Full Council, Rochester airport, theatre, waste and local politics

Thursday night I went to the theatre. I wasn't watching a musical or Shakespeare or even or one of those modern ones where everyone speaks Dutch and it turns out that lead character is actually a moose. Unfortunately I was at Medway Full Council meeting.

It was awfully entertaining and a member of Democratic services showed me to my seat. I was nervous as I had a question to ask with a supplementary etched out if the answer failed to hit the right point.

The pageantry began on time when we were upstanding for the gold mace, officers and the Mayor and Deputy Mayor. All took their place at the table overlooking the Councillors and the audience quickly followed by opening prayers.

The whistle blew and kick off began with a short debate on the length of Public questions. Vince Maple, leader of the Labour group, argued for 45 minutes instead of the usual 30 due to the number who had come or until we got to question 25 so everyone got to ask at least one. It took enough time for three questions to reach a consensus and then it began. After the preliminaries it got to the public questions.

Up stepped the villains of the piece; Cllrs Chitty and Jarrett. They quashed repeated questions and concerns about the development of Rochester airport. Cllr Chitty has shifted all safety concerns to the CAA and swatted away safety concerns by saying that they would look at the safety measures fully as part of a crash investigation. Cllr Jarrett conducted himself in a boorish manner akin to Herman Göring with refusals to repeat himself and answering with blunt disregard to the situation. At this early stage I could tell that no matter what anyone else thought or said.

The Audience got to participate too with traditional calls of "Oh no its not!"
As well as new ones like;

"Utter Crap!" (my favourite) and "Have you read it?!" referring to a particular safety report that Cllr Chitty seems to be ignoring.

Then it was my turn. Clutching my scribbled notes I stepped up before the bench and tried to steel myself with the Anglo-Germanic Sams stubbornness and belligerence. I was not here for political reasons but first and fore most as a concerned parent.

Cllr Mike O'Brien answered my question politely and concisely and in the manner I should have expected but with the added sting that the 40% cut figure I had been lead to believe was true was in fact false. (proper blogpost will follow when I receive the written answer.)

"Do you have a supplementary question Mr Sams?"

My mouth dry, my notes irrelevant and my resolve crumbling into full retreat I stared at the microphone for what seemed an eternity before shaking my head and fleeing back to my seat mentally berating my cowardice.

The back and forth restarted and when the 45 minutes were up a further debate was had as to whether or

not they could just press ahead and get question 24 and 25 done and with much heaving and sighing it was agreed.

Cllr Chambers' report

When this was all dealt with and some of the public drifted away Cllr Chambers rose to his feet and like Chancellor Palpatine gave his report, soft and gentle, barely audible in the public gallery but full of barbs and excuses - It isn't our fault the schools were rated badly it is because Ofsted moved the goal posts! It is the press only reporting the negative things on us - we're doing a good job really...

Vince Maple spoke well and welcomed Commrades Stamp and Cooper to the mix and spoke scathingly of Tory failings on sure starts and waste on Rochester airport when other services were in danger. Clearly he was very much the hero of the piece.

Cllr Juby spoke briefly agreeing on some points with Cllr Chambers and disagreeing on others but the real limelight was being reserved for Cllr Jarrett's return.

A couple of sly swipes at Cllr Stamp for defecting (again) and continued bluster that impressed no one and made him no more friends in the audience but to be honest I don't think he cares.

Other bit part players came on with Cllr Stamp whining that Cllr Jarrett was making cheap political and personal shots at his expense which gained at least two scoffs from the audience (one being me, get a sense of humour or some thicker skin Andy, as my sister would say "get over yourself"). Cllr Osborne got up and, though I agreed with most of what he said, channelled the party political broadcast. He spoke like an air raid siren droning on and on and addressing the audience more than the opposition in a style that sounded like a party rally or hustings event rather than full council and it washed like a wave over pretty much everyone with no effect.

