When does a repair becomes a replacement

First St Mary's Eaton Socon Church wants a car park and gets one. Now they want a replacement boundary wall. And the Council Taxpayer will be forking out for this.

In the minutes for the Town Council Operations and Amenities Committee the following is minuted:

(ii) Repairs to the Church Wall at St Mary’s Church, Eaton Socon.
The Acting Town Clerk had spoken to Reverend Timothy Robb who had confirmed that the only option they would consider would be a replacement wall. A meeting had been arranged with a neighbouring resident and planning and conservation officers from HDC at the end of the month.

From what I have read, the Town Council has the responsibility to maintain and repair the boundary wall. There is nothing here about the replacement of the boundary wall which remains the property of the Church.

Maintain: Keep (something) at the same level or rate.
Repair:  Fix or mend (a thing suffering from damage or a fault).
Replacement: The action or process of replacing something.

I contend the Town Council has a duty to repair and maintain the boundary wall. I also contend it doesn't have a duty to replace the wall. That is the duty of the owner of the land. And the owner of the land is the Church.

In its 2010 accounts (the annual update was received 23 days late) shows the Church received £17,499 in recovered income tax. Whilst it lost just over £14,261 the church also spent £26,421 on re-building the pipe organ.

In the end it will be the Council taxpayer that picks up the bill for a wall that is owned by the church. If the Church wants a replacement wall then the church should pay for a replacement wall and let the Town Council Taxpayer stump up for maintaining and repairing the wall as required by law. 

Another Conservative leaflet delivered in Eynesbury

Another week - another Conservative leaflet. This one is is an A3 two sided colour glossy leaflet. Looks good and reads good. Let us take a look at the content. On the front page there are a couple of points I will take issue with. These are:

This sounds very good and is a promise kept by the Eynesbury Conservatives. On the other hand looking at the Eatons where the same promise was made there surgeries are posted on the Town Council website with dates and times. Also the phrase is used "throughout the year" but the only date I can find that a surgery was held was in February 2012.

Another point is:

This is a change. I thought the Conservatives were pushing for Bargroves as a community centre. I can find no budget for an Eynesbury Community Centre. Without the money to build one it is pretty useless to push for one. Maybe the illusive New Home Bonus could pay for one. The new development behind Tesco will bring  in roughly £1.2 million in New Homes Bonus.

The back page is a generic page for the whole of Huntingdonshire. Otherwise they wouldn't be talking about Broadband in St Neots.

On this side of the leaflet the following is said:

But all this was programmed in under the old leadership. The change of leadership has cost teh Council taxpayer more.
Also said is:

True. This was only achieved by the Town Council taxpayers picking up these costs instead.

This is something the Conservatives are proud of:

Yet by excluding the Leisure Trust option the Conservatives threw away a saving of £400,000 a year.

Spin alert:

So the Conservatives are going to encourage future growth in less developed areas such as Alconbury. This is to ensure that the character and history of the market towns is maintained. Sounds good and it should do because this is just pure spin. What it doesn't mean is all the development taking place around St Neots will stop. That will carry on.

Except with the new Homes Bonus, which according the Cllr Guyatt, will be spent on stairlifts. In 2011 the Conservatives informed us every penny due to St Neots in New Homes Bonus will come to St Neots. As yet not one penny.

Another Conservative leaflet that says little and doesn't inspire.

District Councillor attendances for the last 6 months

I took a look at how our District Councillors for St Neots are attending Council and Committee Meetings. I last took a look back in November. These attendances are taken from the HDC website. Where there is a tie in percentages of meetings attended then the amount of meetings is taken into account. Novembers placings are in brackets ().

1st (2nd) - Cllr Barry Chapman - 100%

2nd (1st) - Cllr Andrew Hansard - 100%

3rd (3rd) - Cllr Longford - 100%

4th (6th) - Cllr Bob Farrer - 94%

5th (4th) - Cllr Roger Harrison - 

6th (7th) - David Harty - 80%

7th (8th) - Cllr Andrew Jennings - 70%

8th - (5th) Cllr Steve van de Kerkhove - 69%

And lagging behind the rest is:

9th - (9th) Cllr Paul Ursell - 50%

HDC and transparency

I asked for a copy of the lease between HDC and Turnstone Estates. Easy enough I would have thought. This was on 2nd March 2012. On 5th March I received the following reply:

Freedom of Information Group noreply@huntsdc.gov.uk
05/03/2012
Re: Freedom of Information Act Request No 2176.

Thank you for your request for information under the Freedom of Information Act. We have received your request and it has been passed to the appropriate Officer for investigation.
As required by the Freedom of Information Act we will be responding to you within the next 20 working days. However, there may be some instances where it will not be possible to deal with such an application within 20 working days. If this is the case we will contact you to give an estimate of the date by which we expect to reach a decision.

I should have received something by the end of business on 30th March 2012. On 17th April 2012 I received the following:

Re: Freedom of Information Act– FOI Request No. 2176

I am writing in respect of your recent enquiry for information held by the Authority under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. We have dealt with your request under the Freedom of Information Act.

You requested “Closing Orders and Demolition orders made by the Huntingdon Rural District Council…. Minutes for the Council for the period 1957 - 1972?”  -  Err.. No I didn't

Your request for information has now been considered and I am not obliged to supply the information you have requested.

This letter acts as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act.

The exemption applied is Section 21: Information accessible by other means. These records are held at Huntingdonshire Archives, please request this information from them. http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/leisure/archives/visiting/HLAC1.htm

I apologise that your request will not be met but if you have any further information needs in the future then please contact me.

