I have just received a letter from the Chair of the Forum reiterating its refusal to meet in public.

This follows a unanimous motion by the full county council last year calling on them to open up their proceedings, and a meeting of the Forum after that which was told that council officers were unable to discover any other Fora that did meet openly.

When I spent less than 10 minutes on the web discovering three others that did so, they had to reconsider.

The letter from the Forum Chair tells me that they surveyed over 150 other authorities and from 90 replies found that 20 always met in public and another 3 sometimes did.

So while the majority meet in secret, there are many that have the confidence to do their work in public.

So why not the Durham Admission Forum? What have they to hide? What is it that they are frightened of us knowing?

The minutes of their latest meeting have not yet been published on the council web site, but I shall be interested to know how they justify their position.

School admissions policy is one of the most important issues for families with children in County Durham and yet policy is formulated in secret by an unrepresentative body. This cannot be right.

Whatever the government after the coming general election, it should overturn this secrecy rule so that everyone can know how and why things are decided.

Many apologies, but please remember that  we can both be contacted easily by e-mail or by phone.

The April surgery will go ahead irrespective of the general election unless council rules forbid it.

Speaking of phones, I have just discovered that the phone number 0191 372 5880 which is is given for me on the County Council web site  has had a glitch - I don’t know for how long - and would probably just have appeared to ring continuously. I think I have this now sorted and it should now be diverting properly to my personal mobile phone as I am not using the council provided one.

If, like me, you were bowled over by last November’s Lumiere event, there is to be an exhibition of photographs taken by local photographer, Peter Jackson, in Clayport Library, running until mid-April.

For more information about the exhibition call Clayport Library on 0191 386 1282.

After reading this, and before going ballistic about governors not being invited to the official opening of the school, I made a couple of phone calls and discovered that this report was totally wrong. A few minutes later I received an e-mail form the headteacher to confirm that no oficial opening had taken place.

Durham Times readers will indeed see the PM beside a plaque but that is just to commemorate the visit of the Cabinet to the school, not any kind of official opening.

Which all goes to show that you should not believe everything you read in the press, but given the importance to the local community of the official opening of the school whenever it happens, it makes one wonder who gave the Durham Times reporter the idea in the first place.

On a more mundane note, the taxpayer has probably spent getting on for a quarter of a million pounds ferrying the Cabinet plus around 40 civil servants up to Durham. Can anyone tell me what actual government business was done?

If the answer is what I expect, then the residents of Durham may quite rightly ask why such large sum has been spent trying to shore up the reputation of the Labour Government in a marginal seat just a few weeks before the general election.

As I write,  just  after 11 am, I understand that they will be meeting at Durham Johnston, although as a  senior Governor of the school and one of the local elected representative for the area, I am rather dismayed that no-one has officially told me about the visit.

Having said that, it has been clear that something was happening today as I have become aware over the past couple of weeks of several ‘public discussion’ sessions with  mysterious people who could not be identified (for security reasons).

One of these was related to how the AAPs are progressing and all the AAPs were asked to nominate a couple of people to be involved. Given the short notice, the Durham AAP was only able to nominate myself and one of the public members of the AAP Board, although it did not really surprise me when we were both turned down as we are both known to be Liberal Democrats and presumably not the right kind of person for the exercise.

So at one level this is all just a stunt. The Cabinet will come, then it will go and not much will have changed.

So should we feel privileged that Durham is honoured by our visitors? Perhaps, but another explanation for the choice of Durham is the fear that Labour has of losing the City of Durham seat at the forthcoming general election. That’s the city that has been at the centre of a Labour controlled County Durham for the past 90 years, but also the city that rejected Labour at the last two elections for the old City Council.

So, thanks Gordon, for confirming that the Lib Dems have more than a fighting chance of winning in a few weeks time.

And you really are welcome to visit our fair City any time you like, especially if it is to feast on what Bill Bryson called our “perfect little city” has to offer rather then contrived public debates.

Community, voluntary and arts organisations, social enterprises, town and parish councils and professional artists can apply for up to £500 through the scheme, with some match funding expected from the projects themselves.

The closing date for the latest round of applications is Monday 15 March but anyone needing help to apply is being invited to book a 20-minute slot at one of the advice surgeries that are being held around the County. The one in Durham is at the Gala Theatre on Tuesday 23 February 4pm - 7 pm

To book a 20 minute session, contact Michael Farlow on 013888 816 166 or email michael.farlow@durham.gov.uk.

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 been getting many comments and queries (often highly critical of the Council) about things such as bins not being collected, the state of pavments and the need to refil local salt bins.

