Why are they being so quiet?

HDC doesn't want a referendum at any cost

2012-02-01T05:45:00.001Z

In the report to Cabinet it says:

9.3 The Secretary of State has announced that Council Tax increases in excess of 3.5% will have to be supported by a positive referendum result as a replacement to the previous capping regime. This seems unfair to Council’s with low tax levels as they will effectively be caught in a “poverty trap” of very small cash increases thus requiring higher levels of service reductions than in the high taxing Councils. The Leader has therefore written to the Secretary of State proposing that the referenda limit be based on a cash sum equivalent to a percentage of the average District Council level.

Low taxing/Low spending councils will not be caught in a "poverty trap". Low taxing/High spending Councils are caught in a trap. That was the same with capping. Unlike capping HDC has a way out of this situation by holding a referendum and letting the electors decide on whether they want to pay a higher Council Tax rate. This is what this Conservative run Council wants to avoid because they don't think the electors want to pay more!

As is says further on:

9.5 Overview & Scrutiny recommended that the Council should not accept the freeze grant as future referenda limits may prevent the Council ever being able to increase its Tax level to compensate for the freeze.

If the Conservatives want to up the Council Tax to a much higher rate they need to have the balls to hold a referendum. This, of course, will mean they will have to face the electorate which this council doesn't want to do. The Conservatives have already won the next election. Yet they are trying to find ways around putting this issue to a binding referendum.

Council shouldn't forget Pickle's

2012-01-31T20:00:00.001Z

Now HDC, CCC, Police and Fire are looking to increase Council Tax this year and not take the Government Freeze money. What seems to be worrying is these local authorities didn't see this coming. In the Conservative manifesto for the 2010 General election was:

The Conservatives stood for a freezing of Council Tax for 2 years. The Conservatives didn't win and went into coalition with the Liberal Democrats. In their Coalition agreement says:

So a one year Council Tax freeze should have not come as any surprise to any local authority. The Coalition was able to fund the freeze in year 1 for 4 years. The likelihood of the same funding for another Council Tax freeze in year 2 was not there. All pointed to a one off payment as announced by George Osbourne at the Conservative Party conference in September 2011.

With all these promises and announcements why haven't the local authorities planned for taking this money. Local Authorities, in the main, want more power and money because that is their "reason to be". Labour understood that local authorities just take the money and don't change. That is why Labour introduced a ton of regulation that left each local authority looking towards central government for approval rather than their electorate.

Eric Pickles, Communities Secretary, has abandoned much of what Labour has put in place. Instead of capping, the Coalition has introduced referenda. Instead of embracing referenda the local authorities are looking at ways to circumvent this clause. And this is fundamentally why HDC, CCC, Police and the Fire Authority are looking to increase Council Tax and not take the rise.

In contrast to these mainly Conservative run Authorities (The Police have 8 appointed independent members and 9 Councillors (Conservative 6, Liberal Democrat 2 and Labour 1)). Liberal Democrat run Cambridge City Council is not raising Council Tax next year.

Cllr Sian Reid, Lib Dem leader of Cambridge City Council, said: “We are very conscious of the fact that these are extremely difficult times for our residents financially and that was a major consideration in making the decision to freeze our share of the council tax.”

So we end up in the ludicrous situation where the Liberal Democrats adhere to the Coalition policy of a two year freeze and the Conservative run Councils ditch this policy. Well done the Liberal Democrats!

What the local authorities not taken the Freeze Money should consider is Eric Pickles is in charge. He will set the level at which a referendum is needed to increase Council Tax. Any future plans must assume that with a lower inflation rate that this level will come down from 3.5%. The inflation rate was 4.8%. If inflation falls to say 2% then councils could be looking at a threshold for a referendum at 0.7% - 1%.

A Peterborough City Councillor has resigned from his Conservative Group over the Council Tax proposed there. Good for him!

Lets keep it all secret!

2012-01-27T17:00:00.000Z

The Coalition Government has a Transparency Agenda to make itself and local government as transparent as they could be. On the Communities website the following is said:

Local government transparency

Getting council business out in the open will revolutionise local government and enable the Big Society. Transparency is the foundation of accountability. It is also a powerful means of promoting efficiency, without requiring the heavy-handed intervention of an unaccountable bureaucracy.

Local people should be able to hold politicians and public bodies to account over how their council tax is being spent, and decisions made on their behalf. This will work in tandem with decentralisation to foster a new spirit of local enterprise; allowing local institutions to compete, innovate and diversify increasing the accountability of councils to their residents.

So when HDC looks into how the Leisure Services are being run and the finances the deliberations and reports remain secret. Hardly transparent. The public is hardly able to ...hold politicians and public bodies to account... when all this is discussed behind closed doors.

As seems to be the case, this Conservative run Council is picking and choosing when it comes to Conservative Government policies. One like transparency and New Homes Bonus it simply ignores.

Wait until 2013

2012-01-23T10:42:00.000Z

Eric Pickles (Conservative Cabinet Minister in charge of Local Government) in a recent speech said:

This year, it will be tough for many people - facing pay freezes at work, be it in the public or private sector, as well as a rising cost of living.

This is why it's essential in February and March, as town hall budgets are set, that councils sign up to the council tax freeze.

It's practical help every councillor can offer to their ward constituents. A vote against the council tax freeze is a vote for punishing tax-rises. Local taxpayers will remember that decision next time they cast their vote at the ballot box.

Councillors have a moral duty to sign up to keep down the cost of living - anything less is a kick in the teeth to hard-working, decent taxpayers.

With the Government offering money for a Council Tax freeze for next year (2012/13), I thought I would take a look at the authorities which make up our council tax bill and whether they are taking the cash. Councils, Police and Fire will have to hold a referendum on whether Council Tax should rise over certain amounts.

The smallest is St Neots Town Council which has put in a zero increase for this year. The Town Council receives no government grant and therefore will get no money to freeze their Council Tax.

The Cambs Fire Authority is looking to not take the grant and is having a public consultation until 25th January 2012 on this subject. The Fire Authority presents the decision not to accept council tax freeze money as thus:

As the Government grant is a one-off payment and will not feature as part of the ongoing base budget, it will mean that come 2013/14, the fire authority will have two options:

1. Increase the council tax by a significant amount, over and above inflationary pressures. This will be to cover 2012/13 and also an increase for 2013/14.

Or, if the Government caps a rise on council tax and only allows a certain percentage increase:

2. Add the deficit to the budget cuts that CFRS already face (£4.2 million to £6 million) which could contribute to the loss of more jobs and more resources, such as retained fire engines.

Capping has gone. Abolished by the Localism Act. What the Fire Authority is missing is it would have to hold a referendum to increase Council Tax substantially. The Fire Authority is not directly elected. Therefore I feel they should ask the people through a referendum on whether they should increase tax.

The Cambs Police are looking to either increase the Council Tax by 2.5% or take the freeze money and let the newly elected Police Commissioner sort this out once elected in November 2012. Though they are having a consultation this has so far come out for taking the freeze money.

Whilst having this Consultation the Police Authority hasn't geared up for taking the Council Tax freeze. As it says in this linked report:

1.2
Two options are presented: 2012/13 council tax increase at 3.0% (Table A)and 2012/13 council tax increase at 2.5% (Table B). Both sets of figures have been produced on the assumption that the Authority will reject the Government's offered 2012/13 Council Tax Freeze Grant.

Huntingdonshire District Council is looking to add 2.5% to their portion of the Council Tax bill and is set not to accept the freeze money. No consultation on this at all.

As for the County Council, I have no idea on what their stance on this matter is. This is far the largest part of the Council Tax bill. The 2012/13 budget comes up for discussion on 31st January 2012.

So far two authorities are consulting - Police and Fire. The Town Council has decided to freeze. HDC is looking to increase. Whilst the County Council has yet to come forward with a draft budget. It looks as though the local authorities are looking to increase Council Tax and spurn the freeze money.

Yet there is another way! In 2013 the County Council is due up for election. If any authority wishes to increase Council Tax then they can do so via a referendum. The whole county will be having elections so all can combine to put any Council Tax increases to the voters and therefore gain the approval needed at a shared cost.

Let the people have their say on Council Tax increases.

Defending the indefensible

2012-01-10T14:00:00.000Z

Nick Guyatt (NG), Deputy Leader of HDC, was on the Jeremy Sallis (JS) Breakfast show on Monday trying to defend HDC's stance on the New Homes Bonus. Nick didn't do very well. Below is a transcript of what he had to say. The transcript isn't verbatum but is as near as I can get it. What snrednek says about what they say is in red.

If you want to hear the interview on the video below (give it a 5 seconds):

Background.

When the Coalition came to power on of their first initiatives was to introduce the New Homes Bonus. This is to reward communities accepting new developments with a bonus thereby showing communities there is a good financial reason for accepting new developments. A good idea, one rooted in a Government report. The The Government decided on an 80/20 split in favour of the District Council over the County Council. The normal split for Council tax is the other way round. The New Homes Bonus is funded for one year and thereafter Councils will see a reduction in grant to pay for the New Homes Bonus.
HDC firstly hid the New Homes Bonus as the New Homes Reward Grant and now is spinning that it is a reward for itself and not the communities accepting developments.

Anyway here is the transcript of the interview:

Jeremy Sallis: Is St Neots being robbed of cash which should be going towards new developments?

Nick Guyatt: No! Not at all

JS: Why?

NG: Erm because the first thing is Cllr van de Kerkhove has obviously misunderstood what the New Homes Bonus is about. The government has decided that it is going to re-look at the way it is going to finance local government and it wants local government to be more responsive to its desires for economic growth and the Government wants new economic growth to come in via new houses. So what is actually doing is reducing the grant it gives to local authorities erm to cover all the services it gives throughout the whole of their area. And is saying we will reduce your money one end and we will give you some more money if you achieve some of these spending targets.

Cllr van de Kerkhove hasn't misunderstood what the New homes bonus is about. The misunderstanding is HDC's. The Government is looking into how local government is financed. That has nothing really to do with the New Homes Bonus.

There are also no spending targets. These have been taken away by the Coalition. So what Nick was on about in his answer is a load of rubbish.

JS: That is not the impression given by the Government’s own Communities website which suggests this is an incentive as to why communities should accept new homes in their area.

Very true

NG: I can’t speak for the Government.

Well your informing us what the Government is telling you. A get out by Nick which didn't work.

JS: Well your speaking on behalf of the Government when you say they are telling you it is to be spent all across the board as opposed to just the areas where new developments are going up.

This is a Conservative/Liberal Democrat government and this is a Conservative policy.

NG: Let me give you two analogies first of all. If I say to you that I live, I don’t, in a house that pays £1000 tax to the local authorities and you live in house that gives £200 tax does that mean you should receive a fifth, er 20 percent of a year less spending on you because you produce less council tax? No it doesn’t. Council tax is spent across a whole district for the benefit of every member of the communities. If government reduces the money it gives us for spending on all the communities then all the communities have to suffer that cut.

So what has this answer got to do with the New Homes Bonus? I just don't know! The answer must be in the last sentence. What Nick can't seem to accept is the areas accepting new housing should get more money than those areas not accepting new housing.

JS: Love’s farm residents suffering more than most. If they are having houses put up without the facilities being put when there is money there to provide those facilities.

Now Love's Farm has yet to be completed. Much of the housing was built before the New Homes Bonus was introduced. Section 106 agreement monies from the developers to pay for local facilities is where the money comes from to pay for a community centre and play areas.

NG: Can you differentiate please between what there provided by the Council and what is provided by the developer. It is a relatively new development which is happening. I heard people talking about the drains in the road. That because the roads haven’t been brought up by the developer to the standard required by the Council to adopt them.

And it is up to HDC to ensure these things happen.

JS: Residents are telling us about the lack of facilities for young people. Your getting £8000 per property.

NG: We are not getting £8000 per property. We are getting £800,000 of new money in the first year. Thereafter all the money is coming, we are told by the Government, out of the revenue support grant.

How does Nick know that? HDC cannot produce any figures on how the New Homes Bonus is calculated for HDC. So how does Nick know it isn't £8000 a property? The Council is looking to get £1.8 million in NHB for 2012/13. Indeed it is forecast to rise even further in future years.

JS: That will be the tune of?

NG: That will be to the tune of a £1 million next year.

JS: Is any of that money being spent on these new Developments?

I think Jeremy get the wrong end of the stick. Nick is going on about a cut whilst Jeremy thinks it is a gain.

NG: A lot of this money is being spent in St Neots and the new developments.

Where and how much?

JS: How much of that money? The majority or all of the money intended by the new homes bonus.

NG: If your granny lived on Love’s Farm and she fell down the stairs and went to hospital and came back as said she needed a stairlift. And she was eligiable for a grant for a stair lift we would be put in a stairlift in for her. OK. That is the kind of way we spend peoples money.

So no answer on where and how much. Indeed with this answer I have to wonder how Nick got to be Deputy Leader. "That is the kind of way we spend peoples money".

JS: lets go back to the communities website again. This is money coming from the Government. I just want to quote something from this website. Communities themselves will decide how to spend this extra fundingwhether council tax discounts for local residents boosting frontline services like rubbish collections or providing local facilities like swimming pools or Leisure Centres. Of which these people talking to us are calling out for. Have these communities, have these residents been consulted. Have you spoken to them and asked them how they would like these monies spent.

NG: Lets go back the very basics. We have spent a lot of money on St Neots swimming pool and leisure Centre. A lot of money was spent before, in fact, Love’s Farm was even digging the foundations of Love’s Farm. So a lot of the money the council is spent isn’t spent on a whim, erm based on what happened last year we have to plan what we spend going forward.

Yes money has been spent on the Leisure Centre. But this was all planned before the New Homes Bonus was introduced. The New Homes Bonus is there to show communities the benefits of new housing. Now the argument seems to be we have given you a Leisure Centre so we'll take the money back for that.

JS: A very simple question. Have these residents been consulted?

NG: Most of them weren’t here to start with when the decisions were made. They have elected representatives who have an input into how into deciding how the money is spent.

The New Homes Bonus is intended for the communities accepting development. The DCLG wants councils to consult with the communities accepting development on how the money should be spent. HDC will not do this.

This is the problem with the New Homes Bonus. The Government thinks if it tells local authorities what to do then they will do it. Councils have a reputation of taking the money and doing something else. Whether the Leisure Centre has been upgraded is a backwards argument. The money is new and here and HDC is nicking this money to prop up it failing budget.

I can hear the frustration in the voice of Jeremy Sallis as he fails to get answers to many of the questions he asked. If Nick is deputy leader of HDC and this is the muddled thinking behind HDC decisions then you have to wonder whether the Conservatives are best in charge. All we got from Nick is a mixture of muddled arguments and answers that went no-where.

2011-12-23T12:24:00.000Z

I wish you all a very Merry Christmas and a Happy and Prosperous New Year.

Why is the Town council paying for CCTV?

2011-12-19T01:22:00.000Z

I don't understand why the Town Council feels it should contribute to the District Council owned CCTV system. The first item was to find out is where the CCTV cameras in St Neots are located. HDC provided me with the following information.

1. A map:

2. There locations:

Most of these are public spaces. The yellow ones are covering District owned car parks. One covers the skateboard park on the District owned Riverside Park.

Only one of these 13 CCTV cameras covers Town Council land and that is Shady Walk. So why are we paying for these cameras? Basically because the owners (HDC) is running out of money and rather than close the system they get there Town Council to pay up half the costs for St Neots.

There is a case for doing this. The Town Council wants the CCTV system to continue. It helps the keep the Town Centre secure plus catch criminals and anti-social behaviour.

The arguments against the Town Council paying for CCTV are also numerous:

1. These CCTV concentrate only on the Town Centre. So the people of Eynesbury, Eaton Socon and many other parts of St Neots are paying for a service which doesn't cover them.

2. St Neots Town Centre is used by many residents from outside St Neots for shopping and services. Yet these don't pay for this service via their Town/Parish Councils. Only via HDC Council Tax which St Neots residents also pay.

3. Quite a few of these CCTV cameras are on District Council land and cover District Council run Car Parks. The District Council derives an income from these car parks. The Town Council doesn't.

4. HDC owns these cameras and should pay for the whole cost rather than taxing the Council taxpayer via the Town Council.

Whilst I could dream up some more but those arguments will do.

These CCTV cameras are owned and run by HDC. They are there for all residents of HDC and not specific residents who use the Town Centre. They protect HDC assets and yet St Neots is being taxed by stealth to pay for these cameras.

I say as HDC owns these cameras and many of the locations they cover then HDC should pay for them and tax all residents for this privilege. Why should all St Neots Council taxpayers pay extra for these cameras? Only to keep the District Council tax down and the St Neots Council tax higher than it should be!

Does HDC believe the External Auditors are DAFT?

2011-12-15T03:46:00.000Z

In an HDC report on the so far uncompleted annual accounts the following is said:

HDC says the Auditor's report is DAFT!

HDC Accounts not now ready until the New Year!

2011-12-14T08:25:00.000Z

The Corporate Governance Panel seems to have given up on agreeing the annual accounts which were due on 30th September 2011. In a recent report the CGP says:

The Panel was informed of efforts made by the Head of Financial Services’ staff and the Council’s external auditors to complete the process for finalising and publishing the Council’s accounts for 2010/11. Members are hopeful that the work will be finalised early in the New Year.

No date or extra meeting arranged.

In a previous blog I set out an explanation sent to me by Steve Couper of HDC. In it he said:

.... and the current intention is to submit them to the next programmed meeting of the Panel on the 7 December.

Even this date has been missed.

What has been dropped is any target date. Just "early in the New Year". Whatever that really means.

The law is very clear:

(3) Subject to paragraph (4), a larger relevant body must, no later than 30th September in the year immediately following the end of the year to which the statement relates—

(a)consider either by way of a committee or by the members meeting as a whole the statement of accounts;

(b)following that consideration, approve the statement of accounts by a resolution of that committee or meeting;

(c)following approval, ensure that the statement of accounts is signed and dated by the person presiding at the committee or meeting at which that approval was given; and

(d)publish (which must include publication on the body’s website), the statement of accounts together with any certificate, opinion, or report issued, given or made by the auditor under section 9 (general report) of the 1998 Act.

(4) The responsible financial officer must re-certify the presentation of the statement of accounts before the relevant body approves it.

To me this is straight forward. The Corporate Governance Panel cannot delegate these powers away to Council Officers. Yet that is what it seems to have done. HDC does like Breaking the Law.

HDC Planning decides for the cinema!

2011-12-13T17:31:00.001Z

The reason why I'm interested in this application has to do with the District and Town Councils owning the land on which this cinema complex is to be built. I'm not normally interested in general planing applications but follow those for publicly owned land. I also look at the Useless Planning Committee of the Town Council to show how useless it really is.

The Cinema is due up for decision on 19th December 2011. The 20MB planning report is here. The original Development Brief is here.

Reading the planning report I was first struck by one paragraph.

The proposals certainly differ from the Development Brief. The access from Huntingdon Street was supposed to be a minor entrance with the main entrance from Lidl Car Park.

Access from Huntingdon Street.
This is what the Development Brief says:

What is shown is this is a minor access and not the only access. This was to be the service access.

