Ingleby Manor free school plus 350 new homes approved

It has today been announced the 750-place free school and 350 new homes can now be built after the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government granted planning permission after this was refused by Stockton Borough Council.

Eric Pickles MP, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

The announcement will prompt mixed feelings with residents - supporters will obviously be delighted; opponents to the housing distraught; and many will fear the effect of the new school on the current schools in the locality, particularly Conyers and Egglescliffe.

 

However, the announcement has been overshadowed by criticism of the government's centrist approach in driving forward new housing developments, no matter how unwanted or unneeded, (and which I blogged about just yesterday here), and the grubby way in which the announcement has been delayed for perceived political gain.

 

On three occasions, opponents to new housing schemes have requested the Secretary of State "call-in" the approvals granted by Stockton Council to review the decision.  On three occasions, the request has been refused, on the grounds the applications weren't sufficiently large to merit the government's intervention.

 

However, this particularly planning application was recovered, according to a letter dated 26th September 2013 from the Department for Communities and Local Government, "because it involves proposals for residential development of over 150 units".

 

Now bearing in mind the applications to develop the Morley Carr Farm, Green Lane, and Mount Leven Farm sites were each far in excess of 150 units in size, why weren't these called in?

 

The only rational conclusion is that the 'right' decision (as far as the Conservative party is concerned) was made in those cases and permission granted. The only application to build new housing in Stockton South (James Wharton's constituency) to be refused was Ingleby Manor, and this remains the only one to have seen the government step in and overrule a decision taken by locally elected and accountable councillors.

 

I spoke yesterday about how the residents of Yarm and Eaglescliffe had been betrayed by the Conservative party's approach to planning and craven, cynical desire to see hundreds of new homes built in more Conservative-leaning parts of Mr Wharton's marginal constituency; today we can add Ingleby Barwick to that list.

 

And who has been the cheerleader-in-chief of today's announcement? You guessed it, James Wharton MP.

 

As though this didn't smell enough already, it gets worse. The public inquiry in this matter closed on 28th June 2013, with the inspector, Paul Griffiths, indicating the decision would be made within 6 weeks. So we waited, and waited, and waited...

 

Lo and behold, and as I predicted at the time, the announcement was made today, some three months later, on the eve of the Conservative party conference!

 

That said, I suppose it's pleasing to see the Conservative party can still display some loyalty to its troops, as Mr Wharton receives his reward for bringing forward pro-EU Cameron's Referendum Bill...



Open letter to cllr David Wilburn, chairman of Stockton's Appeals and Complaints committee

Following the closure of the statutory consultation on Stockton Council's planned parking tax for Yarm, the council's Appeals and Complaints Committee is due to sit at 10:00 on Tuesday 10th September at the Baptist Tabernacle in Stockton to consider the thousands of representations from residents and traders.

Though not remotely surprising, it is disappointing Stockton Council has arranged the meeting at their convenience, ignoring the fact this will deny hundreds of residents from being able to attend the meeting and have their say.

I have copied the text of my open letter to the chairman of the Appeals and Complaints Committee, Labour councillor David Wilburn, below asking for the meeting to be rearranged to suit the thousands of concerned residents and traders, not just the dozen or so councillors and officers of Stockton Council.

Should you wish to forward your own thoughts to Councillor Wilburn, you can do so by e-mailing him at david.wilburn@stockton.gov.uk

Tuesday 20^th August 2013

Dear Mr Wilburn

I am writing to you in your capacity as chairman of the Council’s Appeals and Complaints Committee. 

As you will already be aware, a meeting of the Appeals and Complaints Committee has been arranged for Tuesday 10^th September at the Baptist Tabernacle in Stockton to consider the objections to the various Traffic Regulations Orders (TROs) proposed for Yarm High Street and the surrounding area. 

I am sure I need not describe the extent and depth of concern felt by many residents, traders and visitors to Yarm. Indeed, whilst consideration of parking matters (and even the possible imposition of parking charges) regarding Norton High Street are not as far advanced as here in Yarm, I am sure you will be able to empathize with our concerns. 

I am therefore extremely concerned that, given the number of people who will doubtless wish to attend and address the meeting, the committee is due to meet at a time and venue which seems tailored towards the convenience of councillors and council officers rather than that of residents. 

