. In fact by the time you read this the parishes should know as well.

Cllr Burton denied this however, it’s confidential don’t you know?

Mr Lewis asked about the pending land deal and called for the chairman’s head on a platter, Judy Dalton replied that it is a complicated question. Stuart disagreed, finding the chairman’s head very appealing; he was instantly attacked by Cllr Stonebridge who accused him of sound bite politics.

It got some applause so maybe he has a point!

The skate park was discussed and the chairman accused of fobbery, which is the wilful fobbing off of the public. Mr Lewis accused various Cllrs of wearing nappies and Stonebridge and Thornton clashed again. It got a bit shouty.

There followed much arguing over who interrupted who and who did what which saw Mr Beck getting redder and redder and Stuart and Stonebridge especially getting louder and louder. Cllr Saint-John was moved to express his despair at how the Council was conducting itself lately as Mr Beck wrestled back control.

The local plan was discussed and Stuart accused more or less everyone of delaying discussion so it was too late for the Council to object or comment. Cllrs Dalton and Burton in particular had not acquitted themselves well according to him. SJ jumped in and Cllr Ireland this time lamented the poor form in which meetings are held.

Cllr Ireland continued to call for a well-rehearsed vote of confidence in the chairman, this led to severe heckling from Mr Lewis in particular and comments from Stuart along the lines of you must be joking. Mr Beck’s head was called for again. Cllr Ireland poo pooed this and in summing up said that Mr Beck’s head was in more demand than is decent and certain people (Stuart) should stop being nasty. This was greeted with mirth from the audience, but support came from the Council fan club (all one of them)

The vote was carried easily as the flock rushed into the pen.

An RMBC planning document on how sustainable the Core Strategy is was dismissed by all as gobbledy gook, except Judy who said it was technical and rather good. Hmmm.

Final questions from the public… A merciless attack by Mr Lewis on the vote of confidence enjoyed by Mr Chairman, then a strong attack by the Council fan club on Stuart calling him a                  puppet.

No one was very surprised when Stuart pointed out that the numerous commercial contracts the questioner holds with the Council might have something to do with the line of questioning. And let’s not examine that one too closely, meeting closed job done.

So to sum up, a depressing return to bitch politics, no real decisionsor debate leaving a frustrated public who at one point were described by Cllr SJ as anoraks with nothing better to do.

The movers and shakers in the building are clearly the Labour Borough Councillors, who, opposed by the two main independents, use the grumpy old men brigade to shout down any common sense by sheer weight of numbers.

Everyone else round the table seems to be either sheep or cannon fodder, so essentially we have Bodie and Doyle vs. Ronald Wealsey and Victor Meldrew.

Hmmm, at least Game of Thrones is waiting at home to help me wind down.

Anston Parish starring Bodie and Doyle

Leave a reply

bodiedoyle

On the agenda for tomorrow night:

Cllr Ireland proposes “That the Council records a vote of confidence in its Chairman, Cllr Dominic Beck” Don’t know what’s going on there.

For all you green belt fans there will be discussion aplenty on that subject also, as well as the usual gossip outside later on.

Also Stewart to be beaten over the head on several occasions (not on the agenda but likely)

I think I’m going to start calling Clive and Stewart “Bodie and Doyle”, it sorts of fits with Clive calmly taking things in and Stewart kicking down the door. Applications for the position of “Cowley” will be taken on the night.

Agenda is here.

Land Banking and Neighbourhood Plans

Leave a reply

As we know large housing developers carry a “land bank” on their books, it’s kind of an extension of their cash flow, just as any company needs a good supply of money to operate, a developer also needs a steady stream of building sites for its raw material.

Much has been made about the 400,000 houses worth of land already banked in the UK, the problem is much of it is brownfield and not profitable enough in the current economic climate, so developers are turning ever more towards green fields.

So when our local authority assures us that brownfield land will be developed first, it’s really a very simplistic view of the housebuilding world which is driven, like the rest of the world, by the need to make a profit.

This interesting report from the National Trust states:

“The National Planning Policy Framework excludes many of the 400,000 sites nationally that have planning permission from a council’s deliverable five-year housing supply on the basis that they are currently considered economically unviable for development.

