EARLY ONE MORNING.........................
Liberal Democrat Councillor for Stansted North on Uttlesford District Council and former Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group Learn more
by Alan Dean on 5 January, 2015
DRAFT LETTER FROM UTTLESFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL TO MR ROY FOSTER, INSPECTOR, THE PLANNING INSPECTORATE
January 2015
Dear Mr Foster
RE: Examination of the Uttlesford Local Plan (ULP)
Thank you for your final conclusions from the terminated examination of the Uttlesford Local Plan which we received on 19 December 2014.
We cannot deny your final comment (para 4.6) that your statement on 3 December and the contents of your final letter are indeed unwelcome news to the Council. In agreeing the plan for submission for examination last April we are on record as being proud of the plan, so December’s verdict by you came as a shock to those of us who had until then been confident that the plan was sound.
We have considered the options set out in paragraph 4.6. Our initial preference was to ask you to continue the examination. In fact, when you made your statement on 3 December we were certain that you said that “much of the plan is sound”. We made much of that in our subsequent public statements and downplayed the negatives by making much of the claim that the inspection had only been stopped. We had hoped that it might it might be started again soon, after only a few minor tweaks.
However, we are mindful, on careful reading both of your statements, that neither of them contains the words “much of the plan is sound”. Moreover, you have ended your most recent statement with what appears to be Hobson’s Choice. If we ask for the examination to be continued, you have made it clear that you “will not be able to recommend changes that would make the plan sound”. We reluctantly take that to mean the plan is not sound and cannot easily be made sound.
Our choice, therefore, is to withdraw the plan and in due course to submit a new plan. We will aim to do this in 2016.
We recognise that the NE Elsenham proposal is unsustainable primarily because, to use your terminology, Elsenham “lies some distance from the strategic (road) network in a location embedded within a network of rural roads acknowledged as currently unfit to serve expansion on the scale proposed”. We had hoped that this would somehow come right in time but must concede that the case put forward by this Council and Essex Highways was weak and came over as an attempt to apply solutions whose suitability and delivery are not based on firm evidence.
In fact, we concede that your comment at the end of paragraph 2.21 is one we should apply much more rigorously. Essex Highways did indeed say that they should have had more traffic study evidence before they rolled over and gave their blessing to the 800-home, foot-in-the-door application at NE Elsenham. We concede that we should cease to make our planning decisions based on incomplete evidence. We have felt obliged to massage the data in the past simply to shore up our 5-year land supply for housing regardless of the consequences for deliverability and even for the sustainability of past approvals. Our New Year Resolution is “Evidence, Infrastructure, Decision” in that order.
We note the rap across the knuckles you have given us over our attempts at Sustainability Appraisals at Elsenham. It has been a painful experience, made worse by your rap!
You have spotted correctly (para. 3.5) that the choice of NE Elsenham as a strategic housing local was a party-political decision without much planning basis; it had not been supported by professional advice. Our officers’ problem was they had to deal with a senior member from Takeley who was dead against more development in her patch. Way back in August 2007 she pushed for a large tranche to be relocated to Elsenham and two other senior members of the Administration just ran with it almost as an ideological mission.
So what could we officers do but try to come up with a story that fitted the decision? Everyone knows that planning is not an exact science. It’s not determined by Newton’s Laws of Gravity. There are so many fiddle-factors that you can stick into sustainability assessments to bias the outcome to the answer your political masters want. So that’s what we did; but now you have exposed us as emperor and servants of the emperor with few clothes remaining.
We promise to be much more objective in future. We promise never again to stitch up decisions like the Elsenham one in private behind closed doors. We accept that by previously doing what we should have not done, we have wasted almost eight years and incalculable amounts of public money on an Uttlesford Local Plan from which the one “strategic”, key element has been removed, invalidating much of the remaining plan.
Finally, we agree to restart the plan by properly identifying the Objectively Assessed Housing Need over coming months. As you will have deduced, this has been a thorny issue and one again driven by party politics. We have learned our lesson; that one is eventually found out when one promises to reduce housing numbers based on undeliverable election pledges. We feel our motto going forward should be “Evidence, Evidence, Evidence”. You can fool the public some of the time, but when the evidence catches up with you, it is very painful.