The much bigger arrow shows the main access will be from via the Lidl car park.

The "broad principle" here is the main entrance is from the Lidl car park. I cannot see how having sole vehicular entrance from Huntingdon Street is a "broad principle". The "broad principle" in this context is for a two entrance car park. If the car park entrance had been moved to round the back of Lidl then, I feel, this "broad principle" would be acceptable. No second entrance then the use of the term "broad principle" is very wide indeed. I believe this is totally meaningless.

The provision of a larger scale building (neighbour amenity)

The size of the building is also important. I have never seen how a 7 screen cinema as originally envisaged could fit into the area in the Development Brief.

This is a very strong double headed arrow which gives the impression that HDC Planning takes Neighbour Amenity seriously. Taking Neighbour Amenity into account this was the final drawing on the Development Brief.

Taking into account the Broad Principle of Neighbour Amenity, this means the potential larger scale building is restricted in where it can go. This is clearly set out in the picture above. The Double headed arrows clearly set out the clearance needed to protect Neighbour Amenity.

The first sentence of paragraph 7.5 says: "The Development Brief makes it clear that it is intended to guide development with indicative concepts, rather than provide a prescribed layout."

That statement I can agree with. It is here to give guidance to the developer and land owners (District and Town Councils) on what the site can be used for. The double headed arrow for "protecting neighbour amenity" as the Planners inform the public has been shot to pieces. Even in broad terms the principle of "protecting neighbour amenity" has been trashed.

The cinema is much larger than the "potential larger scale building here" as indicated in the picture above.

Whether or not the development is within the "broad principles" is open to debate. Protecting Neighbour Amenity has been trashed. Protecting Green Open Spaces has also been trashed. HDC, along with the Town Council are owners of this land. If Development Briefs are to mean anything then they must be adhered to by the owners - both Councils - who should tell the developers to adhere to the Development Brief or they won't sell or lease the land.

The planning department and HDC shouldn't get away with their "broad principles" argument. This is being used selectively to cover up the obvious real differences between the Development Plan and the Planning Application. In the drive to get a cinema, at any cost, HDC has gone to the public with a consultation which maps out a scenario. Then, in secret, it has trashed its own Development Plan. As the larger building is larger than the boundaries drawn then HDC should have gone back to the public with an amended Development Plan. That would have been democratic and inclusive. Instead the public has been kept in the dark.

The "Broad Principles" mean:

Important Building Frontage has gone.
A much larger building than mapped out.
More "Open Green Space" taken than the Conservatives "We will protect Open Green Spaces" envisaged.
Neighbour Amenity, as mapped out, trashed.
Lidl car park entrance not being used.

The message from HDC is loud and clear. In Planning terms HDC can do what it likes with its land. The people are of no real concern. St Neots must have a cinema has been the cry. Right from the start I have blogged that a cinema wouldn't fit into the area outlined. Right from the start I have said HDC will have to trash the Development Brief to get this cinema through. HDC owns the land where the cinema is going. Whether as owner or planning authority should have done the decent thing and be honest with the local residents over what is coming. Instead HDC hides behind "broad principles".

In the end this devalues anything said by HDC over Planning. Any "Development Brief" is really not worth the consultation and time wasted in producing this document. Why waste time and effort on "development briefs" when HDc can simply ignore them anyway.

St Neots pays "Stealth Taxes"

2011-12-12T05:15:00.006Z

The Town council budget for 2012/13 brought one point to the fore. That is the amount of money the Town Council is now contributing because of HDC cuts. Lets remember that by ending a service and getting the Town Council to pick up the cost doesn't mean those costs go away for the Council taxpayer. Just they are charged by a different Council. In this case it is the Town Council.

In the 2012/13 budget the cost of HDC cuts are adding to the budget. The 2 public conveniences are costing £34,000. CCTV cameras (Town Council paying half the costs) £22,750. The Town Centre Initiative is costing an extra £10,000. This adds up to £66,750 or £6.17 per Band D Council taxpayer.

I feel I can argue that as SNTC has made provision to operate the toilets at South Street, the £15,000 allocated to run and maintain this facility should also be added to this list. This would make £81,750 a year that SNTC is paying for services formally run by HDC. This is essentially a Conservative Stealth Tax on the St Neots Council Taxpayer of £7.55 per Band D Council taxpayer.

It can be argued the Town Council has taken over these services. Yet when HDC made some of these cuts it was boasting at keeping their rise to 2.5%. In truth the Town Council is taxing us to provide these services. If these services weren't to be run by the Town Council but by the HDC this would save the Band D council taxpayer £7.55 a year.

The problems HDC face has been with them for coming up for a decade. Now, under the cover of coalition cuts, HDC is cutting.

HDC hates the notion of a referendum

2011-12-10T12:06:00.001Z

In an act of mutual self interest HDC group leaders have put forward a motion to the next Council Meeting on 14th December 2011. This calls for low tax rate councils to be allowed higher increases and high taxing councils to be restricted to lower increases. For information the Government has set the ceiling for Council Tax increases at 3.5%. If greater then a referendum is needed.

But this motion is wrong. The Coalition Government has ended capping and allowing each Council to decide the rate of Council Tax itself with a referenda for the electorates. If HDC feels it has a good case to increase their portion of the Council Tax then HDC should put this to the public by way of a referendum.

Instead HDC group leaders, by putting this motion forward, are trying to wriggle out of a referendum by allowing higher increases for low taxing authorities. This is wrong. All authorities should be looking to communicate with there residents over what the Council wants to spend and the tax rate to achieve that spending. If the residents don't want to be taxed so highly then service cuts will happen.

In Cllr Abelwhite's letter to the DCLG he states:

There is an argument that referendums may penalise low taxing and low spending authorities for
previous good financial performance. With referendums and re-billing having significant costs, the
benefits of holding referendums are more attractive for authorities with higher Council Tax as the
percentage increase would generate greater receipts for them and make it easier for them to fund
the additional costs.

But HDC isn't a low taxing/low spending authority. It has for a long time been a low tax/high spend council which spent reserves to prop up the failing budget. It is not for HDC to compare with other District Councils tax levels. It is for HDC to decide its spending levels and tax accordingly.

In Cllr Downes email he states the following:

A 3% increase in Council Tax would net £292,800 in extra tax. The current estimate is £100,000 for carrying out a referendum. But that is a one-off and could be used from reserves to pay for this. But that is the question. Do the HDC political parties actually want to give the residents the right to vote over excessive increases or carry on the same? The answer seems to be carry on the same.

A referendum would give a big headache to the political parties as they would have to campaign for an increase. The likelihood of getting enough people out to campaign for an increase is minimal. Likely there would be a revolt in there own ranks to any increase.

I hope Eric Pickles stays the course and dismisses this way round the rules. What is the point of giving this power to the people when those in charge just want to get around the rules.

Excessive Council Tax rises must mean a referendum. In my view the 3.5% level is itself excessive and should be 2.5% or less. If HDC wants to increase the tax it should go for a big rise and the political parties should campaign for an increase. If they don't want to campaign for an increase then they should cut services and cost accordingly.

A message from a reader

2011-12-08T20:39:00.001Z

I received the following comment via the private messaging facility on the St Neots Community Forums. As such the sender shall remain anonymous. It looks as though it is written by a Town Councillor but I cannot be sure.

I notice in your blog you make much of HDC changing its tune over the South Street toilets. Have you ever considered asking some questions rather than jumping to conclusions. snrednek say: Yes I ask questions all the time. Answers there are few. SNTC have managed to convince HDC to let us reopen and run these toilets because its good for the town to do so. Unlike the old council we dont go public in bitching about HDC, we work in a mature manner to do the right things for the town, and make a good case for things to happen. It would be nice if you could follow this story of yours up with "SNTC do something good for the town, at no extra cost to the tax payer".

Hmm....No extra cost to the Council Taxpayer! That sounds good. But whilst the Council Taxpayers aren't paying any more they could be paying less. And the £55,000 allocated contains within £15,000 for the first year running costs which aren't accounted for in future budgets.

snrednek says: Where I find any Council doing a good job I say so. Each Council has its own website. The Conservatives have their own website. The St Neots Conservatives had their own website and now its gone. The Councils and Political Parties get there views over in the two local newspapers without too many awkward questions. Political Parties can put out leaflets, but rarely do so, during the year. I try and ask the awkward questions. When HDC closed the South Street Toilets one of the reasons given was they were inappropriate for the conservation area. Now they are to be re-opened this means the inappropriate reason was a lie.

In the end these are my views on issues affecting St Neots. If you wish to promote differing views, free resources are out there for you to do so.

What the Coalition Agreement says on Council Tax freezes

2011-12-05T17:57:00.001Z

The Coalition Agreement says:

We will freeze Council Tax in England for at least one year, and seek to freeze it for a further year, in partnership with local authorities.

So all authorities have the same information. So it shouldn't have come as a surprise, as it seems to have done, that the Coalition has announced money for a second year of funding for a freeze. Yet this seems to be the case.

On the other hand how has DCLG worked in partnership to ensure this freeze can go ahead? I cannot find evidence to back up any notion of partnership.

Lets get back to the Councils. The Town Council isn't in receipt of Government grants so is unaffected by the grants cuts. HDC finances are in such bad shape that they need the Council Tax rise to maintain a semblance of providing services.

HDC was happy to throw £millions at keeping services going. These reserves are running out. HDC has still to decide whether it is a it is a low tax/low spending authority or not. The rhetoric seems to be HDC wants a higher Council Tax rate, but is trying to find ways around the referendum needed to increase their portion of the Council Tax. Yet if services are to be maintained there needs to be a substantial Council Tax rise.

CCC has yet to decide whether they

The District Councillors need to get it into their heads there needs to be cuts.

HDC still racing to get its accounts approved

2011-12-05T11:24:00.000Z

The accounts must be approved by 30th September of each year. This year HDC has missed the deadline and has done so by a wide margin. The accounts and annexes are down as "To Follow".

In the report from the Auditors to the Council the following is said about the delay:

We therefore propose to include a report be exception following our vfm conclusion for 2010/11 to confirm that we have identified significant weaknesses in the Council’s arrangements for ensuring reliable and timely financial reporting that meets the needs of internal users, stakeholders and local people, as a result of the delay.

The report goes into detail:

However, the authority was not able to provide us with a comprehensive set of supporting working papers at the start of our audit. There are a number of reasons for this including:

The Council’s capital accountant was absent on the grounds of ill health, and other finance staff had difficulty interpreting and understanding elements of capital accounting and capital financing information.
The Council underestimated the level of resource required to do the IFRS restatements and produce the 2010/11 financial statements and the restated 2009/10 and 2008/09 information.
As new auditors it was always expected that we would not have the same degree of knowledge of the specific circumstances of the Council as an incumbent, however, the Council underestimated the number of questions and supporting information that we would require to support the accounts.

This has had a knock on effect of our audit, resulting in working papers that did not agree to the accounts and significant gaps in the information provided to us, predominately in relation to capital accounting.
During the audit the finance team has on occasion, struggled to provide sufficient relevant and reliable information to us in respect of the Council’s leases, capital accounting and other elements of the accounts.

Yet the Capital accountant was one of those being made redundant!

The report still goes on:

As of 28 November 2011 we are still waiting on information from the Council to enable us to complete our audit. We will provide a full verbal update to the Panel when we meet with you on 7 December 2011.

An interesting bit:

Leisure Centres

Our review of leases identified that the five leisure centres included on the Council’s balance sheet are held under management agreements. These agreements indicate that the assets are jointly controlled assets between the Council and Cambridgeshire County Council. The Council has prepared an assessment of the proportion of the assets attributable to the County Council based on capital investment in the assets since they were built. At the date of writing this report management were still in the process of making the necessary adjustments to the financial statements.

Initial calculations expect this to impact the cost of the assets on the balance sheet by decreasing their value by approximately £1.5 million - £2 million (£19.8 million total assets).

From the Auditors report I can surmise HDC were unprepared for the new IFRS accounting standards. Even though the Capital Accountant was ill and was subsequently made redundant this was a problem that HDC management should have managed. If there are not the right people to do the job then find someone who can. It is not as though the auditors just turned up unexpectedly. In the report the auditors state:

Following discussions with management following our appointment as external auditors we performed early audit work in February and March 2011 on the restatement of the prior year comparative information. At that time the evidence available to support the Council’s work to date on the IFRS conversion was not sufficient to enable us to carry out detailed audit procedures. We provided an assessment focussing on the key areas of the conversion and discussed this with Management in April 2011 who continued to work on the transition process.

So the Council's Management knew back in April 2011 there was trouble, though had an idea in February/March 2011. Yet as far as I can see the Management did little to resolve this situation so the accounts could be presented by the deadline of 30th September 2011.

Which one is lying? Cllr Abelwhite or The Hunts Post?

2011-11-30T19:43:00.000Z

Further to a recent blog about Cllr Abelwhite and his 24% claim about the pension contributions to the local government pension scheme, I have received further information from the CAB which casts more doubt on the 24% claim reported in the Hunts Post as Cllr Abelwhite as saying the following:

"For example, 24 per cent of the money we give to the Citizens Advice Bureau goes into the local government pension scheme."

Hunts CAB says:

‘We have an employer’s contribution rate of 20.1% this financial year, and 22.1% for the financial year 2012-13 which will be the final year of the current SLA. The employer’s contribution rate only applies to the salaries of the three remaining active members of the scheme and we stopped admitting new members some years ago. This current year, the pension contributions represent 4.4 % of the budget allocated to us by HDC.’

Either the Hunts Post is correct about what Cllr Abelwhite said or Cllr Abelwhite didn't say anything about the 24% and the Hunts Post is wrong. Either way when people look up why the CAB has had its grant cut then the reason will be 24% of the grant goes on pensions. This is rubbish.

Town Council council tax rate stays the same! Why?

2011-11-30T14:42:00.001Z

The Conservatives have announced the Town Council tax rate will stay the same at £84.23 for a Band D property. This will be the third year running the Council Tax remains the same. So how do they do that when the new Conservative administration is spending money on HDC owned CCTV and South Street toilets?

The answer is the Liberal Democrats left the Town Councils finances in fine fettle. The Conservatives were welcomed with a £186,575 surplus on the 2010/11 budget when they took power. This leaves total reserves standing at £905,547 at the start of this financial year.

The Conservatives have had to face some cost increases:

The Town Council propaganda rag - Priorities - is costing an extra £10,534.
The money from HDC for the Customer Service Centre has gone - £7,084.
Museum running costs up by £4,000. Though they get this back in rent - up by £4,000.
Jubilee Hall is a new cost at £6,500. Though this is returned by rent increase to £6,500.
CCTV is a new cost at £22,750.
Grants has increased by £5,015.
Town Promotion salary £28,011.
QE2 celebration £20,000 - (a one off)

A total increase of £82,820.

With other savings and cuts this means the net expenditure for the Town Council section of the budget 2012/13 is £756,379. This is up from the 2011/12 budget (£705,373) by £53,988.

The reason why this increase isn't reflected in the Town is because a couple of costs have really gone down.

Eatons Community Centre down by £16,703.
Priory Centre costs are down saving £47,731

A total of £64,434 saved in the budget. This means the net expenditure before the capital cost is £820,957 against the 2011/12 budget of £831,406. This is a reduction of £10,449.

The problem is with the capital costs. These have been changed so the previous way of accounting for the in Earmarked Reserves (£398,134) which has been closed and the money transferred to the new Capital Projects account.

Capital Projects in 2011/12 were allocated £56,478 (This figure was £58,478 for last year. A £2,000 difference) For 2012/13 the allocation has gone up to £573,461. This is an increase of £514,983 (not £474,893 quoted in the draft budget). What has to be taken into account is the transferred money -£398,134. This makes an increase total of £116,849.

This is a big increase (though in reviews of previous Town Council budgets I reckoned the amount should be £100,000). £95,024 of this money is coming from General Reserves. Not usually good.

The precept for this year is £889,884. The precept for next year is £901,261. An extra £11,377. The money from extra housing is £11,371.

In the new capital budget there is money flying around everywhere.

Extra money is going into:

Allotment land - £38000
New cemetery land - £20000
Eatons Capital project - £10000
Loves Farm - £30000
Play areas - £10000
Signs - £2000
Toilets - £55000 (£40,000 capital + 1 year running costs £15,000)
Priory Centre - £40000
A total of £205,000

This was helped by:

Projects stopped - £29673

This leaves a net figure of an extra £175,327.

Of which £95,024 is coming from General reserves. The use of General reserves is a real no-no if this is used to reduce spending. The forecast is a budget surplus for 2011/12 of £94,540. If this is attained or exceeded then the funding isn't bad for next year.

The trouble is the underlying increase in capital spending. For instance if £40,000 for the toilets, £40,000 for the Priory Centre and £30,000 for Love's Farms are all one-offs and this money is taken from General Reserves the underlying increase is within reason.

A couple of problems:

1. The £15,000 a year to run the South Street Toilets isn't included in projections.
2. The Hall Hire income on Eatons Community Centre doesn't sit right.

The projected income for 2011/12 is £18,212. Next year there is roughly a £17k. Unless there is a good reason for this increase then adding £17k is wrong. By 2013/14 this rises by another £13k. This is a total increase of £30k over the projected figure for 2011/12.

The Town council could be out by £45,000 of extra expenditure in future years.

The Council Tax base has been announced. This now stands at 10,820 for next year. This is an increase of 120 over the 10,700 used in the calculations for the Council Tax. 120 x £84.23 = £10,170 in extra income not allowed for in the budget. If the Town Council just agreed the budget this would have made the Council Tax fall by 93 pence. (£901,261 / 10820 = £83.30). As the Town Council decided the amount of tax should be £84.23, the Town Council will see this money.

Overall this is a good first budget by the Conservatives. A few niggles on my part. Putting money aside for future projects, whilst they have the money, is a good thing for the Council. What helped most was the £186,575 surplus from the previous year when the Liberal Democrats were in power. For the future the Conservatives need to keep the budget balanced and tax & spend accordingly. Relying on reserves to keep the Town Council from raising Council Tax is a fool's errand.

Where is the Conservative fund for Eynesbury Manor?

2011-11-30T03:24:00.000Z

After the Conservatives annexed the the Town Ward of Eynesbury Hardwicke Parish (part of Parklands and most of Eynesbury Manor) to St Neots, the Conservatives went on the rampage blaming the Liberal Democrats. Yet this blog worked out the Conservatives pushed this annexation through.

Before the 2010 General Election the Conservatives put out a leaflet. In the last paragraph it says:

So under the new Conservative run Town Council this has all been forgotten. As the Conservatives said: "as you were expected to pay considerably more the money should be spent on Eynesbury."

Having said the above what are the Conservatives doing now they are in power? Nothing of course. No new money set aside specifically for the area. So none of the extra money coming in from the annexed area is specifically going to this area. In 2010/11Accounts, the Town Council receives £16,121 from its share of the abolition of Eynesbury Hardwicke PC. Was this money put aside? No. Did the incoming Conservatives put this money aside? No!

At the 2010 elections the Conservatives went to town on this subject. Once in power the Conservatives are silent on this subject. They have forgotten what they said.

