Did Tory MP breach the Data Protection Act in courting Muslim voters?

Concerns have been raised that Conservative MP for Stockton South James Wharton may have breached the Data Protection Act by sending a letter about the current conflict in Gaza, but only to Muslim voters .

I have been passed the letter sent on 22 July by a number of Muslim residents who are concerned that they have been singled out to receive the letter on the sole basis of having an 'Islamic-sounding' name. Their concerns are borne out to a degree by the fact a number of friends and constituents with non-Islamic names who frequently receive such unsolicited correspondence from Mr Wharton have not received this particular letter.

The case bears remarkable similarities to that of Labour MP Karen Buck who a fortnight ago admitted her staff trawled the electoral register singling out people with 'Islamic' names in order to send cards celebrating Eid - a practice Miss Buck was warned by the Information Commissioner's Office back in 2010, following a previous complaint, was probably in breach of the Data Protection. Correspondence should not be sent to selected voters 'merely on the basis of an assumption about their names' chided the ICO.

The strong pro-Palestinian sentiments expressed in Mr Wharton's letter, criticising Israeli military action as being "out of all proportion" and the consequences "horrifying", will doubtless anger many of his Conservative supporters. Indeed, there can be no doubts as to where Mr Wharton's sympathies lie, with his helpful inclusion of a photograph from 2011 of him shaking hands with the Palestinian Authority's Prime Minister Salam Fayyad.

Mr Wharton himself recognises his position will be widely unpopular, stating: "I know this is a matter which divides opinion and that my stance will not please everyone." His actions are somewhat less principled than he seeks to portray, however, when he attempts to court the votes of those he presumes will agree with him (i.e. those with 'Islamic' names) whilst hiding his position from everybody else.

It is such opportunistic cynicism that has become Mr Wharton's hallmark since 2010, and does so much to erode voters' confidence in their elected representatives.

In criticising Miss Buck, Tory MP Philip Davies said: 'The idea that you can win elections by this kind of vacuous, politically correct, cynical tactic is wrong." Mr Wharton would be well served to heed his colleague's words.

In the next day or two I expect we will hear an ardent denial of wrongdoing by Mr Wharton; maybe even some letters ostensibly received by local party members residents will be helpfully presented. Should such a situation remarkably transpire, I trust Mr Wharton will be helpful enough to clarify to whom the letters were sent and, more importantly, on what basis those individuals were singled out. For some reason, I very much doubt he will...

Forest Giraffe moves in to Yarm's Leven Park!

Earlier today, Leven Park welcomed a new resident - a Forest Giraffe!

In recent months, Yarm councillor Andrew Sherris and I have sought feedback from residents on the new play area at Leven Park.

Almost without exception, residents replied they wanted to see equipment suitable for younger children.

Responding to this we drew up a shortlist of potential new pieces of equipment and asked youngsters at Levendale primary school to select their favourite. Their overwhelming favourite was the Forest Giraffe which Cllr Sherris and I agreed to order, paid for from our Community Participation Budget.

With work having commenced earlier today, it is hoped the new equipment will be 'bedded in' and open for use well ahead of the school holidays.

With Yarm Town Council having wasted over £40,000 of the council's reserves on a futile judicial review grossly mishandled by two Conservative councillors (and then a further £13,000 spent on the cost of the by-election forced by the two councillors' resignations), the council is sadly no longer in a position to replace, renew or add to the town's facilities in the coming years.

It therefore makes it all the more pleasing we have found room within this year's budget to provide this welcome addition to Leven Park.

Although there remains little scope for further schemes this year - with funds having been set aside to replace many of the small, post-mounted litter bins throughout the town which are not fit for purpose - please feel free to contact me with any suggestions for further projects.

Post by Cllr Mark Chatburn.

Yarm footpath maintenance schemes - some good news

It isn't often I have had the opportunity to share good news regarding Yarm in recent times, but today is an happy exception.

I have now received confirmation of the areas which will have new footpaths laid throughout Yarm and Kirklevington during 2015/16. These are:

- Carew Close (full length)

- Forest Lane (various areas)

- Ryedale Close (full length)

- Larun Beat (from Lympton Gate to The Slayde).

These works are in addition to the resurfacing of Challoner Road (between Skirlaw Road and Meynell's Walk) already scheduled for this financial year.

Whilst we have a number of paths throughout the ward in need of resurfacing, Larun Beat has been in a serious state for disrepair for many years and is one of, if not the, worst in Yarm. This was one of the first issues I raised as a councillor, and I know councillors Andrew Sherris and Jennie Beaumont worked hard to raise this several times prior to my own election. Whilst it is sadly not the done thing for the old political parties locally, it would be wrong not to thank the aforementioned equally for their work in this regard.