If you have a complaint about the handling of your enquiry then please contact Freedom of Information Officer in the first instance quoting “FOI Request No. 2176” at one of the following addresses:

Not only late but late with the wrong information. Under Cllr Abelwhite, HDC is going downhill rapidly.

Conservative leaflet in Eynesbury

I thought I would look at the Conservative leaflet delivered when I was away the other week. This is for the election of Andrew Hansard who is standing for election in Eynesbury. The leaflet is a very well laid out A3 glossy leaflet with two sides. The leaflet can be found here. Now for the content!

Front Page

From the text Cllr Hansard is concerned over potential development over the railway line. Hold on though, isn't this what we are employing Cllr Hansard to do in the first place? What I want to know is what Cllr Hansard has been doing for the ward for the last 4 years as he was last elected in 2008.

Also Cllr Hansard bigs up his role in the Willow Bridge project which landed Eynesbury with this eyesore. I don't see why it had to be 390 metres long for a span of 39 metres. Why it had to be built so long no one has said. If it was to stop people not using the bridge because of potential flooding this seems to be wrong as there are barriers put in to close the pathways to the bridge in case of flooding.
 What I want to know is what has Cllr Hansard done in the last 4 years to inform me why he should be re-elected.

Under Action Around the Area I thought I would find this out. I didn't.

Apparently the local Conservative Councillors hold regular surgeries. This is strange as I have only found one which was mentioned on the Community Forums by Cllr Ursell. So where are these surgeries being held so I and the rest of the residents can drop to meet my councillor. Well I have to phone up and contact Andrew to arrange this. 

But what is a Councillors Surgery. I would put it thus:
"The period during which a Councillor consults with or helps electors in an office or specific venue."

When the Conservatives on the Eaton Socon side said they would hold a surgery they do so open to all. In Eynesbury the same promise was made and the Councillors haven't publicised where or when. That is not very good.

In the next section Cllr Hansard asks whether more could be done with open spaces.

In the last section there is a bit about potholes. The Conservative run County Council has made a pledge. Whilst Andrew has jumped on this bandwagon there is no reason to. If I found a pothole I would phone Andrew up with the location and he would therefore phone up the County Council to get this done. Whilst this sounds good, I would say leave Andrew out of this and phone or contact the County Council myself. If the pothole isn't filled I would get in contact with a County Councillor (that is what we pay them for) and get them to sort it out rather than a District Councillor. 

This is not a reason to vote for Andrew Hansard. It seems to me there is little for Andrew to do so he has to muscle in on another Council's service territory.

Action around the area seems to mean INACTION AROUND THE AREA. Not much to do so try and find something to do.

Back page

This is the common back for all three Conservative candidates standing in St Neots District Council seats. As such this side of the leaflet says nothing about the District Council and it is all about the Town Council. Why? My answer is simple. The Town Council has good news and the District Council is bad news. 

Yes the Town Council received £186,000 "gift" from budget underspending which has allowed the new Conservative administration to spend this money rather than give it as a tax rebate. Nor has the fact the Liberal Democrats froze the Council tax for the 2 previous years mentioned either.

Of course nothing is said about the increase in Council Tax by all the other authorities which charge us through Council Tax. All Conservative run. HDC, the Council these three candidates are running for, increased their part of the CT by 3.5%. No explanation by these candidates as to why!

In the end this leaflet says very little. With real no opposition the Conservatives have very little to worry about in Eynesbury. As a leaflet informing me why I should vote for Andrew Harsard, it is not inspiring. If I wasn't interested in politics I would let this election go by. Yet if that happens, Cllr Ablewhite will be on the front page informing the residents how wonderful his administration is. So I will be voting UKIP.

Which Party am I supporting?

At these elections things aren't so difficult. As a natural Conservative voter I will not be voting Labour. Nor will I be voting for the local Conservatives. As they seem to have more in common with the socialist than with

the Conservative led coalition Government which I still like. If only they kept to their manifestos.

Also the local Conservative broke a national promise and didn't take the Council Tax freeze money. They also have taken our New homes Bonus money and spent it on propping up HDC's failing budget. Plus in this time of recession the District Council is going on a spending spree to build a 5 land ten pin bowling alley in St Ives. How socialist.

These red flag Conservative won't be getting my vote this year.

What about the Liberal Democrats? You have supported them in the past! Yes I have and no I haven't. For the most part I don't support them and use them as a party of protest. With Doug Terry standing in Eynesbury and Gordon Thorpe in Eaton Socon I don't feel I could support the Liberal Democrats this time around as the party of protest against the local Conservatives.

By a process of elimination I therefore end up with UKIP as the party I will be voting for out of protest. I am not enamoured by their policies. As someone who is pro-europe, in a broad sense, I wouldn't be for blaming all our woes on Europe. As a party of protest I can certainly vote for UKIP and unless something suddenly happens I will do so for 3rd May 2012.

Why did St Neots miss out on the Olympic Torch route?

Former Town Council leader, Town Councillor and District Councillor Derek "Del-boy" Giles asks this question in a letter in the News and Crier.

Also the Town Council has a role in getting the route to come through St Neots. What was the Town Council under Del-boys rule going to do? Well nothing! At the 2009 and 2010 Annual town Meetings I asked a question about what the Town Council was going to do.

In 2009 the Town Council was going to do nothing!

In 2010 everything was put off until after the 2011 elections. Far too late!

When anyone complains that St Neots is missing out on the Olympics Torch route it is not because the questions weren't asked. Just those in charge didn't want to do anything. For instance - Derek Giles.