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.

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.

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

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

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

Councillors to be cut by a quarter

That's a quarter OF them, not OFF them.

Here's an attack on local democracy that will damage not just Herne Bay, but the whole district.

Reducing the number of councillors from 50 to 38 is not something that the public have been clamouring for - it was initiated by, and is being driven by, CCC's Conservative administration. More accurately, the Executive. Which means Cllr John Gilbey.

The publicly stated reason for this is to save money. Cllr Peter Lee has said that the current 50 councillors cost about £450k a year, so this would potentially save about £112k.

Fewer representatives and less representation to save £112k. And this from the people who frittered £60k on the disastrous Westgate Towers traffic scheme, and peed away over £50k fighting the village green application for the Downs, and regularly give £20k to the Sandwich Open golf beano, and so on, and so on.

We already have one of the highest ratios of residents to councillors, and this reduction in the number of councillors would push it even higher. And that's without taking into account the extra 40,000 or so new residents that would move in to the district to fill all the new homes proposed in the draft Local Plan, which would push the ratio higher still.

When this was discussed in Council, one of the councillors argued that the reduction in numbers would result in an improvement in quality of councillors. I can't believe these people are so naive! This will not be a careful culling exercise where the sub-prime and lacklustre are shown the door, leaving only the shining stars. Come election time, the public will still choose a mixed bag of useful and useless, daft and deft, lions and donkeys. But there will fewer of them.

Each councillor - and this is a part-time job, remember - would have significantly more people to represent. This will inevitably damage our local democracy.

I'm sorry to say this is another example of Cllr Gilbey's anti-democratic - and in my view morally repugnant - instincts. He operates what is amusingly referred to in his job description as the "strong leader" management style, and is much happier with the Executive/cabinet model rather than the more democratic Committee structure we used to have.

Reducing the number of councillors would suit him down to the ground, as it would concentrate power in even fewer hands. 

The consultation runs from 25th June to 6th August. Please  take the time to contact the Boundary Commission and let them know what you think - it would be years, possibly decades, before we would have a chance to undo this.

I don't want fewer councillors, I want better councillors.

---

The independent Local Government Boundary Commission for England is asking local people how many councillors they think should represent Canterbury City Council in the future after proposing chopping 12 from the current structure.

The six-week public consultation is the first part of an electoral review which will also consider changes to the number, names and boundaries of the council’s wards. It follows hot on the heels of a proposed shake-up at Shepway District Council which is suggesting a reduction of 16 councillors.

The commission has considered evidence submitted to it by the council and is now consulting residents on a proposal that would see the authority represented by 38 councillors in future, 12 fewer than the current arrangements.

Max Caller, chair of the commission, said:

“This is your chance to shape your council for the future. We are asking people across Canterbury whether they agree that 38 councillors is the right number to represent their area in the future. We want to know if you think 38 is the right number of councillors to be able to take decisions effectively and whether it’s the right number to represent the interests of all Canterbury’s communities.

If you don’t agree that Canterbury should be represented by 38 councillors, we want you to tell us your alternative and why you think there should be more, or fewer, members of the council in the future. Once we have taken a view on the number of councillors, we will re-draw ward boundaries to accommodate those elected members and we will ask local people to have their say during that process as well.”

Residents can have their say directly at consultation.lgbce.org.uk

kentnews.co.uk 25th Jun 2013

Local Plan: brilliant letter reveals Gilbey's NIMBYism

Council leader is a Nimby himself

As a footnote to a recent letter regarding the Canterbury draft Local Plan, this paper helpfully added "Nimby stands for not in my backyard". Readers can get a fuller understanding of this term by going online to the planning applications section of the councils website, searching for CA//07/01795 and then viewing the "Associated Documents".

This application was for a single, modest-sized bungalow in-filling on a garden in lieu of an existing structure. "Technical consultations" returned to the case officer, Nan Barton, showed no objections raised by the Highways Agency, the Environment Agency, Kent County Council Highways and even Kingston parish council had no issues.

There were, however, four "Written Representations" from local residents against the application. The one from the next door neighbour, council leader John Gilbey, and addressed not to the case officer but rather the department head, makes compelling reading. So Nimby can be seen to actually mean "not a single one in my backyard, but over 40,000 on greenfields in yours is OK by me".