Although no dates have been finalised for the work to be undertaken as yet, I will notify residents as soon as they are agreed.

If you believe any other areas are particularly in need of resurfacing - or at the very least some remedial work - feel free to drop me a line at mark.chatburn@stockton.gov.uk so we can endeavour to include them in future work programs.

It can bully its planning committee, but Stockton Council can't bully me

On 11:19 on Christmas Eve I received an e-mail (below) from Stockton Council's legal services department notifying me that they were investigating a complaint that I had breached the Members Code of Conduct by highlighting the council's attempts to bully and manipulate those councillors who sit on its planning committee (see my blog post here).

Back in June, Stockton Council's planning committee voted overwhelmingly, and somewhat surprisingly, to reject a controversial application to build 159 properties on land at Urlay Nook, Eaglescliffe.

As is now par for the course, the developer lodged an appeal whilst simultaneously submitting another planning application which was virtually identical to their previous failed bid.

The week before the committee was due to hear the second planning application, back in November, officers at Stockton Council circulated a legal brief to members of the planning committee which advised if councillors were to approve the revised application it "would probably result in the withdrawal of the appeal". Not only that, it claimed it would make "good sense" to approve the application in order to "extricate the council from the very difficult position it now faces". (read the report in the Evening Gazette here).

Now, there are only two possible reasons for council officers circulating the legal opinion it its entirety as they did - a move they concede was "unusual" and which they admit they couldn't give another single example of when they had done likewise. It was either a display of quite breath-taking incompetence, or a deliberate attempt to manipulate the result of the forthcoming vote.

I had no hesitation in publishing the legal brief in its entirety, and would do so again without a moment's thought.  Too many council officers seem to have forgotten that the only reason they have a job at all is to serve the residents of the borough. To my mind, such a job description does not include trying to rig votes in favour of wealthy landowners and developers contrary to the wishes of residents.

But what irked me the most about the letter I received last month regarding the investigation was not its content - which hardly came as a surprise - it was the timing.

Nearly 7 weeks had elapsed since I published the brief without a single word from the council that any investigation would take place, or was even being considered. Then, on Christmas Eve of all days, and at the instigation of David Bond, the council's Director of Law and Democracy, the letter was e-mailed to me.

Not only that, when I replied to the e-mail just 10 minutes later, both David Bond and Jonathan Nertney - the principal solicitor who signed the letter - were both out of the office until the new year, at least according to the automated messages I received back.

Now, I suppose it's possible sending me the letter by e-mail was Jonathan's last act of the day before, very quickly, setting his out-of-office and skipping out of the office? Or perhaps he and/or David Bond are so utterly spiteful that they thought it a good idea to delay sending it until Christmas Eve, irrespective of the fact they weren't even working that day? Who knows? It doesn't matter.

Stockton Council might have been successful in its bullying of the planning committee - the revised application being approved in November as officers wished (see here) - but they are making an huge mistake if they think they can bully me in the same way.

I will always stand up for residents, acting in their best interests, saying what they want me to say and doing what they want me to do. If Stockton Council have a problem with that, then they will just have to find a way to learn to live with their disappointment.

Why I left the Conservatives part 1: The National Planning Policy Framework

In the first of a series of posts on some of the specific policies that pushed me to leave the Conservative party, I am going to focus on the one which has arguably caused more damage in Yarm and the surrounding area than any other - the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Morley Carr Farm, the site of 300-350 new homes in Yarm

Since the introduction of the NPPF in 2012, Yarm alone has seen approvals granted to build up to 350 new homes at Morley Carr Farm, 370 homes along Green Lane and a further 350 homes plus a 100-bedroom care home at Mount Leven Farm. These are in addition to the Allens West site in neighbouring Eaglescliffe, where plans for 800 new homes have been approved.

None of the aforementioned sites in Yarm had been earmarked for development by Stockton Council in its current Core Strategy.  And whilst developers have either owned these sites or owned an option on them for decades, they had never been brought forward before the NPPF was implemented.

In the Conservative Manifesto 2010, it was stated, "We will create a presumption in favour of sustainable development in the planning system". Albeit a rare example of a manifesto pledge actually being honoured and delivered, the manifesto was silent on what else was to follow.

More detail was provided in the Coalition Agreement. It said, "We will... return decision-making powers on housing and planning to local councils." Excellent, we all thought.