Personally I am not going to have a go at the staff, many of whom have been working all hours to try to keep things going, but the issues have been fed back by me and other councillors and we are being heard.

The latest bulletin on the state of things from County Hall makes specific mention of actions over rubbish collections and salt bin re-filling. I reprint it below verbatim:

Forecast for today Sun 10th Jan

Whilst snow is still expected to spread across the region from the south during Sunday night the severe weather warning has been lifted. Near to the coast, and even elsewhere at times, it could fall as sleet or even rain. The rain, sleet and snow will continue  for most of Monday before slowly dying out by Tuesday morning. So amounts of new snow for the whole event will range from very little near to the coast, just 1-2cms at low levels but still 5-10cms on ground above about 600 or 700ft. Over the very highest ground , above about 1000ft, there is still a possibility of 15-20cms, especially where it drifts around in the strong and cold easterly wind.

Road surface temperatures are expected to fall below freezing but not to the extent of recent nights.

Proposed Actions

Shifts to continue and all routes to be patrolled/ploughed as necessary with salt treatment only on class A & B roads.  The 24hrs shifts to be reviewed on Monday

Salt bins

40 men in teams will be filling salt bins throughout the day and will continue for the foreseeable future enabling residents to help themselves.  This additional resource should mean all bins will be filled within a week.

Footpaths Teams have been out on Saturday  on a wide range of high priority locations clearing footpaths right across the County. Tractors also assisted along side this for example clearing snow around bus stations and car parks. A presence is being maintained today although focusing on main town centres for Monday morning.Refuse Collection

Work in housing estates yesterday was really successful and a major operation is underway across the County using tractor gritters and other machinery to clear access to (and into where possible) estates to improve access along Monday’s scheduled collection routes. This is continuing again today.  Please note that snow does accumulate in the wake of the ploughs, in some instances causing local inconvenience. It is essential work however if a safe and determined effort in picking up refuse is to be made.

Starting from Monday morning, and dependent on ground conditions, a substantial deployment of grounds staff will be made, working along side refuse crews. A fleet of wagons will be used to get to the nearest safe access points, and bins and side waste can be taken by staff to these locations. Even with this massive deployment, ground conditions or difficult access are likely to mean that we cannot pick up all the bins on their set day, and if safety considerations dictate there may be need for suspension. Be assured however that we are making a determined effort to do our utmost, with the aim of clearing as many bins on their scheduled collection days this week. We are also, where possible deploying some mopping up from additional areas, subject to progress.

Forecast for the 2 -5 days ahead

As for the rest of the week: The extreme low temperatures have probably now gone but it will stay cold and windy with the possibility of some light sleet or snow on Wednesday into Thursday. Daytime temperatures will just get above freezing in places, with a slight thaw at low levels, but there will be a frost at night, with ice continuing to be a problem.

Beyond that it still looks like somewhat less cold conditions will try to push in from the southwest but any thaw will continue to be gradual.

Salt

Reducing the treated network to Class A & B roads has had a positive impact on salt usage and preserving salt stocks.  Nationally all local authorities have now been asked to reduce their salt usage by 25% to preserve stocks.  In Durham, the measures taken earlier in the week means that we have already achieved this.  Further reductions may be called for next week.

Emergency Services

We are in constant contact with the emergency services regarding access difficulties and up to present there have been few of these.

The snow and ice has been causing havoc as we all know. In particular today’s (Monday 4 Jan) refuse and recycling collections have been called off for safety reasons and will be resumed a day late tomorrow.

As the first heavy snow started to thaw between Christmas and New Year, I passed on some individual requests to deal with footpath and minor road issues. Unfortunately we then had another heavy fall over the last few days which has set everything back.

 The Council is concentrating on keeping the main roads open at the moment and with plummeting temperatures plus further heavy snow predicted, I am sure there will be considerable pressure on resources.

Nonetheless, if there are particularly difficult problems in Neville’s Cross, Crossgate and Framwelgate, do let me know and I will see what can be done.

The County Council has a web page on  Winter Weather Information as well as an RSS feed at www.durham.gov.uk/Pages/RssFeed.aspx?Feed=WinterWeather

Happy New Year!

Keeping Green at Christmas

To help residents stay green this Christmas Durham County Council is publishing festive refuse and recycling collection dates.

In the Derwentside, Durham City and Sedgefield areas, there is no change to the collection day.  Bins will still be collected on Monday 28 December, even though it is a Bank Holiday.

In Easington the day is as normal apart from Friday, when collections will change from Friday 25 December to Monday 28 December and from Friday 1 January to Monday 4 January 2010.