We made a dumb decision in November 2013 when we conceded the need to bump up the housing forecast the last time by dumping most of the extra ones at Elsenham. We promise not to do anything so poorly thought through once we know the outcome of the 2015 Housing Market Assessment and have transparently taken into account the need for affordable housing. After all, we are always blowing the Council’s Trumpet about our successes in delivering new affordable housing, but if we haven’t got the basic needs right, what chance do we have of doing the best we can for those in most need?
We are your obedient and grateful servants,
Cllr (leading member of Cabinet) Mr (leading officer of Council)
(Mr Forster’s letter may be read here.)
45 Comments
It doesn’t give much clue as to what the strategy should be and appears to suggest he was right about his endorsement of massive expansion in Saffron Walden and Dunmow.
By the way, August 2017 hasn’t happened yet.
Typically petty. There has been NO endorsement of massive expansion in either Walden or Dunmow but Daniel never lets the facts get in the way of his agenda.
I wonder why he bothers to post, given his contempt for all others who might not share his omniscient view.
Well, newsflash D, the current administration have made a total mess of the local plan but there is every possibility that a new administration will be able to salvage something from the wreckage, regardless of whether you approve or otherwise. Frankly, I could care less, your input has been relentlessly negative and your understanding of matters is considerably less than you appear to believe.
Respect has to be earned. Contempt similarly. You have much to learn.
Mr Mackman: I see no disrespect in what I have said. The point is that this letter talks about the failure in relation to Elsenham, but I think a lot of residents in other settlements are concerned about massive expansion and there’s no mention of that.
Alan mentioned a strategic approach and I want to know what that means. Should there be a single site with 11,000+ houses or should the plans for Walden and Dunmow be kept as they are and an alternative to Elsenham be found, eg Great Chesterford or Takeley? Just how much can be taken from the original plan that the Inspector has criticised?
I dislike your constantly hostile manner towards me, which is rude, intemperate and aggressive. I don’t believe I deserve contempt for asking questions on my ward representative’s blog, who is also leader of the council’s official opposition. Moreover, as a resident, I feel I deserve far better, regardless of whether you feel I am being negative.
There will always be those who find it easier to play the man, not the ball.
In Arduis, Fidelis
Graham
Any danger of an apology for your unthinking support for the draft local plan? You may recall that several opportunities were presented for the council to stop and reconsider but the Tory group refused to consider them.
The consequences for the Tory group in May will be fun to witness. Four years of mindless political tinkering with the plan demand that the group responsible get taken apart.
I look forward to the election, I have every reason to be optimistic. As to Latin, what can I say beyond ‘Ad victorem spolias’. Look on the bright side, you will still be a doctor.
Typo corrected, thanks.
Dan, the inspector used the term “strategic” in the context of Elsenham. He quotes from the Local Plan: “a large strategic allocation” in his para. 2.1. He also quotes the council as describing Elsenham as a “new settlement”. The inspector thinks that the proposal was a “major village extension”. I think all this indicates that there has been little strategic thinking at all, but rather various attempts to entitle an allocation of differing sizes from time to time without any vision for the district as a whole.
I am not prepared to speculate on the future outcome; that would be decision-making without evidence, a trait for which the inspector obliquely criticises UDC for past practice.
There can be no doubt that the demise of Fairfield’s Elsenham puts the spotlight on other parts of the district. How that will shape up in the next two years is an unknown about which it would be unwise to speculate too soon. We are unlikely to have reached any conclusion on revised annual number before summer this year because the evidence is not yet available.
Actually Daniel I owe you an unreserved apology.
Someone was trying to make trouble for me and the evidence suggested it was you. It now emerges that the culprit was a tree-trimming, truth-clipping piece of garbage.
Evidently some people have nothing better to do than trawl the internet looking for stuff they think they can use to harm their betters.
I’m embarrassed at my mistake and I trust that you will accept my apology in the spirit it is offered.
I don’t accept your apology. You have repeatedly been rude to me and made similar comments, so I think your apology is disingenous. Your excuse on this blog makes absolutely no sense to me. What are you talking about?
While the Local Plan is bound to cause great anxiety, I see that there are tremendous opportunities for Uttlesford in order to secure services for the future, provide adequate and genuinely affordable housing for those in need and resolve long-standing problems. But as this is election year, lunacy has broken out and we’ll get no rational argument or probing questions. It’s just turning into a nasty political and personal fight and residents in general are not interested.
As a resident, I think I’ll wait until after the election – an election in which I will not be voting in protest at the behaviour of local councillors over the Local Plan in recent years. So, you councillors got what you wanted – another resident silenced, so you don’t have to be accountable to them.