HDC still does not understand the New Homes Bonus

2011-11-29T07:49:00.000Z

In the draft budget for 2012/13, the Conservative run Huntingdonshire District Council still doesn't get the reason for the New Homes Bonus (NHB). In the draft budget it says:

Members have expressed interest in the use of the Bonus. It is not ring-fenced for specific communities but there is ample evidence within this report that it will be used to enable the protection of services and for in investment in key growth areas.

The Government that pays the New Homes Bonus informs the public that HDC should be consulting with the communities which are accepting development on how the money should be spent. Yet HDC simply ignore this and carry on its merry way.

An Example:
Conservative controlled Wychavon District Council has been able to do a consultation and have a written policy toward their New Homes Bonus money. They even have loads of Parish Councils.

In the Wychavon policy it says:

(ii) Development in towns and villages
(a) Development within a Town or Parish area
Where development takes place in Droitwich Spa, Evesham, Pershore or the rural areas of the district, the Council will normally award up to 40% of the NHB accruing to be reinvested in the local community. This reward will not be ringfenced to any particular use but it must deliver ‘added value’ to the local community and area and where possible, benefit those communities close to any new development.
(b) Significant developments adjacent to towns
It is likely that some of the urban extensions to the three towns, which may be constructed over the next few years, may be delivered outside the administrative boundary of the town whilst clearly serving the growth of the urban area and reliant of amenities and services in the urban area.
The Council may determine that the NHB payments to be reinvested in local communities, in circumstances where it is serving urban growth, is split between the town and the rural parish(es) accommodating the urban growth. Of the allocation in (a) above, the split will normally be 80% to the town and 20% to the Parish.

In Wychavon up to 40% of New Homes Bonus money can go to the local community accepting this development. Not exactly what I would like to see. But it does go some way to meeting the needs of the Towns accepting developments.

The Wychavon NHB policy goes on:

9. Procedure for payment
1. The Council’s Executive Board will determine and authorise the release of any payments under the NHB scheme. The Council will publish on its website an annual statement of the NHB monies attributable to each town or parish area. Payments will generally be held until there is a commitment to spend the monies.

In a recent FOI request I was informed HDC cannot work out the New Homes Bonus attributable to St Neots. Yet Conservative run Wychavon will be doing so!

Before I get too carried away, there are difference between Wychavon DC and Huntingdonshire DC. These are:

Population: W=117,000 / H=167,300
Area: W=256.2 sq mi / H=352.3 sq mi
Density: W=456.7/sq mi / H=474.9/sq mi
Council Tax proposed for 2012/13: W= £108.44 (Zero increase) H=£127.17 (2.5% increase)

Even with a population density slightly lower, Conservative run Wychavon DC has a policy on New Homes Bonus and a lower Council Tax rate which isn't rising. In Huntingdonshire, we have a Conservative run Council with no real policy on New Homes Bonus, apart from denying its intended use, and is looking to put up the Council Tax.

HDC changes tune of South Street Toilets

2011-11-27T16:25:00.000Z

Conservative run Town Council has put £55,000 for the refurbishment of South Street Public Toilets closed by HDC because they wanted to knock them down and build flats. The reasons given were:

3. TOILETS AT SOUTH STREET, ST NEOTS

3.1 It is generally acknowledged that, of the existing stock of town centre public conveniences, the facilities at South Street, St Neots, are the least effective both in terms of the quality of provision and their fit with adjoining land uses. Their location is shown on the plan at Annex A.

3.2 In recent years, property in the vicinity of the public convenience has been or is being converted to residential use and the quality of the buildings upgraded. The public convenience now is detracting from the amenity of the area.

This has been a theme of HDC. In 2006 the South Street Toilets were described as thus:

"Furthermore the setting is considered inappropriate in the context of adjacent redevelopment and the demolition of the site is recommended."

"The Panel were apprised of the poor condition of the public conveniences and their inappropriate location in a conservation area."

HDC believes these toilets are inappropriate for South Street and inappropriate for a Conservation Area. Yet HDC is looking to allow SNTC to refurbish and re-open these toilets even though HDC believes Public Toilets are inappropriate in this area.

Which is it HDC? Does HDC believe these public toilets are inappropriate or are they now appropriate because the idea of demolishing them and building flats didn't even take off?

The trouble is I can't believe reasons HDC give for decisions because they change according to the decision HDC wants. If these toilets are inappropriate then do something else with them rather than allowing an inappropriate use!

Conservative run HDC doesn't take Osborne's money

2011-11-24T14:05:00.000Z

In the initial draft budget the Conservative run HDC is NOT taking the money made available for another year of freezing Council Tax. Events may change, but as first pointed out on this blog, the Osborne money to freeze the Council Tax for a year will mean cuts in future years. Something the Conservatives don't seem to want to do.

This very Conservative run Council seems to be saying NO to George Osborne.

Are our District Councillors attending meetings?

2011-11-18T08:50:00.000Z

I took a quick look at the attendance records of St Neots District Councillors at meetings from the HDC website and the results are:

1st. Andrew Hansard: 100%

2nd. Barry Chapman: 86%

3rd. Paula Longford: 75%

4th. Roger Harrison: 75%

5th. Steve van de Kerkhove: 73%

6th. Rodney Farrer: 71%

7th. David Harty: 71%

8th. Andrew Jennings: 67%

and last of all lagging behind the rest is.....

9th. Paul Ursell: 50%

Should we take what Cllr Abelwhite says on face value?

2011-11-16T16:33:00.000Z

In a recent article in the Hunts Post, Cllr Abelwhite, Council Leader, informs readers how in his reign HDC is saving money.

This is one of his musings:

“More and more over the years we have seen the council funding employment rather than volunteers. For example, 24 per cent of the money we give to the Citizens Advice Bureau goes into the local government pension scheme. So we need the voluntary organisations to make the efficiency savings that they can to save us money over the longer term.”

Hmm... Yes HDC is funding employees rather than volunteers. Yes they have a pension pot. But does his figures add up? Well no they don't. The accounts for Huntingdonshire Citizens Advice Bureau are here. They show that HDC granted HCAB £183,500. 24% of £183,250 = £43,980.

The total pension costs shown is £11,237 or 6% of the £183,250 granted by HDC. That is £32,743 short of the total. HDC;s current rate of pension contributions is at 20.4% for employees in the pension scheme. Even at that high rate £11,237 represents £55,083 pensionable earnings of £119,537 in HCAB wages. So not all employees are members of the pensions scheme.

If all wages and salaries are in the local government pension scheme (and they aren't) then the employees contribution would have to be 17.9%. Now these employees aren't getting large salaries so they can't pay this much in pension contributions. On the LGPS website the contributions are given and they average out at 6%.

So the employee contributions at 6% would be roughly £11,237.

So adding together what the employees pay and HCAB pays this adds up to £22,474. This is still £21,416 short of the £43,980 that Cllr Abelwhite says is the 24%.

The 24% figure is wrong. 24% doesn't go to the LGPS from HCAB even if employee contributions added in.

And another:
“As part of that process we have reviewed CCTV and can keep some of that.”
The Hunts Post goes onto explain...
"HDC is hoping to attract funding from town councils in Huntingdonshire where the coverage is concentrated,"
Yes all this means is the Town Council taxpayer gets charged for this instead of HDC. If HDC is going down the differential charging route then Town taxpayers should see a discount on rubbish collection because it is cost effective to deliver this service in a Town and very cost ineffective to deliver this service in rural locations. Will rural dwellers be paying more for their bins to be collected? No they won't!

And the Conservative cheerleader that is the Hunts Post also does its bit for misinformation with this:

A year ago residents were facing HDC having to cut more than 120 jobs, ditch its CCTV surveillance scheme, double parking charges and cut the opening hours of its call centre and leisure centres, and a reduction from £485,000 a year to just £85,000 in funding for charities, as it tried to deal with the large hole left in its budget by the coalition Government’s cuts.

Yet many of these cuts were envisioned before the Coalition cuts came in. HDC had a massive deficit problem and was running out of reserves. This is main reason behind the cuts. Yes, the Coalition added to this but HDC and their cheerleader the Hunts Post hide behind the false premise.

Also in the article is the following:
"And while the Council Tax precept was frozen in April, residents faced the prospect that it could rise by nearly 20 per cent in April 2012."
Only if there was a referendum!

The answer to the original question: "Should we take what Cllr Abelwhite says on face value?", the answer is NO. The 24% figure is wildly wrong and gives a totally false impression of where the funding goes.

What Cllr Abelwhite should be talking about is how the New Homes Bonus nicked from St Neots et al is currently propping up a failing budget. And the Hunts Post should be looking into the finances and why cuts are necessary rather than doing puff pieces as a cheerleader. It doesn't even look into why HDC's own accounts are late.

Lets Tax and Spend

2011-11-15T10:49:00.000Z

Now I'm a tax and spend person. I believe that Government at all levels should tax and spend. What I mean by tax and spend is Government should determine what services it needs and wants to provide and at what service level and then tax accordingly. If our politicians don't like the level of tax then they go back to what services they want to provide. I know Government finances are more complicated than this simple principle, yet if Government and Council follow this simple principle we get the price of services and can decide what we want to be taxed.

Council Tax is the local tax for local services. In Cambridgeshire most of the money goes to the County Council, with some going to District and some going to the Town and Parish Councils.

Use of reserves is one of the biggest problems that distorts the Council Tax rates. Because it gives the impression that services are being paid for out of Council Tax and by using reserves to keep Council Tax down this gives a false impression of services costing less than they actually do.

The problem is compounded because of inflation.

Below is a simple example of using reserves to keep the cost of council tax down. In this example a £1,000,000 of reserves are used with a 10% increase in the net cost of services and Council Tax is kept at zero increase.

In Year 6 reserves have run out and the options are to either raise Council Tax by 50% or cut £500,000 from the net cost of services.

In the next example the amount of increase is 2.5% in the net cost of services and 2.5% increase in the Council Tax. This example assumes no increase in Government Grant or charges the Council can make which makes up the £14,000,000 difference between the Net service cost and Tax.

So having spent £3,588,600 in reserves, in Year 6 there is a deficit of £1,839,715. To make this up Council tax would have to rise by 30% in Year 6 to make up this deficit.

In the next example the Net Cost of Services rises by 5% and the Council Tax increases by 2.5%. As in the previous example Government grants and service charges have a zero increase.

The deficit in Year 6 is £4,737,182. This added to the Council Tax would mean a 69.7% rise on top of the 2.5% annual rise. Either the Council Tax goes up by 69.7% or the Net service cost has to be cut £4,737,182.

Over just 4 years the amount of Reserves spent is £9,129,655.

I know there are many other factors in the actual calculations with Government grants which do go up but are currently reducing. I know charges haven't been included, but charging for services is a double edged sword as pushing up charges can mean a loss of revenue as people may not be willing to pay higher charges. But this isn't the point of these examples. What I'm trying to show is using reserves to keep Council Tax down by using reserves is false and is wrong. The cost of services are not reflected in the amount of Council Tax increases and there comes a time when either Council Tax has to rise or services are cut and the same amount of Council Tax has to be paid.

Both the Town Council and the District Council have kept Council Tax down by using reserves. Under the Liberal Democrats, the Town Council eventually ran out of reserves and had to cut projects to maintain a low Council Tax rise. The same goes for HDC which had the problem of using reserves to keep services going in its "socialist utopia". The deficit caused by low tax/high services is being slowly dealt with by cuts. What HDC needed to decide is whether it wants to be a high tax/high services council or a low tax/low services council. I feel they have decided to be neither.

In the coming budget round it will be interesting to see what the Town and District Councils will do with the spending pressures they are accumulating. The capping regime has gone and authorities can put up their portions that make up the Council Tax by whatever they like so long as it is approved by a referendum. The Zero Council Tax bribe by George Osbourne is also going to cause problems as this too makes a problem for the future as I does exactly what using reserves does. It will give a false impression on what the Council Tax rate should be. Also it HDC get £200,000 in extra grant this year without this money next year it will mean a greater rise in Council Tax or more cuts.

Olympic flame not coming to St Neots!

2011-11-10T06:50:00.002Z

Oh well! The Olympic Flame is not coming to St Neots and Huntingdon and St Ives are hosting events. Our Town Councillors have faux outrage at this "snub" to St Neots. Here something from the usual rent-a-quote:

Bob Farrer told The Hunts Post: “I am disgusted. We are supposed to be the biggest town after Peterborough and Cambridge. You would think we’d have been included.”

But this "snub" may not have happened. Ignored as usual at the 2009 and 2010 Annual Town Meetings I asked what St Neots Town Council was going to do for the Olympics in 2012 and what financial provision was going to be made. The answer was nothing. Not a jot for the Olympics.

That was the Liberal Democrats with Gordon Thorpe answering for the Town Council. The Conservatives, in opposition, were there.

I am not surprised that St Neots had been "snubbed". If the Town Council wanted the flame to come through St Neots it needed to do events celebrating the Olympics and inform the organising committee. Simples!

It is not as though the Olympics are being held in secret or 2012 is a surprise. Instead of all the faux outrage the Town Council should plan ahead.

Jubilee Hall going bust?

2011-11-09T05:05:00.000Z

The 2010/11 accounts make grim reading for Jubilee Hall. With flooding closing the hall for sometime, the parlous state of its finances means it will have to either rely on a Town Council subsidy to continue or go bust.

The Hall made a surplus of £2,426 for the year. Of which £3,197 came from the Grants made by the Town Council. Without those grants the Hall would be close to bust.

The rent has risen from £1,197 to £6,500 for this current year, which according to the accounts they are not paying as their reserves are close to exhaustion. Even if the Town Council supports Jubilee Hall by doing a museum whereby the rent is charged and a grant is made for the same amount this doesn't undo the fundamentals that the Hall is nearly bust.

So what of the future. In 2009/10 the Hall made a loss of £4,876. Though £1,196 was for rent owed to the Town Council and another £1,196 for previous year. The fundamentals of this loss haven't changed. Unless the Town Council actually starts supporting this Hall financially there would be no alternative for the Town Council to take over this Hall.

But this isn't necessarily good as the money to run this Hall will therefore be charged to the Town Council.

This is not a good place to be in. Either option will cost the Town Council (and therefore the Council Taxpayer) money. If the Town Council does takeover this Hall it will have to pay out. If the Town Council
doesn't pay up then it will have to be ready to take this hall over.

The fate of this Hall is in the Town Councils hands. The Hall isn't paying the new rent and the Town Council hasn't decided on whether to pay the hall the equivalent of the rent.

Not an easy decision to take and my instincts are to take this building into the Town Council and run it with a Management Committee, instead of a charity, managing the bookings and day to day operations with the Town Council taking responsibility for the building, decoration, heating equipment and electricals. Or the Town Council could manage the Hall itself.

Town Council Grant to Magpas

2011-11-08T16:58:00.000Z

The Conservative run Town Council made a Grant to MAGPAS for £2000. Nothing wrong in that I would have thought.

The Grant Aid policy states:

GRANT AID TO LOCAL ORGANISATIONS
St Neots Town Council grants are made for the benefit of people and projects local to St Neots. Application will be considered for financial assistance towards a specific project or activity from community associations, cultural, educational, sporting and charitable organisations, which are non-commercial and whose membership and field of activity is centred in the area covered by St Neots Town Council. The Council is prevented by statute from giving financial assistance to individuals. Funds are allocated annually to provide grants to cultural, sporting and community groups serving St Neots (including Eaton Ford, Eaton Socon and Eynesbury).

It can be argued that MAGPAS is of "benefit of people local to St Neots", but I cannot argue the membership and field of activity us centred in the area covered by St Neots Town Council.

But there you go. This grant has been paid out to a worthy organisation which roughly meets the Town Council criteria.

What am I having a go at then?

MAGPAS didn't filed its accounts for 2010 on time. MAGPAS had 10 months to get its accounts in and has failed to meet this deadline. When it did it showed a massive loss of £313,589' I know the Town Council has a history of not getting its charity accounts in on time and the Conservatives put in the Town Councils accounts late. MAGPAS gets much publicity for its activities and fundraising efforts. It also runs a lottery and had a £250,000 donation campaign. MAGPAS has a duty to get its accounts in on time. The reason it didn't is because it is nearly bust.

With the "racist play group" incident the Conservatives, in opposition, set the bar higher. The Conservatives came up with the ruse that the Liberal Democrats should have known the Playgroup was racist before it gave it funds. Therefore should the Conservatives have known MAGPAS was going to put its accounts in late? The simple answer is YES!

The Conservatives set the bar higher in they expect the Town Council to foresee what might happen and act accordingly.

As I said during the "racist playgroup incident":

"Now I'm not having a go at the Town Council for making the grant. The Town Council has to trust that people will spend the money wisely and for why it was granted. Otherwise it is a new set of red tape which will cost the Council Taxpayer yet more."

It is easy to take pot shots at those in power. The Conservatives were very opportunistic with the "Racist Play Group" incident. By doing so they set the bar higher for themselves in that anyone in receipt of a grant who doesn't comply with the law will reflect badly on the Town Council. MAGPAS hasn't complied with the law.

Today is the day I would have to resign....

2011-11-07T14:21:00.000Z

....if I was elected at the local elections as a Councillor to the District and/or the Town Council. Why? Because having been elected I wouldn't have turned up to any meetings. Therefore I would have to resign or forfeit my seat(s). Why won't I turn up to meetings? Because there are other things I want to do and the money for being a Councillor is pretty abysmal.

The public wants our Councillors to take informed decisions but without much remuneration. I could understand these low rates of pay if people were falling over themselves to stand for election. They are not.

At the last elections many Parish Councils failed to have an election because many didn't even have enough candidates. This also goes on at District. There maybe 3 candidates on the ballot paper but probably only one wants to stand and maybe even win.

This is the problem. The lack of candidates means many people how stand don't want to win. These are known as "paper candidates". This means there is an illusion of how many people actually are standing to win with many just standing for their party.

The local political system is slowly failing. This isn't something new and has been happening for decades. The electorate want our local politicians not to be paid, but are on the most part unwilling to do the job themselves. It is not as though the number of candidates for each seat is massive. Whilst the public want their local representatives to be paid nil they show no inclination to do the jobs themselves.

The problem is compounded with the political parties putting people up who don't want to win or if they do win they want to take a back seat and turn up every so often. These paper candidates do little for the political process and stop those who are willing to work for their community for nil or little payment from gaining a seat.

The only solution I see to this problem is to reform local politics. Do we need 21 Town Councillors? I don't think so. 7 or 9 are the right number. Do we need 52 District Councillors? Probably not. Cut the number by half. Do we need 69 County Councillors. We I say no. We need about 35.

Any pay them for doing this job. I feel being a Town Council should attract £20,000 a year but be paid pro-rata for a 4 hours a week would bring in £2,000. The same for District Councillors who should get roughly 2 days a week or £8,000. County Councillors should be paid £30,000 a year and be paid pro-rata at 2.5 days a week or £15,000. And I would dump the "Public Service discount" from their pay.

Special responsibility allowances should be scrapped. There is nothing special about being on say the Planning Committee. Nor is there anything special about chairing a committee. Leaders and Cabinet members should be paid more for doing what is really an extra job on top of being a Councillor.

