Yes bollards.
Alston Road is a narrow road and a bus route and a rat run for traffic avoiding the High Street and Stapylton Road. It has a nice York stone pavement which is constantly being damaged by vehicles mounting the kerb.
The local residents association (SPACES) have been trying to get bollards installed for quite a while. There have been various meetings and false dawns. I decided to have a go at getting this sorted out. I met with the former head of highways on site and we agreed that bollards would be a good idea. Then there was a change in management and I had to start again. Finally last week I am promised that new bollards will be installed within the next 10 days. Here’s hoping that it happens!
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Paving in the Meadway
When the council re-laid the pavements in the Meadway (a road in my ward on a steep hill) they re-laid them at some points at a different and higher level. This caused particular problems outside one house where the change in level resulted in the householder bumping the silencer on his car every time he tried to use his drive. A number of phone calls to the Highways department later and said householder was left somewhat frustrated by the lack of responsiveness.
The Highways department are usually very good at responding to me, but then I can go to the top and work down. I asked a couple of weeks ago if they could look into this particular case. A visit to site duly occurred and a promise that remedial work would be undertaken was made. Then it all went quiet (probably the snow!) Another reminder from me and this morning the work has been done.
Clearly there are issues with managing enquiries and complaints that require investigation. Barnet are looking at a new customer relationship system (at last) and I hope that that can bring some much needed improvements.
The Highways department are usually very good at responding to me, but then I can go to the top and work down. I asked a couple of weeks ago if they could look into this particular case. A visit to site duly occurred and a promise that remedial work would be undertaken was made. Then it all went quiet (probably the snow!) Another reminder from me and this morning the work has been done.
Clearly there are issues with managing enquiries and complaints that require investigation. Barnet are looking at a new customer relationship system (at last) and I hope that that can bring some much needed improvements.
ASDA submit planning application for gas works site
UPDATE
Please note that I have updated the contact details as I have been advised that a special e-mail address has been set up for this application. There are also two contacts for case officer. Jo Dowling and Kevin Waters.
A planning application has now been submitted by ASDA for the gasworks site in East Barnet. The details are;
Details of Planning Application - B/00200/09
Application Type: Full Application
Date Received: 14/01/2009
Registration Date: 16/02/2009
Consultation Start Date: 16/02/2009
Earliest Decision Date: 02/04/2009
Target Date for Decision: 18/05/2009
Location: EAST BARNET GAS WORKS, ALBERT ROAD, NEW BARNET
Ward Name: East Barnet
Conservation Area: No
Listed Building Grade: No
Environmental Assessment: Not available
Target Recommendation Date: No date
Expected Decision Level: Delegated
Proposal: Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a mixed use development comprising 211 residential units, supermarket (10,526sqm gross floor space) and additional 1,893 sqm gross non-residential floor space comprising A1 (shops), A2 (financial and professional services), A3 (restaurants and cafes) and D1 (non-residential uses), public space, car parking, access and related highways works and associated works.
Case Officers: Jo Dowling 020 8359 4926 or Kevin Waters 020 8359 4516
Email: asda.application@barnet.gov.uk
Status: Registered
Agent: Mr D Mason
Magdalen House
136-148 Tooley Street
London
SE1 2TU
I note from the information on the council's website that the decision level is currently shown as delegated. This won't be the case. An application of this size and importance will have to be heard by the full planning committee.
Please note that I have updated the contact details as I have been advised that a special e-mail address has been set up for this application. There are also two contacts for case officer. Jo Dowling and Kevin Waters.
A planning application has now been submitted by ASDA for the gasworks site in East Barnet. The details are;
Details of Planning Application - B/00200/09
Application Type: Full Application
Date Received: 14/01/2009
Registration Date: 16/02/2009
Consultation Start Date: 16/02/2009
Earliest Decision Date: 02/04/2009
Target Date for Decision: 18/05/2009
Location: EAST BARNET GAS WORKS, ALBERT ROAD, NEW BARNET
Ward Name: East Barnet
Conservation Area: No
Listed Building Grade: No
Environmental Assessment: Not available
Target Recommendation Date: No date
Expected Decision Level: Delegated
Proposal: Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a mixed use development comprising 211 residential units, supermarket (10,526sqm gross floor space) and additional 1,893 sqm gross non-residential floor space comprising A1 (shops), A2 (financial and professional services), A3 (restaurants and cafes) and D1 (non-residential uses), public space, car parking, access and related highways works and associated works.
