It is Sunday and the election is on Thursday. Between us, Grenville Holland and I have now knocked on around 90% on the doors in Neville’s Cross and the response has been very good overall. As usual the ‘outs’ are strongly in the lead, but a big majority are clearly appreciative of the work both he and I have done over the years.

From the canvassing, a number of things are very clear. Firstly, no-one on the doorstep is being taken in by the Tory “poll” showing them ahead of Labour with the Lib Dems in third place.

This is obviously a national poll (a fact I was able to confirm this lunchtime), but, as we know, what is the case in leafy Surrey is no way typical of the North East where the Lib Dems have been the only serious alternative to Labour for many years.

Secondly, Labour are in real trouble. We are picking up a real anger on the doorstep over the Government pushing through the new unitary Council against the clear vote by the people of the County against it.

If this is reflected in other parts of the County, Labour is going to lose lots of seats and it more than possible that they will lose overall control of the County Council.

Given our strength over wide areas and the weakness of the Tories (they won only 3 district council seats outside Teesdale last May compared with 57 for the Lib Dems) we are as certain as can be that the Lib Dems will continue to be the main opposition to Labour at County Hall.

This is because most of the Labour seats under threat are where we are already in a good second place. We are confident therefore that we will have a large group strong enough to ensure that the new Council is organised to be as responsive and accountable as possible to local communities and not remote from the people.

Which leads to the third thing: the idea of a Town Council for Durham City is going down really well on the doorstep.

Just about everyone we have discussed it with thinks it is a good idea and will help to keep the local links that make for good local government.

Once the election is over, the City Council must get on with the wider consultation process to move this project forward.

Here are some recent photos of progress with the new DJ school building

I spoke representing the Lib Dems at a small public meeting hosted by the Public and Commercial Services union (PCS) in Shakespeare Hall yesterday evening. Alongside me was Albert Nugent, Labour Leader of Durham County Council. The Conservatives were invited but failed to send anyone.

In my speech I mentioned my opposition to Academy Schools and particularly those sponsored by the Emmanuel Schools Trust (funded by the Vardys and promoting whacko ideas about evolution).

This elicited a strange response from Albert. He agreed with me. He was also against Academy Schools.

Why strange? Because Durham County Council, led by him, has just decided to proceed with two Academy Schools and are still looking at a third!

No wonder things are going off the rails at County Hall.

The other thing I found out was that the County are in discussion with the Civil Service about using a building at Aykley Heads to deal with ID cards. The building concerned is the detached council block where the County Library Service used to be run from.

Apparently this could attract another 500 workers onto the County Hall site with who-knows-what impact on traffic and parking in local streets.

The thing that annoyed me is that my County Council division includes County Hall, yet no-one in the administration had the courtesy to let me know what was going on so that I could represent the serious and legitimate concerns that residents of North End already have about parking and transport issues.

Yet another cavalier example of how Labour deals with local people.

Those still exercised by the saga of the lap dancing application for The Loft in North Road might like to look at the story in today’s guardian: www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/apr/22/planning.communities

A group of MPs and peers have published a report calling on the government to change the law so that lap dancing is explicitly licensed under the ’sex-industry’ rules (that cover the likes of sex shops) rather than the normal licensing procedures.

The report points out that across the country it has proved pretty nigh impossible for the current law to prevent the spread of these places. Indeed, Durham is quoted as the only example where an application has been turned down on appeal at the magistrates court. Even that is being taken to a higher court.

So those who say that the original advice given to councillors was wrong (when they gave a restricted licence) are clearly not supported by the evidence of what is happening elsewhere in the UK. It follows that the Labour minister who told our MP that the current laws were adequate also has no idea what this is all about.

I think there is irony here. I have a strong suspicion that if the council Licensing Committee had originally turned down the application altogether, then the operators would have appealed and the group of people opposing it might not have done the additional work that I think persuaded the magistrates to do the right thing. In that scenario the magistrates may have found it hard to resist an appeal - and I say that because everywhere else, that is the way things actually turned out!

