Final consultation for draft Local Plan

Six weeks of public consultation on the final draft version of the city council’s Local Plan gets underway on Thursday 5 June.

This is the version of the plan that will be the basis for a public examination carried out by an independent inspector later this year. Full details and all the documents will be on the council’s website at www.canterbury.gov.uk/localplan.

Last summer, the council held 10 weeks of consultation on the preferred option plan. Nearly 7,000 comments were submitted, which covered a range of issues across the whole plan.

There was support for large parts of the draft plan, particularly policies relating to landscape, heritage, tourism and open space. The main objections related to the overall strategy and the development proposals, including the growth strategy for the district, amount and location of development, specific site allocations, capacity of local services and the ability to deliver the necessary infrastructure, and environmental issues.

As a result, the council has made some changes to the draft plan, partly to reflect additional information and comments that were received, and partly to ensure that the draft plan is consistent with national guidance (such as the National Planning Policy Framework) and evidence collected by the council over the last few years.

In the consultation starting this week, people will be able to comment on any aspect of the draft plan. But at the public examination, if anyone wants to object to parts of the plan, it will help the inspector if they can identify in their comments why they think the plan is not ‘sound’. Advice on how to go about making a comment is available on the council’s website.

Consultation is also taking place at the same time on the draft District Transport Strategy and Open Space Strategy. These are integral parts of the Local Plan and back up the whole plan process. Council Leader Cllr John Gilbey said:

“We have reached this point following several years of hard work and consultation, producing a Local Plan that we believe provides development in the most sustainable locations. And I am particularly pleased that we are proposing that several areas of the district should have Local Green Space protection.

This is now the final period of consultation before the public examination when the plan receives rigorous independent scrutiny, so I would urge people to make their views known over the next six weeks.”

The consultation will close on Friday 18 July. Copies of the plans will be available to view at the council’s offices in Canterbury and Herne Bay, in libraries across the district and at Whitstable Museum from 5 June.

A number of public information evenings are being held during the consultation period for people to learn more about the plans. They will take place starting at 7pm at:

• Monday 16 June – Herne Bay High School
• Wednesday 18 June – Spires Academy, Sturry
• Wednesday 2 July – Kent County Cricket Ground

CCC website 03 June 2014

John Gilbey's blueprint for Herne Bay

The Leader of our Council has produced a blueprint for debate. As he says:

Cllr John Gilbey

As a member of the City Council for 11 years and as Portfolio Holder for Regeneration for 9 years, I have had a unique insight into many issues across the District and the County.

I don’t have all the answers to questions that are asked and would never make such a claim, but I would like to use my years of accumulated knowledge to present my ideas for the future of the Canterbury District.

This is not a plan, or a proposal, these are merely my own personal thoughts, a blueprint to encourage meaningful debate on these issues. This is a document to encourage you to write to me with your views and opinions, to stimulate positive ideas on the ways forward for all of us.

After a little chat about how in love with the Local Plan he is, and how we will all be living in "garden towns", basking in the glow of "sustainable urban design", Cllr Gilbey goes on to focus on specific areas.

Here's what he has to say about Herne Bay [with my comments] - do feel free to add your own comments below.

---

Herne Bay

The council will complete the town centre upgrade [after how many years, while you were portfolio holder for regeneration?] including moving the market and preserving some of the buildings currently in a state of decay [examples?]. There is a need to re-open some disused buildings and homes [examples?], and tax second homes appropriately [why, how, and how much?].

A proposal to open up Beach Street and rejuvenate that environment will also be completed [completed? has planning been approved?] as part of the upgrading of the town and in that context the sea front itself should be the subject of renewal/upgrading with analysis and decisions to be taken in the light of local views and aspirations [NO! it should be DRIVEN by local views and aspirations] on the future purpose of such an attractive location. We should widen the appeal and facilities of Herne Bay even further to encourage both tourism and business to provide local jobs.

We will have a solid foundation for a greater marketable attraction with all these planned developments. I strongly believe we should also support the Pier head activities [I think you mean the Pier stub - your Council has long since admitted it has no intention of rebuilding to the Pier head], satisfactorily resolve the future of the Museum [after YOUR Council cut its opening hours, following YEARS of neglect] and continue protection for the Downs [your Council is the ONLY objector to the village green application - village green status is the greatest possible protection under English law]. King's Hall needs to be fully supported in its endeavours to become a self supporting venue for events while providing community facilities. The replacement of the Beach Huts at the base of the Downs should also be part of the package [NEVER!].

The Roman fort remains at Reculver need to be enhanced and protected. The general environment of the coast at Reculver needs firm and direct action to provide an environment worthy of the history, nature, culture and attraction of this unique area [yes, it could be a great place for a caravan site...]. Overall Herne Bay should strive to be a modern vibrant town that provides attractions and facilities for residents and tourists, both taking advantage of the seaside location. The Bends should always be protected as a valuable green gap and open space.

