Over recent months we have been told there is some demand for ward surgeries for Neville’s Cross. Avid readers of the local papers will hva seen the first of these announced for this coming Saturday, 16 January, 10.30 am-12 noon at Neville’s Cross Primary School.

We are also using the opportuity to link with the local Police Neighbourhood Team, and PCSO Debbie Sadler-Watson will be present to listen to any local concerns you may have on policing maters.

Our idea is to hold these meetings every month on the second or third Saturday alternating between the north and south ends of the division. The actual date will depend on Debbie’s shift pattern.

I have set up a separate web page with the details - click on the link on the left column of this page.

I do wish to emphasise, however, that if you have any issue you can ring or e-mail me. You do not have to wait until the next surgery.

I have just received notice that there is to be a significant period of riverbank footpath closures from 14 December through to the end of March so that a number of dangerous trees can be dealt with.

Here is a map of the riverbank footpaths affected.

The notification seems to imply that paths will be closed as and when needed, but I still need to check that out.

[Added the day after the initial posting] I can confirm that closures of particular footpaths will only take place as and when necessary for the work being carried out.

The Loft in North Road has decided to distinguish itself again this time by running a promotion where customers can pay £10 and drink as much as they like.

With everyone concerned about excessive drunkenness and binge drinking, this sort of activiy is only going to make things worse.

No doubt the proprietor of The Loft will claim that they never serve anyone who is drunk, but why then do we get the problems on our streets later?

In my opinion this sort of promotion is totally irresponsible and will lead to all sorts of public nuisance. In fact prevention of public nuisance is one of the governments licensing objectives, so it would be very interesting to see what the County Licensing Committee made of a complaint by a resident who lives nearby The Loft on this basis. [The Labour government’s laws prevent me as the local councillor making a complaint myself - it has to be someone who lives ‘in the vicinity’ of the premises concerned.]

Interestingly, just after the photograph above was taken, someone came out of The Loft and took the banner inside. For some reason they didn’t want to talk about the issue.

Some good news - I have just had a telephone call from a Journal reporter to say that Banks Developments Ltd have issued a press release saying that they are withdrawing their planning application to develop Mount Oswald.

Banks say that they are going away to consider their options for the site, but given that they have again been sent away with a flea in their ear, maybe we can hope that this is the last we hear of them on this issue for the foreseeable future.

But we should not be complacent!

So many thanks to everyone who has contributed over the past two or more years to the campaign against developing Mount Oswald - a small celebration might be in order.

Banks Developments are putting in a new planning application to develop the Mount Oswald (they call it ‘Durham Park’).

As with the last time, they are putting on an exhibition of the proposals at Mount Oswald. This will be held in the Campbell suite at Mount Oswald Golf Club on Weds 19 November from 3-7pm.

Here is the Durham Park exhibition flier that Banks have sent me.

While these proposals appear to involve considerably less development of the site then the original one that was roundly rejected by the planning committee (and just about everyone who was consulted on it) there are still aspects that fall quite outside the current local planning framework.

As a major development, the timing of the application means that it will almost certainly be determined by the new unitary County Council after 1 April next year and so will represent perhaps thae first significant test of the planning procedures of the new council.

As the local councillors for the area, I and my colleague Councillor Grenville Holland, will be very keen to know residents views of these new proposals as we shall want to represent local opinion as fully as possible.

It is time for an update on the possibility of a Neville’s Cross Community Centre and I am afraid it is not good news for those who believe that this is something the area really does need.

A fledgling Community Association was set up a couple of years ago and has been working on plans to build an extension on to Neville’s Cross Primary School which would serve as a Community Centre and also be available for ther school at agreed times.

A feasibility study has just been completed, but with an estimated cost of over £400K and at a time when the financial outlook is generally so bleak, the members of the Committee decided that the project was simply too daunting for them and that they would wind up their activities.

Personally I am disappointed, but I do understand the difficulties facing the Committee and agree that they had little choice. Nonetheless, those involved do deserve thanks for everything they have done and the time that they have spent.