I admit that I don't know much about what is going on with the airport, I have been to busy worrying about my own problems and the Nursery situation that almost stopped my wife going back to work. However as a layman watching I thought Cllr Murray's amendments to slow agreeing on the future of the airport until after the consultation was finished was a good one. In the past the Council have been accused of holding consultations because they had to and that a decission had already been made. Such was an accusation about the Care homes like Nelson's court where it was pushed through and assurances have been found to be built on sand. Having seen Cllr Jarrett's and Chitty's performances on Thursday I think it is already a done deal no matter what the residents of the Davis estate (who live under the flight path) think or what the rest of us who have had services cut think of the £4.4m that is being allocated to this. Cllrs Cooper (lab), Juby (ld), Gilroy (Lab) Griffiths (lab) and others spoke at length about the services that could benefit with this money especially the elderly and children. Cllr Stamp argued that the Strand that is used by thousands a year could have the sea defences repaired (having fallen into the sea and are dangerous) and the whole area spruced up or a hundred people could benefit from the new airport improvements. Both opposition parties were united and voted in favour but the Tory administration shrugged and voted it down.

I had drifted off into my own world not long after that but Cllr Tollhurst's (con) defence of the airport plans woke me up. She was very passionate about it and condemning the Labour group for what happend some fifteen years ago and their aims to still concrete it over. She argued that if you were against it then you were "Knocking Medway" and we should be proud of the airport - I left not long afterwards somewhat confused and cross.

I've spent time asking myself if I really want to be elected to this theatre and as yet I still haven't found a really compelling answer yet. The only thing I keep coming back to is that things must change. I saw very little representation of the people of Medway there last night. A lot of the bit parts did, some of the leads such as Vince Maple did, probably under all the hot air and party bluster, Cllr Osborne did maybe, Cllr Juby and Smith spoke of it too but the top two or three Conservatives I... I just couldn't see it. They seem to be bulldozing ahead with the scheme and that is it, they know what is best and we will have to agree and see that they're right - yet again just like the bus station, Medway tunnel etc... etc...

Local Tories fudge Nursery budget

Woodlands School, Gillingham

As I write this it occurs to me that there may be more to this story than meets the eye. Unfortunately I am not in the possession of all the facts but welcome any illuminating info from the other side. Until then I can only go on the information I have gained.

A few months ago the Head teacher of Woodlands Road School called a meeting of parents who attend the nursery to inform us what is going on and how Council cuts will affect the children and fees. Unfortunately I was unable to attend. My wife, who knows more about the child care and our house hold funds went and made some notes.

The Nursery has had it's budget cut by 40%

Not 4, not 20, but 40%

Further to this the Nursery will not be able to accept any children under 2 years old which will have a negative affect on mothers going back to work. This has been the case for my family and after several months of stress and viewing nurseries we've managed to get Oliver into a Private sector nursery that seems good. (it isn't Woodlands but it suits our needs at the moment.) Other parents are still looking.

There hangs a certain amount of uncertainty over the nursery as the 40% will come into being next April and will undoubtedly force prices up for those still at the nursery but there is a massive uncertainty as to by how much as it all depends on the amount of Pupil Premium money that will come into the Nursery and as yet that amount is unknown.

I have spoken with a couple of the staff who have looked after my daughter and they have told me that they have been told there is a probability of redundancies (which the Council will have to pay for) and of staff having to reapply for their jobs. This will rise unemployment and I am exceptionally sorry to say, lower quality at the nursery as I can not speak more highly of the quality of care and support that they give to the kids in their charge. Any loss will be a loss keenly felt. Further to that as Nick Clegg and the Libdems have vetoed the proposed ratio changes the Nursery will not be able to trim off as many staff leaving them possibly out of pocket.

The Nursery is also moving to sessional care (8.30-12:00 and 12:30-15:30) over wrap-around care (7:00-18:00) which restricts how many hours a secondary income earner can work and may mean that they have to give up work altogether if the nursery cannot provide a lunch time supervisor for the kids. How many employers would be happy with members of staff only working school hours? Be they retail workers, shift workers or clerical? Many parents are forced to look to the Private sector or bite the bullet and give up work altogether.

There is also the fact that any babies who have been put into the private sector through necessity, such as my son, may not come back to the nursery when they hit two years old. Although there will be some, who sadly have fallen into average nurseries through necessity, whose parents will swiftly move them when they get the first chance, there are also those who will stick with what they've got especially if they haven't seen Woodlands before. Why would you move your child if they are settled and you don't know that there is an excellent Nursery on your doorstep?