In the Chester le Street, Teesdale and Wear Valley areas, collection dates will be the same as usual up to and including Christmas Eve. From Friday 25 December until Wednesday 30 December, bins will be collected one working weekday later than usual, including Monday 28 December even though it s a Bank Holiday.  Bins that would usually be collected on Thursday 31 December will be emptied on Saturday 2 January 2010, and a usual collection on Friday 1 January will move to Monday 4 January 2010.

All collections throughout the county will be back to normal from Monday 4 January 2010.

Residents with any queries should contact their local council office.

 In addition, they are currently raising another $200M as a matched-funding challenge by the Bill Gates Foundation.

 Clubs in County Durham, including my own, Durham Bede Rotary Club, are part of this project and one of them has come up with a clever fund-raising scheme. So …

… do you have an old mobile phone that you wish to dispose of in a beneficial way?

The Barnard Castle Rotary Club has got together with the envirocharities scheme which allows you to dispose of your old mobile phone, and if it has value, to sell it. Envirocharities will give £3 to your charity and you can receive the remaining value or can donate all or part of it to your charity.

So if you have an old mobile phone to get rid of, go to the  www.endpolionow.co.uk web site (or click on the link in the left sidebar) where you can find out how the scheme works. It is amazingly easy to do something that will really make a difference.

Polio is now endemic in only four countries in the world thanks mainly to the efforts of Rotary International.

So, for instance, you can find out who your local elected representatives are, where your nearest schools are and what day your bins are emptied all by putting in your postcode and house number or name.

Eventually it is hoped to develop it to the point where you can monitor your council tax payments and any other transactions that you have with the council.

At the moment it is still at an early stage of development, but why not try it out and let me know what you think. You can access the site from the main council we page.

Earlier this year, the Council passed unanimously a Lib Dem motion urging the Forum to open up its meeting to the public.

On 24 September, the Forum met and debated the issue and decided to reject the council’s plea and tyo continue to meet in private.

The minutes of the meeting make interesting reading as on the second page is the statement “Some research has been undertaken to find out how other Admission Forums in the country manage these matters and so far we have not been able to identify any Admission Forum which meets in public.”

This is somewhat strange, as I have just googled the phrase “admission forum public meeting” and within 10 minutes established three authorities, Leeds, Redcar and Cleveland, and Slough, that do indeed have their meetings in public (I stopped looking after I had found these three so I am sure there must be more).

This is unacceptable, and I have now written to the Council to ask for the whole issue to be revisited as the Forum has clearly been materially misled.

If you look at the minutes, you will also see that the members of the Forum were concerned about being intimidated (my word) by meeting in public. I have to say that as they mostly consist of senior professionals in the education sector, I am not much impressed by that argument either.

The issue rumbles on…

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.

My reaction is that this just shows how crazy a system we now have for school admissions.

Both Conservative and Labour Governments have spent the last 25 years promoting the idea of ‘choice’ in school admissions, when deep down we all know that there is no such thing and they have been selling a pup. There is only ‘preference’ and when a school is over-subscribed, somebody will lose out.

That might not be so bad if local councillors were then permitted to decide on what they think is best in there area (and suffer the consequence at the ballot box if they get it wrong).

We are, however, in a crazy situation, where a non-democratic unaccountable body (the County Admissions Forum) can take decisions in secret behind closed doors and when elected councillors have the temerity to disagree the Forum gets its way by appealing to someone unconnected with the County.

The least the Government can do now is to require Admissions Forums to meet in public and allow affected parents to make direct in-person representation to them.

But I am not holding my breath…

The meeting will discuss the proposals that have been emerging from the AAP Board meetings over recent months in the areas of

• Activities for young people

• Development of the city centre

• Increased support for the voluntary sector

• Clean and green environment.

which were the priorities determined by the previous Forum meeting in May.

This is the opportunity for you to have your say on projects and services in the Durham AAP area. We want the whole community to be involved.

If you wish to attend, you should book your place by visiting www.durham.gov.uk/aap or by contacting 0191 301 8718.

If you readers to know more, I have a small supply of leaflets entitled (Quick Guide 2009 2010 - A guide to benefit and tax credit rates), so if you would like a copy drop me an e-mail and I will send one on to you.

You may also contact the Welfare Rights Team by e-mail at welfare.rights@durham.gov.uk, by telephone at 0191 370 8787 or by writing to Welfare Rights, Social Inclusion Service, Durham County Council, The Rivergreen Centre, Durham DH1 5TS.

I have also placed this information on the Community Contacts page.

Music will be provided by Durham County Wind Band with songs and arias from Val Anderson, Evelyn Mitchell, John Oliver and Accompanist Martin Dack.

Tickets are £7.50 including tea/coffee (students and children £2.50) with proceeds to St Cuthbert’s Hospice and Marie Curie Cancer Care.

