Coleridge Labour Update

Issue Update

2012-02-07T21:42:00.002Z

Here’s an update on some of the things I’ve beenworking on in Coleridge recently:

1) ImprovingLichfield Road – There were a number of potholes and uneven pavements onLichfield Road. Some repairs have been carried out by the County after I pushedthem to act, though it is still not perfect.

2) Addressinganti-social behaviour on Ancaster Way – There have been reports of drug-takingand intimidating behaviour by youths on Ancaster Way. I have reported this tothe police and council anti-social behaviour team, and the police will try topatrol the area more. The council ASB team is putting out letters to residentsin order to ascertain the specific problem, and will act when they havegathered information. We can also bring it up at the next Area Committee policepriorities meeting.

3) Speedingon Coleridge Road – I got East Area Committee to make this a police priority,so some police teams should have out monitoring speeding and enforcing thosebreaking the limit. This is not an ideal long term solution, and we will lookinto broader solutions as part of the ongoing 20 mph city-wide scheme.

4) Boardedup flats on Trevone Place – A number of flats on Trevone Place are boarded upand uninhabited. I have been in touch with City Homes on this, and they haveraised re-glazing orders. They are also attempting to work with social servicesand via the courts in order to ensure that these houses are put back into usefor those who need homes ASAP.

5) DerwentClose garages – I submitted a representation to the consultation on theStrategic Housing Needs assessment outlining residents’ concerns about the ideaof developing the garages on Derwent Close for housing.

6) ColeridgeRec – After a lot of work to try to deal with some of the issues residents hadwith the consultation process, officers and residents are now well underway onthe formal consultation on plans to improve Coleridge Rec. I am meeting theconsultant very soon to discuss this, and hopefully this project will nowproceed more rapidly.

7) CherryHinton Road shop forecourts – cycle racks – Eventually, after I chased it up,we got the contractors to install cycle racks on the newly improved forecourtoutside the Cherry Hinton Road shops.

8) 114bus – Since the County Council halted their bus subsidy cuts in order to(finally) properly consult, I worked with Lichfield Road residents to submitrepresentations outlining the importance of the service to local people who maybe infirm or elderly. We will continue to battle to protect this vital service.

9) ImprovingAshbury Close/Golding Road– I am continually trying to push housing officersand the maintenance teams to give the social housing part of Ashbury Close andGolding Road a spruce up. I will chase this up with officers at our next CityHomes meeting.

10) Installing dog bins on St Thomas’s Square andthe playground round the back of Neville Road – I keep pushing the open spacesand City Homes officers to do this, and will chase up progress at our next CityHomes meeting.

11) Rustat Avenue – We’ve heard that there areproblems regarding petty thefts (e.g. of post), vandalism of cars, anti-socialbehaviour etc, in Rustat Avenue. I’ve chased this up with the police, and theyare working with the Royal Mail Investigations Unit and local housing officerto investigate this. They will also try to patrol the area more, though this isnot easy given stretched resources. We can discuss this as a potential policepriority when policing issues are next on the agenda at East Area Committee.

Obviously, there are many other issues I am chasingup, but these are the obvious ones that spring to mind.

Cllr George Owers

Perne Road Shops - Public Exhibition 5.30pm 1 Dec

2011-11-29T14:14:00.001Z

PERNE ROAD SHOP REDEVELOPMENT - EXHIBITION ON THURSDAY - WE WANT YOUR
VIEWS HEARD!

Thursday, 1st December, 5.30-8.00pm, St. Thomas's Ancaster Way

Coleridge Labour Councillors hope you can make this exhibition and/or
contribute your views on this recent Planning Application, particularly
people living near the site or who have used the shops.

One principle of this much delayed scheme, since Peterhouse sold
the neglected semi-derelict site early 2008, has been developers being
open about their plans. Over two years ago, Almaren helped us with a
public meeting at St Thomas’s Hall, and we want as many as possible to
see/comment on their plans now.

We want the site redeveloped asap but it is vital to get the development
right - your views on the site will help Almaren, and help the Council
get it right. We WANT TO HEAR YOUR VIEWS before finalising our views and
we will also ensure that they are heard before and at Planning
Committee.

To see the full application visit this link:

Cambridge City Council application 11/1271/FUL

If you cannot make the exhibition, please ring, write or email me so
your views are heard.

Councillor George Owers, 238a Mill Road, CB1 3NF 07833 012979
george.owers@cambridge.gov.uk
on behalf also of my colleagues … Councillor Jeremy Benstead,
Councillors Lewis Herbert, and County Councillor Tariq Sadiq

BRIEF RECENT HISTORY OF THE SITE

2007
Tariq led efforts to sort out the empty housing above the shops, with owners and oldest city college – Peterhouse being unduly slow to respond to the drug taking on site, vandalism to their empty flats, and nuisance to residents.

2008
Peterhouse sold their neglected site to developers linked to Luminus Housing Association.

2009
Developer Almaren acquired the site. Coleridge Labour Councillors organised a public meeting at St Thomas’s Hall with Andy Chapman, and met on site with the developer several times

Lewis tried to get proper hoardings and developers agreed to fund them and a big art project involving Coleridge School … then delayed by the developers.

Almaren promise to be open about their plans, including another session at St Thomas’s Hall when their scheme is published

2010
Various delays … change of developer, sorting out the lease for the (now closed) Premier shop, and funding of scheme …

2011
Planning application – SEE ABOVE

Allowances Increase Scrapped: Perspectives

2011-11-02T13:48:00.001Z

Yesterday, the Standards Committee of Cambridgeshire County Council unanimously and wisely decided that the process by which the independent review panel which recommended increases in allowances for County Councillors was flawed to such an extent that the whole process had to be started again. Because there is a legal duty to have a review once every four years, this means that a new panel will have to be appointed and a new report written. The close vote on 18th October to accept the recommendations of the last panel is therefore invalid.

It's worth bearing in mind that the Standards Committee is comprised of five councillors and three independent members and this is therefore an example of councillors holding themselves to account. I say that because it is very easy to ignore the complexities of the issues and the nuances inherent in the difficult decisions that elected members often have to make and it is much easier to simply villify all politicians as villains out for themselves. The media rarely gives a balanced and fair picture of events. The reality is often far more complex and rarely fits a neat narrative of good vs. bad.

The Chief Executive has rightly apologised for the mistakes made and I hope that this will mean that much greater care will be taken with such contentious issues in the future. One of the reasons why I voted against the increase on 18th October was that I could not see how it was possible for us to accept such an increase, regardless of the rights and wrongs of the case, when we were making hundreds of our own staff redundant and increasing the pressure on those remaining, including the office that had to deal with this issue. It's not surprising therefore that mistakes were made and although that does not excuse the shortcomings, we must consider the welfare of our staff at all levels and make sure that we are not placing unreasonable demands on them.

The issues that local authorities have to contend with are growing ever more numerous and complex and that has changed the nature of the role of the councillor as well as the demands made on our staff. With the Localism Bill on the horizon and different models of working being implemented as a consequence of huge budget cuts, things will only get more complicated. I'm not sure how sustainable our current model is and I expect that our idea of what a councillor is and does will have to change and along with that the way that the role is remunerated and what we should do to ensure that it is not confined to those few who currently have the means and the opportunity to do the job.

To highlight the positives from this debacle, at least those councillors that decided to vote for the increase before will now get a chance to reconsider their decision, the Standards Committee did its job, and it's clear that we have a reasonably robust system of accountability in this country which includes a strong press that when it focuses on the right issues can act in the public interest and not simply for the interest of the public.

Whatever the outcome of the new panel and the new report, whenever that happens, I am still clearly of the view that we cannnot accept an increase for ourselves, however much justified by the evidence, as long as our constituents are suffering pay cuts, pay freezes, redundancies and rising costs. That much is simple.

I hope also that we can all soon get back to concentrating on the really serious issues. Tomorrow morning I will join other councillors to review our strategy for tackling child poverty and economic disadvantage. Preparing for this I was staggered to learn that there are over 15,000 children living in poverty in Cambridgeshire, 75% of them come from workless households compared to 42% nationally, and that child poverty may cost Cambridgeshire's Children's Services a mind-boggling £90 million pounds a year. If we as County Councillors can make a just a small dent in that we will be doing a whole lot of good for the County and our children and families. It's wanting to tackle issues like this that made me want to become a councillor in the first place.

Subsidised Bus Service Consultation

2011-10-23T16:16:00.000+01:00

This is a reminder that if you are at all worried about losing your local bus because of cuts to subsidised services, then the deadline for responses to the Cambridgeshire County Council consultation is 4pm, Friday, 9th December 2011. Here's the link.Subsidised Bus Services Consultation

Allowances Update: Lib Dems find their voice too late

2011-10-23T15:18:00.001+01:00

Questions have been asked about whether the correct process was followed in the allowances review and the Standards Committee will have to look at whether the Independent Review Panel was properly put together. In the meantime, the Lib Dems have set up an e-petition calling for a reversal of the rise and will also submit a motion to the 7th December Council meeting.

It's funny how all of a sudden the Lib Dems have become quite outspoken about this given that at the18th October meeting not one of them spoke in the debate except their Leader, who barely spoke for 40 seconds. Had more of them made strong arguments against, the vote might have gone the other way. Some councillors' views were definitely changed by the debate, which was largely calm and intelligent, so it is conceivable that the outcome could have been different. All the parties had free votes so I can't understand why the Lib Dems chose not to speak when there was no danger of them defying the party whip.http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/Will-a-second-vote-undo-25-rise-in-allowances-21102011.htm

The e-petition is at: http://epetition.cambridgeshire.public-i.tv/epetition_core/view/remuneration

Cambridgeshire County Council Allowances

2011-10-23T15:06:00.000+01:00

On 18th October, County Councillors voted for a big increase in their allowances, accepting the recommendations of a report by an independent review panel.

Those councillors who voted for the increase should have put their constituents first before themselves.

Councils are required to have a review at least once every four years and we were overdue by a year so we accepted that the Review needed to take place, also given that there needed to be a reappraisal because of changes in council structures and roles since 2006.

But all Labour Councillors believed strongly that we could not implement a package of measures which would result in a net increase in allowances at a time when we were making hundreds of Council staff redundant, slashing vital services left, right and centre, and when most people were not getting pay increases, having their pensions squeezed, facing rising costs including rocketing fuel and energy prices, and the prospect of further job losses, pay freezes, and pay cuts. We as elected representatives simply cannot justify such an increase when the people we represent are facing serious hardship with no prospect of improvement in the near future.

The basic allowance will go up from £7,610 to £9,500 which is about the average allowance for comparable County Councils. Special responsibility allowances for Cabinet members and Scrutiny Committee chairs (all Tory) will rise but those for opposition group leaders and spokespersons will fall. Overall it will mean about an extra £170,000 spent on allowances by Cambridgeshire County Council.

All parties had a free vote. Most Tory Councillors voted for it with a few exceptions, all the Liberal Democrats, except one Cllr Geoffrey Heathcock (Queen Ediths), voted against as did the three Labour councillors. Cllr Nichola Harrison (Petersfield), former Lib Dem Councillor, now an independent, also voted in favour. The Lib Dem leader was the only member to speak on the Lib Dem side. All the others stayed silent. Most speakers on all sides of the argument made valid, well-thought out contributions to a mostly high quality and measured debate on the issue.

All councillors will be affected differently by the changes and during the debate we heard some personal stories that confirmed in my own mind that it is wrong to assume that members of one political group must by definition be wealthier than another. There are people of all backgrounds represented in all political parties and some make significant personal sacrifices to become a councillor. All councillors know that they won’t make their fortunes by doing this but it also right that councillors should not be penalised for doing public service either. Nevertheless, our priority should be our constituents not ourselves.

There is provision in the scheme for individual councillors to forgo any part of an allowance if they have the means to do so and that is a personal choice.

For me the new scheme will mean a net reduction of £1,377.00 because of the loss of the payments I have been getting since May 2011 for taking on extra responsibilities. However, that does not mean that I will be reducing in any way the work that I do as Labour Group Leader and as a spokesperson; between the three of us we cover a huge range of issues even though we don’t have as many members to share the workload as the main Lib Dem opposition and we will carry on doing that to the best of our ability.

Even if these recommendations had not been voted through, I had in any case requested a voluntary reduction in my own allowances of about £2,000 to comply with the norm in other authorities as described in the report, even though that does not necessarily reflect the level of commitment required of minority lead members in Cambridgeshire.

What this does highlight is that we do need a system which does not require councillors to vote on their own allowances. There are genuine concerns about the barriers that exist for many people to becoming a councillor and although there is never any shortage of candidates we must ensure that they are not all from similar backgrounds. Remuneration must inevitably be an important factor in removing barriers but as long as councillors are required to set their own level we will never be able to address this issue adequately. A truly fair and independent system would ensure that Councillors allowances are always linked to general economic conditions and comparable roles elsewhere and implemented by people who have no interest in the outcome.

We might have to wait a long time for a better system. In the meantime our primary duty is to our constituents and we as Labour councillors will do our utmost to make that our top priority.

County Councillor Tariq Sadiq
Labour Group Leader
Coleridge

New Facebook Page

2011-10-13T12:34:00.000+01:00

We're trying out a new Facebook page to keep residents updated about local issues. Please see www.facebook.com/coleridgelabour

Police Priorities for the East Area

2011-08-19T11:14:00.000+01:00

At last night's East Area Committee, councillors set four priorities for the police over the next period

1. Tackling mopeds and anti-social driving in the Birdwood Road, Cherry Hinton Road area.
2. Continuing to monitor green areas and open spaces for drinking, drug-dealing and other anti-social behaviour
3. Monitoring 20mph speed limit and other traffic violations on Mill Road
4. Tacking drug-dealing and anti-social behaviour in the Norfolk Street area including the Cemetery

Sergeant Jamie Stenton gave a full report to the Committee about the moped problem which has been the subject of a police blitz over the last few weeks. As reported previously mopeds are in the process of being seized and police are looking at this in conjunction with their colleagues in Cherry Hinton (South Area). I asked them to take a long-term approach to prevent the problem recurring every couple of years. They are liaising with other council services to ensure a joined up approach and are taking a much more robust line on this issue. There will be a street surgery in Birdwood Road in the near future and we will continue to work with police and the public in tackling this problem.

Members of the public also asked for more focus on shoplifting and business crime and to address the problem of souped-up cars with large exhausts.

Overall, crime is continuing to fall in East Area including Coleridge. There were a total of 158 crimes in the period March - June 2011 compared with 257 for the same period last year. For anti-social behaviour the figures were 132 compared to 234 last year. To read the full report please click this link: http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/democracy/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=5649

Thanks to all the residents who helped the police deal with issues over the last few months and thanks to the police for continuing to do a good job for our area. Welcome to Sergeant Stenton as our new area lead officer. Sign up to E-Cops for regular updates and follow @cambscops on Twitter.

Mopeds

2011-08-14T12:14:00.001+01:00

Police have been dealing with anti-social behaviour and dangerous driving involving mopeds/scooters in the Birdwood Road area. We asked police to increase their focus on this issue following concerns expressed to us by residents and reported in the press. The police promised action and the latest situation reported by e-cops is as follows:

Hello All.

As some of you may be aware there have been articles in the newspapers recently about anti-social behaviour in the Birdwood road area involving mopeds and motorcycles. We have increased patrols substantially and as a result one offender had his moped taken off of him and he had to pay £150 pounds to get it back. Two other mopeds will be seized in the near future and two more will have warning letters sent to them and if any more offences are seen then their mopeds will be seized as well. If you see any bad driving whether it be mopeds or other vehicles please contact us through here or on the non emergency number 03454564564. Please note down any vehicle index numbers and if possible a brief description of the bike and its rider. This will be a great help to us and enable us to nip this anti-social behaviour in the bud.

Take care
Mick, Sam, Martyn.
Reply To: cbcityeast.npt@cambs.pnn.police.uk

Local Councillors in the East Area will be receiving a report from the neighbourhood policing team on 18th August at East Area Committee at which we will also vote on policing priorities for the next period. Please do let us know your views on this problem and whether or not you think the police are doing enough. Have you noticed any difference on the ground? Members of the public are also welcome to attend the meeting which will be held at 7pm at the Cherry Trees Centre Day on St. Matthew's Street. You can find details and the agenda at this link.

Sainsbury's Local planned for Cambridge Leisure

2011-07-25T12:53:00.000+01:00

Sainsbury's plans to open a convenience store in the unit under the Travelodge at Cambridge Leisure. The site does not need planning permission as retail use is already permitted; however, Sainsbury's have applied for permission to install illuminated signage. The decision will be made by committee.

You can find more details about the application at: http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/planningpublicaccess

Reference: 11/0792/ADV
Installation of three internally illuminated fascia signs and three internally illuminated hanging signs. 4 - 5 Cambridge Leisure Park Clifton Way Cambridge Cambridgeshire CB1 7DY

You can also use the online facilities at the Customer Service Centre, Mandela House, 4 Regent Street, Cambridge CB2 1BY between 8 am – 6 pm Monday – Friday. Paper copies will be available on request.

You may also view the application, plans and any supporting documents by using the online facilities at City Homes (South) Office, 89 Cherry Hinton Road. Monday, Tuesday & Thursday, 9 am - 5pm; Wednesday 10 am - 5 pm & Friday 9 am - 4.30 pm.

You have until 10th August to send in comments or objections to tony.collins@cambridge.gov.uk.

The following is further information from the notification letter sent to neighbours by Mr Collins:

"It may not be possible to take late comments into consideration in determining the application. All comments will be placed on the public file and will be included in the case officer’s report. Please ensure your name and full postal address is included as anonymous representations will not be taken into account.

In the event of an appeal your representations will be forwarded to the Planning Inspectorate and the Appellant. The Planning Inspectorate may publish appeal documentation, including copies of representations received, on the Planning Portal website. All information provided in your representation, including your name and address, will be published. If you object to publication in this way, please contact the Planning Inspectorate directly giving them details of the appeal reference number.

When making decisions the Council can only take into account planning matters. These include whether:

The proposal accords with planning policy and is appropriate for the area.
The design of any new building/or alterations to an existing building respects the character and context of the site and the surrounding area.
Adjoining properties will be overshadowed, overlooked or suffer a loss of privacy.
There will be any increase in noise and disturbance.
Surrounding roads can cope with any additional traffic.

We cannot take into account: loss of view, boundary and other disputes, loss of trade, loss of value; moral objections. We will disregard any objections and comments that are offensive, abusive, racist or discriminatory.

You will only be notified about any significant amendments to the submitted plans if you have already made written comments.

Most applications are determined by senior officers under delegated powers. You may wish to contact your Ward Councillor(s) about the application, who may be able to request that the application be determined by Committee.

In the interest of economy your letter will not be acknowledged unless requested. If you make written comments on the application we will inform you about the decision. If you rent/lease this property I would be grateful if you could forward a copy of this letter to the owner as soon as possible.

If it is difficult for you to visit the City Council offices eg. you are unwell or infirm please contact us.

For further information please go to: www.cambridge.gov.uk/planning to view the following leaflets:

Your Chance To Comment
Public Speaking at Committees
Development Control Forum

If you have any further questions after viewing the plans, please contact me by email or phone 01223 457157. An appointment can be made if necessary."

Labour rejects Lib Dem call for Marshalls to move

2011-07-25T12:33:00.000+01:00

Labour City and County councillors put out a joint statement following the sudden announcement of the closure of Waterbeach Barracks:

"Cambridge Labour Councillors challenge the claim (made by Waterbeach Liberal Democrat County Councillor Michael Williamson) that Marshall Aerospace in Cambridge could somehow move to Waterbeach, and by implication rule Waterbeach Barracks out for other development after its closure was suddenly announced on Tuesday (19th July).

Councillor Williamson’s further suggestion that homes be built at Marshall airport ignores the fact that the airport site is locationally defective and does not have the transport infrastructure needed to cope with the extra 12,000 homes originally proposed, generating an estimated 55,000 extra vehicle trips per day in what is already one of most congested parts of Cambridgeshire, Newmarket Road. Only a much smaller scale development of potentally up to 3,000 homes could be accommodated, off the main airport site on land north of Newmarket Road , provided the right transport and wider infrastructure are in place before work starts.

Councillor Williamson has also ignored the fact that following detailed airport suitability studies Marshall Aerospace decided (1 April 2010) to stay in Cambridge because none of the alternative sites, specifically including Waterbeach, could meet the essential requirements for their aerospace business and airport operations. Waterbeach was specifically ruled out as unsuitable.

Now that regional housing targets, and effectively Cambridge area housing targets, have been abandoned by the Conservative/LibDem Government, there is an urgent need to identify additional viable and sustainable Cambridge area housing sites that are well served by quality transport infrastructure like rail access. Over 12,000 households are on the housing needs registers of Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire and they and others desperately need affordable places to rent or buy locally, near their families and work.