This council has, over the last 9 years made huge progress in Herne Bay and this is often forgotten about. We have renovated the clock tower (with the recent announcement there is much more renovation to come) [so how good was your first renovation?] and sea front flood defences [er, no - this was Environment Agency funded], we have enhanced the whole concept and environment of Memorial Park, designated large Queen Elizabeth II Fields which permanently protects green open spaces from development [it affords no such protection - QEII land can be developed on, if a matching area nearby is provided as a replacement - in contrast, a village green can NOT be developed, which is why the Council is objecting], upgraded the Leisure Centre facilities and cleared the pier head [knocked down a building which had become unsafe through Council neglect, and put down a poor tarmac surface]. We have built a sports centre at Herne Bay High School incorporating a roller hockey rink while also encouraging and supporting local involvement throughout. We have prepared an Area Action Plan for the Town Centre and work is now underway. With residents there is much to be done still to preserve and enhance the ambiance and economic well being of the Town but we are well on our way.

John Gilbey got out of the wrong side of bed Part 2

It would seem that John Gilbey's Saturday didn't improve. Having slain his traffic-related opponents with his mightier-than-any-sword quill pen, he then swivelled his attention to focus on those who simply would not follow orders - in this case regarding the supposedly independent commission he was thinking of setting up to waylay the referendum on governance. (Translation: moving away from elected dictatorship, towards something more like democracy.)

This press release is altogether punchier, even though it has fewer exclamation marks. It may read like a snarky comment on some social network site, but this is actually an official statement from the Leader of our Council.

---

Governance

Cllr John Gilbey landing a few metaphorical punches

A few weeks ago, we said that we wished to set up an Independent Commission to inform the public openly and completely about the various options with regard to the governance system of the council.  This totally transparent exercise, completed by a wholly independent commission would have enabled everyone with an interest in this admittedly remote subject to inform their vote in a referendum next year. Three of the four parties had agreed in principle to support a Commission.

With appropriate weasel wording, the Lib Dems believe that the public should not be informed until much later, after a petition reaches the required level - which they assure us will be reached.  This purely political manoeuvring means that the public will not be provided with information at an appropriate time.

Council decisions will always be made by the party with the majority of seats, whatever the governance system.  Decisions with the executive system are better-made, without politics and at appropriate speed and I therefore believe that we should be very wary of a return to the politically-charged committee system.  There would also be cost and officer-time considerations to assess under the various systems and I regret that these members have decided to reject the opportunity to inform the electorate.  Unfortunately it means that we cannot proceed without the full support of members for an Independent panel.  I am not going to support adding costs to the council without cross party agreement.

Finally, I would welcome any of the other Parties coming forward with a Policy rather than purely relying on opposition to anything the current majority group does.  This suggests simple laziness or lack of interest?  It has been going on since 2005 and perhaps even before that.

News Release - Saturday 15th March 2014, from John Gilbey's website, and on Facebook

---

"Decisions with the executive system are better-made, without politics..."

I laughed till I stopped.

Cllr Gilbey's wariness of a committee-based system makes me wary of the "independence" of his now-never-to-be Commission.

John Gilbey got out of the wrong side of bed Part 1

Our Precious Leader didn't have a good start to Saturday by the looks of it. Someone or something, or possibly everything, had him riled and the solution was to let rip on his very own website and Facebook page.

It may be that he was displeased with the public reaction to his support for the proposed one-way system in Whitstable - some churlish ingrates have drawn unfavourable parallels with the Westgate Towers fiasco, er, trial. It may be that the Barham by-election result irked him.

Whatever the cause, the following tirade was the result. In my mind's eye, I see it being accompanied by quite a lot of finger jabbing.

---

Westgate

Cllr John Gilbey making a point

Sadly I have to re-open this issue to fully counter accusations made recently about the traffic trial but everyone should be aware that activists and opposition councillors are still distorting the facts and being economical with the truth.

Remember the trial had the full support of both councils and many others and was a joint operation between the two councils.

Remember the decision to close showed exactly who was the dominant partner - as they should be as it is their responsibility.

Remember there were so many positive aspects to the trial and further work around Canterbury would have given us the much better traffic movement we sought.

Remember we could not introduce these additional features because we were in a trial phase.

For the record, we were given no option but to remove Councillor Hirst from the Conservative Group because of his behaviour.  He persisted in working as a county councillor to the great detriment of the City and his duties to the City. We could not persuade him that he had also been elected as a City Councillor.  He was never, as widely reported, removed because of his opposition to the Westgate Trial, the issues were historic prior to this event.

With the Chairman of the North Thanet Conservative association, we spent six hours in three meetings trying to keep him in the fold.  Sadly we failed, but it was never within my power to expel him from the Party.

There was no great dismissal as portrayed in the media and he was given ample opportunity to return to the party and resolve any issues he had. I have seen his written resignation letter to the Party.  He was a Conservative on Friday and joined another party on Monday, yet despite many accusations, I have never once smeared this individual in the press or anywhere else.  You must judge!

The recent by election saw this continuing accusatory behaviour. No Policies from the opposition, just lies, distortions and negativity. What a world we now live in!  What happened to serving the community and the electorate?

News Release - Saturday 15th March 2014, from John Gilbey's website, and on Facebook

---

Jolly good question, that last sentence. I've been asking myself the self-same thing.

How to run a Council - the case for change

THE PRESENT SYSTEM

Canterbury has what is called a ‘Strong Leader and Executive’ system. This was adopted in 2002 after the government of the day made all councils choose between this and having an elected Mayor. The Councillors elect the Leader, who then chooses the Executive members, and can throw them off the Executive if they don’t say the right things or vote the right way. Key decisions are made by this small group, and often in practice by just the one person.

IS IT WORKING WELL?