So there is more money not coming into Woodlands on top of the 40% cut and no paying parents for children under two. Whack on the fact that the School (now an Academy) cannot support the nursery financially in any way makes it even more dicey.

The Tory Council is banking on the fact that the Pupil premium and some trimming of "fat" will be enough to cover the costs and it is an exceptionally risky gamble to take with our Children's first steps into education and care as well as with the low income working families of Gillingham South ward and the hard working staff.

It really feels like Cllr Jarrett has got his sums and financial planning horribly wrong and it is the tax payer and working families etc who are going to pick up the brunt again.

I implore Councillor O'Brien, portfolio holder for education and early years, to look at this situation before it spirals out of control and leaves Woodlands either going belly up (in the long run) or forcing privatisation through the back door.


 

Letters to the editor on local child care.

My letter to the Medway Messenger that unfortunately didn't get published.

I would like to congratulate Councillor Mike O’Brien on hisappointment to portfolio holder for Children’s services but also to draw hisattention to this;

Due to funding cuts our local nursery is unable to take children under two years old. This is a bitter blow for my family as my wife has two months of maternity leave left and was preparing to go back to work with my son’s name down for the local nursery. We have two months to find a nearby nursery that will take him or my wife will have to give up work for at least a year cutting our already stretched household income virtually in half.

Many of my wife’s friends who, like us, were hoping their second child could go to the same local place as their first born are now faced with either giving up work or taking both children elsewhere, something that is not really an option for us.

The point is that both my wife and I have both worked our whole adult lives and paid all our taxes and now we find ourselves being persecuted for wanting to work. Had the Council really thought through this move before implementation and will they reverse it?

If not, it seems that they don’t care about hard working residents and will leave us contemplating which vital utility bill we have to live without.

Chris Sams,  Gillingham.

Dodgy siren and Hazardous waste - the woes of the Isle of Grain



LNG plant on the Isle of Grain

There has been quite a stir on the Twittersphere over recent months with local resident Jack Hope (@jacklhope) bombarding local politicians/politicos for help and about the Health and Safety concerns of the village of Grain and the Liquid Gas plant in their proximity. It is something I have been meaning to look into and right about for sometime but time is constantly flitting past me without me being able to do half the things I want to do - It’s now only 4 weeks until my second child is born!

Any way, now I've got some wind in my sails and a couple of articles from Friday's Messenger, which saves me a lot of research time and FOI requests!

Right first off the Siren.

Now as I understand it, there was a lot of pressure from residents, led by Mr Hope, for a warning system for the villagers in case there was an emergency at the Gas plant. Although the chances of there being a problem at the plant are exceptionally low there are indeed concerns for the villagers who live in close to the plant.
The fact that should there be a major incident the residents sit under a blast or gas radius, there's only one road onto the island etc...

That's by the by though and the Council Health and Safety committee has looked into it and I do not know enough to add to the war of words and opinions on this matter so I shan't attempt to.

What can be said is that the Council promised to install it last September and this week it was tested, three loud blasts were sounded.

One minor *cough* snag was that it wasn't audible across the whole area!

Parish Councillor Chris Buckwell (con) said; I spoke to two or three villagers, one of whom didn't hear it
Nor did the local Primary school.

Councillor Mike O'Brien, respected head of Community Safety who was part of a Council team present for the test is quoted as admitting it was Work in progress and We had a whole team of officers out there investigating it and once we have sat down in the cold light of day and looked at the results properly we will know where to go next

The Siren cost £24,000 and as Councillor O'Brien says [It] wasn't legally necessary but I thought it was a good reassurance for the residents. My firm belief is the residents of Grain have absolutely nothing to fear.

I would like to remind Mike; somewhat cheekily that White Star line said the same thing about the Olympic class liners. It was considered that the safety measures in the design were sufficient enough to withstand any collision "likely" to occur and that they had the Legally required amount of lifeboats and a few extras. Cue an Iceberg and the Titanic.
What I mean is, when it comes to disasters it doesn't matter what safety measures are put in! Some one should have looked at the design specs before it was implemented and questioned if it was loud enough. Still, I'm sure its being looked at now.

Next up, a hazardous waste dump?