Given individuals’ work and/or childcare commitments, I fear large numbers of people are to be denied the opportunity to attend the meeting if it is held during the working day. Whilst ordinarily it may reasonably be suggested that individuals could take a day’s leave from work thereby allowing them to attend, coming so soon after the school holidays this may well not be possible for many (for example, those who have needed to utilise their annual leave in order to care for their children during the holidays). 

In addition, I was surprised that a venue closer to, or preferably within, Yarm was not secured. From both a convenience to residents and an environmental point of view, it would make infinitely more sense for 30 or so councillors and officers to commute to Yarm for the meeting rather than hundreds of individuals having to travel to Stockton Town Centre. 

I would therefore ask that you, as the committee chairman, have the meeting rearranged for a time more convenient to residents and at a venue in Yarm. 

It is not unusual for the venue of meetings to be set in order to accommodate members of the public – hence why the meeting was arranged to be held at the Tabernacle in the first place, as have many planning meetings recently which you and I have both attended. It is also typical for meetings relating only to a single ward to be held in that particular ward.

As for the time of the meeting, I see no reason why this could not be held either during the evening or on a weekend, thereby allowing individuals to attend who otherwise would not be able to due to work commitments.  Again, this is not unusual – many public consultation events are held at such a time with the sole aim being to maximise the attendance of those who wish to do so. 

I accept some may argue that the likely duration of the meeting means it is impractical to be held on an evening, but as there are three separate TROs to be considered it would be perfectly possible – perhaps even preferable – to hold two meetings to consider these. The most controversial TRO relating to parking charges could be considered at one meeting, and the remaining orders at the subsequent meeting. I appreciate this suggestion would be out of the ordinary, but as the committee has met on just 6 occasions during the past two years, I don’t consider I am asking for an intolerable burden to be brought to bear on committee members. 

I would cite just one recent example (though could provide many more if required) to demonstrate when the council has arranged a meeting that would meet both of my requests. A meeting was held at Levendale Primary School in Yarm between 19:00 and 21:00 to discuss the possibility of a new cycleway in Yarm – the time and venue were set as such purely to meet the needs of residents. 

I see no reason why similar arrangements could not be made to hold the meeting(s) on an evening in Yarm, with Conyers School appearing to be a suitable venue both in terms of size, ease of access and parking provision. 

I hope you will be able to accede to my request and I look forward to hearing from you. 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Cllr Mark Chatburn

Labour scaremongering over schools' closure

Stockton Labour’s cynical scaremongering plumbed new depths this week with Labour MP, Alex Cunningham, attempting to goad Michael Gove with the suggestion that a decision to proceed with the Ingleby Manor Free School would result in surplus secondary school places across the borough and the closure of some schools (read the Northern Echo's report here).

Alex Cunningham MP scaremongering in the Commons

The suggestion that a new secondary school within the borough, a school which will ultimately, but not for a number of years, accommodate 900 pupils will result in school closures is demonstrably absurd.

Perhaps Alex Cunningham and Labour are oblivious to the fact that the Labour-dominated planning committee has already granted approvals to a number of planning applications that will see thousands of new homes (some presumably housing children) built across the borough?

Perhaps they are oblivious to a number of current and anticipated planning applications which, following the usual rubber-stamping process by Stockton's Labour council, could see hundreds, if not thousands, more homes gifted planning approval?

Or perhaps, in Alex’s craven desire to secure cheap headlines, he has overlooked the fact that the borough’s primary schools are bursting at the seams already and Stockton’s Labour council is rapidly running out of ideas and options as to how we can accommodate an ever increasing number of primary school age children?

A Labour MP’s ignorance of facts, either unintentionally or deliberately, is not news. Indeed, it is par for the course.

However, to deliberately try to frighten residents, not just in Yarm and Eaglescliffe but across the entire borough, with unfounded talk of school closures is nothing short of outrageous. That he is referred to in Parliament as the ‘honourable member’ is the most laughable misnomer I have come across in a very long time.

If there is one crumb of consolation to come from this sorry episode it is the fact that outstanding schools such as Conyers will continue to go from strength to strength for decades after opportunists like Alex Cunningham MP have been long forgotten.