Having decisions made by a small group, or even by one person, is supposed to make for speed and decisiveness. In practice it produces the opposite. Decisions made without sufficient thought, without proper consultation and without proper debate, arouse resentment from local people. Instead of swift action we then get a long drawn-out battle which could have been avoided. We’ve seen this on issues such as the Westgate Towers traffic scheme and Kingsmead Field in Canterbury.

WHAT’S THE ALTERNATIVE?

The present government, in the Localism Act 2011, gave councils the option of changing back to the earlier Committee System. With this system, the Council forms a number of committees each dealing with a particular area of issues. All councillors serve on one or more committees, and the committees make recommendations to the full Council for it to approve.

WOULD IT BE BETTER?

No system is perfect. In any system, the largest party is able to have the final say. But a return to the committee system would have these advantages:

• Decisions would be more thoroughly debated – all the parties would be represented on committees
• Decisions would be informed by a greater range of knowledge and experience
• All councillors would have an input into the decisions
• Councillors would all build up their own expertise by serving on committees. At present the time and effort of those who are not on the Executive is wasted.
• There would be greater transparency – key information and the real reasons for decisions could no longer be the preserve of a small group or a single person.

HOW COULD WE CHANGE?

If we got enough signatures on a petition, the Council would be required by law to hold a referendum in which local people could vote to change to the Committee system. The number of signatures needed would be 5% of the electorate – at present that’s 5,611. If that target were reached by the end of 2014, it would automatically trigger a referendum in May 2015.

---

To find out more, visit the Campaign for Democracy in Canterbury District at:

www.CDCD.co.uk

---

Council gerrymandering: Oh no we won't! Oh yes they have.

Two months after saying that they would not submit any proposals in the boundary change consultation, our beloved leaders have, er, done just that.

A quick reminder: the Local Government Boundaries Commission for England (LGBCE) has been invited by our Council to review our local government arrangements. The LGBCE is looking at the number of wards, the boundaries and names of the wards, the number of councillors per ward, and therefore the overall number of councillors we have to represent us.

Back in October, Cllr Gilbey said:

"It is essential the setting of new boundaries doesn't lead to accusations of gerrymandering or voter manipulation by the council. After discussions with colleagues, I have taken the view the council itself should step back and let the Boundary Commission decide the new wards based on its own studies and after giving detailed consideration to the opinions of any individual, group and parish council."

Lo and behold, tonight (10th December) the Council will be presenting their proposals for boundary changes. They said one thing, and did another. Surprised?

---

Of course, some of the more cynically minded residents (and councillors) suggested at the time that the decision not to put forward a proposal was simply a ruse to avoid having to debate that proposal in public, in Council.

The more deviously minded suggested that the Council's (i.e. the Conservative group's) preferred option would be submitted to the LGBCE by a proxy, such as a local Conservative Association, presumably to be accompanied by some nodding and winking.

My guess is that the Blue Team have been a little rattled by the sensible-looking proposals from the local Red Team (38 councillors, one councillor per ward) and have decided that public debate is a price worth paying in order to have an Official Preference published.

Beach Hut Charges - have your say

Our beloved Council is reviewing the way it charges people for having huts on the public beach. Apparently they have had legal advice that the current arrangements fall short of best practice. This document spells out the background, and the proposed new charges.

In a nutshell, the rents go up, there's no discount for being a local or for being a long-term owner, and the cost of selling a beach hut goes down. There's a suggestion that these changes be phased in over two years.

The Council is asking three main questions:

1. What do you think of the proposed Beach hut rents for 2014/15?
2. Do you think the market rent should be introduced fully in 2014/15 or phased over two years?
3. What are your views on allowing beach hut owners to sub-let their beach hut?

This consultation is open to all residents (not just hutters or community groups), so if you have an opinion one way or the other, do be sure to let your Council know.

Budget = Cuts

Council bosses say increasing income and prioritising "core services" will be their focus as they battle with another cut in government grants. Parking charges will rise and the district's share of council tax will go up by the maximum two per cent allowed (unless a local referendum takes place) as officials try to balance Canterbury City Council's (CCC) budget.

The authority must slash £5.5 million by 2017-18, in addition to £4 million already found through savings from schemes including shutting Herne Bay, Whitstable and Canterbury Heritage museums for winter.

Although the amount of central Government grant to be awarded will not be formally announced until next month, CCC expects a cut of 13 per cent for 2014-15 – a reduction of £1.3 million from £10.2million to £8.9 million.

For the year 2015-16 the authority expects a further reduction of 16 per cent, taking the grant down to £7.5 million. Additional reductions are forecast at nine per cent for 2016-17 and ten per cent for 2017-18.

Council services have been ranked in order of importance to help work out where money should be spent and where savings can be made, but city council chief executive Colin Carmichael warned tough decisions lie ahead. He said:

"It is a very significant reduction and we can't just carry on doing things the same way. We have to work out what our core business is. There is no way to just carry on squeezing everything and trying to find the extra savings. It will not work. Within the next few years, councillors have to make a decision on what we won't do any more."

Consultation on the new proposals will start after they have been discussed by members of the council's ruling executive committee tonight (Thursday 7th Nov). They include raising parking charges in some city centre car parks by 20p an hour, and increasing the authority's proportion of the council tax by two per cent, or about 7p a week for a Band D property. The hike would bring in an extra £170,000 a year.

