The Olympic Torch Lands at RNAS Culdrose

Posted by Andrew Wallis on May 18, 2012
Posted in: Helston, Olympic Torch, Olympics. Leave a Comment

Tonight, along with the boy I made my way to RNAS Culdrose (It is a Naval Base, not RAF) to await the arrival of the Olympic Torch. Not lucky (or important) enough to be invited inside the base, I stood at the perimeter fence of the air station. I thought I was in a good position for the plan to fly overhead, but the damn wind changed direction in the last hour and the plan landed on the other end of the runway.

To my amazement, I would say at least 1500 – 2000 people had the same idea. It was a truly amazing site to see so many families watch a plane land. The atmosphere was great, with people generally excited the torch was landing in their own backyards.

Touch Down

The Golden Plane Taxing to the VIPs

 

The Stadium Decision a Few Days On

Posted by Andrew Wallis on May 18, 2012
Posted in: Stadium. 4 comments

It has been a few days since the vote ‘to look into the possibility of some kind of funding’ was thrown-out out by Cornwall Council’s whole council meeting. As you would imagine the emotive subject of a stadium has intensified, with both sides of the argument defending their positions.

The decision has already attracted the attention of the Broadsheets, with all of it being (so far) negative. To date only one member of the public has come up to me to say the council made the right decision. Everyone else has said it was the wrong decision and what was the council thinking. This might not be 100 percent accurate, but it does give an indication on the feeling.

Many of the social media sites, including Facebook, twitter and other blogging sites have been expressing their feelings on this issue. Most that I have found have been very critical on the way the vote went. Emotions are high, and will more than likely stay that way until Cornwall Council’s Cabinet discuss, or give a clear indication to the next steps.

It is probably the first time since being involved in Local Government that Councillors have thrown something out, without asking for more basic information. Usually, Councillors will say ‘we need more information before we make our decision.’ However, this time it was just kicked-out. I find this most strange. Even many of the most ardent critics of public money being used voted in favour of the proposals because they felt only then they could make a decision with all the required information.

The ‘reply all’ emails have already started to bounce back among Councillors. Most of these are expressing the view of the council should have at least look into the funding, and not just boot it out. My gut instinct is the Cabinet is more than likely to press on with the proposal under their own powers. Those in the pro-camp would most definitely welcome this, but there is a note of caution.

This caution is even though many do not agree to the way the vote ended, it was a democratic vote. If Cabinet just goes ahead with the request and agree to help fund the project it is wrong because it would undermine democracy. It would be far more sensible to use the democratic process, and not just ignore a vote because you did not like it, or agree with it.

There are other more sensible ways of doing this. The Cabinet could agree to look into the various options of co-funding, being a partner, or owning the lot. This could then be brought back to the full council for a decision under the six month rule. This rule allows an already previously discussed item to be re-heard if at least 20 Councillors write a letter asking for this to come back. At least then, any decision would be made on fact and with due democratic process. Then the Cabinet could agree to the funding knowing it has the backing of the majority of the council. Of course it might not get that, but nevertheless must respect that decision.

The democratic system is there for a reason. It should never be circumvented just because a decision was made you might not like. If we do ignore the process, we undermine democracy. Then what are we left with?

Porthleven Honours Guy Gibson VC

Posted by Andrew Wallis on May 17, 2012
Posted in: Guy Gibson, Porthleven, Porthleven Town Council. Leave a Comment

Wednesday 16th May 2012, the Town Council, and the town of Porthleven honoured Wing Commander Guy Penrose Gibson VC, DSO and Bar, DFC and Bar. A Son of Porthleven.

Wing Commander Guy Gibson VC, DSO and Bar, DFC and Bar

The ceremony started at 11:30 with a contingent of Officers and personnel from RAF St. Mawgan; followed by 20 Air Training Cadets from the Helston Squadron parading in front of the Bickford-Smith Institute. This was followed by a welcoming speech by the Mayor of Porthleven, Councillor Mark Berryman. After the Mayor had finished Group Captain David Robertson spoke a few words of the daring and courage Gibson had shown in the raid on the Ruhr dams. Group Captain Robertson is also the former Commanding Officer of 617 Squadron; also known as the Dambusters.

Before the ceremony, Group Captain Robertson had said he had flown over the dams, and explained that even in modern-day aircraft, the approach to the dams are very difficult. And he flew at 200ft in daylight. Imagine what is was like at 60ft and in the dark! You then understand the skill and courage of all the aircrew who took part in the raid.