Ray Sanders, Old Dover Road, (South) Canterbury

HB Gazette letter 6th Jun 2013

Local Plan: Gilbey calls for logic not rhetoric

Yes, I laughed too.

Council leader John Gilbey has urged critics of the Local Plan to avoid rhetoric and "be logical and be practical". In a measured speech - frequently interrupted by a lone heckler - he said Canterbury was not alone in the UK in facing the prospect of building on greenfield land.

Cllr John Gilbey

"For the last 20 or 30 years, we have been using up brownfield sites and we don't have any of it left no matter what people tell you. This is a coherent plan, something we are legally obliged to do and something we  intend to look at rationally. We will take the consultation very seriously. Come and talk to us, not with rhetoric, but be logical and be practical."

Cllr Gilbey dismissed a claim by one public speaker who said that 70% of the land earmarked for development is owned by either the city council or KCC, telling the meeting it is all owned by other people or organisations.  He went on:

"You have got to come to us and talk to us and we have to tell you in great detail  about what we can and cannot do."

HB Gazette 6th Jun 2013

Local Plan: debate delayed by Council blunder

A special meeting about the controversial draft Local Plan had to be cancelled this week because of an administrative blunder by the city council.

The executive committee had been due to decide on Monday 20th May whether to put out to public consultation the document, which earmarks almost 16,000 new homes across the district. But an eagle-eyed resident spotted the council had failed to give 28 days' notice of the meeting, with embarrassed bosses forced to put back the debate.

The authority admitted it had incorrectly labelled the decision as "key" on papers sent out before the meeting, making it mandatory to advertise it four weeks in advance. But bosses have now taken advantage of powers they hold to give just five days' notice in cases of urgent business, meaning the meeting will be held next Thursday 30th May.

The error was raised with the council's democratic services department by Jon Linnane, of Old Dover Road, Canterbury, who is a member of the Langton and Nackington Road Residents Association. He said:

"The law is quite clear that a key decision needs 28 days notice and I raised it with them on the basis the decision was of high cost and covered more than one ward. They were aware of this on Tuesday, so why did it take until Friday to pull the draft Local Plan from the agenda?

It is laughable that a council which can't follow simple procedural rules has a chance of over-seeing this huge strategic development. We had leafleted 450 of our residents urging them to go to the meeting to express their anger and frustration at this uncosted, environmentally unfriendly and heritage-damaging plan."

City council leader John Gilbey claims there was no need to publicise the upcoming meeting. He said:

"I don't think this is a key decision because it's consultation - it's not that we're deciding to do this. We're putting it out there for the public to look at and have their say. As there is doubt, we will take the safe route and wait a week. I'm not happy about losing the time but I'm not prepared to take any chances."

HB Gazette 23rd Mar 2013

Local Plan - SNAFU

Canterbury City Council gaffe delays decision on draft Local Plan

A decision on whether a document earmarking almost 16,000 new homes in the Canterbury district can be put out to consultation has been delayed – because of an administrative error. The document proposes 15,600 new homes on sites in Canterbury, Herne Bay and Whitstable before 2031.

Canterbury City Council was today forced to admit it did not advertise the fact its executive committee would be deciding on Monday whether to approve the draft Local Plan for public consultation. When making key decisions, councils are required to give a minimum five days’ public notice – something CCC overlooked in this case.

It means the decision will now not be heard until the end of the month, sparking criticism of the council’s handling of the process. Opposition leader Alex Perkins (Lib Dem) said:

“Let's just hope there is no one waiting in a brewery hoping to enjoy a party in the next few days.” 

City council leader John Gilbey (Con) admits the delay is frustrating, but claims there was no need to publicise the upcoming decision. He said:

“I don’t think this is a key decision because it’s consultation – it’s not that we’re deciding to do this. We’re putting it out there for the public to look at and have their say. If there’s any doubt then we will take the safe route and wait a week. I’m not happy about losing the time but I’m not prepared to take any chances.”

kentonline 17th May 2013

Local Plan: John says...

Critics of the ideas outlined in the new Local Plan should put up or shut up, says council leader John Gilbey.

Last week's publication of draft proposals for the district up to 2031 attracted objections over plans for new homes and radical plans for new roads to ease traffic congestion. Cllr Gilbey said:

"We are trying to improve the district, to make things better, and I don't have any problem with people criticizing what is proposed, but they have got to be able to suggest alternatives.  It's no good just engaging in childish name-calling.  That is not going to get their voices heard; it's not going to influence anything."