Officials can boost income by making sure planned new homes are built, earning a portion of the Government's new homes bonus. There is also rental income from Whitefriars shopping centre and other property, including the Military Road offices left empty by staff cuts. But Mr Carmichael warned that services would be affected:

"If people care enough about their local services they will get involved and they can find different ways of doing things. It has already worked with the Westgate Hall and it could work elsewhere. We also need managers within the council to come up with creative ways to reduce costs and increase income."

No large-scale redundancy programme is planned, but vacant posts may not be filled and each department will continue to be reviewed. Each service has been set a 20 per cent savings target between now and 2016. Cuts could also be made to the civic office, with the Lord Mayor undertaking fewer engagements. The council may also now charge for any house or street renaming services. Council leader John Gilbey said:

"The world of local government funding has now changed forever. We have to accept that there is less money available."

thisiskent 7th November 2013

Beach hut owners to start paying market rent

Canterbury City Council is seeking views on future charging arrangements for beach huts. Ongoing tenancy negotiations with Beach Hut Owners' Associations prompted the council to seek external legal advice on its position. As a result, a number of changes are being made to beach hut tenancies and the associated fees.

The council's barrister provided very clear legal advice that it is obliged to run its beach huts on a commercial basis and charge a market rent at the earliest opportunity – which is when the new tenancy agreement comes in to effect on 1 April 2014. Otherwise the council would not be acting in the best interest of general tax payers living in the district.

Operating commercially means that the council can no longer offer a reduced rate to residents of Canterbury district compared to non-residents, or offer the long term discount to owners who have had a hut for more than 15 years.

The council must also stop charging hut owners a 'supplementary rental fee' of five times annual rent should they sell their hut. This had been applied to try and keep annual rents down. However, instead of applying this charge (of anywhere between £1,380 and £1,840), the council will now only charge an administration fee of £463 to hut vendors to cover staff costs.

To ensure that the market rent is set fairly and independently, the council appointed an external valuation office to make that assessment. This work was carried out for the council by DVS, who operate on behalf of HM Customs and Revenue and who used rent levels at over 50 other comparative sites, amongst other information, to calculate the market value.

So pretty, so welcoming.

The current 2013/14 fees are £276 in Herne Bay and £368 in Tankerton per year. Subletting is not currently allowed and the cost of selling a hut is between £1380 and £1840.

DVS have advised that for 2013/14, the annual market rent for Herne Bay should be £475 and Tankerton should be £650 – payable by all hut owners. If subletting is allowed, the market rent increases by 20%. However, the cost of selling a hut would be reduced to £463.

The council is aware that the annual increases will be difficult for some beach hut owners. To help make this easier, the council is considering applying the move to market rents over the maximum acceptable period of two years – views on this are being sought as part of the consultation.

The consultation is also asking for views on the market rent set by DVS and whether sub-letting should be allowed or not. The matter will be considered by the Overview and Executive committees in December.

Chief Executive Colin Carmichael said:

"Having received the barrister's clear advice, the council has a statutory duty to comply."

Executive member for foreshore services, Cllr Peter Vickery-Jones, said:

"I am genuinely unhappy that we are having to put these proposals forward. We are mindful of how difficult this will be for some beach hut owners and we have done our level best to lessen the impact as much as possible.

However, we are obliged to take note of the advice given and I hope that owners will understand our position. I am keenly interested to hear responses to the consultation and these will be seriously considered in our debate."

More information and details about how to respond to the consultation can be found HERE.

CCC website

Council Priorities: where will the axe fall?

Now we can all play Predict-a-Cut™ - it's as easy as 1-2-3!

1. Download a copy of the Council's priorities in handy spreadsheet format.
   
2. Tinker with the little buttons on the column headings to sort and filter the list. 
3. See which functions you think are most likely for the chop, and share your thoughts with the rest of the world using the comments below. 

Please note: statutory services must be carried out somehow, even if on a shoestring. Discretionary services can be cut altogether.

To get you started, here's a list of the Discretionary services and functions, sorted by budget... so sharpen your axe and get chopping!

View fullsize

---

HBM

Council Priorities: where will the axe fall?

about 10 years ago

The Council's priorities. Theirs, not ours.

about 10 years ago

Council's priorities not secret, not confidential, just rubbish

about 10 years ago

Council's priorities aren't secret - they're confidential!

about 10 years ago

Our Council's secret priorities

about 10 years ago

The Council's priorities. Theirs, not ours.

Here's the list in handy spreadsheet format, and here's the much less helpful PDF format file provided by our Council.

Well, here it is at last - the list that was compiled in secret and kept under wraps for as long as possible. It's curiously instructive to see just how misguided and skewed CCC's priorities seem to be:

• The Marlowe Theatre (5) ranks above Coast Protection (23).
• The Beaney Museum (7) ranks above Herne Bay Regeneration (49). 
• Marketing and Communications (14) ranks above Homelessness (40).
• The Roman Museum (21) ranks above running Elections (67) .
• District Life magazine (34) ranks above Public Health (63).
• ... and so it goes on. 

So, how did we end up with this nonsense? It would appear to be the result of a chain of errors and failings.

The first and most fundamental problem is the Council's lack of clear purpose. As business jargon and management-speak has infected many aspects of everyday life, it has become fashionable to have a "vision" or "mission statement". Put simply, this is having a clear and agreed answer to the question - what are we here for?  Our Council doesn't appear to have a clear understanding of its purpose.