Labour Councillors repeat their call for urgent two-stage joint action by all three councils for the Cambridge area, and a carefully developed Plan B to tackle the growing Cambridge housing crisis. First, clear and consistent site suitability criteria including key transport and sustainability issues need to be developed. Second, a fresh trawl for new housing sites should begin, with no presumptions about any potential site until independently and transparently assessed, and with full public consultation."

Press coverage:

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/Army-pull-out-scheme-sparks-political-clash-22072011.htm

http://www.cambridgefirst.co.uk/news/cambridge_airport_will_not_move_into_waterbeach_barracks_1_970880

Labour calls for urgent care homes review

2011-07-25T12:20:00.000+01:00

Labour County Councillors put forward a motion calling for an urgent review into private care home provision following the collapse of Southern Cross. The motion was voted down by the Conservative majority on the County Council on 19th July however Labour councillors believe that the debate will keep the pressure on them to make sure that all elderly and vulnerable residents are protected from further crises in the care home and home care sector. The text of the press release is as follows:

Calls for urgent review into Cambridgeshire care homes after Southern Cross crisis

EMERGENCY reviews into the financial stability of independent Cambridgeshire care home providers should be carried out to protect residents’ welfare in the wake of the Southern Cross crisis, Labour county councillors in Cambridgeshire will say tomorrow (Tuesday, July 19 2011).

Cllr Paul Sales (Arbury) will ask the local authority to carry out a comprehensive assessment of all funding contracts after the company’s collapse left 105 older people in the county potentially homeless.

Organisations would have to prove they are fit to provide care for the elderly and disabled and guarantee their security in a period of economic turmoil, he will say.

Robust contingency measures would then have to be put in place to deal with current and future crises to ensure the highest possible priority is given to residents, a motion to the Full Council meeting will demand.

However Labour Group Leader Cllr Tariq Sadiq (Coleridge) is worried cuts to adult and child social care services will put care homes in danger, affecting vulnerable elderly and disabled people.

“The viability of some providers is put at risk by funding cuts and I’m not convinced the County Council has thought through the implications properly,” he said.

“With a growing elderly population and increasingly complex needs, this is possibly the biggest issue facing Cambridgeshire and the country at large.”

Another 14 people with learning disabilities could also lose their homes after Southern Cross went bust earlier this month.

The company ran seven homes in Cambridgeshire (including Peterborough) including Midfield Lodge, in Oakington, and Broad Oaks, in March, but can still close locations without taking into consideration the needs of residents.

“We are very concerned about the quality of care provided by the independent sector providers, both residential and homecare,” Cllr Sadiq said.

“We want the County Council to be absolutely sure that vulnerable residents are not placed at risk and we want robust contingency plans in place in case residents cannot continue to stay in former Southern Cross homes.”

Labour Eastern MEP Richard Howitt said: “Dodgy accounting may have sparked the crisis but it is vulnerable elderly and disabled people who are suffering the consequences.”

Unison Cambridgeshire County branch secretary Terry Parr added: “We are seeing what we feared and warned against – the total failure of the private sector to be a stable and reliable provider of care to the elderly.”

John Parker, Chairman of Cambridgeshire Older People’s Reference Group, said: “It is a desperately sorry state of affairs that older people are again made to feel that they have no merit in this country. They reach a stage in later life where they are no longer able to manage for themselves and go into a Care Home. As a result of recent financial misdoings these privately run homes can no longer make a profit from our older generation and cause the homes to shut down.”

Mr Parker added: “Many of our older people are not in a position to stand up for themselves. It was a more positive experience when care homes were run by local authorities or when local authorities had a far more rigorous inspection and improvement regime.”

ENDS (519 words)

Notes to editors
The County Labour Group motion to the Full Council meeting, due to be proposed by Cllr Paul Sales, will read:

This Council notes:
- the crisis facing 750 Southern Cross care homes across the country, including 6 in Cambridgeshire;
- that there are 105 older people and 14 with learning disabilities funded by Cambridgeshire County Council living in Southern Cross homes in and of county;
- concern about care standards within residential homes has caused the Council to intervene on a number of occasions;
- the impending closure of Kingswood Park home/day centre in March on 31 October; and
- earlier problems with Appletrees homecare in Bar Hill which required urgent council intervention.
The Council asks the Cabinet to:
a) carry out a comprehensive review of the fitness of purpose of all independent sector care providers in Cambridgeshire;
b) put in place robust contingency measures to deal with current and future crises giving the welfare of residents the highest possible priority, including provision of an alternative dementia day centre in March;
c) review the funding contracts agreed with care home providers and to assess the impact of funding cuts on the viability of providers; and
d) do everything possible to help providers avoid job losses at a time of high unemployment

Southern Cross was running seven care homes in Cambridgeshire (including Peterborough). They are:

Astoria Park, Peterborough
Broad Oaks, March
Dove Court Care Home, Wisbech
Friday House, Friday Bridge, Wisbech
Lily House Care Home, Ely
Midfield Lodge Care Home, Oakington, Cambridge
Strathmore House, Elm, Wisbech

More than 7,000 sign Libraries petition

2011-07-25T12:13:00.000+01:00

Tariq arranged for a petition of more than 7,000 signatures opposing library closures to be handed over to the County Councillor responsible for libraries on Tuesday, 19th July. Representatives of Rock Road, Milton and Arbury library campaigns lobbied the Council ahead of its full meeting that day. The aim is to influence any decisions the Cabinet might be preparing to make about the Libraries Review over the summer ahead of proposals to be presented to the County Council Cabinet in September.

The petition reads:

'We the undersigned call upon Cambridgeshire County Council to reject proposals to close libraries or to replace the existing professional service with a reduced service run by volunteers. We believe that libraries are a vital part of the community.'

Tariq said:

"This petition clearly shows the passion and strength of feeling about libraries and the Cabinet cannot ignore so many people. They are vital community institutions and are part of what makes us a civilised society and if we lose them now we will probably never get them back. There is a place for volunteers to help in libraries but not to replace professional paid library staff and not if it makes libraries vulnerable to closure further down the line. Cutting libraries is a false economy because the savings achieved will be paltry compared to the wider savings target and we will pay for the social costs of getting rid of a service that helps literacy and learning particularly amongst children."

Press coverage: http://www.cambridgefirst.co.uk/news/7_000_sign_save_cambridgeshire_libraries_petition_1_969820

Latest Coleridge Newsletter

2011-06-29T00:27:00.000+01:00

To see the latest local news, please see our newsletter at this link.

Rock Road Library - Important Survey to keep it open!

2011-06-10T13:04:00.000+01:00

Important Survey about Rock Road Library

Dear Friends,

The Cambridgeshire Library Service have given the Friends of Rock Road Library their strongest indication yet that, unless the community served by Rock Road Library steps in to save it, the Library WILL be closed by the end of the year.

In practical terms, the Council has made it clear that the library can only have a sustainable future if:
1) The library-using community raises approximately £6,000 a year towards the running costs of the library, and
2) There are enough volunteers from the community to staff the library; realistically this means a commitment from over 40 volunteers, and a team of two or three co-ordinators.

There was a fantastic response to previous questionnaires about library usage, and to the anti-closure petition. But we are not just looking for opinions now; we are looking for your help! With advice from a subgroup from the Friends Group, I have compiled a short survey to find out whether there is enough practical support, from the library’s users and local community, to put together a realistic proposal for keeping the library open. We have plenty of ideas for other ways of generating funds and improving facilities to make the library an even more vibrant, sustainable community resource. But for now, this questionnaire focuses on the basic and urgent question of whether the community can give what it takes to keep the library open.

Please click on the link below to complete the survey - it will only take 5-10 minutes of your time:

http://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/555469/Rock-Road-Library-Survey

Please, consider what you can do, or give, to keep this valuable community resource open for you, for all. Please also forward this e-mail to other people you know who live around Rock Road Library and care about its future. We will also be making the survey available in paper form, so that those without access to the web can also take part.

Many thanks in advance for your help,

Yours sincerely

Jane

Jane Elliott
Chair of the Friends of Rock Road Library

ISLAND PLATFORM – UPDATE FOR RESIDENTS (AND PASSENGERS)

2011-06-02T22:23:00.005+01:00

Network Rail and contractors Colas met residents of Rustat Avenue and Rustat Road on Wednesday to explain their measures to minimize nuisance, and answer questions.
Thanks for their clear answers, here is my note of the meeting.

1. £16 MILLION WORKS – TO DECEMBER 2011
Cambridge station badly needs improvements, so the £16 million Island Platform project is welcome.
But we are watching out in case of undue overnight or weekend disturbance to residents, particularly in the Rustat Avenue flats.

And we are also pressing for less nuisance after completion, so that flats residents don’t hear all the station announcements full blast when there a following wind.

2. TIMETABLE FOR WORKS – KEY DATES (unless there is slippage)
- Late June weekend -
Bored piling in main platform to support the station end of new platform bridge
- 25th and 26th September -
Weekend to watch footbridge being lifted into position
Assembly going right through the night.
Arriving in sections via Clifton Estate a fortnight before

- 3rd to 5th October -
Commissioning of new tracks/points
NO RAIL SERVICES – so not the weekend for a London trip!

- Oct to Dec -
Quieter phase/fitting out of passenger facilities.

3. IF THERE IS A PROBLEM ?
Contact Network Rail on 0845 711 4141
and email Cllr Lewis Herbert if it still doesn’t get resolved lewis.herbert@cambridge.gov.uk

4. THE PAY-OFF ?
- National Express are replacing many of the dreadful old Liverpool Street trains with 12 coach new trains for the peak service (but still a lot slower than the Kings X service)

- Rail operators likely to improve services and frequencies, particularly f passenger numbers continue to grow

- Thameslink services promised, linking Cambridge through the tunnel to Blackfriars, and through services linking to Gatwick and Brighton.

5. STILL TO BE IMPROVED
- Gate promised by Railtrack 2 years ago, at end of Clifton Road estate, to stop anti social vehicle access

- Totally inadequate secure cycle parking at the station

- Station roundabout congestion made 80% worse by anti-social parkers blocking the roundabout .

6. ON THE BACK BURNER …
- There will be no extension of the new bridge to our side of the railway for at least 3 to 5 years, and probably for a lot longer

- earlier Network rail plans for student housing on railway land are on hold, with housing f the new Thameslink trains likely to put the sidings back into us. Trains come first !

- the inadequate station ticket hall is not going to be improved for years
So we will watch out what happens when 2 x 12 coach trains arrive at the same time.

And will be pressing that they reopen the side exits at peak times before there is a real safety problem getting out of the station.

We will continue to monitor the works and station issues.

Lewis

2011-05-07T17:07:00.002+01:00

Jeremy thanks everyone who voted for him on Thursday.

Here is the Coleridge ward result …

Councillor Jeremy Benstead, Labour - ELECTED
1346 votes
46.9%

Andrew Bower, Conservative
869 votes
30.3%

Valerie Hopkins, Green Party
368 votes
12.8%

Thomas Yates, Liberal Democrats
285 votes
9.9%

Labour 2011 Majority
477

Total Vote 2,868

Our commiserations go to Andy Bower.

We will work hard for ALL residents – including on issues raised in the election.Contact us if you have a problem where you need our help.

We also want to hear from you with any views on improvements to Coleridge Rec - consultation planned later in the summer.

Citywide local election results showed a halving of LibDem support compared to only a year ago, and also a halving of their majority on the City Council, now 8.

Labour won 5 seats from the Liberal Democrats, making next year’s elections very interesting for the future of the city, particularly with our enlarged and dynamic team of 17 city and county Cambridge Labour Councillors.

More detailed election results analysis, including other wards, available on request.
On the AV referendum, there was a narrow majority in favour of AV in Cambridge, dwarfed by the overwhelming majority against AV in the rest of the country.

LABOUR RETAINS COLERIDGE - OUR WORK FOR YOU CONTINUES

2011-05-07T16:45:00.004+01:00

A TO Z UPDATE ON RECENT WARD ISSUES

2011-05-01T18:55:00.003+01:00

It is voting day again this Thursday and Jeremy Benstead is standing again as Labour’s Coleridge candidate. We hope you can support Jeremy.

As evidence of our work for local residents,
here is our A TO Z UPDATE ON RECENT WARD ISSUES

Ring if you have an issue or want more detail on anything below.

No 1 … You can help us sort out local eyesores !

Coleridge Labour Councillors are putting together a proposed list of minor environmental improvements - items costing up to £3000 that need to be put right locally.

Please email YOUR suggestions BY THE END OF MAY to lewis.herbert@cambridge.gov.uk

Citi 2 ... bus service awful! and Citi 3 not much better!

Citi 2 has failed to improve despite end to Anglia Water centre works and Stagecoach cutting the route past the Science Park. Jeremy pressing Stagecoach for action after many Coleridge people have waited for up to an hour, or given up.

At least the main Citi 3 and Citi 2 stops on Cherry Hinton Road will have ‘real time information’ later in 2011, telling you when the next bus is due.But Cambridge needs a second bus operator.

114 Bus Campaign– competition is one extra reasons we continue the campaign to keep this bus to Addenbrookes and the city. Local people can also help by using it more.

ASHBURY Close/GOLDING Road - City Council has postponed consultation on a new cycleway. The planning application at the rear of 163 Coleridge Road for three extra houses is out to consultation again.

BANCROFT Close and STERNE Close – George has raised the perilous stat of the pavements with the County Council Highways team.

BIRDWOOD, GRAY and WARD Roads - Yellow lines on local street corners will make the area safer.We are investigating whether the same can be done for the St Thomas’s Road junction.

BUDGENS Roundabout - Dangerous safety railings finally replaced late 2010 by County Council after accident in June after six months pressure. New dropped kerb beside outbound bus stop has improved access there.

CHALMERS Road – Verges have new concrete parking material under the grass which lets grass grow through – we have reminded council officers to water the new turf !

CHERRY HINTON Road/Hills Road - Cumulative Impact Zone (to limit late night alcohol venues) – proposed by Jeremy, and now also to covering other side of the roads from the Leisure Centre.

COLERIDGE REC - over £500,000 has been secured for improvements.
Consultation will start soon to seek your views on improving the paddling pool, adding extra play facilities, replacing the tennis court and YOUR other suggestions. And we also want the Coleridge Rec toilets improved.

Contrary to latest Coleridge Conservative claims, this modest amount of developer contributions from over 1000 recent/planned new flats in/beside Coleridge ward, equals £500 per flat = not a lot each! And not forcing house prices up as they claim … which are too high for other reasons.

COMMUNITY facilities improved
- FLAMSTEED Road scout hut and St Martin’s church hall, on SUEZ Road - £120,000 funding won by Coleridge councillors for impressive improvements planned by our local voluntary organisations to each of their buildings.

CORRIE, DAVY and RUSTAT Roads - Tariq showed Highways officers commuter parking problems recently and they agreed to make them a priority. Rustat Rd Residents have done a survey and Tariq will press County to work with residents and Councillors to find an acceptable solution.

Corrie Road/Rustat Road path - George working to get brighter lights at night. Tree branches blocking Corrie Road/Brackyn Road gap lights also cleared to make it safer.

CHERRY HINTON Road - Post Office/shops - £70,000 pavement works finally due to start mid-May, after Lewis hwlped agreement with last property owners.

We also pressed owner of former bakery to clean up skip mess; now selling pizzas instead.

Dropped kerbs also recently fixed at junctions with St Margaret’s Square and Rustat Road.

COWPER Road/Cherry Hinton Road - Tariq got earlier mess cleared after rubbish fire beside Boots.

FANSHAWE Road - pothole reported/will be fixed …Please report other potholes to the County Council or us and we will chase them up.

HILLS ROAD BRIDGE - Labour Councillors and county council officers met on site and at Guildhall given safety concerns over new bridge layout.

We will also monitor the planned Brooklands Avenue junction and busway.

LILAC Court - Tariq asked County officers to investigate and fix poor junctions and kerbs on Cherry Hinton Rd to help local wheelchair users.

LLOYDS BANK Bus Stop, Cherry Hinton Road – Lewis wants your views on moving bus stop to wider bank pavement as current location is unsafe. May take a while.

Nearby 'Cyprus kebab shop' is limited to 11pm after we opposed plans for 3am opening.

PERNE ROAD – new crossing working well.
Leaning road/cycling sign, one of several locally needing fixing. Meeting planned with developers Almaren/Luminus explaining their plans shop. Local people will be leafleted with the date.

RADEGUND Road - Tariq working with Coleridge/ Ridgefield school federation to tackle mushrooming of parking by staff and parents. We hope the new Perne Road crossing will also help cut car traffic here.

Tariq also working to tackle poor Radegund Road drainage. Photo evidence was collected to support an application for funding.

RUSTAT AVENUE/Clifton Road/Rustat Road – Major station Island Platform works due from June to December, including several weekends disruption and noise disturbance.

Network Rail have also agreed to replace bollards removed by their contractors, as initial part of Island Platform access.

RUSTAT ROAD Water Board site – we have told owners Persimmon to replace their damaged ugly hoardings, including as teenagers are getting access to a site where work has just started – after asking repeatedly for secure hoardings for over a year.

Affordable housing funded by Labour Government is due to start in June on north side of the site.

RUSTAT ROAD footpath completed to link with the Carter Bridge, and we continue to press for hawthorns to be better managed there.

TIVERTON WAY/THE FORUM - Anglia Ruskin University finally helping to sort out problems, after ignoring long suffering residents for twelve months.

TIVERTON Estate - Lewis arranged for 70 residents late 2010 to be reconnected to TV when the communal aeriel cut out. Digital aeriel upgrades are still an issue and older/disabled people are entitled to a switchover grant.

Concrete post replaced outside the Forum including to stop boy racers and lorries driving on the pavement.

AND FINALLY ... Tackling local crime
Tariq recently attended a day long police blitz in Coleridge ward. This included several drug busts, a continuing occasional issue in our generally low crime ward. Burglaries have also been a concern though thankfully have shown signs of falling. So make sure you lock up during summer months.

We particularly thank PCSO Mick Stribling for his excellent and visible contribution locally, and we will campaign to keep his post funded, despite the massive £20m cuts planned to the Cambridgeshire police budget.

Crime is low locally, and at historic lows in Cambridge thanks to Labour's investment - let us keep it that way.

Coleridge Issues Update

2011-04-08T16:20:00.003+01:00

I thought that I’d give a quick lowdown on some of the issues I’m currently dealing with in Coleridge.

1) Aerials – Communal aerials are a big issue in parts of the ward, particularly on the Tiverton Estate, but to an extent also on Ashbury Close and Golding Road. A recent residents’ meeting at Tiverton explained the situation. A few years ago the Lib Dem executive councillor for housing made the decision not to replace communal aerial systems on council-owned blocks of 2 storeys or less. This is partly because it would be technically more difficult to expect residents in large blocks or sheltered housing to make their own arrangements regarding TV aerials, and partly because it was decided that replacing communal aerials everywhere would be prohibitively expensive.

Communal aerials like the one on the Tiverton estate and on Golding Road are now quite old. They carry on going for the moment, but the chances are that they will fail at some point in the near-ish future (it's impossible to tell when - they may go for another 5 months or 10 years). They will be patched up and repaired as much as possible until they completely conk out.

However, under the current BBC Digital Switchover help scheme, individual digital-ready TV aerials can be installed at a greatly subsidised price if the engineer is informed about the communal aerial situation. It is probably best to get this sorted while the help is available so that you are not at the mercy of the communal aerial.

As such, a letter has been sent out to City Homes tenants in the relevant places explaining the situation and how to ensure that the engineers from the Switchover scheme do not just supply a freeview box, but a completely new digital-ready individual aerial. The council engineer has also been working with the Switchover scheme to ensure that BBC engineers are aware of the communal aerial situation. I am also forwarding some of this information to non-council tenants who live in the affected areas.

2) Lichfield Road – There have been a number of issues on Lichfield Road requiring attention. Firstly, some residents in the sheltered housing bits have experienced some anti-social behaviour from young people, who have been drinking on the stairwells, setting rubbish on fire and in one case smashing a milk bottle over a car. The local PCSO has been informed and will keep an eye on it. Secondly, an incident wherein a resident has been a victim of racism has been brought to our attention, which I referred on to City Homes and the Independent Living facilitator.

3) Scooters around Regency Square – A resident has brought my attention to youths using electric scooters around the area where Regency Square cuts through to Clifton Road late at night and keeping residents awake. The PCSO says he is aware of it, and will be looking at extending patrols around the area to warn the perpetrators off.

4) Stone-throwing on Gisborne Road – I had a chat with a few residents on Gisborne Road recently, and they said that some local schoolchildren have been throwing stones at their house in lunchbreaks and after school. I have referred this to the PCSO, who is going to visit the residents and have a chat about their concerns to see what can be done.

5) Lime Trees on Neville Road – Some residents have expressed concerns about overgrown Lime Trees near their parking spots on Neville Road. Lime Trees create a gooey mess that makes cars dirty and is generally annoying. I have referred this to the Arboricultural Officer, who is looking into cutting back these trees if appropriate.

