Monday, July 31, 2006

The Blogs are spreading!!

I am pleased that as well as having public email addresses some Councillors are also developing Blogs to make them more accountable to their residents. Councillor Paul Scully has set one up and I must say has a very good article on the Rosehill Section 106 issue.

http://paulscully.blogspot.com./

It will be interesting to see whether other Councillors also set up Blogs to express their views or will "Group Loyalty Clauses" prevent this, or even make them too bland? Will local MP's set Blogs up as as well. We will wait and see!!

The Sutton Council Observer will continue to cover all aspects of what the Council does and welcomes other local new media developing to increase the range and depth of news sources for local residents. We will report and review them as they develop.

Friday, July 28, 2006

Beddington North and The Wrythe not on email??

This is my latest survey of Councillors public email addresses on the Council website.

The latest report is that 16 out of 18 wards now have at least one Councillor with a public email address.

I suggested in early June that it would make sense if at least one Councillor in each ward had a public email address. I was trying to be fair on the technophobes on the Council by only suggesting at least one at this stage, though you might think the Party Groups were thinking of getting all of them to have public addresses, even if all emails were then being forwarded to just one of them in the ward.

Which party will be the first to get all their Councillors with a public email address? Currently 19 out of 32 Lib Dems have them and 19 out of 22 Tories. The best Area Committee for public email addresses is Cheam and Worcester with 12 out of 12 and the worst is Beddington and Wallington with just 6 out of 12.

The only two sets of constituents now without a public email address for any Councillor at all are:

1. Beddington North
2. The Wrythe

Before the Tories get round to asking a Council question about this, it might make sense for at least one Lib Dem in each ward to set up a quick public "@sutton.gov.uk" either to use at the members room or to forward to any other email address. Indeed why not get the group political assistant (formerly the Head of Leadership Office) to sort it!

I am sure the Lib Dem Group Chair (Whip) might even want to encourage this good practice. Even more so as she is in one of the two wards affected!:-)

I will report further on this in September to see if all wards are then covered.

The Sound of the Suburbs??

I see that the new Town centre manager, Alanna Coombes is in the news for the change in musical direction in the High Street.

I have no problem with a more diverse range of music, as long as we strive to cater for a wide range of tastes.

I would make two specific points:

1. Has anyone looked at the acoustics of the town square area to see if it is actually the best place for music? I just wonder whether Manor Park could be used more often as a place for music at various times. Perhaps the section 106 money we get from the tall falts opposite, could make this possible as well as link the park more effectively with the town square and on to the Civic Offices to create a green corridor?

2. Has there been any debate at both the town centre management group and the Sutton Area Committee as to developing the music and entertainments policy for the High Street? In addition perhaps groups such as the youth parliament and the Sutton Seniors Forum could be invited to express their view.

In the Library!

Yesterday I went to Trevor Knight's leaving do. A lot of Councillors, past and present were there. I'm surprised none of the Tory Councillors turned up for the Pimms and
Strawberries!:-)

The speeches were very entertaining and paid tribute to the immense contribution Trevor had made. Good luck to him in his bfuture activities.

I am impressed that the number of Sutton Central Library visits have increased by 79,000 (18%) up to 525,600 in the year after the refurbishment. I know I have certainly used it a lot more since the layout was changed and it was easier to find where books are.

I would be interested in age stats for this as I suspect a lot more younger adults use the library, though I suspect some older residents were a bit nervous of ther new system. However the staff do seem very helpful in reassuring visitors.

Thursday, July 27, 2006

"Local Space" - The buying back of Right to Buy properties

It was interesting to read the following article in the national Guardian yesterday:

http://society.guardian.co.uk/communities/story/
0,,1828487,00.html

The article says that thousands of council homes sold under the right to buy could be brought back into the social housing sector under a scheme designed to cut the escalating costs of housing homeless families. It will be interesting to see if this happens in Sutton?

Thats ironic, but just reflects various trends that have been emerging in recent years as instead of "right to buy" on our estates, we now see "buy to let" as former Council estates become the new pension scheme for those who have a few quid to invest. This can be done privately by individuals, but is now becoming a sensible idea for institutional investors investing in Housing Associations.

The Thatcherite assumption was that Right to Buy would transform estates full of well-off owners who would stay and improve improve the area. It clearly did benefit some people especially those living in houses who capitalised their savings or redundancy money and then naturally followed the market and moved on somewhere else. However it also led subsequently to much higher turnover or residents thus impacting on the community cohesion of less well off areas and creating a perception of decline, which groups like the BNP then seek to exploit.

For people living in flats who were enticed with even larger disounts, the jury is still out as the blocks did not have a "sinking fund" and thus later on leaseholders had suffered from very large bills.

The worst impact was that the money from right to buy was not invested in existng homes or building new homes - only got paying off long-term debt. This led to longer waiting lists and also increased house prices at the bottom of the market, ironically making home ownership more difficult locally, the exact opposite of what right to buy was meant to achieve!

Housing SCAG

It is good to see the dates of Housing SCAG's appear of the Council website. However the agenda still does not appear.

Let's hope this is sorted out soon as it is now the only SCAG which does not appear in detail on the website.

Improved Social Services Accountability

Congratulations to the Council Committee section for now adding the statistical data from Social Services SCAG on to the Council website.

I think it is important that the public can have an opportunity to examine how social services is generally improving in the borough.

Improvement is broadly stable this month, however there is some increase in some Unit Costs and Intensive Home Care Contact time.

Nevertheless this has improved compared to the past and still remains as an "in-house" service despite at least two previous attempts to privatise the service.

Delayed Transfers of Care is still fluctuating. It will be interesting to see the outcome of the scrutiny taskgroup review set up by the Council, as my impression is that the Council has subtantially improved its dealing with patients, but there still remains a bit of a problem with the Acute Trust. In the long-run this issue will probably be solved by the development of Carshalton War Memorial Hospital for Intermediate Care, but this could take another 2 to 3 years to set up.

For more info go to:

http://sutton.moderngov.co.uk/ieListDocuments.asp?CId=148&MId=1413&J=1

Belmont Meadow - What is the Tory line?

Peter Geiringer says he is willing to have a Doctor's surgery on part of the site, whilst David Pickles says the whole site should not be built on. What is the local Councillors' position? I must say I broadly agree with Peter on this one as the Belmont areas does need improved health facilities.

It is interesting to note that:

1. The northern half of the site has identified in Sutton's Unitary Development Plan (UDP) for community use (ie Doctor's surgery, youth centre etc) for over 20 years. No Councillor or residents Group has ever submitted a formal objection to that.

2. An outline planning was approved for a Doctor's surgery in 2004 for the northern part of the site.

Perhaps the Council should publish its nature conservation plans for the southern half of the site as a matter of urgency, rather than wait for any further planning application?

Wednesday, July 26, 2006

Sutton Council Annual Review and the Challenges Ahead - Initial Comments

I have just posted an initial set of comments on the Chief Executive's presentation to the Council Meeting and the two documents:
a) Annual Review
b) Priorities for Change 2006/7
that went with it.

The comments can be read at the Policy4Sutton Blog which is at:

http://policy4sutton.blogspot.com/

The Development of Belmont!

I note that at the Council meeting Peter Geiringer said he wants Tramlink to come to Belmont down the current Epsom Downs line.

He might not be so keen if he realised, that he can't have it both ways. Currently low housing densities and better public tranport.

