Stockton Council approves council tax hike

Stockton Council last night approved its budget for 2013/14 agreeing in the process to a referendum dodging 1.9% increase in council tax.

An alternative budget proposal from the Conservative group of councillors which would have seen council tax levels for 2013/14 frozen was regrettably, but nevertheless predictably, defeated. Interestingly, even though the Lib Dem and Ingleby Barwick Independent (IBIS) councillors voted with Labour to increase residents' council tax bills not one councillor from IBIS contributed to the debate nor even attempted to justify their voting for the hike.

Put in a national context, even amongst those other councils who have also opted to increase their council tax rates, the average rise was just 0.8%. In a local context, neighbouring Hambleton and Durham councils are yet again freezing their rates.

In the Stockton Council's press release early this morning, the Leader of the Council, Bob Cook, said, "we simply cannot afford the additional £2million cost that the [council tax] freeze would have over the next three years."

What councillor Cook neglected to include in his press release was the fact that the Labour / IBIS coalition cabinet did manage to find an additional £4.7million to throw at the council's Stockton High Street vanity project. You will, of course, draw your own conclusions as to what this says about Labour's priorities.

As a result of Stockton Council's program of efficiency, improvement and transformation (EIT) reviews - launched under the then leadership of Conservative councillor Ken Lupton - the council has been able to absorb some £31 million in savings already, with scant impact on services. The council is now a much leaner, more efficient body following the EIT initiative.

However, the difficult questions the council now faces are not simply ones of further reductions in funding, but rather questions of political courage.

When it comes to making further efficiencies, the low hanging fruits have already been plucked. The potential areas from where further savings can be found are not as immediately apparent as they once were. Much more creative thinking and, yes, tough decisions, are needed.

Last night the council found itself at a crossroads (or more accurately, a T-junction).

One path was undoubtedly more challenging to tread, with obstacles to be tackled head on and overcome, this being the path to a council living within its means and not passing an ever-growing buck to the taxpayer.

The second path was a much less daunting prospect, smoothed as it was by the ever-diminishing content of taxpayers' wallets. There is no need to live within your means whilst on this path; you simply increase your means to match how you live.

Faced with choosing the path of financial prudence, of doing right by the taxpayer, councillors from Labour, Liberal Democrats and IBIS instead joined forces to choose the path of cowardice and easy decisions.

An unnamed councillor who voted for last night's budget

But then again, what's new?

We shouldn’t be freezing councillors’ allowances; we should be cutting them

It was reported over the weekend that Councillor Bob Cook, the leader of Stockton Council, is to recommend freezing councillors’ allowances for 2013/14.

Big deal.

Given the current economic climate, and particularly in light of changes to council employees’ pay and conditions in recent years, the very idea of increasing councillors’ allowances in unconscionable. So suggesting a freeze is hardly groundbreaking stuff, but welcome news nevertheless, right?

A little background first. Stockton Council currently spends around £800,000 each year on councillors’ allowances.  The lion’s share of this is accounted for by the basic allowance of £9,300 paid to each of the borough’s 56 councillors.

Although this basic allowance has been frozen since 2010/11, it had risen substantially in preceding years, from the £6,150 payable in 2007/08 – a rise of 50% in just three years.  Furthermore, the current basic allowance is, according to the borough’s Independent Remuneration Panel, nearly £1,000 more than the average annual allowance paid by comparative councils.

To put the basic allowance into a regional context, the figure of £9,300 is calculated on the basis of councillors ‘working’ an average of 15 hours each week.  This amounts to a full-time equivalent annual income of nearly £23,000.  In comparison,  the average income of residents throughout the North East is just £20,800 p.a., with 52% of residents earn less than £15,000 p.a..

In his press release lauding his own proposal to freeze allowances, Councillor Cook played down the resultant ‘savings’ from councillors not giving themselves a pay rise as “not a lot of money”.  (Interestingly, he then went on to say, “we have to do all we can” despite failing to even float the idea of actually reducing allowances, let alone recommending such a move!)

In any event, if the ‘savings’ from his idea are “not a lot”, then let’s find a way to increase them.

Instead of a freeze, I would like to see allowances paid to councillors CUT. A 5% reduction in allowances across the board would see savings of around £40,000 overnight (and I mean genuine savings, not the ‘savings’ Cllr Cook refers to despite the fact his proposal wouldn’t actually see the council pay out any less money).  A further saving of  £33,500 could also be found, again overnight, by abolishing the Special Responsibility Allowance paid to the vice chairs of the council’s select committees.

Over the next couple of years, councils the length and breadth of the country face continued challenges to make further efficiencies and savings.  Within Stockton, this has already led to senior council officers talking about further redundancies to come, many of them compulsory.

