So why did Labour win the Midlothian East by-election? More to the point, why did the SNP lose it?
Technically, this was a Labour hold, but Labour hold it wasn't - it was a Labour gain, with significant implications.
The by-election was held under the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system. The only problem that exists with STV is that it doesn't retain proportionality in a by-election. So although the 2012 election resulted in 1 SNP, 1 Labour and 1 Independent, and that's the way it is now, if we look at the underlying figures, this is a seat the SNP should have won, and won easily.
For simplicity, if we just look at total first preference votes, in 2012 the SNP received 1,777 votes compared to Labour's 1,478. In rough percentage terms, the SNP were at 43% and Labour 36%. Given the anti-Labour sentiment nationally since 18th September, not to mention the SNP's membership surge (and therefore potential activity level), the cards were stacked firmly in the SNP's favour. So what went wrong for them?
Before answering this, let's look first at the idiosyncrasies of this seat. In 2012 we had Independent candidate Peter de Vink, a pro-independence ex-Tory (though most voters didn't know this at the time) who was elected on 461 (11.1)% of first preference votes, and in this by-election we have Robert Hogg (community activist, Labour leaning and well known in Mayfield/Easthouses), who received 780 (19.9%) first preferences. There were other candidates too. So I'd like first to examine their influence in reverse order of votes.
Euan Davidson was the Lib Dem candidate. I have known Euan for a good few years and have a lot of respect for him, particularly as his Green credentials far outweigh those of most non-Green candidates out there. Although Euan isn't well known in the ward, in 2007 Midlothian East elected a Lib Dem councillor, so for them to get less than 2% of first preferences (68 votes) it must have been pretty devastating. We all know that the Lib Dems are toast nationally. Locally, this result has set off the smoke detector. Second preference transfers from Euan were very evenly spread across the remaining candidates.
Bill Kerr-Smith was a great candidate for the Greens. Yes, I know you'd expect me to say that, but he was. Born in Dalkeith, brought up in Mayfield, lives in Eskbank and active on the local community council he ticks all the boxes. We put out an excellent leaflet, concentrating on support for communities, anti-fracking and other things we'd been doing locally (downloadable here - http://midlothiangreens.org.uk/?page_id=57) and managed to do some canvassing. Bill got 197 (5%) of first preferences; respectable for a first attempt at contesting the ward but hardly ground-breaking. It still only matched the percentage we got in Penicuik and Midlothian West in 2012, where we fielded candidates with no leaflets or canvassing. Clearly we need to do a lot more if we are to have any chance of winning a seat here in 2017.
About half of Bill's transferable lower preferences (87) went to SNP, with only 33 going to Labour. This could be an Indyref thing.
Andrew Hardie is a veteran of elections for the Tories, although he didn't stand in the ward in the previous two. With Eskbank and the rural areas fertile ground for them, this is one of their better performing wards and in 2007 gave them their best result at 14.1%. In 2012 that declined to 9.1% and this time 8.4%. Given that Peter de Vink would have attracted a good few of their first preferences in 2012, their decline appears to be continuing at pace.
The remarkable thing about Andrew's transfers was that nearly half (100) went to Labour, 83 to Robert Hogg and only 27 to the SNP. Naturally the SNP are linking this to Indyref and saying that as the extra 73 votes Labour received as a result of this is greater than the 69 votes by which Labour eventually won, the Blue Tories ensured the Red Tories won the seat. However, even in 2012, twice as many Tory transfers went to Labour than to SNP, so I suspect much of it reflects a long standing anti-Nationalist sentiment amongst the Tories.
Robert Hogg is chair of Mayfield and Easthouses Community Council, covering about half the ward's voters. He has also been heavily involved in M & E Development Trust and chairs the Midlothian Federation of Community Councils. Robert's near 20% of first preferences would, on these figures, suggest he will be elected in 2017 should he decide to stand again. His 468 transfers went more or less equally to Labour and SNP, suggesting his impact on the SNP/Labour first preference split was minimal.
In summary therefore, the overall impact of having different non-SNP/Labour candidates between 2012 and 2014 is not material. There must be something else happening.
I believe there were two factors at play. The most significant was that Labour ran a smart campaign. They brought people in, knocked on a lot of doors and in short, worked hard to win the seat. On polling day they had someone outside all the polling stations all day, unlike the SNP who seemed pretty lazy about even getting A-boards out. Labour wanted badly to win the seat, SNP were complacent.
Another factor may have been the SNP's incumbent councillor in the ward, Lisa Beattie, who due to health problems has had a very low profile, certainly on the council and presumably in the ward over the last year.
And finally, where does this leave the council? Overall, we're back where we started - 8 Labour, 8 SNP, Independent Peter de Vink (in coalition with SNP) and myself as Green councillor. However, unless Lisa Beattie returns to normal duties soon, this could present the SNP/Independent coalition with a few headaches and if the Labour group has any sense, it might want to start talking to me for a change.
Tuesday 2 December 2014
Monday 20 October 2014
Solution to skatepark problems lies a few yards away
A brand new skate park has recently opened in King George V Park, Bonnyrigg and it's a fantastic facility. If I were a few years younger or could get away with no-one seeing me (difficult as it's always packed), I'd be trying a few kickflips myself.
Unfortunately, its popularity also appears to extend to a minority who are making life a misery for those who want to enjoy themselves. There are stories of bullying, drug taking and general anti-social behaviour as well as evidence of some quite unpleasant graffiti. This culminated in a well attended community council meeting this week where we were told that a young girl had attempted suicide as a result of alleged bullying. Serious stuff, and something which clearly needs urgent action.