It was then over to local historian and relative, Vic Strike who spoke about Guy Gibson’s younger days in Porthleven, and how in later years whilst a serving RAF officer visited Porthleven on leave and then with his wife. In fact he visited Porthleven on his last set of leave before he was Killed in Action over Holland.

At twelve-noon, the plaque was unveiled by Group Captain Robertson and Vic Strike. This was followed by an overhead flypast of two Hawks. This was a fitting end to the ceremony.

I was amazed at the number of people who turned out to either take part in the ceremony, or simply watch. I would say the crowds numbered at least 200. It was great to see many service Veterans attending with decorations and medals proudly displayed on their chests. There was one Veteran who had flown with Gibson on another mission. He was proudly wearing his campaign medals and the DFC. Amazingly, a Niece and Nephew of Gibson made the journey to attend the ceremony.

Sincere thanks should go to the Officers and personnel of RAF St Mawgan, the RAF Association and their Standard bearer, , RNAS Culdrose, Helston Community College for making the ‘plaque curtain’, Helston’s Air Training Corps and the British Legion for helping out and making sure this was a special day to remember. Lastly, a special thank you should go to the people of Porthleven and visitor’s who took the time to attend.

Here is a selection of photographs from the ceremony:

One half of the crowd

Part of the other side of the crowd

RAF and ATC marching to the ceremony 

Group Captain Robertson - Mr Vic Strike - The Mayor of Porthleven, Cllr Berryman

The Plaque

 
Here are a previous posts on Gibson – HERE and HERE

No to Stadium Funding

Posted by Andrew Wallis on May 15, 2012
Posted in: Funding, Stadium. 1 comment

I will start with an apology for the title, as the title, like the debate today was not about handing over a large cheque for £10m plus, but to look into the request by the group behind the stadium for Cornwall Council involvement and the POSSIBILITY of some funding to being available to the group.

For the record, I think the whole stadium issue has been handled badly. Far too many mixed messages have come from the Cabinet and the authority on yes, no, maybe to any kind of funding. This has been further complicated by the political kick-about this project has been subjected to. It has resulted in confusion not just in the council chambers, but also with the public.

What should have happened today is a request (and this could be from any organisation) for finance should be investigated fully, with a business case, and other important information be present to a future full council meeting. That way, a decision could be made on fact. This is important because it would show to outside organisations that Cornwall Council is serious about investing in the future. Sadly, this did not happen today.

Cornwall Council does have a good record of investing in major projects. You might not agree with these, but money has been handed over without a whisper from councillors, or the public. These project include:

  • Eden: Over £3.5m in total from Cornwall County Council and Cornwall Council.  A few month ago Cornwall Council authorised through the Leader’s Fund a further £100,000 to ‘look into’ green energy;
  • St Ives Tate Gallery: Over £4m has been granted/funded in the last few years;
  • Heartlands: total of £35m with at least coming £1m coming from Kerrier District Council and £1.4m for the housing on this site from Cornwall Council.

So why has the investigation into the possibility of Cornwall Council part funding the stadium had so much resistance from the elected members of Cornwall Council. From my own investigation and talking to many members of my electorate many do support the investment, but the caveat is no service should be affected if money is found for this project.

The debate on the principle of looking into funding was debated for over two and a half hours, with a vote taken at the end of this debate. It was a close vote, and closer than I expected. In the end 55 Councillors voted against the principle of investigating the possibility of funding, with 46 Councillors voted for. There were seven abstentions.

One of these abstentions was understandable because it was the Chairman who abstained and has at every other meeting of the full council. The Monitoring Officer (chief legal officer) did advise  the Cabinet Members they would not be predetermined if they voted on this. However, six of  the Cabinet Members (who were present at the time of the vote) abstained.  Only three Cabinet members voted. Two voted in favour, and one voted against.

It is a sad state of affairs that six of these Cabinet Members who are the executive members of the council decided to sit on their hands and abstain. I would thought as prominent members and therefore leaders of the council they would have had the courage of voting. It would not have made a difference to the vote, but it would have given a clear message that the Cabinet either supported (or not) this proposal. Abstaining just adds to the confusion this project has suffered with.