One small positive to come out of all the hard work is the hope that we can have a community notice board for the area.

Negotiations are under way with St John’s Church to replace their church notice board with something that will serve for both the church and for general community events and information. My fellow City Councillor Ron Dickie and I would be funding the community part from our local ward allowances. We hope that approval will come from St John’s PCC in the next few weeks.

I am a member of the City Council working group on the creation of a Town Council for the City.

The group met earlier this week (it meets quite regularly) and agreed to a publicity and awareness raising exercise in to begin the unparished city area later this month aimed at gauging local support for the idea.

I and the City Lib Dems are fully behind forming a Town Council as we believe it will be essential to maintain local links with elected members whose main concern is our historic city.

The Schools Adjudicator, Sir Philip Hunter, issues his decision yesterday on the admissions criteria for Durham Johnston.

In brief, Sir Philip decided that the criteria giving priority to associated transport from specific areas ahead of families close to the school was unfair.

 He specified that the criteria for 2009 entry should be the same as those for 2008 with distance being measured from the closer of the Crossgate and Whinney Hill sites.

He also directed the Council to review it criteria for future years in the light of this decision, pointing out that in mixed urban/rural areas arrangements involving catchment areas or feeder schools were much more common and were more acceptable.

Sir Philip also criticised the public consultation process and the confusion caused in the mind of local people by the way in which the Council has said things in the past.

I believe this is the best outcome for now. It gives the Council time to get its act together and come up with a workable solution.

One point to emerge from all the debate was the fact that the current criteria actually make no difference to the admissions of all but very few schools in the County, as in most areas there is either no alternative school or no real cometition for places.

My conclusion is that in coming up with new criteria, the Council should look very hard at the areas where there is competition and devise rules that deal fairly with these situations. My regret is that the County Council clearly has not taken this approach in the past.

You can see the full judgement at: DJ Adjudicator decision

The number of local parents appealing against the County admissions criteria for DJ has grown rapidly and the Schools Adjudicator has decided to hold a hearing on the issue later this month.

My information is that the Adjudicator will hold public meeting at the school on Thursday 26 June at 6 pm. This is to allow parents to make representations.

If there is more information, I will post the details.

In addition, a letter has gone out today from the parent governors of Neville’s Cross Primary School drawing attention to what is going on and letting them know how to make their view known if they have not already done so.

The City Council is holding one of its periodic Residents’ Forums on Wednesday 21 May at Durham Town Hall (6.30 for 7 pm start).

The Forum is on the topic of Premises Licences and is for residents of Crossgate and Framwelgate, Elvet, Neville’s Cross, Pelaw & Gilesgate and St Nicholas wards.

Representatives will be there from the City Council and Durham Constabulary as well as local councillors.

Please do attend and have your say.

My Colleague for the Neville’s Cross Division on the County Council and City Councillor for Crossgate and Framwelgate Councillor Grenville Holland, was yesterday elected Mayor of Durham. I wish him well for his year in office.

This morning the Northern Echo referred to Grenville as the last Mayor of Durham City. This is, of course, untrue as provision has been made by the Government for the mayoralty to continue under a Charter Trust arrangement from 1 April next year.

The Charter Trust will be controlled by the members elected to the County Council within the area of the current City Council (22 in total for the time being, 15 Lib Dem and 7 Labour) who will elect a mayor annually from among their number. All the civic dignities, such as the Mayor’s Bodyguard, the Mace Bearer and the Sword Bearer will continue along with the pomp and ceremony that goes with it.

Of course, it will cost to keep this going (I have heard the sum of £80K mentioned as the cost of ‘running’ the mayor) and a small supplementary amount will have to be added to the council tax in Durham City to cover it, but everyone I have spoken to is more than happy to pay a few pence per week to continue our centuries-old traditions.

I received an e-mail from Banks at 3.40 pm today informing me that they are withdrawing their current application and are not proceeding with the appeal.

This is not the end, however, as they will be putting in revised proposals ‘in due course’.

So we remain vigilant.