6) Green Fingers – A resident on Lichfield Road expressed concerns about the regularity of the Greenfingers service, which is meant to provide gardening services to the disabled and those unable to look after their gardens. I asked a written question about this to Full Council, and the executive councillor insisted that cutbacks in spending have not affected its service level. If nothing happens with the resident in question soon, I will chase this up with the relevant officer/exec councillor.

7) Perne Road crossing – This has recently been installed and opened (thanks mainly to work done before I was elected by Cllrs Sadiq and Herbert), but there is an outstanding issue in terms of the lack of bus shelter and seating for people catching buses from the nearby bus stop. Indeed, the original advice from the Public Transport officers was not to remove the shelters because these were high use stops. However, according to the relevant officer, “Unfortunately, the proximity of private vehicular accesses to the revised bus stop location precludes the siting of a bus shelter, as it would obstruct driver visibility.” So safety advice has trumped the convenience of bus users. I think that there is still some scope to chase this up in terms of seating, which can’t possibly obstruct driver visibility so far as I can see. However, to some degree it’s one of those situations in which a small inconvenience will probably have to be endured in order to benefit from a more important improvement.

8) Road issues – various issues relating to roads have been brought up. I have referred road areas that are, in the views of residents, unsafe or uneven to officers, who have inspected the sites and are in varying states of doing something about it (resurfacing etc). The areas particularly in question are where Coleridge Road meets Cherry Hinton Road, and at the low end of Gisborne Road.

9) Pavements – I have referred several areas of unsafe or uneven pavements to county council officers, who have added them to priority lists. Specifically, some parts of the private-housing end of Lichfield Road, Sterne Close, Bancroft Close, as well as the path between
Sterne Close and Derby Road. There are raised slabs in these areas that are dangerous to the elderly. Hopefully the county council will make good on their promises and improve these areas.

10) Rustat Rd area parking – This longstanding problem continues to be dealt with, though primarily by Cllr Sadiq, since it’s a county matter. A recent survey was inconclusive in terms of the favoured solution, with residents almost evenly split between permit parking, single yellow lining on one side of the road from 9am-5pm and single yellow lining for an hour in the middle of the day to deter commuters. Cllr Sadiq has had the area within a 1 mile radius of Addenbrookes, which includes Rustat Rd, designated as an area of special concern for parking issues, and funding should be available from Addenbrookes and Network rail. Plans are being negotiated between officers and Cllr Sadiq, and hopefully some definite proposals will emerge soon. We need to deal with this asap, not least because with the massive expansion of Addenbrookes that will result from relocating services from Papworth General Hospital will have a knock on effect, as will the old Waterboard Site development coming to fruition.

I’m also dealing with various other bits and pieces, including some housing issues, but can’t really go into detail here about individual cases.

Any residents with additional problems/anything they want to add about the issues raised in this post can always email me at gbo20@cam.ac.uk or ring me on 07833 012979 – I’m always happy to help.

Speech on NHS reform

2011-04-08T15:37:00.001+01:00

This is the speech I delivered to City Council last night attacking coalition NHS reforms as thinly veiled privatisation. It's not exactly as I delivered it, but it's close enough

Madam Mayor,

I think I probably speak for most in this chamber when I say that the NHS is one of the country’s best-loved institutions, cherished and valued by the vast majority of us who rely on it. It says a lot about how civilized we are as a country that, unlike in the United States, when we fall ill we don’t have to worry about prohibitively high medical costs, and the doctor’s instinct is to feel for our pulse rather than our credit card.

This is why we have to be so careful with the NHS and should not rush recklessly into ill-thought through and disastrous reforms. Unfortunately, this is what this government is doing, supported by both of our local MPs, with one of them indeed being the architect of the whole package of reforms.

The first point to be made is the state of the NHS bequeathed to this administration. The last Labour government left the NHS in an almost unprecedentedly strong position. When we left office, public satisfaction with the NHS was at a record high of 72%. The Commonwealth Fund, an independent foundation for health policy research, found last year that the NHS is the most efficient and best value for money in the western world. Waiting lists had been reduced to their lowest level since records began. Of course the NHS wasn’t perfect, but it had been rehabilitated and improved out of recognition.

It’s also true that demographic challenges and the end to the days when vast increases in funding are routinely possible are going to pose problems to the NHS whoever is in power, and changes are probably necessary to deal with these realities.

However, such sweeping and revolutionary changes at a time of financial restraint are insane, almost Maoist in the sense of being chaotic and thoroughgoing almost for the sake of it.

Firstly, there is the cost of the reorganisation. A recent article in the British Medical Journal estimated that the cost of reorganisation will be somewhere between £2-3bn. In the current financial climate of the NHS, this is ridiculous. The NHS needs 2-3% increases in funding a year just to stand still, but in practice it will get less than 1%, accompanied by demands for ‘efficiency savings’ of 4% a year. A fact often neglected is that some NHS funds have also been reallocated to social care, putting yet another pressure on the NHS budget. To throw away another 2-3 billion on a reorganisation will make a financially situation needlessly worse.

Secondly, there’s the point that many GPs simply have no interest in commissioning services. No doubt some are enthusiastic and may have run budgeting pilots before. Most just want to be family doctors and say themselves that they are not trained or ready to run enormous budgets. Of course they need input, which is why they already have representation on PCTs. They could be given more influence through the existing structures, as advocated by the Health Select Committee, without this complete reorganisation.

GP commissioning throws up many other problems.

Dividing the current 151 PCTs into many hundreds of GP consortia risks fragmenting their power and creating new dangers. Smaller populations increase the chance that a few very expensive patients will blow a whole in budgets. More consortiums mean that commissioning skills, already in short supply nationally, will be spread even more thinly. Denied economics of scale, smaller consortiums may be tempted to cut corners on high quality infrastructure and management. The buying power of each consortium will be less than that of a PCT.

It also creates the potential for massive conflicts of interest. Some GPs are already involved with private companies of various kinds that provide healthcare, more could become so. What is to stop GPs commissioning care from companies that they are involved in or have set up? Would there be any guarantee that GPs would commission the best value care, or the care that will provide the companies they are involved with the best profits? GPs, hitherto trusted to being the impartial advocate of the patient, will necessarily become potentially influenced by financial considerations inconsistent with clinical priorities. I’m not saying all or even many of them would, but the potential for massive conflicts of interest is opened up.

This isn’t the only conflict of interest GPs will be exposed to. Decisions on how to allocate resources in the NHS should be taken on the basis of objective clinical need. At moment this takes place via the recommendations of the National Institute of Clinical Excellence and at the level of the PCT. If you hand this responsibility to GPs, then you expose GPs to the pressures exerted on them by patients, and not always patients with the greatest clinical need. If patients read about a massively expensive cancer drug and stage demonstrations demanding that their GPs fund it, then it makes it very difficult for the GP to refuse such demands even though overall it may not be the best value for money and resources would be better allocated to treating other patients. The NHS is much more likely to be made into a service that favours those with the sharpest elbows and loudest voices rather than the greatest need.

However, the most worrying part of these reforms is the fact that they will open up the NHS to the forces of price competition and privatisation to an unprecedented degree. The Health and Social Care Bill now going through parliament will open up every service that the NHS provides to contract from ‘any willing provider’, and EU competition law will apply to the NHS for the first time, meaning that every service will be open to tender, and the laws of price competition, not local priorities or the choices of GPs, will decide who provides services.

Under these plans, there will be no fixed tariff on services. This means that big private companies will be able to undercut NHS hospitals on price, cherry-picking easy work so that they can make a profit. This will destabilise NHS services, leaving them the difficult and expensive operations, which will cause huge financial problems for NHS hospitals, inevitably leading to closures. Almost every single leading healthcare expert says that it will lead to a race to the bottom on price, which will threaten quality. Price competition does not work in a healthcare system – and yet this is exactly what the government is advocating. The NHS will become little more than a regulatory and purchasing agency from a privatised marketplace as quality is subordinated to the demands of profit.

Now, I can see that some opposite may point out that private companies were used by the last Labour government in the context of the NHS, and we are hypocritical to criticise it now. It is true that we let patients choose a private hospital to be treated at, and that we introduced private independent treatment centres to cut NHS waiting lists. However, this was competition on quality, not price. Private hospitals were not allowed to undercut the NHS tariff, and as such they could not undercut NHS services. The NHS remained patient-centred and we used the private sector to benefit patients. Under Lansley’s reforms, the NHS will become profit centred and private companies will use patients to benefit themselves.

Add to all this that the government doesn’t even have a proper democratic mandate for these changes. This top-down reorganisation was not mentioned in the political manifestos of the coalition parties before the last General Election, and wasn't in the Coalition Agreement of May 2010 either. In fact, that document specifically promised that there’d be no more top-down re-organisations! And there’s a reason why the coalition parties didn’t mention any such plan before the election – because the British people don’t want these reforms. They don’t want an NHS ripped apart by competition and the profiteering of private companies. They want an NHS that puts the patient first, that is well-funded, and that sticks to the egalitarian principles encoded in the British system by Attlee’s great reforming Labour administration.

We’ve heard this week that Lansley, Cameron and Clegg are going to have a pause and a ‘listening exercise’ due to concerns about these reforms. Given that these plans are opposed by the Royal College of General Practitioners, the BMA, the British Medical Journal, the Lancet, the NHS confederation of health service managers, and The King’s Fund, it’s hardly surprising that the government is getting cold feet. But I fear that this consultation is just a diversionary tactic to put the issue on the backburner. They’re hoping we’ll forget about it and then they can sneak these reforms in by the back door. Well, I can say firmly that we’re not going to be fooled by such cheap tactics.

I implore the Liberal Democrats opposite to wake up and to start to take notice of the danger to the NHS. I implore you to make sure that Cambridge residents are given the chance to hold Julian Huppert and Andrew Lansley to account, and to pressure Julian Huppert not to continue to support these disastrous reforms, for the sake of everyone who uses the NHS.

To conclude, I’d remind members of something that Nye Bevan once said. He said, “The NHS will be here as long as there are folk left with the faith to fight for it”. Well, Madam Mayor, there’s certainly faith enough on this side of the chamber. The question is, is there any such thing on the Lib Dem side?

Report on Full Council, 7/04/2011

2011-04-08T15:25:00.004+01:00

Last night Full Council sat for its last session before the local elections on May 5^th. Much of it was quite routine and uncontroversial, though there were some more contentious bits.

Firstly, there was a debate about making permanent 18 growth-related posts in the planning department, which are required for developing the housing growth sites. This funding is due to come from the government’s much vaunted ‘New Home’s Bonus’, which officers have calculated should be worth as much as nearly £4m by 2014/2015 to the city council.

Obviously, the council shouldn’t ignore this funding, and broadly we welcome making the posts permanent – the insecurity of having a temporary job is unpleasant, and high-quality planning officers are needed for the growth agenda.

However, we have a number of concerns. Firstly, the New Homes Bonus is, ultimately, a bit of a con. It will be funded by top-slicing formula grant even further, and so it is just robbing one part of the pot of money set aside to fund vital local public services to fund new growth. This top-slicing will hit poorer parts of the country particularly hard, while the New Homes Bonus will benefit the south-east and wealthy bits of London the most. Independent research suggests that there will be a net loss to Northern authorities of £100m a year and gain of £381m in London the South East, with the effect on this region falling somewhere in between. Ultimately it is another part of the government’s strategy to starve poor areas of funds while enriching Tory areas that are already affluent – redistribution of wealth from poor to rich, which is hardly surprising coming from a Tory government, but it is still an absolute scandal.

Furthermore, this debate flagged up continuing problems about the council’s growth strategy. They still have no answer to where the homes that they were banking being built on the Marshall Airport site, ‘Cambridge East’ as it is called in the plans, are going to go. Cambridge East continues to be in their growth plans, but it’s not going to happen because Marshall isn’t moving anywhere! If the council had not put most of its eggs into the one basket of Cambridge East, and had a plan B for growth, then the council would be in a much better position to take advantage of the New Homes Bonus. As it is, Lib Dem incompetence and stubbornness has scuppered any chance of that.

Then we moved onto a debate about the Community Safety Partnership (CSP) plan. The CSP is a joint group of councils, the police, the probation service and so on that works out where joined-up working between the various parties can best cut crime. We flagged up several issues with the plan. Firstly, the process by which priorities were decided and by which the options given to councillors and members of the public were limited to choosing just 3 out of 5 was criticised. Why were councillors not allowed to consider burglary, personal robbery and cycle theft for inclusion as priorities? Why were these priorities dropped without so much as an explanation? Why is the process so lacking in transparency, with many decisions apparently made in private with little accountability to the people of Cambridge? To his credit, Cllr Bick, the executive councillor in charge, did acknowledge the validity of our queries, although whether any improvement will be brought forward in the future remains to be seen. Thanks also to Richard Taylor, who brought up some of these issues too.

Then there was a rather long, and in my opinion unseemly, debate about member’s allowances. My personal view is that in the current climate councillors should show restraint and not take any increase in allowances, and to be fair this was adhered to by council. However, I think that there is a view that some of the differentials are unfair. Executive councillors receive nearly 3 times the amount that ordinary councillors do – but do they really do 3 times the work? All councillors have committees to attend, ward work to do, meetings to prepare for. There are also questions in my mind about whether council should be allowed to set its own allowances at all. Salaried workers aren’t allowed to vote on their own remuneration, so why should we be able to? The status of the independent panel on remuneration, which is routinely ignored, is clearly pertinent to this. If it is ignored because its recommendations make no sense, then why not reconstitute it? Why not give it the power to enforce its recommendations without councillor approval? That seems fair to me, and would answer public suspicions about councillors voting to keep their own noses in the trough (though, of course, Cambridge City Council allowances are very modest by national standards).

The most intriguing part of this debate, however, was on a motion to remove special responsibility allowance from ungrouped councillors, i.e. independents. At the moment, there is only one ungrouped councillor, councillor Hipkin from Castle ward. It was perceived by him to be a petty personal attack on him. Now, whether it was or not I’m not entirely sure, though it’s common knowledge that John fell out big time with the Lib Dems a few years ago (having previously been a Lib Dem), for whatever reason (it’d be interesting to find out...). However, it still seemed a pretty unfair thing to do. Those of us in groups have the advantage of being able to share information with other group members. Labour group is a brilliant resource for improving our efficiency and allowing a rational division of labour and knowledge amongst Labour councillors. Ungrouped councillors do not have this, as Cllr Benstead pointed out, so giving them a little more remuneration to make up for the lack of a party machine helping him out seems only fair. Getting rid of it appeared to me to be quite unnecessary, even spiteful. I do not agree with Cllr Hipkin on many things, but he deserves support in a difficult environment for independent councillors, and the Lib Dems voted, it seems to me, against pluralism and independent-thinking last night.

The next substantive item, and the most controversial, was my motion on the NHS, condemning the re-organisation and move towards GP commissioning and a more marketised system advocated by the government and calling for local MPs Julian Huppert and Andrew Lansley, the latter of whom is the architect of the plans, to hold a public meeting in Cambridge to discuss their reforms and listen to the concerns of Cambridge residents

The main points I made in my speech, which I will post separately, included the arguments that the government lacks a mandate, that GP commissioning will lead to conflicts of interest in terms of GPs’ financial position and their relationship with patients, and that most GPs simply do not want to take control of large budgets and say themselves that they are not equipped or trained to do so. My central point, however, was that the reforms will ensure that commissioning consortiums will be forced to tender out services to ‘any willing provider’, including large private companies, and will be subject to EU competition law, which will mean endless fragmentation and competition with the NHS. This competition will be price competition, since companies will be able to ignore the NHS tariff, undercut NHS service providers on price, run loss leaders, and then cream off profits from providing services, particularly the ‘easy’ work, leaving NHS hospitals unable to compete on price and having to cope with the difficult and expensive cases. This will be a hugely destructive reform, causing financial instability, closures and an NHS centred on profit, rather than people.

The Lib Dem response was a farrago of inconsistency, infighting and irrelevance.

Tim Bick, the executive councillor for community development and health, gave a bullish response in which he basically said that the reforms do have a mandate because the thrust of them was in the Lib Dem manifesto (which was news to me). In effect, he took ownership of the reforms for the Lib Dems and tried to defend them, though he focussed on a few fripperies around the fringes, such as moving the responsibility for public health to local councils. Then Cllr Brown gave a long and rambling speech about the inadequacies of commissioning under the current PCT-based system based on the experience of one of her friends. She was so vague that the point of the story remained maddeningly unclear, but she seemed to be arguing that because the current system is imperfect, the government’s reforms must (?) be better. Then Cllr Julie Smith gave her view. She actually admitted that she was very disquieted by aspects of the reform, and even went so far as to say that it amounted to ‘privatisation by the back door’, her own words. She was the only Lib Dem councillor who had the honesty to confront my central point regarding price competition and opening up the NHS to ‘any willing provider’, and she seemed to basically agree with me.

So, it is obvious that the Lib Dems are split over this. Cllr Bick aggressively defended the reforms, suggesting that all is needed is councillor representation on GP consortium boards, and voila, all will be fine. This is a fantasy. EU competition law and the rule of the market will override any tokenistic and frankly inadequate attempt to provide councillor representation on commissioning boards. Julie Smith seemed to me to flatly contradict Cllr Bick, in spirit and emphasis if not in direct substance. The Lib Dems should wake up, listen to Cllr Smith and aggressively lobby against GP commissioning and ‘privatisation by the back door’ (Cllr Smith’s words, not mine), and not attempt to dress up these reforms as some benign attempt to make the NHS more responsive or better in terms of outcomes.

The Lib Dem amendment – I say amendment, but I don’t think saying ‘Delete all and insert’ and then writing a completely new motion is really an ‘amendment’ – had some mealy mouthed nonsense about the government’s response being true to the NHS’s founding principles. I think Nye Bevan would be horrified if he heard people arguing that opening up the NHS to private competition and back-door privatisation were policies true to its founding principles. There was also the usual guff about ‘protecting NHS funding’, which, as I pointed out, is errant nonsense since, when demographic changes, inflation, increases in costs and ‘efficiency savings’ are taken into account the NHS budget is being cut in real terms. The Lib Dem majority passed this amendment, unsurprisingly.

Then I tried to amend the amended motion by inserting a call for a public meeting, to which Julian Huppert and Andrew Lansley would be invited, at which local residents could, in the spirit of the current ‘pause’ for consultation, tell their MPs their concerns. The Leader of the Council wanted to change the amendment to allow the Lib Dems to wheedle out of having Lansley and Huppert on a platform together, and have separate meetings, which we opposed. The coalition MPs could easily have been invited to a single public meeting – Lib Dem cries that my amendment was ‘impossible’ were pretty risible and desperate in my opinion, as I explained in words of one syllable – but the Lib Dems obviously have a policy about not having meetings with Lib Dems and Tories on a joint platform for political purposes, so my amendment fell.

I say to local Lib Dems – if these reforms are passed, and a hurricane of competition, financial instability and privatisation sweeps through the NHS as I and many others predict, then your dilly-dallying and reluctance to take your Tory overlords to task will look pretty short-sighted and stupid in retrospect. Open your eyes and stand up for the NHS.

The next three motions were all fairly (relatively) uncontroversial, though there was disagreement on whether the draft code of best practice on consultation and community engagement should come to full council. A motion concerning cuts to police numbers and the potentially toxic impact they could have, moved by my colleague Councillor Merchant-Daisley, passed unanimously, which was surprising. The rest of the meeting was uneventful, despite Cllr Rosenstiel’s attempt to enliven us with an account of the history of street-lighting and gaslamps(!). So that’s it for Full Council until after the election – an eventful one showing up Lib Dem short-sightedness and equivocation on the future of our NHS.

Cherry Hinton Road Cycle/Pedestrian Path

2011-01-26T23:34:00.000Z

I have been concerned about the slow speed of the work to widen and resurface the shared cycle path between Budgens and Cherry Hinton High St. and also about the hazard that the half-finished junctions pose to pedestrians, especially for the elderly and wheelchair users. I have pressed the County Council to speed up the work and the make sure that the junctions are left in a safe state and I have received the following response from the Council officer in charge, which I would like to share with you:

"As previously advised the workforce pulled off site for the Christmas and New Year period in accordance with the policy of not causing a detrimental impact on Christmas and Sales shopping. This unfortunately has contributed to giving an impression to the public that the work is rather bitty.

The plan is to undertake foot/cycleway widening (largely complete), revise the kerb radii at each junction (in progress), construct raised table crossings in the 2 Derwent Close junctions, resurface throughout and to then undertake the kerb and raised table works at Kelvin Close at the end as large vehicles are going in and out of there at present working on the new care home.

Temporary ramps will be maintained at the side roads until the raised crossings are completed. I have seen many disabled and elderly people during my visits to site and they appear to be able to use the temporary arrangements quite adequately. I am confident the Cambridgeshire Highways workforce have been keeping a close eye on this situation and residents I have spoken to seem pleased that the improvement is happening and understand that these temporary arrangements are part of the process.

I do acknowledge that there seems to be a relatively high number of vulnerable people in this area of Cambridge and I will speak to the Works Manager from Cambridgeshire Highways to see if we can rejig the programme a little to minimise the time that these temporary features are in place.