The next problem arises when the Council tries to identify how to achieve its (unstated) purpose. The 10 Pledges that appeared in the 2011-2016 Corporate Plan are a mixture of "nice to have" and political expediency. They are not guided or unified by a clear purpose, nor do they take account of the Council's statutory obligations... which creates the next layer of problems.

A handful of officers and councillors used the 10 Pledges to assess the value of 70 varied Council functions, and then prioritise them.  Given our Council's instinct for secrecy, we will probably never know who was involved, or how they arrived at each score. We will never get an explanation as to why the Beaney scores 5/10 for Health and Wellbeing, but Food and Occupational Health only scores 1/10 for Health and Wellbeing. The lack of logic, and transparency, fatally undermines this system of scoring.

This fatal flaw in scoring is literally multiplied by the weighting factors applied to the 10 Pledges. Again, we don't know, and will never know, how or why these weightings were arrived at.

Finally, we have the folly of mixing statutory and discretionary functions in the priority list. If a function if statutory (i.e. the Council is legally obliged to do it), it is completely irrelevant how it fares in the Council's quirky scoring system - there's simply no point in including it.

If you download the spreadsheet of Priorities, you can filter out the statutory functions and see what's left. These are the (only) things that our Council can cut, and inevitably the big ticket items will be the most tempting.

---

HBM

Council Priorities: where will the axe fall?

about 10 years ago

The Council's priorities. Theirs, not ours.

about 10 years ago

Council's priorities not secret, not confidential, just rubbish

about 10 years ago

Council's priorities aren't secret - they're confidential!

about 10 years ago

Our Council's secret priorities

about 10 years ago

Council's priorities not secret, not confidential, just rubbish

The city council has finally published its league table of services as it lays the ground for further budget cuts and savings.

It has put the controversial Local Plan, in which more than 15,000 new homes are planned for the district, atop the pile, with the cost of running democracy second and development management third.

Culture in Canterbury also features highly with the Marlowe Theatre at five out of 70, the Beaney at seven and the Roman Museum at 21. Meanwhile, rubbish collections are ranked 28 and public toilets are 53.

The lowest scored services were elections, archives and the council's obligations under the Freedom of Information Act.

Executive members and senior officers drew up the table as the council prepares to lose 45% of its income by 2017.

It means certain services and staff will face the axe. Mr Carmichael will go into greater details with officers at the staff conference on November 14. In his letter to council workers, chief executive Colin Carmichael said:

"All this information is being used in our star chambers to think about whether we need to continue to deliver these services and, if we do, whether to do so at the current cost level."

The table was created by rating each service out of 10 against each of the council's 10 pledges on its corporate plan. These have titles such as economy, safety, homes, culture, health and well-being, and young people.

Questions may be asked about those ratings after the Marlowe Theatre received 4/10 for health and well-being and the mayor's office received 3/10 in every single category, including housing, safety and protecting the environment.

The Conservative controlled authority came under fire earlier in the year after it created the list but refused to let anyone see it.

Cllr Alex Perkins, the leader of the opposition Lib Dem group, believes the people of the district should have been allowed to rate the services they use. He said:

"If the council are going to determine funding according to a league table of priorities then they should be local residents' priorities. not council leader John Gilbey's. Why don't the council ask people to give their own scores and actually prioritise what local residents want for a change."

The league table is published in the agenda for the executive meeting at the Guildhall tonight (7th November).

HB Gazette 7th November 2013

HBM

Council Priorities: where will the axe fall?

about 10 years ago

The Council's priorities. Theirs, not ours.

about 10 years ago

Council's priorities not secret, not confidential, just rubbish

about 10 years ago

Council's priorities aren't secret - they're confidential!

about 10 years ago

Our Council's secret priorities

about 10 years ago

Council's priorities aren't secret - they're confidential!

Definition of secret: not known or seen or not meant to be known or seen by others. Definition of confidential: intended to be kept secret.  [Oxford Dictionaries online] 

Who does Cllr Gilbey think he's kidding? 

---

Canterbury City Council is one of the most democratic local authorities in the country, claims leader John Gilbey. He hit out after the Kentish Gazette reported that the council had drawn up a league table of its 71 service areas and ranked them in order of importance but refused to reveal it.

Cllr Gilbey denies the council is guilty of secrecy. He told last Thursday's meeting of the ruling Conservative executive: 

"Some of these documents are kept confidential for many reasons and are looked at very carefully.  I think this is one of the most democratic councils we have, I honestly believe that.  That is why I don't take kindly to people inventing stories."

Last week it emerged that the league table is a key document as the council prepares for the 2014/15 budget. It is facing a cut of 50% in income by 2017 and scored each service according to importance and against the pledges in its corporate plan.

The Marlowe Theatre was fifth in the table and refuse collection came 29th, but none of the other positions are known and some are almost certainly facing the axe.

The council claims it will make the league table public next month when the proposed budget for next year is published.  But Cllr Alex Perkins, leader of the council's opposition Lib  Dem group, is demanding it is released now.  He said:

"The Gazette is absolutely right and deserves praise for bringing the council's appalling secrecy to everyone's attention.  There is absolutely no reasonable justification for the current leader of the council to keep the council budget formation process confidential.  And the Gazette has certainly not invented any of this as John Gilbey has claimed. 