Tickets are available from Durham Tourist Office, Stu Cuthbert’s Hospice or Rotarians (e-mail me).

It will, as always, be a very enjoyable and entertaining evening.

The key areas of discussion will depend upon the perceived urgency that will surround the Copenhagen summit, as well as the more fundamental principles that will influence the actions of participants in the whole event.  We also plan to provide ideas for action, as well as the chance to sign up for The Wave (SCC March) in London on 5 December.

Christian Aid is part of the Stop Climate Chaos coalition and, locally, part of the MakePovertyHistory-NorthEast.

You can help by registering your support on the County Council web site at the Back The Bid web page.

The document asks for reponses to a number of questions and there is a Consultation Questionnaire that goes with it. This refers to a “pre-paid envelopeprovided” which is a tad difficult on the internet! If you want to respond by post, then send yours to Adam Robinson, Passenger Transport, Durham County Council, County Hal, Durham.

The deadline for responses is 3 December 2009.

The process has been started with the publication of the Core Strategy Issues Paper on 9 October after which there is a seven week consultation period ending on Friday 27 November 2009.

The County has created an LDF Consultation Portal on its web site. This web page contains a link to the Core Strategy Issues Paper as a series of web pages (yes a pdf-file might have been a lot more convenient for most people, but we get what we are given).

The Portal also has links for individual comments to be registered.

This is a key stage in what will no doubt be a long period during which the new LDF will emerge.

There is more information at the County Council’s LDF web page.

Meetings are to be held in Room 1B at County Hall between 6 pm and 6.45 pm on Thursday 22 October 2009 and Thursday 26 November.

The meetings will be attended by a representative from your neighbourhood policing team, will be specific to the area and individual neighbourhood priorities will be discussed. All members of the community are welcome.

I was therefore amazed to hear a statement at the most recent Council meeting by the Cabinet member with responsibility in this area, that the Admissions Forum has snubbed its nose at the unanimous decision of the elected representatives for the County and will continue to meet in secret.

I am appalled that this unrepresentative and unaccountable body can go onto acting in this way, and I intend to continue to campaign for it to be dragged out fully into the public gaze so that it can be made to justify the power that it exercises.

Click here for a poster advertising the event.

I have lodged the guidelines here and the application form.

The scheme is running through until 2011 with a series of deadlines for applications through that period.

In the 2009-10 round, there are two deadlines for applications: noon on 30 October and noon on 15 March next year.

The police have web pages for localities in the City which may be accessed from http://www.durham.police.uk/local/north/durham.

The local pages covering the division are:

Neville’s Cross -  www.durham.police.uk/neighbourhood.php?neighbourhood_id=163.

Crossgate and North End - www.durham.police.uk/neighbourhood.php?neighbourhood_id=43.

There has been increasing concern over the impact in Durham City of the Schools Adjudicator’s decision earlier this summer to impose a set of distance-based admissions criteria for county secondary schools.

That problem has not gone away and in spite of a lot of hard work by residents of Shincliffe and Bowburn, it seems like they are stuck with things for the next three years.

In the back of all this has been a mysterious body call the County School Admissions Forum which advises the Council in this area.

The Admissions Forum recommended distance-based rules, but the County Cabinet rejected this in favour of feeder school in the City. All very well, you might think, but then it appears that the Admissions Forum can have a second bite of the cherry by appealing to the Schools Adjudicator (indeed the Forum is virtually expected to do so).

This is bad enough, but the Forum is not required to justify its views in any sort of public arena. It has decided thus far to meet in private and will not allow representations to be made in person by any interested party.

And there is nothing the County Council can do to force it to do otherwise.

It seemed to us that the Admissions Forum has many of the attributes of a sixteenth century Star Chamber, so the Lib Dems put down a motion at Council this week urging the Admissions Forum to both meet in public and to allow personal representations to be made to it.

The small victory is that Labour supported us, although we were clearly warned not to expect it to happen again in the near future (but that won;t stop us trying).

Let’s just hope that the Admissions Forum listens to the democratically elected representatives of the people and changes its practice. Forums in several other parts of the country meet publicly without any problem, so why not in County Durham?

The paper is uploaded here: Bus Information Strategy 2006-2011 Consultation Draft.doc

If any reader has views that they would like me to feed into the process, please contact me a.s.a.. in the usual way. I have to feed in responses by 1 October.

The Regional Grand Committees have been created by Parliament to provide greater democratic scrutiny at a regional level. Each Committee will operate like a miniature version of the House of Commons giving MPs from across the North East region a forum to debate the ‘state of the region’ and put questions to the Regional Minister, Nick Brown, MP.  The debate for this meeting will focus on tackling the recession and the regional economy.