It continued, "We will radically reform the planning system to give neighbourhoods far more ability to determine the shape of the places in which their inhabitants lived." Marvellous, we cried. And about time too.

Unfortunately, and as was ever thus, the devil was in the detail of what was to follow.

Paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework has been the absolute killer. It reads, "Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites."

In situations where parts of a planning authority's local plan is 'absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of date', the NPPF takes precedence. This was a situation a majority of councils, including Stockton Council, found themselves in over a year after the NPPF came into effect.

Suddenly, those council policies consulted on extensively with the public prior to approval which had protected the greenfield sites around Yarm for years, and which directed housing developments to the parts of the borough where they were both wanted and needed, were worthless, supplanted by the NPPF cuckoo in the nest. The presumption in favour of approving new housing developments became king.

If you clicked on the links attached to the three sites in Yarm I mentioned earlier, or if you have read other reports in the press I haven't included, you may have noticed one thing all the reports have in common - James Wharton MP criticising Labour-led Stockton Council for approving these planning applications.

Unfortunately, whilst he's quick to blame Labour for such planning travesties in and around Yarm after the event, his silence prior to those decisions has been deafening.

Mr Wharton failed to object to a single application, let alone speak up for residents at the relevant hearings; residents complain he failed to provide any meaningful support whatsoever to those opposing the schemes; he has consistently refused to utter a word of criticism of the NPPF which allowed these unwanted schemes to go ahead; and, despite the wholesale concern of residents, he didn't even bother to attend July's parliamentary committee debate on 'Localism in Planning' when a number of principled Conservative MPs queued up to represent their residents and, without exception, criticise the NPPF.

This is hardly surprising. For a young and ambitious MP who 'hardly ever rebels' against the party machine, and who has a slender majority of just 332, the NPPF and resulting approval of 1,000 new homes in a traditionally Conservative-voting ward within his marginal constituency could only have been regarded by Mr Wharton as manna from heaven.

That he, and the Conservative party through the NPPF, have not just let down but so badly betrayed residents in Yarm is unforgiveable.

But it isn't just Mr Wharton who is culpable.

When Morley Carr Farm was brought to the planning committee, then Green Lane, and the first time Mount Leven Farm was brought to the committee, not one single Conservative councillor (myself included) followed the national party's wishes and voted to approve these applications.

However, after the Mount Leven Farm application was initially rejected, the developer submitted a second, virtually identical, application was again brought before the committee just months after the first. Second time around, the application was approved with the committee voting 6-5 in favour.

'How did this happen' you might ask. The answer is simple - Councillor Ken Lupton (the chairman of the Stockton Conservatives Association, and leader of the Conservative group on Stockton Council) changed his mind, having voted against the application initially but voting for it the second time around.

Had the Conservative leader voted against the application, as he had previously, it would have been rejected. It is also noticeable that Councillor Lupton has been silent on what prompted his unexplained and devastating volte face.

It goes without saying that I could no longer remain a member of a party who nationally brought forward a policy so damaging to those I represent, and who locally can be described, at best, as duplicitous and opportunist.

I am proud to say that, as a member of the planning committee, I have listened to residents' concerns and not voted to approve a single inappropriate development in the area.

It is a crying shame that the leader of the local Conservatives cannot say the same thing.

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

Leven Park play area finally opens

After literally years of waiting, the new play area at Leven Park was formally opened for public use this morning.


The first children enjoying the new play area

The play area was subject to a thorough inspection by ROSPA over a couple of hours yesterday afternoon. As well as receiving a clean bill of health, the inspector was very complimentary of both the quality of work and the play area overall.

After a few little odds and sods were finished off by Care For Your Area first thing this morning, the play area was officially opened for use at 10:30.

The honour of being the first to use the play area went to local residents Brian and Margaret Moon, or more specifically to their young grandson, Alexander (pictured below).

(left to right) Cllr Andrew Sherris, Margaret Moon, grandson Alexander, Brian Moon, and myself

Despite the play area already being open there remains a final bench to be installed, but we are considering relocating this slightly from its planned position to benefit from the shade of the nearby copse of trees. A request has also been received for a dog tether to be sited nearby and we hope this is something we may able to provide shortly through our ward budget. Suggestions for any further improvements are, as always, welcome.

All that remains is to give thanks to Yarm Councillor Andrew Sherris, former Yarm Councillor Jenny Beaumont and particularly to (the camera shy!) Tony Raine of Stockton Council for their work and tireless dedication in bringing this scheme forward three years ago and seeing it through to a successful conclusion.

Leven Park play area to open within days

Following a site visit last week, I am delighted to confirm the Leven Park play area is now in a suitable condition to be opened.