HB Gazette 16th May 2013

Local Plan: the vision for 2031

Multimillion-pound plans to build 15,600 homes and transform roads "will support 6,500 new jobs across the district by 2031".

Canterbury City Council's draft Local Plan seeks to change roads in areas including Sturry and south Canterbury and create a new park-and-ride site close to a new A2 junction near Bridge.

The document, which is due to go out for public consultation from June 14 [actually June 20th], earmarks eight major sites of development in Canterbury, Herne Bay, Whitstable, Sturry and Hersden, with house-building and employment land suggestions for additional areas including Howe Barracks, and the current council office site.

The scheme will mean 9,916 new properties in addition to some 4,500 already in the pipeline or expected to be applied for, being built at a rate of some 780 per year, and 96,775 square metres of employment land being created in the next 17 years.

Proposals

Proposals include 4,000 homes, two primary schools, business space, allotments, shops and a medical centre in south Canterbury, which will also benefit from a £20 million junction on the A2 opposite Renville Farm and the relocated and extended park and ride on agricultural land close to the new junction.

Sturry and Broadoak will have a build of 1,000 homes, business units, community facilities and a £12 million bridge over the level crossing, which will be closed, bringing cars out at the park and ride.

CCC chief executive Colin Carmichael said:

"We have had lots of conversations with KCC and highways and in principle they are happy with this. The crossing will be closed and with traffic from Thanet and Herne Bay being diverted this will entirely change the character of Sturry."

Four hundred homes and an extension of the Duncan Downs village green, which will be doubled in size, and allotments are planned along the Thanet Way at Whitstable, another 1,000 homes, doctors surgery and 33,000 square metres of business space at the Altira site at Hillborough, and another 600 homes in Greenhill, near Briary school.

Strode Farm is earmarked for 800 homes, retail, employment and leisure space and a new relief road. The Herne Bay golf club site will get 400 homes, a doctors surgery, care home and leisure facilities. Hersden could get 800 homes, employment space, a community building and games area.

A new retail park is planned for Wincheap, and Howe Barracks could offer some limited development opportunities of up to 400 homes. The Ministry of Defence is understood to be selling the land next year.

CCC is also suggesting an Eastern bypass to run from the new Sturry bridge to the new A2 junction at Bridge. Government funding would be applied for to help with the costs.

Council leader John Gilbey said:

"This is a unique opportunity to get the relief road established even though we can't afford to build it right now."

The aim of the housing plan is to provide at least 30 per cent of the properties as affordable homes for families in the district and to try and keep graduating students who could add to the economy.

It is hoped the homes will also be used by the growing "knowledge" sector in Canterbury, made up of software and IT firms and professionals such as architects and accountants.

The district has seen jobs growth in this area despite the recession of around 36 per cent. Cllr Gilbey said:

"The knowledge sector, such as scientific, research and professional services, is a strong area. Our innovation centre is 95 per cent full and we could do with another one. There are incubation firms for hi-tech industries at the universities and we want to keep these people here."

The draft plan, which will be discussed by an overview committee at CCC on Monday 13th May, will go out for consultation for eight weeks [now 10 weeks]. People will be able to see copies at libraries and online. There may also be roadshows in the district.

It is expected the plan will be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in Summer/Autumn 2014. The independent inspector will make the final decision on whether the plan is viable. For more information, see the plan at http://tinyurl.com/CantLocPlan

HB Times 9th May 2013

Local Plan: Target of 3,000 homes is "over-ambitious"

Almost 3,000 homes, two new schools and a sports hub have been earmarked for Herne Bay in a controversial council document.

The huge developments on four sites in the town were included in the draft Local Plan. It means applications for massive housing estates in Herne, Hillborough, Greenhill and on the former golf club site are almost certain to get the go-ahead.

The document’s release has sparked fears too many homes are being built in Herne Bay, with the town earmarked for half of the district's eight major development sites before 2031.

Environmental groups say the focus is too much on meeting economic targets, rather than considering the environment and people's wellbeing.

Sir Roger Gale MP

MP Sir Roger Gale says he would oppose plans if they were for "little boxes" rather than homes with gardens. He said:

"My overriding concern would be in terms of density of the development, the number of houses being proposed and the transport infrastructure. This is not a local MP saying ‘over my dead body’. It is a question of saying this has got to be right and done in the right order.