Discussion at the meeting centred on the need for some sort of supervision. The police cannot be expected to be there all the time, although they are making regular calls which is appreciated. Council workers likewise are helping, but again there will be long spells when they won't be there. The problems, as is to be expected, are more prevalent after dark. The main problem it seems is that the location is largely out of sight and, particularly after dark, with few passing adults, mainly the occasional folk walking their dogs.
For me, however, the solution is staring us in the face, and has been for some time. When the Bonnyrigg Centre Trust (BCT) put forward its plans to take over the former Bonnyrigg Leisure Centre, its case included two powerful arguments.
Firstly, the overarching objective of community ownership was the improved social inclusion that the growing town would benefit from. If the older kids got to know the younger kids through working together in the proposed bicycle/skateboard repair shop, or recognised them, their parents and grandparents from the cafe, wouldn't that reduce the risk of bullying?
But secondly, and on a more practical level, there would be supervision - or more accurately, a presence close by. A building lit up till ten at night, toilets, a busy cafe, people coming and going, a refuge if problems did start up - or as someone succinctly put it, there'd be a buzz about the place.
Instead, we now have a reactive approach which risks alienating those who could so easily have been part of the solution; we have extra costs and pressures placed on police and council resources; the council faces extra costs in clearing up graffiti and repairing damage; in short, we're developing a bunker mentality, desperate to avoid a wonderful new asset from becoming a social liability. This is particularly sad as the risk of costs to the council were stated as the sole reason for turning down the community bid.
This is not a debate about who should get the building - it's about why the obvious solution isn't even being looked at. The building is thankfully still standing, and so long as it is, there is hope.
It's been clear to most people that there's room enough for all interested groups to have a stake. As Bright Sparks currently plans to have part of the building open to the public for soft play and a cafe, any concerns about security appear to have been overcome. It has also been suggested that part of the building may need to be demolished to provide outdoor space for Bright Sparks, yet there is plenty of space to the side (alongside, or in place of the five-a-side pitches). Sufficient boundaries between the Bright Sparks area and the community space can easily be constructed to resolve any remaining fears over security - we have these issues in all our schools.
We know that most of the community wants a solution which accommodates Bright Sparks, Bonnyrigg Centre Trust and Bonnyrigg & Sherwood Development Trust within the building. We also know there are no logistical problems with sharing the building and no need to demolish part of it to fulfil Bright Sparks' needs. Most importantly, we all know the long term benefits shared use would bring.
So why ignore the solution which fulfils everyone's needs and aspirations? Why ignore the solution which could give our more vulnerable youngsters their skatepark back? Most of all, why are so many of our councillors ignoring the voices of those who elected them?
Unfortunately, its popularity also appears to extend to a minority who are making life a misery for those who want to enjoy themselves. There are stories of bullying, drug taking and general anti-social behaviour as well as evidence of some quite unpleasant graffiti. This culminated in a well attended community council meeting this week where we were told that a young girl had attempted suicide as a result of alleged bullying. Serious stuff, and something which clearly needs urgent action.
Discussion at the meeting centred on the need for some sort of supervision. The police cannot be expected to be there all the time, although they are making regular calls which is appreciated. Council workers likewise are helping, but again there will be long spells when they won't be there. The problems, as is to be expected, are more prevalent after dark. The main problem it seems is that the location is largely out of sight and, particularly after dark, with few passing adults, mainly the occasional folk walking their dogs.
For me, however, the solution is staring us in the face, and has been for some time. When the Bonnyrigg Centre Trust (BCT) put forward its plans to take over the former Bonnyrigg Leisure Centre, its case included two powerful arguments.
Firstly, the overarching objective of community ownership was the improved social inclusion that the growing town would benefit from. If the older kids got to know the younger kids through working together in the proposed bicycle/skateboard repair shop, or recognised them, their parents and grandparents from the cafe, wouldn't that reduce the risk of bullying?
But secondly, and on a more practical level, there would be supervision - or more accurately, a presence close by. A building lit up till ten at night, toilets, a busy cafe, people coming and going, a refuge if problems did start up - or as someone succinctly put it, there'd be a buzz about the place.
Instead, we now have a reactive approach which risks alienating those who could so easily have been part of the solution; we have extra costs and pressures placed on police and council resources; the council faces extra costs in clearing up graffiti and repairing damage; in short, we're developing a bunker mentality, desperate to avoid a wonderful new asset from becoming a social liability. This is particularly sad as the risk of costs to the council were stated as the sole reason for turning down the community bid.
This is not a debate about who should get the building - it's about why the obvious solution isn't even being looked at. The building is thankfully still standing, and so long as it is, there is hope.
It's been clear to most people that there's room enough for all interested groups to have a stake. As Bright Sparks currently plans to have part of the building open to the public for soft play and a cafe, any concerns about security appear to have been overcome. It has also been suggested that part of the building may need to be demolished to provide outdoor space for Bright Sparks, yet there is plenty of space to the side (alongside, or in place of the five-a-side pitches). Sufficient boundaries between the Bright Sparks area and the community space can easily be constructed to resolve any remaining fears over security - we have these issues in all our schools.
We know that most of the community wants a solution which accommodates Bright Sparks, Bonnyrigg Centre Trust and Bonnyrigg & Sherwood Development Trust within the building. We also know there are no logistical problems with sharing the building and no need to demolish part of it to fulfil Bright Sparks' needs. Most importantly, we all know the long term benefits shared use would bring.
So why ignore the solution which fulfils everyone's needs and aspirations? Why ignore the solution which could give our more vulnerable youngsters their skatepark back? Most of all, why are so many of our councillors ignoring the voices of those who elected them?