For this money local Councillors should be accountable. Not turning up to meetings should mean a pay deduction and their attendance records should be public. Also they should only serve on one Council at a time. Gone should be the days of a Councillor being on 2 or 3 different Councils.

I still believe where the Council finances are out of balance the local politicians should take a pay cut. Though how this is determined might not be a simple as it seems.

The Councillors can be their own worst enemies by not standing up for more pay and wanting the "Public Service" discount to continue. The political parties continue to put up candidates who have no intention of winning.

And I can understand why those who seek election are put off. It sounds easy to stand but then you have to go round and campaign for a few months of the year to try to get elected. Much time and effort for little payback.

Instead of hanging onto the old public service discount Councillors must be elected to do a job and must be paid for doing so. Either we end up with properly paid local politicians or local democracy will continue to fail.

I do feel our local politicians must be paid and paid correctly. If it was as such an easy job people would be applying by their hundreds. They aren't. The political parties have problems in recruiting people to stand. Time to change and make being a local politician a job worth doing in terms of pay.

An answer as to why HDC accounts are late

2011-11-04T10:05:00.000Z

I asked why HDC's annual accounts hadn't been approved by the deadline of 30th September 2011. Below is the response:

Thank you for your enquiry and I hope that the following information will provide an adequate explanation.

The reasons for the delay in publishing the Council’s final accounts for 2010/11 were reported to the Corporate Governance Panel at their September meeting and they were told that it was hoped that they could be completed in time for a meeting on the 2 November.

Members of the Panel were informed on 24 October that this would no longer be possible and the current intention is to submit them to the next programmed meeting of the Panel on the 7 December.

Three events led to this delay:

1) This is the first year of a new set of rules (International Financial Reporting Standards, IFRS) for the treatment of a range of items in the final accounts. These mainly relate to capital accounting including leasing and accounting for investment properties and are very much more complex than the previous regulations. They also require us to undertake some complex calculations to identify the appropriate treatment for each lease and retrospectively restate the Balance Sheets for March 2009 and March 2010 as well as providing the new figures for March 2011. It was appreciated that this would be more difficult but unfortunately we underestimated exactly how much more complex and time consuming it would be.

2) The Audit Commission decided that we must have new auditors this year. With hindsight, irrespective of any other problems, it was not a sound idea to change anyone’s auditor in this first IFRS year. It is only 5 years since we had our last change (Grant Thornton) and a very good knowledge of the authority and sound working relationships had been built up with them. We knew that we would have to explain our systems from scratch to the new auditors, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, but we did not anticipate the level of challenge on the treatment of various items that had been accepted by previous auditors. This should not be regarded as a criticism of the auditor’s work or approach but simply a reflection of the degree of thoroughness that can follow a change of auditors.

3) The Council needs to find financial savings and it was agreed that our capital accountant could take voluntary redundancy as long as he did not leave until mid-September, once the accounts should have been completed. Unfortunately, due to ill-health, he was not available during important stages of the final accounts preparation and audit before he left.

Whilst each event in isolation could probably have been coped with, the three, in combination, were too much for us. The rest of the accountancy team have worked very hard to try and overcome the problems but, without the detailed knowledge and experience of capital accounting, delay became unavoidable.

The expected changes affect the way that capital items are classified in the Balance Sheet but should not affect the Council’s revenue position and reserves. Whilst the audit is not yet complete the audit team has completed its work in many areas and expect this to be the case, though, until all the work is completed, they cannot formally confirm this. There is therefore reasonable confidence that the base revenue position that we are using for this year’s financial planning will prove to be robust.

It is clearly an important element of stewardship and good governance for the accounts to be completed to the official timescale and this will be referred to in the Auditor’s report to the Panel. It will also identify any problems they have identified and we will inform the Panel of the action that we will take to avoid a recurrence next year. This should not be too difficult because, once this first year on the IFRS basis is completed, the ongoing process becomes much more straightforward.

Each year there are a few Councils that run into difficulties with the time limits and it is expected that there will be more this year due to IFRS but it is important to stress that there is no evidence of any failures in the basic financial systems, simply the ability to overcome the various difficulties referred to in order to present the results in a timely fashion on the new basis.

Steve Couper

Head of Financial Services

Liberal Democrats campaign for free parking?

2011-11-03T03:21:00.018Z

I saw on the Huntingdonshire Liberal Democrat website that has come to life the following:

Lib Dems call for free parking for Christmas

October 31, 2011 10:16 AM

Huntingdon Liberal Democrats are launching their THREE 4 FREE Campaign today.

"We are calling on Huntingdon District Council to help local businesses and residents this Christmas by providing FREE PARKING at all District Council Car Parks for the three weekends leading up to the festive season," comments Cllr. Mike Shellens, "We want to give local people every chance to support local shops and local jobs."

Lib Dem Parliamentary Spokes, Martin Land, adds "By providing free parking on the 3rd and 4th, 10th and 11th and 17th and 18th December, HDC could show their support for our market towns of St Ives, Huntingdon and St Neots in these difficult economic times. This move could encourage residents to shop locally and not on-line or in Bedford, Cambridge or Peterborough."

Except parking is already free on Sundays except at Hinchingbrooke Country Park. Saturdays sounds good. With HDC finances in such a state then how much will be lost by this initiative? What will have to be cut in its place? Car Parks are revenue for HDC. The Liberal Democrats have not fleshed the costs out.

Maybe the reason why Martin Land feels having Sunday free is such a good idea when it is already free is that Martin doesn't drive!

If the danger is people will drive to Bedford, Peterborough and Cambridge they will do so anyway. The higher parking costs and the fuel costs associated going to these towns will mean people will go there for better shops and are willing to pay to go and park there. Cutting 50 pence off the cost for parking for an hour will make no difference.

Good idea. Badly thought out. In the end just a gimmick.

If the Liberal Democrats and HDC want to attract more shoppers to St Neots then they need to change the shopping experience with larger retail units. Cutting the marginal cost of parking just means the Council taxpayer picks up the bill for this elsewhere.

2 years on....

2011-11-02T08:41:00.001Z

.... and what has changed?

Djanogly was re-elected. Despite living in London and prominent in the MP's expenses scandal, the voters of the Huntingdon constituency re-elected Djanogly therefore forgiving him for his part in this scandal. Djanogly went onto become an Under secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice. This is a third rung on the Ministerial ladder with Minister of State above him and Secretary of State at the top. Djanogly became a bit of a lightning rod scandal. There was his spying on local Conservative members and his relationship with his brother-in-law. The spying was internal. The brother-in-law was really a non-story.

Useless Town Council Planning Committee. This has carried on being useless and a sheer waste of money. The new Conservative administration on the Town Council has carried with this sheer waste of money. The only real reason for this is the Town Councillors want to pontificate on the merits of planning applications without any real training or idea of what they are doing.

Cllr Abelwhite is new District Council Leader. Despite being party to costing the District Council £5,000 over a planning decision in St Ives, the District Council Conservatives deemed Cllr Abelwhite worthy of their leadership. Cllr Ian Bates stood down at from the leadership after the abortive merger talks with East Cambridgeshire and Fenland District Councils fell down.

Cinema progresses. The idea to squeeze the cinema into a totally inappropriate site continues. Turnstone Estates were given preferred status and went ahead and ripped the Development Brief to shreds. As the land owners HDC and SNTC must have been privy to these changes yet didn't say a thing. So much for transparency.

Rough waters for the Outdoor Swimming Pool. Having done a deal with McCarthy and Stone, rumour has it the SNTC/SNSPT has reneged on this deal. Whilst selling the land and using the proceeds to build a new swimming pool on other land made sense, unless SNTC/SNSPT have found a source of money it will make no sense to rebuild the swimming pool on the old site.

HCCA. The slow downfall of this once proud Conservative Association continues with HCCA running out of money.

Council Tax. HDC has, for many years, used reserves to keep Council Tax down. Combined with the previous Labour Government who used the threat of capping to keep the District Council tax rises down. Capping is due to end with a new referendum rules to ensure any excessive Council Tax rises are voted on by the electorate beforehand.

New Homes Bonus nicked. This becomes a large amount of money for HDC. According to the Coalition Government this money is for the communities which are accepting new housing developments. HDC is supposed to consult the locals over the use of this money. Think about £8000 a property and 5000 properties. £40 million would make a difference to St Neots.

Riverside Car Park. This was a joint approach that ended up as a pantomime. As the basic decision was correct as either the user pays or the Council Tax payer (and I prefer the user pays) this now looks to be revisited. The Liberal Democrats made hay over this. The St Neots Conservatives are against but voted for the budget. This issue went back and forth until it was decided by Cabinet and then Council make this a pay car park.

Councillors. Over the two years I've looked at Councillor attendances. Some are good. Some were bad. On Town Councillor did good by resigning. Mandy Thomas just didn't turn up or only to one minor meeting in 6 months. The dearth of candidates to be Councillors was also highlighted before the last elections. On one good note, Carl Jones stood as an Independent and won the Town Council East seat.

CPALC. It looks as though CPALC gave the Town Council Quality Status to SNTC with too much trouble. Though how they passed many of the tests didn't stand up to scrutiny. Anyway SNTC paid their sub and CPALC seems happy the Quality Town Status means absolutely nothing.

The Liberal Democrats. These have been a big disappointment. With Martin Land as both Agent and Parliamentary Candidate this was going to go wrong. The Conservatives are "closet racists and homophobes" quote did damage. Also if that is how Martin thinks the Liberal Democrats are destined to lose and lose again.

Gordon Thorpe. It is a pity that Gordon has gone. Although he called me the "Most Hated Man in St Neots" I hold no grudges against him. I did warn him at the time that Harrsion and Jennings were fighting hard for Eaton Socon and Gordon needed to get out and campaign. Gordon didn't take my advice and, I was informed, turned up about a week before the campaign finished to campaign. Miles too late.

Have I given up on the blog? Well no. But there will be fewer blog entries as time goes on. Of course if SNTC decides to alter the Priory Centre.......

If the New Homes Bonus is bribery then bring it on!

2011-10-31T02:08:00.000Z

The New Homes Bonus has been described as bribery by The Daily Mail. This isn't peanuts. A housing development in Somerset of 3750 properties is likely to bring in £54 million in New Homes Bonus. Think what East of St Neots is bringing in and will bring into HDC and CCC coffers. My back of the envelope calculations comes to about £40 million. Just for St Neots.

The Bribery allegation has much to do with the amount of money coming in. The amount is 6 years of Council Tax at the full rate for each property built split 80/20 between HDC (which gets most) and CCC which gets the 20%. This is worth roughly £8000 for each property.

Rt Hon Grant Shapps denied the new Homes Bonus was bribery. In his response he said:

And where homes are built, it is right that local people share in the prosperity and growth that this will bring to their community.

Only that HDC has pocketed this money and St Neots isn't having any of it.

New Homes Bonus funding can be used however communities see fit to improve their local area - and I would urge all councils expecting to receive funding to speak to their residents about how they would like to see it spent locally.

HDC hasn't asked St Neots what we want to do with the New Homes Bonus gained from properties being built in St Neots. Instead HDC disguises the New Homes Bonus as the New Homes Reward Grant or similar. HDC has denied or is in self denial about the purpose of the New Homes Bonus.

The recent Neighbourhood Forum would have been a good start to this.

So what are the St Neots Conservatives going to do about the New Homes Bonus?

At the last election the Conservatives said:

Read it again. The Conservatives have promised they will ensured the New Homes Bonus monies come back to St Neots where they belong. So why is HDC nicking our New Homes Bonus?

If HDC is just going to nick the New Homes Bonus money to prop up their failing budget the New Homes Bonus isn't worth anything to St Neots. On the otherhand if the New Homes Bonus monies comes to St Neots - where they belong - then bribe away.

Reflections on the Neighbourhood Meeting

2011-10-29T07:30:00.000+01:00

I went to the Neighbourhood Forum meeting at Ernulf College on Monday 24th October 2011. The first problem was where was the meeting taking place? I took a chance and headed for the school building and went through the doors. I couldn't see a single sign up pointing the way. I wasn't the only one a bit lost.

Having found the meeting I was a bit taken aback at how few residents that actually turned up. I would have thought the more would be there. This was an opportunity for the Cinema groups to turn up. Also as parking in Longsands Road was on the agenda I thought many from that area would also be there. Only a couple of residents.

Anyway looking at the agenda there was something local with the Police, Longsands Road and the new Traffic Light system for the Town Centre. Goods bits of information. There was a piece by the Skateboard Users which was enlightening.

Also on the Agenda was a bit about Hate Crime.

Now I'm against Hate Crime and I can see the reason why this was put on the Agenda. Getting people to know about a service is generally a good idea. But should a Neighbourhood Forum be about puff pieces for District services?

This is the downfall of the Neighbourhood Forums. How are the Councils going to get people involved and attending if it doesn't allow residents to speak of their concerns? It is the chicken and the egg question. Which comes first?

This is the problem with Neighbourhood Forums. They don't address what concerns people may have for the future. Some instances:

The cinema has never been talked about.
Changes to the District Council opening hours at its St Neots Office.
Changes to Street Lighting.
The Open Air Swimming Pool has never been talked about.
Car Park charging at Riverside has never been talked about.
Changes to bus services has never been talked about.

These are some instances I've just thought about.

And when important decisions are talked about these seem to happen in Kimbolton or Great Gransden. St Neots is the central conurbation to this Neighbourhood Forum. I know there is a wish to get out and about with these forums. The expectation seems to be that everyone should go to the small villages to hear about St Neots. Whilst this is a good idea, in practice the Neighbourhood Forum should be held at the Priory Centre and only there. The Anti-Windfarm lobby were able to turn up to one meeting held in St Neots. If is is decided to have meetings in the villages then don't talk about St Neots issues. Why the St Neots Drop In Centre was talked about in Great Gransden is a bit beyond me.

And the chicken and egg question? I feel the Neighbourhood Forums are pretty useless. Yes, they could be much more. Instead of Councils presenting what they think the public wants to know why not ask the public what they want to know about. Yes I know there is a section within the Agenda for this to happen. But which comes first. Instead of talking about issues such a Hate Crime, talk about the cinema or the swimming pool or wind farms or whatever.

As for input, if the Councils want Neighbourhood Forums to have a higher status then what happens at these meetings should be reviewed by panels and committees at the various councils. Currently they are not.

There is also an issue of publicity. The Councils need to look at the publicity for these Forums. On the District Council website is good. But this didn't even touch the Town council website or their Priorities propaganda rag.

The future of Neighbourhood Forums looks pretty bleak. Instead of talking about what the Councils want residents to hear, these Forums need to have a purpose. That must be to discuss the upcoming issues and decisions. This will allow the residents to have an input into Councils' decisions. Therefore Councils should think like residents and put items on the Agenda that are controversial.

Whether any changes will mean a much greater attendance I doubt. The residents will only turn up if they see a reason to turn up. Cuts are happening. Yet nothing is really said on how these cuts are going to affect residents.

I know I'm probably putting in too much into 2 hours four times a year. But an attempt to make these Forums a useful tool for residents rather than being a useful tick box for the Councils could make these Forums actually useful to residents.

Museum or not museum? That is the drop in question!

2011-10-28T11:24:00.000+01:00

On the front page of the Hunts Post there is a piece on the Town Council dropping the proposed Drop In Centre for the St Neots Museum to extend its operations. During his reign former Town Mayor, Gordon Thorpe, raised £2,500 for the Drop In Centre. In the article Gordon said: "I'll be very disappointed if we can't get this off the ground after 2 years of planning."

So what of the Drop in Centre. After 2 years of planning and Gordon Thorpe raising £2,500 what has been raised by the Drop in Centre project. The briefing by Ms Stocker-Gibson at the Neighbourhood Forum on 25th July 2011 is very telling:

I take from this that the Youth Drop in Centre has no other money than Gordon's £2,500 and then only if the project goes ahead.

On the otherhand we have the museum. According to the 2010 Museum accounts, the museum currently gets a £30,000 grant from the Town Council and the Town Council receives back £6,000 in rent. A net figure of £24,000 to the museum. It also has £102k in the bank. Over the last 5 years the museum has made a small loss or last year a small profit.

Therefore the question before the Town Council is either lease the annex to a Drop in Centre with hardly any money or to a Museum which relies on Town Council money to keep going and has £102k in the bank.

If the Drop in Centre had come forward with a business plan which had guaranteed sources of money I would go for the Drop in Centre. From the briefing on 25th July 2011 to the Neighbourhood Forum it seems the Drop in Centre has neither the money for the venue or money to run the project.

Therefore it must be the museum that gets the annex. Whilst the museum can afford to do something with the annex the net £24,000 grant must either stay the same, in cash terms, or be reduced. It is no use allowing the museum to expand and then expecting the Town Council to pick up higher lease costs.

This must be the start of weaning the Museum off the Town Council subsidy over a period of time, say 10 years.

As for Gordon Thorpe et al complaining about this decision, well you were in power until May 2011 and you didn't do the deal with the Drop in Centre. It looks like 2 years in planning were wasted because the money wasn't there in the first place. Just because Gordon Thorpe raised £2,500 for this project doesn't mean the project should go ahead with more public money. If Gordon had raised say £250,000 for the Drop in Centre the decision would have to be different.

Drowning in the swimming pool of despair

2011-10-27T08:24:00.000+01:00

A source informed me of the following:

The Swimming Pool Trust has abandoned plans to sell the swimming pool site and now intends to rebuild the open air swimming pool on the original site.

If my source is correct, this is a U-turn of major proportions. The Conservatives have therefore dumped McCarthy and Stone retirement flats. Probably the only way out of the situation the Conservatives find themselves in. And that is why I asked for a briefing to the next Neighbourhood Forum.

To recap, the Town Council/Swimming Pool Trust are in a legal quagmire/catch 22. They cannot sell the land without HDC, run by the Conservatives, taking half the proceeds. The Charity Commission will not let the land be sold unless the Swimming Pool Trust gets all the proceeds.

At the last elections the Conservatives promised ALL the proceeds will be used for a new outdoor swimming pool. This is a way round that promise.

When my source was asked: "where the money to rebuild the swimming pool was going to come from?" I was informed there is money in a trust. I had to scratch my head here. The swimming pool trust has about £70,000 in cash. So there is no money to rebuild a swimming pool.

The big question has to be is where the Town Council/Swimming Pool Trust is going to get the money to pay for a new swimming pool. Will they go for lottery funding or look to a loan to pay for a swimming pool? Is there money squirrelled away from Section 106 agreements? Or has Rowley come forward with another million to pay for this facility? I await with baited breath for the answer!

The basic problem remains the same. The old pool was closed because of losing money and not enough to repair the pool. Any new pool will require public money to run it and public money to refurbish it in the future.

The next District Election won by the Conservatives

2011-10-26T00:58:00.001+01:00

Even before the polls are being thought about the Conservatives have won the next District Elections. Whilst the overall result is in no doubt, the individual ward elections are still to be fought and won.

