PAN - MEDIA TARGET

Today's IW Radio phone-in seemed to be dedicated to 'problem Pan'. The Ash Road incident on the front page of last week's County Press was the catalyst for them to start condemning Pan again. I phoned in, had a perfectly reasonable exchange with the presenter on air where I pointed out that these sorts of terrible incidents are rareties in any community and are not typical for Pan, and agreed to do the phone-in next Monday - something they are now billing as a 'Pan Special'. Tony Coburn, my predecessor as councillor, also phoned in and said much the same as me. They then went onto to suggest that both Tony and I were seeking to gag the media over incidents like this ! Far from it. What we were saying is stop targeting Pan for negative coverage; lets have some positive coverage as well - which we never see.

Next Monday will be challenging.........fortunately I am not a novice, having done two phone-ins earlier this year for the No Mayor campaign.

ASH ROAD INCIDENT

Distressing story on front page of County Press regarding a resident being attacked at his home by youths. The police appear to have arrested some of the perpetrators and hopefully justice will be done.

The appointment of the Pan Community Support Officers - starting over the next 2 weeks - should help address these incidents, which are thankfully rare.

As usual the IW Radio phone-in apparently did its usual 'isn't Pan a hell hole' bit. They are dangerously out of touch and do nothing to positively project the IW to listeners. For God's sake this is the Isle of Wight; not some inner city gang zone!

A TOWN COUNCIL FOR NEWPORT ?

Newport Area Forum last Monday. Lots discussed, including possible traffic changes for the town – nothing to change in near future though.

More importantly the Forum agreed that next month we will discuss whether to seek to establish a Newport Town Council, in the light of the Council Leader’s assertion in the media that non-parished areas of the Island – Newport and Ryde – will be taxed next April as if they were. Personally I support a town council ONLY if such extra taxation is unavoidable. No taxation without elected representation !

However, I am not convinced that such local taxation is mandatory, as has been suggested, and I have asked that the legal position be clarified at next month’s meeting. If it isn’t mandatory, then it is just a Conservative policy to seemingly punish Newport for voting Tory in 5 of its 8 wards ! If it is mandatory, then it would represent around 65p per week for each Newport household – which would give an annual budget of around £500k for Newport & Carisbrooke. If there is no town council then this budget would be controlled by County Hall. Far better to have elected local representatives deciding how to spend the money – though some will be on services that existing town and parish councils are already expected to provide, but are currently provided by the IW Council in Newport and Ryde.

Lets see what the legal advice is next month…….

TRAFFIC THREAT TO FURRLONGS

Copy of letter from me going out to Furrlongs residents today:

Dear Resident

Despite the assurances made to me last March/April by the Council, there are plans again to turn Furrlongs into a main road into Newport.

In the Provisional Local Transport Plan for 2006-2011, which the Council is currently consulting on, they detail a ‘Major Bid’ to establish a,

“new junction where existing Furrlongs road crosses St Georges Way”

and go on,

“consideration will be given as to whether this route will operate as a bus gate only and what measures should be included to ensure that this route is not used as a short cut or ‘rat run’ through what is primarily a residential area”

Once again it appears that the Council wish to, at the very least, re-route more bus services along Furrlongs, avoiding Coppins Bridge. However, the Plan also implies that a ‘bus gate only’ is not the only option, suggesting that Furrlongs could be used by all traffic.

As you would expect of me, I have responded to the consultation on this Provisional Local Transport Plan, expressing in the strongest terms possible my OPPOSITION to the proposals. Furrlongs is indeed a residential road and I have objected to the proposal on the grounds of:

1. It would damage the Quality of Life of local residents;
   

2. It would compromise the Road Safety of the many young children who both live in Pan and who attend the two local schools.

Last March when the Council started to do alterations to the existing speed ramps on Furrlongs, my predecessor as your councillor, Tony Coburn, and I started a petition against the re-routing of bus services along Furrlongs. This attracted scores of signatures.

However, we withdrew the petition when we received various assurances from the Council that there were no plans in the ‘foreseeable future’ to re-route other bus services along Furrlongs. However, I pledged to be vigilant over any future plans – which I have.