I made an error, I apologised, you dismissed it. Not much I can do about that. As to not voting, again nothing I can do about that aside from shrug. As to accountability, every district councillor is accountable to every Uttlesford resident whether they voted or not. You don’t seem to understand how it works. Sorry about your thin skin, maybe it will thicken as you get older. You really need a sense of perspective about these blogs, I suspect you take it all a little too seriously.
You have publicly called me a fascist, an oaf, ignorant and other things in order to traduce and humiliate me in front of the wider community and alienate and suppress my voice. No, this is not a matter of whether or not I am thin skinned but standards in office. The fact UDC tolerates this brings shame on the entire authority. Residents should not believe that voting a different way will make the slightest bit of difference. They need to stand up and challenge their councillors throughout their term in office. I am forced to pay thousands to UDC in council tax and I don’t think I deserve to be abused by its members.
I have never called you a fascist but as I mentioned previously you never let truth come between you and an argument.
Why you have to bring up matters that were exchanged on a completely different site simply exposes you as a paranoid obsessive with an axe to grind.
I notice you are eager enough to hurl insults at R4U but I guess an accusation of hypocrisy would be wasted on you.
Were you bullied as a child? You seem embittered to an unhealthy degree.
Your called me an “eco-fascist” – I gave you three opportunities to withdraw or state that the remark was not about me and you refused. I won’t waste any more on you. Your behaviour has been referred to Michael Perry, the UDC monitoring officer, to determine whether there is a prima facie case for referral to the standards committee for breach of the Code of Conduct. Let’s see if UDC has enough respect for residents to sanction you for misconduct. If not, then I don’t have much hope for local democracy and the future of this district. Failure to discipline you will establish that councillors can throw any level of invective against constituents who disagree with them.
We Are Residents was meant to represent a radical and much-needed break-through in local politics, pledging to sweep aside rotten old parties and bring in something fresh and grassroots. Indeed, it was a tempting prospect, but the promise was an illusion.
What now have is “Residents4U”, a secretive cabal of also rans from other parties that derives its name from a dodgy bankrupt phone retailer. In spite of the flash website, it’s just recycled party politics for those whose main concern is their back yard and not principles. It claims to oppose the rot, but offers little in terms of a policy slate. It’s a style of unprincipled empty-minded protest politics that is nationally embodied in UKIP. I don’t think it will be around after May.
Your analysis is entertaining and informative.
Interestingly, it tells us far more about you than about local politics.
I actually feel sorry for you and I never thought I’d say that.
What does it say about me, Keith?
Work it out for yourself. I won’t waste any more time on you.
Nice.
Daniel, in June last year I had a serious car accident which resulted in a head injury that required 42 stitches and left an 8 inch scar. In view of that, how much do you think I care about what you have to say about anything?
It is called perspective. Perhaps one day you will understand.
Do you have a contemptuous attitude towards all residents who may disagree with you? I can’t see that you would be a better leader than Howard Rolfe, based on what I’ve experienced from you over the past few weeks.
I have never indicated that I want to lead UDC, yet again you put your interpretation/agenda ahead of the facts. It is an irritating characteristic. One hopes that the leader of the council after the May election will be from my group, we have several excellent possibilities but most importantly he or she will be committed to actually listening to what residents want. The contemptuous disregard shown by the Tory leadership over the past several years will come to haunt them in May and they will pay the price at the polling booth.
I don’t have contempt for you or your views, I simply don’t have as much regard for them as you might like. When I tried to apologise for a misunderstanding you threw it back at me so there isn’t much to be done.
It’s very likely that no councillor has any regard for what I say, but only you have engaged in name-calling – not just against me, either.
A friend pointed out to me that the mention of my accident might be seen as looking for the sympathy vote.
I would emphasise it was nothing of the kind, I was merely mentioning it in passing in reference to having a sense of proportion.
This is the internet. People are insulated from their peers and can sometimes say things that on reflection might have been better left unsaid. I have been guilty of this in the past, it is entirely likely I might lapse again.
Very few of us would talk face to face in the way we can sometimes write on the net, with no-one to see it is hard to gauge responses.
You appear to have more lapses than most. You must be the only party leader in history to be banned from your own party’s Facebook page.
As ever, you don’t let ignorance of the facts get in the way of your agenda.
And you seem to have an unhealthy interest in trying to provoke me so I propose in future to simply ignore you.