The labour resource put onto the scheme has increased now and the works should be complete in 8 weeks time."

I will continue to keep a close eye on the works as they progress and please do get in touch if you have any concerns. I think that the new wider path should be a big improvement although I and fellow Labour councillors will monitor it to make sure that cyclists do not make it more dangerous for vulnerable users.

Massive County Budget Cuts Announced

2011-01-20T00:52:00.000Z

Cambridgeshire County Council has announced £160.6m cuts over five years, £50.4m frontloaded in the first year, and more to come later. 450 jobs will go in 2011/12 and probably more in future years.

The County Council is taking a huge gamble with these cuts and trying to disguise an incredibly dire situation. There is no positive spin in this budget beause the cuts are massive and totally unprecedented. Despite the promise to look after the most vulnerable, these frontloaded cuts cannot but hit those who need our help the most and we will begin to see the real effects on people before too long.

I am worried about reducing social care for children who could face danger if they are left in the home, I am worried about cutting care support to elderly people, and I am worried that eliminating bus subsidies will leave young and old isolated without access to transport. Cutting fare subsidies to young people will do nothing to keep them in college when youth unemployment is rocketing and ending universal youth provision and careers support will give them even fewer options. Highways officers openly admit that our roads and pavements will get worse.

The public consultation was simply an unpalatable choice between different cuts and this reflects the reality that despite all the talk of localism, our hands have been tied by the Conservative-led government. We are told that the 'Big Society' will step in and fill the gaps; but this is a huge gamble because there is no guarantee that volunteers, social enterprises, or charities, already hit by funding cuts, will spring up out of nowhere to take over from local authorities. With inflation rising faster, interest rates likely to increase, and growing unemployment, the pressure on budgets could be even greater than anticipated in this plan and could make some of the savings impossible to achieve.

The Conservative-Lib Dem government is taking an incredible risk with our most vital public services. I think our Conservative County councillors know this and should speak out for the sake of the people of Cambridgeshire instead of just accepting this wholesale destruction. The Conservative goverment has no electoral mandate to be this radical and their Lib Dems partners have forsaken principle for power and made these cuts possible. If there are any principled Lib Dems left, they should make a stand now and stop their leadership from being accessories to this Tory crime.

Under Labour's plan, the deficit would have been reduced by half over four years without the damaging effects of frontloading and all the other Coalition cuts to come in policing, health, and education."

Burglary

2011-01-04T13:12:00.000Z

Firstly, Happy New Year to all.

Sadly, 2011 begins with a bit of bad news. A house in my street, Lime Tree Close, was burgled on 2nd January between 6pm and 11pm. I've asked the police for further details of what happened but in the meantime if you have any information please contact Crime Stoppers on 0800 555 111 or Cambridgeshire Police on 0845 456 456 4.

Sign up for E-Cops to receive regular updates from your local neighourhood police. Go to https://www.cambs.police.uk/myneighbourhood/ecops/index.asp

Burnt-out Car in Ancaster Way

2010-12-20T12:24:00.001Z

The Police have told me that this car, left in St. Thomas's Hall car park, was burnt-out about two weeks and the owner is supposed to recover it. I've asked them to chase it up because it is a real eyesore and sends the wrong signal about our area.

Drugs Arrest on Coleridge Rec

2010-12-16T15:22:00.001Z

Our local PC Debbie Pearl and PCSO Mike Stribling report the following drugs arrest:

Reply To: cbcityeast.npt@cambs.pnn.police.uk

Yesterday I saw a young man acting suspiciously on Coleridge rec and after challenging he ran off. After a chase he was eventually arrested and was searched. A substantial amount of money was found on his person along with a swipe card for a local hotel. After a search of his room by the drugs dog a large amount of drugs were found which , if they are Class A drugs have a street value of several thousands of pounds. The offender was from the London area and seems to come down to Cambridge on a regular basis to sell drugs.This arrest comes shortly after the large amount of drugs were found at Trevone place and also last weekend at a warrant carried out by your neighbourhood team in the Abbey area.We are hitting the dealers hard at the minute and they may one day realise that the Cambridge area is too hot for them. Finding drug dealers is just a small part of what your neighbourhood team do and be assured that even if you don't see us out and about we are still working hard on preventing and reducing crime in the area.

Stay safe and have a good Christmas

Mike and Debbie

You can contact your neighbourhood policing team directly by replying to this email. We welcome your feedback and we will aim to get back to you as soon as possible. Please be aware that responses may take longer at times of high demand. Alternatively, you can ring your neighbourhood team on 0345 456 456 4.

In an emergency, when a life is in danger or there is a risk of violence or serious injury or when a serious crime is being committed please call 999. For all non-emergencies, general enquiries and to report crime please call 0345 456 456 4. To give information anonymously about crime, please call Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111.

If you have been forwarded this e-cops newsletter by a friend and would like a free subscription sign up by visiting http://www.cambs-police.co.uk/myneighbourhood/ecops/

Radegund Road: Drainage - UPDATE

2010-12-13T14:44:00.004Z

I've been working with residents to collect photographic evidence of pooling water in Radegund Road which often makes the path impassable. This followed an inspection by me and a Highways Officer to assess the inadequate drainage, which I first raised as an issue with the County Council in March 2009. We agreed that piecemeal maintenance would not be viable in the long-term so a more comprehensive assessment and solution was required. This would be costly and a bid would need to be prepared by Highways officers for County funding. I am pleased to report that a bid has now been submitted supported by photos provided by residents. This will now be assessed against other schemes from across the County. It will then be ranked and funds apportioned if available.

Given the huge cuts that the County Council will be facing over the next five years, there is of course no guarantee that the scheme will be prioritised but I will keep making the case.

Community Safety Priorities

2010-12-09T21:55:00.002Z

Next Thursday at East Area Committee, councillors will have a chance to vote to decide the policy priorities of the Cambridge Community Safety Partnership Plan. The ‘Cambridge Community Safety Partnership’ is a collaborative scheme wherein various bodies – most notably the City Council, but also the local health and policing authorities – work together to attempt to reduce levels of crime and anti-social behaviour in Cambridge. It publishes a plan, updated every year, which outlines its priorities, i.e. the types of crime/anti-social behaviour that resources will be particularly targeted at reducing. The most recently updated copy of the plan is here: http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/public/docs/Community%20Safety%20Plan%202010.pdf

Currently, the priorities of the Partnership are: alcohol related violent crime and anti-social behaviour, burglary of homes, cycle theft, domestic violence, personal robbery, and reducing offending and re-offending. However, council officers have decided to reduce the number of priorities, from the next financial year, from six to just three. They have also stipulated that councillors must choose those three priorities from a list of just five, namely: reducing alcohol related violent crime in the city centre, reducing repeat victims of domestic violence, reducing cycle theft, reducing re-offending, and reducing repeat incidences of anti-social behaviour.

Several points spring to mind here. Firstly, as you can see, this means that councillors do not even have a choice of retaining burglary and robbery as priorities. Why our choice should be restricted in this way is somewhat baffling. Apparently, this is because, as the minutes from South Area Committee (which has already discussed the issue) put it, “around 415 responses had been received to the initial consultation and that only 2 had mentioned burglary as an issue”. Presumably robbery was similarly under-mentioned in the consultation.

Secondly, it brings up questions about the power of council officers. By stipulating that we have to reduce the priorities to just three and by not even giving us the option of prioritising robbery or burglary, they have heavily restricted the options of councillors, making the whole thing a virtual fait accompli.

It also raises questions about the extent to which policy should be determined by consultations such as these. It may be true that only 2 out of 415 responses to the consultation mentioned burglary, but the sample of this consultative survey is very small – representing just 0.46% of the working age population of Cambridge. Furthermore, it is self-selecting, and so may not represent the views of the Cambridge population very well at all. I would argue that the facts – which crimes are most pervasive and damaging – are more important pieces of evidence than the results of a very unsatisfactory public consultation.

In short, I am not satisfied with the general nature of this whole process. We, as elected councillors, have a mandate to represent the views of our constituents in a way that unelected officers do not. By restricting our options to a very small range, and barely even bothering to explain their reasoning, the officers involved do not seem to be really respecting the democratic mechanisms by which this kind of policy should be made.

On a side note, I cannot help but wonder if the decision to reduce the number of priorities by half is driven by financial considerations. Just at a time when the police force is likely to be faced with making big cutbacks, the council is attempting to reduce the number of priorities, and therefore the number of public safety targets, which seems remarkably convenient to me.

I do, of course, welcome comments from Coleridge residents on what their priorities are, and, indeed, what they see as the major crime and public safety challenges facing the ward. However, I feel that these limitations should be borne in mind. I am not yet sure how I will vote, but I am considering abstaining to express my discontent at the nature of this whole process.

Hills Road Bridge Cycle Lanes

2010-12-09T17:16:00.008Z

I met with Alistair Frost from the County Council and Roger Crabtree, Chair of the Rustat Road Residents Association, at the Bridge this morning. Both Roger and I remain concerned about the cars crossing the cycle lanes particularly at peak-times. At 11am it wasn't so much of a problem and we observed cars and bikes negotiate it successfully.

Essentially what has happened is that in the previous set-up the onus was on the cyclists to switch lanes safely if they wanted to go straight-ahead or turn right; now the onus has been shifted to the drivers who have to be extra careful when they make the lane-crossing maneouvre. For cyclists and drivers who are not used to the setup or lack confidence it is a scary experience.

On the plus side a Road Safety Audit will be carried out independently and Alistair said that it could be possible to increase the length of the dashed lines to give drivers more time and space to cross the cycle lane rather than having to negotiate it suddenly as it appears over the crest of the bridge.

Alistair said that the new traffic lights at Brooklands Ave end would be operational on Friday although the weather is likely to delay the white-lining. They are currently working weekends to get the sewer work finished by Christmas at which point the coning would be removed at the new junction. The new traffic signals will have detection loops and will adapt their phasing according to the volume of traffic and will also co-ordinate with the signals on the bridge to ensure that unnecessary delays are not caused. This will be monitored in the first few weeks and adjusted if necessary.

There will be a strict left-turn only out of the new junction however, when the CBI buildings at the junction go up a new six-metre shared use path will become available for cyclists wishing to turn right to go into town. The County says there is no capacity at the junction to allow cyclists to go straight on to Brooklands Avenue and it would cause long delays.

We'll continue to monitor progress and keep an eye on safety. Let us know if you use this bridge as a cyclist or driver and what your experience is.

Nailing the Tory Congestion Charge Myth

2010-11-09T14:48:00.002Z

For some time now the Tories in Cambridge have been putting out the myth that I voted for Congestion Charging. Normally I wouldn't bother responding to such nonsense because most Coleridge residents can see through it and aren't fooled by these crude attempts at negative politics. However, a recent blog post by Chris Howell attacking distortions in the Green's by-election leaflet repeated this myth so I felt enough was enough and here is my response:

"Firstly, commiserations to Andy Bower on Thursday’s election result, and thanks Chris for your work on local issues, particularly in your first year.

Thanks Chris also for highlighting the distortions in the rather ridiculous and misleading Coleridge by-election leaflet put out by the Greens. I would however like to correct just one of the distortions in your own response which Coleridge Conservatives have put out repeatedly knowing it to be untrue - the idea that I voted for Congestion Charging, when you know that I and other Labour Councillors consistently opposed it and, working with Labour colleagues, we defeated a bad scheme.

Let me give you the facts: congestion charging in Cambridge was dreamt up by the Conservatives and the Conservative-run county council. They split themselves down the middle by putting forward a scheme which Cambridge Labour consistently opposed because it would have unfairly penalised Cambridge residents. I have always been very clear in my opposition to it. Having realised that the scheme didn't have any public support the Tories set up an Independent Transport Commission to kick it into the long grass. On the back of that the County Council eventually came forward with a funding bid to Government, linked to but not part of the congestion charging plan, to bid immediately for £25m to build Chesterton Railway Station three years earlier than planned. This was put to the vote in October 2009 and I supported it because I considered the station to be crucial to reducing congestion in Cambridge and Cambridge Labour still does, despite the Coalition Government blocking it.

As part of this process they also proposed a full business case, to be voted on at the end of 2010, for £500m upfront investment in public transport improvements from the Transport Innovation Fund (TIF). Before that could happen there would be a year of detailed planning and consultation to agree a mechanism for measuring congestion and to set a trigger for congestion charging. If all the extra investment in public transport failed to stop congestion hitting the trigger and if the public supported it, then the Tory County Council would introduce congestion charging but not until 2017 at the earliest.

In my October 2009 speech I very clearly stated that whereas I would support the bid for Chesterton railway station, I COULD NOT AND WOULD NEVER support the Tory County Council's congestion charging scheme. Had it come to the vote in December 2010, I would have voted against it but I also said that the package being put forward by the County was an admission of defeat because in reality it was very unlikely that goverment would give us £500m because of the recession, caused by the banking crisis, so the best we could hope for was early funding for Chesterton Railway Station. That turned out to be true because the government then ended TIF and withdrew the funding introducing a new and much smaller scheme that didn't require congestion charging.

All parties in the County Council supported the proposal in October 2009 but it was not a vote for congestion charging and it is misleading to say that it was because the package required many conditions to be met and would not have introduced congestion charging unless massive investment in public transport had failed to halt increasing congestion. And it would have been subject to a further vote in December 2010.

Congestion is a complex and important issue and I don't think the electorate will thank you for over-simplifying it and using it to make baseless political attacks. They will give their verdict on such low-level politics as they did in last Thursday's by-election.

I could have easily taken the safe route of abstaining in October 2009 but I strongly believed that Chesterton Railway Station was and still is crucial for Cambridge so I gave it my support whilst being clear that I thought the congestion charge was dead. It would be nice if the Tory-Lib Dem Coalition government thought so too and allowed the railway station to be funded rather than killing it off like they did with the A14 upgrade. The Conservatives must share the blame for that too.

The voters can see through efforts to twist the truth and also your attempts to take credit for stuff we have done, but I think I will wait to see if that nonsense also continues, or whether you will respect the fact that the electorate already knows that, and can be reminded by us if needed."

Cambridge, Uncertainty and the Cuts

2010-11-09T13:00:00.000Z

Yesterday, I made my ‘maiden speech’ in the council chamber during the Special Full Council meeting on the implications of the Comprehensive Spending Review for the council’s Medium Term Strategy, a document that outlines the council’s policy, spending and revenue plans for the next 5 years.

I made several, I hope constructive, points.

Firstly, I pointed out that the assumption on which the document is based is that the cuts to the Formula Grant – the council’s main grant from central government – will be evenly spread, i.e. more or less the same percentage cut each year for the next 4 years. This is despite the fact that there are, as the leader of the Council herself admitted, strong reasons to think that the cuts will be ‘front-loaded’ – that is, a huge cut in the first year will be followed by far smaller ones in the next few years. I argued that this makes the planning for coping with the cuts to Formula Grant in the next few years, particularly next year, very difficult – indeed, it makes the conclusions of this Medium Term Strategy almost meaningless.

I also argued that this strategy of front-loading is transparently political. It means that the pain can be concentrated quickly, and the blame can be placed on the outgoing Labour government. By the time the government comes up for re-election, and many Lib Dems and Tories are up for re-election locally, the cuts will be more distant in the memory, and if the cuts are deep enough and early enough, small rises could be brought out just in time to boost Lib Dem/Tory election hopes.

Secondly, I argued that the combination of a swingeing cut to the Formula Grant of roughly 28% - though this will be an average, and may be greater for individual local authorities – and giving council’s extra ‘freedoms’ – such as allowing individual councils to administer council tax benefit in the way they see fit and ending the ring-fencing of revenue grants – is an audacious political move designed to free central government from the blame for the pain coming in the next few years. Local councils will gain more ‘freedom’, but in practice this will, in the context of the reductions in public spending announced in the CSR, amount merely to greater responsibility for painful cuts imposed by central government. In the context of the coalition government likely losing a lot of councils in local elections to Labour, it means that incoming Labour administrations across the country will have no choice but to take responsibility, and thus blame, for cuts that they campaigned against, which will prove a political ace up the sleeve of the government in a few years time.

Thirdly, I pointed out the lack of clarity on the nature of the cuts that the City Council is going to be making. If you look at the detail, Cambridge City Council is arguing that of the projected cuts it needs to make next year due to the reduction in Formula Grant - £2,068,230 – 83% can be accounted for already in terms of savings identified in Service Reviews. However, the council also admits that at the time of publication of this Review “most of the 2010/11 service reviews had not been completed”. In other words, about £1.65m of cuts has already been identified, but we have not been told about them yet! The council further concedes that “this work alone”, i.e. the Service Reviews, “will not generate the significant savings that we need to find to meet the projected grant reduction from Government”. So, even more, as yet unnamed cuts will be needed – and this all assumes that the cut in Formula Grant will not be front-loaded! If it is, the council is in deep trouble as even more cuts will be needed. We will not get the detail of what services and jobs are at risk until at the earliest December, and probably not until early next year. The uncertainty is hugely destabilising to people’s lives.

Lastly, I made the point that if you look at the council’s own assessments, there is going to be a greater need for council services due to the social impact of the Comprehensive Spending Review just at the time that the money to fund them will not be there. In terms of unemployment, the council says in its Medium Term Strategy that “the recent change in Government & spending reductions aimed at public services could see unemployment steadily increase over the next year, especially as 43.5% of Cambridge City workers are employed in Public Administration, Education and Health”. This will mean less money in the local economy, less revenue for the council, and more pressure on its services. In terms of homelessness, a council briefing on the impact of the budget says that changes to Housing Benefit will place, and I quote, “higher demand on homelessness services”. The appendix to the Medium Term Strategy says that detailed allocations by local authority of the government’s Homelessness Grant (started by the Labour government) are yet to come, and says that “existing contracts can be maintained if the level of grant the City received is at least 75% of the current year’s level”. This does not belie confidence that the Homelessness Grant will even survive at its current rate, just as demand on homelessness services is likely to intensify. The social consequences of this government’s economic policy, and the ability (or inability) of local government to cope with them, is given frighteningly concrete expression in the council’s own assessments.

After I made these points, one Lib Dem councillor – Cllr Bick I believe – argued that opposition members were not making any constructive points about the assumptions underlying the review and the practicalities and consequences of the Medium Term Strategy and the Comprehensive Spending Review. This annoyed me, as that was precisely what I was trying to do! I made very few partisan points, and tried to show the extent to which the excellent work of council officers in constructing this Medium Term Strategy is likely to be rendered useless or irrelevant by a whole host of uncertainties on a whole range of variables. Very few Lib Dem councillors had much to say in terms of scrutinising the detail of this Strategy, except a few executive members. Most just sat silently, looking bored, for the entire duration of the meeting.

Thank you

2010-11-05T15:54:00.003Z

I would like to give thanks from the bottom of my heart to the voters of Coleridge, who yesterday elected me to be their Labour city councillor. I look forward to working hard to represent them in the council chamber. I greatly enjoyed the campaign. It gave me an excellent opportunity to meet hundreds of residents and pick up on their issues. I was also very pleased with the result, which saw a swing of, on my calculations, 4.3% from Tory to Labour relative to the last time this seat was up in 2008. It vindicated a hard-fought Labour campaign, which saw us knocking on hundreds of doors and delivering thousands of leaflets. It was exhausting, but worth it.

However, the campaign and the election was merely the first and in many ways the least important bit. The hard work now really begins. I will dust myself down, and, after a bit of a sleep to recover from the hectic last couple of days, focus on being a relentless defender of the interests of the residents of Coleridge - working families likely to be hit by cuts to tax credits, pensioners who could see their social services seriously undermined, students who are being made to pay for the government's slashing of funding for higher education, public sector workers fearing for their jobs, and many other groups. I will work to represent everyone in Coleridge, whether they voted for me or not.

The first challenge is to respond to the review of the council's Medium Term Strategy, the assessment and revision of council revenue and expenditure in the next 5 years, which will be discussed at a Special Council Meeting on Monday night. This meeting has been called due to the need to adapt to the huge cuts to council grants announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review. I will spend much of the next few days examining the detail of the executive's recommendations and discussing with Labour colleagues how best we can respond to safeguard services and jobs and make sure that these cuts do not hit the poorest the hardest. It will be a baptism of fire I expect, but I am determined to represent Coleridge residents and try to ensure that the effects of the cuts being imposed on us by this regressive government are ameliorated as much as possible. I will report back on here after the meeting.

On a more practical note, I hope to keep in touch with my constituents as much as possible via the internet (blogging, twitter, Facebook) as well as by more traditional means such as surgeries and door-knocking. I will report back on the decisions I take and meetings I sit on so the voters can hold me to account.

Finally, I would like to thank my Conservative opponents, especially Andy Bower and Tim Haire, Tory candidate and agent respectively, for a hard fought campaign. I was somewhat surprised at the extent to which their campaign involved making personal, and I think often counterproductive, attacks on me, but overall it was a civil campaign. I even had a drink with Andy recently, and I wish him well for the future - I'm sure we'll be clashing on the campaign trail soon enough again.

