The Northern Echo today revealed that Banks are already trying to go over the head of the Council by appealing to the Secretary of State against the time taken to deal with their planning application.

OK, there is a guideline period and it looks like the council will be a couple of weeks over the limit, but given the complexity of the application, the extraordinary number of formal objections (over 130) and the fact that Banks seems to have been unwilling to engage with the council officers in discussing these objections, not to mention that the Christmas holiday period it is not surprising that the process has overrun the guideline marginally.

Frankly, to me this looks like Banks are clutching at straws. I sincerely hope that the Secretary of State sees that it is more important to take the right decision than to take a quick decision, especially for such a major and controversial application.

A new facility has been added to this site to allow you to have your say. Just click on the word ‘comment’ under the date of a posting, type your thoughts into the box that appears and click on ’submit’.

I look forward to hearing from you.

As residents will know, the Town Hall is being refurbished and is out of use. One of the main objectives is to improve access, so it was good to learn yesterday that the new lift has been delivered and the final phase of the work can start.

The completion date is not yet known, but with a fair wind the Town Hall should be open to the public again in February or March next year.

Some good news on the accident black spot along the A167 near the Cock of the North; I have just been informed that crash barriers will be installed next year (probably in the spring) on the dualled stretch between Merryoaks and The Honest Lawyer at Croxdale.

This stretch has seen several fatal accidents over the past three years. I have been pressing for barriers for at least the last 18 months.

To be fair, I was pushing at an open door, but the problem has been the difficulty of dealing with the road layout with so many trees and lighting poles on the central reservation.

The solution will be a non-standard barrier, which is why it is taking so long to implement.

The decision to put the barriers in pre-dates by many months the latest accident when the son of the local coroner was killed.

I had an e-mail this week from the council to say that Banks have been told that they Council will be recommending refusal of their planning application for the development of the Mount Oswald golf course for a business park and executive housing.

Banks now have the opportunity to withdraw their application, but if they do not the application is likely to be on the agenda of the Development Control Committee on Thursday 10 January.

So things are looking good, but  we must not be complacent.

The Loft lap-dancing appeal took place before the magistrates between 6 and 10 December, and the bench made the right decision to cancel the partial premises licence given by the City Council Licensing Committee earlier this year.

This was a triumph for a small group of people led by three ordinary residents of the City who, at some personal financial risk, decided to take on an organisation (Vimac Ltd) with lots of resources for barristers etc.

I was part of that group and was able to use my university knowledge and other contacts to provide solid evidence about the local environment: the closeness of various community facilities, the high resident student and elderly population nearby, and the long history of attacks on students in North Road and the surrounding area at certain times.

I also made a strong argument that if allowed the club would become a genuine ‘public nuisance’ in the broad sense of the term.

Other witnesses gave corroborative evidence on the student related issues, and challenged the assertion by Vimac that the arrangements for running the club would be satisfactory.

In the end the magistrates agreed with our side of the argument.

One of the good things about this was the non-party political nature of our group, so I am disappointed that things now seem to have descended into the usual political argy-bargy.

Yes, the Council Licensing Committee took the wrong decision, but this was not party-based; both Labour and Lib Dem members voted to allow a (very) restricted licence. Having talked to many of them, they did so because the advice of the council legal officer was that the police evidence was equivocal and they had no grounds under the law to do other than they did.

And herein lies the real problem - the Licensing Act. The Act is essentially permissive, which means that to turn a licence down is difficult unless one can demonstrate clearly that one of the four government created ‘licensing objectives’ will not be met.

I also spoke as an objector at the Council Committee and I will readily admit that my formal statement was not as well constructed as the one I made to the magistrate’s court. I had not done the quantitative research into the local demography at that point and I guess I believed that my basic arguments (addressed directly to the ‘licensing objectives’ and not on moral grounds) were weighty enough on their own. Clearly I was wrong, and I readily put my hands up now to admit it - but I will never make the same mistake again if presented with a similar situation.

So, taking stock (1) lap-dancing clubs are not illegal, but (2) we have proved that there are some places where they should not be. What is also very clear however is (3) that the Licensing Act has some real deficiencies if qualified legal advisers of councils find it hard to chart a course through its undergrowth to allow a council committee to come to the decision it actually would like to come to [I am not aware of anyone on that committee in Durham that actually wanted any sort of licence to be granted].

If our MP wants to achieve something out of all this, she should concentrate on  inadequacies of an Act imposed by her government rather than trying to score cheap points off the local council.

I have now done the analysis of the 200 or so survey forms on the development of Mount Oswald. They are contained in the Mount Oswald Survey Report that you can read here.

The survey showed overwhelming opposition to the planning application submitted by Banks Ltd, for the development of the Mount Oswald estate with a substantial area of Business Park, an area for executive housing, and open parkland. Only 3 people thought a Business Park would be a good idea.