You have been banned and as a result all your messages have been removed. I’m not goading you, I’m stating facts. If your party believes you are abusive to people, then I don’t think it’s fair to accuse me of lacking a “sense of proportion”. I don’t have an agenda and I am not seeking election. I’d certainly never vote Tory.
On the subject of letters, we should look back to a letter to the Dunmow Broadcast, February 28 2013, written by Cllr Keith Mackman when he served as a Tory member of the Local Plan working group. He said:
“The Lib Dems will make a lot of noise about the Local Development Framework, apparently it is secretive as well as flawed. Again, residents should be made aware the Lib Dems withdrew their representatives from the working group for political reasons and their position on the UDC
development agenda swings from one extreme to another…
“The success of the council is down to the mutual co-operation and respect between officers and members and I would hope that the residents of Uttlesford will acknowledge the great team we have at the council offices in Saffron Walden…
“The LDF is nearing maturity and the dispersal of development based on the hierarchy of settlement in the district is sound. While the Lib Dems may claim to be converts to the theory of a single large new development, I favour the theory of democracy and it is the case that a majority of the council agree dispersal is the correct approach.”
Having left the Tory group after his suspension, Mr Mackman is now calling for a “garden city” in Uttlesford and has stated that he seeks a coalition between his break-away group of ex-Tory councillors and the Lib Dems.
While Alan Dean has been fairly consistent in his approach to the LDF working group and the Local Plan, Mr Mackman is all over the place.
In reaction to the election of John Lodge as the independent “We are Residents” county councillor for Saffron Walden, Mr Mackman wrote in the Saffron Walden Reporter: “As a lonely independent in a council still comfortably controlled by the Conservatives, I suspect his influence on any matter will be negligible. I consider that Saffron Walden has essentially disenfranchised itself at county level for the next four years.”
Amazingly, Mr Mackman is now leader of this group in the district council, a group that is chaired by Cllr John Lodge who he derided as a “novice” with “zero influence”.
As is so regularly and predictably the case you can’t get your basic facts right. I was not a member of the Local Plan Working Group in February 2013. For someone who is forever taking offence, you are remarkably free with the facts when it suits your agenda.
As to bringing up a letter from nearly two years ago, aside from demonstrating your obsessive approach to the debate it doesn’t contribute much else. In the interim I have learned a little more about planning and accept that I was wrong about the dispersed approach.
As to relations with John Lodge, he and I are grownups so we understand politics and each other well enough.
You are becoming a little shrill and overly personal.
“You are becoming a little shrill and overly personal.”
And you haven’t?
I’m doing what residents should do – interrogate councillors on their words and deeds ahead of a local election.
When were you appointed to the LDF working group, whose secrecy and functions you previously stated you had no problem with?
No worries, you were appointed on 21 May 2013 and lasted just a year.
Scrub that, your record states that you were a member of the LDF Working group from 13 December 2012 to 12 May 2013. The group changed its name to Local Plan Working Group to which you were appointed at its inception on 21 May. So you were a member of the working group when you wrote that letter to the Dunmow Broadcast praising the council for its LDF strategy.
https://uttlesford.cmis.uk.com/uttlesford/Councillors/tabid/62/ctl/ViewCMIS_Person/mid/480/id/358/ScreenMode/Ward/Default.aspx
Mr Mackman, 4 December 2014, on his party’s Facebook page: “there is lot of merit in considering a garden city in the district. We need to properly consider potential locations and weight the pros and cons. Possible sites include: west of Dunmow, east of Barnston, down near the Rodings, east of Elsenham, north of Chesterford. Any of these could be made to work.”
Maybe residents of these towns and villages would have a different idea. Has the leader of Residents For Uttlesford actually consulted with residents on the garden city scheme?
I believe there were other councillors on the local plan working group. Why don’t you go and pester them?
I have better things to do than indulge your obsessions.
Considering your avowed intention not to vote why are you so desperately intent on squeezing every last drop from issues that you obviously fail to grasp?
This conversation is over.
I am asking you about statements you made. You are the only person proposing a garden city, as far as I am aware. Of course, it’s up to you whether or not you want to explain to residents why you’ve made a volte face (farce?) and have gone from ardent supporter of a dispersal strategy and the LDF process to a vocal critic, and from dismissing a local residents party as having negligible influence to now assuming its leadership. Many residents may be baffled by all this. If I fail to grasp the issue, then maybe you can explain. You have a right of reply.