If instead of the currently poor train service, Belmont gets a regular Tram, planning pressures will increase in that area.

In the past I have pointed out in a "Jonathan Swift" sort of way that if people were really serious about reducing housing pressures in our borough they would be advocating the shutting of all the local railways stations! However I don't see any local political party advocating that despite all the warm words we will be hearing about retaining low housing densities in the coming months!

14% of Sutton and Cheam Residents go to Epsom Hospital

I asked a Council question that demonstrated that 14% of Sutton and Cheam Constituency residents(5000 our of 34,500) use Epsom Hospital. These are mainly residents of Cheam and Nonsuch Wards, though there are also a few from Worcester Park as well.

This is a very significant number. Indeed it is twice the size of Paul Burstow's majority.

I know where Chris Grayling MP stands on the future of Epsom Hospital on behalf of his constituents.

Sutton and Cheam Labour Party is out campaigning with street stalls (two since May) on the issue as well.

Perhaps Paul Burstow and Richard Willis will say what they are doing to defend Epsom Hospital.

I am sure the residents of Cheam and Nonsuch Wards would be interested to know?

Living in Fear?

Another statistic from the Chief Executive's presentation was that in Sutton 33% felt very unsafe and would never go out alone, compared to a 16% figure for London as a whole.

This is one of downsides of being such an unequal borough (see below), as the wide differences create a greater fear.

The evidence across Europe and America is that more equal areas have greater social capital and thus lower crime and fear of crime.

Half of Sutton Residents do not feel they can influence the Council!

Above is another statistic from the Chief Executive's presentation to Councillors.

Possibly a background reason for some of the recent Tories gains.

It also may tie in the high levels of inequality that the Chief Executive also referred to (see earlier posting).

Perhaps when we spen money on the next MORI poll we can actually ask some different questions and dig a bit deeper in to the reaosn for this.

The Case for an All-Party Strategy Committee

Having tabled a Council question about this, I want to set out some reasons why this Council should set up a Strategy Committee with all theit current members and an additional Tory rep. I disagree with the Tory5-4 proposal as it does make sense for the majority party to have all their lead Councillors on it. I do think the Tories should have a representative with up to 4 substitutes, so they could even have a different person present for a specific item, to represent their view. It would also help our Eleanor Pinfold as she clearly doesn't have the time to do all the meetings and also has some very competent Councillors like Whitham, Crowley, Scully, Kennedy, Russell etc who could cover this piece of work for her.

The reasons I think this 9-1 option is a good idea are:

1. It retains the consensus all three party's established in 1999. Its a pity that people like Graham Tope have reneged on this agreement, when they used to be so anti-single party cabinet.

2. It sets Sutton as both "Excellent" and "unique". Jenny Slark is totally right about this. I hope she stands by her own strong principles and makes the case for it, just as she recently stood up for herself and here fellow ward Councillors in the letters page of the Guardian. If she asks around she will find many other Lib Dem Councillors actually agree with her (that's what they are telling me). Clearly enough for Group Chair(Whip) Sue Stears and Sean Brennan to have to concede a proper debate on the issue at a Group meeting.

3. The fact that we could if we want keep our unique system makes Sean Brennan's comments at full Council quite bizarre, as the Government's legislation does not make a single party cabinet compulsory as this Council maintained a multi-party system for 6 years after the legisaltion was enacted. The offer of two scrutiny chairs was abit of a joke as we all know officers are suggesting we should abolish most scrutiny committees and replace them with SCAG's. If I were in the Tories position, I would be refusing the in effect one-year offer as well!

4. Fundamentally it will lead to better and quicker decision-making as it will ensure the Tories have to set out their stall at Strategy meetings, rather than claim they did not have a chance to explain their position and wait for a full Council.

We currently have the situation where the real Lib Dem Cabinet meets at 10am on a Friday in private and then meets again the following week to have essentially the same thing again in public. If staff were following this bizarre ritual, Councillors would be going mad and demanding Gershon savings!! Why don't we inject a bit of democracy instead, save time and make the Tories act responsibly, by having a multi-party cabinet again.

If you want a face-saver, why not tie it in with the forthcoming review and offer it back in 2007 as part of that.

Just remember the ALDC and Liberator would be proud of you!!

Sutton one of the most Unequal Areas of the Country.

The Chief Executive's Slide presentation to the July Council Meeting revealed in one of his slides that Sutton is one of the most unequal places in the country with a very wide gap between its wealthiest and poorest areas.

According to his slide show we are in the top 2% of authorities for a wide social polarisation.

He mentioned this information came from some work recently down for the Council by Kingston Council.

I hope this slide is taken up by Councillors of all parties to press for measures that reduce this in the long-run as apart from directly benefiting less well off areas, wealthier areas tend to lose out too as you see much higher levels of fear of crime when you have wide social disparities.

After the Council meeting I suggested to Colin Hall that he might want to sort out the outstanding £20,000 from the Bellway Homes Section 106 Agreement that was used to fund a consultant's study, should be returned to be spent on the Rosehill area.

Let's hope there is an announcement soon. I am pleased that Tory and Lib Dem Councillors on the Carshalton and Clockhouse Area Committee are continuing to raise this issue.

Belmont Meadow Update

Just spoken to Peter Geiringer who tells me he is generally in favour of the Doctor's surgery on part of the site, but against housing on it. Ironically this is more in line with the original planning designation for the site.

In view of the flexibility being built into the new Robin Hood Lane Clinic, why doesn't the Council talk to the PCT about a more significant health unit on the Belmont Meadow site.

This might then add to the wider "Local Care Network" that I have suggested as an alternative to the 3 Local Care Hospitals proposed in BHCH.

Tuesday, July 25, 2006

Sutton Council Meeting - Last Night

I went along last night and asked two questions.

1. On the benefits of a single party Strategy Committee

2. Whether the Council will be objecting to the downgrading of Epsom Hospital, A&E as quite a few Sutton residents in the Cheam or Nonsuch area actually use Epsom rather than St Helier.

I will cover these issues in separate posts.

It was fascinating to watch the debate from the public gallery as I had done for 5 years prior to coming on the Council in 1986.

It was clear to see the new Tories in action. Particularly impressive were Barry Russell, Tim Crowley and John Kennedy! They will all go far as they demonstrate that they do the research. Graham Whitham seems to have developed a new role as the "attack-dog" of the group, but of course does it with much more style than some of their previous ones! Over coming Council meetings I am sure we will see some others shine.

I would like to congratulate all the maiden speeches, especially David Theobald and David Callaghan as I would have been disappointed if St Helier Ward was now represented by 3 Councillors who never said anything at Committees or full Council's, after the contribution in the past 40 years by a range of St Helier Councillors!

I would also like to apologise to Jenny Slark, if she felt I used her comments to the Chief Executive at the induction event in April in a way that she felt they were not intended, but I'm sure she realises she also said them at the time in front of many of her own new colleagues as well as members of other parties. What she said was of course completely right!! Hopefully some of her colleagues will see sense by April next year and return Sutton to its unique structure that we were, in all parties once so proud to support! I will cover the issue of Strategy Committee in a separate posting.

Of the member questions, I thought Barry Russell's regarding a 600% increase in estate agent's fees as perhaps the most interesting. I didn't catch all of it, so I will wait until I see the minutes of this meeting.

