Are the St Neots Conservatives worthy?

I have to ask: "Are the Conservatives worthy of our vote?" I have to ask this because minutes have now been produced for the meeting on 17th February 2010 (nearly 2 months ago) of the Huntingdonshire District Council.

What was missing from this Council meeting was anything from the St Neots Conservative Councillors Group (SNCCG) about the car park and public conveniences they have whinged on so much in the papers both before and after. Yet at this council they were silent and the proposals were voted through. In fact it was Cllr Thorpe who raised the issue of car parking charges and public conveniences as uses for the 60 pence a year extra the Liberal Democrats wanted on the Council Tax bill.

According to the minutes the Conservatives stayed silent on these issues. Which of the St Neots Conservative Councillors Group were at this Council meeting? All those on the District Council did. These were:

Councillors

Ken Churchill

Robert Farrer

Andrew Gilbert

Andrew Hansard

David Harty

Mandy Thomas

Paul Ursell

In the Council minutes, a frustrated Cllr Ablewhite admonished the Liberal Democrats for bringing forward amendments to the budget at this late stage. He referred to the budget procedure saying these amendments could have been brought up at Overview and Scrutiny (Economic Well-being).

With what is good for the Liberal Democrats is good for the SNCCG. I therefore found the minutes for this meeting. I looked to find who from the SNCCG was at this meeting. Cllr Thomas was. Cllr Gilbert gave his apologies. No other SNCCG members were at this meeting. The only talk was the sale of The South Street toilets. That is all.

The whole Conservative Car parking campaign has been a PANTOMIME. When the SNCCG had an opportunity to try to change the budget, THEY DIDN'T. When it came to the crunch, all they did was vote along with their fellow Conservative Councillors for the closure of the loos and the car parking charges.
For the last few months St Neots residents have been treated to a Conservative PANTOMIME over these issues. A PANTOMIME which was there to divert the attention from the Conservative decisions over closures/car parks and try to blame the Liberal Democrats.

The more this goes on, the more comes out about this and other issues:

• Cllr Farrer going off on one by claiming he and Cllr Harty weren't consulted on the car park charges. Minutes show both knew of these charges and made their views known but were ignored.
• Closure of the Public Conveniences by Conservative run HDC meant the SNCCG had no influence over this decision. It was easier to blame the Liberal Democrats than to stand up to a decision taken by their Conservative party colleagues.
• Lest we forget. Cllr Hansard and Cllr Churchill are Cabinet members. Obviously the car park charging wasn't a resigning issue as they are still in the Cabinet!
• The annexation of Eynesbury Hardwicke Town Ward and Love's Farm + the area to the west of the A428 was decided by the Conservative run HDC. Cllr Harty and Cllr Gilbert were Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Election Panel reviewing these boundaries. Having decided to annex to SNTC these areas when the Council tax bills come through this is now apparently the Liberal Democrats fault!
• Cllr Farrer saying if the Riverside Car Park wasn't free for 3 hours he would consider going Independent. The Council didn't and, so far, Cllr Farrer hasn't gone Independent. I wonder why?

A bit more on the South Street Toilets

A bit more on the South Street Toilets saga. As I've said before the District Council didn't write to the Town Council offering this service to them. According to the report HDC had spent £573,000 on refurbishing these toilets and are now closing them. A WASTE OF PUBLIC MONEY.

So why did the Conservative run HDC spend all this money on refurbishing public toilets without sorting out there future first? Well they did. The future was HDC running this service. The main problem is the Conservative run HDC has been in denial about the financial problems it faces. Therefore the decision on how to get out of this mess haven't been taken or are now being taken very late.

South Street Toilets - Was an offer made?

At the Town Council meeting on 6th January 2010 there was a debate about HDC and its decision to stop the service of Public Conveniences in St. Neots. The Town Council was to be offered the ability to take over this service. The Town Council, quite rightly in my view, declined. But something was said by the Acting Town Clerk that perked my brain. Apparently the offer was about 2 of the 3 loos and South Street was not mentioned.

So I looked up South Street Toilets on the Agendas/Minutes on HDC. On 17/09/09 the Cabinet decided the following:

"Agreed to offer to St Neots Town Council the option of improving and maintaining the South Street Public Conveniences before any final decision is made as to their future."

Having read this decision and comparing it with what the I heard the Town Clerk said I thought I would ask the District Council if they had made the offer to SNTC. I put the Cabinet decision in the form provided and I asked HDC for the following:

"Copies of any correspondence between yourselves and St Neots Town Council specifically relating to this decision to offer."

The reply from HDC was:

"Verbal discussions were carried out but there is no documentation of correspondence re the sale of this site with St Neots Town Council."

Well I NEVER asked about the sale of this site to SNTC. But seeing there was just verbal discussions and nothing in writing. So there is nothing in writing to say the decision of the Cabinet was carried out by officers. Indeed the opposite maybe the case.

As the Town Council has decided to decline the offer to take over the Public Loos this is pretty academic. What I do feel is when the Cabinet takes a decision Officers should carry out this decision in a proper way through correspondence/e-mail rather than a couple of undocumented phone calls.

What is happening about the South Street public toilets?

At the Special Town Council meeting 15/12/09, I heard Cllr Ursell say there has been no final decision by HDC over these toilets. Today I looked on the HDC site to check this. True, according to the HDC website the Cabinet decided:

"Agreed to offer to St Neots Town Council the option of improving and maintaining the South Street Public Conveniences before any final decision is made as to their future."

So what about the accompanying report? Well, it has been restricted by HDC. So I am unable to find out what HDC is going to do with these toilets. In previous reports, one of the options discussed was the demolition of these public toilets because they are out of character in a conservation zone!

I quote:

"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."

What I don't understand is why it is inappropriate location to have public conveniences (PC) in a conservation area. The PC was there before the Conservation Area. This is a question that HDC needs to answer. According to this link to the St Neots Conservation Area map all public toilets in St Neots are in the conservation area. Either the policy is to have no public toilets in conservation areas or this is just another throw away reason to justify a decision.