The NPPF encourages a short-term view of economic viability that risks unnecessary development of greenfield and Green Belt sites. Local Plans must identify a “deliverable” five year housing land supply. This means that development plans must be shown to be economically viable and achievable with a reasonable time frame.

The fact that greenfield sites are more profitable to develop than brownfield sites, and therefore more viable, is forcing councils to propose development of these sites. As a case study in this report shows, many of the sites for 10,300 new homes approved for development in Salford are excluded from the council’s five year supply forcing the council to consider planning applications for greenfield sites.”

It makes sobering reading and I feel this is one impact of localism that we will feel quite soon! There are lots of brownfield sites in Dinnington and Anston in need of re-development, but who will choose these above going straight to green field? It’s cheaper to build there and it will make more profits as it will tend to be in a more desirable location.

There is a really good summing up here.

Another aspect of localism is Neighbourhood Plans, an opportunity for town and parish councils to make their own mini plans for development. The same report has this to say:

“The Localism Act introduced a new layer of local planning: Neighbourhood Plans. The government’s aim is to “put communities in the driving seat”. It should be emphasised that  Neighbourhood Planning is still at an early stage. The regulations governing the creation of Neighbourhood Forums were only finalised in April 2012.

Councils have identified three key challenges that face Neighbourhood Planning.

First, the powers of Neighbourhood Forums are limited. Neighbourhood Plans cannot include proposals that are contrary to the Local Plan or the National Planning Policy Framework. The LGiU research confirms this picture. Nearly two thirds of local authorities said that Neighbourhood Plans were not important or not important at all in shaping their Local Plan.

Second, not all areas have a Neighbourhood Forum. Parish and Town Councils are able to act as Neighbourhood Forums. Neighbourhood Forums must, however, be established from scratch where these bodies do not exist. Although there are a number of successful examples, contributors to the LGiU research expressed concern that coverage is uneven and focused in more advantaged areas.

Third, the resources for Neighbourhood Forums are limited. Estimates for the production of a Neighbourhood Plan range from £20,000 to £100,000 which, given the low level of funding allocated by government to support Neighbourhood Plans, must in general be found by local communities. This has had a deterrent effect and may serve to concentrate Neighbourhood Plans in more advantaged areas.”

So maybe not all they were cracked up to be and quite expensive, worth considering perhaps for Towns or Parishes with the will and the means?

Big Borough/Little Borough

Leave a reply

Some interesting stuff for those of us interested in planning matters…

The “duty to co-operate” between local authorities is now fully enshrined in national planning doctrine and our relationship with Sheffield is sure to be under the microscope when Rotherham’s local plan core strategy goes to the government for sign off.

We are part of the wider Sheffield City Region, and as such we are obliged to look at Sheffield’s housing needs as well as Rotherham’s when compiling a local plan and setting housing targets. There is actually a clause in Rotherham’s plan allowing Sheffield to call for an early review if they consider our housing target insufficient, this was done to avoid an objection to the Planning Inspectorate by Sheffield when Rotherham’s plan is considered.

Coventry is having similar troubles with their big borough neighbour Birmingham as detailed in this article in the Guardian. A good summary is here.

More about the Sheffield City Region here.

Don’t Bother With Brownfield, Raid the Greenbelt Say Government Inspectors

4 Replies

The government’s new national planning framework has been running for a year now and the effects are highlighted in a report by the Campaign to Protect Rural England. The contents of this report will ring alarm bells for anyone who cares about the countryside around Dinnington.

There has always been a “brownfield first” presumption in planning which means previously developed land must be used before digging up open countryside. Developers don’t like this as it’s more expensive and means they are often restricted to building in less desirable locations. Now government inspectors are beginning to allow developers to ignore this principle if alternative sites are not considered “deliverable” This means that if a developer feels they cannot make sufficient profit from brownfield they will be allowed to go straight to the greenbelt.

Sustainability is being thrown out of the window as this test of “deliver-ability” starts to take precedence.

Developers are being allowed to drop hundreds of houses onto open country without making any contribution to local infrastructure, even in areas considered to have outstanding natural beauty. Government is taking the housing figures in authority’s local plans as minimums and smaller authorities like Rotherham are being forced to “co-operate” with larger ones like Sheffield to accommodate over spill.

