Tag Archives: Rotherham Council

Anston Parish Meeting 29 April 2013

4 Replies

Monday night and off we trot to the Parish Hall, but it’s NOT a Parish Council meeting as such. It is a public meeting called by Cllr Thornton and the room is split into two areas. Outsiders like me who don’t live in Anston must sit at the back, Residents sit round in a big circle. Any councillors attending tonight do so as members of the public, except the chairman Mr Beck and the clerk.

The local plan for house building in Rotherham was raised straight away  no house building planned in Anston says Mr Beck. Hmm not sure that’s right, after all once they have tarmacked their way across Dinno East to the Butterfly House they will be in Anston then, technically. Oh and were they to build a massive new trading estate over near Todwick some of that would be in Anston, still details, details, let’s move on.

Mr Beck was also criticised for reading out a statement before clearing it with fellow Cllrs, and also asked by a resident about what he would do should a conflict arise between his post here and the one at Wales where he is borough Cllr? Mr Beck pointed out that the meeting was not about him and to be fair he has a point.

He was also asked about times he may have dropped the ball, but picking the ball up Mr Beck moved the meeting onwards.

Questions also asked about the upkeep of the hall and grounds which costs thousands upon thousands per year, however it was pointed out that there are many bills to pay and much work to be done.

RMBC were slagged off for the rather poor standard of service that residents experience, cuts were blamed until one resident pointed out that the services were poor before the cuts. Move on!

A vote proposed by Stuart for the automatic exclusion of any non-Anston resident who interrupts a parish meeting by speaking.

Hmm, we’re in a personal bug bear type place here for me, I have no idea why it is seen as a good thing for Dinno residents to be forced to keep silent at Anston Parish and for the same to apply to Anstonians at Dinno Town Council.

Anyone who actually thinks that what happens in one village does not affect the other is frankly kidding themselves. The two places are joined at the hip, and this is one rule which really doesn’t need reinforcing.

But vote they did and yes surprise, surprise sanctions will now apply to anyone from over the border who dares to speak!

The greenbelt issues were raised once again, with Cllr Burton telling everyone greenbelt land will not be used straight away and not while there are empty houses in the area. Quite how she thinks this would happen is not clear, government planning inspectors have been allowing developers to ignore brownfield for a year or more now, but I’m guessing that wasn’t in her briefing from the borough.

One of the fan club members at that point asked Cllr Thornton why he was objecting to building on greenbelt. This would mean his children couldn’t afford houses in the area apparently, as building on brownfield is too expensive. This is the old myth that the new houses in the area will be affordable or social houses. They won’t, no developer is going to waste the lovely countryside locations in Dinno East and Throapham with affordable cardboard boxes when they can build 4 and 5 bed exec homes instead.

BUT people still peddle this old myth, even though the government is now telling developers that the old deals which meant a certain proportion in new developments had to be affordable is now off.

I have to say the fan club comments were a little better than usual, but this was in part due to Judy Dalton being perched on their shoulder throughout I’m guessing! She’s no fool when it comes to following the Labour party line from the borough.

Stuart Thornton did dare to ask if the fan club members heckling had anything to do with the contracts they had with the parish council. This provoked a threat of a solicitors letter from fan club member #2.

The vote in the end was headed off by Jo Burton, who I can only assume was being remote controlled by someone with a brain. In the end the public fell for it and voted to insert her amendment to urge Cllrs to oppose greenbelt development unless brownfield and all other sources of housing were exhausted. It’s actually impossible to do that, but details, details, move on!

The top secret land deal was raised once again, I say secret, but bacteria on the planet Mars have heard what and where it is by now, so let’s move on.

One resident said that the A57 divides Anston and Mr Beck agreed. Have they seen my cunning plan to divert the A57 and allow Anston to begin a glorious new age? No, and I’m not allowed to speak…

By now Cllr Burton had changed the meeting to love-in by inviting all present to tell her what they loved about Anston. It’s a long list and I love the place having spent the first three decades of my life there, but isn’t this just a distraction really?

It is and from this point on the meeting got very shouty, with poisonous comments being literally spat from one corner of the room to the other. Mr Beck had finally had enough when he closed the meeting and had gone so red as to resemble beetroot.

It was at this point that events went pear shaped in a major way, no doubt you will have read various versions on other sites and in the papers as well.

I do not intend to add to these comments, at least not yet.

Thank you and good night.

Anston Parish Council Branded as “Arrogant” in Formal Complaint

4 Replies

A formal complaint from an Anston resident has been picked up by the Dinnington Guardian.

Essentially Anston Parish meetings are a mess. We have the borough big guns of Jo Burton, Judy Dalton and Dominic Beck aided by the grumpy old men brigade up against the few independents on the Council who do their best to hold the rest to account but are hampered by lack of numbers. All other Cllrs act as cannon fodder.

The only support the Council can usually conjure up at meetings are individuals who just happen to work for them.

Unacceptable.

20130427_00002_1

20130427_00003_1

20130427_00001_1

An Open Letter to Anston Parish Council from Tim Wells

3 Replies

Local resident Tim Wells has copied us into this open letter to Anston Parish Council. We are pleased to reproduce it here, Tim is not the first person to challenge the parish council on their reluctance to openly discuss this issue and we applaud his efforts.