The current leader and a tiny handful of Conservative councillors keep jealous control of all the budget information declaring it 'confidential' and refusing to share it even with their own backbenchers, let alone opposition councillors or the public.  It's completely unacceptable - it's your money after all."

Kingsmead Field campaigner Sian Pettman said:

"There's a worrying disconnect between Cllr Gilbey's perception of democracy and that of many of the district's residents.  His authoritarian style of leadership is ill-suited to the 21st century."

University of Kent Emeritus Professor of moral philosophy Richard Norman added:

"If Cllr Gilbey thinks that this is one of the most democratic councils, he needs to be aware that there are a great many people in Canterbury who don't see it that way."

The council will begin its consultation on the budget in November and will look to approve it in February.

HB Gazette 17th October 2013

View fullsize

HBM

Council Priorities: where will the axe fall?

about 10 years ago

The Council's priorities. Theirs, not ours.

about 10 years ago

Council's priorities not secret, not confidential, just rubbish

about 10 years ago

Council's priorities aren't secret - they're confidential!

about 10 years ago

Our Council's secret priorities

about 10 years ago

Our Council's secret priorities

Oh dear... the Council that represents us and works for us is refusing to tell us what they're doing. It's a kind of nanny-dictator state. 

---

Canterbury City Council has produced a league table of its 71 service areas in order of importance, but is refusing to reveal how it has ranked them. The Gazette has learned that the Marlowe Theatre is fifth in the league table while bin collections - a service delivered to every home in the district is 29th.

Senior officers and councillors spent hours in meetings scoring the service areas according to the council's priorities and rated each one against its 10-pledge corporate plan.

Colin Carmichael, the chief executive of the Conservative-controlled council, says he is determined to keep the league table a secret until the next budget is published later in the year.

"This is the first time that we have actually taken a step back and asked questions about everything that we do. But I can't let people see it because we are only half through."

The league table was compiled as the council assesses the way it will run its services in future. lt is steeling itself for a 50% drop in income by 2017.

Members of the ruling executive injected their political priorities into the rankings which could be used to cut some council services completely as the drive to save money intensifies in the coming years.

Asked why the Marlowe scored so much higher than bin collections, Mr Carmichael said the theatre "ticked several boxes" on the corporate plan pledges.  He said:

"Refuse collection, for example, scores mid-range at 29th on the priority list as it scores highly against only two of the 10 pledges, but it is a top political priority and it is a statutory service. The Marlowe can be seen to fulfil more pledges. It is important economically for us as we didn't want that end of the city to lose out with the building of the Whitefriars shopping area."

Lib Dem group leader Alex Perkins is furious at the decision to keep the league table secret.

"Presumably, they'll only show people when they've made all their decisions.  Here we are yet again with the council taking decisions with public money on the basis of its own political agenda and refusing the public the right to know how it is ranking services. If that's not a sign of how the council is going to hell in a handcart, then I don't know what is.

HB Gazette 10th October 2013

View fullsize

HBM

Council Priorities: where will the axe fall?

about 10 years ago

The Council's priorities. Theirs, not ours.

about 10 years ago

Council's priorities not secret, not confidential, just rubbish

about 10 years ago

Council's priorities aren't secret - they're confidential!

about 10 years ago

Our Council's secret priorities

about 10 years ago

Tories step back over new boundaries

Conservative members of Canterbury City Council have stepped back from making a formal proposal to the Boundary Commission about planned new ward boundaries across the district.

The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is asking for people's views on the subject. Following a six-week public consultation, the commission announced it may recommend the council has 38 councillors in the future, 12 fewer than the current arrangements.

The organisation now needs information from people and groups across the district to help it to produce a new pattern of wards to accommodate the 38 councillors. In drawing up new boundaries, the commission aims for each councillor to represent roughly the same number of voters.

Canterbury council leader John Gilbey said:

"It is essential the setting of new boundaries doesn't lead to accusations of gerrymandering or voter manipulation by the council. After discussions with colleagues, I have taken the view the council itself should step back and let the Boundary Commission decide the new wards based on its own studies and after giving detailed consideration to the opinions of any individual, group and parish council."

On the decision the cut 12 council members, Cllr Gilbey said:

"I am thankful to the Boundary Commission for their considered approach in considering whether the number of councillors should be reduced to 38. This was not a request we made without giving a lot of thought. but we felt it was unfair on local taxpayers to make them pay their hard-earned cash on sustaining 50 councillors at the possible expense of crucial services many cherish."

People have until December 10th to submit their views. Further information on the review and interactive maps of the existing wards can be found at consultation.lgbce.org.uk and www.lgbce.org.uk Residents will have a further chance to have their say after the commission publishes its draft recommendations in March next year.

HB Times 10th October 2013

Local Plan: Responding Online

click

[from the CCC website] The instructions below will help guide you to make comments on-line. If you need more help, then please contact CCC using the contact details at the bottom of the page.

1: Open the Consultation Portal

Go to http://canterbury-consult.objective.co.uk/portal/ between the 20th June and the 30th August 2013. Select ‘Canterbury District Local Plan Preferred Option Consultation 2013’ at the bottom of the page.

2: Register and Log-in

You can read the document without signing-in but as we are unable to accept anonymous comments you will need to register and log-in before submitting comments: Click Login/Register

If you already have a user name and password, login using these. If you do not already have a user name and password you will need to register. The information box below will help you.