The necessary post installation inspection by ROSPA has been arranged for Thursday 22nd August. Once this has been completed, and assuming no problems have been identified, we should be able to open the play area in time for the Bank Holiday weekend.

Whilst this is later than we had previously hoped, and whilst there are a few minor snagging issues that will be addressed by Care For Your Area in the coming days, we will finally have a long overdue play area on the east side of Yarm for families to use and enjoy for years and decades to come.

Although we have not experienced any noticeable anti-social behaviour or vandalism whilst the installation work has been ongoing, the CCTV camera will remain in place for now. The long-term need for this will be reviewed in the coming months with a view to its removal if it is felt to be no longer required.

A67 Yarm High Street Resurfacing - work starts Sunday 1st September

After many years of campaigning, Stockton Council is to finally resurface the High Street carriageway as well as carrying out some structural patching on The Spital and Yarm Road.



The work will be carried out over five consecutive Sundays in September, and will start on 1st September 2013. The scheme has been split into 5 main phases and temporary traffic signals will be in place.

 

Phase 1 Sunday 1^st will include the Northbound Lane from the Town Hall to Bridge Street.

 

Phase 2 Sunday 8^th will include the Southbound Lane from Bridge Street to The Town Hall.

 

Phase 3 Sunday 15^th will include the Northbound Lane from Bentley Wynd to The Town Hall.

 

Phase 4 Sunday 22^nd will include the Southbound Lane from The Town Hall to Bentley Wynd.

 

Phase 5 Sunday 29^th will be to carry out additional essential carriageway patching on the Yarm Road and The Spital areas coming in and out of the High street.

 

Unfortunately it seems likely that a number of High Street parking bays will be 'out of action' whilst the work is ongoing but this is unavoidable and I have been assured they will be kept to a minimum.

  

Temporary traffic signals will be in place each Sunday and the council have engaged Hatton traffic management operatives to help with traffic control on site. The intention is to letter cars parked overnight in the High street at least 2 Saturday nights before asking motorists to refrain from doing so whilst the works are ongoing as this may lead to difficulty in getting out on a Sunday.

 

Signs will be placed on site shortly to inform all road users of the works and any residents/businesses directly affected will be informed by letter giving more details of the works and contact numbers if more information is required.

 

Additional signs will be placed on both the A19 and A66 informing of delays in passing through Yarm at this time (although there is an argument for keeping these up permanently!).

Yarm Parking consultation - my response

A number of residents have asked me for details of my response to the Yarm parking tax consultation, so here it is:

Dear Mr Bond

I have a number of comments and concerns I wish to make regarding the three proposed TROs currently being consulted on. I trust it is acceptable to address each TRO within this single letter.

 

i) High Street Pay and Display (including residents’ permits), Loading Bays and Taxi Ranks

 

The council’s stated aim, to increase the availability of short-stay parking spaces in Yarm, is laudable and long overdue.  However, the council has failed to provide any compelling evidence that this aim can, or will, be met by way of the current proposals. In fact, there is potential for the situation in Yarm to deteriorate gravely as a direct consequence of these proposals.

As has already been highlighted in the representation made by Michael Kitching of SK Transport Planning Ltd, the council first needs to fully understand the current use of the existing car-parking facilities in Yarm before it can assess the impact of any changes to the current arrangements and make any informed decisions. To achieve this the council needs to undertake a comprehensive study of the current usage, and good practice is for this to be done by way of a parking beat survey.

Neither a parking beat survey nor anything comparable has been undertaken by the council. To bring forward the proposed TROs without having taken this necessary first step is negligent and leaves residents and traders alike vulnerable to unseen (by the council at least) consequences.

The only survey relating to parking undertaken to date and made available to residents is the market research undertaken by NEMS in 2011. This is wholly inadequate for the purpose of making any informed decisions on changing the existing arrangements in Yarm. NEMS Market Research is not, nor do they profess to, professional parking or travel planning consultants. They did not undertake any meaningful parking study, their data mainly being extrapolated from small sample surveys undertaken. Their report is not a meaningful parking study and it is wrong of the council to contrive to treat it as such.

This absence of any detailed study or baseline data makes it impossible to make any evidence based decisions, or to assess the likely impact of the proposed changes. On this basis alone it is reckless of the council to proceed with the proposed TROs.

I am extremely concerned about the impact of removing the current maximum stay of 2 hours on the High Street; you will be aware that the proposed TRO imposes no maximum length of stay other than what the visitor is prepared to pay for.  In effect this will convert every short-stay parking space within the disc controlled zone into a medium- or long-stay parking space, contrary to the council’s stated aims.

