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.