If you have made comments on a previous local plan consultation (written or online), you will already have a user name and password. If you need help, please contact us (details below) and we will be able to provide them for you.

3: Make and submit your comments

Once successfully logged in, click ‘Read and comment on document’.

You can then begin to read the draft Local Plan. You can skip straight to the part of the plan you are interested in by using the contents list on the left hand side of the page, or read straight through the document using the ‘next page’ button.

You can comment on each part of the document by clicking the ‘Add Comments’ button: click this button by the paragraph or policy you wish to comment on.

Indicate whether you wish to support or object; add your comments and any supporting documents and press ‘submit’. If your comment is very long, the system may ask you to provide a summary of your comment.

You can then continue to read through the document and make as many comments as you wish.

For assistance on submitting your responses online, please contact Planning Policy:

Telephone: 01227 862 199 or Email: planning.policy@canterbury.gov.uk

Draft Local Plan

click

The Draft Local Plan 2013

Paying for Sturry

click

Here’s what our new housing estates look like [Draft Local Plan 1.57]:

Hillborough Site - 1000 dwellings; Employment floor space 33,000sqm (Altira Park, extended); local shopping only; doctor’s surgery; community facilities. New link to Thanet Way via Altira Park and limited access to Sweechbridge Road; provision of new west-facing on-slip to Thanet Way at the Heart-in-Hand junction; measures to discourage additional traffic using Heart-in-Hand road; contribution towards the provision of Herne relief route and new Sturry crossing. This is alongside the area that the Sainsbury proposal is for (95,000 sq ft plus petrol station). The map shows a primary school on site but the words don’t mention it

Herne Bay Golf Club - 400 dwellings; Employment floor space 1ha of mixed commercial uses; local shopping only (i.e. no supermarket); 8ha of sports and leisure facilities, including cricket, football, hockey, tennis and open space; 1.25ha set-aside for Herne Bay High School but no mention of what it will be for; doctor’s surgery; care home. Contribution (to be agreed) towards the provision of Herne relief route and new Sturry crossing; new footpath/cycle path in conjunction with Strode farm

Strode Farm - 800 dwellings; the words say Employment floor space 15,000sqm; local shopping provision only; community facilities, including new parish hall and local needs housing. Picture suggests commercial/leisure, so conceivably there will be no employment floor space. Provision of new relief route for Herne and contribution (to be agreed) towards the provision of new Sturry crossing; new footpath/cycle path to be provided in conjunction with Hillborough site

Greenhill - 600 dwellings ; community facilities to be determined; recreation and leisure facilities, new allotment provision; contribution towards the provision of new relief route for Herne and new Sturry crossing.

2.23    There’ll be another 190 houses at Bullockstone Road – there’s no other information at all on this. This is particularly worrying given that Bullockstone Road is intended also to be the Herne relief road.

2.40    30% of the new housing on any development of more than seven houses will be affordable housing.

The Herne Bay and Hersden housing estates will pay for the Sturry crossing entirely. Canterbury won’t contribute at all. This is money that will have been earned by Herne Bay for improvements in Herne Bay, but it’s being siphoned off for Sturry.

Retail Strategy

click

"The retail offer of Herne Bay, also dominated by independents, should benefit from regeneration efforts identified in the Herne Bay Area Action Plan, which seeks to improve the retail offer and increase the amount of consumer spending retained in the town." [Draft Local Plan 4.9]

The Herne Bay Area Action Plan (HBAAP) was written over a period of a couple of years, ending in 2009. In 2009 the Council appointed developers to develop the Central Development Area (the area that centres on William Street and Morrisons). The Council and the developers have failed to interest any major retail player in their plans in the years since then. We are nearly four years on and the Central Development Area plan is dead in the water. Despite this, the Council is still clinging to this plan as its only idea to regenerate Herne Bay. This means that our retail centre will continue to struggle whilst Canterbury's is expanded and improved. Our fear is that this will mean that Herne Bay will become a dormitory town, surrounded by housing estates, with no town centre to speak of, and all the consumer spending will be bled out into Canterbury.

"… Where the growth of non-retail uses reduces the availability of choice for customers and creates 'dead frontages', there is a loss of vitality of the centre and attractiveness to customers. This is particularly marked in Herne Bay town centre, where strict application of the Primary Shopping Frontage policy will assist with consolidating the main shopping streets, and ensure there is an accessible central core of shopping for Comparison and choice and which supports the planned regeneration activities. The Herne Bay Area Action Plan includes specific development proposals for the town centre, including significant retail provision." [Draft Local Plan 4.17]

This means that, whatever happens to our town's shops, in some areas owners will not be able to convert a shop into a restaurant or bar. This seems unnecessarily restrictive when the Council is doing nothing to enhance the town's retail offer.

Local shops such as:

Herne Bay Road/ St Johns Road, Swalecliffe;
Sea Street, Herne Bay;
Canterbury Road, Herne Bay;
Reculver Road, Beltinge;

will be protected from "damaging development elsewhere". [Draft Local Plan 4.25]

We think that this has huge implications. The Central Development Area dream has already failed. The Council will oppose the Sainsbury at Altira. We are not going to be allowed to have more "comparison shopping". At the same time, the town's population will increase by thousands. We cannot picture the town's much bigger population all driving into town to shop at Morrison's or the Co-op. the Local Plan will drive even more Herne Bay people to spend their money outside the town.  