I will cover in a number of separate postings, the Chief Executive's presentation. Suffice to say at this stage, I thought he did a superb job in presenting in effect a number of varied policy priorities for the two groups on the Council and those of us not on it to consider. It will be interesting to see how the Tories respond to this agenda as there is a lot there that could be supported by them to demonstrate their wish to secure power, rather than simply play a negative role.

The Committee recommendations were a bit dull. I thought the Tories made a lot of valid points in the "Area Action Plan" debate. Tim Crowley's speech on this items was one of the best maiden speeches I have ever heard!

I got the feeling the Lib Dems were a bit unclear as to what they really wanted. This followed on from a lack of clarity at Strategy Committee. Graham Whitham described it as "seduction" by the Lib Dems. I am a little less cynical than Graham and suspect it is more to do with Lord Tope advising the Group to hold back and wait and see what the Tories are prepared to commit to before committing themselves (it can't be knocked as it has meant they have now overtaken Richmond as the longest Lib Dem Council). Unfortunately judging from her previous approach there is a danger that Eleanor Pinfold won't want to commit to anything either, thus we end up seeing more drift, which isn't good for a supposed "Excellent" Council. If I were one of the new bright Tories I would be arguing in group that they do set out their positive agenda and use the key themes from their manifesto to start saying what they wanted from that and the Chief Executive's presentation, rather than not commit. We must wait and see how the Tories respond to the Lib Dem seduction. It really depends whether people are planning for power or really prefer opposition?

The second debate on Safecall which I thought at the time was ok, probably showed more that Eleanor should probably delegate more to colleagues as she clearly doesn't seem to have the time to deal with these issues quickly. If I were the Lib Dems I would be posing the question that if she ever wanted to be leader of a quarter of a billion pound organisation whether she would be prepared to do it full time as frankly it does require it. You just can't run Sutton Council form your legal practice! Whitham's speedy intervention saved the day for her, but the Tories need to be able to process decisions whether to take an item to Council a lot quicker than they demonstrated on this item.

Apart from that it was a really short meeting. Will this be what they are all like?

Belmont Meadow

I notice that Belmont Councillors are reported in the Advertiser to be campaigning to stop any of Belmont Meadow built on.

My recollection was that they had said they were opposed to housing on the site, but would accept a Doctor's surgery.

Have they changed their minds?

The Council has mishandled this issue for years.

The land for sale has been designated for building purposes as community land for many years, when the houses nearby had not even been built themselves however instead of fencing the site, the Council allowed the housing built near it to be developed and naturally the newcomers want to keep land near them open and pull up the drawbridge for those following them. Their self-interest is quite natural, but could have been reconciled if the Council had fenced the site much earlier and they knew it was for building purposes onh the day they moved in.

Indeed after the last debate on this site in 2002 when the Belmont Councillors said they supported a surgery, I suggested fencing the site then, however the Lib Dems chose not to take this up.

No doubt we will now have a series of debates on:

a) The approval of a planning application

b) The sell-off of the site with planning permission.

Much of the heat of this debate could have been avoided if the fencing had been done at the time as then people would be clear which land had always been identified for building purposes. Perhaps lessons will be learned with other sites the Council will in due course dispose of, but I am sceptical!

Monday, July 24, 2006

More Failure? More Choice?

I hav just posted a short overview article on future challenges faced by the Council on the Policy4Sutton Blog.

http://policy4sutton.blogspot.com/

Friday, July 21, 2006

Policing News

I would like to thank the Sutton Police Consultative Committee for agreeing to my appointment back on to the Committee.

Can I particularly thank the Chair, Richard Lennard for his encouragement to me in re-applying for membership.

Some points to make about yesterday's meeting:


1. Future Development of the Group

The Committee had a useful discussion with the MPA community engagement rep on this. Below are my thoughts on this followng the discussion.

a) It seems clear that the MPA are likely to be keen to see the Police Consultative Committee develop stronger links with the ward panels, so local issues are dealt there first. This seems eminently sensible and will also empower local ward Councillors as well as the local community and the Safer Neighbourhood Teams. I hope Ward Panels develop in various ways in the coming year and then learn from shared good practice that emerges.

b) Can I congratulate the Safer Sutton Partnership for agreeing to a representative from the Police Consultative Committee to server on their Board. This helps link the Group with the key stakeholder body above it for preventing crime.

c) Amy Haldane the Youth MP from the Sutton Youth Parliament was there and asked questions. I think it is vital that the Police Consultative Group develop its work with younger people who are the biggest victims of crime in the borough. It may be possible to secure MPA funding for a project tied in with our highly rated (see Ofsted report) youth service.

d) Fear of Crime is another area where there may be scope for applying for MPA funding.

e) Another idea could be for different borough Police Consultative Groups to specialise in various areas and be the lead PCG for that subject?


2. Quarterly Crime Figures

a) Robbery was up (Ipods probably?). Peter Geiringer expressed concern about this. The Police response was that the increase this quarter was 93 offences this year compared to 75 for the same period last year, but these were very small numbers and the percentage magnified the problem.

b) It pleasing to hear that Disorder stats had dropped 6.5% during the World Cup period. I congratulated the Police for their work with licencees.

c) Residential Burglary and Violent Crime were up slightly. Criminal Damage and Disorder were up over the quarter and this was put down to the Safer Neighbourhood Teams reporting more of this, which is probably a good thing as we get to understand what is happening locally.

d) Cycle Theft, Vehicle Crime, Racial Crime and Homophobic crime were down.

e) Domestic Violence reporting was higher, but this is a good thing as it massively under reported and is probably the highest actual crime in the borough.

Thursday, July 20, 2006

Well Done!

The Sutton Council Observer will always congratulate a move in the right direction.

The reduction in the Tenants and Leaseholder Heating Charge agreed at Strategy Committee is welcome. In addition the review of how the charge is calculated by Scrutiny Co-ord is also welcome. Let's hope further reductions can be achieved.

Councillor Tim Crowley deserves particular praise for his recent Council question on this issue. This demonstrates how being opposition can be used for positive purposes rather than simply negative ones!

Wednesday, July 19, 2006

PCT had better get a move on to claim some of the £750 million.

I suspect the end of the ill-fated Better Health Care Closer to Home (BHCH) project will be demonstrated if the PCT moves away from what was and acute led project and bids for some Local Care Facilities rather than leave it in the hands of the Acute Trust.

As you will be aware, last week the Government announced a £750 million cash boost for community hospitals and services.

The money - which will be available over the next 5 years - will help deliver more convenient services in local communities and people's homes, as set out in the White Paper 'Our Health, Our Care, Our Say'.

The investment can be used to convert old acute hospitals into community hospitals, renovate existing community hospitals, build new local health centres and poly-clinics, and fund home chemotherapy or mobile cancer scans.

The new generation of community hospitals and facilities will be able to provide care for minor injuries, blood and urine tests, x-rays, minor operations and outpatient appointments. This will mean better care for patients, who want more services delivered in their local communities and homes, and better value for money for taxpayers.

PCTs that want to start building, renovating or funding new services this financial year will need to submit proposals to their SHA by the end of September 2006.

Proposals for other schemes, ready to start in 2007/8, should be submitted by 1st December 2006.

The question needs to be asked, is the Merton and Sutton PCT making a bid by 1st December?

The Tesco Foundation Hospital at St Helier??

Having recently put forward some ideas on how to develop a Local Care Network instead of the 3 Local Care Hospitals (LCH) originally suggested under Better Healthcare Closer to Home, I now turn to examine what may now happen with the development of a Critical Care Hospital for this area.