It is clear now that those assurances were worthless and that plans were indeed afoot to change the very nature of Furrlongs. This Local Transport Plan will have been in preparation for quite some time.

As your local Councillor I am determined to oppose these proposals as best I can. I do not want to see Furrlongs become like Fairlee Road or Staplers Road. Believe me I know what that entails !

However, I need you to express your own opposition to these proposals. The Provisional Local Transport Plan is open for consultation until the end of this month. That is not long, so you need to act now.

Please send a short letter expressing your opposition to this proposal for Furrlongs along the lines of,

“Provisional Local Transport Plan - I object to a new junction being created where Furrlongs crosses St Georges Way, as routing buses and other traffic through Pan will threaten our quality of life and the road safety of our young children”

Send you letter to Mr Chris Wells, Team Leader, Transport Policy, Engineering Services, IW Council, Enterprise House, St Cross Business Park, Monks Brook, Newport, IW, PO30 5WB, or email him at chris.wells@iow.gov.uk

If necessary I will organise a public meeting about this proposal if the consultation does not secure the changes in the Local Transport Plan that you would want.

Thanks for your support.

DEPENDENT SCRUTINY

Well the Council now has a new Scrutiny Committee with the Chair being Cllr Garry Price (LD). Our inclusive amendment was ruled out as unconstitutional as the issue was debated last month - it wasn't, our amendment was much broader - so we voted against the new Tory proposals for an opposition-lead Scrutiny Committee, along with two of the LibDems - Cllrs Adams and Bowker. The Independents all abstained on the vote. This meant it was lost as it required unanimous support.

So the Tories tabled another proposal that did not require unanimity, which went through with 5 votes against (this time including Price !?!). This provided for a Chair from the opposition (Price - the only one who will take the money), five Tory councillors, two members of the public (to be selected under criteria that will exclude just about all Islanders except those that the Tories want), and one rep. from the parish/town councils. Price himself was elected the new Chair with just 4 votes against (Deborah, me, Adams and Bowker) and the independents again abstaining.

A few other points from the Full Council meeting (which was sparsely attended - 20% of Tories missing, and only four members of the public there at any time - one Tory activist, 2 Labour activists, and the regular Mr Wortham):

1. The agenda was very thin considering how much the Tories reckon they are doing, with nothing substantive to consider. Its not as if the Cabinet are making loads of delegated decisions;

2. Some bloke was put forward to the Standards Committee. As I had never heard of him and there were no details for new members, I voted against him - the rest of the opposition abstained, none are new like me;

3. I asked a written question expressing concern about the Leader's & Deputy Leader's unfriendly press comments about the role of governors in schools (CP 2.9.05), to which I got a reasonable reply and various assurances;

4. Deborah tried to get the Tories to give some details about cuts in non-statutory services in next year's budget, but they were not forthcoming. We know there is a list circulating, but we don't think they have realised the implications for the quality of life of Islanders;

5. In the absence on other council business of one Cabinet member, we did not get a written report. Deborah got assurances there will be in future.

FULL COUNCIL TOMORROW - LABOUR PRESS RELEASE

LABOUR IN BID TO MAKE COUNCIL SCRUTINY INCLUSIVE

Labour councillors will make another attempt at this Wednesday’s Full Council meeting to gain independence for the Scrutiny Committee over meeting times. They will also endeavour to make meeting times more inclusive and accessible for all members of the public.

After the Conservative leadership at the July Council meeting forced the so-called ‘opposition lead’ Scrutiny Committee to meet at 6pm in the evening, all but one of the opposition members resigned as this was contrary to the principle of ‘opposition control’ – previously much trumpeted by the new Council leadership. A majority of opposition members and the Conservative members of the original committee had preferred to meet at 4pm, but the leadership would not allow this.

This Wednesday Labour Councillors Gardiner & Lumley, will propose an amendment to the proposed new arrangements for a re-established Scrutiny Committee. These new arrangements allow for a smaller committee with membership given to two members of the public and one representative of town & parish councils, as well as Cllr Garry Price (LibDem) and three Conservative councillors. The amendment will call for meeting times to be rotated between 10am, 4pm and 6pm each month.