I have long been impressed bythe reman system of encouraging consumers to make their own contribution to the challenge of global warming.

In Germany there is a system of feed-in tariffs whereby a subsidy is paid to individual households who generate their own electricity by domestic wind-turbine, photovoltaic cells or whatever. This is a payment by kilowatt generated and is paid for by a small levy on all domestic energy bills (whioch amounts to around 20p a week for most households).

The effect of this has been magical. The subsidy means that the economic pay-back period for investing in the kit is reduced to a few years rather than the 20-25 years that some systems would require in the UK. This has led to a massive take-up by households and local communities which in turn has led to an explosion of manufaturing and jobs in the sector leading to big reductions in unit costs.

If ever there was a virtuous circle this is it.

So why is the Government not doing this in the UK? A good idea is just that, a good idea, and we should not turn our backs on it just because it was not invented here.

I was reminded of this by the advert on the back page of the main section of today’s Guardian, where there is an advert by Friends of the Earth extolling the virtues of feed-in tariffs. They point to a web site www.solarplayoff.org where more information is available.

You can also use the site to send an e-mail to our Labour MP encouraging stand up for tougher government action on climate change.

Our MP continues to claim credit for pressing for the re-opening of the Leamside Line, but it may be useful to put this all into a little bit of context.

Firstly a bit of history: The Leamside line was originally a relief/freight line by-passing Durham City that was closed some time ago. Unlike many other line closures, however, the rails were not taken up as someone with a few extra grey cells realised it might be useful in the future.

For some of us, that particular future should have started some years ago when road traffic started to become a problem. Indeed the Belmont Park and Ride location was chosen specifically because it is adjacent to the line and the prospect of a commuter service up to Gateshead is very attractive.

So the issue of re-opening the line has been raised regularly for at least the past 5 years at meetings of the Association of North East Councils (ANEC) and has strong all-party support there, as there is for a similar line up from Newcastle via Wallsend up to Blyth.

The problem is that under the privatisation agenda of both Conservative and Labour Governments, the strategic benefit of these lines has been consistently ignored even though the East Coast Main Line is approaching capacity.

MPs in the region (Labour of course as there are none of any other kind in Tyne & Wear and Durham) belatedly took up the issue last year led by Fraser Kemp MP (Houghton & Washington East) - yes, Roberta was in the room but it by all accounts Fraser was taking the lead.

It seems that the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) has at long last realised that this scheme might have legs (or perhaps wheels might be more appropriate) , but it has been talking about a timescale of 2020 rather than the 2014 (latest) that everyone locally wants.

So that’s the background. My issue with our MP is that she is again trying to claim everything for herself without acknowledging the fact that councils regionally have been pressing this for a long long time and that she is only one of several MPS involved, and not the lead one anyway.

Letters to ministers are no doubt welcome, but as things are arranged, the people to press are actually the SRA, and efffective lobbying of bodies like that is best done by getting all the partners working together, MPs, Councils and business leaders irrespective of party affiliation.

PS It probably isn’t important, but as a minority Vice Chair of ANEC I have often spoken at its meetings in support of opening the Leamside Line!

Cabinet discussed the recent Audit Commission report on Durham County Council at its meeting this morning. It brough forth ‘lively debate’.

Labour are, of course, celebrating the Council receiving a 4-star rating, but as usual the report resembles somewhat the curate’s egg.

There is a lot of well-deserved praise for the work that officers do in managing services and financial management is clearly good.

There are a number of criticisms, however. One relates to the County Council role in economic develpoment which is seen as being not strategiaclly well-developed.

The main brick-bats are given to councillors and particularly the council leadership.

The report states that “there are significant weaknesses in the political leadership provided by the Leader of Council and the Cabinet”, and that “strategic community leadership [by councillors] is inconsistent”.