1. By October, Epsom may be downgraded for A&E and Maternity, with St Helier providing thses functions. More Sutton residents will have to go to Epsom for elective procedures.

2. Over the next 5-10 years more complex cases will migrate to St Georges. I suspect the Sutton Hospital CCH would have still suffered the same problem, even if put next to the Marsden.

3. Rebuilding on St Helier will probably be phased operation. It may be partly financed if a major retailer (eg Tesco, Sainsbury's) is asked to develop retail/restaurant facilities on the site and replacing current contractors and services provided by the League of Friends. This sort of partnership may be tied in with the Epsom and St Helier Trust securing Foundation status in due course. A mixed Housing development may also be part of this proposal, with affordable key worker housing "downstairs" and some lovely flats with superb views "upstairs".

The Hospital/Retail partnership would almost certainly require:

a) A review of the Hospital lease from the Council as the size of the proposed retail development might be more than just a facility for people visiting the hospital. It is interesting to note that the Council's controversial Employment Land Study identified this market opportunity for the site. I pointed out at the time that St Helier was already a major employer, which the Study seemed to brush over in its excitement in identifying this land opportunity!!

b) A revision of the Council's current identification of the St Helier site for "Community Use". This may become an issue during the debate on the forthcoming Core Planning document, so any submissions by the Epsom and St Helier Trust should be scrutinised for these sort of requested flexibilities.

If this is the eventual direction of travel and my assumptions are based on what is happening elsewhere in the country, then surely we should have a public debate with some effective scrutiny of this issue.

Rather than the Council sit back and wait to be told about possible options, Sutton should be deciding on where it stands on issues above that impact on its Executive and Strategic Planning roles.

Tuesday, July 18, 2006

Planning Policy Issues

I have just posted and article on "Planning and the Regulation of Local Capital" on the Policy4Sutton Blog to stimulate local debate on Core Planning Policies:

http://policy4sutton.blogspot.com/

Getting the Hump at Kimpton

The 26 July Development Contorl Committee has the planning application for some landscaping on the old allotments north of the Kimpton Park site.

The proposal does seem sensible as it creates a built-up land buffer between the nearest Ridge Road residents and the Reuse and Recycling Centre. I would have thought it was best to put trees along the residents boundary fence top prtoiect residents privacy and then have the new raised area bare except for grassing it over as this is likely to reduce the use of the raised ground for anti-social behaviour as anyone will be visible from the Kimpton Road site.

The application also provides the opportunity for Councillors to ask the applicant (ie the Council):

1. Will they be fencing their adjoining sites they intend to sell off? It would make sense to do this to reduce flytipping and to ensure that residents understand what areas will be part of the local public realm once the whole site is developed.

2. Will the landscaping the whole area and not just the allotments? It makes sense to all of this at once.

I have covered a number of other aspects of this site in two earlier postings, so I will not reprise the points here.

St Helier Hospital - A Health Observer Update

Some interesting points:

1. If the Epsom and St Helier Trust is cutting back on staffing as reports suggest, then do we see them planning ahead for a transition between CCH and LCH where we will need some excess capacity to mmanage the change?

2. Has anyone noticed that under new London-wide Commissioning arrangements that Merton and Sutton PCT is the lead PCT for negotiating with the Epsom and St Helier Trust. This will mean that Merton and Sutton negotiate on behalf of the new Surrey PCT for the Epsom area. With the Surrey PCT covering a much larger area than the old EEMS PCT, we are rapidly moving to an Acute Trust mainly focussed on the Merton and Sutton area, with an elective facility in the Epsom area.

3. Surrey County Council still seems to be "considering" its judicial review of the BHCH decision. In any case even the case goes ahead the only winners will be lawyers as at best BHCH will go back to the beginning and it will still be dependent on separate financial approval.

4. The new Epsom Hospital surgery arrangements are meant to be coming in to place by October.

5. There have been two cancellations of meetings meant to give an update on BHCH to stakeholders. Hardly evidence of a move forward.

6. The PCT seems to be at last independently moving ahead with LCH's at Nelson, Wilson and at Wallington. This will be generally welcomed. I hope once this moves forward that the Acute Trust announces it is setting up a badged LCH within the current St Helier Hospital.

7. Within the next two years we should have seen 3 local facilities developed at Robin Hood Lane, Shotfield and at Middleton Circle. These seem to point to a much mort localised way forward than the BHCH masterplanning exercise.

With all the above happening, do we see the "stalinist" masterplan that was BHCH moving forward or do we see a much more localised evolutionary approach where the PCT in partnership with the local authority and GP's evolve a more localised "bottom-up" service whilst the Acute Trust in effect implements the 2000 "Investing in Excellence" programme and then looks to how it can widen it services for the PCT to commision.

The "Whip Round" Council

It was good to see that Orchard Avenue Rec now has new play equipment and that Tom Brake MP recently opened it.

What he didn't mention was that residents had to fundraise and secure grants because his Council colleagues in the their 2005 budget agreed to reduce support for smaller playgrounds. Labour Councillors opposed this at the time and warned this would lead to problems.

Of course if we take Tom Brake comments: "if people want something badly enough, by working together and getting organised they can achieve their dreams," to their logical conclusion the Council could cut back loads of services and say to residents, "have a whip-round to save it." For example, could we see Sure Start surviving on that basis?

Unlike the Brake (and David Cameron) visions, there is such a thing as society and it includes the national and local state as well as other local institutions and the wider community!

How about a more positive approach that supports minimum standards of provision with scope for local communities to top-up rather than the approach we have seen develop here.

Monday, July 17, 2006

Council - 24 July - Preview

Just a few early comments:

Item 6. Review of 2005/06
I hope that Councillors will be able to comment or ask questions on this item? This would make items like this quite useful. Perhaps the Council could invite other key members of the Sutton Partnership (eg, PCT and Police) to also present reports in due course.

Item 7. Committee Recommendations

a) Minute 658 - Safecall Mobile Response Service Tender
I now can't remember why the Tories requisitioned this? Was it about the cost or tendering process? It looked ok to me, but I look forward to hearing their reasoning.

b) Minute 664 - Proposed Area Action Plan for Sutton Town Centre
I disagree with the Tories (who requisitioned this) and have no problem with spending what is after all Section 106 monies on this. However, I think we really have to consider whether all the fuss over Tramlink is worth the bother. After all it is frightfully expensive and we could see much more bus infrastructure at a much smaller price. Bus services are also much quicker to develop. I also think Sutton residents voted in 2006 for efficient services not grand projects and local politicians should ignore that at their peril. The other fundamental reason is that Tramlink will also lead to greater planning pressures in the centre of Sutton. In other words you can't argue for Tramlink for the town centre without accepting greater housing density! I am not sure the Lib Dems are prepared to accept the latter, thus it might be better to spend any money after the study confirms this point, on simply subsidizing a few more bus routes instead of going on about a grand project that will contradict other policies in the Lib Dem manifesto.

c) Planning Core Strategy
My comments above indicate that actions in one area (transport) affect another area (planning), so it is good we have both items on the Council Meeting agenda. I welcome the consideration of the three broad development options and I hope there is a initial debate on this issue. I will be producing a more detailed comment on this document over the summer break.

Any Questions??

I went to the Any Questions at Carshalton Sports College on Friday. Most of it was on national issues.