Dear Dominic
I feel as though I am having the wool pulled over my eyes by the Parish council.  The reason for this letter being an open letter sent to the local guardian and forwww.lovedinnington.com to put on their web site.
At the meeting which was cancelled after the police were called, a lady asked you to vote for or against the core strategy in the question time.  At the re adjourned meeting I confirmed with you in the closing questions that a vote would happen at the next meeting and you confirmed to everybody in attendance, that would be the case.
However at the next meeting you walked around the vote without having it.  Even though a number of independents, voiced their opposition to building on the greenbelt.
I ask at the next Parish meeting in May, that you put on the Agenda an item to vote for or against the core strategy and the vote be recorded.
Dinnington have already voted completely against the core strategy and it is time that Anston Parish council stick their neck out and do so.  Before any further houses are built in Anston, there has to be consideration of schooling, congestion on roads, services and an area of land set aside for a civic centre for Anston.  RMBC need to plan more sustainable communities, not massive housing estates with no soul, we aren’t part of Rotherham.
Building on the greenbelt should be the very last option, if at all.  The houses we really require around here, are 1 and 2 bedroom houses, which would enable larger houses to be freed up for young families.  Rather than building across fields, it is important to utilise existing brown field sites, which are plentiful in Rotherham and Sheffield and where traditional industry no longer exists.  It is perhaps a time for people to move back into towns and city’s, the opposite to what happened in the 60’s and 70’s, after much industrial land became vacant.
As a country we need to become more sustainable and start to grow more of our own food, we have lost over 5 farms since I came to Anston in 1966.  Farming land is important for food and to allow people around here to feel as though they do live in the countryside, not urban sprawl.
I await you confirming that a vote will take place at the next Parish meeting?
Yours in anticipation

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.

Dinnington Town Council Meeting 8 April 2013

3 Replies

It’s a lovely evening in Dinnington, and as Maggie Thatcher dominates the evening news we turn our attention to another fantabulous Town Council meeting!

The lovely Lyric Theatre welcomes us as we settle down, Mr Lewis is the only heckler present and he seems in a mellow mood, The news of maggie’s passing hasn’t devastated him too much. Some wag asks if the bar will be open later, memories of maggie run deep here.

The public seats are packed with myself, Mr Lewis, one lady from the press and two councillors from over the border in Anston. It’s a bit depressing that no one else is here.

We kick off with two questions, one from Clive which I didn’t catch, must ask him what it was when I see next time! My question is on buses and whether SYPTE should be invited to a meeting in the near future to discuss improvements.

All present agreed that the current service is inadequate, a recent consultation at the bus station seemed to have been ineffective, and we are left wondering what is the point of a bus station with no decent buses. My thoughts are that we need to see a better service into Sheffield in particular, I think the young unemployed of Dinnington would perhaps be able to benefit from the jobs I see there so often snatched away by East European migrant workers,

We are continually told by RMBC that we are the principal town in the borough, but this is usually when they are interesting in building houses. When it comes to essential services we are too often left with a distinctly rural service.

The state of the roads is discussed and we are told that RMBC plans no road repairs in Dinnington this year. Quite depressing as all local residents will agree as our potholed roads take on an almost Sheffieldesque appearance!

RMBC are also criticised for dodging their responsibilities in the area of street cleanliness. It’s a recurring theme at Town Council meetings, the borough should be doing this but they aren’t, or the borough won’t do that, very frustrating,

The public session closes and I leave feeling a bit depressed, what is the point in paying our council taxes to a borough council who struggle to provide the most basic services to 10% of their population. Surely we are entitled to receive the same 10% of the budget for road repairs, cleaning and public transport?

I for one am getting sick of the broken relationship between Dinnington and the Rotherham Borough who seem to treat us as some kind of forgotten outpost. They are always so eager to plunder our countryside when they have a housebuilding quota to meet, but hesitate when we need buses, street cleaners, libraries and highway maintenance.

Something is rotten here and change is needed!

Rough Guide to Dinnington Politics

3 Replies

Welcome to our guide to the local and not so local politics of the Dinnington and Anston area.

b

Let’s start at the grass roots and work our way up…

Dinnington St John’s Town Council

A Town or Parish Council takes care of the ultra-local side of things, they do NOT take care of stuff like planning and highways, although they can send their opinions to the people who do. Dinnington is a town nowadays rather then a parish so we have ourselves a town council. Meetings are held at the Lyric once a month and are open to the public for the first half when residents are allowed to ask questions. The second half is held in private. You can find details about the councillors and the Council as a whole here.

Anston Parish Council

If you are an Anstonian you are living in a parish and the parish council web site can be found here. Meetings are once a month at the Parish Hall.

Rother Valley South Area Assembly

Is our part of the greater Rotherham area. They also meet regularly and might be a good place to raise issues which aren’t borough wide but extend beyond Dinnington. Details are here.

Rother Valley South Safer Neighbourhood Team

Is our local division of South Yorkshire Police, obviously not political, but handy to know if you want to raise something with the boys in blue. They have regular meetings in Anston Parish Hall, details are here.

Rotherham Borough Council

RMBC are the primary authority for our area and take care of the heavier duty things like planning and emptying bins. Planning and Highways are often contentious subjects and are handled here at the Borough level.
Dinno has 3 borough councillors and Anston shares a further 3 with Woodsetts.

South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner

A new one this, and takes the place of the old Police Authority. You can raise issues of Police policy with the SYPCC, but day to day running of the Police is still with the Chief Constable.

Member of Parliament

If you want to take things to the top our man in Westminster is Kevin Barron. He holds a surgery on alternate Saturdays at his office in Dinnington and his website is here. He is your man if you want the law changed or something raising in the house.

Europe!

Nothing divides opinion like this subject! I offer no opinions on European politics, just note we are part of the Yorkshire and the Humber region in the European parliament and more info 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.