Most of the population of the UK recognises the benefits of cycling. Safe cycleways can get many of us and our kids out of cars, taking exercise and reducing pollution. And there cannot potentially be many better places to cycle than in dear old flat Fenland. Pedaling along between its charming historic towns and beside its many beautiful waterways.
There has just been a wonderful opportunity to bid for funding for cycleways, to benefit the residents and to provide a boost to the local economy that would inevitably come with the increased tourism that cycleways would attract.
Based on the votes of the general public SUSTRANS has been awarded a huge £50,000,000 to be spent on cycleways in the UK. With all that money up for grabs, and a marvelous opportunity to improve safety and boost local wealth what has FDC bid for? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING !
So thanks to this stunning lack of initiative within Fenland Hall the foreseeable future looks set for us to remain in a Fenland where there are virtually no cycleways and where taking to the bike on our narrow and overburdened roads can mean dicing with death.
To read about what we COULD have aimed for, please follow the links.....
CYCLISTS, WALKERS GET £50M IN LOTTERY MONEY
DAILY TELEGRAPH 13/12/07 - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news
A nationwide scheme to open walking and cycling routes has won £50 million of lottery money after a poll of television viewers.
Sustrans: Connect2, which will restore paths, bridges and tunnels in 79 communities, beat three other contenders to the prize - the biggest grant awarded after a public competition.
ST NEOTS SECURES CASH FOR BRIDGE
ARTICLE FROM CAMBS24 -http://www.huntspost.co.uk
ST Neots will be getting a new cycle and foot bridge within five years after the town was awarded a slice of a £50million lottery grant.
The Connect2 project will create new cycling and walking routes to improve travel in 79 communities across the UK. Included in the project is a new cycle and foot bridge over the Great River Ouse linking Eaton Socon and Eynesbury.
The total cost of the town's new bridge is £2.4 million with £700,000 of the £50million lottery grant going to the project and the rest coming from the local authority
Huntingdonshire District council and St Neots Town Council have combined to win a whopping £700,000 grant for footpaths and cycleways.
Do we need these in Fenland ........
Did FDC apply for a part of this funding ? No
Walt.
Thursday 13 December 2007
A Fair and Balanced View ?
One does sometimes wonder about how FDC goes about prioritising its efforts.
A year or two ago, a young couple bought a house in Chatteris; a pleasant house with a garage at the side. The garage was accessed by a short track across across the edge of a green. Naively, this couple assumed they would be able to keep their car in the garage.
When this track got muddy in winter, they put down some paving slabs. They also laid a narrow row of slabs at the side of the drive, so when they got out of their car, they didn’t get their feet muddy.
Sounds quite sensible so far ? Then it started to go wrong. Someone complained that what was now a neat drive, which had been a muddy track track, was on the edge of a piece of public open space. This complaint was taken up by a local town and district councillor (despite representing completely different wards) and reported to the District Council.
Fenland District Council started by insisting that the couple should remove the slabs. The couple inquired how they were to use their garage. The District Council conceded that they could perhaps cross the grass, as long as they didn’t get out of the car and walk on the grass! (thereby in effect denying them the rights enjoyed by any other member of the public!).
It then came to light that Fenland District Council didn’t actually own the grass public open space. Things went quiete for a bit, while the District Council registered ownership of the space, including the established drive and path to the couple's house.
Now the registration is complete, the District Council are adamant that their legal department are actively taking action to force the couple to remove certainly the path, and probably the drive. (Although as there has been long established use of this access, their continued right to use it almost certainly exists anyway)
Those of you who are happy that our money is being wasted in this near persecution of a young couple who simply want to use their garage without getting muddy feet, may care to compare and contrast this case to another land ownership dispute currently languishing at Fenland Hall:-
In December 2006 residents of Cavalry Drive and Breton Avenue, March were horrified to learn that a planning application had been submitted to build two houses on the nearby substantial grass play area.
Investigations revealed that F.D.C. had neglected to register their ownership of this and other pieces of public open space in March. A local company which had formerly owned the land (about 30 years earlier when it was developed for housing) had seemingly realised that two green open spaces were unregistered at Peterborough Land Registry and in 2005 applied for, and was granted, registration of ownership.
FDC had found a deed of gift for one of the pieces of land and sent it to Peterborough Land Registry in October 2005. Land Registry replied that FDC should apply for ‘rectification of tittle’. And then FDC did .... nothing.
When this whole matter came into the public domain in earlier this year, FDC explained that they wouldn’t apply for rectification themselves, but would leave it up to the business’s solicitor to put the matter right. At the time of writing, we believe that the first step towards rectification still hasn’t been taken.
Wouldn't you think FDC should be intent on sorting out the ownership of extensive pieces of public land in March?
Wouldn't it be better for attention to be devoted to this serious matter than to have FDC zealously pursuing a young couple who have really harmed no-one by tidying up a small strip of land to facilitate access to their garage ?
Walt.
A year or two ago, a young couple bought a house in Chatteris; a pleasant house with a garage at the side. The garage was accessed by a short track across across the edge of a green. Naively, this couple assumed they would be able to keep their car in the garage.
When this track got muddy in winter, they put down some paving slabs. They also laid a narrow row of slabs at the side of the drive, so when they got out of their car, they didn’t get their feet muddy.
Sounds quite sensible so far ? Then it started to go wrong. Someone complained that what was now a neat drive, which had been a muddy track track, was on the edge of a piece of public open space. This complaint was taken up by a local town and district councillor (despite representing completely different wards) and reported to the District Council.
Fenland District Council started by insisting that the couple should remove the slabs. The couple inquired how they were to use their garage. The District Council conceded that they could perhaps cross the grass, as long as they didn’t get out of the car and walk on the grass! (thereby in effect denying them the rights enjoyed by any other member of the public!).
It then came to light that Fenland District Council didn’t actually own the grass public open space. Things went quiete for a bit, while the District Council registered ownership of the space, including the established drive and path to the couple's house.
Now the registration is complete, the District Council are adamant that their legal department are actively taking action to force the couple to remove certainly the path, and probably the drive. (Although as there has been long established use of this access, their continued right to use it almost certainly exists anyway)
Those of you who are happy that our money is being wasted in this near persecution of a young couple who simply want to use their garage without getting muddy feet, may care to compare and contrast this case to another land ownership dispute currently languishing at Fenland Hall:-
In December 2006 residents of Cavalry Drive and Breton Avenue, March were horrified to learn that a planning application had been submitted to build two houses on the nearby substantial grass play area.
Investigations revealed that F.D.C. had neglected to register their ownership of this and other pieces of public open space in March. A local company which had formerly owned the land (about 30 years earlier when it was developed for housing) had seemingly realised that two green open spaces were unregistered at Peterborough Land Registry and in 2005 applied for, and was granted, registration of ownership.
FDC had found a deed of gift for one of the pieces of land and sent it to Peterborough Land Registry in October 2005. Land Registry replied that FDC should apply for ‘rectification of tittle’. And then FDC did .... nothing.
When this whole matter came into the public domain in earlier this year, FDC explained that they wouldn’t apply for rectification themselves, but would leave it up to the business’s solicitor to put the matter right. At the time of writing, we believe that the first step towards rectification still hasn’t been taken.
Wouldn't you think FDC should be intent on sorting out the ownership of extensive pieces of public land in March?
Wouldn't it be better for attention to be devoted to this serious matter than to have FDC zealously pursuing a young couple who have really harmed no-one by tidying up a small strip of land to facilitate access to their garage ?
Walt.
Friday 30 November 2007
Cromwell Community College - a misnomer ?
C.A.T.S (Chatteris Amateur Thespian Society) are staging their forth coming production of Cinderella on 14th and 15th December - at Doddington Village Hall. It’s always good to have local community groups putting on events, but why isn’t this Chatteris Am’ Dram’ group performing in Chatteris ? Previously C.A.T.S have used the South Hall at Cromwell Community College, conveniently and coincidentally located in Chatteris. Could C.A.T.S.’s unfortunate removal to a more distant venue be because the hire of Cromwell is too expensive?
Chatteris Amateur Boxing Club are putting on a major show on Friday 30th November. Will this be in Chatteris ? No, parents, participators and spectators will have to travel to Soham. Why ? Because it appears Cromwell Community College demanded a prohibitively high figure for this Chatteris club to hire the school dining hall to stage this Chatteris community event.
Cromwell Community College says that it prides itself on being community based. This admirable principle formed a significant argument in their recent successful application for 6th form specialist status. What’s more, the Town Council is trying to provide both an all weather football pitch, and gym facilities on the Cromwell site. It’s our Council’s intention that both facilities will be available for all residents of Chatteris to enjoy. But Cromwell’s current charging structure for out of hours hire of school facilities does little to inspire confidence that we’ll be able to reasonably enjoy these long over due facilities should they one day finally arrive.
Am I the only person to feel something is going dreadfully wrong?
Walt.
Chatteris Amateur Boxing Club are putting on a major show on Friday 30th November. Will this be in Chatteris ? No, parents, participators and spectators will have to travel to Soham. Why ? Because it appears Cromwell Community College demanded a prohibitively high figure for this Chatteris club to hire the school dining hall to stage this Chatteris community event.
Cromwell Community College says that it prides itself on being community based. This admirable principle formed a significant argument in their recent successful application for 6th form specialist status. What’s more, the Town Council is trying to provide both an all weather football pitch, and gym facilities on the Cromwell site. It’s our Council’s intention that both facilities will be available for all residents of Chatteris to enjoy. But Cromwell’s current charging structure for out of hours hire of school facilities does little to inspire confidence that we’ll be able to reasonably enjoy these long over due facilities should they one day finally arrive.
Am I the only person to feel something is going dreadfully wrong?
Walt.
Tuesday 20 November 2007
If Cambourne can, why can't Chatteris ?
Article from Cambs24 (www.cambs24.co.uk)
"PLANS for a long-awaited sports centre in Cambourne have moved a step further after planners gave the project the go-ahead.
At a public meeting in June, Leisure Connection promised to provide a sports centre in Cambourne by September 2008 and with South Cambridgeshire District Council giving the project the nod, things are set to move forward.
It is thought the building work will start in December with the multi-million pound facility opening in late 2008.
The centre will consist of a health floor with more than 100 stations, a dance, drama and aerobatics suite, solarium, sauna, steam room and a beautician's area. There will also be a six-lane swimming pool and multi-purpose sports court."
COMMENT:-
“Long awaited leisure centre” ? Surely construction on Cambourne started less than 10 years ago ? And yet they are due to start building a leisure centre next month.