However the discussion on Education was very relevant to Sutton.

Bob Marshall-Andrews MP was right to say that we need a wider definition of "special needs" that covered all children from those in difficulty to the gifted. Specialisation and setting (not streaming) within a broadly comprehensive framework works. 86% of Sutton pupils already benefit from this whilst 14% of Sutton pupils and a lots of kids from Purley and Epsom take part in a different (selective) system that now has very little connection with this borough or Council.

Polly Toynbee made the important point that at between 2 and 6 years a less bright middle class child is likely to overtake a brighter working class child. It is interesting to note that substantially more is spent by the state on 16-18 year olds than the under 5's yet all the evidence is that the public services can make a much bigger difference on the under 5s than at any other point during the lifr of a child.

Fortunately there seems to a consensus in the borough in favour of Childrens' Centres and Extended Schools and I hope we can continue to develop approaches that increase interventions to assist all under 5's to develop their potential.

Political Assistants and the Future of Our Committee Structure

I am pleased to see the recent press coverage on this issue.

The Chief Executive's Response was quite fair.

My point all along is that there is no point having silly debates on the level of Councillors Allowances when these are set by a London-wide process.

Instead Cllr John Kennedy has raised a much more useful point about the number of Committees. This seems an area where all sides could agree to some savings, which could for example then be used to develop ward budgets for Councillors to spend in their local community after consulting residents.

It seems sensible, now we are an "Excellent Council" to get rid of some of the pointless performance committees (Community Engagement and Environment and Leisure would be a start, with some Committee's retained for external partner scrutiny (Housing, Health, Schools etc), whilst more work is done at Area level and at SCAG level. This could also be tied in with devolved budgets for Areas and to Ward Councillors.

I think it is possible to even secure some consensus on a more effective approach to Committees.

Carshalton War Memorial - Paid for by Franklin and Ludlow Lodge

Good to see the press coverage on Page 1 of Sutton Guardian on the future of the Carshalton War Memorial Hospital, which seems to have all-party and resident support.

However what the article does not say is that the proposals will be funded out of the closure and selling off of Franklin House and Ludlow Lodge. Along with the closure of Bawtree, we will have seen between 2006 and 2009 the closure of 3 out of 4 of the Council's Old People's homes.

Perhaps there will be a second article on this?

Friday, July 14, 2006

A Bit Heavy Handed - The Freemans get the Chop!!

I'm told that the Lib Dems are planning to remove Julian and Nikki Freeman from the School Governing Body they are on!

I assume they have already been expelled from the Lib Dems for standing against them (which is probably a standard rule for all the national parties), so does it not look a bit heavy handed after that to also remove them from a governing body as well?

They did not advocate support for any other political party, and instead ran as Independents after Julian had the Lib Dem Group whip removed. Parties have generally treated this as a lesser offence than supporting another Party - Ken Livingstone's readmittance to the Labour Party after 3 years is a good example of this.

Perhaps it might help if there were a bit of maganimity from the Lib Dems where it is recognised that the Freeman's and Mr Bunce did poll quite a significant vote in the recent elections

I suspect all this action will do is strengthen the Independent vote in the Worcester Park area as local residents will no doubt see it as vindictive after the event.

Let's hope the Lib Dem leadership secured approval from their own Group Meeting for this action, after all these are LEA appointments?

Manifesto Update

A slightly updated Survey of the 2006 Lib Dem Manifesto (previously published here) has been republished on the "Policy4Sutton" blog:

http://policy4sutton.blogspot.com/

This is because I will be publishing my survey of the Tory Manifesto (booklet and election leaflet pledges) there. As a taster, I will say now how moderate (indeed Cameroonian) its commitments are on Finance, Housing and Education. Where it raises some interesting questions over expenditure commitments are on: Environmental Services, Social Services, Leisure Services and Community Safety.

Coming soon at Policy4Sutton.

Flogging off the PCT - A Health Observer Special

The announcment yesterday that Patricia Hewitt wants to sell off some local NHS management functions made me think a little flippantly locally, "would we notice"? There so little movement of developing a local vision of Local Care Hospitals perhaps the threat might mean we would see a bit more rapid action?

More seriously I would imagine the Sutton Health Scrutiny Committee would be concerned if "estimating the health needs of the area" was actually privatised as I could see some serious conflicts of interest arising over the assessment of health inequalities.

However if additional support, over and above existing services, is being purchased to assist patients to make better choices, then I would be much more supportive, as we could have a varied mix of providers including in-house and social enterprise as well as larger health consortiums providing support.

Cheam Baths - The Future

Yesterdays Evening Standard (page 24) named Cheam Baths as "showing its age" with "smelly water and slightly tatty changing rooms".

I think the site (plus the surgery and clinic) is large enough for a PCT/GP/SCL-GLL/Local Authority partnership development for a far-sighted Health and Sports Centre. Can't the public sector and social enterprise sectors get a move on with this rather than wait for a BUPA/John Lloyd partnership to beat us to it with the idea.

An innovative joint bid for some of Patricia Hewitt's £700 million should be planned now or will we see another "hydrotherapy pool fiasco"?

Sutton Scene Magazine (Aug/Sept) - Kimpton Update

The Aug/Sept issue has just been published:

1. Good to see there is a list of Councillors at the back, though I notice this has been moved as a pull-out from the centre pages of the 2002 equivalent. I wonder why? According to earlier Sutton Scene deadlines, this was due to appear in the previous edition, but either Councillors were slow getting photographed or someone decided to downgrade the article??

2. The article on Kimpton Park ("Park" - it looks more like a tip with the flytipping on the surrounding footpaths) was rather interesting. It says it is now flexible enough to tackle "any demand". However the queues of cars, and cramped feel to the site still does not indicate to me that we have cracked the problem. I welcome the comment that it is "not a dump", but I think the article did not set out what people should do in all eventualities and even what items should be divided up into? Hopefully the Oct/Nov issue will cover this in more detail. In the end my own view is that the site should be enlarged with adjoining land by not letting off all the land we intend to use for other businesses. Will Councillors have the courage to address this?

Thursday, July 13, 2006

Mayoral Powers

I know some Councillors won't be happy with some of Ken Livingstone's extra powers, but having been elected twice and been part of a successful team winning us the Olympics as well as handling 7/7 so well on behalf of London's diverse communities, I think Ken has earned them.

Lets have a look on the impact on Sutton:

1. Housing
This is a transfer across from an unelected body to the Mayor so does not directly impact on boroughs. I think we will now see a more effective use as it will no doubt be used in conjunction with his planning policies.

2. Planning
The most controversial changes:

a) Strategic Sites
How many strategic sites are within Sutton? Possibly only a hospital planning application which looks less an less likely to be a single strategic application. This will have an impact on inner London boroughs, but little impact on Sutton.

b) Rewriting Local Development Plans
In some boroughs this will be a big issue. In Sutton, I suspect it will affect:
(i) Sutton Town Centre
(ii) Kimpton Industrial area
(iii) BMAO (needs a review) and Beddington Lane.
(iv) Wallington Town Centre
Ken essentially see the private sector leading regeneration in suburban town centre and industrial areas. If people don't like this they can vote against him 2008.

3. Learning and Skills
This is a transfer from an unelected regional body to the Mayor and should not affect boroughs.

4. Waste
This will have an impact on boroughs and will lead to larger waste contracts. I suspect the proposed South West Contract will broadly be supported by the Mayor.

