Greens are petty and shortsighted when they reject jobs for the City

The decision of Green Councillor to work en bloc to reject a planning application for the car park of the disused Romany Pub on Colman Road for a new shop is nothing short of disgraceful and shows the party up for the shortsighted bunch they are.

Forget the jobs created through construction, forget the jobs created when the store opens, forget the virtual lack of local opposition and forget the need to clean up this site.

Don't worry about the fact we're in a recession and ought to be doing all we can to back business.

The Green Party rejected this proposal just in case Tesco are planning to buy the site after planning permission is granted. I am told that Tesco's have no idea about the site, haven't made any approaches and don't have plans for a store in the area.

So why have the Greens done this? Because their shortsighted attitude is going to drag this City down. I am furious with their petty actions; I hope all those in the area who are unfortunate enough to not have employment and may have applied for these jobs note who has denied them this opportunity.

My Saturday in Norwich

It was a glorious day in Norwich today and almost perfect campaigning weather; warm enough to be very pleasant but not so hot you collapse of heat exhausion.

The round-the-clock leafleting and door-knocking meant that our campaign team meetings have now been shifted to breakfast time. Somehow election planning was more pleasant when accompanied by coffee and eggs; a change we may have to keep even after the by-election!

And so the day began delivering Chloe's latest election offering to the good people in Hellesdon. Walking around and talking to local people you get the real sense that Hellesdon is ready to vote for change. Most people were Conservative supporters, but those who were not were quick to tell me that they wouldn't vote Labour. The overwhelming majority said they are yet to hear from any party other the Conservatives so far. Again the office was packed and there was a buzz about the campaign. It's a fun place to be at the moment and because of the weather (both politically and literally) there is a great sense of purpose and unity.

A sausage based lunch - and time for the Norwich South team to re-group - was the perfect time to swop canvass stories and discuss the issues that people were raising.

In the afternoon it was back to my own constituency - though my endeavours took me less than a couple of miles from where we had been in Norwich North. I wanted to speak to some residents who were having problems with permit parking (the abuse of, should I add) in their City Centre road. Despite cmplaints to both the council and to other parties nothing has been done. They were very appreciative of the time taken to visit them and some suggestions for moving forward.

I also stopped in to see a new party member who wanted to talk about how she could contribute to a Conservative victory at the next election! There's plenty to do on both sides of the City and lots to get involved in!

Finally a stop off to see some people about a planning application that has been made which could make life very difficult for them. This is a tough case - the current structure is unsightly and covered in grafitti (not great to live with) but the proposed new use could generate more use for the area and thus more cars and movement which they don't want either. The residents want a third solution, which would be good but isn't even on the table. They recognise the problem and realise the difficulty both they and the planners are in. This was one of those cases where I offered impartial advice on the pro's and con's and was clear and realistic about what would happen. I think people really appreciate honesty in such cases.

It was a fine day in a fine City!

Parking, Planning and Protests

I spend a week last Wednesday at a residents meeting in New Costessey and last Thursday at a similar one in Chapel Break, Bowthorpe, both about the same issue - parking. Now I've done a lot of public meetings in my time and very few issues, outside of election time, get anywhere near a crowd but both of these meetings were very well attended. I had done the week before a public meeting about the bus service in the West of the City with considerably fewer people. (Off the point, but it is a shame that people don't make more of an effort because all the meetings I have done have seen good debate and an excellent array of public speakers.)

Both Costessey and Chapel Break have blocked roads, inconsiderate parkers and issues wth blocking roads and driveways. Each time all the authorities can say is that neighbours should work together (this was nearlly word-for-word the answer that came back from the Labour executive when I raised the issue in Full Council some time ago). Sadly though, relations are not what they could be, and these residents need help to work through their differences including influencing the planning process and designing out some of the problems. One of the great tings about the SNAP is the fusion between the elected councillors and the police. Being able to help shape police priorities has been a great way of affecting change in our areas.

In both cases, the police are now working high profile shifts to help the situation. A senior council officer is persuing the adoption of some of the roads in Chapel Break to make enforcement easier and we as Councillors have been able to bring together different groups of people and different councils to get a result.

Parking is clearly a big issue and we have to sit up and listen to the concerns of local people.

Labour's Growth Agenda: Concrete the Countryside

I understand that Labour have had to admit that their planned growth agenda around Norwich and Norfolk can no long be contained within brownfield sites and greenfield sites would have to be used to hit govenrment targets. This is both a disaster and totally unacceptable. We were always sold on the growth agenda on the basis it wouldn't mean concrete on the countryside. Conservatives in Norwich have been critical of the plans - not least challenging the finances for the infrastructures, concerns over water supply and worries about employment for the new population. This latest news could be the death knell for the plans.

Of course, the weak-willed may claim that there is nothing we can do about this, but why must councils always be complicit in doing the government's dirty work? I look forward to Labour Councillors joining us in this. Why don't councils - of all colours, blue, green or whatever - stand up and say no. Our residents deserve nothing less.

It's like the news actually knows my lesson plan!

I spent two hours this morning telling my 'A' Level politics students about the theoretical powers of backbench MPs. We spoke about the role of the MP as a legislator and then moved onto the wonderful world of the Private Members Bills. I waxed lyrical about how although MPs look as if they can create their own Bills, the fact of the matter is that the government, the whips and the parliamentary business managers have a variety of plots and tricks to ensure nothing ever reaches the statute book without their say-so.