What does this mean for Dinnington? Well we are constantly told by Rotherham Council that we have to allow a huge extension of at least 700 houses onto our greenbelt to ensure the “local plan” they are putting together is acceptable to government.

But if these plans are being ignored now anyway, as the CPRE’s report seems to indicate, what is the point? We may as well run with no plan and just fight every application as and when it comes up. Figures like the 1300 houses in total and 700 on greenbelt are now going to be treated as minimums and could inflate dramatically over the life of the plan.

The government is also relaxing the laws which require new developments to include a certain proportion of affordable housing. I think this disproves once and for all the defense used by many (including some borough Councillors) for the house building plan; that the new houses planned for Dinnington are intended to benefit our community by being affordable and for local people.

In light of this information could I please ask that Anston Parish Council stop coming up with excuses to avoid debating an objection to Rotherham Council’s Core Strategy and finally get off the fence.

Could I also make the same request of Kevin Barron MP who seems to be positively welded to the fence on this issue. The whole of Rother Valley is being disadvantaged by this plan, so please Kevin start representing your constituents instead of running scared on the issue.

They should be demanding that the local plan be changed so as to more fairly spread the development over the next 15 years throughout the borough and not just heap it in a small number of places like the Dinnington and Anston greenbelt.

Come on people, pull your fingers out!

A summary of the CPRE report is here.

Further info here.

Anston Parish Council Meeting Mar 18 2013

22 Replies

It’s that time of the month again, the parish hall is calling and the great and good descend for another fantastical parish council meeting.

Mr Beck kicks off reading apologies for absence, Stuart Thornton straight on the attack asks where the absent people are? Do they have better things to do? He is shot down by Cllr Saint-John with the accuracy and ruthlessness of an SAS sniper.

Not deterred Stuart asks why minutes do not reflect the reasons he left a meeting early, i.e. that he felt the chair at the time was not doing his job. Move on says Mr Beck!

Again Stuart pops his head above the battlements to suggest that the prices paid for emptying bins seem on the expensive side. There is general agreement on this, but not on what to do, a motion is passed to vaguely look at it in some way.

Mr Beck answers a query and confirms tweeting is allowed in meetings! Huurah, move on!

As the main session starts a few familiar faces drift in, most notably Mr Lewis in a provocative t-shirt. 3 Police PCSOs also troop through the door and are not so subtlety questioned by the public as to why they are there.

The main event kicks off with a question about repair jobs on the Green outstanding from three years ago. Cllrs Burton and Baker promise to progress, no one can remember that far back.

A greenbelt question on what arrangements will be made for schools when the new houses planned by RMBC are built. Cllr Dalton says the planners will this into account at the time, Cllr Thornton disagrees saying the infrastructure plans offer no money for improvements. It’s a complex subject but I happen to know he’s right and she’s wrong.

Another question along similar lines, saying Anston needs a civic centre, all present broadly agree but the feeling is it is now too late for such things, it should have been done in the seventies and the time has gone. They have obviously not seen my plan to divert the A57 and reclaim Anston for the people. It’s a plan as cunning as a bag of foxes, but we move on to……

Why don’t we cut Dinnington Comp in two and bring half of it to Anston? Then kids won’t have to go as far…. Hmmm no one touches this with a big stick.

Cllr Burton asks why are we discussing this, it’s all in the hands of private developers, demoralized we move on again.

Mr Lewis asks SJ what he was playing at when he spoke up for the Brethren at the planning board. It’s an old theme and is greeted with sighs, SJ tells the questioner to get bent in a nice way.

Clive Jepson gets a similar reply when he asks SJ about his contact with the Brethren prior to their planning application. No further comment…

We turn to the worst kept secret in Anston next, the top secret land deal the Council is involved in. Apparently there is an update but we can’t be told what it is because the thing we all know about is secret. This is getting boring…!

It is pointed out that if the deal is not kept secret the Council may lose the land. That’s it knackered then, because by now even the flippin Martians must know.

A letter next asking Cllrs to declare whether or not they are for building on greenbelt. Cllrs Thornton and Baker are against, SJ says it’s not that simple, folks have to live somewhere. Beck and Ireland say wait for next Save Our Greenbelt meeting, Stonebridge says RMBC have been screwed by the route of HS2 so couldn’t do as much on brownfield as they’d like, Burton says as a last resort she’s for it.