I would have been surprised if Herne Bay was not chosen as a large site to meet the district's housing needs. There is a need for housing and, over the last 15 years or so, far too few homes have been built nationally. But I don't want to see the totality of Herne Bay's environment demolished to accommodate the city district's housing needs. The pain has gotta be shared"

Under the plans, 1,000 homes would be built at Hillborough, 300 at Strode Farm, 600 at Greenhill, 400 at Herne Bay Golf Club and 190 on land at Bullockstone Road.

Planning permission for 50 homes on the site at Greenbill has already been submitted by Hollamby Estates, which is also behind plans for Strode Farm. Sir Roger added:

"There is a vast difference between 50 and 600 homes. We need to talk about that and gather soundings of local opinion to reach an acceptable compromise. We need the right kind of housing and that means family homes with gardens. Given the figures before us, I am concerned about the density. The demand is for three to five-bedroom housing. It is a question of making the right kind of provision. It sounds to me like there will be lots of little boxes and if that is so then I would have to oppose it."

Director of the Kent branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England Dr Hilary Newport added:

"The infra-structure constraints are always a concern. We are concerned about the level of housing growth across the board. It is based on over-ambitious growth targets. It does not take into account proper sustainability. This is too much to do with the growth of the economy, rather than the environment and people's well-being."

Canterbury City Council leader John Gilbey has rejected suggestions the authority could opt for fewer homes. He said:

"We have no choice. If we put in for 500 homes a year, it will not get past the first stage of the planning inspection and will be bounced straight back, just wasting money. We need a plan, otherwise it will be a free-for-all for developers and we will lose appeals."

HB Gazette 9th May 2013

Local Plan: the role of Howe Barracks

Plans to build housing on Howe Barracks when it closes are "very limited" according to the city council leader.

Cllr John Gilbey said the authority "would be lucky to get 600 houses" out of the site – despite initial hopes the land could solve some of the city's road and housing problems. Mr Gilbey was speaking at the Abode hotel on Friday when traffic expert Dr Lynn Sloman presented her blueprint for sustainable transport in Canterbury.

Responding to comments by Dr Sloman about the potential for the barracks to become "an extension of Canterbury" after it closes, Mr Gilbey said:

"Any development would be very limited. Canterbury golf course takes up a huge swathe of land on its eastern end. Then there's a huge site of special scientific interest. If we get 600 houses we would be lucky, which is a great shame."

He also said the army planned to retain some of the houses on the site, along with land for shooting and training. But the Ministry of Defence said that while it would be keeping a very small number of homes for soldiers in Ashford and Folkestone, it would be selling the rest of the site when the barracks closes next year.

At the event, which attracted councillors, business-people and traffic campaigners, Dr Sloman said the city's medieval road layout was at odds with 21st century levels of traffic. She said promoting cycling, walking and bus use as an alternative to driving could have a big impact on the city's gridlocked streets, and spoke of the importance of the forthcoming Local Plan. She said:

"There's going to be a lot of changes in Canterbury. It's important that it's easier, more attractive and more natural for people to use sustainable transport."

She suggested measures including building developments near shops and services, and locating big employers next to public transport hubs, to reduce  people's dependence on cars.

To read Dr Sloman's report, which was commissioned by the Canterbury Society, visit transportforqualityoflife.com or canterburysociety.org.uk
 
thisiskent 4th May 2013

Howes that! Army out. Is there a silver lining?

Connected?

11th Feb 2013: the (almost) all-powerful CCC Executive have one of their all-too-common secret meetings - this one about a "strategic" (and cheap) property deal which is in a "key site for improvements to the road network in that area".

5th Mar 2013:​ the MoD announce the closure of Canterbury Howe Barracks. Cllr Gilbey says "I think this is a great opportunity for the city council" - not the City, or District you'll notice, but the council. Cllr Perkins said the site was "key to Canterbury's transport and infrastructure problems".

Hmmm, I wonder.​​

---

Executive Minutes 11-02-2013

160. Confidential business relating to the acquisition of a freehold investment for a property in Canterbury. The Executive Members considered the report of the Director of Resources which set out the details of the potential acquisition of the freehold investment in Canterbury and sought authority to conclude a purchase on the terms reported.

The Council had already negotiated the terms of the acquisition with the vendor. The options were therefore -

(i)         the Council to confirm its approval of the acquisition of the property on the terms set out in the report;

(ii)        the council could decide for whatever reason not to proceed with the purchase.