I grant you, not even the savings from my suggestions amount to a king’s ransom, but they could be implemented immediately and the savings used to protect a handful of jobs.  Whilst 3 or 4 jobs may not be significant to the council in the grand scheme things, they are to those people currently being paid to undertake them.

Of course, much more substantial sums could be saved by conducting a wholesale review of the council’s governance arrangements, particularly the number of elected councillors. I’m only guessing, but I suspect the vast majority of people would happily see a reduction in the number of councillors throughout the borough and would find it difficult to notice any subsequent negative consequence.

Unfortunately despite repeated calls from Conservative councillors to undertake such a review, our pleas have fallen on deaf ears.

But, then, that’s hardly a surprise.

When Labour councillors issue press releases boasting of how they are protecting their own incomes by freezing allowances, yet they refuse an offer of government assistance to freeze the council tax bills of hard pressed residents, that tells you all you need to know about Stockton Labour's priorities.

"Yarm for Yorkshire"? Why not rescue Thornaby too...

During this week's Yarm Town Council meeting, a number of residents once again reiterated their desire to see Yarm returned to the control of a North Yorkshire council (read the Gazette's report here).




Yarm Town Hall flying the white rose of Yorkshire

Of course, Yarm - along with neighbouring towns south of the River Tees - forms part of the ceremonial North Riding of Yorkshire, and always has.  That is not the issue.

Whilst once a borough in its own right, and more recently falling under the control of Stokesley Rural District Council, in 1974 Yarm found itself no longer governed by an authority rooted exclusively in North Yorkshire.

On April Fools Day 1974 (an apt date, as it was surely a cruel, cruel joke), Yarm awoke to find itself within the district of Stockton-on-Tees, governed by the newly created Cleveland County Council.

The situation deteriorated further in 1996 when, following the Banham Review, the widely unpopular Cleveland Council was abolished and Yarm found itself governed by one of four newly created unitary authorities in the north east, Stockton Borough Council.

Whilst much of the motivation to have Yarm 'returned to' Yorkshire is driven by enormous public discontent at recent decisions imposed on the town against residents' wishes - Stockton's proposed parking tax and earmarking of land for thousands of new homes being two of the most notable - it is foolish to think this is the only reason.

For many, it is a simple matter of identity.  Towns such as Yarm and Thornaby, not to mention the likes of Redcar and Middlesbrough further afield, remain for the most part fiercely proud of their Yorkshire roots.  The very suggestion that they are no longer, at least administratively, part of Yorkshire is anathema to them.

For others, their motivations are much more pragmatic.

You don't have to speak to many residents of Yarm or Thornaby to hear evidence of the widespread discontent at the way those communities south of the river have been neglected by Stockton. A complaint you'll often hear around Yarm is that Stockton Council treat the town as nothing more than a cash cow.

What better example can there be than the way Ingleby Barwick has been allowed to develop? Stockton Council was quick enough to cash-in and sell land to housing developers, and has since gleefully pocketed ever increasing council tax receipts, but has left the town pitifully short of community facilities, most notably with a chronic shortage of secondary school provision.

Granted, there is nothing new in Labour councils bleeding dry areas where they have scant support in order to subsidise their client base in Labour controlled wards but, as last week's by-election in Thornaby clearly showed, residents have had enough.

That is why this campaign may develop into one to see not just Yarm liberated from Stockton Council's vampiric embrace, but all communities south of the river.

In the next few months, I would hope to see Yarm Town Council approaching its counterparts in Kirklevington, Thornaby, Ingleby Barwick and others with a view to arranging an indicative referendum throughout all communities south of the river.

"Yarm for Yorkshire" is not a new campaign, and it is not going to go away any time soon...

Ingleby Barwick free school bid stalls

On Tuesday Stockton Council’s planning committee voted, in many cases reluctantly, to reject the planning application to build Ingleby Manor free school along with 350 homes on land off Low Lane, at Little Maltby Farm.



The proposed site of Ingleby Manor free school



Without doubt, this was the most difficult planning application so far I have found myself having a hand in determining as a member of the planning committee.

On the one hand, we had the free school element of the application. There can be no doubting the need – an urgent and increasing need – for additional secondary school provision within Ingleby Barwick. The free school bid enjoys the unwavering support of a majority of residents, the plans for which would bring a wealth of community benefits to the wider community with the school’s facilities to be made available for public use. All positive stuff.

On the other hand, however, we come to the proposed new housing. In a quid pro quo for providing the 13 acres of land on which the school would be built, the landowners (Satnam) hoped to build 350 homes on land located within the green wedge, without providing the required 20% affordable housing element, and which would inevitably have put local services, not least the town’s primary schools, under increased strain.

It’s fair to say the stumbling block for the committee – certainly as far as I was concerned – was the housing element of the application.

Had the application been for the free school and associated facilities alone, it would have been much more difficult to resist. It would certainly have changed the way I voted and, I believe, the way some others did too.