Thanks also to my other opponents - Sarah for the Lib Dems, Albert for UKIP, and Valerie for the Greens. All fought good campaigns and I look forward to working with them in the future.

Labour Wins Coleridge By-Election

2010-11-05T12:23:00.000Z

Labour last night took the last Conservative seat in Cambridge with a swing that saw a 2008 Conservative majority changed to an 8% 166 vote lead for Labour.

GEORGE OWERS Labour 900 44%

Andrew Bower Conservative 734 36%

Sarah Barnes Lib Dem 223 11%

Val Hopkins Green 137 7%

Albert Watts UKIP 53 3%

Total vote 2047 and a turnout of 29%

Newly elected Coleridge Labour Councillor George Owers said

'It is a real privilege to be elected to serve all the people of Coleridge.

'Having talked to over 1000 local residents in the last month, I know their priorities and will get to work for them on the need for more affordable housing, tackling anti-social behaviour, and getting council action on dozens of local issues like commuter parking.

'As one of Ed Miliband's new generation, I know that taking the last Conservative seat in Cambridge is the result of massive local discontent with the Conservative Liberal Democrat Coalition. Along with their councils locally, their excessive cuts will also make the poorest in Coleridge and Cambridge pay the highest price for the country's financial crisis.'

George added

'I will stand up relentlessly for the people of Coleridge against cuts to housing, housing benefit, and cuts to vital public services. Cambridge Labour Councillors have their work cut out, but working with residents we will lead a wider campaign to expose and campaign to reverse the worst Coalition policies.'

Yesterday's by-election was caused by the sudden resignation of Conservative Councillor Chris Howell.

See also the Council's website for the official result and pie chart www.cambridge.gov.uk/democracy/mgElectionAreaResults.aspx?XXR=0&ID=47&RPID=4636711

2010-10-30T23:40:00.002+01:00

Just a couple of photos of our massive Labour team out in Coleridge today knocking on 100s of doors, talking to local residents about the issues and the election. At various points we had 24 people out today canvassing - an amazing day!

Committed to Coleridge

2010-10-30T23:38:00.001+01:00

I notice from the latest Tory leaflet in Coleridge that their candidate is trying to insinuate that I am not committed long-term to Coleridge. Let me answer these crude innuendos here and now.

I am not the kind of person to make a commitment without following it through fully. I am 100% committed to Coleridge and Cambridge, and will give all of my effort and skill to serving Coleridge residents if elected.

I came to Cambridge in 2007 as an undergraduate. Cambridge captivated me from when I first arrived here. It is a diverse, interesting city, which is reflected in its unpredictable and varied politics. I fully intend to stay in Cambridge and make my life here once I have finished my postgraduate research work at the university.

It is true that I, like the Tory candidate, do not live in the ward. However, I am also intelligent, dedicated and have been campaigning hard in Cambridge on a range of issues since I’ve lived here. I’ve knocked on countless doors in Coleridge, and think I know the issues as well as anyone, from commuter parking on Rustat Road to anti-social behaviour on Tiverton Way. I think that being hardworking and dedicated, being regularly in touch with local residents, as well as being committed to Labour’s values of social justice and equality, are more important than accident of geography. It’s what you do and know that counts, not where you sleep.

It is also true that I am youthful, in my early 20s. I do not know what the problem with this is exactly. Currently, the city council is dominated by the middle-aged and older. There is nothing wrong with that, but I think some youthful energy and enthusiasm is a good thing.

I am saddened that the Tories resort to these tactics in Coleridge. I wish that we could fight this election on the issues rather than have it dragged down to personal mudslinging and innuendo. This is why Labour will continue to campaign positively, telling Coleridge residents what we are doing to help them and what our principles are, rather than slagging off the Tory candidate, who seems a perfectly decent bloke to me.

Hills Road Bridge closing evenings & nights next week - from 8pm Mon 1st to 4th Nov (and from 11pm on 5th Guy Fawkes)

2010-10-28T11:27:00.005+01:00

... but big issues remain, including the altered Brookland Avenue Junction, the extra pedestrian/cycle crossing and the all-important test of whether it all works safely when finished ?

Cambridge News Update ... at last the works are speeding up

'Hills Road Bridge in Cambridge will close at 8pm every day next week, apart from Bonfire Night.

Overnight works will start on the key overpass on Monday but will be pushed back to 11pm on Friday to allow revellers to get away from the fireworks display on Midsummer Common.

The bridge will reopen each day at 5am and Friday is scheduled to be the last night closure.
Work will be carried out to improve traffic flows at junctions ahead of the opening of new segregated cycling lanes.

Pedestrians will still be able to use the bridge, and cyclists will be asked to dismount before crossing on the same path as walkers.
Diversions will be put in place for motorists.

Alistair Frost, Cambridgeshire County Council’s project manager, said the improvements would make the bridge easier to use for drivers and cyclists.

He said: “For the work to be carried out quickly and safely it is necessary to close the bridge to motorists, but I am pleased we have been able to work with our contractors to limit the closure to overnight periods only.”

More than 4,000 cycle trips are made over the bridge every day and the introduction of segregated lanes follows a successful trial earlier this year.'

And why dont they give residents a works programme. The County council needs to learn from this job as well - contractor effectively given control of the bridge for months, with no proper plan to minimise impacts on bus, bike, car and foot users

... and it isnt that that wasnt clear from the 16 month Guided Bus tunnel works

Perne Road Crossing Gets Green Light!

2010-10-22T15:02:00.001+01:00

Lewis and George at the site of the crossing

After over two years of campaigning, residents have won their campaign for a new pedestrian and cycle crossing on Perne Road, north of the Radegund Road roundabout. East Area Committee confirmed funding for the project on 14th October and on 18th October the Area Traffic Committee considered objections to the scheme and gave the go-ahead. It should now be constructed by Spring 2011.

I have been pushing hard for this scheme and I am delighted that it will now happen. It will make a big contribution to road safety and I hope it will also encourage parents to walk their kids to school rather than taking them by car. Ridgefield School and Radegund Road in particular suffer from congestion at school times and it's also very dangerous for the children as cars come and go.

I would like to thank all the parents who signed the petition and in particular Lisa and Hazel who collected the signatures and made the case to officers; all the City and County Council officers who have worked hard to make this happen especially Andrew Preston at the City Council. Also my fellow councillors Lewis Herbert, and Jeremy Benstead who helped secure the funding and George Owers who has championed the scheme in Coleridge.

Local Updates

2010-10-17T00:36:00.000+01:00

UPDATE FROM GEORGE AND THE TEAM

** These Council capital improvements are promised by March 2011.

Birdwood Road/Coleridge Road speeding – George pressing County Council to consult on expanding the new Mill Road 20mph zone to include ALL roads in Coleridge ward

Budgens – unsightly illegal car selling now removed after pressure

Cambridge Leisure/Hills Road – Jeremy successfully pressed for expanded ‘Cumulative Impact Zone’, to carefully controls extra licensed premises, particularly their hours

** Cherry Hinton Rd Budgens Corner – pavement improvement work and joint cycle/pedestrian path due to start soon, but concerns about cycling speeds/risks to older people nearby

** Cherry Hinton Rd shops beside Rock – £70,000 improvements finally approved to start, after 10 years of delays

City Council Housing – George campaigning against risk of reduced maintenance if Council privatises council maintenance teams

** Coleridge Rec toilets – Council has now agreed to upgrade them.

George pressing for more play facilities after talking to local under 14s on various doorsteps

Coleridge Rd/Mill Road end double yellow lines working well, as are double yellows Labour arranged on St Margaret’s Square

Corrie Rd/Rustat Road lighting – Tariq meeting lighting engineers. Lighting improvements also needed on Gisborne/Radegund Rd cut through. Vegetation being cut back on Corrie Rd/Brackyn Road path

Drug dealing and injecting - George tackling outbreak of needles on Ancaster Way and various back alleys across Coleridge, liaising with our hardworking local police

** Perne Road crossing – clear majority in favour after detailed consultation. Will go to the Area Joint Traffic Committee on Monday 18th for final consideration of objections.

** Perne Road shops – Lewis meeting developers Almaren to press for long promised hoardings and artwork by Coleridge/Parkside Federation

Radegund Rd – action continuing to stop school and contractor staff parking often badly on verges + another pothole filled recently near width restrictor

** Rustat Road – extra footpath planned to stop people and buggies being forced on to road. Neglected hawthorns being sorted again. Lewis also meeting Network Rail next week re island platform

** Tiverton Estate – Lewis won agreement for detailed garden maintenance plan for overgrown areas and Budleigh Close wood

Trees across Coleridge – Labour pressing for cut backs where houses are overshadowed, but we like trees and green verges !

Tell us your issues, including if you suffer the same problems above on your street!

The fight ahead

2010-10-07T01:26:00.003+01:00

I was selected as the Labour candidate for the Coleridge by-election last week. It is a pleasure and a privilege to have the chance to fight for the honour of representing Coleridge on the city-council.

I am currently conducting postgrad research at Cambridge University. I have been campaigning in Coleridge and Cambridge city since 2007 on various issues, including housing, jobs and the environment. I highlighted the Lib Dems' lack of a plan b on housing in light of the Marshall escapade. I collected hundreds of signatures for the ‘Keep Marshall Flying in Cambridge’ petition, helping to protect local jobs.

I have been speaking to hundreds of residents recently about a whole range of local issues and how Labour plans to solve them, whether it be commuter-parking in the Rustat Road area, improvements to Coleridge Rec facilities, action to tackle anti-social behaviour near The Forum in Tiverton Way or the bid for fresh funding for improvements to St Martin's Church Hall.

Looking at the election more broadly, I am absolutely determined to defend Coleridge, a ward with a high percentage of working families and pensioners, against the hypocritical, unnecessary and regressive cuts that the combined forces of the Lib-Con government, Tory County Council and Lib Dem City Council are hell-bent on imposing on us.

We face an age of hypocritical Tory austerity for the many. Hundreds of pensioners relying on Winter Fuel Allowance, people relying on help with housing costs, and families relying on tax credits and public services will be hit hard. Changes to housing benefit and the rise in VAT will mean those on modest incomes will lose out and may even be forced to move out of Cambridge. Savage police cuts will make many areas less safe and reassuring.

In short, those on modest and middle incomes will be forced by the Tories to pay for the mistakes of rich bankers. We will not stand for this. The Tories claim it is result of Labour's spending, whilst forgetting to mention that they supported our spending plans at the time, and the deficit is the result of a financial crisis that struck all around the world, not a one-off situation in Britain.

City-wide, I will campaign to make sure that Cambridge gets the affordable housing its residents need, and living wage its hard-working residents deserve and need to make ends meet. Cambridge should be a fairer city, reversing the growth of inequality, working for Coleridge, King’s Hedges and Abbey as well as Newnham and Trumpington.

The only way that we can work to make Cambridge a more socially just and humane place to live is to vote Labour, vote Owers and make Cambridge a Tory-free zone.

That said, I also hope to conduct a clean, honest and friendly campaign against my Tory opponent. We may disagree, but let us be courteous about it.

Parkside and Coleridge Academy Decision

2010-10-06T11:25:00.000+01:00

The decision by Parkside and Coleridge schools to apply for Academy status has been reported in Cambridge News on 3 October and 5 October , including comments by me.

I have grave concerns about the Coalition Government's academy schools and 'free' schools programme which will create a divisive system that will harm schools that retain their involvement with the local authority and take away some of their funding. As a Governor of the Parkside Federation I expressed my strong reservations about the policy however, I respect the decision of the Governors and the Trustees to move to academy status and I will continue to work in the best interests of all the children in the Federation whilst continuing to expose the dangers inherent in the Government's approach which I believe will damage our children's education in the long-term.

On the Campaign Trail

2010-10-04T15:18:00.002+01:00

Just some of the Coleridge Labour Team out canvassing in Tiverton Estate and Radegund Road yesterday.

Radegund Road: Drainage

2010-10-04T14:49:00.003+01:00

Drainage on Radegund Road is a bit of a problem. The road is somewhat higher than the path on the southside and the slope of the path from Coleridge Road down to Perne Road is uneven which means that when it rains, pools of water form outside residents' driveways making it very difficult to get by. A channel to a soakaway under the verge was put in at the lower end of the road but after a year this needed more maintenance because the soakaway gets silted up so that isn't a viable long-term solution

I first raised this issue with the County Council in March 2009 before I became a Councillor and was told at the time that a bid would be put together for this financial year to carry out drainage work. I have now raised it again after residents highlighted the issue and myself, a resident, and a Highways officer inspected the area a few days ago. We agreed that major work needed to be done supported by evidence so we're encouraging residents to take photos of whenever pooling occurs, noting the date, time and duration and to send those photos to me (tariqsadiq@btinternet.com). I am also finding out the status of the funding bid promised last March.

Radegund Road: Traffic Chaos

2010-10-04T14:06:00.006+01:00

Life on Radegund Road has been a bit of a nightmare for residents on recent weeks. The long-running sewer works on Mill Road means that buses and traffic have been using Radegund Road as a diversion. With the school car park closed because of building works on the new sixth form, staff cars and contractors vehicles parking on the road has caused long tailbacks and dangerous congestion at peak hours. Cllr Lewis Herbert and I have been working closely with Coleridge School who have been doing their best to manage the problem from their end and we will continue to press them.

I and residents have asked the County Council to put in place temporary traffic restrictions but they say that by the time they've got this through the process of compulsory advertising of a Traffic Regulation Order, the Mill Road works will have finished. Here's what a County Highways Officer told me:

"The sewer in Mill Road, due to its age, was found to have failed further on as the Contractors effected repairs and as a result they had to extend the works. They have, throughout, tried to work as long as possible during the day but there are occasions when due to materials drying etc where they have to be left to cure. Generally they make this at the end of the day. They have advised that they estimate the works will be completed by 8 October 2010.

The Contractors do appreciate the impact their work is having on the road network. Regrettably this is a Victorian sewer which is some 8.5 metres underground which posses many health and safety issues for the engineers working at that depth. We have to agree that their safety whilst working at that depth is paramount.

The contractor is quite aware of the urgency of these works and they are being continually being monitored by the street works Inspector. I have advised him that I expect their works to be undertaken as quickly as possible and safely and that they are being monitored by other interested parties. They are having to take cognisance of the environmental issues as it is within a residential area.

We are working with AWS and their Contractor and hope that they will be able to meet their estimated end date and not identify any further issues."

So 8th October will be a crunch date. If it carries on any longer than that, we will press again for temporary parking restrictions.

Coleridge By-Election on 4th November 2010

2010-10-04T13:36:00.006+01:00

Coleridge Labour has selected George Owers as the Labour candidate for the by-election. George is a hardworking local campaigner and helped to organise the successful 'Keep Marshall Flying in Cambridge' campaign. He is a History postgraduate at Cambridge and has been involved with campaigns around the City.

This election will once again be a tight contest between Tory and Labour and as always we stand on our local record of hard work and action for the people of Coleridge. This time however, it's also an opportunity for voters to express their views about the Liberal-Conservative Coalition and the massive cuts in public services that they are about to inflict on the country. We all agree that the deficit needs to be cut and Labour planned to halve it in four years; however, the Coalition seems hell-bent on cutting as deeply and as quickly as possible and will cause lasting damage to our vital public services and jobs.

The Coalition is also driving through huge reforms to education and the health service. Its rushed Academies and Free Schools legislation which will create a two-tier system of education with funding being taken away from those schools that decide to continue working in partnership with local authorities. The introduction of GP Clusters will hand £80bn of health service spending to doctors and will do away with strategic planning and commissioning of health services. Doctors will have no choice but to become managers. Secretary of State Andrew Lansley's reforms will lead to the defacto privatisation of primary care.

On 4th November you have a chance to send the Coalition a message if you're worried about the future of our schools, the National Health Service, housing, jobs, and all public services. Vote for George!

East Chesterton By-Election Result

2010-09-18T21:44:00.003+01:00

16 September 2010

Ian Manning (LDm) 832 40.9%

Geraldine Bird (Lab) 663 32.6%

Matthew Bradney (Con) 334 16.4%

Peter Pope (Gre) 117 5.7%

Anna Gordon (Soc) 53 2.6%

Peter Burkinshaw (UKI) 37 1.8%

No change, LDm Maj 169 8.3%

This election was caused by the resignation of a Lib Dem County Councillor who became the third Lib Dem councillor to resign in two years in the ward. Labour's Gerri's Bird fought a good campaign and got a great result pushing the Conservatives who came second in May's set of elections back into third place.

Taking Stock Since May

2010-09-18T20:41:00.008+01:00

2010 has been a tumultuous year so far and looks set to continue that way. The formation of the Tory-Lib Dem Coalition Government was followed by the despicably regressive Emergency Budget on 22nd June and a whole raft of proposals for major reform of health, education, policing, housing, benefits and local services as well as substantial and hard-hitting in-year cuts for councils with the threat of more painful cuts to come. This has kept MPs and councillors very busy since May with hardly a moment to take stock. On the plus side Labour party membership has rocketed in Cambridge and nationwide since May.

Another election...

Labour is about to reach the end of a prolonged leadership election campaign which saw most of the contenders visiting Cambridge and some of our key people actively involved in the leadership campaigns of various candidates. And we've had an election of our own in Cambridge. The resignation of a Lib Dem County Councillor in East Chesterton led to an unnecessary by-election being called in August when many activists were away leaving a small band of committed members leading the fight to take the seat off the Lib Dems. The election was held on Thursday, 16 September and although the Lib Dems held on, Labour made significant progress since May pushing the Tories into third place (see later post for the full results) and is now poised to make further inroads in next May's local elections.

...and another one

No sooner had the East Chesterton campaign ended, the resignation of Cambridge's only Tory Councillor was announced heralding yet another by-election in our very own ward, Coleridge so it's back to the campaign trail. I can empathise with some of Councillor Chris Howell's reasons for resigning but it's clear also that Cambridge city Conservatives are split and in disarray. Councillor Howell worked hard for Coleridge but being a councillor is a demanding role at the best of times, especially if you have to earn a living and think about your career as well, so it's no fun at all if you don't get backing from your own party.

...and even more

And if two by-elections wasn't enough there is a good chance that the Lib Dems will force yet another one in Arbury although they might have the decency to hang on until next May so as not to inflict yet more misery on the long-suffering electorate who've probably had enough election leaflets and canvassers on their doorsteps this year to last a lifetime. Next year's elections will be complicated enough as it is with the referendum on electoral reform (the Alternative Vote system) likely to be held on the same day. A bonanza for political geeks but probably not the best way of introducing a major constitutional reform which deserves a proper debate rather than being complicated by local polls. I won't even mention the disgraceful attempt at 'gerrymandering' by 'equalising' the size of parliamentary constituencies and reducing the number of MPs which was tacked on to the same Bill.

Yet more pain to come

20th October, 2010 could be a date that goes down in infamy. The Comprehensive Spending Review could see unprecedented cuts in public spending which would all but make some public services unviable for local authorities to deliver. There is a barely disguised ideological attack taking place on the role of the state under the guise of deficit-reduction which could see wholesale, indiscriminate and irreversible damage done to public services and the prospects for economic growth.

The Tories, with the connivance of the Lib Dems who should really know better, have set a up a false dichotomy between the public and private sectors whereas the reality is that they are inseparable and interdependent (as it seems are the Tories and Lib Dems nowadays). How the voluntary sector is meant to fill the gap when it often relies on infrastructure and funding support from local authorities is a question yet unanswered by the Coalition Government. There are ways of reducing the deficit whilst protecting public services, investing in growth, and helping the poorest but it seems that scaring people about the deficit at the expense of practically everything else that makes life bearable is the new Tory-Lib Dem mantra.

Finally

Personally for me 2010 has also been a tumultuous year. I stood for parliament for the first time, fighting Andrew Lansley in South Cambridgeshire, a challenging but very rewarding experience; our first child, a son, was born in the middle of the General Election campaign, an even more challenging but immensely welcome and uplifiting event; and at the end of June I took the difficult decision to become self-employed which will hopefully give me more flexibility and time for my family and my County Council and party responsibilities.

Over the next few days and weeks we will attempt to make regular entries on this blog which is principally intended to supplement our regular, detailed local newsletters which we know reach almost all households in Coleridge thanks to the sterling efforts of our team of local volunteer deliverers.

Coleridge Election Results... and a BIG Thank You From Lewis and Daniel Zeichner

2010-05-08T16:49:00.003+01:00

Here are the votes and %s from the Coleridge council and parliamentary elections on
Thursday 6 May 2010.

COLERIDGE WARD RESULT VOTES %

Lewis Herbert (re-elected) Labour 1320 32.3
Andrew Bower Conservative 1160 28.4
Thomas Yates Liberal Democrat 1040 25.5
Valerie Hopkins Green 446 10.9
Albert Watts UKIP 118 2.9

TOTAL VOTES 4084

A big thank you to everyone who voted Labour, helping to increase our local majority compared to 2009, and thanks also to Daniel Zeichner, our Parliamentary candidate, for his massive campaign effort.