Every MP representing a constituency in the region is entitled to attend and participate in the Committee meetings.  The sitting is open to the press and the public, however the public are not permitted to ask questions.  Unlike Select Committees the Regional Grand Committees will not take evidence from external witnesses or produce a final report.

Anyone wishing to attend is requested to advise Nigel Sayer at tel: 01642 729 031, nigel_sayer@middlesbrough.gov.uk.

Grants apply to homeowners and private sector tenants who are in receipt of a qualifying benefit or disability premium renting from a private landlord (excludes tenants from Registered Social Landlords).

The Warm Front grant recently increased to £3,500 to install new gas central heating and £6,000 for oil fired heating where the property is off the gas network.

Where the homeowner does not qualify for the Warm Front grant and is aged over 60 they may still be eligible for a £300 rebate where central heating is not installed or inoperable.

The council has produced promotional material which should be available from Council buildings, but if any resident wants more information, please do e-mail me and I will try to help. you can e-mail the council direct on energysmart@durham.gov.uk.

Information is also available from the Warm Front web site.

The Academies are a parallel programme devised under the mistaken idea that new buildings linked with taking control away from the local council will somehow improve education. It won’t - all the evidence is that school success is linked to strong and effective school leadership by the headteacher - there are plenty of examples of Academies that have not preformed well.

So how are these linked?

Well, in County Durham the Labour government appears to have threatened that unless rapid progress is made with the three Academies at Belmont, Consett and Stanley, the BSF programme across the rest of the County will be delayed.

Out of this has come a rushed process to identify suitable sites for these three schemes.

The Belmont scheme raised the possibility of using parish council community land (without any consultation with the parish council). Of course everyone got up in arms in protest and the obvious solution of rebuilding on the Belmont School site was the option the was eventually agreed.

But the parish council land should never have been in the frame, and this is the first example of how to upset people as much as possible by rushing at things instead of taking a more measured approach.

The Stanley proposal seems to have caused few ripples locally, but the Consett proposal is the second one demonstrating the County Council’s extraordinary ability to upset the maximum number of people.

In Consett, the County Cabinet decided that their preferred site was a greenfield site currently used by Consett FC, Consett Rugby Club and is a major local recreation area.

The local people in Consett said, hang on - wait a minute, we have a large brownfield site, a legacy of the old steel works, which we would all prefer so that we can keep our green recreation space. Indeed a petition of over 1100 names was presented to the Council saying so.

This week, on 18 August, the County Overview and Scrutiny Management Board discussed a call-in proposal to review the Cabinet decision, but the call-in was defeated by 10 votes to 9. The people of Consett are still fuming and may well vent their anger at the ballot box when next they have the chance.

So how does this fit with BSF? At this meeting, the Director of Children’s Services made great play of how the council was under pressure from government for a speedy decision on identifying the preferred Academy sites so that they could then enter into the contracts to move forward on BSF in the south west of the County and at Framwellgate Moor.

So you can imagine my amazement when I got home to see in the Northern Echo that morning an announcement that the Council had already signed contracts with an outfit called Inspired Spaces to take the next steps on the BSF programme. The Director had several times referred to signing contracts with Inspired Spaces when explaining to the Committee the pressure the council was under to come to a speedy decision.

Later, my sources told me that, following the announcement of the contracts (via a press release issued by the council), the council had been asked exactly which “44 secondary and special schools” were due to be rebuilt or upgraded. Astoundingly no-one at County Hall was able to say which they are.

I guess they do know as it, will be in the contract, but it does show what a confused state the county has got its secondary school policy into.

It has certainly got a lot of concerned residents extremely angry over decisions being made where the overwhelming views of local people expressed in through so-called consultation processes are routinely ignored.

“You may be aware that  Durham’s City of Culture brand was launched this week.

“We are holding an exclusive exhibition at the Empty shop a community art space in Durham used by North East artists (address: 1 Framwellgate Bridge, DH1 4SJ).

“The shop will be open to the North East public for six days from (11am-5pm). We have a blank wall which we are asking people to sign to back the bid.

“We would like to invite you to come along to the exhibition to see what Durham’s City of Culture 2013 bid will look like and have the opportunity to pledge your support and feedback on the bid.

“If you could pass this email onto anyone else you feel relevant it would be much appreciated.”

This is taking place all this week until Saturday 22 August.

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.

There have been household street votes which have mostly been in favour but those few streets that voted against are being excluded form the proposals.

The areas concerned in the Neville’s Cross division are Aykley Green, Aykley Court, Aykley Vale and Dunholme Close. The households at Aykley Heads Farm voted against. The other streets are in Framwellgate Moor.