I assume you have familiarised yourself with the following:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/303324/20140414_Locally-led_Garden_Cities_final_signed.pdf
If you hadn’t started publicly attacking me and others, including name-calling, I wouldn’t have bothered. But as you are very good at making enemies out of ordinary folk, don’t be surprised when they criticise you. If you can’t take it, don’t dish it out.
‘enemies’ is a rather dramatic term. People who disagree, who exchange insults, do not automatically become ‘enemies’. Life has more subtlety than you appear to be awake to.
The guys that were shooting at me a few years back, now they were ‘enemies’ but as to petty squabbles on the internet, I don’t think so. Perspective, perspective, perspective.
And now I must return to my cunning scheme to build a huge garden city over the whole of Uttlesford…..will 250.000 houses be enough?
If you read the document, you would see that the scale of a garden city would be 15,000+ homes, which is greater than the number of homes suggested by the Planning Inspector. What evidence do you have that any of the communities you cite – Elsenham, Chesterford, Dunmow, Rodings, Barnston – would be open to having a garden city placed next to or around them?
Your group is called “Residents 4 Uttlesford”, but I don’t get the impression it speaks to residents much or that it has many members. If it did, I doubt members would be impressed with a potty garden city scheme. They may well take up arms …
The figure of 15000 is offered as a preference, it isn’t written in stone.
As to existing communities being potentially absorbed into a larger settlement, what do you think happened to the likes of Milton Keynes and Harlow, to name but two.
Given that the garden city concept embraces employment and leisure as well as housing, the potential to have a job within walking distance rather than a wearisome commute to London might appeal to some.
There is no harm in considering options, indeed it is an important part of the process in identifying what housing is needed for Uttlesford and where to put it.
I notice you haven’t actually suggested any possible solutions to the local plan problem, simply criticism of those that have. Perhaps you could be a little more constructive? And equally, I could be a little less combative. The thing is, I do feel quite strongly about the local plan, my views on the current draft were borne out by the inspector so I believe I have credibility, where those drones who loyally stood by the draft have rather less.
I want a current adopted local plan for the district. It doesn’t have to satisfy my particular likes and dislikes, it simply needs to satisfy the inspector. Until then the council has to rely on the old plan and elements of the NPPF, which is better than nothing but obviously not as good as a legitimate plan. I have fought and won a number of planning appeals using policies from the old plan so I speak from some experience.
The fact is that no Local Plan will be sufficient. It is impossible for UDC to ensure sustainable development given the planned scale of cuts in public services. Its lack of sovereignty over its own areas of responsibility, let alone health, education, highways, etc, means it cannot develop a plan that guarantees we have sufficient numbers of GPs, large enough schools and adequate roads.
You mention Harlow. It was built at a time when the nation planned for the future and it put in place the resources needed to make it last as a community. I lived in Debden in Loughton, which was built by London County Council around the same time as Harlow as a council estate for those from the East End who were in need of adequate housing. They put in place schools, shopping arcades, an improved tube station, bus services, pubs, an industrial estate for employment – everything a community needs to make it self-sufficient and to resolve the social problems the residents had faced in London. It isn’t perfect, but has stood the test of time.
Looking at Forest Hall Park in Stansted, it is high density housing estate (narrow roads and little public space) that lacks a local shop (the developers appear to have wriggled out of that commitment), there is still no promised health centre and the new school is too small for the size of the estate, leading to a crisis in school places. It is in a far worse position than the Debden council estate in Loughton. Part of this is the result of UDC’s planning authority not putting in place a proper S106 agreement, but largely it’s because developers are calling the shots and making profits at the expense of people. This is a change from the post-war public-led development. The same problem will affect developments in any Local Plan.
So, we will get 11,000+ houses and over-stretched services – that’s the national trend. I blame the new political consensus of the ruling class in which profit is put before people, where PFI, PPP and contracting creates business opportunities at the long-term expense of the public sector. Look at the disaster at Hinchingbrooke Hospital today.
I would hope that the council will map current needs and how to resolve them through robust demands for capital expenditure on improved services and social housing from developers and other tiers of government. But this will not address the likely decline in public services as government cuts revenue expenditure and continues its ideological crusade to sell off services to business. How can UDC commit spending on services that are the responsibility of the ECC and Whitehall?