It also states that the role of scrutiny is not well-developed and that the cabinet members are not held properly to account for their portfolios.

This last comment does not surprise me one bit. Indeed, the holding-to-account role of scrutiny is practically a joke at County Hall as all the key decisions are actually taken by the Labour Group. This means that even when something does come up for discussion the Labour members follow the party whip, do not ask the awkward and challenging questions and don’t rock the boat, however hard we in the opposition try.

Let’s hope we are there in much larger numbers after 1 May as it will then be much harder for them to treat the process with such contempt.

I had a discussion last week with the Highways Department at County Hall about a number of parking issues and they drew my attention to the fact that the two Land Registry Offices in Durham (Pity Me and Southfield Way) are to merge within the next two years and be housed at the Southfield Way site.

This may have amassive impact on parking in the area as the parking available at Southfield Way is totally inadequate for the number of staff that the office will then have to accommodate.

There are already issues with parking in a number of areas around North End, but unless something serious is done by the Land Registry to control its staff parking, I can see streets in parts of the area being swamped with commmuters cars.

If that happens, then there will have to be some decisive action by the County Council to deal with the problem. Highways are currently reluctant to extend the area of controlled (residents’) parking, but this may be the only course of action - if the problem comes to pass.

There was an extraordinary last-minute meeting of the County Council Cabinet this morning to decide the admissions policy for Durham Johnston, when it was agreed that the villages served by the school (Shincliffe, Bowburn, Park Hill etc.) would have ‘associated transport’ which takes them up the priority list for admissions.

As a governor of the school I have supported the wish of the governors to continue with the educational investment the school has made into those communities over 25 years or more.

As the elected representative of Neville’s Cross, however, I am very well aware that we are now returning to the arrangements pre-1995 when the admissions criteria together with the number of children involved ended up totally skewed and worked against families in my area.

Pupil numbers have declined significantly over the past decade, however, so I don’t think there will be a problem in the coming few years, but I did speak up strongly in the meeting to point out that there was a risk of the mid-1990s situation happening again in the future and if it did, then the current criteria would be untenable.

I also pointed out the anomaly that the ’siblink link’, criterion, which gives preference to brothers and sisters of children already in the school, was too weak and could give priority to families living a considerable distance away or those where the elder child had only been in the sixth form. Many other councils discount this. I did extract a promise from the meeting that this would be reviewed next year.

The next legal step is for the Council to advertise in the local press that the arrangements have been approved, then local residents have 6 weeks from the advert to object. If there are any objections, these are considered by the National Schools Adjudicator, who’s ruling is binding.

One final comment - it is now just three years since the rebuilding of Durham Johnstion was confirmed by the government (conveniently during the 2005 General Election campaign!), but it is only at the last minute that the Council has got this issue settled. Another example of how well Labour runs County Hall?

The Tory leaflet “independent opinion poll” figures look more than a little dodgy (and more than a little like national figures than local ones). In recent elections (i.e. last May and at the Sedgefield by-election last year) they cam miserably down the field.

The sharp-eyed will see no reference to who did the opinion poll nor where nor when, so this little morsel needs to be taken with a shed-load of salt!

A rather cavalier statement in today’s Durham Times from the Tories.

They claim that the Lib Dems cannot defeat Labour over the whole County, so therefore people should vote Conservative.  Somewhat strange logic as we have 93 candidates, they have only 70 and 64 is needed for an overall majority (half of 126 is 63). If this is the quality of their argument, no wonder people still don’t believe anything they say.

I have just spoken to the Planning Department who tell me that the public inquiry on Banks Ltd application to develop Mount Oswald will start on 10 June and is expected to last six days.

The location of the inquiry is still to be settled which is why objectors have not yet been notified, but letters should be going out soon giving us the details.