These are the wards up in the electoral cycle:

St Ives East - Conservative - Jason Abelwhite (Council Leader)
Brampton - Liberal Democrat
Godmanchester - Conservative
Huntingdon East - Liberal Democrats
Huntingdon North - Conservative
Ramsey - Conservative
Sawtry - Independent
Somersham - Conservative
St Ives West - Conservative
St Neots Eaton Ford - Conservative
St Neots Eaton Socon - Conservative
St Neots Eynesbury - Conservative
The Hemingfords - Conservative
Warboys and Bury - Liberal Democrats
Yaxley - Conservative

There are 52 Councillors sitting on HDC. 27 for a majority. The current political make up is:
41 Conservatives
8 Liberal Democrats
2 UKIP
1 Independent

There are 15 seats up for election.
11 Conservatives
3 Liberal Democrats
1 Independent

The Conservative spread is 45 seats - 30 seats
The Liberal Democrats is 12 - 5 seats
UKIP is 3 - 2 seats
Independent 1 - 0 seats.

Even if the Conservatives drop all their seats up for election they will still retain 30 seats. A majority of 8.

The battlegrounds

The Liberal Democrats need to demonstrate they are still a political force in St Neots. There has been hardly any activity by them so far. Potentially they have St Neots Eynesbury and St Neots Eaton Socon to try and win. Eynesbury has the only Liberal Democrat Councillor for a St Neots ward. They also need to fight back in Eaton Socon

The Conservatives need to thump home their wins of 2011 in Eynesbury and Eaton Socon by scoring good wins against the background of the NO2AV campaign not being behind them.

On the wider District, the Liberal Democrats need to defend the seats they already have and push ahead. Huntingdon East is a Liberal Democrat/Conservative battle. Huntingdon North is also a three way battle between Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Labour. This is the only seat Labour could take.

Ramsey could see the last of 3 Conservative seats fall to UKIP which is making this their centre of power.

Whether the Independent Councillor in Sawtry will continue is open to question. If he doesn't re-stand this should be another Conservative win.

HDC continues to break the law

2011-10-26T00:01:00.000+01:00

The Corporate Governance Panel should have approved HDC accounts for 2010/11 on 27th September 2011. They didn't. The minute for that meeting says:

So there is to be a Special Meeting on 2nd November 2011. The Agenda for this meeting has been published.

Not a word about the accounts. No reasons given for their non-appearance on of the accounts at this "Special Meeting". Utter silence. The longer these accounts are not approved (30th September 2011 was the deadline) the more it looks as though it is something very wrong. A short statement from HDC would suffice. Yet rather than say anything HDC does its normal trick of staying silent.

Town Council Planners know best?

2011-10-25T07:48:00.000+01:00

As someone who follows the antics of the useless Town Council Planning Committee I was somewhat taken aback by Margaret Cooke in her letter to the Hunts Post. In the letter Margaret Cooke says:

Why does she think the council planners voted against this development. Was it for the fun of it or could there be genuine reasons why this happened?

Having got hold of the minutes of the Town Council Planning Committee where the cinema proposal was voted down I have must have been for fun as there were no genuine reasons for refusal given.

As can be seen from the minutes there are no reasons given for refusal. Whilst the useless Town Council Planning Committee voted against the cinema development there is little to back up this refusal. What has been said in the press about the reasons for refusal are useless arguments.

Now if the residents really wanted to stop this scheme they should have started back when the consultation over the development brief started. The residents could have put up candidates at the elections in May. The residents could have lobbied their councillors. The residents could have gone to Town Council meetings and protested at the lease of land to Turnstone Estates. The residents could have applied for Shady Walk to become a Town Green.

If the development goes ahead all the residents against this scheme have done is to get a petition together and object. Not much else. The political class in St Neots is for the cinema scheme. HDC including its Planning Department is for the scheme. With the decision due for the Development Management Panel Meeting of 19th December 2011. This could be an early Christmas present for someone and a awful Christmas for others.

What has Djanogly actually done wrong?

2011-10-22T04:58:00.005+01:00

Our MP, Jonathan Djanogly, seems to be a bit of a lightning rod. Controversy over his expenses and the questions he didn't answer. Controversy over spying on fellow Conservative members also did him harm. In this latest controversy I don't see what Djanogly has done wrong.

His declared shareholdings, woodland and his membership of the Djanogly partnership at Lloyds have been put into a blind trust. This change should have been declared earlier but these interests have already been declared so this is rather a red herring.

What seems to be the trouble is over his brother-in-law who owns several companies which technically Djanogly had oversight. Nothing untoward has been discovered in the sense that it hasn't been found that Djanogly has taken decisions about these firms. There is also trouble over his teenage children holding shareholdings in a couple of his brother-in-law firms. This is slightly more difficult because Djanogly, being a parent, should have known about these.

But at what point should a shareholding become an actual interest. If what seems to be the argument that he should have declared these shareholdings by his teenage children then I have to disagree unless he is a signature to these shareholdings.

The argument seems to be that Djanogly should not have oversight of companies dealing with legal claims because his brother-in-law owns a couple. Does this mean he shouldn't have oversight? The argument continues that because his brother-in-law businesses that Djanogly should not be making policy over this area. I believe Djanogly should carry on.

The basic problem I have will this so-called scandal is there is nothing inherently wrong. If we are going to go down the road that a relative or friend have businesses or interests this means that a Under Secretary of State or any Government Minister cannot make policy where relatives or friends could be involved.

For example: Djanogly is a solicitor. Therefore Djanogly shouldn't make policy about lawyers because some of his friend are lawyers.

My example is in planning. Just because friends and relatives can make planning applications doesn't mean Councillors cannot decide planning applications. Just when a planning application comes up from a friend or relative these Councillors should declare an interest and withdraw from the decision. This must be the case for Government.

It seems that the detractors want Government Ministers to be "nobby nomates" with no family, friends or interests to take all the decisions in Government.

If it was found that Djanogly had changed policy or had made decisions or even influenced any change in policy or decisions for the sole benefit of his brother-in-law that would be wrong. No such evidence has been produced. If evidence were produced then this would change the situation.

I'm no fan of Djanogly. I'd rather have him go for something he has done wrong and not for something which has been made up.

The problems for Djanogly goes back to his expenses scandal. The press and interest groups will dig around for something that seems wrong. Whilst the electorate has forgiven Djanogly over his expenses, because he was re-elected, this means he is still a lightning conductor over anything that in some peoples minds is wrong.

The granny wars over the cinema. Which one will Djanogly support?

2011-10-21T11:39:00.000+01:00

On the Hunts Post website there is an article about two grannies at war over the Cinema project. Mrs Cooke against and Mrs Winters for.

Both Mrs Cooke and Mrs Winters are meeting with Huntingdon MP Jonathan Djanogly on Friday to discuss the project, before the application goes before HDC later this year.

What has Djaonogly got to do with this? He is the MP but this is a matter for the Councils and not him. All he can do is listen and monitor the development.

On Djanogly's website there is a picture of Djanogly and Cllr Barry Chapman looking at the plans for the site.

They look like they are at the back of Cressener House which isn't in the proposals. From the looks of this Djanogly is supporting the cinema development.

As Cllr Barry Chapman says:

'We are very pleased by Mr Djanogly's interest in the project which already has the support of Town, District and County Councillors. Huntingdonshire District Council is currently updating its plans for the Huntingdon Street site and we hope these will reflect the view of St Neots residents who wish to see a cinema here.'

With most of the St Neots representatives already on board it seems extremely likely to go ahead.

It seems likely that Djanogly should come down on the side of the cinema project having had his picture taken at the site with the plans. But will we end up with another case of fence sitting yet again? Yes it will.

Should our County Councillors be paid more?

2011-10-18T09:02:00.000+01:00

That is the question being put to the County Councillors on Tuesday 18/10/11. My simple answer is YES! The public undervalues the role of councillor and their ability to run this organisation and, if in opposition, to hold the ruling party to account.

What should be the rate of pay?

The report from the Independent Remuneration Panel says it should be £9500 a year or £13571 if the 30% cut is taken into account. The 30% comes from a weird idea that somehow part of the job is Public Service and therefore salaries are discounted by 30% to take this into account. Whilst I understand why this Public Service discount element is included, because Parliament says it should be, I disagree with this assumption. A job is a job and discounting is simply wrong. Otherwise shouldn't the public demand that all Council jobs have a element of Public Service and therefore all public jobs, from cleaner to Chief Executive, should therefore contain this public service element.

The £13571 is for 2.5 days a week which equates to £27142 a year. This is therefore the basic amount for a County Councillor. By my rule of thumb this is probably the right amount for a County Councillor.

What adds to the job is Special Responsibility Allowances (SRA). These are paid to many of the County Councillors. From the Council Leader down to Opposition Spokesman. Panel Chairmen also get SRAs. CCC doesn't have a 1 SRA rule. In theory Councillors could take on several SRA and boost their pay. I believe the 1 SRA rule must be introduced.

The major problem is comparing the job of being a County Councillor to that of any other job. Whilst the comparable jobs seem to be a Non-executive NHS Trust directorship and those member of a Police Authority neither of these are elected. Comparisons made against other County Councils also adds to problems because these add to wage inflation. because if A and B get paid higher then C has to have a pay rise. Many of the problems in Local Government Finance happen because the lower scales rise and this pushes the salaries above upwards. I could go more into Senior Officer pay but I'll do that at a later date.

The basic problem is these comparisons are really a paper chase with numbers that, in reality, aren't comparable. What the Independent Remuneration Panel is actually doing is having a stab in the dark.

There seems to be a recognition that Councillors need to attend meetings. The idea that Councillors should lose money for not attending meetings is a good idea. The bar seems to be set too low. The idea is if a Councillor attends less than 75% of all meetings then they lose 10% of their allowance for each 10% they don't attend. Under these rules if they attend 66% of meetings they don't lose any money. If they attend 65% of meetings they lose 10% of their basic allowance.

The bar should be set higher. As Councillors are our employee I expect them to be there 100% of the time. At work I'm expected to turn up every day. I have holidays. Take this off and I'm expected to attend work for 90% of the time. Therefore the bar should be set at 100% attendance with any Councillor attending less than 90% being docked 10% of basic allowances. Each subsequent 10% meaning a loss of another 10% of basic allowances. Under this scheme a Councillor attending 90% of the time will get full basic allowance.

I feel our County Councillors should be paid more. What meetings they attend and the reasons why they don't attend should be made available to their employers. Namely the people who elect them, the electors, and this information should be public. And YES their pay should cut if they don't attend than 90% or more of the the meetings they should attend.

The problem is there is no good time to increase their pay. Now is probably the worst. Either we pay and value our politicians properly or we expect this job to be done for free. For what is seen by the public as an easy job for easy money doesn't entice many of the electorate to apply for these jobs.

Cllr Abelwhite (and others) cost us £5000

2011-10-17T12:08:00.000+01:00

Looking back at the Co-op in St Ives Planning Application I have eventually gotten around to finding out how much the District Councillors who voted for the decision to refuse actually cost us. The answer is £5000.

Why were costs awarded against the District Council?

Because those on the Development Management Panel didn't following the officers professional and technical advice. When they came up with their reasons for refusal, the reasons given were not evidenced. The planning Inspector found against HDC because the reasons for refusal weren't evidenced.

So are the District Councillors who voted to refuse, including the Conservative Leader Jason Abelwhite, paying up for this entirely predictable cost. So far NO!

This piece of showmanship cost the Council Taxpayers £5000. A waste of money by the Conservatives.

Town Council Accounts - why did the Conservatives take so long?

2011-10-14T14:25:00.000+01:00

The Audit of St Neots Town Council Accounts has finally finished. Under the regulations there has been a change as the Town Council is now regarded as a smaller relevant body.

The new regulations the Town Council finds itself under means the accounts have to be published along with any certificate, opinion or report issued. The Annual Accounts are here. As the Conclusion of Audit states:

Copies are obtainable from the Council Offices. In my opinion these should be on the Town Council website rather than inaccessible in the Town Council offices.

The initial accounts were filed late to the Auditors. Those accounts produced on 17th June 2011 were not agreed and the Auditors were told that these new councillors needed time to review these accounts.

But was this delay really needed? Apart the bracketing of budget costs which was an error there was no need to delay the approval of these accounts. The reason given by the new administration was that it was new. But the main part of the Town Council was elected in May and the Eynesbury 7 were elected on 9th June 2011. Plenty of time to look at the accounts. The only real difference between the 17th June version and the approved version was the inclusion of the following:

During the election much had been made by the Conservatives about the cost of the Eatons Centre.

Including the Eaton Centre Trading Account isn't that strange nor does it really take a month to insert. These trading accounts aren't actually required. HDC doesn't in their accounts. Loan repayments and interest paid are also not part of the trading accounts. HDC doesn't do it this way. Are our Town Councillors, who are also District Councillors, pressing HDC to change the way it presents their accounts. Maybe this is why the HDC accounts are late?

Looking at the Priory Centre trading accounts there is a difference between 17th June 2011

This shows a deficit of £39,603. In the final set of accounts agreed by the Town Councillors this has changed to:

A trading deficit of £19,153. This is because the Loan Repayment has been treated as income instead of a cost.

There is no good reason why the accounts were filed late. The new town Councillors had plenty of time to review and look into the accounts. The Conservative chose to break the law and . Even when they did they made a mistake!

Putting up car park charges keeps council tax down

2011-10-13T12:14:00.000+01:00

In the Hunts Post this week the effects of the increase in car parking charges due soon are have got some people furious. In the article there is this piece of advice:

Malcolm Lyons, Huntingdonshire chairman of the Federation of Small Business, whose members include many shopkeepers, was furious.

He said: “It’s appalling at a time when people’s wages are going down that they put the charges up. They never listen. It’s a discouragement from using the town centres.

“They should keep the first two hours down to encourage people to do their shopping in the market towns, and put up longer-term charges.

“For local people, it’s the first two hours that are important. I say to the council: if you need to save £2m, don’t take it out on the electorate.”

What Malcolm Lyons doesn't seem to understand is Car Parks cost money. In neighbouring Fenland District Council the cost of the car parks cost the Council Taxpayer roughly £400,000 a year. Fenland has a much higher Council Tax at twice the rate we pay in Huntingdonshire. The car parks that HDC control bring in roughly £750,000.

The £2 million Malcolm Lyons alludes to is money that needs to be saved in the future. The increase in car parking charges is to do with £5 million of savings that had to be made. This is because HDC kept its council tax low for many years because it got caught out. Having kept Council Tax at a very low rate when it had to increase the Labour Government capped any increases. Not that this stopped Conservative run HDC from claiming the Conservatives were keeping Council Tax rises low.

The choice is very simple. Either cut services and put up charges or make a substantial increase in Council Tax. I believe the user should pay for services. Car Park charges in Huntingdonshire are very low in comparison with surrounding Towns and will continue to be low.

As for Malcolm Lyons and his "if you need to save £2m, don’t take it out on the electorate." it is utter nonsense because either we have a choice and pay for car parking or we pay through the Council Tax. Either way the electorate will be hit. Better to have a choice than no choice.

Another promise begging to be broken!

2011-10-11T19:43:00.000+01:00

One promise made to the people of Eynesbury was the starting of a monthly surgery by the Conservative Eynesbury Councillors.

It says: "We pledge to hold a monthly surgery for the public to meet with their Councillors to enable them to talk about local issues concerning them."

Out in Eaton Socon a similar promise was made. And they have fulfilled this promise. The image below is taken from the Town Council website.

Our Eynesbury Councillors have yet to fulfil this promise. I can see nothing in the press or websites to indicate when these Eynesbury surgeries are going to take place. The Councillors who made this promise are:

Applying for Freedom of Information with HDC

2011-10-11T06:57:00.000+01:00

Secrecy still abounds at HDC. Getting information out of HDC can be quite difficult. I know I do ask for some information which is difficult for HDC to publish. HDC just loves secrecy. Below are all the FOI requests I've made to HDC with dates and how long these information requests take.

FOI Request No. 1077 22nd November 2009.
This was asking for a report to Cabinet on the Outdoor Swimming Pool.
I received a reply on 23rd November 2009 saying what they would do.

My request was refused 3rd December 2009.- This took: 8 days
I appealed this decision on 7th December 2009
I received an email setting up an internal review on 9th December 2009.
Review refused appeal on 20th January 2010 - This took: 27 days

FOI Request No. 1103 19th December 2009
This was asking about South Street Toilets
I received a reply on 21st December 2009 saying what they would do.
My request was refused on 12th January 2010 - This took: 12 days
I appealed this refusal on 12th January 2010
The appeal was rejected on 15th February 2010 - This took: 24 days

FOI Request 1157 - 3rd February 2010
This was requesting Agendas, Minutes and reports for the Car Parks Working Party
Refused 26th February 2010 - This took: 17 days
Appealed 26th February 2010
Sent another e-mail asking when this appeal was to be heard on 12th March 2010
I received a reply on 26th February 2010 stating:
We will be in contact with you again by the end of March.
Appeal Refused 6th April 2011. This took: 25 days

FOI Request No: 1304 - 7th June 2010
This was about the contradictions in the amount of money claimed to be spent electing a Mayor.
Answered: 2nd July 2010 - This took: 19 days

FOI Request No: 1305 - 7th June 2010
Request for notes on Neighbourhood Forums.
I cancelled this request on 25th June 2010 as these had been published after the request had been made.

FOI Request No: 1487 - 15th October 2010
Information on Chairman's Charities costs.
Reply received 1st November 2010 - This took: 11 days

FOI Request No: 1494 - 27th October 2010
Information of closed churchyard costs
Reply received 16th November 2010 - This took: 14 days

FOI Request No: 1592 - 16th January 2011
Requesting St Neots Town Centre Initiative minutes
Reply received 3rd February 2011 - This took: 14 days

FOI Request No: 1624 - 3rd February 2011
With new information I carried on with 1077
Reply received 3rd February 2011 setting out what they would do.
Reply 3rd March 2011 with some redacted information. - This took: 20 days
Appealed 15th March 2011

Appealed to ICO over
Review decision was refusal. Informed 28th June 2011 - This took: 71 days
Appealed to ICO - awaiting outcome.

What is strange is that HDC was able after the intervention of the ICO to hold an internal review in less than 7 days!

FOI Request No: 1917 - 18th August 2011
Information on reports to cabinet about cinema site
Reply received 18th August 2011 setting out what they would do.
Refused 19th September 2011 - This took: 20 days
Appealed on 19th September 2011
Replied setting out the appeal on 20th September 2011
I should be informed of the internal appeal by 17th October 2011.

FOI Request No: 1970 - 28th September 2011
On the cost of the Co-operative Planning Appeal award of costs.
Awaiting reply.

What does the Information Commissioner have to say on time limits. The ICO says:

Q: How quickly will I receive a response?
A: You must be informed in writing whether the public authority holds the information requested and if so, have the information communicated to you, promptly, but not later than 20 working days after they receive the request.

So how has HDC done against this 20 days time limit?

Days taken - 8, 12, 17, 19, 11, 14, 14, 20, 20

Whilst they have started taking their time all requests have been initially answered not later than 20 days. Whilst this has been on the 20 day limit on a couple of times, HDC is within the rules.

What does the ICO have to say on internal review time limits? The ICO says:

In view of all the above the Commissioner considers that a reasonable time for completing an internal review is 20 working days from the date of the request for review. There may be a small number of cases which involve exceptional circumstances where it may be reasonable to take longer. In those circumstances, the public authority should, as a matter of good practice, notify the requester and explain why more time is needed.