The most appropriate places for development would be those with best access to public transport and allow for local job opportunities. The obvious area is along the M11 corridor and as such Great Chesterford, Wendens Ambo, Newport, Elsenham and Stansted are obvious choices. The larger the development, the more leverage the council will have over developers to deliver capital projects. Whether the land is available and suitable is a different matter.
Nothing will happen before May because, judging by the quality of debate, councillors such as those in R4U don’t want any move towards a solution, they wish to make this an election issue and are keen to create division and stall the process. For example, instead of working out the best way to put in place the best procedure to create a local plan that residents can be involved in and that is accountable and transparent, opposition councillors went for a vote of confidence in the council leader that they were bound to lose. It was a pointless pre-election gimmick. A complete waste of time and indicative of the party politics being played out around this issue, in spite of local residents.
In my own experience, I can’t see evidence of much listening going on. When I ask questions, councillors get upset because they dislike interrogation. When I state my opinion, they accuse me of ignorance. How can I be better informed if prickly councillors won’t answer questions? It seems like the councillors want to live in their own little world of make-believe, separate from residents who will suffer the consequences of their decisions. The political culture in Uttlesford stinks and R4U is in the gutter, throwing insults at residents who dare to question its line.
But whoever is in power after May will be faced with the same dilemmas, plus the likelihood that the planning regime will be overhauled again and the goal posts moved, making it all the more harder for UDC to develop a plan that will be approved by the inspector.
Fully agree with you about Forest Hall Park, Oakland Park (Flitch Green) is even worse and I share your analysis that it was the consequence of weak council control.
Totally disagree that R4U is stalling on the plan process. The Tory group have proposed a new working group comprising 12 members, one being an R4U member and we have nominated a representative.
However, the first meeting is not scheduled till January 26th so who is stalling? My preference would have been for a preliminary meeting next week.
The confidence motion that you deride so readily was simply politics. It served to demonstrate that the Tory group give no thought to the consequences of the plan, loyalty to the leader trumps loyalty to residents.
I would have thought residents, yourself included, would be somewhat disappointed that none of the senior Tory group have offered the smallest apology for the abject failure of the plan. Consider the time and money involved.
We have less than four months till the election, April will be effectively in purdah and the inspector made it clear that he considered the plan too badly flawed to be corrected within 6 months. We could use that as justification for refusing to participate in the working group but we have not done so. Don’t let your disagreements with me colour your view of the group unduly, we have some impressive candidates and a good back-up team.
What we do not have is any link to the discredited and discarded local plan.
Incidentally, yes I did see the stuff about Hinchingbrooke but the whole NHS needs reform from the top down. The wisdom of the politicians and civil servants who set the service up in 1948 appears to have been lost. Time after time the modern political pygmies seem to think they can solve the problems by throwing our money at them. Take the Mid-Staffs catastrophe: that should have been dealt with by dismissals and prosecutions on an appropriate scale. Hospital managers on salaries that would make a footballer blush seem more intent on muzzling doctors than providing adequate care. Hospital food is a disgrace, prisoners are fed better. The list goes on.
Finally, I understand your pessimism about the future of the local plan but I don’t share it. There is every chance that the new administration that takes over UDC in May will have the necessary pool of talent/experience to put together a plan that will satisfy an inspector.
I am not sure how I became involved in this twaddle. Thank Heavens I do not understand “blogs” or how they work. On the evidence of this, the whole process of childish name-calling and opinion pushing seems totally flawed and I find it hard to believe that anyone could take this seriously,
That is a pity because it is clear that at least some of our councillors are petty-minded and not up to the job. Sadly it is doubtful if it will improve after May.
At least a significant number of Conservative members seem reasonably sensible but, oh dear, what a muddle we are in.
Richard S
I am increasingly optimistic that we can expect a change of heart within the NHS and that there is now an emerging will to provide some parking for patients close to the health centre.
However, it is early days, but at least a positive dialogue is under way.
I am disappointed with Richard Shervington’s negative attitude to customer care and the wellbeing of people with illness. I have been greeted with significant public disappointment at the prospect of only pay-and-display parking at Lower Street in competition with commuters, local workers and shoppers. In fact, one of Mr Shervington’s own relations was astonished and appalled at the prospect of there being no dedicated parking for patients.
I really am not sure who he is referring to when he talks about councillors who are “petty-minded and not up to the job”. Is he referring to those who take what is offered by the commercial sector without question? That certainly does not apply to most Liberal Democrat councillors that I know, so he must be referring to those from his own party.