Common sense dictates this will result in an unquantified number of visitors staying in excess of the current maximum of two hours. How this will lead to an increase in the availability of short-stay spaces is unexplained and is indeed counter-intuitive.

This will be to the detriment of Yarm traders in two profound ways. Firstly, the reduced availability of parking spaces, as longer stays can only result in a reduced turnover of vehicles and therefore visitors / shoppers. Secondly, NEMS’ report illustrates that the average spend of visitors reduces as the length of stay increases – the average spend of visitors (excluding workers) staying for more than 2 hours is 34% less than visitors staying for 1 to 2 hours. The average spend of visitors staying for more than three hours falls off a cliff edge.

I would therefore request that urgent consideration is given to amending the TRO to limit the maximum length of stay on the High Street to 3 hours. This would lessen the detrimental impact on traders whilst accommodating those visitors wishing to stay for more than two hours.

I am also concerned that the proposed residents’ permit scheme will also impact detrimentally on traders, and that this impact has not been (and cannot be, given the lack of a proper parking survey) properly considered assessed and quantified.

The requirements of those residents who live on or off the High Street must be of primary concern to the council before proposing any changes to the existing arrangements, and it is pleasing that the council appears to have taken this on board. However, that can be no excuse for proposing a scheme which presents a real and present danger to traders.

The council has failed to quantify the number of residents’ permits it expects to issue. Nor has it qualified how frequently and at what times of which days it expects these permits to be used. The same failures apply equally, and perhaps more worryingly, to the visitors permits residents will be permitted to buy. These failures are entirely understandable, given the lack of any parking study having been done, but are nevertheless inexcusable.

The current proposals will see approximately 150 properties eligible to apply for up to two parking permits and to buy the visitors permits.  We will therefore see anywhere between 0 and 300 residents’ permits, plus an unknown number of visitors’ permits, used on any given day. As the High Street currently has only 80 unrestricted parking spaces available to residents, the risk that we will see an reduction in the number of available short-stay spaces (as the permits will allow residents and visitors to park in a short-stay space at no cost for an unlimited period of time) is great.  This risk is undoubtedly at its greatest on Saturdays, the busiest day for High Street traders.

Once again, as the council is unable to quantify this risk it would be reckless to proceed with the proposed TROs at this time.

I am equally concerned at the absence of any measures to minimise or mitigate the inevitable displacement of vehicles from Yarm High Street to peripheral areas.

Given the change from a free parking arrangement to a charged parking arrangement, and given the incontrovertible and widespread opposition to such a change, it is inevitable there will be considerable resistance to the proposed changes which will result in displaced vehicles.  The number of displaced vehicles will only increase when we see a reduced availability of short-stay parking spaces on the High Street (as I have already explained), and given the reduced number of off-street parking spaces as a consequence of another of the proposed TROs.

Once again, the council has failed to quantify the anticipated level of displacement (understandably in the absence of any parking study having been undertaken), failed to identify to where these vehicles may be displaced, and has failed to propose a single measure to mitigate or combat any issues which will ensue in neighbouring streets and communities from this displacement. This is unacceptable. When this matter has been raised verbally with officers, their response has been to say that they would reactively address any issues that arise due to such displacement. To adopt this approach, in favour of proactively dealing with this issue, is wholly unacceptable.  Once again, it would be reckless of the council to proceed with the proposed TROs until this issue has been satisfactorily addressed.

Finally, and this point almost seems too obvious too mention, given the risks of a reduced availability of parking spaces and the risk of a substantial number of vehicles being displaced, it would be reckless to implement any of the proposed changes prior to additional off-street parking provision having been brought in to use.

The council’s website states “encouraging process on securing suitable sites in the vicinity of Yarm High Street is being made”. Whilst this comment needs to be taken with a healthy pinch of salt, given how many years we have heard this line, it must be a prerequisite for these sites to be brought to fruition and delivered before any other of the proposed changes could be tolerated.

With regards to the taxi rank element of the plans, I wish to consult with both residents and taxi drivers some more and will write separately to you on this matters before the closing date of Friday 26^th July 2013.

In summary, there is a real – though, sadly, unquantifiable – risk that the proposed TRO would bring about consequences contrary to the council’s stated aim, namely to increase the availability of short-stay parking spaces.  Until such time as a comprehensive parking study has been undertaken, and the risks of any proposed changes identified, quantified and mitigated as far as is possible, it would be reckless and negligent of the council to proceed with the proposed changes.