Then, bang on queue, this little gem appears here, in which Tory MP Michael Fallon's Planning Bill goes through the first stage because of a massive government cock up. The government whips planned to force the Bill to fall through an inquorate vote (any vote much engage at least 40 MPs or it fails automatically); that is, by not turning up they could ensure that 40 MPs would be be present and thus Fallon is defeated. However the idiotic government whips badly miscalculated and a hotch-potch of Tories, LibDems and Labour rebels mustered the 45 votes in favour they needed. And as the government MPs were boycotting it ... you guessed it, it went through by 45 votes to 0 (yes, zero). Interesting that the Tories who voted for the bill included Shadow Schools Secretary Michael Gove and Shadow Transport Secretary Theresa Villiers and the LibDem frontbencher Susan Kramer did likewise. A tactical poke in the eye for the government and a victory for House of Commons.

Here is the roll of honour, those who voted for this Bill:
Ainsworth, Baldry, Barker, Boswell, Bottomley, Brake, TomBrazier, Mr. JulianCarmichael, Caton, Cohen, Cormack, Phillip Davies, Dai Davies, Dorries, Dowd, Evans, Fabricant, Fallon, Francois, Gale, Gerrard, Gove, Greenway, Grieve, Hammond, Harper, Herbert, Hollobone, Howarth, Hurd, Key, Kramer, Leigh, McLoughlin, Neill, Price, Randall, Stanley, Steen, Turner, Villiers, Watkinson, Whitehead, Wiggin, Willetts, Heald (teller), Battle (teller)

Three Score - the Masterplan

Tonight I went to a really useful meeting of the Bowthorpe Community Partnership where the outline plans for the 1200 house Three Score development was debated. There was a lot of good questioning of the planning officers and I have come out quite comfortable with the plan ... remember that this is just the outline plan rather than the details.

I am glad that the roads are wider than in the "old" Three Score development, where there is clear room for parking and also for manoevering cars.

I am glad there ther is a distinction between neighbourhood roads and home zone roads.

I am slightly worried about the lack of play space and the lack of development of the two 0.1acre play space areas.

I am worried that the proposed sheltered housing and small shop plots may get mangled in the development process and may fail to materialise.

I am pleased that the environmental standards are going to be very high.

Comments appreciated - you can view the Masterplan at the Planning Reception, Level 2 at City Hall

Planning Committee makes the right verdict over Hay Hill

I am pleased that the committee are not just putting this through on the nod and have decided to visit the site and look at all the objections.

This decision has been shrouded with secrecy from its beginnings under the LibDems and it is right that future actions should be taken in the open and with full consultation.

More and more people are casting doubt on the suitability of Hay Hill for this art work. If we must have the art then there are more suitable sites in the City.

I have a few thoughts but suggests would be appreciated!

If any planners want to see the impact of your short-sighted regulations, please visit Bowthorpe

Bowthorpe is three communities within a single community. When it was concieved in the 1970s it was proposed that Clover Hill, Chapel Break and Three Score should be built around a centre with a bigger centre in the middle (current Roys site). And each stage of the development was meant to be an improvement on the last - with each design informing the next and so on. Three Score, phase one, should have been the most satisfactory design for optimum living and Three Score, phase two, should do even more than that. The council is currently debating the eco-rating of the new homes and the use of the green spaces. However, whilst they are keen to learn from Clover Hill and Chapel Break, they don't seem to have realised the biggest design flaw of them all.

In all of this nobody has noticed that the roas still aren't wide enough. Mardle Street wasn't wide enough but they still built Bladewater Road. That wasn't wide enough but they still built Caddow Road. That wasn't wide enough but Horn-Pie Road still appeared. What has changed? Nothing. So I am going to use every chance I can as Councillor to press this point before plans are set in stone for the Phase Two development.

What causes this? Parking. The road is wide enough for two lanes but parking makes it impossible for most larger vehicles to manoever around. Why is that ... because planning regs mean you only have to provide one space per home. Hence families with two cars, or couples who work in opposite directions and need two cars, often have to block their roads without meaning to do so.

What does this mean? Well, for a start a lot of people aren't getting their bins emptied because CityCare can't get the lorries down them or around the cars. And more worryingly the emergency services often cannot get past - and in a life-and-death situation every second counts. They want to be saving lives not inching around a Vauxhall Astra.

Now, Chapel Break and Clover Hill do not suffer like this. And, for that matter, do the older roads (such as The Runnell, Fresher Mews and Tippett Close) in Three Score. So what has changed? Well, out the window go common sense, practicalities and public safety and in comes the desire to pack as many houses into a small a space as possible.

I just hope somebody makes the change before the next 1200 homes go in ... I'll be shouting so they can't say nobody raised the issue.

Simon Wright, honesty & ID Cards

Being in local government means taking decisions that you might not always agree with. You can only refuse liscening applications on the 4 liscensing objectives and you can only turn down planning applications based on planning grounds.

When the ID Card Centre plans came before the committee, the Greens tried to have them turned down on ideological grounds. However the other parties, led by senior LibDem Councillors, spoke and voted in favour of the plans because there were no planning grounds to turn them down.

So why is LibDem Parliamentary candidate Simon Wright trying to claim that the LibDems were against the plans? He certainly fails to mention that his own Councillors voted in favour of the scheme, and in doing so he suggests that his party didn't approve of these plans.

The public would have far more respect for politicans in general and the LibDems in particular if he told them the truth about these things instead of playing politics and spinning the issue.

The truth is that both Conservatives and LibDems are against ID Cards, but both parties had to vote for this proposal because they had no legal grounds to vote it down.

Why can't Fakenham's Councillor Simon Wright be honest with the people of Norwich?