NO SCRUTINY ROW AT FULL COUNCIL

Full Council tonight - by the way I sit in the empty red chair to the left in this old photo.

Very thin agenda with just the Corporate Plan as a substantive item - something I asked to be transferred to Full Council rather than Cabinet last month.

However, as its basically the 2009 Tory election manifesto - school reorganisation (bad), highways PFI delivery (good), service transformation (not sure yet), social care personalisation (good), economic development measures (mixed), local affordable housing (not enough), fire service modernisation (good) - there was no doubt as to it being agreed;

which it was with 25 in favour (all Tories and some independents), 3 against - me and the 2 Liberals present out of their group of 5 (and neither said anything on the Plan), and 4 abstentions (all independents).

The anticipated row over the Scrutiny Chair didn't emerge as Cllr Churchman did the right thing and resigned before the meeting. So the Tories weren't able to throw her out, which would have undermined the principle of an Opposition Chair.

I received a re-assurance that she will be replaced at January Council by someone nominated from the Opposition ranks again, though I made it clear again that I am not interested if the committee is to continue without an Opposition majority - see my resignation reasons from this post back in April/May 2007. No doubt someone else will emerge from the Independent group.

After that it was questions to Cabinet members - the vitally important bit where they are accountable to the Council in public. I asked a question of the Leader about cost cutting in Council support for the Remembrance Sunday and Armistice Day ceremonies in Newport this year - basically denied; and about the proposed Newport 'pole-dancing' club being located near a school - was taken into account when approved.........

And an early finish at 7.30pm.

NB Still loads of Tory councillors rarely, if ever, speaking in debates !

JUST NOT LISTENING

The long-delayed Pan development planning application was finally submitted in mid-September and the IW Council is now galloping towards determining its own application at a Planning Committee meeting now probably in mid-January.

On the certain assumption that they get the permission to go ahead, it is likely that building work will start in April, possibly subject to securing a Government access road grant of £11m.

What is very disappointing is how little attention is being paid to the concerns, comments and objections of local residents. Some of these are:

* The absence of a direct road link between old and new Pan, limiting proper integration;
* The closer proximity of some new homes to existing Pan homes than originally stated;
* The lack of planned social infrastructure (shop, etc), leading to potential social isolation for the new residents;
* The delayed payment of some of the promised community benefits;
* The need for much more affordable housing than is currently planned - only 30% when we need far more;
* The absence of plans for the employment zone - homes without jobs;
* A number of traffic issues for the entire Newport area, and especially at the junction with Staplers Road.

I continue to support the principle of the Pan development, but I want to see movement on the matters referred to. That does not appear to be forthcoming at present, which would mean I will have to oppose the application.

SELDOM SEEN KID

Novel to see that the Island's MP spent some additional time in the Pan part of my ward last Saturday morning - during the deluge. Apart from his annual 20 minute 'mobile surgery' each August people don't see much of him at other times. Must be a General Election in the offing......

JOBS AXE HANGS OVER COUNTY HALL - AGAIN

I was quoted in the CP today on the Council job cuts front page story. For the record the full quote I gave them was,

"Perhaps if the ruling Tories had paid more attention to our last three below inflation alternative Budgets they would be in less of a mess, with more money in Reserves to soften the blows of this economic downturn.

However, they chose to increase Council Tax by more than we would have over the last two years and have frittered away the Reserves they inherited back in 2005.

There is no doubt that the next few years are going to be tough, but with a sensible budgetary strategy we could get through it without having to devastate family incomes or frontline public services. Once again I will be compiling an alternative Budget for next year and I hope that the ruling Group might just listen to me this time."

I think what I said at the end was important.

MP DEFENDING INDEFENSIBLE

I see that our usually pretty sensible MP, for all his political peculiarities, is this week defending the indefensible over Concessionary Fares funding. He told the local newspaper that a doubling in Government specific grant funding - by the not insubstantial amount of £890,000 - was 'too little too late'.

I cannot believe that he doesn't see that you cannot claim to Government you are underfunded, when the figure you claim you are underfunded keeps dropping like a stone - see my last post.

If he would like me to show him evidence that this Council is all over the place on this figure he only has to ask. Or is he just keen to keep Tory councillors sweet ahead of next year's General Election ?

CLUELESS COUNCIL

Does this Tory Council have any idea what it is doing?

I recall that last year the concessionary fares scheme 'shortfall’ was claimed to be up to £3.8 million, and I have the documents to prove it. Now they are saying it is £3 million – a difference of £800,000. Hardly chicken feed !

No wonder Government doesn’t meet all their demands if they can’t calculate the precise shortfall.

The doubling of Government specific grant for next year (not including the £1m plus they get anyway) – which is what has been awarded – is a result in most people’s book. But not to Island Tories who seem to think taxpayers are a bottomless pit.

Stop moaning IW Council about the claimed ’shortfall’ and just be pleased that you make some sort of contribution – probably a lot smaller than you now claim – to the highly popular concessionary fares scheme. Better than wasting it on other nonsense.