Now with the no vote, I am not sure where this leaves the stadium project. Cabinet could ignore the wishes of the council and carry on with the request. However, that would be a difficult position for the Cabinet to be in, as it would risk the wrath of the full council for ignoring the democratic vote.

The vote split by the part is as follows:

  • For -  10 Conservatives – 17 Liberal Democrat’s – 13 Independents – 5 Mebyon Kernow - 1 Labour
  • Against – 26 Conservatives - 17 Liberal Democrat’s - 12 Independents
  • Abstain - 5 Conservatives - 2 Independent (chairman being one of these)

 I guess we will have to wait till the dust has settled to see what happens next.

The Stadium – A £10 Million Punt or Investment?

Posted by Andrew Wallis on May 12, 2012
Posted in: Cornwall Council, Devonwall, Help for Heroes, Stadium. 7 comments

The Stadium for Cornwall has and still is having a troubled time in getting off the drawing-board. I feel a lot of the problems have been with Cornwall Council’s overt secrecy, and mixed messages. This has left many Councillors suspecting something is not quiet right, with more going on than Councillor’s are being told. One of these concerns is the use of public money.

Let’s start off with saying the use of public money in building a stadium or the surrounding infrastructure is nothing new. I don’t think there is a stadium in the UK that has not had some sort of public funding in its construction, or running costs. So Cornwall Council will not be doing anything new if it does agree to part fund this stadium.

However, it is one hell of a coincidence that a letter is received from the group behind the stadium project asking for £10m after outline planning permission has been given for the stadium and Langarth Farm. You can’t help thinking this letter has been timed to be sent after these planning applications have been given permission.

This £10m request for funding from Cornwall Council will finally be discussed by the entire council on Tuesday 15th. The group behind this project have said they have ‘identified’ the other £10m needed to make this stadium a reality. In a report published on Friday afternoon, three options are on the table (more could come forward during the debate). These are:

  1. That the Cabinet be invited to consider whether it would be appropriate for the Council to take the lead in delivering a stadium for Cornwall which promotes community use and economic benefit for the people of Cornwall
  2. Pursuant to recommendation 1, that as part of the Cabinet’s consideration of any scheme for a stadium for Cornwall that a business case be produced including the identification of potential funding and proposals for the re-prioritisation of the existing capital programme of up to £10m and that no one-off or ongoing revenue support from the Council will be required for the Stadium.
  3. That the Cabinet request the Environment & Economy and Corporate Resources Overview and Scrutiny Committees to ensure that the proposals for any scheme for a stadium for Cornwall are fully scrutinised before making any recommendation to Cabinet for a final decision.

I can say there is considerable resistance to any public funds being used within the elected members. Lots of this has been well publicised in the media. Knowing what has been said before, I feel this request for £10m has a very slim chance of getting the backing of the full council. From my understanding, if the full council say’s no, it does not mean the council cannot fund this £10m. As the Cabinet of the council could under its own authority authorise this money. However, it would be extremely difficult for the Cabinet to go against the wishes of the entire council.

With a yes vote, and then Cabinet authorising the money a lot of work will have to be carried out before any money is handed over. The most important one is where will this money come from? Basically there are two options; using existing capital or borrowing the money.

If the council used existing capital this means the council will have to re-jig its current plans for capital investment. This could mean other projects missing out, or delayed. I know in my own Division the Boating Lake is desperate for major investment for repairs and maintenance. Initial estimates for this work could be ask much as £500k. So if the simple choice was Stadium or Boating Lake, then the answer would be Boating Lake.

The other option is for the council to borrow the money. The council could get a decent rate of borrowing because of its Triple A financial rating. The problem with borrowing this money is the cost of paying it back. It has been estimated that the annual cost of servicing this loan would be £800k per year.

More questions will have to be answered on who will actually owns the site and buildings, and what would happen if it all went horribly wrong. If it did go wrong, what liabilities would the council face? I have seen no details on these.

The report for the meeting can be found HERE  and the full meeting will be webcast.

The End of Vehicle Clamping?

Posted by Andrew Wallis on May 10, 2012
Posted in: Clamping, Parking. Leave a Comment

At a recent meeting of the Cornwall Council’s Parking Advisory Panel,  a short but well received briefing on clamping vehicles was given. In that briefing  the panel was told of a change in the law on clamping will come about in the Protection of Freedoms Bill.