Word has it, fund raising for a Chatteris Leisure Centre started so long ago, that it was first interrupted during WWII when money already collected was given to the government to pay for a spitfire airplane !
Cambourne - population 4,000.
Chatteris - population over 10,000
W.Burnett
LEISURE CENTRE CLOSER TO BEING REALITY
17 October 2007
"PLANS for a long-awaited sports centre in Cambourne have moved a step further after planners gave the project the go-ahead.
At a public meeting in June, Leisure Connection promised to provide a sports centre in Cambourne by September 2008 and with South Cambridgeshire District Council giving the project the nod, things are set to move forward.
It is thought the building work will start in December with the multi-million pound facility opening in late 2008.
The centre will consist of a health floor with more than 100 stations, a dance, drama and aerobatics suite, solarium, sauna, steam room and a beautician's area. There will also be a six-lane swimming pool and multi-purpose sports court."
COMMENT:-
“Long awaited leisure centre” ? Surely construction on Cambourne started less than 10 years ago ? And yet they are due to start building a leisure centre next month.
Word has it, fund raising for a Chatteris Leisure Centre started so long ago, that it was first interrupted during WWII when money already collected was given to the government to pay for a spitfire airplane !
Cambourne - population 4,000.
Chatteris - population over 10,000
W.Burnett
It's how you ask the question
e-mail received from this morning Chris Howes, and reproduced with his permission.
As a regular visitor to the Chatteris One Stop Shop (average 1 visit per week) I have nothing for praise for the staff whom I’ve always found helpful and friendly.
But I often wonder at the FDC Customer Satisfaction figures for the one stop shops, which FDC claim are always in the high 90's%. This may indeed be the case, but in all my visits I have never once been asked about for my satisfaction ratings. So whom do they survey, when ?
In Chatteris One Stop Shop this morning there was a glamorous blond with the sexiest shoes ever seen in town, asking customers about the quality of service they had just received.
Every male visitor to the shop interviewed while I was in there, expressed complete delight ! Quelle surprise ?
Rant Web Turtle is an anagram
As a regular visitor to the Chatteris One Stop Shop (average 1 visit per week) I have nothing for praise for the staff whom I’ve always found helpful and friendly.
But I often wonder at the FDC Customer Satisfaction figures for the one stop shops, which FDC claim are always in the high 90's%. This may indeed be the case, but in all my visits I have never once been asked about for my satisfaction ratings. So whom do they survey, when ?
In Chatteris One Stop Shop this morning there was a glamorous blond with the sexiest shoes ever seen in town, asking customers about the quality of service they had just received.
Every male visitor to the shop interviewed while I was in there, expressed complete delight ! Quelle surprise ?
Rant Web Turtle is an anagram
Friday 16 November 2007
Light relief ?
To borrow a phrase from Ken Dodd, “how tickled I am” so see that a banner proclaiming the switching on of the Chatteris Christmas Lights has now been adorning the railings at the Railway Lane /High Street junction for several days.
Does this mean that the “jobsworths” employed by the County Council have finally understood that when Councillors determined that obstructions should be removed from visibility railings, the operative word was “obstructions”. Have officers at last grasped that only items which might impair visibility should be banned?
Up until now the jobsworths in Fenland have been determinedly ripping down community information banners, insisting this was decreed to their employers.
Even the hard-working and award winning Chatteris In Bloom team were prevented putting up carefully designed baskets of flowers on the railings at this central point as officers insisted such beautification was not permitted!
As it is perfectly clear to any sensible person that the Christmas Lights Banner presents no hazard and contributes absolutely nothing to impeding visibility, I am hopeful it will be left exactly where it is and it will stay in place for the rest of November, and until the Christmas Lights Committee decide it can come down.
And I trust that the jobsworths are now resigned to restricting their activities to preventing hazards rather than impeding the commendable efforts of community groups.
signed Contented (at least for the moment) of Chatteris
Does this mean that the “jobsworths” employed by the County Council have finally understood that when Councillors determined that obstructions should be removed from visibility railings, the operative word was “obstructions”. Have officers at last grasped that only items which might impair visibility should be banned?
Up until now the jobsworths in Fenland have been determinedly ripping down community information banners, insisting this was decreed to their employers.
Even the hard-working and award winning Chatteris In Bloom team were prevented putting up carefully designed baskets of flowers on the railings at this central point as officers insisted such beautification was not permitted!
As it is perfectly clear to any sensible person that the Christmas Lights Banner presents no hazard and contributes absolutely nothing to impeding visibility, I am hopeful it will be left exactly where it is and it will stay in place for the rest of November, and until the Christmas Lights Committee decide it can come down.
And I trust that the jobsworths are now resigned to restricting their activities to preventing hazards rather than impeding the commendable efforts of community groups.
signed Contented (at least for the moment) of Chatteris
Wednesday 14 November 2007
The oxygen of publicity
I apologise to my readers for the hiatus in by blog publications. The ‘powers that be’ who shape decision making (or at least ought to) would seem to be avid readers of the blog, and appear to be taking up some of my suggestions for long overdue improvements and benefits for Chatteris. So I’ve been biting my tongue and resting my pen, and waiting to see what, if anything, is actually happening ....
However the current edition of the Citizen Chatteris Extra, published on Wednesday 14 November (but curiously dated Friday 16th) has an article directing readers to this blog.
You can therefore expect further postings imminently ....
In the mean time you could amuse yourself by speculating about the identity of the Citizen columnist who writes under the nom-de-plume Ben Allanty.
A recent script in the radio 4 soap opera, the archers, featured a character writing for the local news paper under an alias which was an anagram of her name. Could Ben Allanty be an anagram ? I’m terrible at anagrams, never once having solved a ‘Countdown conundrum’, but suggestions I’ve so far received for the mystery Citizen columnist include
“anal by lent”, and “anally bent”. Further (more polite) suggestions welcomed.
Walter Burnett may become a registered trademark.
However the current edition of the Citizen Chatteris Extra, published on Wednesday 14 November (but curiously dated Friday 16th) has an article directing readers to this blog.
You can therefore expect further postings imminently ....
In the mean time you could amuse yourself by speculating about the identity of the Citizen columnist who writes under the nom-de-plume Ben Allanty.
A recent script in the radio 4 soap opera, the archers, featured a character writing for the local news paper under an alias which was an anagram of her name. Could Ben Allanty be an anagram ? I’m terrible at anagrams, never once having solved a ‘Countdown conundrum’, but suggestions I’ve so far received for the mystery Citizen columnist include
“anal by lent”, and “anally bent”. Further (more polite) suggestions welcomed.
Walter Burnett may become a registered trademark.
Wednesday 8 August 2007
PARLIAMENT OF FOULES
It is common practice for political groups on a district council to meet as a group prior to a meeting of the full council to hammer out common group policy. This saves council time, generally avoids splits within the party, and determines each party’s policy on specific issues.
The Conservative group on Fenland District Council follow this practice of group meetings. As the Conservatives hold 39 out of 40 of the seats, quite why they do this is unclear. It can’t be to form a united front against the opposition - there isn’t an official opposition. Perhaps it is to form a united front against the alleged real power brokers - the Officers of the Council, or it could be to bully the back benchers into toeing the leadership’s line.
Word is that the last meeting of the Con. group was dominated by angry discussion on two subjects - the ever growing number of wind turbines in Fenland, and this blog ! Advice may be being sought !
This raises two intriguing questions:
1) are councillors really considering paying for legal advice over whether they can reverse their own decisions to grant planning permission to a reported 35 turbines within the district ? I’ll save them some money and explain: “no you can’t bend over backwards encouraging turbines, and then challenge your own decisions. It would make you look ridiculous !”
2) As to this blog, the author is truly complimented to learn that it compulsive reading to our august body of conservative district councillors. She also wonders what chortles of amusement and hoots of derision will emanate from the chambers of the lawyers tasked with studying it. However she will continue to sleep easy at night, even with the Democlean sword of legal action hovering over her head. A statement can’t be considered defamatory if it is true. This blogger has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the content, and through the comments facility continues to invite any one to challenge the veracity of anything said.
Any message from this sad little story ? Is this how our senior councillors spend their time, trying to reverse the own decisions and quash freedom of speech ? I have borrowed from Chaucer for the title of this blog, but perhaps should have quoted Shakespeare - “a comedy of errors” or “much ado about nothing”?
Walter Burnett is a pen name.
Literary note: the title of this blog - “Parliament of Foules” is a reference to a poem by Geoffrey Chaucer (1343?-1400) (also known as the "Parliament of Fowls" "Assembly of Fowls" or "Assemble of Foules").The word ‘parliament’ is derived from the french verb ‘parlez’ - to talk. Any inferance that a conservative district council group meeting might be described as a ‘parliament of foules’ - ‘the talk of idiots’ is not intended.
The Conservative group on Fenland District Council follow this practice of group meetings. As the Conservatives hold 39 out of 40 of the seats, quite why they do this is unclear. It can’t be to form a united front against the opposition - there isn’t an official opposition. Perhaps it is to form a united front against the alleged real power brokers - the Officers of the Council, or it could be to bully the back benchers into toeing the leadership’s line.
Word is that the last meeting of the Con. group was dominated by angry discussion on two subjects - the ever growing number of wind turbines in Fenland, and this blog ! Advice may be being sought !
This raises two intriguing questions:
1) are councillors really considering paying for legal advice over whether they can reverse their own decisions to grant planning permission to a reported 35 turbines within the district ? I’ll save them some money and explain: “no you can’t bend over backwards encouraging turbines, and then challenge your own decisions. It would make you look ridiculous !”
2) As to this blog, the author is truly complimented to learn that it compulsive reading to our august body of conservative district councillors. She also wonders what chortles of amusement and hoots of derision will emanate from the chambers of the lawyers tasked with studying it. However she will continue to sleep easy at night, even with the Democlean sword of legal action hovering over her head. A statement can’t be considered defamatory if it is true. This blogger has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the content, and through the comments facility continues to invite any one to challenge the veracity of anything said.
Any message from this sad little story ? Is this how our senior councillors spend their time, trying to reverse the own decisions and quash freedom of speech ? I have borrowed from Chaucer for the title of this blog, but perhaps should have quoted Shakespeare - “a comedy of errors” or “much ado about nothing”?
Walter Burnett is a pen name.