Sunday 29 June 2014
Midlothian's failures shown up in one decision
Anyone wanting to analyse what is wrong with Midlothian, its council and its politics, need only look at how it has dealt with the former Bonnyrigg Leisure Centre (BLC) for some pretty stark answers.
When the new Lasswade Centre opened last year the council decided the building, along with others deemed surplus to requirements, was to be 'disposed of'. Restrictions due to its being in a public park meant that if retained it could only be for community use and up until a couple of years ago had attracted little interest. Although the council recognises the building has over 20 years' life, it considered the cost of bringing it up to a useable state to be of the order of £200,000. Demolition seemed the most likely fate for the building and the one the council favoured. This is all well documented in my earlier posts.
When a community group, later to become the Bonnyrigg Centre Trust (BCT), decided the building would be ideal as a community centre, and with the Scottish Government's Community Renewal and Empowerment Bill being steered through parliament, the time seemed right to explore the possibility of community asset transfer (CAT) - particularly as Bonnyrigg has been growing at a phenomenal rate and is now the largest town in Midlothian. Although the new Lasswade Centre is recognised as an excellent new resource in the town, the group looked at the facilities being provided and saw there were many gaps - and as many community groups wanting to fill them (over 20 at the last count). Also, since the BLC and Public Hall had both closed, Bonnyrigg now lacks a focal point in the heart of the town centre.
From the start the council was sceptical. There was an understandable fear that the building would remain empty for a long period of time, vulnerable to vandalism, and until transferred would be a drain on the council's resources.
Instead of working with the community to help it either to draw up a viable business plan or to understand one was not possible, it treated the whole process as a commercial transaction, seeking to minimise financial risks to itself with minimal community engagement. It sought no advice from the third sector, relying on its own expertise - extensive, but only in asset disposal, not community asset transfer. It also paid little attention to the enormous long term benefits in terms of both quality of life for its citizens or indeed financial returns the improved social cohesion would eventually bring to the council.
There have been four or five 'final decisions' on this building, and each time the BCT's Business Plan has become stronger, culminating in the report to council on 24th June stating that its case was 'the only bid worthy of further consideration', and was described by Council Leader Owen Thompson as 'very strong'.
So what went wrong? In the absence of a CAT policy, the council put in place a rigid process for dealing with formal bids, insisted everyone follow that process, then when it realised that the BCT Business Plan was likely to be accepted, changed the rules and invited councillors to consider the option of accepting an alternative proposal which had never been formally submitted. Confused?
Why there isn't a CAT policy in place is a moot point. An excellent draft policy was put before councillors several months ago but was kicked into the long grass - the leader of the opposition said it needed further discussion, consultation and a seminar first. The draft policy was comprehensive and based on Best Practice. I have only been a councillor for two years and I understood it. Why did the Labour Group, with decades of experience between them find it so difficult to understand?
So we ended up with a process open to political manipulation. And behind it I believe there was a surreptitious Labour inspired campaign designed to stop the BCT getting its hands on the building. The BCT has no connections with any political party and in Bonnyrigg that's not how things are done. The leader of the BCT group was demonised. I can't go into much detail as it would compromise the position of people involved in some community groups (which may indeed be unaware of how they were being exploited). Suffice it to say that anyone close to what goes on in Bonnyrigg knows exactly what I mean.
As there was no CAT policy, the council had to tread warily. I tried hard to bring the different groups bidding for the building together to form a single group. This was strongly resisted (not by BCT who were as keen as I was). I met with representatives of the Bonnyrigg and Sherwood Development Trust and Bright Sparks and in both cases given a firm No. I was told by council officials that as different groups were in competition it was safer for them to work with none.
The Bonnyrigg and Poltonhall Neighbourhood Plan process, running over the last year, was an ideal opportunity to identify the needs of the community and how the BLC could help fulfil many of them. Again due to political pressure, any BLC solution was 'de-coupled' from the process - the official reason was that we needed to look at the wider picture rather than focussing on the BLC, so everyone was told to officially ignore the elephant in the room. Various community groups participating in the process were perplexed and asked it be reinstated, but were ignored.
Let me make one thing clear; I am very pleased for Bright Sparks - the charity does a tremendous job and if it is given the go-ahead to use the building it will be a great boost for the valuable work it does and for the community. But why can it not be part of a bigger solution? It's a big building which can accommodate everyone's needs. Why have their needs been presented as being in opposition to the community's when they are complementary and in many ways overlap? The Bright Sparks petition was signed by many people who thought it was indeed part of the BCT bid - a petition which notably did not make any mention of the need to demolish three quarters of the building. The petition was the only one publicised widely on social media and distributed personally by local Labour Party members. Those supporting the BCT bid were invariably criticised for attacking Bright Sparks, despite universal denials (see the comments on Midlothian Council's Facebook page). In the Midlothian Advertiser of 19 June I said' "Whilst I very much support the work of Bright Sparks, demolishing most of the building would be a betrayal of the community's expectations", to which Cllr Derek Milligan responded, "Councillor Baxter should be ashamed of his attack on Bright Sparks". What on earth is going on?
At least with the Labour Party I know where I stand. With the SNP it's not that simple. The Midlothian SNP Group has been gripped by its own Project Fear. Never mind the fantastic long term opportunities this could bring, let's look at the risks. Alex Salmond would be mortified.
Bonnyrigg SNP Councillor Bob Constable had previously told the BCT that if council officials came up with a recommendation which said their proposals were viable then he would support them. So what changed, Bob?