In a step that is usually anathema to me, I abstained from Tuesday’s vote – the first, and I would hope the last, time I have felt compelled to do so. Whilst I would have found it desperately difficult to vote against the much needed free school, there was equally no way I could support any application to build 350 homes in the green wedge.

Whilst it’s accurate to point out that Stockton Council has previously approved incursions into the green wedge in years gone by, in recent months the planning committee has consistently resisted approving any further such applications. This is to be applauded (as indeed it was by many residents of Ingleby Barwick when a recent application to build on the green wedge between Yarm and Ingleby Barwick was refused).

As with any major application, there are differing views and opinions. Supporters of the application argued that the site was not in fact within the green wedge; that the housing was unwelcome but a price worth paying; that it should be approved as it is the only viable site available. All perfectly arguable points, even if I do not necessarily agree with them entirely.

They are also arguments worth pursuing at the seemingly inevitable appeal (that is unless the Secretary of State exercises his discretion to call in the application for determination), a move that I not only understand, but would be inclined to welcome and support.　

If I had given years of my life to securing a new school for Ingleby Barwick, as the likes of Steve Fryer and Frances Lynch have admirably done, it would be dishonest of me to pretend I would not now be pursuing an appeal with everything I have.

But there is a better solution than simply successfully appealing Tuesday’s result.

Instead of cynically attempting to engineer approval for 350 new homes by piggy-backing them on to the free school bid, the developer could potentially solve the problem overnight.

So how about it, Satnam? Why not demonstrate some genuine philanthropy and gift the necessary 13 acres of land to the Ingleby Manor Foundation Trust without any strings attached?

Whilst in planning there can be no guarantees (particularly given the committee in Stockton is dominated by Labour councillors representing a party that hates the very principle of free schools), removing the housing hurdle and allowing the Trust to submit their own application for the school would give them the best possible chance of securing the school Ingleby Barwick so desperately needs.

Yes, I know, I know. But hope springs eternal…

Forget Thornaby; build it in Stockton or don't build it anywhere...

Last week, the Planning Inspectorate dismissed an appeal that would have seen the derelict former Springs Leisure Club at Teesside Park (which has stood empty since 2007) brought back into use, and £7.5 million of private investment and over 60 new jobs brought to Thornaby.

James Wharton MP stood outside the derelict Springs site.

The developers had hoped to build a new Travelodge, a Nandos restaurant and a Harverster pub/restaurant on the site which has been an eyesore for many a year, standing as it does at the entrance to Teesside Park.  Despite the urging of Conservatives on the committee and the ever robust leader of the Thornaby Independents, Steve Walmsley, the Labour members on the planning committee ensured, for a second time, the application was refused.

In hearing and dismissing the appeal, the planning inspector found the economic benefits of the scheme were "not significant", despite earlier stating that "the site is located within one of the worst 10% of nationally ranked deprived wards with a current unemployment rate in excess of 9%".

It makes one wonder just how deprived the ward would need to be for £7.5million to be considered a significant figure? Or how many Thornaby residents would need to be unemployed before 60+ new jobs was regarded as a significant benefit to the area and the town?

Stockton Council's primary argument for rejecting the application - on both occasions it has been considered by the planning committee - was the risk it would pose to their attempts to regenerate Stockton High Street. As pointed out by James Wharton, MP for Stockton South, it goes to show just how fragile Stockton Council believe their own economic model to be.

We all know Stockton High Street is in a dire state, but if Stockton Council really believe a small hotel, a restaurant and a pub being sited at Teesside Park would undermine their £20million regeneration plans (plans some may describe as necromancy) an urgent rethink is required.

Of course, no right-thinking person gives any credence to the Labour run Council's professed reasons for opposing the application. In reality, Labour councillors would much rather see the new jobs and investment going to Stockton instead of Thornaby (or instead of any other part of the borough for that matter).

In their representations to the planning inspector, Stockton Council suggested a number of alternative sites which are, they claim, sequentially preferable to the Springs site.  It is telling that every single one of these suggestions are located within Stockton; no consideration whatsoever was given to any other part of the borough, let alone Thornaby.

It's perfectly understandable that many Labour councillors feel driven to prove their former leader, Bob Gibson, wrong (after he described Stockton High Street as being "beyond redemption"), but to do so by deliberately eschewing any proposals to bring investment to any part of the borough outside of Stockton town centre is tantamount to an act of vandalism.

Following hot on the heels of charging the people of Thornaby £100,000 to regain control of their Town Hall (despite Stockton Council having complained for many years about the estimated £15,000 p.a. it cost for the building's upkeep!) it's clear that Labour led Stockton Council doesn't give a damn about Thornaby, and cares not a jot for its history or its future (something all residents south of the Tees will find familiar).

One can only hope that the residents of Village ward think long and hard before the election on 7th February, and tell Les Hodge and the Labour Party that enough is enough.