Is HDC deluded?

In the report to cabinet on the 2012/13 budget, it says the following:


9.8 The Council believes that local residents will wish to preserve these grants, recognise the Councils need to meet unavoidable inflation (there will be no pay rises again in April) and preserve valued services as far as possible both this year and in future. In order to do this the plan is based on increasing Council Tax next year by £4.34 per year for a band D property (£3.86 for Band C and £3.38 for Band B). This represents a percentage increase of 2.6% of the average District Council tax level, and 3.5% of this Council’s lower tax level.


Of course the Council believes that local residents will wish to pay more for services. That is how it works. Where are the consultations to back up this belief? I can't find one. So this is really a delusion because it hasn't asked the residents.

HDC believes that:

Local residents will wish to preserve these grants. 
Of course residents will want to preserve these grants. 


Recognise the Councils need to meet unavoidable inflation.
I don't recognise the need to meet unavoidable inflation. If something goes up in price then either change providers or cut services. Yes, it is that simple.


Preserve valued services as far as possible.
The Council has not defined what it considers as "valued services". Are these "valued services" what the public wants? or what the Council itself has decided are "valued services"? Take CCTV for example. The public decided through a consultation to scrap this service. The Councillors decided this service needed saving. 

In order to do the above plan this is based on increasing Council Tax next year by £4.34 per year for a band D property.
This is where Council thinking always goes wrong. Just because the Council believes the arguments, as set out above, then the people will pay for these services. I don't think they will. Otherwise the Conservatives will be pushing for a higher rise and a referendum to boot. 


I feel HDC is deluded it if feels people will pay more. If it does then put the whole thing to a vote at a binding referenda.

Is this fair?

When the cinema planning application came up for decision on 19th December 2011, those opposed were given three minutes to outline their objections to the Development Management Panel (DMP). Supporters were also given three minutes. Seems fair! What has come to light is Turnstone Estates had a much larger bite of the cherry when it came to briefing members of the DMP.

In a letter sent to Barbara Boddington, Turnstone Estates said the following:

Therefore Turnstone Estates gave a full briefing to the Development Management Panel on the planning application. Longer than the 3 minutes available to objectors at the meeting.

HDC owns part of the land and leased it to Turnstone Estates. The other part is owned by St Neots Town Council and has also been leased to Turnstone. HDC decides the planning application. All very cosy but there is no way round this. Someone has to give planning permission.

Whilst it is perfectly legal for officers to arrange a "Briefing" of this type, it does smack of pushing the planning application when it is already recommended for approval.

What about the letter from Turnstone Estates? They know they are lobbying by sending this letter and that it should be passed on to the Planning Department. All this seems stacked in favour of the applicant. Normally I'm for the applicant. But not when it pertains to Public Land.

If the offer of a private briefing was allowed to take place then surely those opposed should have had the right to a rebuttal.

A petition to stop a Council Tax increase!

The St Ives Branch of the Conservatives have been pushing a petition against any rise in Council Tax by St Ives Town Council. This is the only Independently run Town Council in the Huntingdonshire Constituency and is up for election this year.

It would seem reasonable to me if the St Ives Conservative Branch was also against all other rises in Council Tax pertaining to St Ives. But they are not. Many of their members are Councillors and Representatives on local authorities which are looking to up their portions of the Council Tax by 2.95% to 3.5%.

So how are the prominent members of St Ives Conservative Branch? Here are some:

Both County Councillors (2.95% increase) are also members of the Cambs Fire Authority (2.95% increase).

As for the District Council:

These 5 District Councillors include Cllr Ablewhite, who as District Council Leader, is proposing a 3.5% increase.

So what we have is a load of Councillors jumping up and down about an increase in Council Tax by St Ives Town Council whereas local authorities they are on are upping the Council tax anyway. This is just wrong.

The Conservatives should remember what was said in the 2010 Conservative Manifesto. To remind them it says:

What is rather ironic is St Ives Town Council is likely to follow the Coalition policy and keep the Council Tax freeze.

So there we have have it. The St Ives Conservatives are against their Town Council raising Council Tax but are for Council Tax increases in other Councils they are on.  All the Conservatives run Councils should be abiding by the 2010 Conservative Manifesto and freezing their Council Tax.