The overwhelming majority of responses (85%) wanted the status quo to remain. Of the rest almost all wanted all or most of the area to be maintained as green open space for public use and access.

Neville’s Cross Primary School celebrates its centenary in 2008. To mark the event, seven trees were planted in the school grounds and a number of ‘whips’. Each class was responsible for finishing off the planting of one of the trees.

I was pleased to be able to support the costs from a £500 grant from my County Council community fund.

No, it’s not a pecunious artist looking for a garrett. Something more serious - the next stage of the campaign to stop a lap-dancing club opening on North Road in Durham City Centre.

Following the decision of the City Licensing Committee to grant a resticted licence, the case is going to the Magistrates Court where the opponents (including yours truly) will be fighting to have the licence overturned, and the owners, Vimac Ltd, will be asking to have most of the restrictions lifted.

The appeal is due to be heard at Durham Magistrates Court on 6, 7 and 10 December. There will be a Silent Witness outside the Court on Thursday 6 December from 9.30 am to 10 am to express the public outrage at the thought that this kind of activity may be allowed in the City.

There is also a Fighting Fund to help with the substantial legal costs involved in the appeal. The account is held at the Market place branch of NatWest where they will accept donations into the account no: 38673541 with cheques made payable to “The Loft Appeal”.

The County Council is ‘consulting’ on three possible Academies in the County including one in the Durham City Area.

An Academy is a new school set up to replace one or more existing schools and must have sponsorship of £2M. In return for the money the sponsor gets the right to pack the school governing body with his/her/its own nominees and the Academy can make its own decisions on school admissions.

Naturally the Labour run County Council does not want to lose control of a school like this, so has come up with the cunning idea of being a partner sponsor where the Council puts up half of the additional money on the understanding that the sponsor donor of the other half plays ball on things like admissions.

Apart from believing that it is the quality of school management that makes a good school, not additional cash (although additional cash is always welcome) this is a bizarre way of doing business.

Firstly the Council’s additional £1M is money being taken away from other things the Council should be doing and why should one school get this additional money from local funds over and above what the other schools get.

Secondly, why would a sponsor give £1M when they don’t get influence in the school, and why should people/organisations buy such influence anyway?

Thirdly, the Academy arrangements lie outside any plans the Council may have in investing in the refurbishment/replacement of school under the Goverments Building School for The Future project.

This cannot be the right way to go about things.

Whether you agree with me or not, you can have your say on Wednesday 14 November at a public meeting at Gilesgate Comprehensive School and on Thursday 15 November at Belmont Comprehensive. Both meetings start at 7 pm.

Responses to the survey are now over 200, which is quite amazing.

The press stated (correctly) last week that I had a meeting arranged this week with a senior person in the Banks Group. Unfortunately the individual cried off the day before, so I did not have the chance to investigate more what they are really about here.

There are indications that the application will be heard on 13 December, but that has yet to be finally confirmed.

It is not too late to make representations to the council. They will be accepted up to about 2 weeks before the planning meeting for incorporation into the committee papers.

The annual Durham Christmas Festival is being held this year over the wekend Saturday 1 and Sunday 2 December; as usual this includes a Craft and Gift Marquee on Palace Green.

A special preview evening aimed at those with mobility difficulties is being held on Friday 30 November, 5 pm - 8 pm, with a free accessible bus service running between the coach park and Palace Green stopping off at the Market Square. There will also be limited free parking on Palace Green for blue badge holders.

Further information about the preview evening can be had by contacting Jo on 0191 384 6153 or Colin Wilkes at colin@durhammarkets.co.uk

While the struggle goes on to retain the District Councils, the Lib Dem Parliamentary team won a victory in Parliament today when the Government backed down on one of their madder proposals.

The Local Government Bill was due to make provision for directly elected Council Executives which most councillors across all parties think this is a bonkers idea.

Following a campaign by the Lib Dems in the Lords, the Upper House agreed and threw this out.

Today the Government spared themselves further ridicule and backed off this daft idea.

Progress on the new City swimming pool is going, well - swimmingly (sorry!).

Things appear on target for an opening next July. Plans for staff recruitment and training are progressing well.

Having gone through the responses so far all but a literal handful want this planning application  thrown out.

Around 50% state very clearly that they actually want the golf course left as it is with the vast bulk of the remainder saying that if it is ever to be developed then the priority must be for recreation and public open space.

Keep them coming in …

Have just counted the returns to date and I have 134, with more appearing every day.

Excellent - keep them coming in!

I have just heard from the City Planning Department that the building at the derelict filling station at Neville’s Cross will be demolished starting next Monday (22 October).

 I just hope this is a pre-cursor to a planning application to re-develop the site. While we really don’t want much more in the area, this has to be the exception. It is a blot on the landscape and needs dealing with sooner rather than later.