Here is the Banks Letter.

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 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.

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.

A meeting is being held on Monday morning (31 March) with the Director of Children’s Services, Councillor Vasey (Cabinet member with the education portfolio) and several Durham City County Councillors (including yours truly) to discuss the way forward. I will report back after.

In the meantime I have been doing some research on the issue of whether Shincliffe and Bowburn are closer (by road) to the Crossgate Moor DJ site or to Gilesgate Comp.

Logically, as all shortest journeys would have to pass the junction on the A177 just along from The Rose Tree, the answer to which is the shorter will be the same for everyone irrespective of the particular house they live in.

So try the following: go to the AA journey planner web site and find the distance between DH1 2YJ (Telford Close in High Shincliffe) and DH1 4SU (Crossgate Moor DJ site) and the distance from DH1 2YJ to DH1 1HN (Gilesgate Comp).

When I did this they both came to 4.03 miles! [But please tell me if I got this wrong - although I did do it twice]

Now I have to issue a word of caution here, since the AA routes may not be the ’shortest safe route’ as defined by the County Council, but this does explain why families in both Bowburn and Shincliffe are confused and upset over the future admissions arrangements.

The current county bussing policy talks about conveying children to the closest appropriate school, and no-one at County Hall has bothered to tell people in that area which this is, even though all that has to be done is to measure the shortest difference from the junction mentioned above.

Forgive me if I go on further about this. Suppose, for the sake of argument that it turns out that Gilesgate is closer and that the County sticks to its policy as stated. Then families can still apply to DJ and may well get a place on the final distance criteria, but then they will have either to drive their children over (great for the environment!) or to pay for bus fares. Either way this disadvantages familes with fewer resources to spare.

DJ Governors repeated their view yesterday at their latest governing body meeting that they wish to maintain their commitment and association with the villages concerned, and indeed this was promised by Councillor Vasey’s Labour Cabinet predecessor in public less than nine months before approval for the new building was finally given. 

There is a way out for the Council, though. The actual admissions criteria that the Cabinet want to adopt also mentions a phrase like ‘economic efficiency’ in relation to bussing arrangements, so they have the chance to decide to retain the existing bus arrangements on economic grounds.

But this all shows how useless Labour are at getting things right. One reason this has blown up is because the local county council members have not been properly consulted as the decision making process has gone on. Now, at the eleventh hour, after a massive rumpus, at last we are.

Do they deserve to be relected in May?

At the monthly Cabinet meeting at County Hall yesterday, the decision on the admissions criteria for Durham Johnston was deferred to a special meeting to be held early next month.

In a somewhat acrimonious debate, the Labour portfolio holder for Children’s Services, Claire Vasey, asked the Cabinet to make the admissions criteria the same for Durham Johnston as everywhere else.

This would mean that children living more than 2 miles away who were assigned to the school by the County bussing policy would take priority over local Neville’s Cross children living closer to the school.

I pointed out that in the mid 1990s this approach had led to a position where children living perhaps a few hundred yards from the school were in real danger of being denied a place, and that if the criteria reverted to the old ones, then there was a real risk of this happening again.

I also pointed out the the ’sibling link’ criterion which gives preference to brothers and sisters of children already in the school had also created anomalies because of the popularity and success of the DJ sixth form [Durham Johnston is in the best literal handful of true comprehensives in the country for A-level results].

There had been occasions in the past when students had come into the school just for the sixth form from up to 20 miles away and the families had then claimed priority for an eleven year old on the basis of sibling link.

This is clearly unfair to local children. The governors got a special rule inserted into the DJ criteria some years ago to prevent this, but the proposals on the table would take that protection away.

Add to the mix the fact that the Mac Williams, Labour councillor for the area covering Shincliffe and Bowburn, complained bitterly that he had not been consulted at any stage (neither had I, although I contributed to the debates on the school governing body), and the Cabinet suddenly split on the issue.

Claire Vasey was supported by the Deputy Leader Clive Robson, only for the Leader, Albert Nugent, to move that the decision be deferred for further discussion.