Council Leader Owen Thompson told me a couple of weeks ago that he thought giving the BCT six months to prove they could get sufficient funding was something he could support. So why didn't you, Owen. When I asked Owen why his group were backing the Bright Sparks proposal he said 'We've looked at both options and that one seems the better of the two". This was also the only argument he presented at the full council meeting.
Other SNP councillors were very reluctant to provide council funding to the venture - none was asked for (and an awful lot has been given to other similar projects elsewhere in Midlothian - one significantly into six figures). Now we have the real possibility of the council sinking more money into a building (who knows how much more), three quarters of which the council will also have to pay to have demolished.
One SNP councillor told me privately, months ago, that he could not understand why his group were not backing the community on this. Three months ago, SNP councillor Lisa Beattie bravely voted with me on a proposal to give the BCT six months to prove itself. A zero risk option for the council which, if it failed would have committed me to agreeing to demolishing the building. She voted against her group and now faces disciplinary measures from her own party. Is this what the SNP in Midlothian is reduced to? Its major selling point in Midlothian used to be that it wasn't Labour. What is it now?
There is only one other councillor who has consistently looked beyond the politics on this issue, has been prepared to put his faith in the community and to take some risks and that has been Independent Peter de Vink. Ironic isn't it? The one councillor I am furthest from politically, and will never agree with on some issues, is the only one I can say I have any confidence in.
When the new Lasswade Centre opened last year the council decided the building, along with others deemed surplus to requirements, was to be 'disposed of'. Restrictions due to its being in a public park meant that if retained it could only be for community use and up until a couple of years ago had attracted little interest. Although the council recognises the building has over 20 years' life, it considered the cost of bringing it up to a useable state to be of the order of £200,000. Demolition seemed the most likely fate for the building and the one the council favoured. This is all well documented in my earlier posts.
When a community group, later to become the Bonnyrigg Centre Trust (BCT), decided the building would be ideal as a community centre, and with the Scottish Government's Community Renewal and Empowerment Bill being steered through parliament, the time seemed right to explore the possibility of community asset transfer (CAT) - particularly as Bonnyrigg has been growing at a phenomenal rate and is now the largest town in Midlothian. Although the new Lasswade Centre is recognised as an excellent new resource in the town, the group looked at the facilities being provided and saw there were many gaps - and as many community groups wanting to fill them (over 20 at the last count). Also, since the BLC and Public Hall had both closed, Bonnyrigg now lacks a focal point in the heart of the town centre.
From the start the council was sceptical. There was an understandable fear that the building would remain empty for a long period of time, vulnerable to vandalism, and until transferred would be a drain on the council's resources.
Instead of working with the community to help it either to draw up a viable business plan or to understand one was not possible, it treated the whole process as a commercial transaction, seeking to minimise financial risks to itself with minimal community engagement. It sought no advice from the third sector, relying on its own expertise - extensive, but only in asset disposal, not community asset transfer. It also paid little attention to the enormous long term benefits in terms of both quality of life for its citizens or indeed financial returns the improved social cohesion would eventually bring to the council.
There have been four or five 'final decisions' on this building, and each time the BCT's Business Plan has become stronger, culminating in the report to council on 24th June stating that its case was 'the only bid worthy of further consideration', and was described by Council Leader Owen Thompson as 'very strong'.
So what went wrong? In the absence of a CAT policy, the council put in place a rigid process for dealing with formal bids, insisted everyone follow that process, then when it realised that the BCT Business Plan was likely to be accepted, changed the rules and invited councillors to consider the option of accepting an alternative proposal which had never been formally submitted. Confused?
Why there isn't a CAT policy in place is a moot point. An excellent draft policy was put before councillors several months ago but was kicked into the long grass - the leader of the opposition said it needed further discussion, consultation and a seminar first. The draft policy was comprehensive and based on Best Practice. I have only been a councillor for two years and I understood it. Why did the Labour Group, with decades of experience between them find it so difficult to understand?
So we ended up with a process open to political manipulation. And behind it I believe there was a surreptitious Labour inspired campaign designed to stop the BCT getting its hands on the building. The BCT has no connections with any political party and in Bonnyrigg that's not how things are done. The leader of the BCT group was demonised. I can't go into much detail as it would compromise the position of people involved in some community groups (which may indeed be unaware of how they were being exploited). Suffice it to say that anyone close to what goes on in Bonnyrigg knows exactly what I mean.
As there was no CAT policy, the council had to tread warily. I tried hard to bring the different groups bidding for the building together to form a single group. This was strongly resisted (not by BCT who were as keen as I was). I met with representatives of the Bonnyrigg and Sherwood Development Trust and Bright Sparks and in both cases given a firm No. I was told by council officials that as different groups were in competition it was safer for them to work with none.
The Bonnyrigg and Poltonhall Neighbourhood Plan process, running over the last year, was an ideal opportunity to identify the needs of the community and how the BLC could help fulfil many of them. Again due to political pressure, any BLC solution was 'de-coupled' from the process - the official reason was that we needed to look at the wider picture rather than focussing on the BLC, so everyone was told to officially ignore the elephant in the room. Various community groups participating in the process were perplexed and asked it be reinstated, but were ignored.