Now is the time for residents to get their objections in to the proposal to develop Mount Oswald Golf Course as the clock is ticking on the formal consultation period.

Individual letters tend to have much more force than petitions or standard copy letters.

Address objections to David Thornborrow, Head of Planning Services, 17 Claypath, Durham DH1 1TH. [The case officer is Peter Herbert.] The planning reference number is 4/07/00944/OUT/PGH.

The County Council is looking seriously at moving to something called “decriminalised parking enforcement” across the Durham City district about 12 months from now.

This is all about who can issue fines for things like parking on double yellow lines, or causing an obstruction.

At the moment, these are criminal offences and tickets can only be issued by the police, a traffic warden (of which there are currently none anyway) or a Police Community Support Officer (PCSO).

There is now provision in law for the Highway Authority (the County Council) to introduce a scheme whereby the Council can do this sort of things and the offence ceases to be a criminal one. Sunderland, for instance, currently has this arrangement.

Personally, I think this should be an improvement because parking offences are very low down the priority list for the police and I know of areas (e.g. back lanes) where there are continuing problems. Having a dedicated staff to deal with it should improve things for most residents.

County Councillors for the City area were given a presentation on this after last week’s Highways Committee. The first stage for getting everything set up is for all the local parking orders to be checked for accuracy and consistency. Then the Council will draw up a scheme for approval by the Secretary of State. If that goes through, the Council will contract out the service and with a fair wind it could be in place this time next year.

Here is the Mount Oswald Survey FOCUS (pdf file) distributed to the Neville’s Cross City Council ward over the weekend 6-7 October 2007.

Yesterday and today we put out over 1,400 survey leaflets over the Neville’s Cross city council ward asking for feedback on what residents feel about the future of Mount Oswald.

I am quite clear that the current planning application from Banks is totally unacceptable. The area is not zoned for housing and although it is cited for low density high class business/science park use in the Local Plan what Banks are proposing (developing 40% of the area for this purpose) is well beyond what is acceptable.

The traffic implications are also bad news. The application includes up to 2,000 parking places, so the local road network would have to cope with upwards of 4,000 additional traffic movements per day. Anyone who has used the A167 through Neville’s Cross as most residents do, knows all too well that it is close to gridlock at times; the effect of 4,000 extra journeys does not bear thinking about.

I have already had initial discussions with the planners in the County Highways Department and it is clear that they also have significant concerns in that area too.

All this leaves me wondering what exactly is going on here. The application weighs a lot (two massive files each about 10 cm thick) and must have cost a lot (the application fee to the Council is £25,000) but the content seems to be outside all sensible parameters.

This is why I really want to get some feedback from local residents about the future of Mount Oswald. I cannot believe that this is the final shot from Banks and as the local councillor I need to know what my constituents think.

If the overwhelming view is - leave it alone, then I will fight for that all the way, but people have also been asking why have we had all the extra houses in the ward (a 50+% increase in the past 20 years) without any extra facilities.

IF the Local Plan is used to force through some development at Mount Oswald, then we need to know what people really want to see and what residents priorities are to improve the area overall.

SWo if you are reading this and you have a survey sitting on the mantelpiece, please return it to the FREEPOST address given on it.

Friday 28 September was the deadline for responses to the Government consultation paper on how to implement the (probable) forthcoming creation of a single unitary council for the whole of County Durham.

Two issues were particularly important to me and the Lib Dem group at County Hall - the timing of elections and the make-up of a Joint Board to oversee the preparations.

On timing, the Labour County Council went out on a limb and asked for elections in May 2009 after the start of the new council on 1 April that year. Everyone else wants May 2008 to give democratic legitimacy to the process.

If elections are in May 2008, existing County Councillors (including me) will have to retire a year early and stand for re-election. I am sure my Labour colleagues cannot have made their decision based on the possibility of losing a year’s service (and income) …

On the Joint Board, Labour at County Hall want an 18 member committee dominated by (guess who) them. The Government document asks for this body to be broadly representative of the political balance across the County. Labour’s proposal falls far short of that.

So we in the Lib Dem Group at County Hall have put in a strongly argued case against these attempts by Labour to hijack the process for their own purposes.

Local Government re-organisation should be done for the benefit of everyone, not just the Labour party.

This week Banks have submitted their expected planning proposal for the Mount Oswald Golf Course. The main headlines are:

• 40% development of the site (against the 10% in the planning guidelines) - it looks a lot more than that to me!
• 30 “executive homes” at the south end - the commentary seems to indicate a value of £1 million for each property.
• A “prestige business park” across the whole of the northern end.
• A substantial public park across the centre.
• Parking for 2,000 cars.

The planning application has been flagged to go to Committee and can be inspected at the City Council Planning Office at Byland Lodge during normal working hours.

The planning reference number is 4/07/00944/OUT.

E-mail me to let me know what you feel or to find out more.