The Development Company Peel is in the early stages of proposing a 120 acre site right next to the village of Grain. This is not the first time that such a site has been proposed and Parish Councillor Chris Buckwell defeated the last one. Things are different now of course...

The last Government changed the rules of such building schemes saying that if it was of National importance it could over rule elected officials and locals... Well that's not democracy or respecting one's citizens. Good Job Labour.

Unelected planning inspectors will make the decision instead of Medway councillors. We're very disappointed about that. Says Cllr Buckwell.

The site itself well deal with cleaning Industrial Gas burners, using specially created bacteria to eat pollutants, soil cleansing and other measures but will not handle hospital or radioactive waste. There is also an agreement with the company that they will fully consult with the residents at every stage of the process. Ultimately though it will be up to the inspectors rather than the elected Council.

Although it is to be a wide open process and with the company giving exhibitions to the Villagers I would trust that should they truly oppose the site stringently with good cause that it would not go ahead.
Though I would strongly suggest to the people of Grain, Mr Hope and Cllr Buckwell - look at the Localism Act. An awesome bit of Liberal Democrat inspired legislation that gives local neighbourhood groups the power to fight such moves and Councils. I'm not overly clear on the details, as I said at the beginning Time is escaping me but seriously guys... take a look... it may help.

References.

Gas leak warning siren seen - but not always hear - By Dan Bloom, p 21, Medway messenger 29-6-12

Village earmarked for a SECOND hazard-waste dump - By Dan Bloom, p 11, Medway Messenger 29-6-12

Colonel Collins Vs Mike O'brien for Kent Police Commissioner?

Cllr Mike O'Brien vs Col Tim Collins

The Police Commissioner race in Kent has taken an unexpected turn today with the announcement in the Medway Messenger (3rd February 2012) in an article by Dan Bloom (entitled Tory Eyes Police Commissioner Role) of local Councillor Mike O'Brien expressing an interest in running for the post of Kent Police Commissioner.

Mike O'Brien is one of the Medway Town's senior Councillors who has served on the Community Safety Partnership and has experience working with the Police and community groups, was born in Chatham and knows the area really would be an excellent choice for the candidature.

Ignoring any Liberal Democrat, Labour or Independent (or other party) candidate the first hurdle is ex Colonel Tim Collins, yeah he's the guy you think he is - the Gulf War hero - the one who gave the inspiring Henry V style speech on the eve of battle. He announced his candidacy back in September at the Conservative Party Conference and claims that too long have the bureaucrats been in charge and he wants to get back to the basics of policing. This is not, he claims, a job for a Sunset Councillor and as a younger but heavily experienced man he has a lot going for him.

Well age is just a number and Mike doesn't feel he is a Sunset Councillor and says that Col Collins' comments Miss the point.

We differ in that I'm someone who has lived in Kent all my life. I was born in Chatham and I know what people expect.

So will it be a case of competency vs a name and reputation?

I fear so. Personally I think party politics should be kept out of the Commissioner post but with the spiralling costs of running a county wide campaign it was always going to be the big three running them rather than someone on their own but this definitely brings an interesting spin on the Conservative race.

Personally I'd back Mike over Colonel Collins in this particular race because he is a Local man who has dedicated a lot of time to representing his ward and the towns in Policing matters rather than someone who has been parachuted in.

Also my two grandfathers (and years of reading military History) imbued me with their opinion of British Military officers:

The British army is run by its sergeants. The officer gives a vague order like; "Sergeant take that bunker." and the Sergeant and NCOs give the orders and organise the men effectively. P.J Sams

All our officers were bloody idiots. We should have shot them at the beginning. A.J Pullen

Boris Island Referendum is a waste of time.

What's this Liberal Democrat opposed to democracy?!?! No wonder their a dead party! Siding with the Tories again? *pah* You've been sucked into the Tory Spin Machine! By siding with them you are condemning us to having the airport...

Right that's got that out the way and none of them are true by the way, I'm sure more criticisms from labour will come my way but I'm allowed to have my opinion and I agree with a lot of what Councillor Mike O’Brien  has said about Labour's proposed referendum.

In a recent Council Cabinet Labour proposed a motion for a local referendum to give local people a say on whether we want a new airport with in spitting distance of the Medway Towns. After a long and mixed discussion it was voted down by the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Independents and since then an online campaign has continued blaming the Tories for blocking democracy and putting the whole "No" campaign in jeopardy.