It was said the new Act would most likely come into effect in October 2012.  However, on Monday 1st May, 2012  this Bill was given Royal Assent; and from July, the various points of the act will start to be enacted. So does that mean clamping of vehicles is will now be illegal? As with any change to the law it is never simple, or clear-cut.

The part of the Act that relates to clamping is Protection of Property from Disproportionate Enforcement Action, and is as follows:

  • Chapter 2 makes it a criminal offence for a private person on private or public land to immobilize a vehicle (eg by clamping or obstructing), or to move a vehicle, with a view to denying the owner access to it. Section 99 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 is amended to extend and amend the powers of public authorities to move vehicles parked obstructively, illegally, or dangerously, including on private land.
  • Clamping of vehicles and provisions relating to charging registered keepers of vehicles where a contract has been entered into with landowners or their agents, dealt with by Clauses 54-56 and Schedule 4 of the Act. These would have the effect of making it possible for clients to attempt to reclaim unpaid ‘parking charges’ from the registered keeper of a vehicle in cases where it is not known who was driving at the time of the charge notice being issued. Clamping would be unlawful on private car-parks unless entrances are barriered

From my understanding Cornwall Council and the Police still have the power (lawful authority) to clamp a vehicle. However,  it will only be an offence if the immobilisation of the vehicle is done without lawful authority.  In the past the fact there had been signs in place, clearly visible, clear etc gave rise to a contract (implied/express consent) but the new Act states that implied/express consent can only be considered lawful authority to clamp/remove if the vehicles on the land are controlled by fixed barriers. So in short, it seems no barrier, no clamping.

But, as I warned before it is not that simple because the ‘enforcer’ could have other legal avenues at their disposal. One of these is the common law doctrine of ‘distress damage feasant’ may be available. This is damage done on one person’s land by another person’s trespassing, which would allow for the vehicle to be removed. The good news is this does not mean clamping, just removal.

And just for the record, Cornwall Council’s Parking Services does not carry out clamping. Furthermore, it does not even own vehicles clamps. The reason why Cornwall Council still has this power was down to a simple tick in a box when this Bill went out to consultation to local authorities. Even though Cornwall Council does not clamp, these contraptions are well used in many privately owned car parks and on private land too.

I am sure this change in the law will be welcomed by 99% of the population. For the 1% who do not like this, I am sure there will be some very smart people trying to find a loophole in the legislation.

Porthleven’s Missing Recycling Bags

Posted by Andrew Wallis on May 9, 2012
Posted in: Recycling, Waste/Rubbish. Leave a Comment

I know many people have not yet received their new recycling bags. This issue was raised at today’s Cornwall Council Cabinet, and the Portfolio Holder gave a statement that could go some way to address this issue.

Those assembled were told those who were missed would be getting theirs delivered in the next few weeks. However, as much as this sound great, how will they know who have been missed? I say this because in Porthleven the delivery of these bags and boxes was a little ad-hoc. So it will be interesting to see how this will be accomplished.

The good news is a limited number of recycling bag and boxes will be available in the One Stop Shops. You could also ring the council and asked for either your initial issue, or if you have been lucky enough to receive some, ask for more. I would suggest these two options would be probably the best way to ensure you get the bags and boxes.

Failing that, if those within my Electoral Division are still having difficulties, get in touch and I will sort it for you.

Porthleven Submits a Bid For £100,000

Posted by Andrew Wallis on May 9, 2012
Posted in: Porthleven. Tagged: . 1 comment

Last year I worked on a bid for £100,000 to The Seaside Town Program (total fund £400,000). I did not do this alone, as I had a great team drawn from the local community and Porthleven Town Council to put together what we thought was a very strong bid. Sadly, we just missed out on being awarded this money. I blogged before on how it was a bitter pill to swallow.

Not one to be defeated, a new pot of money (several million) has become available from a national funding stream. This funding is called the Coastal Communities Fund, which Porthleven qualifies to submit a bid, and a bid has been submitted.

The main crux of the bid is drawn from the original document we submitted to the Seaside Town Program, just with a few tweaks, and improvement which were given as part of the feedback we received from Cornwall Development Company (CDC). I am grateful to the CDC for having a look at our bid just before we submitted it. It was heartening in that the CDC did not suggest  any real changes to our bid. Again our bid is asking for £100,000.

If our bid is successful in the first stages of processing, the team would be asked to submit an extensive business case. If we are successful on that part and selected for some of this money, Porthleven could be inline to receive this money by October 2012.