Days taken for internal review: 27, 24, 25, 71, - none of these times are under the 20 working days limit. At no time have I received any communication to inform me there was a delay in the review. 71 days is quite remarkable. I had to go to the ICO to get HDC to get a move on because this is where HDC can stump me. Without going through the internal appeal procedure I cannot appeal to the ICO.

When HDC is dealing with me the Internal Review can take between 24 and 71 days. When the ICO gets involved it took less than 7 days. So the answer has to be get the ICO involved if HDC takes longer than 20 days on Internal Reviews.

Note: All days calculated in the above article are working days which do not include Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays. The day after the request is made is counted as day 1.

Robina Hooper resigns from useless Planning Committee

2011-10-09T23:00:00.000+01:00

I see from the agenda for the last Town Council meeting that Robina Hooper (Conservative) has resigned from the useless Town Council Planning Committee. As to why hasn't been stated. Robina hasn't been turning up to recent meetings.

At the election Robina was in St Neots.

According to the Town Council website Robina now lives in Yelling.

Now the Conservatives can point to Ian Gardener who lives in Grafham. Good point, but he actually turns up to some meetings. Robina even missed the planning meetings about the cinema in the middle of her ward. With Robina living outside St Neots I feel it is wrong for Robina to hang on to a seat that could be taken by a St Neots resident. Instead of turning up once every six months - resign so a by-election can be held.

The next elections due are in Priory Park is in November 2012 for the Police Commissioner. Thereafter May 2013 with a County Council election. So waiting around will make no difference.

The first broken "WE WILL" by the Conservatives

2011-10-07T09:18:00.000+01:00

At the District and Town Council elections the Conservatives said WE WILL:

So how is covering 75% of the green open space at Shady Walk with tarmac "protecting and enhancing" the said green open space? Of course it isn't and the first Conservative "WE WILL" has already been discarded.

The Conservative line seems to be that "and provide additional leisure activities" lets them off the hook on this one. It doesn't. When I order Coffee and Doughnuts I don't expect my Doughnuts to to be bobbing around in my coffee. Nor when I order sausages and chips do I expect to find my chips stuffed inside the sausages.

From the Conservative "WE WILL" I expected "protecting open green spaces" to be separate from "provide additional leisure activities". The Conservatives must have known the lease needed to be agreed when writing their leaflets. Making this "WE WILL" was therefore foolish. Having written it the Conservatives should have stuck to this "WE WILL".

The rhetoric of the Conservative Town Council election campaign was "Give Us A Chance" and look at what the Liberal Democrats promised and failed to delivered. In one of their first major decision the Conservatives have shown they can dump promises quicker than the Liberal Democrats without even acknowledging this U-Turn.

Riverside Parking Charges to go?

2011-10-06T08:16:00.000+01:00

In an article in the this weeks Hunts Post, Cllr Churchill (currently suspended by the County Conservatives and voted against by a majority of the District Conservatives) is in the news about being against the car parking charges at Riverside Car Park. Apparently the St Neots Conservatives gained an agreement that charging at Riverside Car Park will be reviewed when the District Car Parks are reviewed. No date for the review has been set.

Cllr Churchill said: "I was always against parking charges at Riverside, and I abstained on the cabinet vote."

Abstaining is non-committal. You are neither for or against the proposal. To be against the parking charges at Riverside Cllr Churchill must have voted against this proposal. Which he didn't.

As a Cabinet member Cllr Churchill says the Riverside Car Park is used mainly for recreation and that 38 spaces are not enough. Hmm... Hinchingbrooke Country Park is charged at £1 for 2 hours with no free spaces. This was instituted at the same time as Riverside. So why is there one policy for recreation users at Riverside and another for Hinchingbrooke?

Cllr Churchill is in the Conservative bad books. Having been dumped off many panels he is groping round for popular issues to show he is doing something. All the St Neots District Councillors who vote for the District Councils budget therefore endorse the car park charges at Riverside, yet deny they do so.

The St Neots Conservative Councillors all have a choice on this issue.

They could have voted against - which they didn't.
They could have resigned the whipped - although Cllr Farrer did threaten he didn't resign the whip.
Cabinet members could have resigned from Cabinet - none did.
They could have voted against the budget - none did.

In the end this is a continuation of the pantomime. With the worst case scenario being £6 million of cuts still needed at District our Councillors should concentrate on this.

snrednek says:
There is a solution to this. The Town Council takes responsibility for all the functions in St Neots which it has powers to do. Parks and recreation grounds are really the Town Council's responsibility and should be paid by the Town. The Car Parks should be run by the Town Council instead of District Council. There needs to be a fundamental look at who does what in the District. Currently the District Council wants contributions from the Towns for running a number of services. I feel this should change. It is what Localism is about. Decisions about services brought closer to those who will have to pay for them.

In the case of car park charges this would be decided by the Town Council who will have the responsibility for running and maintenance. The trouble is this is a revenue item for the District Council and the District Council wants to keep revenue and only lose the costs.

The problem is the District Council will want to cherry pick the services. Those that cost most will go to the Town and Parish Councils and the revenue retained by District. There needs to be a whole package of revenue and cost for the Town Council to take up these services. Trouble is I feel any deal is now too late.

Is the Council tax freeze really good news?

2011-10-05T16:23:00.000+01:00

For the short term it will be good news to Council Taxpayers. In the medium to long term this is plainly wrong. As can be seen in the picture below the current Council Tax Special Grant runs out in 2014/15.

This will mean a cut of £200,000 for the year 2015/16 and beyond. The one off council tax freeze announced by the Chancellor is just that - a one off. Say HDC gets £200,000 for holding the council tax down. All this will do is hold down the Council Tax rise for 1 year. In 2012/13 the money for this Council Tax freeze will end. So HDC will have a choice. Either cut a further £200,000 from its budget or increase the Council Tax by 5%.

Keeping down Council Tax by this means is a fallacy. It is the same as using reserves to keep down Council Tax. Local lessons with some of the the Town Council rises that were instituted under the Liberal Democrats and the massive hangover by the binge that HDC undertook by using reserves should be learnt. The underlying budgets go up which means Council Tax has to rise or services have to be cut. As the Government is putting £800 million to keep Council Tax rises down to 2.5% next year it will take double that (£1,600 million) the year if this continues.

The only way to cut Council Tax is to cut the cost of the Council. Cut services, cut jobs and drive down costs. Balance the budget each year (which means no use of reserves) and this will keep Council Tax rises down. All George Osbourne has done is put off rises for later years. This one will come to bite the Chancellor on his bum just before the next election.

It should be noted the Town Council receives no Government grant or funding.

Is Pickles right over weekly bin collections?

2011-10-05T09:04:00.000+01:00

Eric Pickles has announced £250 million for weekly bin collections. But does this make sense for Huntingdonshire? We have a three bin collection with each bin collected every two weeks. Grey bin for household waste. Blue bin for recycling. Green bin for food waste and gardening waste. In his press statement Eric Pickles says:

"Weekly rubbish collections are the most visible of all front-line services and I believe every household in England has a basic right to have their rubbish collected every week.
"Our fund will help councils deliver weekly collections and in the process make it easier for families to go green and improve the local environment."

What is the point of having more collections when this does the job. It would be a waste of money to institute a weekly collection of all the bins. Food waste should go in the green bin. If smells and rats are a problem, though I don't think they are, the green bin would be the one that is deemed as needed to be collected. This would mean pulling 3 bins out a week.

Collecting one or more of these bins once a week would be a waste of money! The Government should be using this money to pay off the National Debt,

8th July 2011 - What happened at the Town Council?

2011-10-04T15:39:00.000+01:00

I was rather surprised when looking at an agenda for the meeting of 21st July 2011 that there was a Council Meeting held on 8th July 2011. What was all this about? Why so secret?

The Agenda for 08.07.2011 cannot be found on the Town Council website.

So what is so secret? I obtained a copy of the agenda and it says the following:

3. Accounts & Financial Statements 2010/11

To receive an update from the Chairman on communications with the Councils external Auditors

4. Employment Matter (1)

To receive an update on an employment matter and resolve action to be taken

by Council

5. Employment Matter (2)

To receive an update on an employment matter and resolve action to be taken

by Council

So what action was taken for items 4 and 5?

Er..I don't know. Because there is no minute of the action to be taken.

The Press and Public can be excluded. But the decision itself is not secret. There is no record of the decisions taken and that is illegal. Because a minute is there to record a decision. From these minutes I can therefore ascertain that no decisions were taken.

The Conservatives said at the Town Council elections that:

Hardly transparent!

The Conservatives said they would be more transparent. They have taken a bit from the previous Liberal Democrats and not publicised the meeting and then come up with meaningless minutes.

Throwing Rocks into the pool of despair - Swimming Pool Trust Accounts

2011-10-04T08:24:00.000+01:00

The Swimming Pool Trust had another good year. The bank balance at the close of the accounts was £68,027. The Trust has enough money to do the basics.

The accounts show the Trust is between a rock and a hard place. The accounts says:

Later on:

So the Trust cannot sell the land unless all the money goes into a permanent endowment. HDC wants half the money.

Yet the residents were informed by Cllr Ursell that:

As the Town Council and therefore the Swimming Pool Trust are Conservative controlled and also HDC is run by the Conservatives the finances should therefore be resolved very soon.

At the election we were informed that:

Only Conservative Town, District and County Councils working together can deliver these objectives.

Well the Conservatives had better get on with it!

New Homes Bonus - where now?

2011-10-03T09:09:00.000+01:00

The Government wants the New Homes Bonus to be used in the communities which are shouldering new housing developments. As such St Neots must be in for a large load of money heading our way. But HDC has nicked this money to prop it failing budget.

As the St Neots Conservatives said in a leaflet during the elections:

In a report to Cabinet the OSP Economic Well-being said:

How much is HDC looking at nicking in New Homes Bonus. In the recent financial forecast HDC has upped the amount it will receive in New Home Bonus.

In 2016/17 it is looking at an extra £1.9 million increasing the total from £4 million to £5.9 million. This has an effect on the Medium Term Plan.

If the New Homes Bonus was taken out of this forecast HDC would have to make an additional £5.9 million of cuts or put up Council Tax to pay for these services. But that is not what the new Homes Bonus is for. It is to show the communities that house building brings tangible benefits. St Neots will see none of this. The St Neots Conservatives say they'll bring the New Homes Bonus back to St Neots where they belong. Having said this how are they going to ensure this happens. If they support this budget the St Neots Conservatives will be breaking an election promise. Yes another promise will be discarded. The St Neots Conservatives are getting rather good at breaking their promises.

CCTV - Who should pay?

2011-10-01T08:49:00.000+01:00

I've got a Porsche! Well no I haven't but if I did and couldn't afford to run it should I therefore ask my wife and friends to contribute to running my Porsche. Oh, I could come up with many ideas as to why other people should pay for the running of my Porsche. I could charge my wife for running her to Tesco or Asda. I could charge her for taking her out to dinner. I could charge my friends whenever they rode in the car or we are going to meet up. My Porsche is mine but everyone else should contribute to the cost of running it otherwise I just can't afford to run it.

Of course I could give up other things I want to do and use this money to pay for my Porsche. I could even work harder and get more money to run my Porsche.

The same is with the CCTV system owned and run by HDC. It is there CCTV system. They decided on it and run the CCTV system. Now they want others to contribute to the running of the system. The Police are the prime target. They use the system to investigate crime. The Police also use privately owned CCTV systems to investigate crime. Should the Police contribute towards these? Well the answer is NO!

Another soft target are the Town Councils. HDC feels they should contribute towards the cost of the HDC owned system as it benefits the Towns. This is literally "Conservative stealth taxation" because the money will come from the Council Taxpayer through the Town Councils. As with the Public Toilets the cost was pushed onto the Town Councils whilst HDC boasted about keeping Council Tax rise to 2.5%.

In the end the CCTV system is my imaginary Porsche. I own it and I have to deal with the costs. Likewise the Councillors on HDC have to deal with the CCTV costs. If they want to keep it then they will have to find the money to keep it going either with cuts elsewhere or upping the Council Tax to pay for it. Blaming others because you don't want to afford it is not good. HDC Councillors must step up and decide CCTV or Council tax rise. Their decision and only their decision.

Cut salaries to save jobs?

2011-09-30T09:40:00.000+01:00

The headline of this weeks News and Crier is a new pay restructure could save jobs. This is the route HDC seems to going down. But what does this tell me? From the headline and article it seems that Conservative run HDC is more interested in saving jobs than making real savings. So is it jobs first or savings first. I feel it is neither. I get the impression that HDC is more interested in saving jobs with my Council Tax.

Local Government is here to provide services to its residents. Government/Parliament decides the mandatory services and gives powers to provide other services. The Council Taxpayer picks up part of the tab with Government providing a large chunk of the rest.

With HDC facing problems over its budget and in the future forecast it is looking for between £1.1 million and a whopping £6 million of cuts, just on its own figures by keeping the New Homes Bonus, protecting jobs seems rather futile. The best option is for HDC to decide what it has to provide and at what level. In addition HDC should then decide what it wants to further provide and budget accordingly. The problem with salami slicing is keeping jobs becomes the priority and the services which go with those jobs. HDC's priority must be to provide those services that are needed and ensure they are adequately funded. Then HDC can have a dialogue with residents over whether residents are willing to fund non-statutory services through a much needed rise in Council Tax. Services first, Council taxpayers second and jobs last.

I know this is one of the last bastions of socialist utopia and the whole reason to be is the Council must provide services. The problem the Conservatives have is the years of being a low tax/high services council are over. The Conservatives need to decide whether they are a low cost/low tax authority or a high tax/high services authority and act accordingly.

If I were Lidl I would......

2011-09-29T02:24:00.001+01:00

Block the view of the cinema unless I get a lot of money. The reason is Turnstone Estates don't have the right to use my land to advertise their cinema development. Think about it. Turnstone Estates are proposing to build a cinema and restaurants behind Lidl land. There is no vehicular access from Lidl car park.

If I were Lidl I would be most upset that my car park would be used to drop visitors to the new cinema complex. This is my land so why should the developers get away with using my land to get people into their development.

What would I do if I were Lidl? Firstly, I would put up a boundary fence to block off the cinema complex from my land. Secondly, I would plant trees to stop the view of the cinema complex from Cambridge Street across my land.

Why should Turnstone Estates get away with using my land to service their development? If I were Lidl I would try to stop Turnstone Estates from using my land for their development for free.

HDC is breaking the law

2011-09-28T13:02:00.000+01:00

In the Corporate Governance Panel Agenda the following is stated:

The reasons why the final accounts are not ready is not stated. Only a "combination of reasons" rather than actually spelling these out. As pointed out it is a requirement the accounts are approved by the panel. What do the Financial Regulations say?

The Corporate Governance Panel isn't doing this. Yet the law says HDC should do so. HDC is therefore breaking the law by not agreeing the Final Accounts.

What are the problems? HDC hasn't said. They could be minor or major. That will have to wait for the final accounts when they are finally published.

It seems OK for HDC to break the law over the approving these accounts. Yet HDC doesn't want residents to break the law. Council Tax defaulters, dog litter, parking fines and many other offences HDC uses the law to fine and even imprison offenders. Yet when HDC breaks the law - nothing is done. Nothing is mentioned in the Agenda to indicate these accounts have to be approved by 30th September 2011. As an Authority HDC has a duty to uphold the law. If HDC doesn't then why should the residents?

Ed Reilly is Acting Town Clerk

2011-09-27T07:54:00.000+01:00

Edward Reilly FCMI FFA is the Acting Town Clerk during the mysterious absence by the current Town Clerk - Helen King. Last time there was a mysterious absence the former Town Clerk - Phillip Devonold - eventually resigned. So why is the Town Council keeping the change so quiet?

This is taking everything to extreme. The Town Clerk is absent and a temporary replacement has turned up. This is good and I congratulate the Conservatives with getting on with the job. The Liberal Democrats should have done the same when Devonold left. They didn't.

So who is Ed Reilly? The only Ed Reilly I came across was a Town Clerk to Sleaford Town Council in Lincolnshire. Linkedin also has something on Ed.

This could also be something decided at 8th July 2011 Council Meeting. This has been kept secret. Why?

What is the point of a Development Brief

2011-09-26T09:02:00.000+01:00

The Cinema project rumbles on but what of the document that started this off. The Development Brief outlined all the planning considerations needed for a development of whatever type to go ahead. It also has some graphics which show the planning problems.

The above picture sets out the many issues with the site. The whole idea was for the car park to use the Lidl car park entrance. The Huntingdon Street entrance was to be used for service vehicles. There are two strong arrows allowing for the protection of Neighbour Amenity. The inclusion of "high quality building frontage" with the effects on the listed buildings in Cambridge Street.

The above picture sets out the basics of what any new development is likely to look like taking into account. The main entrance is via the Lidl car park. The service entrance is off Huntingdon Street. The arrows protecting neighbour amenity are still there. The "important building frontage" is still there. What is extra is the car parking on the recreation ground.

Now move onto the planning application:

There is no access from Lidl. All the traffic is coming from Huntingdon Street. The "important building frontage" is no more. The car park on the recreation ground has increased from 40% to 75%. The arrows "protecting Neighbour amenity" have been breached and breached significantly.

I tried to marry the two pictures together:

This is not totally exact. But it is a good indication of the significant breach of the "protect neighbour amenity" arrows. The entrance by Cressener House is now the main entrance to the car park. A new access road is along the north side running behind the fence of the properties in East Street.

Now the Development Brief are guidelines. This is supposed to be a living document. I can understand that some minor alterations can and have taken place. What is not minor is the change from the entrance being through the Lidl car park from Cambridge Street to the entrance designated as a service vehicle entrance in Huntingdon Street. Another major change are the significant breaches of the arrows to "protect neighbour amenity". Another major change include the extension of the car park further into the recreation ground.

So why weren't these major changes put back out to the community for further consultation? It is not as though these are minor changes.

There is something else. The site is owned by Huntingdon District Council and St Neots Town Council. As the lead the District Council decided to have a cinema on this site with Turnstone Estates as their preferred developer.

So HDC is the owner and also decides the planning application on its own land. The Officer in charge of this application is:

The same Jennie Parsons who gave pre-application advice to Turnstone Estates.

Is there anything wrong with this arrangement. Legally, this is very acceptable because it is HDC's duty to decide this application. But HDC does need to go that extra mile to ensure what it decides is correct.

Now I need to make a declaration that I have objected to this plan as a member of the public.

One of my concerns is this is public land owned by HDC and SNTC. The politicians who run HDC have agreed to Development Brief (DB). They should abide by the (DB) in their consequential decisions. So as Turnstone Estates have submitted a plan at significant variance to the DB then HDC should either stop this because of the significant variance or go back out to public consultation to ensure the residents are in agreement.

Both HDC and SNTC are taking a shortcut. They own the land yet they but there seems to be a divorce between their own policy and that of the planning department. I know many of our local politicians want the cinema because it will be a feather in their cap. I feel this is in the wrong place for the cinema. Local residents are going to have the amenity of their properties severely affected by this development. Just saying this is a planning issue when HDC and SNTC own the land doesn't work for me.