Let me make one thing clear; I am very pleased for Bright Sparks - the charity does a tremendous job and if it is given the go-ahead to use the building it will be a great boost for the valuable work it does and for the community. But why can it not be part of a bigger solution? It's a big building which can accommodate everyone's needs. Why have their needs been presented as being in opposition to the community's when they are complementary and in many ways overlap? The Bright Sparks petition was signed by many people who thought it was indeed part of the BCT bid - a petition which notably did not make any mention of the need to demolish three quarters of the building. The petition was the only one publicised widely on social media and distributed personally by local Labour Party members. Those supporting the BCT bid were invariably criticised for attacking Bright Sparks, despite universal denials (see the comments on Midlothian Council's Facebook page). In the Midlothian Advertiser of 19 June I said' "Whilst I very much support the work of Bright Sparks, demolishing most of the building would be a betrayal of the community's expectations", to which Cllr Derek Milligan responded, "Councillor Baxter should be ashamed of his attack on Bright Sparks". What on earth is going on?
At least with the Labour Party I know where I stand. With the SNP it's not that simple. The Midlothian SNP Group has been gripped by its own Project Fear. Never mind the fantastic long term opportunities this could bring, let's look at the risks. Alex Salmond would be mortified.
Bonnyrigg SNP Councillor Bob Constable had previously told the BCT that if council officials came up with a recommendation which said their proposals were viable then he would support them. So what changed, Bob?
Council Leader Owen Thompson told me a couple of weeks ago that he thought giving the BCT six months to prove they could get sufficient funding was something he could support. So why didn't you, Owen. When I asked Owen why his group were backing the Bright Sparks proposal he said 'We've looked at both options and that one seems the better of the two". This was also the only argument he presented at the full council meeting.
Other SNP councillors were very reluctant to provide council funding to the venture - none was asked for (and an awful lot has been given to other similar projects elsewhere in Midlothian - one significantly into six figures). Now we have the real possibility of the council sinking more money into a building (who knows how much more), three quarters of which the council will also have to pay to have demolished.
One SNP councillor told me privately, months ago, that he could not understand why his group were not backing the community on this. Three months ago, SNP councillor Lisa Beattie bravely voted with me on a proposal to give the BCT six months to prove itself. A zero risk option for the council which, if it failed would have committed me to agreeing to demolishing the building. She voted against her group and now faces disciplinary measures from her own party. Is this what the SNP in Midlothian is reduced to? Its major selling point in Midlothian used to be that it wasn't Labour. What is it now?
There is only one other councillor who has consistently looked beyond the politics on this issue, has been prepared to put his faith in the community and to take some risks and that has been Independent Peter de Vink. Ironic isn't it? The one councillor I am furthest from politically, and will never agree with on some issues, is the only one I can say I have any confidence in.
Sunday 8 June 2014
How Planning works in Midlothian
I sometimes wonder why Midlothian Council bothers with a Local Development Plan. Perhaps it's because it has to, I imagine. Because whenever the sniff of development appears before our councillors, it might as well not exist.
The most worrying example was Planning Committee's decision on Cauldhall Opencast mine, where even Planning Officers recommended acceptance, even though the area concerned was not designated for mineral exploration or extraction in the plan (though the exact boundaries of the proposed mine curiously appear in the draft plan, at the time still at the consultation stage). When I asked why officials were recommending something which contravened the Local Plan, I was criticised by fellow councillors for suggesting officials were not doing their job. Surely they should have been asking the same question as I.
Despite coal mining not being one of the seven key economic sectors identified in the Midlothian Economic Development Framework, councillors argued for acceptance on the basis of the jobs Cauldhall would bring (which is not a Planning consideration, and anyway something I disputed, given the number of workers laid off by Scottish Coal when it went into administration). Tourism, however, is one of the key sectors, yet Cauldhall will be seen from many vantage points across the county! So perhaps I should also be asking why we have an Economic Development Framework when councillors seem so keen to ignore that as well.
In two days' time, the Scottish Government is expected to announce that its targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will be missed for the third year running - so why did the SNP Council Leader (of all people) propose the motion that Cauldhall should be approved?
At the most recent Planning Committee meeting on 27 May, we considered an outline application for up to 60 houses at Fordel, outside Dalkeith. Officers this time recommended refusal as the area was not included for development on the current or draft plan. It is also nearly a mile from the nearest bus route, along an unlit track (councillors argued "if we build the houses, buses will come" - yes, and on what planet?). The site was described as Brownfield (on the site visit, I would say half the site is very much Greenfield with hedgerows and trees in evidence). I proposed refusal but as usual I lost the vote.
When a Planning application is refused, an appeal may be lodged by the applicant. This is determined by the Local Review Body (LRB), on which I sit. Usually, a site visit takes place prior to the meeting and only those councillors attending the site visit are allowed to take part in the decision.
Some degree of flexibility from the strict regulations regarding planning decisions can be expected at LRB and in general, common sense prevails. For example, I've often found myself supporting appeals against refusal to install double glazing units in conservation areas, provided they look reasonable in the context of their surroundings.
At last week's LRB meeting, however, the 'Development at all costs' mantra reared its head again amongst my fellow councillors. This resulted in a decision to bulldoze around 500 square metres of maturing woodland beside the Butlerfield Industrial Estate, despite advice from Planning officials that it would 'detract materially from the character and amenity of the area, contrary to the adopted Midlothian Local Plan Policy'.
Further, I queried why councillors were not advised of the Biodiversity impact of losing this. As usual, I was greeted with blank looks.
Probably because Midlothian no longer has a Biodiversity officer, and as we heard at the following day's Special Performance, Review and Scrutiny Committee, when I asked, the person now responsible for biodiversity has other more pressing priorities.
The Main Issues Report for the draft local plan went out to consultation last year. It will be interesting to see how the council reacts to the overwhelming opposition to its proposals to effectively duplicate the A701 and give the green light to massive development in Straiton and that area of the Green Belt. Given Midlothian's past record, I expect that opposition to be ignored, and even if it's not, councillors will ensure that tarmac and concrete are the order of the day. And when I object, I'll lose the vote; and when I ask why, I'll get blank looks.