Coleridge Labour Councillors are here to work for ALL residents, and all three of us picked up a bunch of local issues which we will be following up over the next few weeks.

PARLIAMENTARY RESULT AND OTHER WARD ELECTIONS

Use this link if you want to see the full Cambridge Parliamentary result, or results in other wards
www.cambridge.gov.uk/ccm/content/council-and-democracy/elections/2010-elections.en

Here also is the result of the Parliamentary vote for Coleridge ward.

COLERIDGE PARLIAMENTARY VOTE VOTES %

Daniel Zeichner Labour 1200 30.6

Martin Booth Socialists 34 0.9
Peter Burkinshaw UKIP 94 2.4
Nick Hillman Conservative 1112 28.4
Julian Huppert Liberal Democrat 1234 31.5
Tony Juniper Green 238 6.1
Old Holborn Independent 7 0.2

TOTAL VOTES 3919

Daniel Zeichner beat the Conservative candidate into third place in Coleridge, behind both the Liberal Democrats and Labour. The Liberal Democrats won the Parliamentary seat.

With a hung Parliament, there is a major risk that there will be a further election, though we know people will want the three parties to sort this out themselves in 2010.
However, there must still be a strong possibility of a second General Election in the next eighteen months.

We will also see whether Nick Clegg will be backing David Cameron, as we predicted would happen in a hung parliament. Interesting times.

TEN OF THE MANY ISSUES TACKLED BY COLERIDGE LABOUR COUNCILLORS IN THE LAST MONTH

2010-05-03T17:00:00.003+01:00

We reported well over 20 Coleridge streets with issues that Coleridge Labour Councillors have tackled in our recent Winter Ward Newsletter.

Here are another 10 from the last month, with more updates to follow in our post-election newsletter.

And so much also for the desperate and false claims from another party that ‘others work harder for you’.

1) Birdwood Road area including Chalmers/Ward and Gray Roads – VERGE PARKING

We are compiling suggestions from residents for verge improvements as Coleridge Councillors have secured £25,000 for verge improvements the year, including proposals for bollards on junctions, some yellow lining and verge restoration.

The whole of job of improving verges and local parking, including Perne Road, will take a lot more money than this, but this is a start. The Council must also use its wider powers to restrict the most damaging verge parking rather, than ignoring this major local problem.

2) Cherry Hinton Road - SHOPS UPDATE

We welcome the new Kitchen showroom shop and the Cambridge Wine Merchants replacing Wine Rack – both due to open soon. Improvements to main shop forecourt also promised later in year by Council.

We are ambivalent about other conversions - the pizza shop planned for the old bakery near the Post Office, and - the kebab shop planned for the former HSBC bank.

And we also oppose plans to make the Cambridge Leisure kebab van into a 7 days a week feature. Has had middle of the night problems in the past, and people down Cherry Hinton Road and other local roads still have occasional night disturbances.

3) Cherry Hinton Road - CROSSING BESIDE POST OFFICE TO BE IMPROVED

Commitment finally obtained from the Conservative-run county council to end flooding of this crossing, which is still happening.

And also to move the control boxes which block the pavement and prevent wheelchairs and cyclists getting past.

It was a county council 'improvement' that was probably a waste of money - we will see.

4) Coleridge Community facilities funding

Labour Councillors are backing bids from two Coleridge community facilities for major funding from a new Council pot of over £600,000+ being shared between the four Eastern wards.

Funds raised from local major developments will also meet needs from new residents too.

5) Derelict WaterBoard Site to be developed/Foxes in Coleridge
+ Another Rustat Road Development expected to be turned down ?

We have been liaising with the developers Persimmon Homes who have won £2m plus from Government in funding to support development of 30 for rent and at least 30 ‘Shared equity’ new affordable homes there to be built in next year, mainly for rent.

Better developed than derelict but several planning conditions to resolve, and meeting promised with the local Residents Association before they start.

And Foxes ? - This will also displace another growing local population – foxes.
Lewis woke up a week ago to see their cat playing 'come on if you think you're hard enough' with a large male fox in the back garden on Cherry Hinton Road, and come back badly scratched three days later.

Have had reports from several people in Rustat Road and Fanshawe Road about foxes - domestic pets have disappeared including rabbits and cats, whole coops of chickens have been killed locally or narrowly escaped attack. Foxes are hungry as it is the season for rearing young – so keep your domestic pets safe.

Foxes have moved in because sites like the Water Board Site have been left derelict for years but at least one of their dens will go, moving them on.

And on Another Rustat Road Development ...
After raising the view that plans for six large flats at the Cherry Hinton Road end of Rustat Road are in our view overlarge, we welcome that we expect the Planning Officers to recommend refusal. However, there may still be a second application there.

6) We are Backing Kelvin Close residents on planning appeal

We have registered an objection to the overlarge planned development at 22/23 Kelvin Close so we can be formal objectors in support of residents, at the forthcoming public inquiry into this scheme.

7) Perne Road/Radegund Road roundabout AND Perne Road Crossing Update

Have persuaded the city council to move a safety scheme for cyclists and other road users up the priority list. Could be delivered at same time as New Perne Road Pedestrian Crossing – now funded and promised in next 12 months/more below.

8) Perne Road/Radegund Road shops - PLAN TO END NEGLECT

Cannot be left as they are - looking totally ugly and derelict.
Met owners last Friday with Councillor Howell - to seek action, or agreement to let Labour Councillors organise a better paint job.

Alternative plan of refurbishment is now of the plan and Almaren plan a full redevelopment.

The developers agreed at meeting on Friday to smarten the area up with proper hoardings

- including picking up my proposal from last Autumn to involve Parkside Federation/Coleridge school in repainting the windows and parts of the building that are the ugliest

- immediate neighbours will be consulted and know we now they have preferences that need to be addressed.

9) Rustat Avenue/Clifton Road - REINSTATEMENT OF MISSING BOLLARDS

Site meeting held with Network Rail, Lewis, residents and City Council finally got commitment from Network Rail to install bollards or a gate.

Wider security improvements also needed for Rustat Avenue, including to stop flytipping.

10) New Perne Road Pedestrian and Cycle Crossing

Definitely going to happen/programme says Council will finish by March 2010 which we will be pressing for given the risk of accidents and number of schoolchildren and others who cross here.

..ASK US if your issue is not here.

This is just a sample of issues raised by people we have talked to recently – and which Coleridge Labour Councillors have then acted on.

AND ACTION ON CITY COUNCIL FINANCES

…On council finances, Lewis forced admissions at the last council meeting from Liberal Democrat Council Leader that losses of Council money in Iceland banks could be far higher than he previously forecast.

Ash for Cash is an unfair exchange in any language.

City Council is still owed about £8,000,000 of your money, including interest.

Lewis also pressed for an end to LibDem secrecy on the way they decide Councillor allowances and expenses in their own secret group meetings, also ignoring and damaging the work of the Council’s Independent Remuneration Panel. Sounds a bit like how MPs decided their expenses … and we need openness on Councillor allowances and processes in Cambridge too.

URGENT ACTION NEEDED TO EXPAND COLERIDGE AND CAMBRIDGE OPEN SPACE OR OUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN WILL SUFFER ...

2010-04-25T17:07:00.005+01:00

While we welcome overdue maintenance planned to improve Coleridge Rec toddler pool in May/June (see photo)

and also wider plans for public consultation in the summer on improving the Rec,

bigger open space issues have been badly neglected by the City Council in recent years, missing major opportunities from local new development

Coleridge Labour Councillors have been increasing pressure for more play areas and recreation land in and near new developments locally.

In Coleridge alone, all these major developments have been allowed to escape significant open space provision, supposedly a key part of Council planning policies

- Belvedere

- The Levels, above Alimentum and Homerton Street behind it

- Purbeck House, behind Hills Road Sixth From College

- Living Screens/formerly Tim Brintons, when that massive 10 storey scheme eventually gets developed (hopefully without the Council giving way on other elements too)
- the Waterboard site on Rustat Road.

All have got off providing on-site public open space in exchange for financial contributions to the Council. This is despite totally clear policies in the Cambridge Local Plan requiring ALL new major developments to provide ON SITE open space.

'Commuted sums' of money are instead pocketed by the City Council but what is the point of the cash if

- there is no land as part of the deal to create a park with
- mismanagement means that the money (currently about £4,000,000) simply sits for years in a bank account.

Coleridge and Petersfield Labour Councillors used a motion at last Thursday council meeting to call on Cambridge City Council, currently run by the Liberal Democrats, to make city open space provision a top priority again.

Labour Councillors want urgent action to expand play space before local children suffer, because rapidly growing child numbers are projected to totally outstrip facilities in the next decade
– SEE MOTION TEXT BELOW.

We expect the 2010 census will also reveal an astonishing rise in Cambridge children living in flats and city centre property, including in Coleridge, accelerated by the severe fall in housing being built for rent.

The City Council is almost in the same mess as the County Council which failed to piuck up the rapid recent rise in local child numbers, and has failed to address in time the horrible resulting shortage in capacity at primary schools like Ridgesfield.

Back on playspace, independent charity 'Cambridge Past Present and Future' forecast recently that there will be a rising and major local deficit of children's playspace by 2021, a big change from meeting the standards currently, and in breach of the Council's own 'Charter for Play'.

Developers have been allowed recently by the Liberal Democrat council to under-provide on open space, with some providing none at all.

Strategic open space funding has also been totally removed from the council's list for future planning gain funding.

Our comments are that
'Cambridge green spaces are a source of great pride and joy to residents. But that legacy is at risk due to a combination of weak leadership, and the rapidly rising numbers of children, growing far faster than either the county or city councils predicted.

Lewis adds
'Calling on people locally, I notice a big increase in the numbers of children, often in exactly the same areas that have an open space shortage.'

'The City Council must stop developers being repeatedly let off the hook on providing open space. Every major development must be required to add to open space or open space funding.

'The Council has also been so appallingly slow in using developer funding that many current children could be grown up before they sort the extra space needed.'

'This is yet another example why we need one Council for the Cambridge area. Given the inaction of all three councils on issues like open space. The sooner the better as far as Coleridge residents are concerned.'

LABOUR’S COUNCIL MOTION LAST THURSDAY
– NOT SUPPORTED BY OTHER PARTIES, BUT ACCURATE AND ESSENTIAL NONETHELESS

The Council is concerned at the increasing number of Cambridge families with young children living in flats, including in parts of the city with inadequate open space.

The Executive Councillor for Climate Change and Growth is therefore asked to co-ordinate a clear strategy to improve open space and access for Cambridge residents, including
- targeting open space improvement in parts of city with major space deficits, including adding new smaller open spaces
- ending the practice where the Council allows developers nil contribution or commuted sums rather than deliver suitable open spaces
- investigating the conversion of derelict land to short or medium term open spaces
- restating its opposition to new transport routes being created over open spaces, including precious commons and meadows
- making the most of existing as well as new Strategic Open Spaces, including improving public transport and wider access to them,
given that it is unlikely that all Strategic Open Spaces in council policy documents will ever be delivered.

WE PLAN TO CONTINUE ACTION UNTIL OPEN SPACE FAILINGS ARE SORTED OUT.

COLERIDGE LABOUR COUNCILLORS AND COLERIDGE RESIDENTS HELP PERSUADE MARSHALL TO ‘KEEP FLYING IN CAMBRIDGE’

2010-04-03T14:26:00.002+01:00

Along with the vast majority of Coleridge residents, we warmly welcome the decision by Marshall Aerospace on 1st April to stay put at Cambridge airport, rejecting a decade of
City Council and County Council pressure to push them out of the city.

Contrary to pretty ludicrous and slightly desperate claims from both local LibDems and Conservatives, Gordon Brown is not to blame for the original plan.

It was a local decision to push for housing at Cambridge East AND both those parties running our two councils also voluntarily agreed housing targets for the city and county. As we say below, we now need a new plan for that that deperately needed additional housing.

FOUR ITEMS COMBINE TO TELL THE STORY OF WHERE WE ARE
AND HOW WE GOT HERE - MORE ON WHERE NEXT LATER

(1) - Response by Lewis and Daniel Zeichner to the Marshall announcement

(2) - Brief Marshall Airport Time Line – 2000 to 2010

(3) - Tariq’s statement when presenting a petition of 1500 local residents against moving Marshall airport. By coincidence, this was only a couple of days before the Marshall announcement

(4) - Full text of the Marshall announcement on 1 April saying they are staying put.

COMMENT ON THE FUTURE, FOR NOW …

Coleridge Labour Councillors will continue to seek appropriate use of the airport site, ensuring full account of any impacts on Coleridge residents.

Where needed, we continue to raise issues with Marshall, as we have over C130 Hercules testing – while recognizing that the impacts now will be far less than those arising from 12,000 proposed new dwellings and the Council’s own estimate of 55,000 extra trips per day from the site.

(1) LEWIS’S RESPONSE TO THE MARSHALL STAYING ANNOUNCEMENT

As reported in the Cambridge News on Good Friday, Lewis said

'We know the vast majority of Cambridge residents will greet the Marshall decision with relief, including retaining all the Aerospace jobs and business in Cambridge for the foreseeable future.

'By relying for a decade on one main Cambridge housing site, the City Liberal Democrats have played a horrible game of housing roulette, placing all their chips on the airport.

'They and the County Council have repeatedly rejected Labour demands for an affordable housing Plan B, a particularly tragic error after the possible move to Mildenhall was grounded. Both the City and County Councils must start immediately on a replacement plan for the next decade's housing.

Ben Bradnack, who has campaigned against Marshall moving for nearly ten years also said

'It was awful planning from the beginning for the Liberal Democrats to propose the airport for 12000 dwellings from 2010, without ever undertaking proper sustainability or transport assessments.

Labour Parliamentary candidate for Cambridge, Daniel Zeichner added

‘Marshall is a great company but makes its own commercial judgements. So it was crazy for the Councils to bet on their future plans, which they are fully entitled to change.'

(2) BRIEF MARSHALL AIRPORT TIMELINE - 2000 TO 2010

20 July 2000 - Current MP, then Council Leader, David Howarth announces LibDem plan to move Marshall (Cambridge News)

'High-tech firms need the CB postcode but firms like Marshall's don't.’

‘I'm sure most of the people in that part of Cambridge would rather be livingnear a housing development'

2003 - Airport included as major housing site by Conservative County Council in their countywide housing plan

2004 - Study identifies Mildenhall as possible alternate site for Marshall.

Cambridgeshire Horizons set up by county council, taking lead on planning a 12,000 dwelling development at airport

2007 - Joint Council East Area Action Plan adopted despite Labour saying itfailed to include a transport plan or sustainability appraisal.

Labour Councillors lead ‘Save Our Open Spaces’ campaign against the transport impacts on Newmarket and Perne Roads and against plans for Guided Buses to the proposed development over Coldhams and Stourbridge Commons.

2009 - Plans for Marshall move to Mildenhall grounded.

Three Cambridge Councils increase pressure on Marshall to find alternative site, and move Aerospace jobs from Cambridge.

Marshall celebrates centenary, plus over 70 years at the airport site.

Local campaign to 'Keep Marshall Flying in Cambridge' launched by residents and Labour Councillors.

1 April 2010 Marshall announce they are staying put.

(3) Earlier last week, Tariq presented a 1500 signature petition calling on the Councils to ‘Keep Marshall Flying in Cambridge’.

TARIQ’S STATEMENT WHEN PRESENTING PETITION OF 1500 SIGNATURES – TUESDAY 30 MARCH

A petition of 1500 signatures was presented to the full meeting of Cambridgeshire County Council yesterday supporting Marshall Aerospace staying in Cambridge, calling on all three Cambridge Councils to support this and asking that alternative sites be found for the houses proposed at the airport.

Coleridge Ward County Councillor Tariq Sadiq presented the petition which had been collected in recent months by the 'Keep Marshall Flying in Cambridge' Campaign.

Tariq Sadiq said
"The Liberal Democrat plan, supported by the County Council Tories, for 12,000 houses on the airport site is completely unsustainable. It lacks any kind of viable transport plan and will force 1700 Marshalls jobs out of Cambridge. Cambridge Labour Councillors believe that other sites with better transport and rail links can and should be found locally.

"We desperately need more affordable homes but such development must bedeliverable and not at the expense of vital skilled jobs. Labour has always said that 3,000 homes can be accommodated north of Newmarket Road. All three Cambridge Councils must now come up with a sustainable and deliverable Plan B for the rest, a request repeatedly turned down in the recent past."

Councillor Sadiq and Daniel Zeichner, Labour's parliamentary candidate for Cambridge, also responded to statements by Liberal Democrats on this issue.

Julian Huppert, Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Candidate for Cambridge had called the petition "an absolutely ridiculous move."

www.cambridgelibdems.org.uk/news/000945/labours_airfield_site_petition_threatens_new_homes.html

Tariq Sadiq responded:
"Saying that the views of 1500 Cambridge people is ridiculous clearly shows the complete disregard they have for local resident views”

Tariq also pointed to the total contradictions with LibDem statements about other Cambridge area growth sites.

Cllr Sian Reid, LibDem Execcutive Councillor for Change and Growth had added:
"This petition is irresponsible and flies in the face of all the work that has been done".

Yet on the very same website, commenting on plans for homes on the much smaller NIAB2 site, tiny in comparison to her Marshall redevelopment plan, Cllr Reid said:
"Cambridge just can't cope with this extra growth. The county council hasn't yet worked out how it is going to deal with the traffic generated by the existing growth programme and now it has backed building these extra homes."

www.cambridgelibdems.org.uk/news/000794/lib_dems_fury_as_government_gives_goahead_for_new_homes_on_niab2_site.html
As Daniel Zeichner, Labour's parliamentary candidate for Cambridge, added:

"The Liberal Democrats are trying to have it both ways: saying one thing inone part of the City and the complete opposite in another. They are completely out of touch with public opinion on Marshall and have neglected large parts of Cambridge and abandoned its people.

It's time for a change in Cambridge."

(4) MARSHALL AEROSPACE TO STAY IN CAMBRIDGE
- MARSHALL STATEMENT IN FULL

Text of Press Release Issued by Marshall Aerospace (01/04/10)

Marshall of Cambridge, the family-owned group of companies which employs about 2,500 people based in Cambridge, has today announced that it will notbe relocating any of its businesses to Wyton.

Marshall has long said that it would be willing to relocate some of its Aerospace activities in order to accommodate the needs of Cambridge by making way for a large urban extension on its airfield site in Cambridge, always provided that a suitable site could be found which would ensure the company's long term future and which was convenient for its customers, its local suppliers and its many highly skilled employees.

Over the last few years, the company has examined many potential relocation sites in the local area. More recently, these options had been narroweddown to RAF Mildenhall, Waterbeach Barracks and RAF Wyton.

Following thedecision by the government that Mildenhall could not be made available toMarshall as a relocation site, the options were narrowed down to Waterbeach Barracks and RAF Wyton and now both of these have to be ruled out.

Therefore, Marshall has concluded that, in the immediate future, there are no suitable relocation options open to it.

Commenting on the announcement, Sir Michael Marshall, Chairman of the Marshall Group said:

"This has been an exhaustive and expensive review process, but we needed to be certain that any potential relocation would not adversely affect the business, our customers or our employees.

That review has now been completed and it is clear that relocation is not a feasible option at this time, but we do not rule out the possibility that circumstances may change again in the future, in which case we would be prepared to reconsider it.

We have worked closely with a number of bodies and organisations and we are especially grateful to our various local authorities as well as Defence Estates, GO-EAST and Cambridgeshire Horizonsfor their help and support throughout."

"My grandfather started our company in Cambridge and we have always beenclosely associated with this remarkable city.

We were greatly heartened bythe overwhelming local support that the Company received during our centennial year in 2009, which highlighted the two-way benefits that come from our business being located in this dynamic and thriving community."

All three of the Marshall Group's main businesses, Marshall Motor Group,Marshall Aerospace and Marshall Land Systems, are headquartered at the Company's airport site on Newmarket Road and over 60% of its 4,000 employees are based in Cambridge.

As well as the direct financial contribution that these businesses make to the local economy, Marshall has been a supporter of many local community organisations, initiatives and events.

Ends

FOOTNOTE by Coleridge Labour Councillors

We will continue to work for uses at Cambridge Airport that both retain the airport
AND protect the environment and rights of local residents.

When Salary Increases are 1% or Zero ...Why Do City LibDems Hike Your Council Tax 2.5% in 2010 and County Tories Overtrump That With a 3% Increase ?

2010-04-02T17:47:00.005+01:00

Why do our two local councils repeatedly increase council tax way above our annual salary levels ?

At the same time, their national politicians keep banging on and on about high Council taxes ?

Labour’s data shows that 2010 council tax rises across Britain average only 1.6%, the lowest rise since this tax was hastily erected by the Tories in the 1990s to save us all from the even worse fate of their thankfully short-lived even worse Poll Tax experiment (if you are 35, you may remember how they ‘managed’ things ?)

