Transparency @ SHDC?

How long will SHDC be able to fight off the new government's 'transparency' agenda - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/politics/10241522.stm - the pressure's on I'd say.

Letter today to Lincolnshire Police Chief Constable

I am writing to you to express my very real concern at plans South Holland District Council has for our one track country lane of West Drove South. These are to build, without any infrastructure changes, 22 high density, affordable (i.e. small buildings on small plots) family homes each to occupy at least 2 children on a lane that presently has 15 residences of mixed occupancy but with a current count of young children of 3. The building of this estate alongside a one track, poorly maintained country lane subject to use by heavy farm machinery and with no footpath or street lights is a recipe for disaster. In addition Gedney Hill is a facility-free zone – there is literally nothing here for children and the nearest doctor/dentist/facility is 15 minutes drive away.

Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of building the right estate in the wrong place or the wrong estate in the right place, what is perplexing is the refusal to upgrade the road from country lane to 2 lane road with footpath as indeed the council have already built affordable homes elsewhere in Gedney Hill where these safety considerations exist – and there are other ‘safer’ sites on which they could have built more of these homes. What is more alarming still is the Highways department who have stated they are moving the speed limit signs soon but with no intention of reducing the limit from its current 40mph.

This country lane will be packed with children playing when all is done and dusted. It beggars belief that children will be put at risk in this way and what is the point, we residents are asking, of saying I told you so after the first, second, third, whatever tragedy. 40 mph on a stretch of road of this nature sends absolutely the wrong message to some of the young drivers that use our lane and it would simply be ridiculous to put up additional street furniture to warn of children in an obviously residential urbanisation.

Sarcasmathon

Don't forget the sister blog at

http://shdcsarcasmathon.blogspot.com/

It's a free speech fest.

Is DEFRA In On It?

Don't know what to read into the 'sound of silence' from the new Secretary of State DEFRA as there has been no reply to 2 letters sent regarding SHDC. Not interested in council wrongdoing? Bigger fish to fry? Plain busy sorting out 13 years of Labour misrule to re-coin a phrase from years back? Or is their something more sinister? Might it not be the case that DEFRA instructed South Holland to build like it was going out of fashion to mop up the East European migrant problem?

These affordable houses going up in Gedney Hill are NOT for Gedney Hill people - they are for outsiders.

Building 11 blocks of 3 bed semis (22 families) on a one track country lane with no lights, no path - no nothing basically - defies description. If Gedney Hill thinks it's got a youth problem now YOU AIN'T SEEN NOTHIN' YET!

Cover Letter to SHDC With Super Complaint

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please find attached documents detailing a case of maladministration and wrong doing on the part of South Holland District Council that I wish to be speedily dealt with by the council’s own complaints procedure.

Sadly my experience of the council, detailed herein, leads me to conclude that my complaint will not be dealt with in a satisfactory manner and therefore I am seeking a full investigation and judicial review by government into this council’s conduct.

It is my intention to take my complaint to The Local Government Ombudsman subsequent to the council findings in order to examine such work as has been carried out that should not have been or to provide the council with the independent guidance they self evidently require.

In line with David Cameron’s call on May 31st for transparency in public services and because of the actions of South Holland District Council I am petitioning the government to introduce regulations requiring local authorities to provide COMPREHENSIVE planning decisions and secret agreements that they are responsible for - CURRENTLY i.e. the day that they are made. The form of the information is to be PLAIN ENGLISH and stripped of legalise placed on an easily accessed website. Additional facilities to be available in this transparency exercise are the means, through the website, to request a weekly ‘push’ by email of all authority planning data for the previous 7 days and there ought to be an ‘opting in’ service for a monthly postal version for those without internet access.

Yours

Super Complaint Handed In Today

A SERIES OF COMPLAINTS AGAINST SOUTH HOLLAND DISTRICT COUNCIL POINTING TO MALADMINISTRATION

ONE

South Holland District Council have processed a planning application for the building of affordable homes in West Drove South knowing it to be an economy of the truth insofar as they have agreed with developers to build a larger estate. See diagrams.

TWO

SHDC have used this option above as a device to restrict the number of those existing home owners needed to be involved in the planning process in order to skew and distort reaction to a contentious building plan. See diagrams.

THREE

By any measure the nature of this ‘first’ project, let alone their true intentions in the lane, impacts upon ALL householders in WDS and therefore a council wishing to be transparent and forthcoming with its own residents in order to carry them with the project would have done the decent thing. In the scheme of things 15 householders being contacted to take part in the planning process for a project that fundamentally affected their lives was the least the council should have committed to with this first WDS build.

FOUR

South Holland District Council through its deceitful ploy of restricting those invited to the planning process were then able to spin the actuality to the effect that they exceeded their statutory requirements but they were doing this as a result of a deception in hiding the true nature of what they had agreed.

FIVE

By not including all stakeholders SHDC have not a sufficient validation of their plans. Their conduct was specifically designed to get a specific result from a small number of low and fixed income households that they could present as no reason to stop their plan for phase 1 and their bigger picture ‘agreed deal’.