Literary note: the title of this blog - “Parliament of Foules” is a reference to a poem by Geoffrey Chaucer (1343?-1400) (also known as the "Parliament of Fowls" "Assembly of Fowls" or "Assemble of Foules").The word ‘parliament’ is derived from the french verb ‘parlez’ - to talk. Any inferance that a conservative district council group meeting might be described as a ‘parliament of foules’ - ‘the talk of idiots’ is not intended.
THE MYSTERY OF THE SOUTH FENS BUSINESS CENTRE
The South Fens Business Centre was heralded as the proof of FDC’s commitment to Chatteris. We’ve been told that this shining beacon has allegedly 95% occupancy and is a real asset to the community. Is it ?
Rooms were to be available for hire for public events or meetings, but I’ve yet to meet anyone who has ever succeeded in hiring one, because the centre is closed in the evenings after 6.00 p.m. and at weekends - the very times one might want to book it.
Does it contribute to the local economy ? Unlikely - it doesn’t have reasonable pedestrian access to the pubs or tea room in Chatteris for a convivial working lunch.
Does it contribute to local employment ? It appears not. I include an e-mail from a local Chatteris job seeker passed to me :
“Speaking of the SFBC, what is with that place?!? I thought I'd be a bit pro-active and go see if I could find out what jobs there might be. I almost expected the receptionist to force me to sign the official secrets act just for asking what the companies do! As it was, she wouldn't tell me!
Then when I asked if there was somewhere they all advertised their vacancies I was directed to the leaflet wall and told I'd have to ask them directly. I enquired (very tentatively now, as it was like talking to the Gestapo) whether there was an intra-net where the companies in the SFBC might advertise all their vacancies, and was told no, they did not have that either, and NO I can't go round each of them unless I have an appointment! So I have to ask directly, but not directly, only by phone. Hmmm......?
You still can't see who's in there on their website! Makes me wonder more what they're all up to!!! Is the place likely to get bombed?? If so what's the likely blast radius, you and I might need to move!?!
So yeah, that's how I feel about those things, and you can quote me (as a "Chatteris Resident") if you feel it will help.”
The Ordnance Survey include “Secret Nuclear Bunkers” on their maps. This is an apparent oxymoron (a self - contradiction). What can we find out about the South Fens Business Centre? Their web site is so slow as to be useless. The FDC planning interactive map has crashed so I can’t check planning restraints there, and nowhere (that I can find) do they even publish a post code. The local authority generally refer to the clearly signed ‘Fenton Way’ as ‘Dock Road’ a problem which regularly results in an assortment of HGV’s pirouetting in central Chatteris !
So is the South Fens Business Centre therefor “more secret” than a ‘secret nuclear bunker’? Yes !
Walter Burnett is a mouse name.
Rooms were to be available for hire for public events or meetings, but I’ve yet to meet anyone who has ever succeeded in hiring one, because the centre is closed in the evenings after 6.00 p.m. and at weekends - the very times one might want to book it.
Does it contribute to the local economy ? Unlikely - it doesn’t have reasonable pedestrian access to the pubs or tea room in Chatteris for a convivial working lunch.
Does it contribute to local employment ? It appears not. I include an e-mail from a local Chatteris job seeker passed to me :
“Speaking of the SFBC, what is with that place?!? I thought I'd be a bit pro-active and go see if I could find out what jobs there might be. I almost expected the receptionist to force me to sign the official secrets act just for asking what the companies do! As it was, she wouldn't tell me!
Then when I asked if there was somewhere they all advertised their vacancies I was directed to the leaflet wall and told I'd have to ask them directly. I enquired (very tentatively now, as it was like talking to the Gestapo) whether there was an intra-net where the companies in the SFBC might advertise all their vacancies, and was told no, they did not have that either, and NO I can't go round each of them unless I have an appointment! So I have to ask directly, but not directly, only by phone. Hmmm......?
You still can't see who's in there on their website! Makes me wonder more what they're all up to!!! Is the place likely to get bombed?? If so what's the likely blast radius, you and I might need to move!?!
So yeah, that's how I feel about those things, and you can quote me (as a "Chatteris Resident") if you feel it will help.”
The Ordnance Survey include “Secret Nuclear Bunkers” on their maps. This is an apparent oxymoron (a self - contradiction). What can we find out about the South Fens Business Centre? Their web site is so slow as to be useless. The FDC planning interactive map has crashed so I can’t check planning restraints there, and nowhere (that I can find) do they even publish a post code. The local authority generally refer to the clearly signed ‘Fenton Way’ as ‘Dock Road’ a problem which regularly results in an assortment of HGV’s pirouetting in central Chatteris !
So is the South Fens Business Centre therefor “more secret” than a ‘secret nuclear bunker’? Yes !
Walter Burnett is a mouse name.
Monday 16 July 2007
KING EDWARD COMMUNITY CENTRE
A tale of squandered opportunities,
I have broken it down into ‘bite size’ chunks to minimise the potential risk of readers losing all patience with the continued inactivity of our civic bodies and ‘head butting’ their screen in frustration
The proposals were warmly greeted by the many people at the meeting. Less warmly greeted was the news that Cambs County Council wanted £250,000 if they were to sell the building back to the people of Chatteris.
Unfortunately (and perhaps inevitably) the vital lottery bid was to prove unsuccessful, as I understand it, because there were only months left on the trustees lease on the building with the County Council.
The Trustees needed a minimum of a 25 year lease to qualify for lottery money. As the old lease ran out, County Council eventually offered a new three year lease, which transferred the onerous responsibility of maintenance of the building from the County Council to the Trustees personally. Not only did this scupper any lottery bid, but this dear old building showed little indication of more than minimal maintenance, and little significant improvements by the County council over the preceding years ! Hardly fair on the voluntary Trustees !
The Lottery bid failed, so the grant offer was withdrawn. It’s nearly 4 years ago that this all happened, but I recollect hazily that the lost grant monies totaled over £200,000. This opportunity was disgracefully squandered.
The King Edward Centre is probably the most valuable and indispensable resource at the heart of Chatteris Community life. Sadly it has had a troubled existence for several years. We must all pay tribute to the Trustees, all private individuals, who stepped in 7 years ago to save it from closure. I believe that the burden of financial responsibility currently resting on the shoulders of the trustees is unfair. Under coming terms demanded by Cambs County Council the burden dramatically worsens. I believe that it will become unnecessarily onerous, and down right unreasonable and unfair on the trustees, and on the users.
The many and varied community groups who fill the centre every week pay testament to its value and importance. Its future needs to be secured NOW !
The Trustees are soon coming to speak to Chatteris Town Council. I intend to use my very best endeavours to lobby my colleagues on Council to buy the centre from Cambs County Council. We have to secure its future and stop squandering opportunities of significant grant aid for maintenance and improvements.
3 years ago C.C.C. valued the centre at 1/4 £million. On the open market its probably nearer 1/3 £million now . But Chatteris Town Council doesn’t need to pay that ! Nothing like it. We need to strongly remind Cambs CC that the Government definition of “Best Value” does not always mean the best monetary price. “Best Value” can mean the best value to the Community. And what is of greater value to the Chatteris Community than the King Edward Centre ?.
If, by any chance, you agree with me, and if you think that the Town Council must save the centre, and if like me you believe that they should undertake ‘hard nosed’ negotiations to obtain a true and affordable community value, please let me know. Please feel free to write to me either at home (19 Pound Road, Chatteris PE16 6RL) or c/o Chatteris Town Council, 14 Church lane, Chatteris. Send a petitions if you wish. Now is the time to speak up for what you want!
Chris Howes
Chatteris Town Councillor
Cautionary Foreword.
This author apologises for the severe length of this article. However he believes that the subject matter is so important to Chatteris that he has a duty to be as thorough and detailed in his reported accounts as possible.I have broken it down into ‘bite size’ chunks to minimise the potential risk of readers losing all patience with the continued inactivity of our civic bodies and ‘head butting’ their screen in frustration
Failed Lottery Bid
Late in 2003 or early in 2004 the King Edward centre held a public consultation of exciting new plans to dramatically repair and enhance the building. These were to form the basis of a substantial Lottery Bid and were to be part funded by large grants from government bodies.The proposals were warmly greeted by the many people at the meeting. Less warmly greeted was the news that Cambs County Council wanted £250,000 if they were to sell the building back to the people of Chatteris.
Unfortunately (and perhaps inevitably) the vital lottery bid was to prove unsuccessful, as I understand it, because there were only months left on the trustees lease on the building with the County Council.
The Trustees needed a minimum of a 25 year lease to qualify for lottery money. As the old lease ran out, County Council eventually offered a new three year lease, which transferred the onerous responsibility of maintenance of the building from the County Council to the Trustees personally. Not only did this scupper any lottery bid, but this dear old building showed little indication of more than minimal maintenance, and little significant improvements by the County council over the preceding years ! Hardly fair on the voluntary Trustees !
The Lottery bid failed, so the grant offer was withdrawn. It’s nearly 4 years ago that this all happened, but I recollect hazily that the lost grant monies totaled over £200,000. This opportunity was disgracefully squandered.
Hold the Front Page !
The front page of the community news letter Centrepoint, published a letter in March 2006 on the front page:THE FUTURE OF THE KING EDWARD CENTRE
A personal view from a Chatteris Town Councillor
A personal view from a Chatteris Town Councillor
The King Edward Centre is probably the most valuable and indispensable resource at the heart of Chatteris Community life. Sadly it has had a troubled existence for several years. We must all pay tribute to the Trustees, all private individuals, who stepped in 7 years ago to save it from closure. I believe that the burden of financial responsibility currently resting on the shoulders of the trustees is unfair. Under coming terms demanded by Cambs County Council the burden dramatically worsens. I believe that it will become unnecessarily onerous, and down right unreasonable and unfair on the trustees, and on the users.
The many and varied community groups who fill the centre every week pay testament to its value and importance. Its future needs to be secured NOW !
The Trustees are soon coming to speak to Chatteris Town Council. I intend to use my very best endeavours to lobby my colleagues on Council to buy the centre from Cambs County Council. We have to secure its future and stop squandering opportunities of significant grant aid for maintenance and improvements.
3 years ago C.C.C. valued the centre at 1/4 £million. On the open market its probably nearer 1/3 £million now . But Chatteris Town Council doesn’t need to pay that ! Nothing like it. We need to strongly remind Cambs CC that the Government definition of “Best Value” does not always mean the best monetary price. “Best Value” can mean the best value to the Community. And what is of greater value to the Chatteris Community than the King Edward Centre ?.