There was a vote and for the first time in public in my 23 years at County Hall, the ruling Labour leadership split. The vote went 7 - 3 in favour of deferring the issue for more consultation with the interested parties.

What is more, the Deputy Leader voted against the Leader!

So, if you have got this far, you will perhaps agree with me that it is a good job there are elections in 6 weeks time so we can get rid of this divided and ineffective lot.

The University produces an information leaflet for residents (students and otherwise) that should be widely distributed in areas where there is a significant student population.

From discussion at a meeting of the University City Liaison Committee last week, it appears that it did not get out as much as it should have. So if you either did not receive it or have lost it, here it is (courtesy of the University):

University Community Liaison Leaflet 

One important piece of information contained in it is the Community Hotline number, Durham 334 2222, where residents can ring in to report student-related issues or problems that are affecting their area.

The University Community Patrol is willing to investigate nuisance issues and try to resolve them amicably - they are usually successful. Remember though that serious incidents involving crime or public disorder should always be reported to the police.

[The University City Liaison Committee meets once each term to look at issues involving students in the community. Around the table are university officials, local councillors, representatives of community associations, students and the police.]

A paper is going to the County Council Cabinet on 20 March proposing to change the admissions criteria for Durham Johnston.

Many local residents will remember the crisis around 12 years ago when children being bussed in from Bowburn and Brandon were taking priority over those living a few hundred metres from the school.

After a concerted campaign by parents, supported by me, the then Education Committee agreed to change the criteria to give priority to “pupils for whom Durham Johnston is the nearest suitable school”. Distance was measured from the closer of the Whinney Hill and Crossgate Moor sites.

This sorted the problem with most children from the villages still getting a place, but as the school is moving to a single site next year (another successful campaign) things had to be reviewed as the “closest school” for Shincliffe, for example, will no longer be Durham Johnston.

The proposal on 20 March is to revert to the previous regime where bussing arrangements take priority over sibling links with distance last.

The argument is that the criteria for all schools in the County should be the same, but I am really concerned that the problems that we had 12 years ago might return.

There is another issue to do with sibling links.

Durham Johnston has a fantastic sixth form with recent results placing it in the top handful (literally) of truly comprehensive schools in the whole of the England. Many students choose to come to its sixth form from other schools, often from a considerable distance.

The sibling link criterion means that a family living 25 miles away can get a child into the sixth form and then claim priority over a local family for a second child at age 11.

This did indeed happen a few times in the past and the governors asked for this loophole to be closed - and it was. Now it is going to be re-opened again.

Maybe falling numbers of children will mean that the risks to local families of not getting a place are very low, but we are told that the birthrate is now rising again, so the risks will also rise.

There are questions that need to be answered here. How over-subscribed is Durham Johnston? What are the risks? How have they been assessed?

Perhaps the main question is - why does it have to be “one size fits all”?

Residents may have read a piece in the local papers about the Miners’ Heritage Group that has an exhibition above the Neville’s Cross Club on Crossgate Peth. While the Group are having some problems over the future of their collection, what was less clear was the good work they are doing to create an educational resource for local schools on Durham’s mining heritage.

While it is difficult for me to support the group financially in regard to their accommodation problems, I am going to give a small grant to them to help with the educational work as it is important that the young people in our schools are aware of what the mining industry meant for County Durham.

I was expecting a decision from the City Licensing Committee yesterday on the Buzz Barr application (see other posts on this subject on 11 Jan and 6 Feb), but the hearing was abandoned when it turned out that the application for the stop at Rainton Gate had not been properly advertised.

This has some good and some bad aspects. It is good that the people who live nearby as well as the County Scout and Guide Association are now aware and can make representations in time if a new application comes in.

Not so good is the prospect of the applications being renewed for sites at stops along the A167 through Neville’s Cross.

I have had a number of people contact me over this issue in the last month, and no-one has anything good to say about the idea. needless to say I shall be keeping a weather eye out for this one if it rears its head again.