County Durham Liberal Democrats have now published their manifesto for the forthcoming elections on 1 May. It can be read (as a pdf file) via the following link

Liberal Democrat County Council Manifesto 2008

The County Council have also said they they will make it available at local libraries in the next few days.

The new green bag recycling scheme looks to be having a few teething problems. There have clearly been problems over getting the collection days right and the quantities being offered for recycling are much larger than expected.

The big increase in volume is welcome in one way, but it will probably reduce as I am sure residents have been saving waste for this new service since mid March.

A handy hint to help the collectors is to put all your plastic together in a (plastic) carrier bag as this makes it much easier for them to sort, although we are being asked to ensure that metal caps are separated out.

Another problem that  a resident shared with me yesterday was with the collectors leaving remnants in the street when they leave. I am asking the council to look into this and hopefully things will  be OK when the service settles down.

Nominations for the County Durham Council elections on 1 May closed at midday today. While final details of nominations have still to appear on the web for three of the seven districts, it looks as though we will have around 90 candidates.

Lib Dems have full slates in Durham City (22 seats) and Wear Valley (16). In Chester-le-Street (14) we have 8 candidates, Easington (24) we have 19, Derwentside (22) we have 15 and in Sedgefield (22) we have 14. The remaining 6 seats are in Teesdale where we decided not to contest for strategic reasons.

The notable change is our challenge in Easington where we are fielding a large slate for the first time in many years. Indeed, if we had not stood, there would have been 4 areas where Labour would have been elected unopposed. Indeed, so bad has it been in the past out there that in the District Elections last May around 40 Labour councillors were elected unopposed. Well now they have to fight for their seats and a good thing too.

On a grimmer matter, however, for the very first time there are BNP candidates putting up in Durham City district, a total of 8 in 5 wards. Interestingly half of them have addresses in Shildon.

While I always urge everyone to use their vote (after all if you don’t vote you cannot complain), I hope that this extreme right wing bunch will be well and truly shunned by everyone in the areas concerned.

Some Merryoaks residents may well have been surprised to see a number of mature trees felled behind the bowling green at Lowes Barn playing fields. Well so were I and my fellow City ward councillor Ron Dickie (independent) as neither of us had been warned that it was about to happen.

The reasons for the felling are a combination of the trees’ old age and problems that the bowls club were having with dampness and fungal growth on their green.

Expert arboriculturalist advice said that the trees should go and some were indeed cut down last year, with the remaining ones this week. New trees have been planted in their place, slightly further away from the green and of a less tall-growing variety.

I discovered all this today after speaking to a committee member of the bowls club and to the City Council Environmental Officer, who also apologised for not having informed the local ward councillors what was going on.

We were called to a meeting with the Director of Young People’s Services yesterday to discuss the DJ admissions situation.

The key thing that we got clear is that by the criteria that the Council use, Gilesgate Comp is closer to Shincliffe and Bowburn than Durham Johnston - not by road (see earlier posting on this) but by ‘walking route’.

It appears that walking routes allow for the use of any road and any public footpath. This means that going across country via Bent House Lane brings Gilesgate 0.36 miles closer than the Johnston. The fact that no parent with any serious consideration for the safety of their child would allow them to use that route on a dark winter afternoon is not a consideration it seems!

The rest of the discussion then revolved around bussing arrangements and the duty of the authority to provide for transport for any child whose parents selected the closest school, together with the fact that families on free school meals or family tax credit will necessarily have their transport costs covered to any school between 2 and 6 miles.

Basically the whole thing is a mess so I wait with anticipation for the Council Cabinet meeting which will make the decision (due on 14 April).

One futher thing about the meeting that I was not happy with.

It was scheduled for 10 and as we Lib Dem Councillors arrived, the local Labour members accompanied by our MP (who appears to have turned up without a direct invitation) left the Director’s office.

I told the Director and Councillor Vasey, the responsible cabinet member, that I was not impressed by there being separate meetings, especially as no-one had told me that this was the case. But that’s how things get done at County Hall.