If, by any chance, you agree with me, and if you think that the Town Council must save the centre, and if like me you believe that they should undertake ‘hard nosed’ negotiations to obtain a true and affordable community value, please let me know. Please feel free to write to me either at home (19 Pound Road, Chatteris PE16 6RL) or c/o Chatteris Town Council, 14 Church lane, Chatteris. Send a petitions if you wish. Now is the time to speak up for what you want!
Chris Howes
Chatteris Town Councillor
What happened next ?
Letters of support, and a petition were received. The Town Council set up a meeting on 21.03.06 with the Trustees of the Centre, the Town Council, and District & County Councillors Melton and Harper. The story of this meeting has never yet been fully told. But I’ll tell it now !
‘secret meeting .......’
The details of this bid, specifically the proportionate sources of funding, weren’t initially terribly clear, but it emerged after a while that the cunning plan drawn up by FDC was that Town Council should contribute over £100,000 to obtain matched funding. What was the District Council (the designated leisure provider) contributing to this scheme ? Well less than nothing. They were actually proposing charging Town Council between £20,000 and £30,000 just for putting the bid in !
Cllr Howes argued with Cllr Melton that the government requirement for best value could mean best community value, not maximum fiscal value. Three times Cllr Melton interrupted him and dismissed his question as “childish” In fact Cllr Melton wasn’t to answer that question properly until May 2007 (see Blog MORE STUFF)
Cllr Howes then inquired of the leader of the District Council why FDC wasn’t contributing funding themselves. Initially Councillor Harper refused to answer the question on the grounds that he was there as a County Councillor, not a District Councillor. With a hint of sarcasm Cllr Howes reportedly then asked: “ Could we respectfully ask Cllr Harper, wearing his county council ‘hat’ if he could communicate with his colleague, Cllr Harper in his leader of the district council ‘hat’ why FDC weren’t pulling their financial weight”. Cllr Harpo angrily replied (wearing either none, one or both of his hats) “because Chatteris Town Council hadn’t asked FDC for a financial contribution”.
This remarkable answer posed the immediate question why FDC, the bid originator, felt that any suggestion of their making a financial commitment should have come in advance from a second party that were unaware at the time of the proposed bid, despite being included as a major financial contributor. (Makes you want to weep doesn’t it ?)
The meeting was adjourned, because it was suggested that little could be progresseduntil the result of the funding bid be known. This would only be a “month or so”, and in the meantime we mustn’t “do or say anything in case it compromised the bid to Cambridgeshire Horizons”.
At the start of the meeting it was declared that the meeting would be “Private & Confidential” Apparently the District Council had hurriedly cobbled together a bid to Cambridgeshire Horizons for funding which included buying the building at full Market Value.
The details of this bid, specifically the proportionate sources of funding, weren’t initially terribly clear, but it emerged after a while that the cunning plan drawn up by FDC was that Town Council should contribute over £100,000 to obtain matched funding. What was the District Council (the designated leisure provider) contributing to this scheme ? Well less than nothing. They were actually proposing charging Town Council between £20,000 and £30,000 just for putting the bid in !
Cllr Howes argued with Cllr Melton that the government requirement for best value could mean best community value, not maximum fiscal value. Three times Cllr Melton interrupted him and dismissed his question as “childish” In fact Cllr Melton wasn’t to answer that question properly until May 2007 (see Blog MORE STUFF)
Cllr Howes then inquired of the leader of the District Council why FDC wasn’t contributing funding themselves. Initially Councillor Harper refused to answer the question on the grounds that he was there as a County Councillor, not a District Councillor. With a hint of sarcasm Cllr Howes reportedly then asked: “ Could we respectfully ask Cllr Harper, wearing his county council ‘hat’ if he could communicate with his colleague, Cllr Harper in his leader of the district council ‘hat’ why FDC weren’t pulling their financial weight”. Cllr Harpo angrily replied (wearing either none, one or both of his hats) “because Chatteris Town Council hadn’t asked FDC for a financial contribution”.
This remarkable answer posed the immediate question why FDC, the bid originator, felt that any suggestion of their making a financial commitment should have come in advance from a second party that were unaware at the time of the proposed bid, despite being included as a major financial contributor. (Makes you want to weep doesn’t it ?)
The meeting was adjourned, because it was suggested that little could be progresseduntil the result of the funding bid be known. This would only be a “month or so”, and in the meantime we mustn’t “do or say anything in case it compromised the bid to Cambridgeshire Horizons”.
COME ON FDC, COUGH UP !
"This Council calls upon Fenland District Council to commit in principal to match fund all contributions from Chatteris Town Council to purchase and or renovate the King Edward Centre".
Before the motion could be published, the Town Clerk phoned Cllr Howes and passed on a request from the Finance Officer that the motion be withdrawn until it was known whether the bid was successful or not. The matter was never debated, and over a year later, FDC still haven’t been asked to contribute towards the K.E.C.
However it wasn’t only a month or so until we would know the result of this bid which had being given as the reason that no progress could be made. After 3 or 4 months, word dribbled back, that the initial reaction to the bid was unfavourable, but it might be reconsidered if nobody said anything that might rock the boat.
This disgraceful, unnecessary ‘cloak of secrecy’ paralised all visible activity for nearly 17 months ! The facts of the ‘secret meeting’ and the Cambridgeshire Horizons bid emerged during this period, but it is only now that the bid has officially been declared failed.
Following Cllr Harper’s statement that FDC only weren’t proposing financial commitment to KEC because ‘nobody had ever asked them’, Cllr Howes immediately submitted the following written motion for the next meeting of Chatteris Town Council on 4 April 2006:
"This Council calls upon Fenland District Council to commit in principal to match fund all contributions from Chatteris Town Council to purchase and or renovate the King Edward Centre".
Before the motion could be published, the Town Clerk phoned Cllr Howes and passed on a request from the Finance Officer that the motion be withdrawn until it was known whether the bid was successful or not. The matter was never debated, and over a year later, FDC still haven’t been asked to contribute towards the K.E.C.
However it wasn’t only a month or so until we would know the result of this bid which had being given as the reason that no progress could be made. After 3 or 4 months, word dribbled back, that the initial reaction to the bid was unfavourable, but it might be reconsidered if nobody said anything that might rock the boat.
This disgraceful, unnecessary ‘cloak of secrecy’ paralised all visible activity for nearly 17 months ! The facts of the ‘secret meeting’ and the Cambridgeshire Horizons bid emerged during this period, but it is only now that the bid has officially been declared failed.
So where does the matter stand now ?
Chatteris Town Council are now free to debate the matter and ‘suggest’ to FDC that they honour their commitments.
I believe that Chatteris Town Council have an absolute moral obligation to act now. They should offer to buy the King Edward Centre from County Council for £1. In partnership with District Council they could take over responsibility for the fabric of the building and offer the Trustees a 25 year (or 99 year) lease at a peppercorn rent.
This would free the Trustees from the current unfair burden, and finally allow outside money to be injected into the building. The 2003 improvement plans could be dusted down and reconsidered. Amongst other things these included forming a new entrance feature which during the day would serve as a reception and cafe for ‘mums and tots’, and in the evening could possibly serve as that most desperately needed facility - a ‘young person’s cafe’ !
Mind you, FDC could easily contribute to the KEC from the £507,000 they recently received from selling of former Chatteris council land !
Walter Burnett is a pen name
Apparently the County Council have graciously offered the Trustees a new 3 year lease. In addition to maintaining the unfair burden of repair and maintenance on the shoulders of the Trustees, it also demands £10,000 p.a. rent. Is this the Tory pledge in the recent election to guarantee the future of the K.E.C. Well FDC have generously given KEC a grant of £10,000 this year (funded in part by halving the Cromwell Community College grant), but isn’t this simply robbing Peter to pay Paul ? An 3 year lease certainly disqualifies the Trustees from significant grant aid or Lottery money ! It’s not even a temporary and unsatisfactory patch.
Chatteris Town Council are now free to debate the matter and ‘suggest’ to FDC that they honour their commitments.
What could happen ?
At the May meeting of Chatteris Town Council, the newly promoted County Council portfolio holder in charge of Corporate Services Cllr Melton announced that County Council had finally accepted that the requirement to achieve “best value” when disposing of assets, could mean “best community value”, not just “best financial value”.I believe that Chatteris Town Council have an absolute moral obligation to act now. They should offer to buy the King Edward Centre from County Council for £1. In partnership with District Council they could take over responsibility for the fabric of the building and offer the Trustees a 25 year (or 99 year) lease at a peppercorn rent.
This would free the Trustees from the current unfair burden, and finally allow outside money to be injected into the building. The 2003 improvement plans could be dusted down and reconsidered. Amongst other things these included forming a new entrance feature which during the day would serve as a reception and cafe for ‘mums and tots’, and in the evening could possibly serve as that most desperately needed facility - a ‘young person’s cafe’ !
Can it be done ?
Strange to say, yes it can ! Cllr Howes reports that the highly successful Priory Centre halls complex in St Neots is jointly owned by Town and District Councils, and run by a management committee composed of users of the centre, and representatives of the 2 councils. Does Cllr Howes actually know what he’s talking about ? Just possibly he does, he chaired the Priory Centre management committee for several years in the late 1990’s !Anything actually likely to really happen ?
Dunno ! Depends if there is the political will amongst the ruling ‘elite’ to honour promises made both in their literature doing the May local elections, and in a recent newspaper article !Mind you, FDC could easily contribute to the KEC from the £507,000 they recently received from selling of former Chatteris council land !
Walter Burnett is a pen name
Wednesday 11 July 2007
HOW MUCH ?
Fenland District Council records £172 million worth of assets in their most recent accounts. Where do they come from ?
In 1974 FDC didn’t have a bean until it was donated the assets of the local urban and district councils. Prior to local government reorganisation, many local councils hurriedly built leisure centres or public halls which guaranteed the benefit of their assets was invested in that community. They spent the money rather than passing it on. Unfortunately not so Chatteris. By any account, they just passed the lot to Fenland Hall. Those assets must contribute a significant proportion of what is now £172 million.
It is said that prior to 1974 the clerk to the urban district council had been shrewdly buying up land and buildings on behalf of the Council. Certainly Chatteris owned a lot of land. What’s more much of the rented housing stock FDC operated had been constructed by the benevolent owner of the engineering works, and subsequently given to the Council.
So how much were these considerable assets given to FDC worth in 1974, or even now ? Records are strangely illusive. Chatteris Town Council insists they don’t have any records. OK - the UDC was their predecessor body. FDC apparently stored the documents in a cellar until they were ‘lost in a flood’.
Now these records represent important historical archives. Bizarrely I can easily find out who was granted the deed to a field in Chatriz in 1369, but not what happened in 1974! Not even the County Record Office at Shirehall have any information available to cast illumination on the mystery.