Boste Crescent and Old Dryburn Way are geographically within the perimeter of the zone, but because they have not yet been adopted by the Council, are excluded from the proposals.

The next step  is for the proposals to be published in the press after which there will be a period for formal objections. If there are objections, then they will go to the County Highway Committee which will take the final decision.

Other streets in North End were not involved in this exercise, although I and the other Lib Dem Councillor Grenville Holland did do an informal survey of the area not so long ago. The results of this were generally positive and the Highways people at County Hall have agreed to start work on draft proposals for this area later this financial year.

The meeting is open to the public as observers, but if you would like to attend, please contact Lyn Cummings on 0191 301 8536 or Lynn.Cummings@durham.gov.uk

The members of the Board have been selected and are:

Elected Members Section: Councillors Rev Crooks, David Freeman, Ken Holroyd, Amanda Hopgood, Nigel Martin (Vice Chair), Carols Wood and John Lightley (Shincliffe Parish Council).

Partners Section: Mr Ron Batty (Business Sector), Stuart Errington (Fire & Rescue Service), Mr Glynn Hall (Housing and Durham County Council), Ms Paulina Lubacz (Durham University), Mr Iain Miller (PCT), Mrs Julie Taylor (CVS) and Ch. Insp. Colin Williamson (Durham Constabulary).

Public Representatives Section: Mr Patrick Conway, Revd Robert Lawrence, Mrs Colleen Peters, Ms Marie-Thérèse Pinder, Mr Ben Robertson, Mr Stuart Thompson and Mr Stuart Walton.

The public representatives were selected following written applications and interviews done over several days in early July.

In brief the Adjudicator decided that having feeder schools based criteria for one school was unfair and that it was unfair suddenly to change to such criteria when families made choices of primary schools before they could have known that feeder schools might be used in the future.

The Adjudicator has used his powers to direct that there be a uniform system of admissions criteria across the County for the next three years. These will be (direct quote from the Adjudicator’s opinion):

1.         Children in public care

2.         Medical Reasons

            Pupils with very exceptional medical factors directly related to school placement

3.         Family Links

            Pupils who have a brother or sister already attending the school who is expected to be on roll at the school at the time of admission

4.         Applicants to their nearest School

            Those children who have applied for a place at the nearest school to their home address measured by the shortest walking route

5.         All other applicants

Tie-breaker

                        Where the school is oversubscribed within any of the above categories the following tiebreakers will be applied:

            (a)       For those children who have applied for a place at the nearest school to their home address (category 4), priority will be given to those who would otherwise have to travel the furthest distance to the next nearest school¹

            (b)       For other children (category 5), priority will be given to those children who live nearest to the school applied for

            In the unlikely event of the school being oversubscribed within categories 1, 2 or 3 tiebreaker (b) will apply.

            Footnote¹:  ‘School’ means any Local Authority maintained secondary school or a DCSF maintained Academy in County Durham.  Distance will be measured by the shortest walking route. Those parents who live in County Durham and have children in year 6 in primary schools maintained by Durham County Council will be told which school is nearest to their home address according to the official measuring system.  The same information will be provided for any other applicant on request.

———————————————————————————–

I have always thought that a one-size-fits-all system across a geographically diverse county must be basically unfair to some communities. Differences in geography are bound to impact on the way things work in practice.

The stated objective of the tie-break for criterion 4 was to make the system fairer to those who apply but live at a distance from their preferred school. The irony is that for Durham Johnston I believe that everyone for whom DJ is their closest school will actually get in (i.e. those in Neville’s Cross, Langley Moor, most if not all of Elvet and parts of Meadowfield and Brandon) because the total of these will not over-subscribe the school.

So the tie-break that is most likely to operate will be pure distance from the school for those further out in Shincliffe and Bowburn. Indeed a cursory look at the map leads me to believe that many other areas will be closer.

As the crow flies, places like Bearpark, Newton Hall, Framwellgate Moor and Pity Me are closer to Crossgate Moor than Shincliffe and Bowburn. [This all needs a health warning as the crucial distance is shortest walking route not direct line, but the differences appear significant.] 

If the priorities change as I think they will, then we may well see a steady change in the communities that Durham Johnston serves as the sibling link connections to the further out places disappear over time.

But this will not only have an effect on families, it could also affect the intakes of other schools such as Deerness.

Change is always hard, but was this level of change really what the County Council wanted?

One other annoyance is the fact that a County Council body supported the appeal against the County Council’s own proposal for feeder schools.