5. Culture
This is a transfer of power from an unlected regional body to the Mayor and will not affect boroughs.

6. Health
This is only a minor change. Those who support more devolved powers for London may want to focus on securing more powers for the Mayor to appoint to the Strategic Health Authority for London.

7. Climate Change and Energy.
The Mayor now has two more statutary strategies, which should help drive change forward just as his other ones have.

8. Water
This is a devolution from central government and makes regional utilies such as Thames Water more accountable.

Overall this seems a sensible compromise that maintains the Mayor's role as a strategic co-ordinator for London, rather than someone who seeks to run local services. London First respresenting London's businesses has today announced it welcomes the increased powers.

I note that, Angie Bray, London Assembly Tory Group Leader in response has said: "Ken Livingstone is becoming the unaccountable elected dictator of London". I don't think that is a very convicning point as:

a) Wasn't it the Tories who from 1983 to 1997 abolished the GLC and then opposed elected regional government for London?

b) Isn't Ken up for re-election in 2008? Let's see if the Tory or Lib Dem Mayoral candidates campaign for a reduction in their own powers?

Waste Management Contract

I have just published a posting on this on issue on:

http://policy4sutton.blogspot.com/

Wednesday, July 12, 2006

Public 2 - Councils 0

Sometimes Councils need to be taken down a peg or two as recent news shows:

1. The Court Case where a member of the public was taken to court for not recycling properly and Exeter Council lost. As an earlier posting pointed out, the attempt to "enforce" recycling is bound to fail as it will be seen as an imposition that will be evaded. Far better to create incentives to encourage recycling. Even better it means the lawyers don't make a profit out of the arrangements! Previous sentence joint copyright Charlie Mansell and Leslie Coman!:-)

2. The new governments guidelines to stop Councils continually clamping cars as part of their parking policies. Council's like Camden made the mistake of doing this so much they alienated local residents and it inevitably led to change of control, irrespective of any other performance of the Council.

In Sutton we have seen reasonable policies adopted so far in these areas, however as the wheelie bin fiasco showed, sometimes policies can get out of hand without proper debate.

In the absence of one major party from the Council chamber, blogs like this can widen debate. I hope we see a few more develop so we have maximum debate before decisions are made.

The Chief Executive Hopes - But will Councillors ever agree?

The Chief Executive recently spoke to a Sutton Chamber of Commerce event and the gist was that we need to work with the private sector to improve Sutton Town Centre, which has a lot of potential. I am sure we can all agree with that.

I also don't think he would have any problems with that audience. They are no doubt keen to see investment by their colleagues which benefit them all.

I must say I am in favour too.

However, I think he will have problems with Sutton Councillors agreeing an overarching vision for the town centre.

Sutton Town Centre will be the main area of debate over the sort of borough we want to see.

1. Judging by their ability to run away and hide from a 22 signature (out of 400 residents) petition in Thicket Road over the S4 bus, the "somewhat influential" Sutton Central Ward Councillors will no doubt panic over any proposals that local business come up that generate more than 20 signatures of opposition.

2. Councillor Pinfold (definitely not an "ordinary member of the public" under the Councillor Pickles human being ranking system - see comment in an earlier posting ) seems to want young men in black pyjamas to march into a besieged Sutton Town Centre to start a "year zero" where it becomes full of expensive Dorking antique shops. Clearly the residents in the Abbotts Road area in her own ward are really looking forward to that!!

What they all seem to forget is it will be market forces that will determine what works in Sutton Town Centre, however much the planning policy seeks to regulate it.

Clearly the Chief Executive is a little more optimistic than me, but maybe we should be getting local business to make a "Business Offer" to the Council over what they would like to see.

Having an external proposal might make Councillors debate that rather than argue with each other?

Kimpton Road Area - Will this make Mr Hilldrup Happy?

I thought I would set out some thoughts about the whole Kimpton site.

If I were a Councillor in marginal Stonecot ward I would be seriously embarrassed by the way some of the public realm looks in this area.

I note that on 8 June, Councillor Tony Shields in the Sutton Guardian criticised the sale of the land to Tesco in 2003. The facts are it was actually agreed to sell the site on July 16 2001. The only votes against were the 4 Labour Councillors, whilst the Tories abstained and the Lib Dems voted in favour. Perhaps Tony should talk to Councillors Whitham and Geiringer about it?

Whilst I voted against the sale because it led to an extension of Tescos to the detriment of the High Street, the idea of putting the land on the market for a highest bid would have led to an even more intense development which we would have had less control of. Is Tony Shields talking to Mr Hiildrup about this issue as have they realised the implications? Tony's solution is actually reminiscent of his predecessors which led to the Lodge Lands and the Carshalton Public Hall fiascos. Perhaps he should seriously talk to Councillors Whitham and Geiringer for their recollections of the era when Tory Councillors were so obsessed with the highest bid they lost sight of the wider local implications. Short-termist Toryism is being sensibly phased out by Mr Cameron (commitments to eradidicate child poverty by 2020 etc), so maybe this suggestion is just a blip

Below are some ideas on how we could proceed with the Kimpton area, which might please Mr Hilldrup:

1. The landscaping approved at Strategy makes sense. It would be best to set this out in a wider landscaping strategy. We should be cutting back on some of the current vegetation and thus reduce the appalling levesl of fly-tipping we see almost in sight of the reuse and recycling centre. I foresee a Councillor Kennedy photo showing a dumped TV on the footpath leading to the reuse and recycling centre if this work isn't done soon! No doubt Councillor Brett-Young will be sorting this out when he can get his hands on some section 106 money.

2. The land next to the primary school which will not now become part of a link road, should be developed as a local community space in consultation with local residents. Perhaps we can interest the BBC "Breathing Spaces" project and secure some match funding from Tesco as they promote their new kind image (withdrawal from the Sunday opening campaign etc).

3. Instead of increasing our capital income as Councillor Shields suggests, we should reduce our currently assumed receipt as the Council should reclassify some of the industrial land it was intending to sell or let and actually expand the Reuse and Recycling centre which is too small for peak times. If Councillor Hall wants to help marginal Stonecot Councillors and marginal MP's he might want to end peak-time complaints about the centre with a bit more space from land we still own, rather than simply making excuses to his colleages, that it is "ok most of the time".

Its time for: Policy4Sutton

The Sutton Council Observer is working so well, I have decided to focus it on regular local political news.

To make it easier to consider policy issues. I have now separately launched what I think will be a first. A virtual public policy think-tank for looking at public policy within a single local authority area.

I have thus set up Policy4Sutton

http://policy4sutton.blogspot.com/

Unlike sanitised public services websites this will be a useful source of analysis of how local policies are developing and what the options are.

In future longer analyitical postings from me will be published there, thus freeing up this website for shorter postings on current issues.

I also hope others will also contribute to Policy4Sutton with either comments or full postings.

High Street Licensing - Where's our cafe society!!

Now that the World Cup has passed and despite the warnings of the Daily Mail civilisation has not collapsed under the new licensing laws, can we now look at the stupidity that means that town centre pubs cannot put their chairs and tables in the High Street after 7pm in summer months?

If we are to civilise the High Street rather than pander to people who will never use it even if we had the army standing in the High Street (possibly because they are "mean" rather than "scared"), we should be having chairs and tables out later to attract a larger number of people who will inevitably act as eyes and ears rathern then be seen as potnetial criminals.