Recently FDC has sold off one of their inherited pieces of land in Chatteris for over £1/2 million, refuses to commit any of the money back to Chatteris, and disdainfully wash their hands over another former valuable Chatteris asset entrusted to them, Grove House.
I’ve always believed that it is the duty of local district councillors to fight for a fair deal for the community they represent. But not so apparently. During a recent some what heated debate recently at Chatteris Town Council, Cllr Colbert reminded District Councillor Murphy that it was his job to fight for Chatteris, and he angrily denied it. Rather than contradict him, the 2 other Chatteris District Councillors present observed that “there are only 4 of us out of a total of 40 of them". So much for the ‘winning team’ approach promoted by the Tories in the May elections !
It is small wonder that Chatteris has been so ill served by FDC for so many years, and has so little to show for FDC’s custodianship, if our councillors have so little backbone ! What hope is there ?
Walter Burnett is a pen name.
In 1974 FDC didn’t have a bean until it was donated the assets of the local urban and district councils. Prior to local government reorganisation, many local councils hurriedly built leisure centres or public halls which guaranteed the benefit of their assets was invested in that community. They spent the money rather than passing it on. Unfortunately not so Chatteris. By any account, they just passed the lot to Fenland Hall. Those assets must contribute a significant proportion of what is now £172 million.
It is said that prior to 1974 the clerk to the urban district council had been shrewdly buying up land and buildings on behalf of the Council. Certainly Chatteris owned a lot of land. What’s more much of the rented housing stock FDC operated had been constructed by the benevolent owner of the engineering works, and subsequently given to the Council.
So how much were these considerable assets given to FDC worth in 1974, or even now ? Records are strangely illusive. Chatteris Town Council insists they don’t have any records. OK - the UDC was their predecessor body. FDC apparently stored the documents in a cellar until they were ‘lost in a flood’.
Now these records represent important historical archives. Bizarrely I can easily find out who was granted the deed to a field in Chatriz in 1369, but not what happened in 1974! Not even the County Record Office at Shirehall have any information available to cast illumination on the mystery.
Recently FDC has sold off one of their inherited pieces of land in Chatteris for over £1/2 million, refuses to commit any of the money back to Chatteris, and disdainfully wash their hands over another former valuable Chatteris asset entrusted to them, Grove House.
I’ve always believed that it is the duty of local district councillors to fight for a fair deal for the community they represent. But not so apparently. During a recent some what heated debate recently at Chatteris Town Council, Cllr Colbert reminded District Councillor Murphy that it was his job to fight for Chatteris, and he angrily denied it. Rather than contradict him, the 2 other Chatteris District Councillors present observed that “there are only 4 of us out of a total of 40 of them". So much for the ‘winning team’ approach promoted by the Tories in the May elections !
It is small wonder that Chatteris has been so ill served by FDC for so many years, and has so little to show for FDC’s custodianship, if our councillors have so little backbone ! What hope is there ?
Walter Burnett is a pen name.
Wednesday 20 June 2007
MYSTERY OF GROVE HOUSE
OK lets do Grove House. When Cllr Colbert presented her motion to the new Town Council on 5 June, they simply refused to discuss it.
I refer you to a letter from Cllrs Colbert and Howes published in the Fenland Citizen on 20 June 2007:
We find the whole matter of Grove House highly perplexing.
As we understand the situation, Grove House was owned by Chatteris Urban District Council, who transferred its care to the newly formed Fenland District Council in 1974.
The Chatteris Town Council met in the building right up until the mid 1990s and the Museum was housed there.
We understand that in the mid 1990s Chatteris Town Council asked Fenland District Council for the building back, but FDC insisted they would have to pay £250,000 for it (!) so nothing happened.
Then, in 1996, Fenland District Council sold the building to the Isle College for £6,000, under conditional terms and it being used for education for 10 years.
According to the article by Cllr Alan Melton in Citizen Extra, the building was in a poor state and the Isle College undertook a “massive refurbishment” of the building and educational use started in 1997.
First, there are two questions.
(1) Why did Fenland District Council let the building get into such a poor state of repair?
(2) Why were Chatteris Town Council asked for such a huge amount of money only shortly before the sale to Isle College?
Now we move on to the present time, and we are told in Cllr Melton’s article that the building is in a very poor state now and that it cannot be used as a public building “as there is no lift and is not ‘disabled and disability acceptable’”.
This raises further issues.
(1) Why is again in such a poor state if the Isle College had it “massively refurbished”?
(2) Why should it have to have a lift? We have never noticed one in Fenland Hall, or the One Stop Shops.
(3) How about using just part of it as a public building?
(4) How about using the small side building for something like the Youth Cafe that everyone seems to agree that Chatteris could do with?
A motion for the reacquisition of Grove House for the benefit of the people of Chatteris has now twice been put before the Chatteris Town Council, but the majority group will not even discuss the matter.
Surely the Town Council has a duty to the people of Chatteris to fully investigate the condition of the building, and all its possible uses rather than ignore the matter.
And surely the Chatteris community is entitled to some substantial recompense from Fenland District Council for what looks very much like mismanagement of a substantial Chatteris asset.
This was in response to an article in the Chatteris Extra edition of the Fenland Citizen the previous week by Conservative District and County Councillor Alan Melton (and party colleague of 8 out of 12 of the Town Council) Cllr Melton wrote: "... the hope is that some private developer will save the building for domestic use, just like Chatteris House.”
During the life of the previous town council, Cllr Melton stood before them and promised that if at any point in the future Grove House was no longer required for educational use, it would be returned to Chatteris. Well I suppose that a couple of years is “a long time in politics” !
Funny thing though, while Cllr Melton hopes for a ‘benevolent’ developer to ‘save’ Grove House, Chatteris is full of rumours that it has already been promised to a developer. Perhaps Cllr Melton became converted to the idea while working as project manager for a local developer during the restoration of Chatteris House ?
Walter Burnett is a pen name.
I refer you to a letter from Cllrs Colbert and Howes published in the Fenland Citizen on 20 June 2007:
We find the whole matter of Grove House highly perplexing.
As we understand the situation, Grove House was owned by Chatteris Urban District Council, who transferred its care to the newly formed Fenland District Council in 1974.
The Chatteris Town Council met in the building right up until the mid 1990s and the Museum was housed there.
We understand that in the mid 1990s Chatteris Town Council asked Fenland District Council for the building back, but FDC insisted they would have to pay £250,000 for it (!) so nothing happened.
Then, in 1996, Fenland District Council sold the building to the Isle College for £6,000, under conditional terms and it being used for education for 10 years.
According to the article by Cllr Alan Melton in Citizen Extra, the building was in a poor state and the Isle College undertook a “massive refurbishment” of the building and educational use started in 1997.
First, there are two questions.
(1) Why did Fenland District Council let the building get into such a poor state of repair?
(2) Why were Chatteris Town Council asked for such a huge amount of money only shortly before the sale to Isle College?
Now we move on to the present time, and we are told in Cllr Melton’s article that the building is in a very poor state now and that it cannot be used as a public building “as there is no lift and is not ‘disabled and disability acceptable’”.
This raises further issues.
(1) Why is again in such a poor state if the Isle College had it “massively refurbished”?
(2) Why should it have to have a lift? We have never noticed one in Fenland Hall, or the One Stop Shops.
(3) How about using just part of it as a public building?
(4) How about using the small side building for something like the Youth Cafe that everyone seems to agree that Chatteris could do with?
A motion for the reacquisition of Grove House for the benefit of the people of Chatteris has now twice been put before the Chatteris Town Council, but the majority group will not even discuss the matter.
Surely the Town Council has a duty to the people of Chatteris to fully investigate the condition of the building, and all its possible uses rather than ignore the matter.
And surely the Chatteris community is entitled to some substantial recompense from Fenland District Council for what looks very much like mismanagement of a substantial Chatteris asset.
This was in response to an article in the Chatteris Extra edition of the Fenland Citizen the previous week by Conservative District and County Councillor Alan Melton (and party colleague of 8 out of 12 of the Town Council) Cllr Melton wrote: "... the hope is that some private developer will save the building for domestic use, just like Chatteris House.”
During the life of the previous town council, Cllr Melton stood before them and promised that if at any point in the future Grove House was no longer required for educational use, it would be returned to Chatteris. Well I suppose that a couple of years is “a long time in politics” !
Funny thing though, while Cllr Melton hopes for a ‘benevolent’ developer to ‘save’ Grove House, Chatteris is full of rumours that it has already been promised to a developer. Perhaps Cllr Melton became converted to the idea while working as project manager for a local developer during the restoration of Chatteris House ?
Walter Burnett is a pen name.
SHOOT THE MESSENGER !
I must apologise to my many readers (both those that like the blog, and those that love to hate it) for my silence. Following the reports I received of the 5th June meeting of Chatteris Town Council, I was so disillusioned / disappointed / disgusted / outraged / despairing that I felt I had to hold my tongue.
To say what I think would likely invoke a civil action for libel. Now we all know that a remark can’t be libelous if it is true, but on the whole I’d prefer not to have to spend time and money discussing it in Court.
Well what’s been happening ? I’ll deal with Grove House in a separate blog. A source of considerable expectation at the last meeting of the toy council was Cllr Murphy’s anticipated answers to the questions asked him at the inaugural meeting of the new council on 8th May 2007. (previously reported on this blog as More Stuff - yawn). Would the good district councillor be able explain the £17 million reduction in the FDC revenue account ? Could he promise that any of the £507,000 that FDC had received for the sale of land formally belonging to Chatteris, would be re-invested in Chatteris ?
Well surprise, surprise, Cllr Murphy failed to turn up, so the questions remain unanswered. Readers may not be aware the a councillor only has to attend one meeting every six months. Cllr Murphy has already failed to attend two meetings (and apparently neglected to even offer his apologies). He doesn’t actually need to attend again until November. Please Peter, don’t make us wait that long for the answers you promised !
This blog has attracted a healthy number of comments. The majority welcome it and read with interest what our council is doing (or perhaps not doing) on our behalf.
A small (and often barely literate) minority are terribly upset (why do they read it then ?) and have posted hostile comments. However these criticisms centre on speculation on this author’s identity, and criticism of specific councillors that dare to think for themselves, labeling them with that ultimate insult of the reactionary and small minded - ‘new comers’ !
Funny thing is, all the criticism is of the fact of the blog itself. Nobody has suggested that the content is anything other than accurate. A classic case of shoot the messenger ?