Stuart says we can’t blame central government for things like this, RMBC decide where to put the houses, and they just gave Dinno another 200. No, it’s 40 says Cllr Dalton, ignoring the fact that RMBC themselves say it’s 200, sorry Judy 0/2.

A letter from Mr Beck to Kevin Barron is denounced as misleading by Stuart, he’s a terrier this man! “You’ll not get rid of me Stuart” laughs Mr Beck as the audience applaud. The applause was in favour of binning Mr Beck I must report.

A letter from the independent monitor who attended last months pensioner bashing meeting, he wants a public meeting with himself and the public only, no councillors allowed. This sounds interesting and is welcomed universally, although no one actually knows why he wants a meeting or what it’s for. A vote is taken to invite all Anstonians to a public meeting for some purpose no one knows. All we do know is some councillors have been complained about but we don’t know who.

I can’t help noticing the Council have brought their fan club again this month, all 3 of them in fact. They mainly snigger and quietly use the F word between themselves, booing the odd member of the public who dares to get frustrated at the slow pace of progress.

How better to consult with the public is discussed, along with the possibility of working more closely with Dinno Town Council. Councillors say they are keen, but it’s all a bit wooly, and no concise action is promised.

Stuart goes down in flames for daring to suggest the Council consult before buying any more land, he picks himself back up to ask where the 1500 quid is coming from for Anston Day.

Not sure says Judy, we can decide at the time says SJ. Move on! Says Mr Beck.

It all gets slightly shouty as Cllrs discuss various standing orders, Stuart loses again and heckling starts to break out  as we progress towards the end of the meeting.

A vote is taken to keep the land purchase secret, this provokes an exclamation of “yes” from the fan club, don’t know what’s going on there.

A residents asks when they can expect a reply to a letter, they are told the letter is acknowledged as received but not to hold their breath.

A resident tried to sneak a second question and get a cruise missile of a telling off, some wag suggests the councillors pay for Anston Day themselves, yes, it just got silly.

A final question to the independents accusing them of being on the fence over greenbelt, protecting the countryside will stop our children from having affordable homes apparently. Clive points out that there are many affordable homes not selling at the moment, and that the gentlemen in question supported the brethren so is hardly unbiased.

I wonder when people will stop talking about these new homes as if they are going to be council houses or something, they will be private, expensive and profitable comrade.

It’s been two and a half hours and there is a feeling of relief as muck rakers, the Police and general public leave the councillors to their private session.

This meeting has shown what a paralysed body this Council is, no real issues are debated with any great zeal or openness, the common good is sacrificed for infighting and the Labour Party line.

I despair.

Anston Parish Council to Face Scrutiny?

10 Replies

Tomorrow’s Anston Parish Council Meeting looks to have lots of interesting items on the agenda.

At a previous meeting (where a certain pensioner came to loggerheads with the chairman Mr Beck) independent monitors from the Borough were present to observe proceedings due to a previous complaint. Now we have the following agenda item to be discussed tomorrow:

vi) Letter from RMBC, received 8th March, regarding proposed public meeting
with Mr Phil Beavers (Interim Independent Person serving on the Standards
Committee).

Sounds interesting, almost as though this proposed public meeting will be for the purpose of scrutinizing the behaviour of the Council? Also this:

v) Cllr Thornton (2013/014) – To discuss the presence of security guards at previous
council meeting.

I didn’t even know there WERE security guards there, although I did note two PCSOs…

There is also discussion of the local plan/greenbelt issues on the agenda with a proposal to work more closely with Dinnington Town Council on these tricky subjects. All good stuff and should make for some good discussion and (hopefully) progress.

There is also this stern warning, however, so any bolshy pensioners had best be on good behaviour!

Regard should be made to the requirements of Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder
Act 1998, the Race Relations Act 1976 (as amended), the Disability Discrimination
Act 2005 (Disability Equality Duty) and Section 40 of the Natural Environment and
Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 (Biodiversity Duty), throughout the meeting.
Anyone who disturbs the proceedings may be required by resolution to withdraw
from the room – Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960, s1(8).)

You can download your own copy from here.