To dismiss, as Paul Jackson – SHDC Development Control Manager has done in his letter to me of 12^th of May, as unfortunate that I was excluded from the planning application is not a little disingenuous in seeking to say between the lines ‘tough, deal with it’ whilst SHDC’s failure is simply a matter of supreme inconsequence. The utter arrogance of the council is self evident.

SIX

In a letter from the housing department the council sent to householders that was dated 20^th January residents were given the first indication that building was to take place in West Drove South namely 6 X 3 bed affordable homes. The purpose of the letter was to invite residents to apply for tenancy in a development in Station Road whilst it gave the impression that it was a ‘done deal’ for the WDS build

I telephoned the department concerned upon receipt of the letter and enquired about the properties in Station Road which the letter advised all Gedney Hill residents were to be completed by end of February. The conversation revealed the following:

The Station Road properties, 3 X 3 bed & 3 X 2 bed affordable social housing, were to be let with the criteria of tenants “with a Gedney Hill connection and 1 child in the 2 bed & 2 children in the 3 bed homes”.

I pointed out that the letter appeared to give the impression of a ‘done deal’ in West Drove South and the nature of the area was such that the impact on all stakeholders would be profound requiring, in my view, ALL residents being given the opportunity to have their say.

I was told that it was NOT a ‘done deal’, that the planning process had not taken place and that I would definitely be included in the planning process – this was said in full knowledge of my name address by the council employee who forwarded an application form to me some days later.

In addition and bearing in mind this was a discussion over the 6 X 3 bed houses in WDS I was assured that despite the letter quoting a period of a year before they would be inhabited it would in fact be 2 years.

SEVEN

In a telephone call to SHDC highways on Monday 17^th May 2010 where I queried newly painted marks on the road surface in West Drove South I established that the speed limit signs were to be moved back some distance southwards to now include the whole of a parcel of agricultural/horticultural land on which the current building work was taking place. The current build was concentrated on approximately 15% of this land at its northern end nearest the junction with Lincoln Avenue. See diagrams.

When I asked the council representative why it was necessary to move speed limit signs I was told that he ‘honestly’ didn’t know and proceeded to supply a list of frankly implausible reasons why none of which included new house building. When I suggested that an option might be house building the representative became very, very defensive.

I find it strange that the reason for moving road speed signs was not known and thus calls into question the competence of council employees.

EIGHT

In a further telephone call to SHDC planning I was told, as a prospective house purchaser, that work other than that taking place currently “had been agreed”.

NINE

SHDC has shown a particular disregard for residents in West Drove South by either:

Failing to proscribe movements of site traffic bearing in mind THEIR FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE WORKS SITE during the hours of 0800/0900 & 1530/1630 in order to protect children and young people whilst walking to/from their school/school bus from the dangers & intimidation present walking along a ONE TRACK COUNTRY LANE WITH NO FOOTPATHS. Of course the council wouldn’t necessarily expect to know whether children in a location are special needs but it is their duty of care to assume in these circumstances that allowances should be made – and in fact some children walking at these times are special needs. It is a fact that lorries have presented pedestrians with particular stresses in these proceedings thus far. Another point that comes into play is the subjecting of children/young people to clouds of dust whilst walking to school.

or

Failure to enforce these conditions.

TEN

By the evidence uncovered so far appertaining to actions by SHDC they have brought the nature of their work into disrepute.

ELEVEN

It is the case that West Drove South is now under planning blight and that strangers are being given information on SHDC plans that they are not prepared to share with its own residents.

TWELVE

Evidence thus far also suggests that indeed the council has an agenda of ‘done deals’ that that border crass stupidity or criminality.

THIRTEEN

SHDC in my experience succumbed to a conflict of interest in dealing with a complaint that I made dated 30^th April to which they replied negatively. A complaint made to the council about the council that I had been excluded from the planning process. The question of whether or not there would be some kind of objective response was similarly not in positive territory.

However I have now serious concerns following on from the council’s first response in which they invited me to take my complaint to Stage 2, whatever that means. On receiving the letter (14^th May) I phoned the number referred to but there was nobody there who could deal with my requirements but my telephone number was taken and I was assured somebody would call back on the following Monday 17^th May.

After NOT being phoned, I emailed that I wished to go the Stage 2 route and took the opportunity to raise a second complaint that I had been lied to by a council representative in discussing the 20^th January letter previously mentioned.

What is particularly unpleasant is the council’s largesse since. Nothing. I’m now of the opinion that Stage 2 consists of a patch of long grass. As for my 2^nd complaint of being lied to by council staff again no information at all.

It is becoming apparent that SHDC are intent on using or rather abusing due process in time sensitive matters as a means of prevarication to prevent furtherance of an individual’s rights. My rights in this case to seek a review by the Local Government Ombudsman which can only take place as I’m sure SHDC is well aware after the council has finished all its deliberations.