One other issue has arisen out of this affair - the inadequacy of the process for consulting the public over licence applications, particularly the way in which people living nearby are not notified directly (as is the case with planning applications).

I have done some checking and the current procedure operated by the Council is what is recommended by Government (an advert in the press together with a notice on site). From what I can tell, most other councils operate in the same way, but there are a small number that go against Government advice and also send a letter to neighbouring residents.

Clearly this would be an added cost, but personally, I think that most residents would see that as being a good use of their local taxes (although please do feel free to disagree). It is an issue I shall be taking up with the Council in the coming weeks.

Do let me know whether or not you agree.

With the end of the financial year approaching I have been allocating my remaining “local initiative” money from County Hall and have ben pleased to make a grant of £300 to the Friends of Flass Vale to help purchase nesting boxes for the Vale.

This is a good present for them and will add to their celebration of the creation of the formal nature reserve in the area in 10 days time.

Thanks to everyone who contacted me to express their concern (which I share) about the proposed Buzz Barr that would have had a series of Neville’s Cross bus stops licenced for drinking alcohol!

 The parts of the application that refer to the bus stops on the A167 have now been withdrawn (for now) leaving only the lay by on the A690 Sunderland Road on the left just below Rainton Gate.

The law that specifies how licence applications are to be advertised leaves much to be desired - neither the residents next to the lay-by nor the County Scout and Guides who have their main camp site adjacent to the lay-by knew anything of the matter until after the period for representations was over.

In the event that the licence is granted, the application for the A167 bus stops may re-appear. I shall be vigilant.

There was a meeting this afternoon between some city centre councillors, county council officers and the Secretary of the County Association of Town and Parish Councils to discuss issues around forming a Town Council for Durham City when the unitary County Council is set up.

A Town Council for the City (i.e. the area covered by the old City Council pre-1974) would have the same powers as a parish council (like Belmont or Framwellgate Moor parishes).

I am keen to support this idea as it will help to counter the “remote county council” fears that many people have for the new unitary council. Indeed several areas elsewhere in County Durham have recently gone through the process to set up a town or parish council where none existed before because they see the advantage of being “local”.

The next stage will be public meetings to discuss the issues involved and to get public support for the idea. Watch out for the dates when they are announced.

The meeting of the Durham City Development Control Committee last night was packed out as it considered the application by Banks Ltd to develop Mount Oswald.

Following a summary of the (damning) planning officer’s report, two local residents spoke against it and then so did I as the local ward councillor. Here is my speech to the Planning Committee.

In the end there was little real discussion by the members of the Committee as the report and its recommendations were so clear cut. The application was refused by a unanimous vote.

But this is probably not the end of the matter. Banks have already tried to appeal once on the grounds that the Council delayed the decision too long. That was rejected out-of-hand by the government inspectorate - Banks had got their facts wrong (along with so much else in this case).

No doubt they will now try to appeal to the Secretary of State in spite of the opposition from the Highways Agency, One North East, the North East Assembly, the County Council and just about anyone else too.

The strange thing is how Banks have failed to attempt any discussion or negotiation with the Council over the issues that the application raised. They must have spent well over £100K on this application which looks as though it was doomed to failure from the start because it was deficient in almost every department.

 Is something else going on? We shall have to wait and see - and remain vigilant.

As expected, the planners at Durham City Council have recommended refusal of the Banks planning application for Mount Oswald.

The matter is on the agenda for the City Council Development Control Committee on Thursday 10 January 2008 (5.30 pm at The Studio, Gala Theatre, Durham City).

The report (which you can see here: Banks Mount Oswald Planning report ) is scathing about the application and has virtually nothing good to say about it. Indeed the Highways Agency has gone so far as to issue a directive to the Council to refuse the application because it does not address properly the impact of the development on the strategic road network around Durham City.

So the application will be refused which is excellent news for the hundreds of local people who have supported the campaign against this montrous proposal.

Nonetheless, I hope lots of people will turn up to the meeting to show their support for having this application tossed out.

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.

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”.

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.

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 …

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.

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.