In the end what is the point of producing a Development Brief which isn't adhered to by the Council that produces this brief. SNTC is a laughing stock when it make recommendations of refusal to HDC. The Planning Department at HDC will become a laughing stock if it approves plans that are significantly at variance with the Development Brief it wrote. The only way this is going to be approved is if HDC Planning throw out their rule book.

HDC will get its way for this titchy cinema with little access and only seen up an alley. Our local politicians will be joyous at the building of a cinema. The St Neots residents may be less welcoming once it is open and they compare and contrast with other cinemas they go to.

------------------------------------------------

Oh and to prove this is the current Development Brief I went to the HDC website and did a crummy video of the draft link. See below.

Is Turnstone Estates in trouble?

2011-09-23T07:53:00.000+01:00

The St Neots cinema project, on land behind Lidl, is as only as good as developer. So how good are Turnstone Estates group financials?

The last three years accounts are here: 2010, 2009 and 2008.

The profits/losses for the last 3 years are:

2007 = £11,921 profit

2008 = £976,049 loss

2009 = £14,747 profit

2010 = £275,876 loss

So not a massively profitable group. In fact over the last 4 years the group has lost £1.2 million.

The net assets of the group has fallen from £7,464,622 in 2007 to £5,754,285 in 2010. Of course there is a recession on and what do I expect?

The key to all this are the loans and the interest rates payable on those loans.

In 2007 the loans stood at £8,530,000. In 2008 the loans stood at £19,893,418. In 2009 the loans stood at £23,893,359. In 2010 the loans stood at £32,078,149.

This is a big leap in a time of recession.

The 2010 accounts also have a warning as to whether Turnstone Estates is a going concern. The warning says:

If the loans aren't renewed the business may not be a going concern.

The Auditors also pointed out in the 2010 accounts:

There are problems with some of the trading subsidiaries and participating interests.

According to the 2010 accounts the only new project is the Cinema.

I'm not an accountant of any sort. HDC should have all this information and they have the expertise or can call on the expertise to look at the viability of the cinema development. HDC decided to go with Turnstone Estates. If the group becomes unable to fulfill this development, due to one or all of the "emphasis of matter", this is something HDC knew or should have known when they took the decision to go with Turnstone Estates.

If the development fails because the company fails HDC shouldn't be able to wash it hands of blame.

Could Shady Walk be registered as a Town Green?

2011-09-22T15:39:00.000+01:00

I found a bit of information on registering a village or town green which could block the development of the "Open Green Space" which the Town Council Conservatives said "WE WILL" protect to become mainly a car park.

By trying to register Shady Walk as a Town Green, this would slow down the development. By getting Shady Walk designated as a Town Green this would save the "Open Green Space" for the future. It would also cause problems for the developers as the car park is integral to the development.

Though whether this would actually stop a cinema complex is another argument.

No theatre in cinema

2011-09-22T08:31:00.000+01:00

Way back when this cinema/theatre project was first mooted, I asked a few questions. One was in a conversation with a representative of Turnstone Estates. One of my questions was:

What about the theatre auditorium?

One screen will be able to be used as a theatre auditorium by local theatre groups. But is won't be like a normal theatre.

On another occasion the theatre plan was expressed:

Cllr Barry Chapman: "The plans would also include a theatre auditorium, he added." - Hunts Post

The plan is for one of the cinema auditoria to be able to accommodate occasional theatre productions, a spokeswoman from Turnstone Estates said. - News and Crier

If the cinema is supposed to be getting a theatre auditorium where will it be?

Notice the change. It has changed from a theatre to "live performances". The theatre has been dropped. Screen 3 is where the "live performances" could take place.

This is a copy of the plans submitted to HDC. If this is to be used by local theatre groups where are the following?:

The Stage to perform on

The Lighting for the productions

The Changing Rooms so performers can get changed

The Scenery Store for scenery or indeed anything that may be needed
Storage for the 30 seats to be taken out.

There is nothing in the building that facilitates the use of the Auditorium as a Theatre let alone used for "live performances". The best I can see is a one man band playing to 92 seats.

The plans do not include a theatre auditorium. I doubt whether "live performances" will take place.

I thought this would be fitting. Though whether the band will fit in to the "live performance" section is open to question.

Useless Town Council Planning Committee being useless again

2011-09-21T10:49:00.000+01:00

I would have thought that with the change in political control the Town Council Planning Committee would make itself useful. But useless continues to be the theme. In the refusal over the Cinema Planning application this useless committee has done it again.

The reasons put forward for recommending refusal of the cinema were:

Emergency vehicle access in and out of the development from Huntingdon Street
The extra volume of traffic passing through an already congested town centre
Smells generated by the proposed four restaurants
Failure by Turnstone Estates to provide a 3D model of the leisure complex

I'll take each "reason" for objection in turn.

Emergency vehicle access. There is no evidence to back up this objection. If the Emergency services have an issue with this they can always object. But they won't. So this is a useless objection.

Extra volume of traffic. Where is the evidence for this? The developer and Councils have done traffic surveys. So where is the evidence that this will cause traffic congestion. Unless the Town Council is willing to back up this objection with its own traffic data this is a useless objection.

Smell generated from restaurants. This could be a planning objection. Again needs to be evidenced. This will lead to a condition on any eventual planning permission. In itself it is not a reason for refusal.

Failure of Turnstone Estates to provide a 3D model. Not a valid planning objection.

Once again the Town Council Planning Committee rises to the challenge and is utterly useless. A good pantomime.

In voting to recommend refusal the Planning Committee is playing a part in a pantomime. The Town Council is leasing much of Shady walk Open Space to Turnstone Estates and the plans were fully known then. So why weren't these objections raised before the lease was agreed?

Most of the land is owned by HDC. Cllr Farrer is a District Councillor. Why haven't these objections been brought to District Council as the land owner. As the land owner HDC has control on what the land is used for than any committee or panel.

This is the Town Council having two policies. One is for the cinema project. The other is against.

The residents may think they have won a victory. But they haven't. These useless objections will be simply ignored by the District Council. Another pantomime for St Neots.

Why not get rid of this useless Planning Committee? The vast majority of the country gets on without one so why do we have this useless committee. Save money and save council tax by ridding St Neots Town Council of this useless committee which serves no real purpose.

Cllr Churchill - fall from grace

2011-09-20T08:36:00.000+01:00

With the imminent demise of Cllr Ken Churchill's political career over being struck off as being a physiotherapist by the HPC for a inappropriate sexual relationship, there are a few lessons those in power need to heed.

Where did Ken go wrong?

Whilst the HPC made a decision based on the "balance of probabilities" not the much higher level of criminal "beyond reasonable doubt" much of this was based on the evidence of one 72 year old woman. Ken didn't help himself by bringing along patient notes to the hearing. These should have been given over to the investigation team during the investigation. This could have meant the allegations were dealt with before a hearing was convened.

So what should Ken have done once the decision HPC decision was known to him? His first port of call would be the leaders of the County and District Council Groups to inform them of the HPC decision. Ken should then have taken to the backbenches and relinquished chairmanships and memberships of the various committee and panels.

Ken should have then pre-empted the announcement of the decision by making a press statement and saying he would continue to fight to clear his name.

Because Ken obviously didn't inform his leaders, they had to take action which led to press coverage. The Leaders had to be seen to take action. The County Council Group was far more robust than the District Council Group. This is for the Conservatives to decide.

The problem I have with all this is this is being struck off from a professional body rather than a criminal offence. Whilst I don't like what was found by the HPC, it should ultimately be up either Ken Churchill or the electors of Little Paxton and North St Neots to decide his fate as a Councillor.

Whilst the term suspension has been used Ken has effectively been booted out of the Conservatives for 6 months. After which he can apply to rejoin.

If I were Ken I would say "stuff it" and resign the lot.

Statements like this don't help his cause:

“The meeting went very well. I gave a presentation and showed all the evidence that was less than credible."

"A secret ballot was then taken and the outcome of that ballot was that I should remain in the group."

“Now I have the backing of the district group’s resolution and the Conservative Association.”

The fact that a majority of the group are against you doesn't mean you have the backing of the District Conservative Group. In fact that a majority voted against you means they looked at Ken's presentation and the less than credible evidence and still voted to get rid of Ken from the group. If Ken's presentation was anything like the statement above no wonder the Conservatives voted twice to suspend him.

Ken, your colleagues are trying to tell you something and that is your not wanted in the Conservative Groups.

Blot on the landscape

2011-09-19T07:12:00.000+01:00

Throughout the summer I've been watching this "bridge" grow and grow whilst walking the dogs. I, like many, have to scratch my head over why this bridge is so long? When I first heard of the bridge I thought it would be a straight up and over like the one at Riverside Park.

I don't dispute the need for a bridge across the Great Ouse. As a cyclist to get to Eaton Socon it is a trouble so go over the weir or along the A428. This makes cycling and walking to and from Eaton Socon much, much easier.

As a show case for the connection between the two communities it is plainly over engineered. Too big and the walkway is far too far. A blot on the landscape.

When archaeologists in the far distant future look at this bridge they will scratch there heads to think why it was built so long on the Eynesbury side. Sometimes the people behind these projects need to take a step back and look at the outcome before committing the project to be built. Visitors et al will also be scratching their heads as to this blot on the landscape.

Is this something St Neots should be proud of? I say NO!

Summer Hiatus

2011-06-11T01:48:00.003+01:00

Time moves on and this blog has to take a hiatus for the summer. Many things to do and many places to go and see. With the Conservatives settling into St Neots Town Council and not much on the horizon with HDC until the Autumn.

In the mean time I can look up more information on the New Homes Bonus, CIL, The Town Council and the District Council. The hiatus doesn't mean I'm stopping for good. Looking at last summer many items dominated but these aren't going to be repeated this year.

So rather than sit here boring the pants off everyone with bits and pieces about nothing, I've decided to stop the blog, for the moment, and see what happens after the summer. (1st September 2011) Happy holidays!

Conservatives win Eynesbury

2011-06-10T13:45:00.000+01:00

At the delayed Town Council elections for the Eynesbury Ward held yesterday on 9th June 2011, the Conservatives won.

Edward Bruning, (Liberal Democrat), 326
Diana Collins, (Liberal Democrat), 385
James Corley, (Liberal Democrat), 320
Andrew Hansard, (Conservative), 560 - elected
Catherine Hutton, (Conservative), 546 - elected
Robert Moores, (Liberal Democrat), 328
Emlyn Rees, (Labour), 204
Leslie Roberts, (Liberal Democrat), 327
Andrea Ruck, (Conservative), 532 - elected
David Ruck, (Conservative), 512 - elected
Douglas Terry, (Liberal Democrat), 317
Paul Ursell, (Conservative), 584 - elected
Adrian Usher, (Conservative), 551- elected
Steve Van De Kerkhove, (Liberal Democrat), 406
Karl Wainwright, (Conservative), 511- elected

Turnout was 15.09 per cent.

This makes Conservative control of the Town Council near total. The only opposition member is Carl Jones who stood as an Independent. The Conservatives went at this with a full on campaign which did them well.

Now the Conservatives have the problems. Their is no one else they can blame if things go wrong. Cllr Farrer tries to blame "THEY" which seems to be a code word for Conservatives.

This has been a good set of elections for the Conservatives. But when you get to the top of the mountain the only way is DOWN.

So who are THEY?

2011-06-09T04:25:00.001+01:00

In an article in this weeks Hunts Post, Cllr Bob Farrer (County Councillor, District Councillor and Town Councillor) said the following about reduced hours at the library service in St Neots.

The Library should be the hub for the Town. I hope Cllr Farrer follows through by getting the Town Council to deposit the documents it produces there.

Cllr Farrer also goes onto say: "Last year THEY refurbished it". So who is THEY?. Well Cllr Farrer is a County Councillor and it is the County Council, of which he is a Councillor, who are THEY who refurbished St Neots Library. Cllr Farrer goes on: "Why should THEY want to spend that money and start shutting it? If County Councillor Bob Farrer can't answer why the County Council is doing this then maybe he could turn to his fellow District Councillor, who is also a Town Councillor and the County Councillor in charge of libraries - Cllr David Harty.

This is just a blame game by Cllr Farrer who can't blame himself so goes off blaming "THEY". And "THEY"are his Conservative colleagues.

Just on last point. Cllr Farrer says: "I would much prefer the Town Council put a bit of money in it."

So the rot starts. A little bit here and a little bit there and boom here comes the rise in Council Tax. Between Mad Baz and Spendmore Bob the Town Council will go to ruin. And it is the residents that will have to stump up the extra Council Tax.

Djanogly continues not to be good for the Conservatives

2011-06-08T01:12:00.001+01:00

The Huntingdon Conservative Association continues on the slow slide towards oblivion. According to the 2010 accounts, Membership of HCA has fallen slightly from 686 to 663. A drop of 23.

With an increase of 1 on Full membership the fall has been the Out of Constituency membership, down 22, and the final 2 Club members going.

The deficit increased this year from £8086 to £11801. The Association is eating into capital to keep going. 2010 was General Election year and this should have been a fundraising opportunity for HCA. In 2005 the Fighting Fund brought in £13955. In 2010 there is no figure but this was probably about £4200. With £3000 from Lola Cars this is really a paltry amount. Comparing 2005 with 2010 there is a large difference in Income generated from fundraising.

The Huntingdon Industrial Advisory Council has a dropped from £4000 to nothing. The Premier Club has stopped being a major contributor to the Associations funds. Various other events have been dropped. This leaves HCA in the predicament it currently finds itself in.

So why blame Djanogly? Well this is his power base. Djanogly needs a well funded Association to carry on the political campaigning and as all political wonks know this needs money. The fighting fund for Djanogly simply failed. The HIAC, which is Djanogly's baby, also failed. The Premier Club also failed.

Djanogly hasn't been good for Huntingdon Conservative Association. He isn't bringing in the money needed to sustain the Conservative Association he represents. What this Conservative Association needs is an injection of cash. It either needs to fundraise more or the MP and Councillors need to start contributing to Association funds.

New Conservative leaflet - where are the Liberal Democrats (and Labour)

2011-06-07T14:31:00.000+01:00

A new Conservative leaflet came through on Sunday and I've gotten around to posting it here. The Conservatives are going all out to win this election. Since this election started I have received no Liberal Democrat or Labour literature. The Conservatives are out campaigning the other parties and deserve to win on this alone.

When the election is over the Liberal Democrats will be looking for many other factors to blame. The basics are very simple. Get out and campaign if you want to win. Don't campaign and you will lose.

Affording the swimming pool of despair

2011-06-07T00:05:00.001+01:00

Cllr Ursell was going on about a the front page of the previous months Lovely Moon. He said:

"Call me cynical. Is it just a coincidance that the "Lovely Moon" publication blaming HDC (which is Conservative controlled) came out just before the election especially as the editor is Ted Bruning who I suspect is the the same Ted Bruning who was standing for town council in Eynesbury Ward as a Liberal Democrat canditate. If it is true then no wonder the article was biased against HDC. Its deplorable that, if true, a Liberal democrat candidate should try and mislead the general public by this sort of election tactic."

In this months Lovely Moon there is an article quoting Cllr Ursell. Cllr Ursell is standing for Town Coucil elections on 9th June 2011. The article is below:

What Cllr Ursell does say does raise one question. How will a new open air swimming pool actually be self-sufficient? With £1.75 million in the bank their shouldn't be much to worry about. Once all the construction costs have been taken out there won't be much left. According to Cllr Ursell the old Outdoor Swimming Pool lost £30,000 a year. In truth all pools lose money and need public subsidy in one measure or another. People won't pay the actual cost of swimming.

Eversholt which has an open air swimming pool relies on fundraising to keep the pool open. In financial terms there are a few points to consider:

1. Renewal. The pool will need renewing or a major overhaul in roughly 20 years. If it cost say £1 million to construct this would mean a pool would need roughly £2 million in 20 years time, if not more.

So a "financially self-sufficient" pool needs to put £100,000 a year aside for renewal.

2. £1.75 million seems alot of money. Take a million off for contruction and the trust is left with £750,000. With interest of 5% this would bring in £37,500 a year. Just enough to cover the losses.

3. The old pool was seasonal. Opening up the pool for the whole year brings with it higher staffing costs, management and utilities not to mention higher costs of maintenance.

4. What else could the Trust do? There is an idea of a wave machine that surfers could use. But how much profit would a machine like this actually bring in? I have no idea. Nor, I suspect, does Cllr Ursell or the Trust. There have been hints of having a gym. But this won't make any money.

Whatever the outcome any outdoor swimming pool would need public subsidy to make it a going concern. Either subsidise the running costs or put money aside for pool renewal. £1.75 million sounds alot of money but it isn't. To make this pool self sufficient the amount needs to be closer to £5 million rather than £1.75 million. As with the titchy cinema St Neots will end up with a paddling pool.

9th June 2011 - who I'm voting for!

2011-06-06T01:43:00.001+01:00

Eynesbury is set to vote on 9th June 2011 for the last seats to be decided in the Town Council elections. With the Conservatives winning back in May this is a different election. There are now different reasons as to which way I'm voting.

Firstly, I won't vote Labour. Secondly, looking at the new Town Councillors at the Annual Town Meeting they are a bunch of men, with one exception. Therefore I'm voting for the female candidates first.

That is Hutton, Collins and Andrea Ruck.

The next thing is I won't be voting for either of the Conservative District Councillors. HDC is in a financial mess. The HDC Conservatives have taken the New Homes Bonus without a peep from the St Neots District Councillors when formulating the HDC budget.

As for the rest. Seeing the death of a candidate delayed elections I feel I should vote for the younger candidates. Steve van de Kerkhove gets my vote. As does Les Roberts, Rob Moores and David Ruck

Conservative Leaflet for Eynesbury 9th June delayed elections

2011-06-03T08:56:00.001+01:00

I've received a leaflet through from the Conservatives regarding the delayed elections in Eynesbury for the Town Council. So what are the Conservatives promising?

In the main text they are promising to:

Work with the County Council to promote Bargroves as a Community facility.

Routing the carnival through Eynesbury.

Supporting local group such as EVA.

What else does the leaflet say?

On the New Homes Bonus it says:

Well the Conservatives already control all 3. The problem with this is whilst the County Council has put the money aside, Conservative controlled HDC has put the money in the budget. With 8 Conservative District Councillors from St Neots out of 41 Conservative District Councillors this is 19.5% of the membership. This is up from 16%.

The Conservatives also promise to be more transparent at council meetings. The last sentence says: "What have they not been telling us?". Well now your in-charge the Conservatives can inform us.

Is Djanogly Dim but Nice?

2011-06-02T07:25:00.000+01:00

I have to wonder about Jonathan Djanogly, Under Secretary of State in charge of Legal Aid and our MP to boot. As pointed out by Private Eye he actually turned up at protest about the cuts he is instituting.

So is Djanogly for the cuts or against? Or did he think "Sound Off For Justice" was something different?

AV - The Huntingdonshire result analysis

2011-06-01T01:47:00.001+01:00

The result of the AV referendum for Huntingdonshire is:

Yes: 15,145

No: 38,725

The vote data for the local elections were:

Conservatives: 22729

Liberal Democrats: 8745

Labour: 5401

UKIP: 3492

Independent: 811

There were a total of 21 wards up for election.