The most worrying example was Planning Committee's decision on Cauldhall Opencast mine, where even Planning Officers recommended acceptance, even though the area concerned was not designated for mineral exploration or extraction in the plan (though the exact boundaries of the proposed mine curiously appear in the draft plan, at the time still at the consultation stage). When I asked why officials were recommending something which contravened the Local Plan, I was criticised by fellow councillors for suggesting officials were not doing their job. Surely they should have been asking the same question as I.
Despite coal mining not being one of the seven key economic sectors identified in the Midlothian Economic Development Framework, councillors argued for acceptance on the basis of the jobs Cauldhall would bring (which is not a Planning consideration, and anyway something I disputed, given the number of workers laid off by Scottish Coal when it went into administration). Tourism, however, is one of the key sectors, yet Cauldhall will be seen from many vantage points across the county! So perhaps I should also be asking why we have an Economic Development Framework when councillors seem so keen to ignore that as well.
In two days' time, the Scottish Government is expected to announce that its targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will be missed for the third year running - so why did the SNP Council Leader (of all people) propose the motion that Cauldhall should be approved?
At the most recent Planning Committee meeting on 27 May, we considered an outline application for up to 60 houses at Fordel, outside Dalkeith. Officers this time recommended refusal as the area was not included for development on the current or draft plan. It is also nearly a mile from the nearest bus route, along an unlit track (councillors argued "if we build the houses, buses will come" - yes, and on what planet?). The site was described as Brownfield (on the site visit, I would say half the site is very much Greenfield with hedgerows and trees in evidence). I proposed refusal but as usual I lost the vote.
When a Planning application is refused, an appeal may be lodged by the applicant. This is determined by the Local Review Body (LRB), on which I sit. Usually, a site visit takes place prior to the meeting and only those councillors attending the site visit are allowed to take part in the decision.
Some degree of flexibility from the strict regulations regarding planning decisions can be expected at LRB and in general, common sense prevails. For example, I've often found myself supporting appeals against refusal to install double glazing units in conservation areas, provided they look reasonable in the context of their surroundings.
At last week's LRB meeting, however, the 'Development at all costs' mantra reared its head again amongst my fellow councillors. This resulted in a decision to bulldoze around 500 square metres of maturing woodland beside the Butlerfield Industrial Estate, despite advice from Planning officials that it would 'detract materially from the character and amenity of the area, contrary to the adopted Midlothian Local Plan Policy'.
Further, I queried why councillors were not advised of the Biodiversity impact of losing this. As usual, I was greeted with blank looks.
Probably because Midlothian no longer has a Biodiversity officer, and as we heard at the following day's Special Performance, Review and Scrutiny Committee, when I asked, the person now responsible for biodiversity has other more pressing priorities.
The Main Issues Report for the draft local plan went out to consultation last year. It will be interesting to see how the council reacts to the overwhelming opposition to its proposals to effectively duplicate the A701 and give the green light to massive development in Straiton and that area of the Green Belt. Given Midlothian's past record, I expect that opposition to be ignored, and even if it's not, councillors will ensure that tarmac and concrete are the order of the day. And when I object, I'll lose the vote; and when I ask why, I'll get blank looks.
Sunday 20 April 2014
It's not about flags, labels or the past. A Yes vote is about the future.
A poll in today's Scotland on Sunday suggests that English born Scots currently intend to vote 2:1 against independence.
I was born in England and I will once again be supporting England in this summer's World Cup finals. Having moved to Scotland 38 years ago, I think of myself as neither English nor Scottish, defaulting to 'British' when asked my nationality.
But independence is not about flags, labels or the past. It's about the future of the country I call home and below is a transcript of a speech I gave at a recent public meeting organised by Yes Midlothian spelling out why I am passionate about independence and will be voting Yes on September 18th.
- - - - - -
It is now less than six
months to the referendum. Looking back to six
months ago, I was to say the least, lukewarm towards Independence.
Yes, I felt it would put
Scotland in a place it belonged and one day it would happen anyway - it just
seemed to be the direction we were heading.
I was never in doubt
that we could manage economically and surviving as an independent nation was
never an issue for me. Now that even David
Cameron has said the same, it is no longer an issue for anyone.
Six months ago, while I
supported Independence, I was not passionate about it, simply because I had
other priorities.
However, it was only when
listening to Robin McAlpine, who gave a presentation to the Scottish Greens’
conference in October, that I began to realise that the changes I want to see
can only happen in an independent Scotland.
That’s not to say they
definitely will happen but that as things stand, they definitely won’t as part
of the UK.
So what priorities do the Greens have?
We live in a world with
finite resources. If humanity is to
survive, we need to manage those resources better.
The pie isn’t getting any
bigger and if anything it will need to get smaller if catastrophic destruction of the planet is to be avoided.
Importantly, we need to
look at how we share out what we already have rather than relying on a fragile
model of exploitation of resources and people to fuel a wasteful and consumer
obsessed world.
And this can only be
achieved by reducing inequality.
Anyone who has read ‘The
Spirit Level’ by Wilkinson and Pickett, will be convinced that reducing
inequality is also the key to reducing many of the social problems we face -
their study looked at
Level of Trust
Mental Illness including
drug & alcohol addiction
Life expectancy &
infant mortality
Obesity
Children's educational
performance
Teenage pregnancies
Homicides
Imprisonment rates
And social mobility
They looked at all of
these across over 20 countries and across each of the
states in the US (to show it’s inequality, not the wealth of a country which is
the problem). In all cases there was a
close co-relation between all of these problems and inequality. Reduce
inequality and each of these problems diminishes.