RECOMMENDED (to Full Council) - That the Property Services Manager, in consultation with the Head of Legal and Democratic Services, be authorised to agree terms for the acquisition of the freehold investment of the premises detailed in the confidential report and to authorise the Head of Legal and Democratic Services to conclude a purchase accordingly.

Reasons for recommendations

The valuation of the property justifies the purchase price as a strategic acquisition.

The acquisition is justified on the grounds that it helps meet one of the Council’s objectives in securing a key site for improvements to the road network in that area.

---

Canterbury Howe Barracks closure 'an opportunity'

The closure of Howe Barracks in the shake-up of the UK's armed forces is an opportunity for Canterbury, the city council has said. Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has confirmed the base will be "disposed of" when personnel are redeployed.

Some 600 people are set to move out when the 5th Battalion Royal Regiment of Scotland moves to Edinburgh in 2014. Members of the council's Conservative and Liberal Democrat groups said it was a "great opportunity".

Leader of the Conservative-run council John Gilbey said:

"Much as we will very much miss the soldiers and all the relationships that we've developed over the years, I think this is a great opportunity for the city council."

​

Liberal Democrat leader Alex Perkins said the site was key to Canterbury's transport and infrastructure problems. He said:​

"There is obvious sadness at the closing of the [Howe] barracks, but we are left with a huge opportunity."

​Mr Perkins called for the co-ordinated development of the land with infrastructure such as schools, medical facilities and public open space, adding:

"What we must avoid is just building housing estates. We have to build a proper community."

Howe Barracks has housed soldiers from the South East since the 19th Century. Other South East bases to be affected are the Folkestone home of Headquarters 2nd (South East) Brigade, which will be vacated when it merges with another brigade, and Pirbright barracks in Surrey, which will become home to the 1st Battalion, The Welsh Guards.​

bbc online 6th Mar 2013

Gilbey crushes colleague, damages democracy

Be pure. Be vigilant. Behave.

This is shocking, whichever way you look at it. Cllr Gilbey fires one of his own, supposedly for speaking out of turn (see news item below).

As Cllr Hirst points out, he is a councillor for both Canterbury City and Kent County, and he decides which hat to wear on the basis of whether the issue is a District level or County level matter. Highways is a County matter, and KCC have set their face against the Westgate trial, so Hirst voted accordingly.

There is also the small point, often overlooked by the current administration at Canterbury, that the overwhelming majority of residents (i.e. voters) are against the trial for the simple reason that it's been a cock-up from the very beginning. Just as many predicted.

​So, Hirst votes in line with his (split) duty, in line with public sentiment, but against Gilbey's will. And gets fired.

This is in stark contrast to the very recent treatment of Cllr Neil Baker, who, in an act of breath-takingly reckless stupidity, drunkenly drove his car half way up a tree. He has been briefly suspended from the Executive (pay cut), will probably return to it in May, and in the meantime put onto another high profile committee. Gilbey showed his customary political sure-footedness by appointing Baker to the Joint Transport Board, which covers highways, road traffic and public transport.

What could possibly explain the very different treatment meted out to the two conservative councillors by their leader? Here's a suggestion...​ after Baker's arrest, Gilbey said:

“Neil has shown great support and done so much so it would be a shame to jump in too quickly and make a rash decision. Neil is someone I regard as a very valuable member of our group. We will do what is necessary, but it will be compassionate and take into account what Neil wants.”​

​Clearly, Baker is one of the favoured and trusted inner circle - "one of us" as they used to say in the Thatcher years.

​On the other hand, Hirst has apparently made it known (unwisely, in my opinion) that he intended to stand against Gilbey in the CCC conservative's leadership election in early May this year. Of course, he can only stand for leadership of the party if he's a member of it, and Gilbey has just stripped him of his membership by removing the whip.

Ahhh... maybe that's it. Maybe not.​

Take your pick. Hirst was fired for correctly observing the distinction between his two councillor roles, and coincidentally reflecting the public's wishes. Or he was fired to take him out of the leadership race.

Is it democracy? No, it's just the way the Canterbury City Council Conservatives do things.​ And it stinks.

---

Conservative ousted after Westgate Towers row

Infighting at Canterbury city council over the divisive Westgate Towers traffic trial has led to one Conservative being ousted from the Tory group.