Then look at the combined Council tax bill that dropped on our mats a fortnight ago. Why can we not have 1.6% increase or much less in Cambridge ?

The rise of 3% in your Council tax bill from the Conservative County Council beat the city’s 2.5% and came along also with some nasty cuts to social services and youth clubs. Both tax rises have regularly been 4% or 5% every year but then there is a General Election this year !

Despite their 2010 rise, the City Lib Dems also made big cuts in grants for local groups, youth club staffing, and drastically cut staffing for housing in Coleridge. They also unanimously rejected a Labour amendment to limit raising council tax to 1% plus provide £80,000 more for youth clubs.

Lewis says, "It is not just the rises planned by the Tories and Lib Dems that we oppose. It is also the cuts to cut vital services. Instead, they really need to cut out the unnecessary waste.

"For starters, they can both end their useless self-promoting ‘free’ magazines – saving you a bucket load of cash."

Tariq adds "Cambridge desperately needs a single ‘unitary council’. One place where the buck actually stops, so we stop wasting pounds and pounds."

Lewis Jeremy and Tariq are also supporting major reform at the city and county councils, like city council changes reported thiw week by the Cambridge News
www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Cambridge/Jobs-under-threat-as-council-seeks-savings.htm

PS Last year, we exposed the Cherrry Hinton Road South Area Office wasting both light and heat at weekends when no one was there (SEE EARLIER STORY BELOW).

As this was embarassing for the LibDems and their claims to be deep green, the Council made a special effort to switch off for 'Earth Hour’ last weekend. One small step for the planet and Council taxes, one giant leap still to go ...

More Updates...

2010-01-08T17:58:00.002Z

Hills Road Bridge Cycle Lanes Trial

The trial has generally been working well and proposals for the final scheme will be similar to the trial which was designed to test the impact on traffic flow of just having one lane for cars in either direction. The original plan was for raised, segregrated hybrid cycle lanes. The new plan will involve an on-road wide central lane between traffic and although I have some concerns about cars cutting across, this type of arrangements works in the other parts of the City including along Trumpington Road. For more details see:
http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/transport/projects/cambridge/cambridgegateway/Hills+Road+Bridge.htm

Overdevelopment

Labour councillors opposed the demolition of two 1930s semis and the extension to Cherry Hinton Nursing Home on Kelvin Close and despite getting it refused the first time round, it was passed the second time. Now there is a proposal to demolish another two homes and replace them with eight four-bedroom houses on the land. County Councillor Tariq Sadiq is concerned about this kind of back-garden over-development and the increased traffic on a quiet cul-de-sac with families and children. Residents have collected a petition and will be calling for a Development Control Forum and major changes to the plans.

Tiverton House/Forum

This former sheltered housing scheme has been transformed from a home for 32 elderly residents into a dwelling for well over 100 Anglia Ruskin University students. As predicted by residents and Labour councillors when the Lib Dems sold the building on the open market, this has caused major problems with noise and disturbance and the police and the Council have become involved. The Tiverton Estate Action Group, supported by Labour Councillors, has been set up by residents to deal with the issues in a constructive way. We believe that this is a major over-intensification of the building's purpose and should have been the subject of an overall planning application so all of these predicable problems could have been discussed and addressed. Instead the Lib Dems let it go ahead despite all our warnings. We will continue to work with residents to find constructive solutions.

Happy New Year!

2010-01-05T16:24:00.006Z

It's been a busy last few months for Coleridge Labour councillors and I hope you will have seen our most recent newsletter with details of all the issues that we've been tackling across the ward. We haven't updated the blog for a while and we apologise for that - each of us have recently had close family who have been very ill and sadly Lewis's mum died. But we're now back up and running and will blog as much as we can as well as sending out our usual newsletters.

2010 promises to be a very eventful new year with both City Council elections on 6th May and a General Election due by 3rd June. This will be an important election with a clear choice including between Tory tax cuts for the privileged few and Labour investment to benefit the majority. In a hung parliament the Lib Dems will most likely prop up a Tory minority government so a vote for them is a vote for the Tories.

Coleridge has been closely fought between the Tories and Labour in recent years so your vote can make a difference in this area. Labour councillors have worked hard for you in the face of a Lib Dem controlled City Council and a Tory controlled County Council which respectively neglect the needs of Coleridge and Cambridge with recent gritting failures being a prime example of how both Councils put political point-scoring first and sorting out the problems a distant second.

Here are some of the key local issues that Labour has been fighting for:

Lighting and Fencing in Brackyn and Corrie Roads

After a mugging in the cut-through between Brackyn and Corrie Roads about a year ago, Labour councillors have been fighting for increased lighting in the alley and also repairs to broken fencing separating Brackyn Road and the Davy Road flats and Corrie Road. Working with residents we managed to secure a Safer City grant through the East Area Committee and contractors have now started planning the repairs along with the City and County Councils. We hope that the work will be completed soon.

Pavements and Potholes

Pavements across the city became ice rinks after the Tory County Council failed to grit the pavements causing falls and injuries. County Councillor Tariq Sadiq has called on both Councils to get their act together to work out a plan to deal with this and to tell residents and business owners what they can do to clear the area outside their own premises. He wants salt bins to be distributed across the City so residents can do their own gritting during the next icy spell. See
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news_letters/displayarticle.asp?id=472995

Speeding

Working with the Police and Council officers, local councillors have agreed an action plan to target speeding motorists in the East area. Barnwell Road, Brooks Road, Coleridge Road, Coldhams Lane and Perne Road will be targeted for police enforcement with Coleridge Road as the priority. The impact of the enforcement measures are to be measured to ensure that they are effective and part of the strategy is to publicise the action to deter speeding. Progress will be reported to local East Area Committee meetings and you can find details about these at www.cambridge.gov.uk.

More to come later.

Updates

2009-08-31T10:50:00.014+01:00

Tesco

As you will have seen in the press, Tesco has opened its new store on Mill Road. There is a ban on delivering to the front of the store and although Tesco said that it would defy this, it then retracted and said it would only deliver to the back round the Sedgwick/Catherine Street loop. East Area Committee met to decide whether or not to enforce the ban in anticipation of Tesco violating it but Tesco then said that it would give a legal undertaking not to deliver to the front (although as far as I am aware no such undertaking has been given so far).

East Area Committee decided not to take immediate enforcement action but to give Council officers future discretion to do so if required. The No Mill Road Tesco Campaign was not happy about this and has applied for judicial review of the Council's decision and an injunction. The injunction was refused but the application for judicial review is proceeding.

The upshot of all this is that Tesco is now open and trading but without the extension and the plant at that back that it originally wanted, without an alcohol license, and delivering along a route which a government inspector said was dangerous.

It's been reported that Tesco is also looking to open a store on East Road at the former Dreams showroom next to Blockbuster. My personal opinion: it's not Tesco as a business that bothers me so much - it meets the shopping needs of many people and I use it on occasions too; but I am bothered about the fact that a retailer that already has 51% of the grocery market in Cambridge should be seeking to open even more stores. When a single retailer becomes so dominant in an area, its no longer fair competition; it becomes a virtual monopoly which can drive competitors to the wall and that is not good for our society and our economy in the long run.

Hills Road Bridge and the future

The end is in sight! The central barrier is being restored and as soon as that is finished the bridge will be back to normal with all junctions restored as before. The next chapter for the bridge is a trial of new lane layouts designed to test a plan for new hybrid cycle lanes on both sides. This means single lanes leading into the bridge on both sides and two lanes exiting. If this works then work will start on implementing them next year. This will lead into a bigger project called 'Cambridge Gateway' which sees the construction of a new junction off the bridge for cyclists to access the railway station and a new junction for buses opposite Brooklands Avenue. Consultation with Councillors on this project has already started with public consultation to follow.

Tiverton House

East Area Committee on 3rd September, 7pm, at Cherry Trees Club, St. Matthews Street, will hear an application from the new owners to split one of the warden's flats in two and provide additional cycle storage. What we want is a comprehensive planning application for the whole development which will see 30 residents flats turned into 96 bedspaces for students. This is a dramatic intensifcation of the site and in our view constitutes a de facto change of use and will have a big impact on the community. Sadly, Council planning officers are looking at this very narrowly and will not require full planning permission. Come to the meeting and make your voices heard!

Speeding

As a result of a move supported by all local councillors, police have prioritised speeding on roads in East Area and have started monitoring local roads. Fines have already been issued and a progress report is expected at East Area Committee on Thursday, 3rd September. You can see the full agenda for East Area Committee on the Council's website - just click here.

Tesco Alcohol License hearing - update

2009-08-17T22:48:00.000+01:00

Tesco's application was rejected by the Licensing Sub-Committee this morning after a lengthy session. More to follow.

Tesco Alcohol License hearing

2009-08-16T16:13:00.006+01:00

Tesco are applying for an alcohol license for their new store on Mill Road which they plan to open despite being refused planning permission for an extension and air conditioning and refrigeration plant. They're pressing ahead anyway and plan to defy a ban on delivering to the front of the shop but Cambridge City Council have decided not to issue an injunction and will instead put the issue to East Area Committee on 3rd September after Tesco will have already opened. The No Mill Road Tesco Campaign will be seeking a judicial review of the Council's decision-making on this issue.

The license application to sell alcohol from 6am - 11pm will be heard by the Council's Licensing Sub-Committee at 10am on Monday, 17 August. Mill Road is in a Cumulative Impact Zone which means that it is up to the applicant to show that another license in this area will not add to problems of alcohol related crime and disorder. The Police have objected to the application and more than 120 representations have been received from the public.

I will be speaking on behalf of a Coleridge resident opposing the application because of its potential spillover impact on residential streets in our area. We already suffer from anti-social behaviour, graffiti, and damage from drunks passing through our streets.

For more see the No Mill Road Tesco website.

Congestion Charge

2009-07-21T20:40:00.004+01:00

It's been a hectic few weeks since the elections as I get to grip with my new duties as a County Councillor. Lots of meeting and large amounts of paper to read on a daily basis but gradually the mysteries of Cambridgeshire County Council are becoming clearer.

Today was an important day with a Council meeting and the presentation of the report by the Transport Commission set up to review the Council's controversial congestion charge proposals. The findings of Sir Brian Briscoe and Professor Tony Travers were that the County ought to bid as soon as possible for £500m of government funding available for public transport improvements in Cambridge and the County on the basis of an undertaking to the government that after these changes have been implemented, and if congestion exceeds an agreed limit, consultation would begin on introducing a congestion charge. They say that the earliest the public transport improvements could be completed is 2017 so congestion charge could not be considered any earlier than that.

The details of this proposal were left to be sorted out by others and the devil will be in the detail. They called for a better mechanism for measuring congestion which will be essential if a realistic congestion trigger point is to be established. It was widely accepted by councillors that even with major public transport improvements (buses, cycle lanes, road and junction improvements, the new Chesterton railway station, widening the A14), the projected growth of the region would still mean growing congestion although much less than would happen without the public transport investment. This would trigger a consultation on congestion charging after 2017 and assuming that agreement could be reached, a charge would be introduced.

The Commission also recommended against major discounts and exemptions for Cambridge residents and argued that residents, whether travelling in or out of the City, still added to congestion.

We wait to see how the Tory ruling group on the County Council respond to the report but rest assured that Labour will continue to oppose any charge which unfairly penalises Cambridge residents.

You can read the full report on the Cambridgeshire Transport Commission website at www.cambstransportcommission.co.uk and look out for further comment and press coverage.

County Council Elections - 4th June

2009-06-06T17:50:00.003+01:00

I would like to thank everyone who voted for me in Coleridge on 4th June. I won the seat with a 99 vote majority. The results were:

Tariq Sadiq (Labour) 929 - 36.3%
Andrew Bower (Conservative) 830 - 32.5%
Thomas Yates (Lib Dem) 325 - 12.7%
Valerie Hopkins (Green) 314 - 12.3%
Albert Watts (UKIP) 159 - 6.2%

Turnout: c. 41%

I would like to thank my main opponent, Andrew Bower, for fighting a good campaign.

Labour undoubtedly had a bad election nationwide and we were sad to lose two excellent County Councillors in Cambridge, Paul Sales in Abbey and Elizabeth Hughes in Kings Hedges. Councillors from all parties at Shire Hall have told me of their regret that Cambridgeshire has lost two hardworking people who have given so much to their communities over many years.

Given the poor results elsewhere we are pleased to have held Coleridge and Cherry Hinton and we are convinced that this is down to working hard and representing residents against the City and County Councils that often ignore them. However, we know that nationally we have a lot to do to try to rebuild trust in politics and politicians after the expenses scandal and we can only do that by staying in touch with peoples lives, protecting jobs, and investing in public services.

There are many important campaigns and issues that I look forward to working on over the next four years. Like all our achievements so far, I can only do this with the help and co-operation of many volunteers and residents and I would like to thank all of them for their help and encouragement.

Me and my colleagues will continue to keep everyone informed of what's going on through this blog and our regular newsletters and leaflets. Why not send your email address to tariqsadiq@btinternet.com and I will send you updates on local issues and wider City and County developments.

Thank You.

Tiverton House - answers still needed from Whitfield Group

2009-05-23T17:33:00.010+01:00

We would like to thank all the 40 or so residents who turned out for the Public Meeting on Tiverton House on 20th May at St. Thomas's Hall. All Coleridge City Councillors and County Councillor Martin Ballard were there to present the arguments and listen to residents' views. We are also grateful to Mr Peter Carter, the City Council's Senior Planning Officer, for giving up his own time and explaining some of the difficult and complex planning issues. Mr Dennis Whitfield, the developer, also came and contributed to the discussion.

The only people missing were Lib Dem Executive Councillors, Catherine Smart and Rod Cantrill, who both had other engagements. It would have been useful to have had them there because they are the ones who make the decisions regarding Tiverton House and have not consulted residents to date. This meeting therefore would have been a great opportunity for them to put that right but it was a pity that they didn't even submit a written statement as we suggested. We have however offered to organise another public meeting on a date they can make and we shall remind them of that offer.

What was clear from the meeting was that we need more information from the developer about what his plans are for the building:

will additional accommodation units be created out of existing communal space?
how many bedspaces will there be in total?
what will be the overall impact on car and cycle parking, traffic, noise, refuse collection, health and safety etc.?

Until we know that information we cannot know what planning permission will be required. We think that the whole project should be the subject of planning permission because it represents a fundamental change of use with a significant impact on the community however it seems that planning law does not see it that way.

There was a lot of discussion about what type of institution Tiverton House had been. The level and intensity of care provided to its former residents determined its classification under planning law and thus affected whether planning permission is now required for change of use. However, it seems that even though it had residential wardens, Tiverton House did not provide the intensity of care that would have put it in a different class to that which is now proposed for its use as a dwelling for students/young professionals. Therefore it seems that no planning permission is needed.

We do need a definitive statement on planning rather than just an opinion. There may well be precedents in planning case law that could require planning permission in this case but again, until we get more information from the developer we can't really move forward on this.

In the meantime, while work is going on there does need to be a mechanism for residents to communicate any problems caused by the presence of builders such as vans inadvertently blocking access for residents and visitors. A 'careline' was suggested by one resident and we would urge Whitfield Group to adopt this idea.

Finally, what the meeting showed was that whatever happens, the residents of the Tiverton estate and their local councillors are willing to work with the developer and stand ready to welcome any new residents, whoever they are and wherever they come from, and will do their best to preserve the harmony and unity of the community.

We will of course continue to keep you informed through our leaflets and visits. Please do continue to tell us what you think.

WHERE HAVE ALL THE (COLERIDGE REC) FLOWERS GONE ? and …WHY DID THE COUNTY COUNCIL CHOP DOWN ALL THE TREES IN THE STATION SHORT STAY CARPARK ?

2009-04-15T20:51:00.004+01:00

FLOWERS FIRST
As you can see from the photo ABOVE of me and my gardening hands, gone are the days when the City Council maintained the great seasonal flower and bulb display at the entrance to Coleridge Rec – all that now exists are tough survivors from past years.

It all went sour when the Liberal Democrats removed seasonal flowers from beds across the city two years ago, along with the closure of the Councils greenhouses at Cherry Hinton Hall.

The argument was a nonsense one that less flowers meant that the council was greener, particularly as the flowers they still use now travel miles to Cambridge by road. And , we were promised permanent planting for Coleridge Rec.

Sadly, the City Council has not even managed that.

Embrassed silence at the other end – we are still waiting for answers to our questions on what is happening back in March, so we will be raising this issue at the full City Council meeting this month. We want proper flower beds back. We love our Rec - does the Council love it too ?

AND NOW TREES
At the last Council meeting, the City Council admitted in answer to our questions that over 600 often mature trees have recently been felled across the city.

We will also be raising the damage that is being caused, as in the example of the photo ALSO ABOVE of the Station trees chopped down by the County Council guided bus contractor with no consultation or thought.

The response we have had is that these special London plane trees at the Station were a) somehow inferior and b) in the way for the Guided Bus southern link.

Its also a sign of what is planned with the felling of most Station Road trees if and when the CB1 redevelopment goes ahead. We don’t see why schemes cannot be built around trees, and we need to stop the felling across Cambridge.

So we plan a Council motion on TREES at next week’s council meeting.

'The Council shares the shock felt by many Cambridge residents at the rate of mature tree destruction in the city over the last six months on land in the public realm, including felling by both the city council and county council.

The Council agrees

a) that all current and future proposals for significant or sensitive tree felling in the public realm be required to first go through effective public consultation and then be reviewed by the Planning Committee

b) that the Terms of Reference for this two stage process be developed by the Chair of Planning Committee and opposition spokespersons, with a view to its implementation as a matter of urgency, and

c) asks the Director of Environment and Planning, pending adoption of the proposed procedure, to ensure effective public consultation on what he judges to be applications for significant or sensitive tree felling in the public realm, and to refer such applications to the Planning Committee for determination.'

We want independent regulation to protect the city's precious tree stock, particularly on council and highway land.

Maybe the ruling Councillors at both the City and County Councils will now start to take the city’s great mature trees more seriously, and restore our special flower beds while they are about it.

Call to halt Tiverton House work

2009-04-15T17:01:00.009+01:00

We are calling for a halt to construction work at Tiverton House, the former sheltered home off Perne Road, which is being converted into flats for up to 100 students. The works are being carried out even before completion of the sale and granting of planning permission.

After lying empty for well over a year, Cambridge City Council has given permission for major works by student flats developer, Whitfield Group, even though it’s still council property. Residents are extremely concerned at plans to convert the 30 flats and two wardens’ homes into up to 40 two and three-bedroom student flats including plans for 20 totally new bedrooms in the roof space.

We opposed the original sale of Tiverton House by the Lib Dem City Council and organised a petition for it to be retained for use by the elderly. Labour Councillors also moved a council committee amendment earlier to restrict the purposes for which the building could be sold because of fears that it could end up as student accommodation, but this was rejected by the Lib Dem controlled Strategy and Resources Committee and Executive Councillor, Rod Cantrill.

Council officials have indicated that planning permission will only be required if extra flats are created. But we think that given the scale of the works underway a single application is needed for the whole plan and it is nonsense to argue that this is only an application for five or eight flats.

A huge amount of internal reconstruction is already taking place with masonry and debris piled high outside on the open carpark and in rooms inside the building. There is also a large yellow skip at the site with a ladder on the side raising concerns about children and safety.

What happens if the sale falls through or councillors deny permission? How are they going to put the building back to how it was? We need urgent clarification on what the Council has agreed with Whitfield Group.

Many local people are also opposed to up to 100 students arriving in their quiet neighbourhood and are calling for the Council to carry out full consultation. They are concerned about noise, lack of parking space, extra rubbish and the impact on services such as drainage which is already weak in the area.

There is clearly a need for affordable, publicly-owned older people's housing and the Council has a duty to provide this rather than selling out and damaging the local community. We believe that that there is also a potential conflict of interest here between the Council maximising financial gain and pushing it through as quickly as possible, and the Council’s role as planning authority. This has worrying echoes of the Folk Festival tickets fiasco and like that could also end up rebounding. Are they rushing this through to cover the black hole in their finances caused by £9,000,000 frozen in Icelandic banks and the loss of £644,000 Folk Festival ticket money?”

We have arranged to meet with City planning and property officials on-site on Friday morning, 17 April.

TELL US WHAT YOU THINK! WE WANT TO GET AS MANY COMMENTS AS POSSIBLE TO USE IN ANY PLANNING APPLICATION THAT MIGHT COME FORWARD.

Updates (a) Tiverton House Purchases and (b) Perne Road/Radegund Road shops/controlling nasty graffiti

2009-04-04T13:51:00.010+01:00

(a) Tiverton House

Whitfield Group are the company who are buying Tiverton House

So it's interesting that local research shows that they own or manage a large number of letting houses in Coleridge and neighbouring wards. The photo to the left shows an example of their focus on student accommodation

More can be found out by visiting their website including (as at April 2009) their letting flats and houses being let on Perne Avenue, Adkins Corner, Cherry Hinton Road and other roads
http://www.whitfield-group.co.uk/list_property.php?type=student&sloc=Cambridge

(b) Perne Road/Radegund Road shops
Further to the earlier graffiti coverage, it's great do see the blacking out of the problem at the shop - hope it lasts (see photo above). It also sets a standard which we will be pushing the landlords there to retain. What do you think ? We think there's better colours than chocolate brown.