The many new flat dwellers living in the High Street will start to expect this as well soon.

If you go to many towns now this is normal. Why can't Sutton start thinking about this rather than continuing the stand up and drink culture we are still encouraging, by our current policies.

Scutiny Chairs - Sean's Got it wrong!

I am gobsmacked that Sean Brennan has said in a letter to the Guardian that the reason Tories were not allowed Scrutiny Chairs in the past was thet there were not enough Tory Councillors to enable them to Chair a Scrutiny Committee in the 2002-6 Council.

This is a completely untrue. The Lib Dems refused either opposition group the opportunity to Chair a Scrutiny Committee during that period.

The Labour Group offered to Chair Learning for Life but were turned down by the Lib Dems. The Tories were prepared to Chair Environment and Leisure but were again turned down by the Lib Dems.

I appreciate Mike Cooper was leader at the time this was decided, so Sean could claim ignorance, but nevertheless the statement is incorrect, so presumably he will be issuing a correction to the Guardian in the coming days.

Political Assistants - The Lib Dems Blink!

Have the Tories worked out why the Lib Dems now support Political Assistants as opposed to a Head of Leadership Office, that they ran for 12 years.

The obvious reason is that the Lib Dems are already planning their exit strategy for losing in 2010. Sensible in my view.

The argument goes that if the principle of political assistants is accepted for 4 years, then it is less likely to be changed if the Tories win power.

The Political assistant rules mean all political groups have to be offered a share of the budget, whereas under the Head of leadership offices rules, a ruling Tory group could be much more vague as to the level of support for the opposition (after all they will have made a whole of lot of silly pledges to pander to the core vote and elderly members that will vote for them any way).

Of course local Tories won't be hypocrites and change back to a head of leadership office if they win control!! Just as the Lib Dems are not being hypocritical now having previously resisted and now adopted the system!!!:-)

In any case when the MP's probably lose in 2009/10 they or their staff may need a useful post like this?

As I have said all through this debate and over the past 12 years, what we need is a long-term system that enables the Party groups to operate effectively and you can't do that for cheap as the private sector would naturally tell you....for a fee of course!

Tuesday, July 11, 2006

A Local Care Network for Sutton - The Alternative to BHCH!!

Like a lot of people locally, I welcomed the idea of 3 Local Care Hospitals (preferably at St Helier, Wallington and Sutton General - though we know the PCT preferred North Cheam to Sutton General).

I did have one concern at the time and that was the 3 LCH would lead to a substantial reduction in GP surgeries as local services migrated to the LCH.

However, my support for the LCH has waned because:

1. BHCH was always an acute trust led project with the PCT running behind. I never once saw the PCT set out their vision for a LCH.

2. The Government has announced over £700 million for local community hospitals. It makes sense to sort out a local consensus soon and not wait for the failed BHCH project.

3. It makes more sense to develop instead a "Local Care Network" of Acute Trust, PCT and Local Authority sites. This is much more achievable as I set out below.

My alternative proposal is for the following sites and the following providers:

1. Critical Care Hospital at St Helier Hospital with a phased rebuild (run by the Epsom and St Helier Acute Trust).

2. A "Local Care Network" made up of the following sites:
a) The new Robin Hood Lane Clinic (GP led)
b) The Sutton General Local Care Hospital site (Acute Trust led)
c) Priory Clinic/Surgery/Malden Road Health and Leisure Centre (GP/PCT/Local Authority Partnership)
d) St Helier Hospital Local Care Unit - part of the phased rebuild St Helier Hospital (Acuter Trust led with local GPs)
e) Middleton Circle Local Care Unit (PCT/GP and Local Authority Partnership)
f) Walllington Shotfield Local Care Hospital (GP and Local Authority Partnership)

3. Intermediate Care at Carshalton War Memorial Hospital (joint PCT/local authority partnership). I have an issue about flogging off Ludlow Lodge and Franklin House to fund this, but lets at least have a debate.

The above proposals combined with sorting out integration of health and social care and the development of personalised budgets is a big agenda for the 2006-10 period, but I believe the above proposal is more likely to happen than the failed BHCH proposals for the following reasons:

1. A phased rebuild of St Helier has always been the easiest option as it required much less controversy and was less complicated in planning terms. Whilst I would like to see the "St Helier Gherkin" I don't think the money is available for the forseeable future.

2. The Local Care Network comprises 6 buildings which cover all 4 area committees. All the land is currently in NHS and local authority ownership and 3 of the sites (Middleton, Robin Hood and Shotfield) are new build of about to be built. The other 3 sites are large and have space for new build under the £700 million scheme. if the local NHS bids quick enough.

3. I suggest a range of partnerhsip providers which could also include some GP co-operatives and other forms of social enterprise, which should go down well whoever is in government.

In other words, we should get a move on to develop the overall scheme above for this borough.

In order to start it off, why doesn't Health Scrutiny kick things off with a scrutiny on "A vision for health care in Sutton by 2010"? This might concentrate minds.

Decent Homes to Sustainable Communities!

Will the Housing SCAG be submitting a response to the DCLG consultation paper above?

Even though we have rightly set up an ALMO (which was sensible when looked at from our own finances) there is nothing wrong with Sutton Council saying in its Executive role, that it supports:

a) Full Decent Homes Funding

b) An investment allowance and possible borrowing against income streams

c) A level playing field for the "fourth option" Councils after a Housing options appraisal.

d) The ongoing option for Tenants to opt in and out of ALMO status with 2 years notice, with a ballot only allowed once every 5 years.

e) A clear code of practice on tenant and local authority member participation that does not restrict their democratic rights.

f) The development of novel forms of ownership such as the Council owning the freehold of it estates but leasing it on a 125 year lease to a wholly elected tenants board who would then sub-contract the running of it for 30 years with (10 year break clauses) to an ALMO (with current board arrangements).

Save Crown Post Offices!!

We know there was all-party support for keeping local sub-post offices.

Will we see the same all-party support to protect Crown Post Offices in Sutton from being handed over to companies such as WH Smith, as we are currently seeing in Hammersmith?

The Lib Dems have an interesting policy on privatising the post office, so it will be interesting to see their local view on this issue?

Perhaps an agenda item at the next Community Enagagement Performance Committee, before it gets abolished?

Freedom for Cheam and Worcester Park!!

The agenda for the Cheam and Worcester Park Area Committee, seems to show that the new Tory majority of the Committee are responsibly pushing for it to take a lead on pre-planning issues such as the Sainsbury's proposals for Worcester Park. Well done!!

I hope they push this further as it may pressurise previously reticent Lib Dem controlled area committees to be more assertive. I will regularly survey this to see which Area stands up the most for its local community as well as seeks to take the lead locally.

For example:

a) Sutton Area could start setting out what level of density it is prepared to tolerate if it is still in favour of Tramlink?

b) Carshalton and Clockhouse could express a view that it was in favour of a single storey back extension policy for St Helier and pass that on to Development Control.

c) Beddington and Wallington could demand a review of the boundaries of BMAO to encourage more green industries down Beddington Lane, thus freeing up the Paynes and Pobjoy Mint sites for a mixed housing development on both sites.

A two-tier St Helier Estate

The planning application for 269 Wrythe Lane, which will be going to Development Control on Wednesday goes against the old Carshalton and Clockhouse policy to oppose two storey extensions.

Will they overturn the existing policy and will local ward Councillors stand up for it? We will wait and see.