"… Herne Bay has an under-performing town centre, due to the limited range of comparison goods retailing and the strength of Canterbury. Once completed, significant comparison retail in the Central Development Area, as well as other allocations in the Herne Bay Area Action Plan, will use and indeed exceed, any available capacity for additional floor space for the foreseeable future." [Draft Local Plan 4.32]

This paragraph claims that, once the Central Development Area has been redeveloped, that will soak up the entire town's demand for stuff like clothes, household goods and bigger purchases. There are two problems with this.

• One, there's no prospect of any large retailer wanting to take space in the Central Development Area.
• Two, the town's population is going to expand by an additional 37 to 47%.

Even if the Central Development Area did happen, we don't see how it can handle Herne Bay's shopping needs. The Council's insistence on flogging this dead horse means that we won't get any new retail space in the town centre at all. This will do nothing to regenerate our town and support our independent tradespeople.

"…For Herne Bay, the retail study identified very modest levels of capacity. Implementation of the foodstore envisaged in the Adopted Masterplan for the Central Development Area would use this remaining capacity, as well as those increases in capacity that result from increasing Herne Bay Town Centre's market share for convenience good expenditure. […] Any out-of-town capacity would be removed by the provision of food retail floor space in the Central Development Area, since Herne Bay would become more self-sufficient in convenience goods terms. Regeneration activities identified in the Area Action Plan are key to ensure additional retail capacity is generated. The Council will resist any out of town development that would threaten implementation of the Area Action Plan and regeneration of the Herne Bay Town Centre." [Draft Local Plan 4.34]

In this paragraph, the word "capacity" means "demand". The Council says that all Herne Bay's future food shopping needs for the new, massively expanded, population will be met by the supermarket planned in the Central Development Area. The trouble is, none of the major supermarket chains wants to open a store in that area. This means that we will not get a local supermarket to meet our food shopping needs.

"…Herne Bay will undergo significant changes over the life of the Local Plan. Regeneration schemes as set out in the Area Action Plan are attracting significant new investment through the implementation of Development Principles Supplementary Planning Documents for:

Central Development Area (Policy HB1);
Beach Street (Policy HB2);
Bus Depot (Policy HB3)."
[Draft Local Plan 4.50]

We know that nothing has happened on the Central Development Area for nearly four years. There is not so much as a whisper of possible investment for the Bus Depot site. Bill Murray has plans – mainly housing – for Beach Street. We think that the Council is being overoptimistic when it says that these areas "are attracting significant new investment." If they really were, the Council would have wanted to tell us all about it.  

"As well as enhancing the retail and cultural offer, status and trading performance of Herne Bay, these will help to retain a higher proportion of residents' expenditure within the town, much of which has been lost to nearby centres of Westwood Cross and Canterbury. There is no significant capacity beyond the floor space on these identified sites and it is imperative that regeneration of the town is not threatened by development of out-of-town floor space." [Draft Local Plan 4.51]

The Council tells us regularly that 70p in every pound leaks out of Herne Bay to be spent elsewhere. Then in the paragraph above it says that all our demand for shops and shopping can be met by the sites already identified in the existing, dormant or failed, plans. We simply do not see how both these statements can be true.  

"Herne Bay is a traditional seaside resort in a desirable position with reasonable transport links, improving beaches and a nostalgia factor that draws people to the town in the summer season. However, during the rest of the year there is insufficient tourist income to maintain a basic level of tourist infrastructure. Planned investment in the sea front will improve the town's tourism prospects. In addition to this, a major events programme has provided new reasons to visit in recent years and there are modest signs of a recovery in business." [Draft Local Plan 6.45]

The Council recognises the problem that the town has little tourist trade in the winter but seems to think that we can overcome this by having a few new benches and some events. We don't think that this provides us with a stable tourist income for October to May. The Local Plan needs to recognise that Herne Bay needs a proper strategy for tourism

Water & Sewage

click

"Known areas at risk of flooding include Blean, Chestfield, the Gorrel Stream, Swalecliffe Brook, Westbrook, Plenty Brook, Stour, Little Stour and Nailbourne river." [Draft Local Plan 7.32]

The Council accepts that we have some known flood areas.

"The infrastructure along the coastal lowlands with respect to foul and surface water drainage is nearing saturation despite improvement works." [Draft Local Plan 7.33]

We have a known sewage management problem and yet the Council is proposing lots of new housing. The Plan says that this problem will need to be dealt with (new treatment works etc.) but it does not say how, nor does it say how it will be paid for.

"On sites that have not been previously developed within the Environment Agency's Zones 2 & 3, no development will be permitted unless an exceptional justification can be demonstrated." [Draft Local Plan 7.41]

We think that both the Greenhill site and the Golf Course site might include areas which are at significant risk of flooding as defined by the Environment Agency. It is very difficult to be sure of this as the Plan only includes cartoon maps rather than proper plans that are to scale, but it does look as if residential housing is being planned for some flood risk areas. In addition, if this is a natural floodplain that is going to be built on, there will be an increased risk of flooding further down the line in central HB if all this housing is built.

The district is already water-stressed in terms of public water supply. There is no proposal to deal with the added demand on water that another 14,000 to 18,000 people will make. [Draft Local Plan 7.59]