Tiverton House sold for student flats?

2009-04-03T17:43:00.004+01:00

WE WANT YOUR VIEWS ON NEW PLANS FOR TIVERTON HOUSE!

The City Council has just exchanged contracts for the sale of Tiverton House to the Whitfield Group. Whitfield specialise in developing and letting out residential flats, focusing on students.

The building is unlikely to be demolished but Labour Coleridge councillors are concerned that it could be converted into accommodation for 100 students. If true we believe that this would be a totally inappropriate over-development in such a quiet settled area, and with many older people and only 6 to 8 parking spaces on site. What do you think?

Neighbours will also have noticed that Whitfield have already started minor works before even owning the building. This supports our theory that the aim is to let it to students from the Autumn.

Anticipating that this might happen, Coleridge Councillors in June 2008 obtained written advice from City Council planners, saying that this change would require a full proper planning application to convert the building OR change the number of units. Contact us if you want a copy.

It also confirms our fears, when we opposed the original sale terms. Liberal Democrat Executive Councillors insisted on selling to the highest bidder. They also rejected a Labour amendment for Tiverton House to be redeveloped for older people, and had received earlier financial offers for this too. After all, there is just as growing a need for accommodation for the over-60s!

We understand sale completion is due on 11 May. We want to see the building in use, and redevelopment not demolition, as it has been left empty since December 2007 when the Lib Dem Council moved the last residents out. But we want you to have a say on what is being proposed.

We are pressing the council to release full details of Whitfield’s plans because we believe planning permission will be required. We expect to learn more later next week after the developer meets with Planners.

Working together, we can try to change the plans for Tiverton House!

Tell us what you think!

Tackling Crime on Brackyn and Corrie Roads

2009-04-01T17:33:00.004+01:00

1) TACKLING CRIME ON THE CORRIE/BRACKYN CUT THROUGH – AND PROPOSAL WE HAVE DEVELOPED WITH A BRACKYN ROAD RESIDENT AND COUNCIL OFFICERS FOR AN EXTRA CUT THROUGH STREET LIGHT

It was very sad news that a Brackyn Road resident was recently attacked at the Brackyn Road end of the cut through and had a bag snatched by three youths in the dark. A second night incident on Brackyn Road has also been reported to us, which may be related. Glad to report that both the people attacked are OK.

I have led the response to this issue, working closely with residents. We backed the installation of mobile CCTV on Brackyn Road. I then organised a site meeting with county lighting experts, and Cambridge safer city staff and Street Scene last Friday with fellow ward Councillor Lewis Herbert.

The meeting ordered works to sort out the broken light cover at the Corrie Road end of the cut through, cost a planned extra footpath street light, and get the adjacent vegetation cut back to make it safer,
and ensure the lighting actually works !

What’s your view on the proposal for an extra light column for the Brackyn Road/Corrie Road cut through ?

RING OR EMAIL ME IF YOU SUPPORT THIS SCHEME. CITY FUNDING DEPENDS ON THIS COMING FROM RESIDENTS, NOT COUNCILLORS ! WE WILL ALSO KNOCK ON NEARBY DOORS WITH LOCAL RESIDENTS.

The column would be six metres high, cost approx £2000 and stand on the path close to the brick wall at the Brackyn Road end. There is a city funding pot called ‘Safer City’ grants if the County will not fund this.

We can provide detail on the proposed light unit which will be arranged to point all lighting downward.

We will also call on the nearest properties to see what your views are, as people closest to the location rightly have a big say. And, contrary to an opportunist recent Conservative leaflet, the council expects ANY survey and initiative to be led by residents to support this funding application, NOT Councillors.

Until this work is completed, we are also very concerned about a late night risk here. While a new signed pedestrian and cycle route will be great day time, the city council signposted route through Corrie and Brackyn Roads for pedestrians could have the potential to lead to late night problems, particularly until lighting and safety issues are sorted. We also have concerns about the Corrie and Rustat Road cut through late at night, with no one overlooking it. The signposted route may also cause residents other problems.

YOU CAN HELP IN OTHER WAYS TOO !

Our hard working Coleridge police, including PCSOs Michael Stribling and Mark Mitcham also need YOUR EYES to see and report any incidents or suspicious behaviour, anything you see.

Bicycles and even cars are also being dumped at the end of Corrie and Brackyn Roads, so let the police know what you see, and let Councillors know what we can do too. We have also asked for the fence between Brackyn Road and Davy Road flats to be fixed, and will raised it again and again to get it priority.

Coleridge is one of the lowest crime areas in Cambridge, and we and you want it back that way !

2) TACKLING GRAFFITI ‘ARTISTS’ TOO

We also toured around the ward with our local City Ranger and made a long list of sites still to have graffiti removed. Several graffiti artists have also been targeting Coleridge, including one who tags ‘MELON’ who has previously been a major nuisance elsewhere in Cambridge.

Please report any graffiti artists you see in operation to the police or Councillors
– likely to be at very odd hours.

And report graffiti to be cleaned to Street Scene on 01223 458282.

WHY DO LIBERAL DEMOCRAT CITY COUNCILLORS TALK IT SO LARGE ON BEING GREEN … AND THEN FAIL TO EVEN SWITCH THE LIGHTS OFF FOR ‘EARTH HOUR’

2009-03-28T23:22:00.005Z

I claim to be an environmentalist, having earnt a decent living for 27 years from expanding recycling and reducing resource wastage by councils and companies.

Some of it comes from being half-Scottish, and the other half Northern, with thrift being a major theme I both inherited and grew up with. I enjoy switching unneeded lights off.

So, after sitting in the dark through Earth Hour (8.30 to 9.30pm this Saturday 28 March), albeit while watching TV, I thought I would pop out (at 9pm) to see if the City Council was following suit.

I also went as the city's Liberal Democrats had issued a special press release (on 23rd March) telling everyone how seriously the Council would take Earth Hour, and because they regularly lecture Cambridge residents on how green they are.

As the photos ABOVE show, ALL the local Coleridge Council Office main lights were left full on throughout Earth Hour (details also listed in full below). Virtually every light in the Council's South Area Office burning bright at Cherry Hinton Road, Cambridge.

The South Area Housing Office looked more like 'Blackpool blooming Illuminations' as my Dad used to say about lights left on. It's also evidence clear as day how the Liberal Democrats regularly talk empty hot air on the environment while their council's actions repeatedly fail to match their exagerated claims.

Labour Councillors raise energy and money wastage but continue to be ignored when we identify electricity and money that can be saved at Council offices closed for the whole weekend and at other facilities.

Meanwhile, the Leader of the Council Ian Nimmo-Smith issues pretty pompous press releases, and the Earth Hour one said that "as most city council buildings will be shut during Earth Hour the (council's) lights will be out anyway". (oh really?)

SEE www.cambridge.gov.uk/ccm/content/news-releases/2009/cambridge-city-council-signs-up-for-earth-hour.en;jsessionid=7DBAF490EC7A3296BE0B86904C9EF1C7

Councillor Nimmo-Smith also grandly added "This is a message voiced by millions of people, organisations and local authorities around the world and one which Cambridge City Council would like to echo".

A promise he reiterated, as did Councillor Rod Cantrill Executive Councillor for Resources with great assurances of action, at their last full committee meeting when they both lauded how green they were being.

Labour Councillors expect the pattern of energy waste was the just same with other housing and local Council office lights blazing brightly across the city during Earth Hour. We are also concerned because the Liberal Democrats have let down the World Wildlife Foundation who sponsor Earth Hour initiative across the world.

So much for decisive action or even small actions to tackle climate change, but perhaps they are being consistent in one way.

Their failure on Earth Hour is just the same mismanagement as the £9,000,000 in resident's money looking lost in Icelandic banks plus interest, and the 2008 now higher £644,000 total loss of all Cambridge Folk festival internet ticket income.

Ring me on 721027 if you want more on that one, particularly as the Council has scrapped its promise of an independent external inquiry on the Folk Festival, in favour of an internal review. You may ask why ? Hope they want to get to the truth. And have they really tried to get resident's money back ?

See the Cambridge News coverage on this and search their website for more.
Will add more after Monday's Committee meeting. We will then see whether the Committee dominated by Liberal Democrats wants to uncover the truth on why Council chose a company that failed to pay the council's money back, and do they want further investigation ?
We will see.

Meanwhile, there has also been no proper investigation to learn from the council's massive Icelandic losses.

PS. Back on the lighting theme, lights on at South Area Housing Office throughout 'Earth Hour' included

- the halogen ceiling lights in both the secure payments office and the main public reception area
- fully lit main office upstairs
- lit ground floor office
- lit downstairs hallway and brightly lit first floor hall
- a large floodlight covering the empty and locked staff carpark, and
- the main outside light over the side entrance.

Maybe not enough to ensure it can be seen from outer space but a very good try.

Labour Councillors also regularly raise wasted energy at other council sites, including Abbey Swimming pool where the main pool doors were left open last winter during most cold days.
Its also hugely unpleasant for swimmers including child learners and the over 60s, when all the hot air that costs us all so much to produce goes ... out the door.

HSBC branch also to close

2009-03-28T14:21:00.002Z

You will probably have seen the article in Cambridge News yesterday about plans to close the HSBC branch on Cherry Hinton Road (http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news_home/displayarticle.asp?id=403174). Here is the letter I have sent in response to the news:

Dear Editor,

At a time when banks are being urged to return to good old-fashioned lending and saving, it is alarming to read of branches being closed (CN, 27 March). First Cambridge Building Society and now HSBC have announced plans to close branches on Cherry Hinton Road.

It is only because of the greed and hubris of banks like HSBC and their ill-informed forays into exotic financial instruments that the banking industry finds itself in this parlous position. They lost sight of their basic function which is helping individual savers and borrowers and small businesses. Part of this trend of moving away from the customer involved closing branches and relying on off-shore call centres. We know now that losing touch with their customers was one of the reasons they made bad lending decisions and, although it is probably unrealistic to expect all banks to go back to the days when the local bank manager knew his or her customers intimately and could make lending decisions that were both good for the borrower and the bank, surely closing yet more local branches isn't going to help.

It is sad that the Cambridge Building Society branch is closing too. A well-used branch with lots of local customers is exactly what we need so why is it being closed? It seems particularly odd that they're doing this when on their website they boast of their "strong branch network in the local area" and go on to say "We know that our members value our network of local branch offices. The convenience of having a branch close to home or work makes a big difference. In response, we continue to invest in our branch network..." (http://www.cambridgebs.co.uk/about-us/introducing-the-cambridge.php). A clear case of saying one thing and doing the opposite; an empty promise leading to an empty premise.

This community in Coleridge has already suffered from the ill-judged decision to close St. John's Post Office, which I opposed, and whose remaining retail business is now also struggling to survive in competition with the recently opened Tesco store at Cambridge Leisure. Will we now end up with yet more empty premises in an area which has a rapidly growing population? Is there no room any more for local branches and small independent businesses? I hope very much that new local enterprises will replace the ones under threat of closure but I fear that everything that makes a community local and friendly is being lost. I for one will fight to make sure that doesn't happen.

Tariq Sadiq
County Council Candidate, Coleridge
Coleridge Labour Team

Building Society Update ... They Are Not Budging on Closure

2009-03-04T23:28:00.005Z

I met Stephen Mitcham Chief Executive of Cambridge Building Society and his senior staff today to express opposition to the closure on behalf of Coleridge residents and users

We discussed their reasoning for the Cherry Hinton Road branch closure and then (as I wasnt changing their mind) focused on the biggest impact, helping local people who don’t have cars and who only have a building society account.

The Building Society is not budging from its closure plan but will be in touch with users via the branch and will ensure that people get quality advice including on the range of services that can be sorted by phone etc

They recognise that most people will not find their original suggestion of the Cherry Hinton village branch of much use as an alternative, so are promoting the other nearest branches, Mill Road and St Andrews Street , on our edge of town.

They have plans to improve their branch at 208 Mill Road, including adding disabled access, as this branch is an option for some in Coleridge e.g. people close enough to the Citi2 bus.

As I reflected in my original letter to them, Cambridge Building Society is fairly democratic and in the best sense traditional, with values that survived the privatisations and demutualisations of the last Conservative government.

Sorry that nothing I could say would change their minds. There are still major promises for the Building Society to keep to, including no further branch closures.

All its branches are vital, including those in many of the ‘necklace’ of villages around the city, with no equivalent like a bank anywhere nearby.

And Cambridge Building Society also has a load of advantages over the big societies that were sold on to big badly run banks, whose misguided actions have cost the economy and country dear.

Why are Cambridge Building Society Proposing to Close this Well Used Branch ?

2009-03-01T16:21:00.004Z

As reported in Saturday's Cambridge News, I am meeting the Cambridge Building Society Chief Executive next Wednesday 4th March to protest at the proposal to shut their branch on Cherry Hinton Road which is relied on by so many locally, including older people with accounts there
... and a closure that is planned without any consultation, or even any notice in the window saying what they plan to do
www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news_home/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=395608

BELOW is the text of the letter I sent to their Chief Executive last week
... following the shock announcement that they plan to close the branch ...

Dear Mr Mitcham

This is a very popular and accessible branch and its closure will upset a lot of people in the local community at the city end of Cherry Hinton Road, particularly as the suggested nearest branch in the middle of Cherry Hinton village is well over a mile away, and no good for local people and pensioners without cars.

As a regular customer there myself for many years, I know that there is often a queue and rarely remember calling in when there are no other customers.

And as a local ward Councillor, I have to ask the base for this decision.

1. What are the criteria for closing it ?

2. What is the turnover at the Cherry Hinton Road branch ?

3. Did you assess it like Post Office closures were assessed ?
(where there is at least clear criteria and consultation, even if we didnt agree re the closure of the St John's Post Office on Hills Road)

4. Are there to be further branch closures ?

Overall, Cambridge Building Society delivers an effective, traditional service, a far cry from the building societies that were privatised in the early 1990s. Local Councillors hope it will continue to do so, with an accessible branch network.

Regards

Councillor Lewis Herbert
Coleridge Ward
721027

FOLLOW UP
Following the publicity, Labour Councillors and Tariq have already been contacted by concerned residents.

We want to investigate what policies and criteria if any are behind this decision, and their future plans. As I said in my letter, we have had a lot of respect for the Cambridge Building Society. Whether or not its too late to change this decision is now over to them.

To other residents I say, contact us with any comments, before Wednesday or after.

As a Building Society member, I also plan to go to the next AGM and press the issues there too.
Anyone want to join me ?

Coleridge Councillor Martin Ballard Celebrates Being 80 Years Young …

2009-03-01T15:58:00.003Z

Coleridge County Councillor Martin Ballard celebrated his 80th birthday this Saturday so here is a short account of his recent contribution in Coleridge, and a bit more about Martin and his massive stamina and generous spirited work on behalf of people locally and beyond.

Martin has served Coleridge nearly eight years as our County Councillor, and also previously led the County Labour Group and chaired the Social Services Scrutiny Committee.

In these roles he won wide respect from all sectors including all parties at Shire Hall, including by championing the rights of vulnerable people of all ages, as well as for his rigorous unpicking of county budgets to ensure our money is all well spent.

Martin regularly meets Coleridge residents on the doorstep during Sunday visits and has taken up issues for hundreds of Coleridge residents with County officers or City colleagues – contrary to an outrageous, nasty and false claim in a recent Tory leaflet.

Some of the Coleridge issues Martin has campaigned on include

- making sure the (long delayed by the County Council) plans to improve Hills Road Bridge include proper pedestrian and cyclist provision. Shame the county wasted the opportunity of all the current massive bridge work delays and failed to improve the bridge for us locals too
- retaining the 114 bus, but still some work to be done there
- securing junction improvements on Coleridge, Cherry Hinton and other roads, and successfully pressing for yellow lining (until the county slashed that budget)

- sheltered housing including particular needs of people with disabilities

- local schools and youth provision, and benefits and services for older more below.

‘It has been a great privilege to represent the people of Coleridge since 2001,’ said Martin. ‘I will not be restanding in June and I will then miss the regular meetings with Coleridge residents,’ he added. ‘Fortunately, I have a fine potential successor as Labur candidate in Tariq Sadiq, a local Coleridge resident.

Martin has invested much of his recent effort in improving Coleridge schools, helping the rebirth of Coleridge School as Trustee of the combined Parkside Federation and also as a governor of Ridgefield Primary School, two roles he plans to continue.

His focus on local vulnerable younger people is also shown as a member of the Rustat Road Foyer’s committee, assisting its successful integration into Coleridge.

Martin is a historian by training, and enjoyed a long and successful career in teaching and publishing. He has also written a wide range of fiction and non-fiction books, many for younger readers.

Having a longstanding commitment to physical fitness, he practices the message he promotes to other older people. 'If you want to really enjoy old age … Stay active !’. Martin rowed for Jesus College, including sculling in the winning Tideway Head of the River crew in 1952. Later active in half-marathons and fun triathlons, Martin shows his stamina as he cycles quickly around Coleridge and Cambridge and swims his lengths regularly at Parkside Pool. Martin is even planning to enter the 80+ category in this autumn's Indoor Rowing Championships, practicing exactly what he preaches.

Martin is not slowing down. His special interest is African affairs and his latest book ‘White Man's God' - published late 2008 SEE PICTURE - explores the cultural impact of Christian missionaries on African society.

After standing down from the Council in June, Martin will continue as a local school governor, and continue his campaigns for the elderly and disabled, including his determination that people get the right benefits and support they are entitled to.

On behalf of Jeremy, Tariq and myself … all we can add is that we hope we all have the same energy and drive to help people at 80 that Martin still delivers, week in week out.

Perne Road shops to be Redeveloped

2009-02-19T17:36:00.002Z

Leading for the Coleridge Labour Team, on 9 February I met the owners of the shops at the corner of Radegund Road and Perne Road and learned of plans to redevelop the building into 19 new one-bedroom and studio flats and retail units. Originally the plan was to demolish it entirely and start again but because the existing shop in the centre of the site, Cambridge Bumps, holds a long lease and has opted to remain trading rather than move out, the developers, Almaren, have decided instead to refurbish and extend the existing building.

The preliminary plans provide for three extended flats and three retail units on the ground floor, eight flats on the first floor, and a further eight flats on a new second floor which will be built into a new roof space. The total height of the building is expected to be slightly higher than neighbouring properties. The whole frontage will be smartened up, retaining the red brick, which is considered to be strong and solid, and a new rounded sheet metal roof is proposed by the architect.

Eight parking spaces are currently proposed at the rear with a one-way vehicle entrance on Radegund Road and an exit on Perne Road. However, I have asked them to review this because eight spaces are likely to be inadequate for the number of flats and I am also concerned about traffic flow near local schools.

Almaren, which is part of Luminus Group, plans to create flats for rent at an intermediate level or shared ownership targeted at key workers like nurses or, as I suggested, local teachers given the proximity of three schools. I have also asked them to consider making a contribution towards the cost of an additional school crossing on Perne Road, which is something that I have been campaigning for.

The developers will now consult the Highways authority (the County Council) and then the local City planners. They will show the plans to the public possibly in March and will hope for planning permission by September. Construction is likely to take 12 months to complete. I have stressed the need to fully consult immediate neighbours who will be most directly affected by the development and give local residents as many opportunities as possible to see and comment on the proposals.

Finally, these are early days and the plans are likely to develop further after consultations; however, I am pleased that some progress is at last being made on this site which has been an eyesore for a long time. I campaigned hard to get it cleaned up and to stop the drinking and drug-taking that was taking place there and now I would really like to see a attractive new building with good local shops which we can all be proud of.

If you have any comments or ideas please do get in touch with me at the address or email above.

Police Surgery, 6.30pm, 19th March, Romsey Mill

2009-02-13T16:20:00.003Z

Here's a message from your local Police Community Support Officers via ecops:

Reply To: ecops.coleridge@cambs.pnn.police.uk

Hi All,

We have arranged to hold regular police surgeries , Romsey Mill have very kindly given us permission to hold these surgeries in the Jordan room at Romsey Mill. We have arranged for one surgery to be held per month, It is an opportunity for you to 'drop-in' and meet your local officers, and also to report or inform us of any problems or issues you are aware of. The first of these surgeries has been arranged for the 19th MARCH 2009 at 18:30 until 20:30. This will be advertised on the Cambridgeshire Constabulary Website www.cambs.police.uk and we will also be advertising on posters displayed around Coleridge. We will send another E-Cops message out nearer the time to remind you of the date.

Remember 19th MARCH 2009 at 18:30 until 20:30 at Romsey Mill in the Jordan Room.

We hope to see you there.

Take Care
Mike and Mark