This was the Admissions Forum; a mysterious group that is supposed to represent the local authority, schools and parents, which meets in private (it has refused to meet in public and it has refused to allow representations to be made in person to it on these immensely important issues) and publishes its minutes several months after its meetings. Up to now it has had only a single parent on it who would be easily outvoted by the rest (not that we get to know whether there have been any votes or who voted for what).

What a mess!

 ——————————————————————-

The full opinion can be viewed here in the Schools Adjudicator’s decision file.

The list for Durham County Council is published on the following web page:

http://www.durham.gov.uk/PDFApproved/CouncillorsAllowances0809.pdf

The details of my personal allowances and expenses for both the County Council and for my membership of the former Durham City Council is set out in a web page on this site - simply click on the link in the left column here.

For the sake of transparency I have included some comments on the detail of my expenses claims. If anyone wishes more detail I am happy to provide it.

One final comment. There have been some highly inaccurate comments in the letters column of the local press alleging that Councillor Carol Woods (Lib Dem PPC for Durham City) had claimed £30K last year in expenses/allowances while Deputy Leader of Durham City Council.

The actual figure was £13,871 being the combination of £5,571 in Basic Allowance and £8,300 in Special Responsibility Allowance for being Deputy Leader with nil claims for both travelling and subsistence expenses. [In normal parlance the word ‘allowance’ would be ’salary’, but council-speak is a mystery unto itself.]

I hope those peddling a gross error will now have the good grace to apologise.

If I were being charitable I would say that they had overheard a conversation and misheard ‘thirteen’ as ‘thirty’; nevertheless they had a duty to check the facts before sounding off shock-horror in the press!

     £50 Grant  

Do you run a community group?

Are you interested in arranging fun activities to celebrate the European Day of Languages on 26^th September?

If so, and you would like a chance to win a £50 grant towards event costs, please read on……………

26th September is the European Day of Languages – a day when people across Europe celebrate language and cultural diversity.

To encourage our communities to take part in European Day of Language celebrations, Europe Direct North East, which is hosted by Durham County Council, is offering groups a chance to win one of ten £50 grants.

What are we looking for?

Community activities, with a European language or cultural theme, to take place on or around the 26^th September. For example you could organise:

·     European language taster sessions so that people can learn e.g. French, German, Spanish, Hungarian, Polish, etc.

·     Projects that raise awareness about other European cultures, e.g. demonstrate or learn songs or dance from another European country; or display or make traditional dress from another European country.

·     A party that brings together members of the community, some of whom originated in other European countries, e.g. Poland

How to apply

Please contact us as soon as possible for an application form or further information. Telephone: 0191 383 3448 or Email: europe.direct@durham.gov.uk

Deadline – we must receive your completed application form by

5 p.m. Friday 24^th July 2009

We held off the UKIP challenge to retain the third seat for Fiona hall, who has been an excellent and respected MEP over the past five years doing some leading EU-wide work on environmental and climate change issues as well as working hard for the North East.

The vote across County Durham was counted at the Abbey Sports Centre yesterday evening with the following result:

So the Lib Dems were confirmed as the leading opposition party across County Durham.

There was no separate count for the City constituency area as happened last time because of local government re-organisation, but at the voter verification on Thursday evening we estimate that we took around a third of the City vote about half as much again as the Labour vote. It was difficult to be very accurate as the votes were verified face down and so we had to rely on impressions of marks coming through the back of the ballot papers!

Worse still, Durham County Council’s Electoral Registration Officer did not seem to be registered under the Data Protection Act – but was in the middle of running a European Election.

A bit of further research showed that most of the District Councils are still registered, though they ceased to exist two months ago – and they are still registered to handle election data!The worst aspect of all, from my point of view, is the lack of answers from County Hall.

They have neither told us when or whether the county has submitted an application for the Electoral Registration Officer, nor when the Information Commissioner was notified of the county’s change of status and all the resulting extra types of data it is handling.

When we asked if this meant that the county had not carried out these responsibilities we got the impression that they weren’t sure.

The sooner they make an announcement about the position the better. Everyone in the county has a right to know if their data is being handled in compliance with the law.

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.

I am pleased to say that, after an exchange of e-mails between the Crossgate Partneship and the Vice Chancellor,  this will not happen in the near future.

The VC said the following:

“I don’t know who stated undergraduate intake would be increased by 250 next year because this is wrong.  Indeed, even if we wanted to increase numbers we would not be able to because the Government has cut all additional numbers.  There is a need for fewer, not more, multi-occupancy houses in Durham.