FOURTEEN

It seems that ‘amenity’ is something that the council trades in and their planning department has taken it upon themselves in recent years to invoke a planning permission caveat that restricts ‘garden structures’ to being the subject of full planning permission rigour – so that, for instance, full dimensions - construction materials - positioning and so on would be required for a rose arch or trampoline or cloche – all for reason of AMENITY! BUT SHDC can withdraw an area’s ‘amenity’ without a planning permission process.

FIFTEEN

The bigger picture in all of these matters is that SHDC have embarked on a course of action to build an estate of affordable properties in the most unsuitable location in Gedney Hill and used connivance, deceit and game playing to deny residents the opportunity to point out the truth of the matter. This development will lead to social division and tension, it will be bad for Gedney Hill as a whole and when the true facts emerge council tax payers will need to dig deep to go some way to remedy the situation.

This development is in no way designed to meet a waiting list as has been demonstrated earlier. It is politically and financially motivated to put large numbers of families having no connection with Gedney Hill into the village that has no facilities to support them, placing an economic burden upon them that is at best unfair and at worst detrimental to family life and community cohesion.

It is the building of ‘next generation’ slums destroying something good in the process. The ghetto-isation of Gedney Hill.

SIXTEEN

Lastly the sheer contempt demonstrated for the planning process with work to move street speed limit signs that would only be necessary for the building of homes, the building of homes not yet subject to a planning process (see diagrams). The disrespect for the residents of West Drove South could hardly be greater with agreement to build houses in the certain knowledge they WOULD be built. The arrogance of SHDC masks the true nature of the origins of this project to build an estate clearly out of all character to its setting and for tenants that will not be from their waiting list or the locality.

Letter today to SHDC Highways Dept

Dear Sir or Madam,

I had a telephone conversation with a highways official on May 17^th concerning the repositioning of speed limit signs on West Drove South. Is it possible to now indicate a date for this work to be carried out please? In addition I was advised that the reason for moving the signs was “honestly” not known. Can you please now advise me of the official explanation for this work?

On another matter I would like to make representation to the highways department herein that I am of the opinion that maintaining a limit of 40mph is not sustainable bearing in mind the current building programme of an estate of affordable family homes (both those currently under construction and those yet to be started that the planning department have told me are “agreed”) alongside a single track country lane, poorly maintained, without footpaths and no viable street lighting.

There will be a very considerable increase in the number of children living in West Drove South with “nowhere to play” – the village has no facilities at all for children as SHDC must be acutely aware. The properties these children will be living in are of significantly smaller dimensions to previous incarnations of social housing consisting of very small room sizes on very small plots. When comparing the new properties with the existing West Drove South housing we are talking 2 new family homes equating 1 existing. The letting conditions will be such that each bedroom must be occupied which will mean a 3 bed property, assuming nuclear numbers, a married couple plus 2 children – possibly more children. With the 22 homes earmarked for completion between the repositioned speed limit signs – I rest my case for a large influx of children. In addition the off street parking should not be confused, as indeed I do not, with increased road use – the current off street parking becoming apparent merely reflects the existing properties drives and garages in a different form.

Putting this together the road usage could be safely assumed to triple with all lets filled – as we have stated the new buildings equate to ratio 2:1. With the numbers of children in the new estate I have reason to believe that a significant risk is being presented to young lives if a speed limit of 20 mph is not put into play. It is sending the wrong message to motorists in an effectively urbanised environment alongside a single track country lane with no footpath to say that 40 mph is safe. It is not. I believe it would be impossible to find a similar scenario in this country and your department risks censure from safety organisations who, I am sure, would be horrified by SHDC Highway’s plans.

The West Drove South speed limit must be reduced in line with the risk factors mentioned – large numbers of children on a single track country lane with no footpath and no street lights – to 20 mph. Had the lane be widened to 2 track with footpath I would suggest the circumstances would warrant 30 mph.

I am making this request now in order to save costs in view of the imminent repositioning. Finally I fear that if the contents herein are ignored that the council will, in a matter of time, face a potentially bankrupting financial challenge following the injury or death of a child. Isn’t a fact that the majority of children hit at 40 mph DIE?

If this request is deemed not worthy of its full 20 mph request I require of an escalation process in order to appeal please.

Yours

Letter today to SHDC Planning Dept

Dear Sir or Madam,

I had a telephone conversation with a planning official on May 17^th where I was a prospective house purchaser discussing what was happening in West Drove South to be told that over and above the construction work currently being undertaken more construction had been “agreed”.

Does the Planning Dept have a view on the matter of prospective house purchasers being privy to more information than their constituent householders? Would the owner of properties for sale in West Drove South be correct in their assumption that ‘planning blight’ prevails presently? Does the council have a view on West Drove South residents being victimised in this way typifying the very heart of the problem David Cameron made public on May 31^st with regards to the lack of transparency in public services?

Would the planning department now like to come clean on what it has AGREED for West Drove South especially in view of the Highways Dept repositioning speed restriction signs in the lane in the next 2/3 weeks?

‘What it has agreed’ and ‘repositioning of speed restriction signs’ are very strong indicators of an arrogance that may be overplayed, it’s certainly indicative of contempt for due process. I am looking forward very much indeed to your reply.

Yours