We’ve heard a lot about
the Nordic countries in the independence debate and how countries like Norway,
Denmark, Sweden and Finland have lower levels of inequality, and as the Spirit Level
shows, these countries display lower levels of social problems like those I’ve
described.
That surely must be what
we aspire to.
The UK is the fourth most
unequal country in the world.
The top fifth of people
in the UK earn around 14 times that of the bottom fifth.
Where the five richest
families are now wealthier than the bottom 20% combined.
London is the most
unequal city in the developed world.
So I ask myself, is a more equal society more likely in an
independent Scotland or is it more likely to come from Westminster?
In the UK, inequality has
steadily risen over the last few decades - even under Labour governments.
Witness the rise of the
food bank.
Westminster MPs voted
last month to cap the total Welfare bill in a race to prove to likely Tory or
UKIP voters that their party will continue to bring down the deficit by
austerity.
At Westminster, the
debate on taxation revolves around whether the richest pay 45 or 50 pence in
the pound on their income. Commitments on the
Minimum Wage revolve around whether or not it should be increased in line with
inflation.
Surely we can do better than this.
In Scotland, the emphasis
is different.
Here, we were the first
to oppose the Poll Tax. We seek to extend the Living Wage and abolish the
Bedroom Tax.
We introduced the Right
to Roam, we’re giving more rights to communities in land reform and we embraced
proportional representation for both our parliament and local councils.
Yes, the emphasis is
different here.
Voters and politicians in
many political parties in Scotland share my desire to reduce inequality.
Independence would give
us the chance to work together to do that.
The most exciting change politically
is that the Labour Party would be re-invigorated and could once again become
the force for change it once was.
No longer shackled to
following the opinion polls of Middle England, it would be freed to work with
all of us in this country who want to see the benefits of a more equal society.
We’ve heard of Devo Max,
Devo Plus, Devo Nano. Whatever powers are promised, they will not enable us to
do other things that I, and I believe, the majority of Scots want to see.
It would not remove the
obscenity of nuclear weapons from our shores.
We would have greater
control over the levers of our economy.
But we are told that if
we use Sterling, we might not have any control over monetary policy.
Ten years ago, the debate
in Scotland was that interest rates were too high and were hurting the Scottish
economy. The Bank of England told us they had to be high to dampen the housing
boom in the south east of England.
And we are told that
Scotland is too small to bail out failing banks.
Is Scotland too small, or
the banks too big?
If we fix the bank
problem, then the country problem goes away.
We can regulate rail
fares, but cannot bring the railways back into public ownership where they
belong.
Our cherished postal
service has just been sold off cheaply to the delight of City of London
investors.
I, and I believe most of
Scotland, want it back.
We have no written
constitution and an unelected House of Lords
I would like a head of
state not chosen by God, but elected by the people.
Of the four elections we
vote in, only one is not by a fairer proportional system - yes, the one to
Westminster.
Then we’re told that an
independent Scotland’s status would be diminished on the world stage.
Conservative minister
Kenneth Clark recently told the Scottish Tory conference that an independent
Scotland would have the same influence as Malta.
Malta, with a population
less than Edinburgh, has five Members of the European Parliament.
As part of the UK,
Scotland currently has six.
Finland, Denmark and Slovakia,
on the other hand, with populations roughly the same as Scotland, each have
thirteen.
Six months ago I was
lukewarm about Scottish independence because I didn’t see it as a priority. Now
I am passionate about Scottish independence because all my priorities depend on
it.
Wednesday 26 March 2014
Leisure Centre can kicked down the road again
It was no surprise that Midlothian councillors decided yesterday not to accept officers' recommendations that Bonnyrigg Leisure Centre be demolished. Given the overwhelming publicity in the media and opposition by MSPs Alison Johnstone and Colin Beattie, to do so would be electoral suicide for councillors voting for it, not to mention the prospect of images of people chained to the building as the bulldozers arrive featuring on national television (a very real possibility, according to my sources).
The council instead agreed the following motion:
"Midlothian Council welcomes the report by [the] assessment panel on bids for [the] former Bonnyrigg Leisure Centre; accepts the recommendations of the assessment panel not to accept either the bid from Bonnyrigg Centre Trust or Midlothian Fitness Academy; considers that in order to support recommendation iv, demolition of the former Leisure Centre be postponed to allow consideration to be given to use all or part of the building; requests a report to the June meeting of Midlothian Council to present outcome of these considerations; and instructs the Chief Executive to write to each of the two bidders to inform and explain the reasons for the decision of the council".
Recommendation iv relates to the panel having identified a need for Soft Play facilities in the town as this was available at the Leisure Centre but is not available at the new Lasswade Centre.
This motion was agreed on a vote by 14-2 (Peter de Vink and Peter Boyes were not present). I proposed an alternative, supported by Cllr Lisa Beattie, which I will come to later.
As I explained at the meeting, I could not support the above motion for two reasons. Firstly, it stipulates that the building will be retained in order to support recommendation iv. This means that all other potential uses, of which the community has identified many, will not be considered valid reasons for keeping the building. It therefore means that when the council comes to assessing bids in June, those which involve providing Soft Play and only Soft Play, will be given equal weight in terms of the Community Benefit they provide to those which incorporate Soft Play within the many uses the building could be put to.
For example, cycle and skateboard repair space (to complement the adjacent skate park being built), youth club, dance classes, community rooms, a function hall, social enterprise desk space, climbing wall, art studios, cafe, after school and sports clubs; none of these will be assessed as being of community benefit as the council has stated that the stay of execution is only to support recommendation iv.