If this application was in the St Helier area of Special Local Character it would presumably be opposed, thus as was warned by John Morgan in 2001 we are creating a two-tier policy within St Helier for planning applications, thus damaging the planning integrity of the estate.

This illustrates some of the previous concerns raised of moving planning applications previously determined at Area Committee to Development Control.

A "Costed" Tory Manifesto

Councillor David Pickles (not an "Ordinary member of the public" you know!) reports in a comment to this Blog (see below and my response) that the Tory manifesto was costed.

In other words all the questions the Tories asked our Finance officers in March was not for their alternative budget, but to actually cost their manifesto.

Now we know? That clears up the rumour of the Tory buidget that was never was.

In due course I will be analysing the Tory manifesto, just as I have done the Lib Dem Manifesto and I will look at the costings.

I should say at this stage I didn't notice any reference to Political Assistants in it?

Thursday, July 06, 2006

Strategy Committee Preview - 10 July

Some early comments, that may be of interest:

a) Item 3 - Risk Management
Councillor Gordon-Bullock can cover the techie side, but my comment is that this item again does not cover the impact of the collapse of BHCH and the slow down in Health and Social Care integration.

b) Item 5 - Service User and Carer Involvement in Older People's Services
This seems sensible and is part of a strategy which should eventually take us to "personalised care budgets" a bit like "Direct Payments" (a "voucher scheme" you can like). This will need a further development of the independent advocacy sector to support the effectiveness of increased choice.

c) Item 6 - Building Schools for the Future
I think the Stanley Park Option is sensible, but the Committee should also agree it will lobby for Carshalton Sports College to receive the next lot of available funds.

d) Item 7 - Rosehill Section 106 Funds
Whilst the recommendation is an improvment, it does not excuse the fact that this all the money should be spent on the Rosehill shopping area as was previously agreed, rather than on a consultants study, which told us very little we did not know already. I appreciate Colin Hall seems to want to protect every derelict site (Pobjoy Mint, Paynes site) there is, but my view is that we should focus on Kimpton, Felnex, and actually expanding the size of the Beddington Lane site for Green inductries. I hope the new Ward Councillors and Tom Brake MP lobby for this recommendation to be reversed, so we can see a further £20,000 to be spent on Rosehill. This would then show Rosehill's omission from the Lib Dem 2006 manifesto was a genuine mistake.

e) Item 10 - Political Assistants
The principle is a fair one, but should have been agreed 12 or more years ago. I have separately commented on the position of local Tories on this item.

f) Item 11 - Heating Charges
Perhaps if we had opposition Councillors on Strategy Committee, this reduction might have been agreed last time?

g) Item 13 - Leisure Facilities Study
It is ironic that Westcroft is probably in greater need of repair than Cheam. The Study is vital to decide how we proceed. I welcome the delay in procurement of the leisure contract. Can't we just get on and facilitate the inevitable takeover of SCL by Greenwich Leisure (GLL) for the coming period. I also have some further suggestions for the current Cheam site as a joint Health and Sport facility for a future posting.

h) Item 14 - Core Planning Strategy
I have previously commented on this, but during the summer will set out my preferred view and suggested amendments to this. I welcome the three development approaches suggested and hope this will lead to a serious debate on the choices we face.

i) Item 15c - Affordable Housing
Generally agree. I have previously suggested that the Council look at the idea of Community Land Trusts to protect land in perpetuity. We already have a hybrid scheme in that St Helier Hospital is leased long-term by the NHS from the Council for health purposes and thus reduces the incentive to flog the land off. We should have more of this form of protection.

j) Item 15d - Hackbridge
I have already commented on this under the title of "Tesco v Bedzed?" as the proposed retail option is likely to go down really badly with Hackbridge's bio-regionalists. Will Strategy Committee members, Ward Councillors and the local MP spot this before they dig themselves a large hole?

k) Item 15e - Sutton Garden Suburb
Who is the "core vote" asset rich but income poor Tory who is leading young Darren and not so young Cliff astray on the windows issue? As a positional good (Cllr Scully will like this point), Garden Suburb houses will surely be worth more with posh window frames? I thought the Council has CPO'd the allotments so can't we get CEI to sort out the allotments for the money we give them?

l) Item 19 - Kimpton ProjectThis should be an improvement for Mr Hilldrup and his neighbours. One might now speculate that a marginal Stonecot Ward may now mean this gets done quicker through a lower capital receipt for the Council. That's democracy for you! Hopefully there will be some work done to tackle the levels of fly-tipping in the area near residents in Ridge Road. I will post a series of ideas on how we can improve the Kimpton project during the summer.

Tuesday, July 04, 2006

Old Houses

Good to see Tory Councillors standing up for old properties in the local papers last week.

We clearly don't want the rest of South Sutton to go the way of those awful 1960's and 1970's private flats......that already cover parts of South Sutton!!!

Whoever allowed those designs to get past the planning committee probably deserves a mention in a Dan Brown novel!!:-)

Who was in charge when they were built???

I will return in much more detail to planning issues shortly.

Worcester Park - A Slum!!!

The Sutton Guardian quite reasonably poses the interesting debating question whther Worcester Park is a slum?

Well go to the average estate agent's window and look at the house prices - or even the Guardian's own Property Section in the same issue.

What do you see?

A very popular place, with increasing house prices.

Let's hope those who call it a "slum" are not people who then are hyappy to accept a developers £60,000 premium to sell their house if if gets planning permission for high density development??

St Nicholas Centre Hotel

Just a quick comment on this planning application for the hotel on top of the car park. Seems like a good idea for sensible intensification. However no doubt Councillors will want to check the impact on adjoining Thomas Wall Close.

A Mayoral Referendum for Sutton??

What will be the impact on Sutton when this is published in the Autumn. A few early thoughts:

1. As an "Excellent" Council we may be offered more powers. Do we have a list of what we would like. I doubt it?

2. If we adopted an elected Mayor, we might get even more powers (surprised the Tories haven't warmed to this locally as they might calculate they could win an elected Mayoralty, even if the majority of Councillors stayed Lib Dem). If Sutton remains a two party system and the Libd Dems insist on a single party cabinet, a much wider range of people might start to argue for this, as amazingly most elected Mayors seem to open up their cabinets to a much wider range of civic groups. It only needs about 7,500 Sutton electors to sign a petition for a referendum?

3. There will be "Neighbourhood Power of Initiative". Why doesn't the Council develop devolved budgets now in advance and get our scheme listed as a pilot. The big problem I suspect is that Environmental Services Department is still resisting this. Perhaps Lib Dems and Tories could agree some joint approach to force the issue through. They would have my support if they did.

4. The big issue will be whether local government finance is addressed. I suspect there may be some extra new charges and Education will be "nationalised" (which is already the reality of ring-fencing), but I still don't currently see anything radical. I suspect however the Lib Dems nationally may move away from Local Income Tax to a range of smaller green taxes.

Tory Hypocrisy or Tory Group Ignorance??

Has Eleanor Pinfold told the rest of her group that she has asked for a Political Assitant (see 10th July Strategy Commitee - Agenda item 10)?

If she hasn't, then the countdown begins to next years Annual Council meeting;

if this is agreed Tory Group policy, then no doubt Group press spokesperson David Pickles will explain how an extra £36,800 for the Tory Group is not hypocritical after their demands for less Councillor Allowances and a lower Council Tax.

I look forward to his explanation?