“I hope I have clarified University strategy.  We are not intending to increase undergraduate numbers in Durham City, and we have gradually reduced numbers over the past five years.  You will also notice that we have been very successful in bringing our students back into College and University properties which is why there are so many empty houses around Durham with estate agent signs.  Indeed, estate agents are writing to me complaining that their business is being undermined, showing our strategy is successful.  What is now needed is for the residents who inappropriately converted their houses into multi-occupancy properties to return them to family houses.  This will require the landlords working with the local Council and I would strongly support any such initiatives.  There are already too many multi-occupancy houses in Durham and it is a shame that so many were converted on ill-informed notions of student numbers. 

“I hope this helps and reassures you.  Anything you can do to work with the Council and landlords to prevent further conversion of private houses into multi-occupancy housing (I see some are still proposed in Whinney Hill) would be helpful.  The University supports this. … Anything you can do to work with the Council and landlords to prevent further conversion of private houses into multi-occupancy housing (I see some are still proposed in Whinney Hill) would be helpful.  The University supports this.

This is pretty definitive stuff and supports the view of most residents that we need to stop the conversion of family homes into student lettings.

The former City Council refused planning permission for a number of these conversions but was often overturned on appeal.

Let us hope that the County Council continue to oppose this trend and can hold the line against the continued loss of city-centre family housing.

The voting on the priorities was as follows:

Altogether it was a very good meeting and was well oversubscribed. There will be a follow-uo event for those who could not be accommodated, but I do not know the details of that as yet.

The other good thing was the presence of a good number of new faces, so it was not just ‘the usual suspects’.

A link to the page “Elections and Voting” is at the left or you can click here: Elections and Voting.

I have just spoken to the planners who tell me that they have made it clear to Banks that their proposals could not be recommended to Committee for approval as they stand. On the other hand, because Banks have an agreement with the planners to extend the normal decision-making period, they can still try to amend their proposals to try to make them more acceptable.

This surely should not go on much longer and a time surely has to come soon when this is decided one way or another.

If you want to see progress on the application, you can see the current state of things on the City Planning Application Details web site .

I have spoken to a number of people who are concerned about possible university expansion onto Mount Oswald. The University lodged a letter of objection making it clear that they have no interest in having more student residences built there.

————————————–

Shincliffe CE (Controlled) Primary, Brandon Community Primary, Durham St Margaret’s CE Primary, Bowburn Junior, Langley Moor Primary, Neville’s Cross Primary, Browney Primary and Durham Johnston School.

A scheme of admission to Durham Johnston School based on the schools named in this section being described as feeder schools for the purposes of admission to Durham Johnston such scheme to give priority of admission to children in public care, medical reasons, sibling links where the place of residence continues to be within seven miles of Durham Johnston, thereafter admission by prior attendance at one of the above feeder schools at time of application.

Tie breaker: being determined by distance from feeder school to pupil home address.

The scheme described above shall be introduced with affect from September 2010 admissions to Durham Johnston for a trial period of not less than 3 years.

————————————–

This certainly satisfies the Shincliffe and Bowburn campaigners, but it brings about exactly the problem I raised in earlier posts.

The problem is the tie-breaker, and those proposing this method have not done their homework on how priorities will change under the stated rule. Here are two examples:

Family A live at the far end of Brandon just over a mile from Brandon Junior School and have a child at that school.

Family B live in Farewell Hall about 2 miles from both Neville’s Cross and St Margaret’s Primary Schools (and further from any other school in the list) and have a child at one of them.

In the recent past, the child in Family A did not normally get in to Durham Johnston as Deerness was their closest school, but Family B were assured of a place.

Under the new rules, if push comes to shove, Family A get precedence over Family B even though Family B are a long way away from any other school.

Indeed, some quick measurements on the internet show a similar risk that priority could be given to some families in Coxhoe who have not gone to Durham Johnston in recent times (if they send their children to Bowburn Primary.

Equally, there are families in North End for whom Durham Johnston is literally around the corner, who have their children at Neville’s Cross Primary who will also find themselves liable to be trumped for a place in the same way.

So what’s to do now? The next step is that the proposals must be formally published by the Council (probably around 1 May) after which there is a period when parents may appeal to the Schools Adjudicator.

It is open to families who think this solution is wrong to make such an appeal. It is only parents and guardians who can do this - more information can be found at the Schools Adjudicator web site: www.schoolsadjudicator.gov.uk

I am very happy to help anyone wishing to get involved in the process.

A couple of other comments. Firstly this outcome shows just how not to do things. A solution to a problem has been cobbled together behind closed doors without proper research into what the likely outcomes will be.

Secondly, Durham Johnston is not the only oversubscribed school in County Durham. Now that the council has come up with a solution for the difficult Durham Johnston problem, it may be reasonable for parents wanting a place at those schools to ask whether the uniform system across the rest of County Durham is really appropriate to them also.