The second reason I couldn't support it is because in three months' time there is no guarantee we will be in a different place from where we are now. By the end of June the building will have been mothballed for a year, at a significant cost to the council. I believe this is largely because the council has refused to sit down with the bidders to try to come up with a Business Plan which the council would have confidence in. I have asked for this to happen, but was told that as there was more than one bidder, they were concerned that one may be seen as being favoured over the other and the safest approach was to co-operate with neither. Yes, questions were answered and information provided to both, but what I would describe as community engagement simply did not happen.
This could have been overcome by simply accrediting the Bonnyrigg Centre Trust (BCT) (whose Business Plan is generally accepted, certainly by me, as the one offering much greater community benefit) with 'Preferred Bidder' status. This would allow council officials to work through the council's concerns with BCT to come up with a plan which councillors could have confidence in.
Secondly, and crucially, it would allow BCT to obtain funding offers, conditional upon its gaining ultimate ownership of the building, thereby overcoming another of the council's concerns, namely that no funding was in place. BCT had been advised by funders that their applications would not be considered without either ownership of the building or Preferred Bidder status.
Frustrated at the lack, yet again, of an end point to this whole process, I therefore lodged my own proposal. This involved accepting the BCT offer to buy the building, with a handover on 22nd September 2014 provided two conditions are met.
The first condition is that a Business Plan is presented to the council which has been appraised by an independent body to have a good chance of success when measured against Third Sector criteria. The second is that funding of at least £60,000 has been secured. If both conditions are not met, then the building will be demolished on or after 23rd September 2014. This would address the concerns the council has about the proposal whilst providing a clear end point to the process.
So in three months' time, councillors will be asked to decide once again on the fate of this magnificent building. After yesterday's debate, my guess is that instead of the community getting a thriving community hub with much needed facilities for a growing town - now the biggest in Midlothian - it will offer a few crumbs in the shape of retaining the back hall for Soft Play and reduce the huge bulk of the structure to rubble.
The council instead agreed the following motion:
"Midlothian Council welcomes the report by [the] assessment panel on bids for [the] former Bonnyrigg Leisure Centre; accepts the recommendations of the assessment panel not to accept either the bid from Bonnyrigg Centre Trust or Midlothian Fitness Academy; considers that in order to support recommendation iv, demolition of the former Leisure Centre be postponed to allow consideration to be given to use all or part of the building; requests a report to the June meeting of Midlothian Council to present outcome of these considerations; and instructs the Chief Executive to write to each of the two bidders to inform and explain the reasons for the decision of the council".
Recommendation iv relates to the panel having identified a need for Soft Play facilities in the town as this was available at the Leisure Centre but is not available at the new Lasswade Centre.
This motion was agreed on a vote by 14-2 (Peter de Vink and Peter Boyes were not present). I proposed an alternative, supported by Cllr Lisa Beattie, which I will come to later.
As I explained at the meeting, I could not support the above motion for two reasons. Firstly, it stipulates that the building will be retained in order to support recommendation iv. This means that all other potential uses, of which the community has identified many, will not be considered valid reasons for keeping the building. It therefore means that when the council comes to assessing bids in June, those which involve providing Soft Play and only Soft Play, will be given equal weight in terms of the Community Benefit they provide to those which incorporate Soft Play within the many uses the building could be put to.
For example, cycle and skateboard repair space (to complement the adjacent skate park being built), youth club, dance classes, community rooms, a function hall, social enterprise desk space, climbing wall, art studios, cafe, after school and sports clubs; none of these will be assessed as being of community benefit as the council has stated that the stay of execution is only to support recommendation iv.
The second reason I couldn't support it is because in three months' time there is no guarantee we will be in a different place from where we are now. By the end of June the building will have been mothballed for a year, at a significant cost to the council. I believe this is largely because the council has refused to sit down with the bidders to try to come up with a Business Plan which the council would have confidence in. I have asked for this to happen, but was told that as there was more than one bidder, they were concerned that one may be seen as being favoured over the other and the safest approach was to co-operate with neither. Yes, questions were answered and information provided to both, but what I would describe as community engagement simply did not happen.
This could have been overcome by simply accrediting the Bonnyrigg Centre Trust (BCT) (whose Business Plan is generally accepted, certainly by me, as the one offering much greater community benefit) with 'Preferred Bidder' status. This would allow council officials to work through the council's concerns with BCT to come up with a plan which councillors could have confidence in.
Secondly, and crucially, it would allow BCT to obtain funding offers, conditional upon its gaining ultimate ownership of the building, thereby overcoming another of the council's concerns, namely that no funding was in place. BCT had been advised by funders that their applications would not be considered without either ownership of the building or Preferred Bidder status.
Frustrated at the lack, yet again, of an end point to this whole process, I therefore lodged my own proposal. This involved accepting the BCT offer to buy the building, with a handover on 22nd September 2014 provided two conditions are met.
The first condition is that a Business Plan is presented to the council which has been appraised by an independent body to have a good chance of success when measured against Third Sector criteria. The second is that funding of at least £60,000 has been secured. If both conditions are not met, then the building will be demolished on or after 23rd September 2014. This would address the concerns the council has about the proposal whilst providing a clear end point to the process.
So in three months' time, councillors will be asked to decide once again on the fate of this magnificent building. After yesterday's debate, my guess is that instead of the community getting a thriving community hub with much needed facilities for a growing town - now the biggest in Midlothian - it will offer a few crumbs in the shape of retaining the back hall for Soft Play and reduce the huge bulk of the structure to rubble.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)