Again, I would like to say thank you to Charlotte Chadwick, Damelza Storbeck, Dave Turnbill and Mark Berryman who are part of the team.

So fingers crossed, and wish us luck.

Cornwall Council Consults on a Fixed Spring Break

Posted by Andrew Wallis on May 2, 2012
Posted in: Holiday's, Schools, Schools and Families OSC, Young People. 2 comments

The Spring Break (Easter break) is one of those holiday’s that move. I could explain why, but it would be easier to click This Link and it explains it all. Aside from the importance of this date in the Christian (if you are that way inclined) Calender, it throws up other issues with school terms and holiday, examination dates, and this break being too close to other holiday’s or too far.

Since being elected to Cornwall Council, and being a member of the Children’s Schools and Families Scrutiny Committee, I have wanted to have a discussion on not only the Easter break; but also the whole school term times because the basic term dates that we used now have not changed much since 1880′s when education became compulsory.

Sadly, Cornwall Council will not undertake any investigation into term lengths. But, after what seems like forever, and my constant pressure at the committee, Cornwall Council will now undertake a formal consultation on the Spring/Easter break. This is after a small consultation was carried out to local authority schools was overwhelming in support of a fixed break. Blog from September 2011 on this HERE, and HERE are previous posts

Even though the consultation is simplistic in it asks if you agree to a fixed holiday in the first two weeks of April, and the reasons why. Saying that, I am really pleased this is now happening, and I would like to say thank you to Cornwall Council for putting up with me asking the same questions on this subject over and over again.

Please, please can you respond to the consultation. This can be found HERE, yes HERE.

 

 

How Should Helston Spend The Supermarket Money?

Posted by Andrew Wallis on May 1, 2012
Posted in: Helston, Helston TC, Helston TCM, Helston Town Council. 3 comments

Last Tuesday evening I attended along with several other members of the public, and my Cornwall Councillor colleague Judith Haycock to listen to Helston Town Council discuss how they are going to spend the money handed over to the  town council as part of the planning approval for Sainsbury’s and Tesco new stores.

This money totalled £800,000, with each supermarket stumping up £400,000. This money was to be used to mitigate the impact on the town centre from these two new supermarkets. Part of the money is set aside for the employment of a Town Centre Manager. This leaves roughly £255,000 for ‘public realm’ work.

Now this is where is all get’s slightly tricky, as the town council has until July 2015 for Sainsbury’s and November 2015 for Tesco to spend the money, or this money is returned to the supermarkets. Also adding to the situation is up to Tuesday night the town council could not decide how this money was to be spent.

The brief for Tuesday meeting was to come up with schemes, which could be costed, and then see if £255,000 would cover the scheme. However, this simple brief had the habit of going around in circles for a couple of hours. Worse, the public was not allowed to speak during the meeting to offer ideas. One member of the public did write in to suggest and idea, but as this was not discussed, I have no idea what the idea is. I really think the town council missed a trick in not allowing the public to speak. After all, if  someone takes the time to turn up to a meeting that is discussing something that will affect them, then they should be heard.

In the end these ideas were put forward:

  • Coinagehall Street pavements and kennels;
  • Reduced improvement scheme at Horse & Jockey (Click HERE for the link to those details part 3, page 29)
  • A long-term scheme that included making Coinagehall Street one-waywith a turning space at the bottom and additional parking, restricted traffic movement at the town end of Church Street, and improvements to pavements and street furniture to the same standard as recently introduced in Redruth and Camborne.

Ideas not taken forward:

  • Improvement to steps near the museum
  • New toilet block at the Monument
  • Public ‘art’ in areas of the town centre
  • Used for Match-funding by the Town Centre Manager
However,  not all the schemes would be classed as public realm work, and the money could not be used for those. The scheme in question is making Coinagehall Street an one-way and restricting traffic at Church Street. Even though this issue was pointed out repeatedly to the council members by a senior Cornwall Council planning officer, and the town clerk they were still included in ideas for costing.  I am really struggling to see why the town council included them if this money cannot be used for those ideas/schemes. After all money has to be spent on costing any scheme, and as we know, these costs are not cheap.

So what do you think of these ideas? Do you have any alternatives that could be submitted? If you do, then I suggest you let the town council know before it is too late and this money is spent. As one Councillor at the meeting said “If we get this wrong, we will be hung-out to dry.”