 

ii) Existing off-street car parks, pay and display

 

It is extremely disappointing that the council has decided to implement parking charges at the two existing off-street car parks. It is also extremely disappointing that the justification for this change (as referred to in the notice) has not been made available to residents on the council’s website.

It is pleasing that the charges have been set at such a relatively modest level. However, this in itself seems to put the lie to any argument that such charges are necessary to contribute to the provision of any additional off-street parking.  Such a contribution, even over a number of years, would appear to be minimal, particularly in light of the contributions to meet this end which have recently been secured as a condition in the approval of a number of major housing applications which have been approved.

It has also been argued that it is only equitable to charge for on- and off-street parking in Yarm as this is currently the case within Stockton. There is very little merit in this argument whatsoever. The differing nature and needs of the two towns are obvious, and require very different solutions. The ‘one size fits all’ approach is rarely an appropriate solution, let alone the best, to any problem. Furthermore, there is an iniquity in the amount of works currently being undertaken in Stockton Town centre at a cost of tens of millions of pounds without visitors to Stockton being asked to subsidise these, and the council’s stance that any additional works in Yarm (i.e. the provision of additional off-street parking provision) require the subsidy of residents / visitors.

Furthermore, given the wide scale opposition to the introduction of parking charges in Yarm, there will undoubtedly be resistance and a resultant level of vehicle displacement from the off-street car parks. I have already explained in some detail my concerns about displacement earlier in this letter and they apply equally to the implementation of charging in Yarm’s off-street car parks.

 

iii) Side / back street waiting restrictions

 

Whilst not universally popular, I broadly welcome the majority of the proposed new restrictions.

I am concerned at the proposed new restrictions on High Church Wynd.  I recognise that the proposed lines on the north side of the wynd will, for the most part, reinforce current custom and practice where the majority of residents park on the south side of the wynd.  However, given there is insufficient on-street parking to accommodate all of the residents who live on the wynd and I must insist those affected residents are able to apply for residents’ permits permitting them to park on the High Street.

I am also disappointed that no additional restrictions have been proposed for West End Gardens.  I understand additional restrictions have previously been considered on the west side corner, where West Street meets West End Gardens, but were rejected following complaints from residents. However, as the pressure on parking has increased in recent years, we are seeing more obstructive parking in West End Gardens than was previously the case and I, along with many residents, consider additional restrictions to be necessary.  If it is not possible to include these in the proposed TRO, I would ask that urgent consideration is given to bringing forward and additional TRO to address these concerns.

Finally, I wish to comment on Bridge Street. I must point out from the outset that I currently live at the east end of Bridge Street, although none of the proposed new restrictions are planned for outside or near my home.

I am in favour of the proposed new restrictions on both north and south sides of the street underneath the viaduct and flanking the entrance to Bridge Court. I am also broadly in favour of the new restrictions on the south side of the western end of Bridge Street, to replace the current keep clear markings.  I have however been contacted by residents who have asked whether the restrictions need to extend as far east as is proposed and whether these could be reduced in order to create one or two additional parking spaces. I should be grateful if this request could be considered and a response issued.

Finally, I approve of the proposed new restrictions on Atlas Wynd and would thank officers for including these at the eleventh hour in response to requests from residents of Atlas Wynd, myself and Councillor Andrew Sherris.

Yours sincerely,

Cllr Mark Chatburn

Yarm Parking Tax consultation to commence tomorrow

I have this evening been informed (not by Stockton Council, but by the Northern Echo!) that the statutory consultation for the introduction of the council's parking tax is to commence tomorrow, Thursday 27th June 2013.

Stockton Council leader, Labour's Bob Cook, milking Yarm the cash cow.

As a road traffic order (RTO) is required before the council can implement its parking tax, the council is required by law to consult on the proposals for a period of 21 days. The consultation is not to do with the principle of introducing parking charges - the last one, in 2009, demonstrated widespread opposition to the plans so the council has refused to ask residents their opinion since - but merely the specific details of implementation.

I am also led to believe that plans to impose hundreds of metres of new double yellow lines throughout the town centre have been reincarnated and will form a part of the consultation. Whilst some additional parking restrictions are necessary and to be welcomed, we will have to wait and see how sensible and proportionate the current proposals are.

Whilst I have not yet been able to double check the details with council officers, it is understood that we have been successful in ensuring a minimum of 30 minutes free parking on the High Street.  The charging structure beyond this is believed to be £1 for the next two hours, and £1 for each hour thereafter.