Walter Burnett is a pen name.
To say what I think would likely invoke a civil action for libel. Now we all know that a remark can’t be libelous if it is true, but on the whole I’d prefer not to have to spend time and money discussing it in Court.
Well what’s been happening ? I’ll deal with Grove House in a separate blog. A source of considerable expectation at the last meeting of the toy council was Cllr Murphy’s anticipated answers to the questions asked him at the inaugural meeting of the new council on 8th May 2007. (previously reported on this blog as More Stuff - yawn). Would the good district councillor be able explain the £17 million reduction in the FDC revenue account ? Could he promise that any of the £507,000 that FDC had received for the sale of land formally belonging to Chatteris, would be re-invested in Chatteris ?
Well surprise, surprise, Cllr Murphy failed to turn up, so the questions remain unanswered. Readers may not be aware the a councillor only has to attend one meeting every six months. Cllr Murphy has already failed to attend two meetings (and apparently neglected to even offer his apologies). He doesn’t actually need to attend again until November. Please Peter, don’t make us wait that long for the answers you promised !
This blog has attracted a healthy number of comments. The majority welcome it and read with interest what our council is doing (or perhaps not doing) on our behalf.
A small (and often barely literate) minority are terribly upset (why do they read it then ?) and have posted hostile comments. However these criticisms centre on speculation on this author’s identity, and criticism of specific councillors that dare to think for themselves, labeling them with that ultimate insult of the reactionary and small minded - ‘new comers’ !
Funny thing is, all the criticism is of the fact of the blog itself. Nobody has suggested that the content is anything other than accurate. A classic case of shoot the messenger ?
Walter Burnett is a pen name.
Monday 4 June 2007
COMING SOON TO A BLOG NEAR YOU ........
Tuesday 5 June is the 2nd meeting of the new Chatteris Town Council. Your blogger can hardly contain his excitement !
Will Cllr Murphy don his District Council hat and give full and informative answers to the questions asked him at the first meeting ( faithfully reported to you in my 18 May blog - MORE STUFF) ?
Cllr Colbert has resubmitted her Grove House motion that was disgracefully voted out by the last Council in March 2007:
"Following the cessation of the education use of Grove House, Chatteris Town Council calls upon Fenland District Council to secure the return of Grove House from the College of West Anglia at a figure deemed appropriate given the terms of the sale agreement. Chatteris Town Council further calls upon Fenland District Council to return the building to Chatteris for the benefit of the community at nil cost to Chatteris."
As my ‘Grove House’ blog related, this motion endeavours to give Chatteris the opportunity to have our former building returned to the people it once belonged to - us ! Will we be thrilled to learn that the Council has astonished us by supporting this fine motion, or will it instead bury its head in the sand, ostrich like, and rule out the opportunity of regaining a Chatteris asset?
The fun starts at 7pm with an opportunity for the Public to speak - a few places in the gallery still remain - apply on the door! (If you can’t make it, watch this space)
Walter Burnett is a pin number.
Cllr Colbert has resubmitted her Grove House motion that was disgracefully voted out by the last Council in March 2007:
"Following the cessation of the education use of Grove House, Chatteris Town Council calls upon Fenland District Council to secure the return of Grove House from the College of West Anglia at a figure deemed appropriate given the terms of the sale agreement. Chatteris Town Council further calls upon Fenland District Council to return the building to Chatteris for the benefit of the community at nil cost to Chatteris."
As my ‘Grove House’ blog related, this motion endeavours to give Chatteris the opportunity to have our former building returned to the people it once belonged to - us ! Will we be thrilled to learn that the Council has astonished us by supporting this fine motion, or will it instead bury its head in the sand, ostrich like, and rule out the opportunity of regaining a Chatteris asset?
The fun starts at 7pm with an opportunity for the Public to speak - a few places in the gallery still remain - apply on the door! (If you can’t make it, watch this space)
Walter Burnett is a pin number.
Thursday 31 May 2007
BETRAYED
District Council ‘stab in the back’ for veteran Chatteris Councillor !
Early this year Ray German announced that he would not be standing for re-election to his Chatteris Mills Town & District Council seats. He felt that the time had finally arrived for well deserved retirement. Ray served for 4 years in the RAF during WWII which must make him at least a venerable 84 years old !
However it seems this proposed retirement posed Ray’s Conservative ‘lords & masters’ a problem as the Liberal Democrats were shaping up to give the Tories a real run for their money in the 2007 elections.
So, seemingly against his wishes, Ray German was forced to stand again and was re-elected.
But did the Tories appreciate Ray’s unselfish support of his Party?
Certainly his treatment by his Tory “bosses” has been less than caring. Ray German has been a long-standing member of the District Planning Committee, and sometime thorn in the side of the ruling elite, speaking out for Chatteris and against the party line. Notably he argued passionately against a recent unpopular development in Chatteris, putting the Chairman of Planning ‘on the spot’.
Instead of rewarding Ray for his loyalty in standing again one final time, he has been kicked off the Planning Committee, and his place given to Florrie Newell. Apparently Cllr German is considered ‘no longer suitable’ because he doesn’t own a computer, and so is unable to receive e-mails, but you wonder if the real reason may be Ray’s single mindedness and his temerity in standing up to the Chairman of Planning.
It is notable that since May the Chairman of FDC Planning has consolidated his position. District Councillors on this committee had long been paid a small extra allowance (about £10/week) to reward them for the extra duties. This allowance to Committee members has been scrapped and instead the Chairman’s allowance has increased by 25%!
Will Cllr Ray German put up with this considerable snub ?
Rumour has it that Ray may be offered deputy chairmanship of Chatteris Town Council’s planning committee, but how well might that ‘consolation prize’ be received?
Do we smell the whiff of by-election in the air ?
Walter Burnett is a pen name.
Thursday 24 May 2007
WHAT PRICE FREEDOM OF SPEECH ?
It seems from a new comment that there is an anonymous critic of this site who seems to positively leap to conclusions! One wonders if this has been penned by the same individual who made ‘mature and considered’ remarks in certain election literature about the threat of a “virus” being introduced into Fenland Hall?
Anonymous has left a comment on your post "GROVE HOUSE":
“I think the actions of anyone who ridicules the body to which he/she has been elected insults the people who voted for him/her and are contemptable”
4 years ago, the last Town council set up a working party to establish a Town Council web site. This could have included agendas for meetings, minutes of the ensuing meetings, and a bulletin board for residents to ask questions or report concerns and problems. The working party delivered its recommendations to Town Council, who duly ignored them. No web site. And still no web site.
This blogger believes that the residents of Chatteris have a right to know what goes on at Town Council. After all residents pay for Town Council !
I fail to understand which part of my Grove House blog “ridicules” Town Council. It merely records the facts. Readers may feel that the refusal to support Cllr Colbert’s motion of 6th March 2007 was short sighted and ridiculous, but that’s their judgment based on the facts I have published.
The suggestion inherent in the anonymous comment is that I shouldn’t report the activities of the Council, be they successes or failures. This is the philosophy of a totalitarian state, where freedom of speech is forbidden !
The many people who are regularly logging in, and who have expressed their support, need not worry as a bit of old fashioned, blinkered and reactionary criticism won’t silence me.
Walter Burnett is a pen name.
Anonymous has left a comment on your post "GROVE HOUSE":
“I think the actions of anyone who ridicules the body to which he/she has been elected insults the people who voted for him/her and are contemptable”
4 years ago, the last Town council set up a working party to establish a Town Council web site. This could have included agendas for meetings, minutes of the ensuing meetings, and a bulletin board for residents to ask questions or report concerns and problems. The working party delivered its recommendations to Town Council, who duly ignored them. No web site. And still no web site.
This blogger believes that the residents of Chatteris have a right to know what goes on at Town Council. After all residents pay for Town Council !
I fail to understand which part of my Grove House blog “ridicules” Town Council. It merely records the facts. Readers may feel that the refusal to support Cllr Colbert’s motion of 6th March 2007 was short sighted and ridiculous, but that’s their judgment based on the facts I have published.
The suggestion inherent in the anonymous comment is that I shouldn’t report the activities of the Council, be they successes or failures. This is the philosophy of a totalitarian state, where freedom of speech is forbidden !
The many people who are regularly logging in, and who have expressed their support, need not worry as a bit of old fashioned, blinkered and reactionary criticism won’t silence me.
Walter Burnett is a pen name.
Wednesday 23 May 2007
GROVE HOUSE
GROVE HOUSE
The continuing rape of Chatteris and the Town Council’s refusual to act !
Once upon a time, Chatteris was a proud market town with fine Civic Offices which in modern parlance provided a ‘one-stop-shop’ service to the town. Then in 1974 along came local government re-organisation and Chatteris’s assets were gifted to the fledgling Fenland District Council in the 1970’s, including the former offices of Chatteris Urban District Council - Grove House.
The historic records of quite how much this golden gift package contained are strangely illusive. FDC’s paperwork was apparently lost years ago in a flood. The County Archive is sadly unable to help. One can only speculate at the current value of this package of assets, but FDC this year sold of one small parcel of land in Chatteris inherited from the U.D.C. for over £1/2 million. The total value of the assets they inherited from Chatteris must now be far in excess of the current costs of both a Leisure Centre & Country Park !
It would appear that the thinking behind the gift of assets was to give the embryonic District Council financial reserves to guarantee its financial health through these initial formative years. But 33 years on from this restructuring, Chatteris remains desperately poor in resources, and FDC has become fantastically wealthy. Despite a £17 million decrease in the consolidated balance sheet for 2005/6 FDC still record assets of £172 million !
In the 1990’s FDC found that the former civic centre of town was no longer required to provide a ‘one stop service’ for Chatteris and decided to get rid of Grove House. Thinking then was that it was better to ‘centralise’ services in March.
But when, at that time, Chatteris Town Council inquired about buying Grove House back, FDC outrageously demanded £250,000 to return our asset, then flogged it off cheap to the Isle of Ely College for £6,000. Despite this obvious scandalous financial inconsistency, at least the building continued to play a diminished role in the community life of Chatteris. Unfortunately it appears that the college had little funds for maintenance, and our building has been neglected and allowed to deteriorate for years.
In 2004 FDC finally realised that centralising services in March had been short sighted and launched its flag ship policy of returning services to the Market Towns. Hundreds of thousands of pounds were poured into the privately owned new ‘one-stop-shop’, while the original (and still the best) potential civic centre stood by.