One of the issues is the cost. Both sides seem to have pulled figures out of thin air when projecting the cost of the election but either way it is an extra burden that the already stretched Medway Tax payer can ill afford. Cllr Osborne is correct the Conservative Council has over spent on many different projects but at the same time we don't have the money now. The Council is looking at closing elderly care homes and cutting back other front line services now, as the Coalition are looking at cutting back subsidies for local authorities and a deficit in Council funds where is this money going to come from?

Coming from someone who supported AV and having looked at the fall out from the Electoral reform society studies I can also agree that running an election and referendum at the same time is a bad idea. The turn out of electorate for the Police Commissioner will be low - after all we didn't even get over 50% of the electorate turn out to vote in Medway's councillors I can't imagine many turning out for the Commissioners - something that only a few politicos really believe (or not) with. I'm not saying that a low turn out election is an invalid election- far from it, I truly believe in democracy and any result that sees those who take an interest in how their area/country is run should be respected but the view in London and in Boris towers might be that if only 30% of Medway bothered to vote yes or no then there is a general feeling of apathy and take that as a "green light."

If they don't care either way we might as well go for it.

You'd probably get a higher turnout if you held it as an apolitical referendum or even postal vote on its own without other party issues - which lets face it, put people of voting, they're sick of this sort of bickering. If it was pitched as on a local vs. National issue with something that directly affects them, you'd get a higher turnout.
The good thing about the referendum, which was not true of AV is that all of the local parties agree that there should be no Airport locally so there will be no voting against a party's stance on the Airport (i.e. people voting yes to the airport just because Nick Clegg and the Lib dems say No.) - we all know this happened at AV. 
The AV referendum also showed that a double count is possible - it takes a long time but it’s possible
The people of Medway have already made themselves clear on this issue so why ask again less than a year later? All four parties that constitute Medway council and also those the other parties like the Greens, UKIP etc. all stand firmly against the airport and have a history of fighting the Cliffe proposals. I'm confident that all of us ran with this stance in the local election and got support from the electorate on this. Further to that - and I can't talk for the other major parties but we have consulted our constituents and they don't want it. Every councillor has been elected from the people for the people to represent the people and so should have already spoken to their constituents and saying "No" because it’s what they know they want. So how can Labour justify spending money and time to find out what we already know?
It may give a stronger message to London that we as a community don't want it but the council already are representing the people's wishes and stance and national Government has to respect that.

In a similar vain whether or not Rodney Chambers is well known nationally or not - he is head of the local Tory party and thus head of the council, with an OBE and has to be acknowledged as that. Also if you are worried that it all sounds a little bit NIMBY and that a small leader of a disaffected council I'll up the anti with.... A deputy Prime Minister, yes that's right Nick Clegg is against it as is our entire parliamentary party, also I'll throw in the RSPB, Greenpeace, councils in Essex and areas in North Kent, Thames Shipping, Pilot unions... if anything we're part of a choir of voices of equal weight, if we stood alone then yes I'd say a referendum would help but now it seems like a wasted exercise.

Also I don't know how much of a real support a referendum has amongst the population of the Medway wielding pitch forks and burning brands and marching on Gun wharf as an oppressed mass.

I'd like to just reiterate that a consultation is not by definition a formality before this Boris' Bond villain lair is built in the estuary. Nor is it a sign that the Government is taking it seriously. If anything the consultation is about Britain's overall aviation policy. It has been acknowledged that Britain is dropping behind European competitors and it would be better for global trade and the economy if a new airport was constructed. Although it has also been pointed out, and I concur, a new airport will take around a decade to construct and expansion of existing facilities would be preferable as it could be done in a few years instead. The best way for Government to lay plans for the future is to hold a consultation on it and get a range of ideas before making a decision.

At the end of it all it doesn't matter what I, Cllr Osborne or Cllr O’Brien think - The council of elected members from across parties voted it down. Democracy has spoken and the suggestion is dead - let’s not use it as a party political stick with which to beat the Tories - Lets move on, drop it and unite for the benefit of the people we represent as ONE. Or face our petty squabbling being a possible undoing of the No campaign.