Cllr David Hirst, who has also been a Kent county councillor for the past 12 years, has been stripped of his whip by city council leader John Gilbey and left as an independent member for Canterbury.

The squabble between them came to a head when Cllr Hirst supported Kent County Council (KCC) in scrapping the ban on cars through the Westgate Towers. Cllr Hirst was told via email on February 13 of the decision to remove him from the local party. In a statement, Cllr Hirst said:

"I will continue to be a Conservative and during this period continue to support and act as a Conservative within the council. I was elected as a Conservative. I will remain a full member of Kent County Council Conservative group and continue to work normally. Being a member of both councils, my obligation on each issue is clearly defined by, in whom the power is vested. At Canterbury City Council the leader has withdrawn the whip – the reason given being that I have clearly supported Kent County Council policies on some relevant issues."

Transport bosses at county hall announced last month that when the one-year-trial ends in March, the road system will revert to the original and traffic will once again pass through the historic gateway to the city.

The scheme has been almost universally derided as causing delays and increasing car fumes. The KCC decision sparked outrage among the city council, which had fought to keep the trial. Cllr Gilbey’s fury was compounded by the fact some of his own councillors had voted against the scheme. Cllr Hirst said:

"The decision to stop the trial was made by the leader of Kent County Council. Highways is a KCC responsibility. As a back bench member I felt that this was correct for Canterbury residents, traders and importantly professional offices. I supported the trial in the first instance but became alarmed by many facets of it in operation and support Mr Carter’s decision to revert to the original layout."

Cllr Hirst is also hinting that he may make his own leadership challenge in the future, adding:

"Some time ago I indicated to members of the Canterbury City Conservative group and the Conservative Association that I would stand, in the May elections of a City Council leader, as a candidate."

The Greenhill and Eddington ward member will also be a Conservative candidate in the next Kent County Council elections.

kentonline 18th Feb 2013

Pier Trust Rebuild Group put their case

Graham Cooper (formerly an HBPT Trustee, currently part of the Rebuild Group) posted this on the "official" Pier Trust Facebook site:

---

Dear All,

Many of you will have no doubt seen the reports in the papers this week. Sadly the rebuild group were not asked for any comment or given the opportunity to repond by the Times. Here is a copy of a letter we sent to the Gazette, when they did ask us for comment.

The volunteers on the rebuild group are shocked to discover that the Trustees had already decided as early as February 2012 that their preferred option was a gradual rebuild and not the pier/marina proposal. Neither we nor the membership have been informed of this, even at the November AGM. We are also very disappointed at the rather sensationalist headlines in last week's HB Times and more recently the rather confused and unclear letter sent to pier trust members this week, both of which state a number of assumptions and figures which are taken out of context and both of which conveniently leave out the projected £18million injection into the local economy that would result from the pier/marina.

We have offered on a number of occasions to respond to any trustees queries in order to clarify what the report is saying. The Trustees have had the report since last November! However before we had a chance to respond to the concerns expressed by the Chair of the Trust, she has informed us that she will not communicate any further with us until she has sent a letter to members and presumably got their feed- back.

We are very concerned that last week's story and the Trust Chair's recent letter to members are giving a very one sided view of things and as a we are effectively unable to communicate our response to members in any other way, in the next week or so we will be publishing an open letter, providing a fuller response to concerns raised.

But for now, it is important to convey a few key messages to members and the public alike. Firstly, the Collier report is intended to offer a workable solution for a rebuilt pier and to demonstrate business viability. It is designed as a conceptual report and certainly not definitive in any particular detail. The report does offer an excellent insight into what is feasible and we should remember that Collier are one of the top three property and destinations experts in the world, that is why we hired them.

Secondly, we are puzzled as to the motive and timing behind these recent stories and the Chair's letter to members and refusal to communicate further with the rebuild team. This all certainly flies in the face of Doreen Stone's comments of the Trust's Facebook page last November:

"the Trust's Board is more stable at this time than it has been for a long time with ex-trustees and current trustees working together on options for the future of the pier. Two weeks ago we had a very friendly and useful meeting with John Gilbey, Leader of Canterbury City Council, who remarked on the unity of our team. There is a great deal of hard work and cooperation going on at present".

As far as we can see the only thing that has changed since last November is the excellent publicity and supporters that the pier/marina idea has attracted, why this should present the Trust with a problem we fail to understand.