Riverside Parking Charges - another year on

Back in August 2010 HDC was imposing car parking charges on the Riverside Car Park. There was outrage at the thought of imposing 20 pence a hour - free evenings and Sundays. In the annual footfall survey taken in St Neots and the surrounding Towns there has been a fall off in footfall but an increase in St Neots by 1.3%. This blog held firm that imposing these charges against the background of cuts was the only way forward. 

Back in 2010 the doom mongers were out at the imposition of this modest imposition of charges.

Former Councillor and Town Mayor Gordon Thorpe said: "We have already been advised there has been a 6 per cent downturn in footfall and charging for parking will only increase that downward trend, as people will be unwilling to pay when, for the same price, they could go to Bedford, Cambridge or Peterborough. (Wrong)

"Town mayor, Cllr Gordon Thorpe described the news as “bitterly disappointing” predicting it would have a “devastating impact” on the town’s trade.

“HDC has chosen to ignore the people of St Neots. People who visit the town will now be out of pocket and once we lose shoppers we won’t get them back.”

Cllr Farrer who said: "...he would consider going Independent if the 3 hours scheme did not go through." It didn't and Cllr Farrer didn't resign the Conservatives.

Steve van de Kerkhove said:

"the impact on the town would be immediate with shops and businesses suffering during an already difficult economic period."

“This is going to be tough on the town. All you have to do is look at all the empty shops in High Street to see that the town is already suffering. We should be trying to increase footfall not drive shoppers away.

Town Councillor Jennifer Bird predicted that the move could result in retail businesses closing.

Of the others:

Jon Mountfort amongst his website full of lies said:

They (HDC) will bankrupt our shops
We will lose the Thursday Market

Then there were the statements made on the Facebook site.

Well the charges haven't kill the shops. Trade hasn't been killed off by the introduction of a 20 pence an hour charge at the Riverside. Footfall may have risen by 1.3% after a fall of 3.6% in the previous year.

HDC was right to impose charges as there is a big hole in the revenue. Either the Council Taxpayer pays or the user. I'm for the user paying. As for killing trade this hasn't happened.

New Homes Bonus - HDC still doesn't get it.

I've been banging on for sometime about how badly HDC is treating St Neots over the New Homes Bonus. Now it was on the front page of the Hunts Post a few weeks ago.

HDC has been very disingenuous about the New Homes Bonus. It started off by not acknowledging the New Homes Bonus by changing its name to New Homes Rewards Grant. Of course this new stream of funding is a boon to HDC who were in a quandary, before this new money was introduced, as whether to cut services or ramp up the Council Tax. By nicking the New Homes Bonus for HDC to spend they have taken the sting out of any cuts. Nor does HDC need to look to a referendum to get Council Tax up to a sustainable amount.

All this and no council tax freeze for next year.

In the article HDC is quoted as saying:

Err...No...Not quite. The New Homes Bonus IS extra money. The other grants have been reduced. If HDC wasn't getting New Homes Bonus, the grant money would still have been reduced.

Previous articles on New Homes Bonus:

New Homes Bonus. What is in it for St Neots?
New Homes Bonus - Money for Local Communities. Where is St Neots?
What is the point of the new developments?Conservative Leaflet for Eynesbury now receivedNew Homes Bonus - where now?If the New Homes Bonus is bribery then bring it on!
HDC still does not understand the New Homes Bonus

Cut the cost of local government?

That is the promise the District Council Conservatives made at the last local elections back in May 2011. In the Medium Term Plan for 2012/13 all the forecasts show higher spending not reducing the cost.

Instead of reducing the cost of local government, Cllr Ablewhite and his fellow Conservative Councillors are increasing the cost of the District Council. Borrowing is going up by £11 million in the next year alone.

This is a pretty silly promise to make, but one the Conservatives did make and should be held accountable for not keeping this promise.

The Councils have nothing to do with the cinema?

I was intrigued that some of our councillors think HDC and the Town Council have nothing to do with the cinema project. This notion seems ludicrous seeing that HDC decided on the cinema project, owns the cinema land and gave planning permission for this project. Below is another example on how HDC and SNTC are enmeshed in this project.