If I was feeling generous, I suppose it is worth paying credit to the council for at least not holding the consultation entirely within the school holidays, but I am not feeling generous. Such a small concession is akin to the executioner allowing you a final cigarette.

I will keep residents informed of further details as and when I receive them. Hopefully we won't have to rely on the Northern Echo for further information moving forward, but I won't be holding.

New footpaths and cycleways proposed for Levendale Estate, Yarm

We are pleased to announce that in conjunction with Stockton Borough Council we will shortly start consulting residents on proposals to create a new footpath and cycle way linking parts of the Levendale estate to Levendale Primary School.

Levendale Primary School, Yarm

Constructed during the 1970s, the Levendale estate lacks the traffic-free cycleways and 'safe routes' to the centrally located primary school that would today be insisted upon.  Not only is there no dedicated pedestrian route linking the estate to the school, neither does such a route exist linking much of the estate to the local shop.

At a meeting attended by Councillor Sherris and I, draft plans to build a new footpath & cycleway running through what was the pylon corridor linking Kirk Road with Glaisdale Road, and running east/west linking the aforementioned path with the primary school and continuing on to Mount Leven Road, near Bankside, were discussed in detail.

In order to further enhance the safety of children travelling to school, plans to implement a 20mph zone in the vicinity of the school are also to be consulted upon.

The necessary £150,000 funding for the scheme has already been secured, following a successful bid to the Department for Transport Links to Schools and Communities budget (managed by Sustrans) with matched funding being stumped up by Stockton Council.

In addition, Sustrans have also allocated a further £8,500 to promote the scheme and to work with pupils and staff at Levendale Primary School.

It is important to stress that no decisions have been taken at this stage and we are extremely keen to hear residents' views on the key principles of the scheme.

Following our success in, eventually, securing the funding for the new play area at Leven Park, we are delighted we have now been able to secure this additional money for further infrastructure improvements in Yarm.

We hope to shortly announce the date of a drop-in consultation at which residents can view the initial draft scheme and to make their opinions heard. Should you not be able to attend the forthcoming consultation, please don't hesitate to contact me directly for further details.

Finally, a mention and our thanks should go to Jonathan Kibble at Stockton Council for all his hard work in securing the funding and progressing the concept thus far.

Government recognises the true Yorkshire boundary

To celebrate Saint George's day, the Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (and a proud Yorkshireman to boot, hailing from Keighley - the town of my father's birth), announced the Government will formally acknowledge traditional county boundaries. (This piece in the Dalesman summarises matters beautifully).


A map of traditional county boundaries © Copyright the
Association of British Counties



As a consequence of the Local Government Act 1972, many parts of Yorkshire were carved off and swallowed up by newly created entities (into the so-called 'county' of Cleveland, for example). Yarm-on-Tees was one of the victims of this ill-considered piece of legislation. A brief summary of the administrative changes affecting Yarm can be found here.

Of course, this announcement will not materially change anything. The cross-county atrocity of Stockton Borough Council, created in 1996, will continue to exist in its current form. For now...

The announcement is, however, a powerful acknowledgement of the role of traditional counties throughout the history of our nation. Indeed, many of our traditional counties (including Yorkshire) predate the very Kingdom itself. It is also a welcome recognition of the key role of traditional counties in the shaping of individuals', and our nation's, identity.

Furthermore, there was one comment in the Government's announcement in particular which made the heart sing:

"He [Eric Pickles MP] will encourage local residents to continue to champion such local identities, irrespective of current tiers of local administration."

Many in Yarm (including the town's self-styled "mayor", Jason Hadlow), having seen the growing groundswell of residents keen to see Yarm once again under the control of an administration rooted firmly and entirely with North Yorkshire, are keen to jump on the bandwagon. It is telling that many of those now espousing recognition of the town's Yorkshire roots have hitherto done nothing whatsoever to mark or achieve this.

So, as a quick and easy first step, I have an idea...

The current signs 'welcoming' people to Yarm (below) completely fail to reflect the town's historic roots. Whilst mentioning the town's recent links to the towns in France and Germany with which it is twinned, it mentions nothing of our centuries old ties with the North Riding of Yorkshire. (That's not to mention the tired state of the signs, to put it politely.)


The 'welcome' sign for residents entering North Yorkshire
from County Durham over the River Tees from Eaglescliffe

At the next meeting of Yarm Town Council I will therefore be asking the council to consider replacing the current tired, old signs with something much more in keeping with our historic town and which highlights, loud and proud, that Yarm lies, as it has always lain, within the North Riding of Yorkshire.

Granted, it's a small first step, but might oaks from tiny acorns grow.

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.