Labour Group Leader Cllr Deborah Gardiner said, “We are proposing this amendment because we want to make the Scrutiny Committee – which examines the decisions made by the Council leadership – accessible to all Islanders at least once a quarter. 6pm may suit those who work 9-5 and can then easily go along to a Council meeting if interested. However, it does not suit people who do not work the traditional working day, or who may have childcare or other caring responsibilities. 6pm is just the time when parents with young children are either feeding the family, settling them down for the evening, or ensuring that homework is undertaken. A time when vulnerable adults need their carers. We believe that our amendment demonstrates a commitment to inclusiveness not shown by the leadership’s intransigence over meeting times. “

Cllr Geoff Lumley added, “If our eminently reasonable amendment is voted down by the Conservative majority, then we may find that the Council still does not have a Scrutiny Committee, as the new arrangements depend on unanimous all-member support. Although we accept that a Scrutiny Committee can now only be established without most of the opposition members, after the July resignations, we feel that the issues of scrutiny independence and meeting times are still of importance to the effectiveness and relevance of local government here on the Island.”

GET SPENDING ON PAN !

I got to the Pan Neighbourhood Partnership (PNP) Board meeting this week, after they changed the meeting schedule for me. This is the body that oversees the £2million that Pan was awarded from April 2005 for 7 years by the LABOUR government, to improve facilities for the community, especially with a view to the new development. Pan got this money partially because it is a longstanding Labour represented ward - the benefits of being in step with government !

A lot is discussed at these meetings and I had a lot to catch up with due to missing the last two monthly meetings due to other Council commitments. I won't report all here, but concentrate on what always matters to people - the money. Of the £360k to be spent this year on pump-priming local initiatives 43% is spent on the salaries of the people employed, inclusing the two new community wardens who start later this month. Of the other 57% for projects, to date only 4% of that has been spent or committed due to the fact that whenever the Partnership tries to spend money on initiatives we seem to get more money thrown at us. We have found the same with the government Extended School money we got at Downside Middle School. Money as ever follows money !

Given the fact that PNP is still well off, I made a number of suggestions for reprofiling the budget that would increase credibilty with the community: further CCTV coverage in key areas of the ward, lighting and dogbins in the well-used backlanes that are like a maze around the area, benefit and pensioner benefit 'take up surgeries' perhaps provided by the Council's successful Welfare Rights service rather than the Dept for Work & Pensions - they each come at it from different perspectives. These were all supported I am pleased to say. I was also successful in insisting that the new Board that will come into place at the end of the year after local partnership elections must a have a resident majority.

It is clear that more must be done by PNP that is visible to local residents if it is to maintain confidence. I hope I have gone someway to help address that ?

PROGRESS ON INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS FRONT

Since the Tories were elected in May, industrial relations have changed dramatically in the Council. Gone are the old days of Councillor/union direct consultations, which with the strategic partnering (aka privatisation) agenda of the Tories has created much concern, anxiety and suspicion amongst union members. Especially when the new culture has even seen union officials being warned off 'lobbying' leading councillors.

However, I attended as an observer my first Cabinet meeting on 30th August - only the third formal Cabinet since the election. One of the items on the agenda was the 'change management plan' and moving that forward. Although I entirely oppose that privatisation agenda - why do we want to use Council Tax monies to line the pockets of private company shareholders, based on the mainland, when any value for money benefits could take up to a decade, with the potential loss of jobs and earnings to the Island economy? - I was very pleased to hear the Council Leader invite the Unison Branch Secretary Mark Chiverton to address the Cabinet about his members' concerns. Of course Mark is a longstanding friend and party comrade - I was his Agent at the recent general election - and I was a member myself of the Councill Unison branch for 9 years up to 1998- but I was very pleased to see this thawing of indistrial relations.

Of course this gesture by the Leader may only be tokenistic in the overall scheme of things, but I am a strong proponent that talk is better than conflict - 'jaw, jaw - not war, war' as Churchill said !