Although sadly neglected, the building is fortunately protected by ‘listing’. The College has recently decided to follow FDC’s unfortunate 1990’s precedent, and centralise its activities at March. Grove House is now surplus to their requirements, and presumably will be disposed of.
In March 2007, Cllr Christine Colbert put the following motion to Chatteris Town Council: "Following the cessation of the education use of Grove House, Chatteris Town Council calls upon Fenland District Council to secure the return of Grove House from the College of West Anglia at a figure deemed appropriate given the terms of the sale agreement. Chatteris Town Council further calls upon Fenland District Council to return the building to Chatteris for the benefit of the community at nil cost to Chatteris." In one of its most remarkable ever demonstrations of short sightedness, the old Town Council , lead by the then Chairman, voted down the motion.
Instead Chatteris Town Council invited the Principal of the College to Council to discuss the future of Grove House. This invitation was declined. The then council leader (now deputy mayor) appeared on the front page of the Fenland Citizen Chatteris Extra demanding that the building shouldn’t be allowed to become an ‘eye sore’.
How about Town Council actually stopping wingeing and doing something about it themselves ?
Last week the Cambs Times reported the close cooperation between the College and FDC in setting up the new campus west of March. Chatteris needs its 4 newly reelected District Councillors to ensure this cooperation extends to Chatteris, and saving Grove House for the people of Chatteris.
The building belongs to Chatteris, and mustn’t be flogged off just to finance the March development. Chatteris is so short of facilities this key building simply can’t be squandered.
Below is a comments box. During the recent election campaign, many opinions were expressed by residents on the future of Grove House, but not one person seemd to feel it should be flogged off to fund building the March college!
Youth Centre, Civic Centre, Museum ? Please use the comments box to say what you think. Or e-mail me at walter.burnett@googlemail.com I promise to pass your opinions on to the Council.
Walter Burnett is a pen name.
The continuing rape of Chatteris and the Town Council’s refusual to act !
Once upon a time, Chatteris was a proud market town with fine Civic Offices which in modern parlance provided a ‘one-stop-shop’ service to the town. Then in 1974 along came local government re-organisation and Chatteris’s assets were gifted to the fledgling Fenland District Council in the 1970’s, including the former offices of Chatteris Urban District Council - Grove House.
The historic records of quite how much this golden gift package contained are strangely illusive. FDC’s paperwork was apparently lost years ago in a flood. The County Archive is sadly unable to help. One can only speculate at the current value of this package of assets, but FDC this year sold of one small parcel of land in Chatteris inherited from the U.D.C. for over £1/2 million. The total value of the assets they inherited from Chatteris must now be far in excess of the current costs of both a Leisure Centre & Country Park !
It would appear that the thinking behind the gift of assets was to give the embryonic District Council financial reserves to guarantee its financial health through these initial formative years. But 33 years on from this restructuring, Chatteris remains desperately poor in resources, and FDC has become fantastically wealthy. Despite a £17 million decrease in the consolidated balance sheet for 2005/6 FDC still record assets of £172 million !
In the 1990’s FDC found that the former civic centre of town was no longer required to provide a ‘one stop service’ for Chatteris and decided to get rid of Grove House. Thinking then was that it was better to ‘centralise’ services in March.
But when, at that time, Chatteris Town Council inquired about buying Grove House back, FDC outrageously demanded £250,000 to return our asset, then flogged it off cheap to the Isle of Ely College for £6,000. Despite this obvious scandalous financial inconsistency, at least the building continued to play a diminished role in the community life of Chatteris. Unfortunately it appears that the college had little funds for maintenance, and our building has been neglected and allowed to deteriorate for years.
In 2004 FDC finally realised that centralising services in March had been short sighted and launched its flag ship policy of returning services to the Market Towns. Hundreds of thousands of pounds were poured into the privately owned new ‘one-stop-shop’, while the original (and still the best) potential civic centre stood by.
Although sadly neglected, the building is fortunately protected by ‘listing’. The College has recently decided to follow FDC’s unfortunate 1990’s precedent, and centralise its activities at March. Grove House is now surplus to their requirements, and presumably will be disposed of.
In March 2007, Cllr Christine Colbert put the following motion to Chatteris Town Council: "Following the cessation of the education use of Grove House, Chatteris Town Council calls upon Fenland District Council to secure the return of Grove House from the College of West Anglia at a figure deemed appropriate given the terms of the sale agreement. Chatteris Town Council further calls upon Fenland District Council to return the building to Chatteris for the benefit of the community at nil cost to Chatteris." In one of its most remarkable ever demonstrations of short sightedness, the old Town Council , lead by the then Chairman, voted down the motion.
Instead Chatteris Town Council invited the Principal of the College to Council to discuss the future of Grove House. This invitation was declined. The then council leader (now deputy mayor) appeared on the front page of the Fenland Citizen Chatteris Extra demanding that the building shouldn’t be allowed to become an ‘eye sore’.
How about Town Council actually stopping wingeing and doing something about it themselves ?
Last week the Cambs Times reported the close cooperation between the College and FDC in setting up the new campus west of March. Chatteris needs its 4 newly reelected District Councillors to ensure this cooperation extends to Chatteris, and saving Grove House for the people of Chatteris.
The building belongs to Chatteris, and mustn’t be flogged off just to finance the March development. Chatteris is so short of facilities this key building simply can’t be squandered.
Below is a comments box. During the recent election campaign, many opinions were expressed by residents on the future of Grove House, but not one person seemd to feel it should be flogged off to fund building the March college!
Youth Centre, Civic Centre, Museum ? Please use the comments box to say what you think. Or e-mail me at walter.burnett@googlemail.com I promise to pass your opinions on to the Council.
Walter Burnett is a pen name.
Friday 18 May 2007
MORE STUFF (yawn)
Following on from my report of the first thrilling meeting of the new Chatteris Town Council (The Queen is dead - long live the Queen), I thought I should mention the Annual Town Meeting which immediately preceded it. The Annual Town Meeting is designed to report to the public the Town Council’s remarkable achievements of the previous year.
The start was fairly confusing as the new Town Councillors (who had not at that time signed their Declarations of Office) settled down with those that remained from the previous Council, so the Annual Town Meeting consisted of the new Council and was chaired by the previous Chairman, Florrie Newell.
The meeting was favoured by the attendance of Chatteris’s two County Councillors, Messrs. Melton and Harper. Cllr Harper (also leader of the District Council) briefly addressed the Town Council, and spoke in glowing terms of Cllr Melton’s successful restoration of Chatteris House and murmured about the possible prospect of a Chatteris Science Park. (Which some of us will believe when we see it !) As to County Councillor Melton, those of you who know Alan won’t be surprised to learn that he wasn’t going to turn down any opportunity to speak ! And at considerable length !
Cllr Melton advised the congealed masses that:
* The suggested cancellation of the Christmas lights had itself been cancelled (and as two cancellations make a positive, the lights will now happen)
* He (Cllr Melton) had almost single handedly rescued that prominent land mark Chatteris House from dereliction. (A claim which had bizarrely been the central plank of Alan’s recent election campaign). This ignored the saga of the compulsory purchase of the building by the District Council and its sudden discounted sale (as featured in the Cambs Times on 6 May 2005). The question has been asked “why should his paid employment by a commercial property developer be a recommendation for Public Office ?”.
* Fenland District Council are now at last properly collecting community benefit from Developers! No more £1million black holes ! (Cambs Times 28.10.05). However no mention was made of the reason for FDC’s earlier ineptitude, nor the apparent difficulties the District Council appears to experience in actually spending the money in the communities where it belongs !
* Finally, Alan proudly announced his elevation to County Council portfolio holder in charge of Corporate Services.
After questioning from that ‘pesky’ Lib Dem Chris Howes, County Cllr Melton admitted that County Council had finally accepted that the requirement to achieve “best value” when disposing of assets, could mean “best community value”, not just “best financial value”. THIS IS TRULY GOOD NEWS AND EFFECTS SEVERAL SIGNIFICANT CHATTERIS ISSUES !
Next it was the turn of District Cllr Murphy. The good Councillor had only that day been volunteered to represent Fenland District Council at this meeting (despite the presence of both the Leader and former Leader of FDC ). He was questioned by Cllr Howes :
* When asked to explain the £17 million reduction to the FDC revenue account, he promised to “get back on that one”.
* When asked to advise exactly why FDC had halved its annual grant to Cromwell Community College, he promised to “get back on that one”
* When asked if any of the £507,000 recently received by FDC for selling land in Chatteris that formerly belonged to Chatteris UDC, might be spent on capital projects actually in Chatteris, he promised to “get back on that one”.
Well that’s an awful lot of “getting back”. Your dedicated bloger promises to let you know if and when answers arrive to these important questions. And inform you of the answers, or remind you if the questions remain unanswered. So much to look forward to !
The start was fairly confusing as the new Town Councillors (who had not at that time signed their Declarations of Office) settled down with those that remained from the previous Council, so the Annual Town Meeting consisted of the new Council and was chaired by the previous Chairman, Florrie Newell.
The meeting was favoured by the attendance of Chatteris’s two County Councillors, Messrs. Melton and Harper. Cllr Harper (also leader of the District Council) briefly addressed the Town Council, and spoke in glowing terms of Cllr Melton’s successful restoration of Chatteris House and murmured about the possible prospect of a Chatteris Science Park. (Which some of us will believe when we see it !) As to County Councillor Melton, those of you who know Alan won’t be surprised to learn that he wasn’t going to turn down any opportunity to speak ! And at considerable length !
Cllr Melton advised the congealed masses that:
* The suggested cancellation of the Christmas lights had itself been cancelled (and as two cancellations make a positive, the lights will now happen)
* He (Cllr Melton) had almost single handedly rescued that prominent land mark Chatteris House from dereliction. (A claim which had bizarrely been the central plank of Alan’s recent election campaign). This ignored the saga of the compulsory purchase of the building by the District Council and its sudden discounted sale (as featured in the Cambs Times on 6 May 2005). The question has been asked “why should his paid employment by a commercial property developer be a recommendation for Public Office ?”.
* Fenland District Council are now at last properly collecting community benefit from Developers! No more £1million black holes ! (Cambs Times 28.10.05). However no mention was made of the reason for FDC’s earlier ineptitude, nor the apparent difficulties the District Council appears to experience in actually spending the money in the communities where it belongs !
* Finally, Alan proudly announced his elevation to County Council portfolio holder in charge of Corporate Services.
After questioning from that ‘pesky’ Lib Dem Chris Howes, County Cllr Melton admitted that County Council had finally accepted that the requirement to achieve “best value” when disposing of assets, could mean “best community value”, not just “best financial value”. THIS IS TRULY GOOD NEWS AND EFFECTS SEVERAL SIGNIFICANT CHATTERIS ISSUES !