Council u-turn sees Yarm get its new play area after all

A rare U-turn by Stockton Council means that a new play area will be built at Leven Park in Yarm, just days after it was announced that the plans would have to be shelved.

For the past three years, local councillors have been working on plans that would see a new play area - the first, in fact - delivered on the east side of Yarm.

Although the funding has been in place from the outset, the scheme has been beset by a number of delays following consultations held with residents which saw a number of revisions made to the plans (most controversially, the addition of CCTV to allay residents' fears of the area attracting anti-social behavior).

However, at a meeting last week attended by myself and Councillor Sherris, officers from Stockton Council made it clear that they were no longer in a position to pay for the ongoing maintenance of the park and, unless another soure of funding could be found, the plans would have to be scrapped.

It goes without saying that when the outcome of the discussions were detailed at that evening's meeting of Yarm Town Council, the atmosphere was less than jovial.

A combination of further pressure from councillors as well as from dismayed residents led to a further meeting arranged for Tuesday evening, once again attended by myself and Councillor Sherris.

After much negotiation, Stockton Council agreed to reverse their position and to pay for all of the play area's maintenance and CCTV monitoring, everything except for the regular cleaning of the area which is to be paid for from local councillors' ward budget for, at least, the next three years.

It's mildly amusing to see all and sundry attempting to take the credit for securing the u-turn, including the so-called Yarm Residents' Association, the content of their website ostensibly written by Walter Mitty (Thurber's fictional character oft thought of as the Mayor of fantasyland and described by American Heritage Dictionary as "an ordinary, often ineffectual person who indulges in fantastic daydreams of personal triumphs").

Nevertheless, it would be wrong for the credit for finally securing the play park to go to anybody other than Councillor Sherris, who has been the scheme's driving force since day one and continues to work hard with me in endeavouring to secure long-term funding for the area's maintenance.

It is hoped that the new park should be installed and ready to go before the schools break for summer, but I hope to have this confirmed in the next few days.

"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...

Yarm School planning application rejected. Unanimously!

Campaigners from Yarm, Eaglescliffe, and Friends of Tees Heritage Park secured a stunning victory this afternoon with the planning committee of Stockton Council voting unanimously to reject a planning application from Yarm School which looked to create 11 new sports pitches and a pavillion on the Eaglescliffe side of the River Tees as well as building a new bridge across the Tees.



Whilst this may not sound like the most objectionable planning application you've ever heard of, the committee agreed it would have ruined a large tract of unspoilt rural and agriculture land comprising part of the Tees Heritage Park.

A number of other concerns were voiced by committee members - far too many in fact to list here - but chief amongst these was regarding the proposed footbridge over the Tees (which was to be sited just metres away from homes on Minerva Mews, and would have resulted in an unacceptable invasion of privacy for residents there).

What is arguably of more significance from Yarm residents' point of view is the impact today's decision will have on the application to build 735 homes on Green Lane, which is (at least for the moment) due to be heard by the planning committee on 5th February 2013.

Today's application was merely an enabling development to afford Yarm School scope to sell the site of its current playing fields at Green Lane (pictured above) to Bellway Homes, the latest profiteers hoping to bank a greenfield site with planning permission in Yarm, to cash in on whenever the housing market improves.

Whether the Green Lane application will now be heard by the committee next week remains to be seen, but don't be surprised if the application is withdrawn between now and then.

Although today's decision is undoubtedly good news for the overwhelming majority of residents across the whole borough, I can't help but feel a twinge of sadness.

Whilst it is always disappointing to see landowners and housebuilders looking to profit from Yarm, and Stockton Borough Council's idiotic belief that the borough needs thousands more homes (more on that another time), it can hardly be considered a surprise.

However, when a private school looks to ruin a swathe of a heritage park in order to facilitate the building of hundres of new homes, in the face of overwhelming public opinion, I do feel a pang of sadness and, perhaps naively, surprise.

Anybody living in Yarm will be familiar with the problems Yarm School brings, particularly if you have ever had to try and drive down The Spital whilst parents are parked inconsiderately, dangerously, and as near to the school gates as they can get. Or if you have tried to park anywhere on West Street just to find every space occupied by a sixth-former's car.

It is easy to understand some of the anger that a large number of residents from Yarm and Eaglesliffe have directed at the school as a result of this planning application, branding the application as "selfish and unnecessary". Whilst you would expect any school to try do the best it can for its pupils, staff and the school itself, when those aspirations repeatedly clash with those of the local community it's perhaps time the school had a good, long look at itself.

[Final paragraph amended 21/01/2013]