Readers Letter in Dinnington Guardian 15/3/2013 and Why We Love Dinnington

2 Replies

I have read the letter below in the Dinnington Guardian today, and whilst I passionately believe in free speech and would never criticise people for expressing their honest opinion I do think a reply is needed here.

Many people will not recognise the description of Dinnington and it’s people in this letter.

LoveDinnington and, I think the vast majority in Dinnington are not against building new houses, I myself live in a house built in the late seventies on a greenfield site. What we are opposed to is the SCALE and the way developers are being allowed to cherry pick greenbelt sites whilst ignoring brownfield in the current local plan. Sheffield feels the same and refuses to build on much of their own greenbelt, and I don’t blame them.

We would also like Dinnington to be given new and upgraded facilities so the roads, schools, doctors and dentists can cope as our little town expands.

That’s all.

My wife was brought up in Sheffield and has lived there her whole life. Since we moved back to Dinnington she is AMAZED at how open and friendly people are. And Sheffield isn’t exactly an unfriendly place, far from it.

We Love Dinnington!

20130316_00003_1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dinnington Town Council Meeting 11 March 2013

Leave a reply

It’s severe weather as polar conditions batter Dinnington, but nothing will keep me in tonight because it’s Dinnington St John’s Town Council Meeting! Hoorah!

A good attendance at this little get together, very friendly and not a single police officer in sight. Even the (in)famous Mr Lewis manages to get in the door without a blue light escort.

It marks the return of Simon Tweed from a bout of poorly-ness and with his fellow Borough Councillors in tow as well.

We kick off with a presentation by the “Groundwork Creswell, Ashfield and Mansfield” group, an environmental charity with quite a wide range of work to their name. More about them here

They are questioned quite thoroughly by a member of Save our Greenbelt (who I am not associated with in any way in case people don’t know) about their work, their funding and how they tackle various problems.

And so starts the meeting proper…

First question is on certain expenditure in the last budget and the chair answers explaining and giving details.

A question from the public on the shop frontages on Dinnington main street and who is responsible for their upkeep and preventing them from encroaching on the pavement. RMBC Highway and Env Health says Simon, but Cllr Wardle points out that if the blockage is on private land little can be done.

Litter is also on the agenda, RMBC accused of paying little attention to Dinnington, but borough is defended by Cllr Havenhand who says their guy does his best but it is a losing battle. Someone comments that people ought to stop dropping the flipping stuff and it’s hard to argue with that! The chair promises to raise with borough and see if more can be done.

Save Our Greenbelt ask about the total number of houses RMBC are now going to build in Dinno, is it 1100, is it 1300, does it include this or that? Borough Councillors say it is 1300 and Simon promises to get written clarification. I point out that the borough tend to lie a lot and any written reply is fit only for arse wiping. The chair shoots me down for calling people liars and I scurry away before her wrath.

It gets a bit shouty and then we come to my question, how about a field trip onto Dinnington East to find out some facts on the ground. This is greeted with enthusiasm by many and I am told to arrange a date and call the press, job done!

I also sort of hint that only one of the three Borough Councillors have been helping so far and get a right earful back. I invite them to prove me wrong and then duck as verbal Tomahawk missiles are aimed in my direction.

Save Our Greenbelt make one last point (which I don’t fully understand) about the objections made to RMBC by the Town Council, the clerk answers and the public session is closed! I make a hasty retreat to my car outside which has been left with the engine running the whole time!

A nice bit of good honest debate after the snakish nastiness of Anston and I live to complain another day!

Job done, cushty, off we trot!

Wind Turbine Power!

Leave a reply

Not a subject directly relating to Dinnington, but with the Penny Hill turbines going up at Ulley and Loscar churning away at Harthill the view from Dinnington Pit Top (I think we’ll be able to see them from up there) will be changing over the next few years!

Anyone who travels to Sheffield on the M1 like I do will have noticed the new arrival!

Here’s what Penny Hill will look like from Ulley when finished…PennyHill

Few things polarise opinion like turbines, I used to hate them, but having gone and stood under the ones at Loscar and taken these photos it is really hard not to be impressed…

IMG_9210      IMG_9230

And with another farm being mooted for the Laughton/Firbeck area in the years to come who knows what the skyline will look like?

As ever feel free to leave your opinions of wind turbines or related topics in the comments section!