Next it was the turn of District Cllr Murphy. The good Councillor had only that day been volunteered to represent Fenland District Council at this meeting (despite the presence of both the Leader and former Leader of FDC ). He was questioned by Cllr Howes :
* When asked to explain the £17 million reduction to the FDC revenue account, he promised to “get back on that one”.
* When asked to advise exactly why FDC had halved its annual grant to Cromwell Community College, he promised to “get back on that one”
* When asked if any of the £507,000 recently received by FDC for selling land in Chatteris that formerly belonged to Chatteris UDC, might be spent on capital projects actually in Chatteris, he promised to “get back on that one”.
Well that’s an awful lot of “getting back”. Your dedicated bloger promises to let you know if and when answers arrive to these important questions. And inform you of the answers, or remind you if the questions remain unanswered. So much to look forward to !
Saturday 12 May 2007
The Queen is dead ! Long live the Queeen ! (not)
The new Chatteris Town Council met for the first time on the 8th May. Your dedicated blogger has pledged to report to you all the triumphs, disasters, and shenanigans of this august body.
The burning question was who would become Chatteris’ first Mayor. Would Florrie surrender her vice like grip on the chair after 16 years ? Would the eternal bridesmaid, Sue Elam, finally get her hour of glory ? The meeting started with a eulogy of praise for Florrie, appropriately lead by the ‘oldest member’ octogenarian Ray German. Flowers and paintings were given in recognition of her truly memorable achievement (the praise being directed at Florrie’s longevity, not her actual record of achievement which could be best summarised as keeping the Town’s £1million languishing in the bank for almost all that period).
The outgoing chair then named her heir - and indeed it was our Sue ! Cllr Elam accepted the honour with yet more fulsome praise for her predecessor, and the meeting turned to its next appointment, that of mayor in waiting, or deputy mayor. Quick as a flash Florrie’s sister in law (Cllr Stimson) proposed - no wait for it, guess - yes Florrie herself.
As the smoke cleared and the mirrors stopped revolving (metaphorically speaking) it became clear that the whole succession was an elaborately stage managed illusion. Florrie was still close to the top of the table, the reigns as firmly grasped in her hands as ever, and Sue little more than a titular head. “Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme difference !” (the more things change, the more they stay the same) Spare a thought for poor Sue. Will she really be allowed to get on with trying to achieve positive change, or will her worthwhile endeavours continue to be put down, suppressed, or simply vetoed ?
Both mayor and deputy made frequent and repeated reference to the ‘great loss’ to the council of the councillors who failed to be re-elected, unenthusiastically welcoming the new councillors through apparently gritted teeth. It appeared that the “old guards’ ” wrath was not directed at the new members who belonged to their own party, but at the new 23 year old Lib Dem, Ed Bryce, for his temerity in obtaining a democratic mandate. A bizarre and slightly unpleasant ritual then followed, when the councillors went round the table introducing themselves. One by one they justified their office solely in terms of how long they have lived in Chatteris. It appears that the combined group are qualified entirely on the basis of having lived in town for over 300 years between them. Florrie’s ‘iron grip’ is justified by the Doomsday book ! All hope of a new and inclusive council flew out the window with the clearly implied criticism of the three lib dem councillors (7 years, 7 years and 13 years in Chatteris) as new comers. This ongoing criticism that new comers shouldn’t have any say in the future of the Town they have chosen to make their home, was a dark and deeply offensive characteristic of the last Council, clearly inherited by the new Council. This blogger believes that the Council should represent all Chatteris, not denigrate recent arrivals and continue to compound the myth of a deep division between ‘old & new Chatteris’ !
More of this fascinating Machiavellian tragedy to follow !
Walter Burnett is a pen name.
The burning question was who would become Chatteris’ first Mayor. Would Florrie surrender her vice like grip on the chair after 16 years ? Would the eternal bridesmaid, Sue Elam, finally get her hour of glory ? The meeting started with a eulogy of praise for Florrie, appropriately lead by the ‘oldest member’ octogenarian Ray German. Flowers and paintings were given in recognition of her truly memorable achievement (the praise being directed at Florrie’s longevity, not her actual record of achievement which could be best summarised as keeping the Town’s £1million languishing in the bank for almost all that period).
The outgoing chair then named her heir - and indeed it was our Sue ! Cllr Elam accepted the honour with yet more fulsome praise for her predecessor, and the meeting turned to its next appointment, that of mayor in waiting, or deputy mayor. Quick as a flash Florrie’s sister in law (Cllr Stimson) proposed - no wait for it, guess - yes Florrie herself.
As the smoke cleared and the mirrors stopped revolving (metaphorically speaking) it became clear that the whole succession was an elaborately stage managed illusion. Florrie was still close to the top of the table, the reigns as firmly grasped in her hands as ever, and Sue little more than a titular head. “Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme difference !” (the more things change, the more they stay the same) Spare a thought for poor Sue. Will she really be allowed to get on with trying to achieve positive change, or will her worthwhile endeavours continue to be put down, suppressed, or simply vetoed ?
Both mayor and deputy made frequent and repeated reference to the ‘great loss’ to the council of the councillors who failed to be re-elected, unenthusiastically welcoming the new councillors through apparently gritted teeth. It appeared that the “old guards’ ” wrath was not directed at the new members who belonged to their own party, but at the new 23 year old Lib Dem, Ed Bryce, for his temerity in obtaining a democratic mandate. A bizarre and slightly unpleasant ritual then followed, when the councillors went round the table introducing themselves. One by one they justified their office solely in terms of how long they have lived in Chatteris. It appears that the combined group are qualified entirely on the basis of having lived in town for over 300 years between them. Florrie’s ‘iron grip’ is justified by the Doomsday book ! All hope of a new and inclusive council flew out the window with the clearly implied criticism of the three lib dem councillors (7 years, 7 years and 13 years in Chatteris) as new comers. This ongoing criticism that new comers shouldn’t have any say in the future of the Town they have chosen to make their home, was a dark and deeply offensive characteristic of the last Council, clearly inherited by the new Council. This blogger believes that the Council should represent all Chatteris, not denigrate recent arrivals and continue to compound the myth of a deep division between ‘old & new Chatteris’ !
More of this fascinating Machiavellian tragedy to follow !
Walter Burnett is a pen name.
BATTLE FOR THE CROWN
The freshly elected new Chatteris Town Council meets for the first time on Tuesday 8 May 2007.
Its first job will be to elect Chatteris’ first Mayor. The prospect of donning the Chain has engaged many of the Members, and betting is fierce on who will receive this honour. Leading contenders are:
No. 1 - Cllr Mrs Florence Newell. ‘Florrie’ has already been chairman of the town council for a quite remarkable 16 years ! In May ‘06 Florrie went to press saying that should would not even stand again for Town Council in May 07, however a change of heart has seen her re-elected for the Wenneye ward. More recently she has ruled out becoming the first Mayor, but will the glitter of Office prove too seductive to the only member of the council who doesn’t actually live in Chatteris ?
No. 2 - Cllr Mrs Sue Elam. Sue has loyally served Florrie as deputy Chairman for 9 years, not even protesting when Florence has claimed credit for Sue’s achievements (for example the mini skate board park). It is widely know that Sue coverts the ‘crown’ and many believe she has always been promised the succession. But in the cold light of the new council will political ambition take precedence over old promises ? And if the promise to Sue is reneged on, will Sue be able to bare to stay on the council ? She may be offered the consultation of Deputy Mayor, but can Sue remain for ever the bridesmaid ?
No. 3 - Cllr Peter Murphy. Peter appeared to become Florence’s deadliest of enemies in 2003 when he defeated her in the 2003 district council election. However since Florence defected and became a ‘born again Conservative’ an uneasy marriage of convenience exists, which extended to Florence standing with Peter in Wenneye ward for town (and accepting the diminished role of ‘second fiddle’) and the reverse alliance happening in Slade Lode ward. Peter’s rise within the District Council was been meteoric, with his almost immediate elevation to ‘portfolio holder for toilets’. Hot money is on Peter becoming the first Mayor, but most observers believe that no-one can achieve this exalted position without Florence’s blessing. Are all the old wounds really completely healed ?
This blogger promises not only to update you with the result, but also report all the shenanigans and political manoevering. And I plan to regularly update you on happenings at this ‘vicar of Dibleyesque’ body. Wait with baited breath for your next installment !
Walter Burnett is a pen name
Its first job will be to elect Chatteris’ first Mayor. The prospect of donning the Chain has engaged many of the Members, and betting is fierce on who will receive this honour. Leading contenders are:
No. 1 - Cllr Mrs Florence Newell. ‘Florrie’ has already been chairman of the town council for a quite remarkable 16 years ! In May ‘06 Florrie went to press saying that should would not even stand again for Town Council in May 07, however a change of heart has seen her re-elected for the Wenneye ward. More recently she has ruled out becoming the first Mayor, but will the glitter of Office prove too seductive to the only member of the council who doesn’t actually live in Chatteris ?
No. 2 - Cllr Mrs Sue Elam. Sue has loyally served Florrie as deputy Chairman for 9 years, not even protesting when Florence has claimed credit for Sue’s achievements (for example the mini skate board park). It is widely know that Sue coverts the ‘crown’ and many believe she has always been promised the succession. But in the cold light of the new council will political ambition take precedence over old promises ? And if the promise to Sue is reneged on, will Sue be able to bare to stay on the council ? She may be offered the consultation of Deputy Mayor, but can Sue remain for ever the bridesmaid ?
No. 3 - Cllr Peter Murphy. Peter appeared to become Florence’s deadliest of enemies in 2003 when he defeated her in the 2003 district council election. However since Florence defected and became a ‘born again Conservative’ an uneasy marriage of convenience exists, which extended to Florence standing with Peter in Wenneye ward for town (and accepting the diminished role of ‘second fiddle’) and the reverse alliance happening in Slade Lode ward. Peter’s rise within the District Council was been meteoric, with his almost immediate elevation to ‘portfolio holder for toilets’. Hot money is on Peter becoming the first Mayor, but most observers believe that no-one can achieve this exalted position without Florence’s blessing. Are all the old wounds really completely healed ?
This blogger promises not only to update you with the result, but also report all the shenanigans and political manoevering. And I plan to regularly update you on happenings at this ‘vicar of Dibleyesque’ body. Wait with baited breath for your next installment !
Walter Burnett is a pen name
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)