Conservatives: 1082 per ward in 21.

Liberal Democrats: 437 per ward in 20 wards.

Labour: 270 per ward in 20 wards.

UKIP: 317 per ward in 11 wards.

Independent: 811 in 1 ward.

The electorate at those wards voting was: 43.57%

With the non local elections ward voting at the referendum there was little drop between the two sets of results with those not having locals coming out stronger at 46..58% of the referendum vote.

With the vote split at 72% No and 28% Yes then roughly the AV vote in the local elections went NO 29603 and YES 11575. If the YES campaign for AV which included UKIP + Liberal Democrats + some Labour votes are totalled up the YES campaign didn't attract all their voters. There was a percentage of voters in the YES camp parties who voted NO.

In the end it was the strong NO campaign which brought out the Conservative vote. A tactical mistake by the Liberal Democrats who believed the YES AV campaign would help energise their supporters. In reality it didn't. All it did was energise the Conservatives to get their vote out with the NO to AV campaign and helped them win the local elections.

Where did it all go wrong for the Liberal Democrats

2011-05-31T00:55:00.001+01:00

The Liberal Democrats had a pounding on the Town Council losing this Council to the Conservatives. But where did it all go wrong?

Starting with the elections in 2007.
The Liberal Democrats won 13 out of 18 seats. But not by much. In Eynesbury they took 5 of the 6 seats. In Priory Park ward their smallest majority was 65. In Eaton Socon the smallest majority was 35. So the Liberal Democrats got in by the skin of their teeth.

First Forward Plan.
A good Forward Plan with much in it. Carry this out and the Liberal Democrats would have a programme for change. Much of the plan was not costed. This meant whilst the Liberal Democrats had good ideas they hadn't planned the money to spend on these projects. This downfall was to haunt them for the next 3 years.

The 2008/09 Budget.
This was a bad budget. Those in charge at the time, Cllr Giles and Thorpe, underfunded the budget which meant a large deficit during the year. The Liberal Democrats baulked at the 24% increase needed and went for a lower amount of 9.2% increase instead.

Taking Grounds Maintenance in-house
This had been dealt with by contract. Taking this in-house means the Council becomes the employer. This had significant costs which weren't foreseen. These amounted to £95,000. This dug into the Council finances. It was the mishandling of this project which caused the Liberal Democrats untold pain.

Cemetery.
The new cemetery, to be in Bedfordshire, was the main project for the year and it failed when the farmer upped the price after the Town Council obtained planning permission. This led to the downfall of Philip Devonald who should have gone when the problems over the finances arose.

The "Shambles".
The Liberal Democrats got themselves into a mess over the missing loan. But this was minor and a cover for something much deeper. When the Liberal Democrats got a majority they set about changing the constitution. They set up a Policy and Resources committee whose job was to oversee the finances of the Council. In charge was Liberal democrat Leader (Derek Giles) and Deputy Leader (Gordon Thorpe). What went wrong wasn't the "missing" loan. It is the fact that knowing something was wrong the Liberal Democrat leadership kept this from Council.

The problem was that no councillor resigned because of this "Shambles". They didn't see it as their problem. Indeed Cllr Thorpe was promoted to being Town Mayor!

The 2009/10 Budget.
This budget tore the heart out of the Forward Plan. It also took the decision not to replace the Town Clerk for 6 months. This was another very big mistake. By not getting the resources of a properly qualified Town Clerk the Liberal Democrats messed up the Town Council for years. This came back to bite them with:

Loss and regaining of Quality Town Status.
Not appointing a proper qualified Town Clerk means the Town Council couldn't re-apply for Quality Status which they lost in January 2010. This is where the Liberal Democrats went wrong. They pushed for the regaining of Quality Status over much else. This isn't what the Liberal Democrats should have done.

The Car Park Pantomime.
I still don't see the reason why there was any need for any real protest. And a protest march to boot. The failure of this didn't do the Liberal Democrats much good. The District Council is in financial crisis and needs the money. Why not focus on that rather than messing about over 20 pence an hour (free evenings and on Sundays). Instead of pointing at the inability of the St Neots Conservative Councillors to change things they masked these ineffective efforts by having an alternative pantomime.

The Town Mayor's regalia.
A small item in what went wrong, yet it was to resonate around the Town. The excuse that Civic Pride was needed and this was embodied in the Town Mayor really missed the point. Town Mayor - who cares? Civic Pride - again who actually cares.

So what else did the Liberal Democrats do wrong?
Being only in power by a few votes, the Liberal Democrats needed to make progress. Being in power is one thing. Keeping in power is another. The tendency is to "blame the national situation" rather than analyse what went wrong and what went right.

Where the Liberal Democrats went wrong in Government was not understanding the Town Councils finances. This led to a casino budget which led to a cuts budget which shredded their Forward Plan. The inability to control the previous Town Clerk is also evident in the Cemetery and the debacle over the finances. By not getting in a properly qualified Town Clerk led to the loss of Quality Status but also, in my view, held the Liberal Democrats back from getting the Town Council back on track.

Yet however you look at all that went wrong the main problem was communication. Newspapers, if delivered, can be read. The adverts in the News and Crier were good. But I don't get the News and Crier! The only way to get your message out to your electorate is to put out leaflets on, at least, a regular quarterly basis.

The age old reason for not getting your message out are too many to quote now. Yet many others are able to achieve this even in winter.

There are 4 District wards in St Neots. Eaton Socon and Eynesbury should be your targets. A leaflet every quarter with door knocking once a month should make life interesting for the Conservatives. Both Eynesbury and Eaton Socon are up for election in 2012. Time to get leafleting and knocking now!

If the Liberal Democrats want to win they need to out campaign the Conservatives. If they don't then their voices in St Neots will be drowned out.

Do the Conservatives have a Mandate for the Town Council

2011-05-26T01:26:00.003+01:00

With the Conservatives taking the Town Council what are their promises for the next 4 years.

The question is whether they have a mandate to make these "we wills" in to actions. The simple answer is yes. The Conservatives put these "we wills" to the electorate and have received the popular vote to put them into power. The whole electorate was entitled to vote. Eynesbury has still to vote but the result is irrelevant as the Conservatives have already got a majority winning 13 of the 21 seats.

The question is how quickly the Conservatives are able to put their "we wills" into action.

What happened to Labour?

2011-05-25T00:58:00.000+01:00

In a earlier blog I said Labour were over egging their chances before the election. Mike Sneath said:

How many seats did Labour achieve? Answer: District Council = Zero. Huntingdon Town Council = 2 (a gain of 1). In St Neots Labour did rather well in Eynesbury exceeding their General Election result. But that was about it.

Gordon Thorpe - should we feel sorry?

2011-05-24T01:46:00.001+01:00

Gordon Thorpe cut a very fine figure at the Annual Town Meeting in his formal robes. He and his team raised £8500 for his nominated charities. He went to many different functions representing the Town. He even got the Town Council to spend money on regalia and his robes. Gordon had his picture in the paper opening something almost every week.

But should I and the rest of the residents feel sorry for Gordon. I don't.

Gordon was re-elected in 2007 to the District Council with a 12 vote majority.

Indeed at the Town Elections on the same day he received 719 votes.

Fast forward to 2011 and Gordon is up for election again. At his re-election he gets 464 votes whilst Julia gets 553.

Even at Town Council Gordon lags behind with 586votes against Julia's 674 votes.

So why did Gordon do so badly? Because he was too interested in being Town Mayor he totally forgot he was there for two reasons. Firstly he had to be elected. Secondly the Liberal Democrats had to have a majority.

According to one source Gordon only became interested in the Town Council elections roughly a week before the elections were held. Far too late to change things.

Gordon seemed far more interested in being Town Mayor and raising money for charity. Gordon must have thought his high profile in the papers were doing the job. But they weren't. Local politicians need to have a base on which to stand. The Liberal Democrats needed to make their base in Eaton Socon and they didn't.

It is obvious that Gordon didn't do the work needed to get re-elected. He was too involved in being Town Mayor instead of looking after Eaton Socon which he needed to win. Gordon's downfall was because he didn't put the work into his ward that was needed. Should we feel sorry? I don't feel any residents should feel sorry that Gordon wasn't re-elected. Gordon should have done the basics before enjoying the treats.

Reflections on the Town Meeting.

2011-05-23T01:46:00.001+01:00

The Annual Town Meeting was to total farce. Well beyond time that it was separate from the Annual Council Meeting. I was late and missed the first bit. Then we had a very emotional time of having the Town Mayor drone on about raising £8500 for charity but not being re-elected. His own fault. Yet he took ages. This seemed to be the Gordon Thorpe show rather than an Annual Town Meeting.

We had the Youth Team leader giving a short talk, same as at the Neighbourhood Meeting a few weeks previously. The Huntingdonshire Business Against Crime presentation was a bit of a disaster. For the life of me I couldn't see the point. This seemed to be presentation about retail crime but how many retailers were there in the audience.

Questions were of course cut short. Of the 13 questions I put in beforehand only two were answered. The rest I await from the new Chairman/Town Mayor to answer.

The question over the Town Plan from another member of the audience was totally fluffed by the Town Mayor who seemed to be in a different world to the rest of the audience. yet he had the Town Clerk sitting next to him. Gordon seems to take the role of being spokesman for the Town Council personally when he is only Chairman and should pass questions onto those who know.

What is the point of having an Annual Town Meeting when people are not allowed to ask the questions? Of course the Chairman's decision is final. But it is a waste of time and energy. Gordon Thorpe did a disservice to the Town by not allowing questions. Gordon once said to me that "You are the most hated man in St Neots". Does this colour what I feel. Well no. I revel in this accolade. I'm just having a go at exposing some of what goes on in this town.

I probably get the blame for his downfall. But if Gordon actually went out and properly campaigned he should have done much better. Instead it is easier to blame everyone else rather than for Gordon to look at what he didn't do.

In the end the way the Annual Town Meeting is constituted it is a waste of time for the people who turn up and the people who ask questions. The Annual Town Meeting is for the Town not the local politicians.

Derek Giles and his predictions

2011-05-21T09:13:00.000+01:00

In a letter published in The Hunts Post, Derek Giles makes a statement and some predictions.

1. "After years of striving to maintain a town council budget increase of below inflation," says Del. The only problem this just doesn't stack up.

The budget for 2007/08 was £695794. In 2008/09 the budget/precept increased to £759873. This was a 9.2% increase. Inflation was 2%. So this was inflation busting. For 2009/10 the budget was increased to £803576. This was a 5.75% increase. What Del says just doesn't stack up.

2. "this time next year we will all be hit by a record rise in our local community charge,"

The budget is in a good state. With more housing coming on in Love's Farm and elsewhere the likelihood is the Town Council will have a budget surplus. If the Conservatives do make cuts to the budget and keep cutting the waste, such as the extra spent on the ground maintenance, this will allow the Conservatives a bit of freedom in the Town Council budget.

Conservatives break their first "we will"!

2011-05-20T01:00:00.001+01:00

In incoming Conservatives have broken their first "We Will". During the Town Council elections the electorate were told the following WE WILL:

The Town Council has signed a "Heads of Agreement" with Turnstone Estates to lease the green open space at Shady Walk to Turnstone. This breaks the first "WE WILL" even before the ink is dry on the election results.

The Conservatives have argued that the use of the word AND followed by provide additional leisure activities lets them off the hook. But when I order coffee AND doughnuts I don't expect the doughnuts to be in the coffee. I expect them separately.

The Conservatives said: WE WILL protect and enhance our green open spaces. They fall down at the first decision.

Will Labour standing In Eynesbury help the Liberal Democrats?

2011-05-19T04:48:00.000+01:00

With Labour scoring the highest vote in Eynesbury they have taken the opportunity to put up one candidate for the 7 seats in Eynesbury. The big question is whether the Liberal Democrats will make much of this or will Labour supporters just vote once for their candidate. Judging by the way the Liberal Democrats falling apart from their defeat probably not. But each Labour voter has 6 other votes. The District result says the majority are against the Conservatives.

Paul Ursell got 1081 votes. The Liberal Democrat and Labour candidates got 1312 between them. It whether the Liberal Democrats are actually willing to campaign to win. If they sit on their hands the Conservatives will have a near clean sweep of the Council. Labour standing could help the Liberal Democrats. Opportunity awaits but knowing the Liberal Democrats "winning here" will just mean too much work.

HDC cuts or titles for former Councillors? Answer: Titles

2011-05-18T10:33:00.000+01:00

Instead of focussing on the cuts the Conservative run HDC is out to make one of their former number an Honorary Alderman. Great. That is all we need. Another title to add to the never ending list. Instead of doing this why not use the Honours system and get the person an MBE or an OBE?

Sometimes I have to wonder at the priorities HDC has.

My questions for the Annual Town Meeting 2011

2011-05-15T11:26:00.000+01:00

The Annual Town Meeting is on 16th May 2011. These are the questions I propose to ask at this meeting.

Were any monies received by the Town Council from the abolished councils of Eynesbury Hardwicke Parish and St Neots Rural Parish? If any money was received how much from each?
The St Neots Swimming Pool Trust has a woeful record of filing accounts and annual returns with the charity commission. As all Town Councillors bar one are Trustees. Can you explain why both the accounts and annual returns for year ending 31st March 2009 were filed nearly a year late? And why the Annual return for 2010 was filed 29 days late?
With parliamentary seats being redistributed will the Town Council and the various political parties write to and lobby the Boundary Commission for the name St. Neots to be included in any eventual constituency name covering St Neots?
In the Forward Plan, the Town Council talks of having a Community Centre for Eynesbury on the new development site on the other side of the railway to Eynesbury. How can this satisfy the demand the Town Council perceives for a Community Centre actually in Eynesbury itself?
With cuts planned by HDC to grants for the voluntary sector, what is going to happen to the Citizens Advice Bureau in St Neots?
The New Homes Bonus has been introduced. This gives a bonus for each new house occupied a bonus will be paid for 6 years roughly equal to the Council Tax for the property. With 5000 homes planned for the East of St Neots this would equate to a minimum of £36 million split 80/20 between the District Council and the County Council. What are all the Councils and our representatives doing to ensure St Neots gets the lions share of the New Homes Bonus due?
Other Parish and Town Councils have published payments over £500 on their websites. When will St Neots Town Council?
What plans, if any, has the swimming pool trust for the provision of an outdoor swimming pool in St Neots?
How many freedom of information requests were made in the last year and how many were successful?
How many exhumations have been made in the Town Council run cemeteries in the last year and in which cemeteries?
In the Conservative manifesto it says: “We will protect and enhance green open spaces”. How will this be achieved?
In the Forward Plan version 4 the following is stated: "We will listen to, respond and involve all residents, businesses and community organisations in an open consultative decision making manner". When formulating the Forward Plan version 4 did the Town Council consult will all residents over the provisions contained within the plan? If not why not?
In the Forward Plan version 3 page 19 there is set out a series of performance indicators. In version 4 there is not indication as to whether these performance indicators have been achieved. So what I would like to know is what performance indicators, as set out in version 3, were achieved and which were not?

Elections 2011: East Ward

2011-05-14T16:34:00.000+01:00

Just when the Conservatives are just about to make St Neots a one party state, Carl Jones wins as an independent in East Ward of the Town Council. Just goes to show those who put a bit of work in can win seats. The result was:

St Neots East (one seat):
Carl Jones (Loves Farm Community Association) 181
Clare Aspinall (C) 84
Christopher Young (LD) 35

Elections 2011: Priory Park

2011-05-14T16:28:00.000+01:00

Priory Park:

This was an emphatic Conservative win at District and at Town Council level. Even with a combined Liberal Democrat/Labour vote of past years would touch the Conservatives here. This makes Priory Park a Conservative safe seat.

The Town Council result:

The Town ward is fought under a smaller boundary. The District Priory Park Ward contains the Town Council Priory Park Wards and the East Ward. Therefore this must now be considered a safe Conservative ward at Town Council level. Ian Gardner was also elected to Grafham Parish Council.

Previous elections

The 2010 District elections results:

This was in combination with the 2010 General Election. Therefore a much higher turnout.

The 2007 District elections results:

The 2007 Town Council results:

Elections 2011: Eynesbury

2011-05-14T16:09:00.000+01:00

Eynesbury:

With the postponed poll for the Eynesbury Ward for Town Council, the Conservatives did well.

Against the 2008 result all votes are up. The dramatic number is Labour which rose to just over their 2010 District Election results. Something going on here. Whilst Cllr Ursell is back in for another 4 years this result is less of a ringing endorsement for Cllr Ursell, more of the Labour supporters not supporting the Liberal Democrats.

Previous elections

The 2010 District results:

This election was held in combination with the 2010 General Election.

The 2008 District results:

The 2007 District results:

The 2007 Town Council results:

This is not strictly comparable as the District Eynesbury ward took in the Town ward of EHPC but the Town Council ward didn't. With the annexation the ward boundary has changed to both boundaries are the same for the elections in May.

Elections 2011: Eaton Socon

2011-05-14T15:55:00.000+01:00

Eaton Socon:

This had an election and a by-election for the District Council. The results was:

The Conservatives did well but not as good as in 2008 when they scored 911votes. It was the loss of Labour supporters who previously voted Liberal Democrats which did it for Liberal Democrats at District. Gordon Thorpe did quite badly coming 99 votes behind fellow Liberal Democrat Julia Hayward. Just goes to show that being in the paper every week opening something just doesn't get you votes!

For the 2012 elections a Jennings v Hayward election battle would prove very interesting. This is for the Liberal Democrats to win. But if they do nothing in between elections the Liberal Democrats are unlikely to achieve a win.

Julia Hayward gained an extra 121 votes but this didn't help her win. Andrew Jennings scored 96 less votes than Roger Harrison. Roger Harrison did quite well but slightly less votes than at the District Elections.

Previous elections

At the 2008 elections the result was:

At the 2007 elections the result was:

The 2007 Town Council elections was:

In 2007 the Conservatives increased their vote from 659 to 673. An increase of 14 votes. The Liberal Democrats increased their vote from 671 to 791. An extra 120 votes. Thorpe increase his vote by 40.

Elections 2011 - Eaton Ford

2011-05-14T15:45:00.000+01:00

Eaton Ford:

The Conservatives did extremely well in this ward at the District Elections and Town Council elections.

Even against the 2008 result the Conservatives did markedly better than before. Without a Labour candidate, the Liberal Democrats did better.

At the Town Elections some Liberal Democrats made some movement as against the District vote.

Previous elections

District Results 2008

District Results 2007

Town Council results 2007

In 2007 the Conservative vote fell from the 1102 that was achieved at District level to 992 (Jenny Bird). That is a loss of 110 votes. The Liberal Democrats increased their vote from 755 at District to 888 (Sandie Giles). An increase of 133.

HDC Councillors for St Neots allowances for 2010/11

2011-05-11T13:16:00.000+01:00

I've eventually gotten around to producing the Councillors allowances as they pertain to our representatives from St Neots.

The interesting one is Mandy Thomas who went through such a "horrendous" year that Mandy was still able to claim her allowances and so expenses.