Case Officers: Jo Dowling 020 8359 4926 or Kevin Waters 020 8359 4516
Email: asda.application@barnet.gov.uk
Status: Registered
Agent: Mr D Mason
Magdalen House
136-148 Tooley Street
London
SE1 2TU
I note from the information on the council's website that the decision level is currently shown as delegated. This won't be the case. An application of this size and importance will have to be heard by the full planning committee.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Chipping Barnet residents' forum
Last night I attended the Chipping Barnet Residents' forum. The format for the forums does not work. There is either no one there with the knowledge to answer residents questions or the written answer does not actually answer the question that was put. it is also far to easy for one person to dominate proceeding to the detriment of others. My solution would be to change the way the forums operate. Instead of generic forums have specific forums to cover a particular topic. For example. If we had a Highways forum then all the senior Highways officers could attend. If we had a planning forum then the senior planning officers could attend. There would be enough specialist knowledge to adequately answer questions. The forum could also be broken into smaller groups to allow single issue items to be discussed and this would also prevent the meeting being dominated by any individual.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Councillor's surgery
This article on Lib Dem Voice amused me. It's an all too familiar scenario. One visitor I had recently said that they had come to ask my advice? Fair enough. I enquired what kind of advice expecting a response such as a parking problem or a planning issue or a council tax problem, but no. They just wanted my advice. I quickly established that there were no particular problems with any of these and all appropriate benefits were being claimed.
I then carefully explained that usually when someone comes to see me they want specific advice. In the end (wondering what else I could say) I offered to send them a list of appropriate council services.
I then carefully explained that usually when someone comes to see me they want specific advice. In the end (wondering what else I could say) I offered to send them a list of appropriate council services.
Capital Asset & Property Strategy
At last Thursdays Resources, Performance & Partnerships Overview and Scrutiny Committee (why such long names?), the major item of business was to note the contents of the Capital Asset & Property Strategy.
Being asked to note a report is a totally pointless exercise. The report had been through cabinet some time ago so there was no chance to change anything, so we duly noted it. I did however have some questions which I had submitted in advance in the vain hope of some meaningful answers.
The report talks about tying in with the financial strategy of ‘keeping Council tax as low as possible and below the rate of inflation’. The Tories have been trumpeting the fact that their proposed Council tax rise (2.81%) was below the rate of inflation. Of course even if this was the case when they set it (this is hotly debated), it clearly is not now. If the capital programme is meant to work within this framework then I don’t see that there can be much of a capital programme left. The officers present bravely stuck to the line that the aim was still to keep council tax below the rate of inflation. If we enter a period of deflation then we should all be getting refunds then!
My next question concerned the statement in the report that a ‘strong treasury management strategy would deliver the required prudential borrowing and enable the council to take advantage of opportunities offered by the market.’
We obviously have not had our fingers badly burnt enough if we still think that we can play the markets.
The next question concerned the property strategy. The Tories make a big fuss about protecting the Greenbelt, so you would expect the property strategy to align with this. The report says the following.
‘Although land values in Barnet are high, much of the Council’s portfolio cannot be developed for high value housing, either because of its location in the greenbelt, or through current usage as parks and schools.’
So far so good but here comes the interesting line.
‘Current usage and need may in time change however and future development of such sites is not impossible.’
I asked under what circumstances development would take place in as many different ways as I could but got the same answer every time, which was that it depends on the individual case. There are clearly no guarantees for protection of parks, open spaces and the greenbelt in this document.
The final ‘interesting’ part of the meeting happened when the officers were questioned about a line in the report that said that property was reviewed on a ward by ward basis on a rolling schedule. When asked if the committee could see the schedule there was a whispered conference between the two officers followed by a we will have to see if that’s allowed response. Can anyone suggest why Councillors should not have access to this schedule?
Being asked to note a report is a totally pointless exercise. The report had been through cabinet some time ago so there was no chance to change anything, so we duly noted it. I did however have some questions which I had submitted in advance in the vain hope of some meaningful answers.
The report talks about tying in with the financial strategy of ‘keeping Council tax as low as possible and below the rate of inflation’. The Tories have been trumpeting the fact that their proposed Council tax rise (2.81%) was below the rate of inflation. Of course even if this was the case when they set it (this is hotly debated), it clearly is not now. If the capital programme is meant to work within this framework then I don’t see that there can be much of a capital programme left. The officers present bravely stuck to the line that the aim was still to keep council tax below the rate of inflation. If we enter a period of deflation then we should all be getting refunds then!
My next question concerned the statement in the report that a ‘strong treasury management strategy would deliver the required prudential borrowing and enable the council to take advantage of opportunities offered by the market.’
We obviously have not had our fingers badly burnt enough if we still think that we can play the markets.
The next question concerned the property strategy. The Tories make a big fuss about protecting the Greenbelt, so you would expect the property strategy to align with this. The report says the following.
‘Although land values in Barnet are high, much of the Council’s portfolio cannot be developed for high value housing, either because of its location in the greenbelt, or through current usage as parks and schools.’
So far so good but here comes the interesting line.
‘Current usage and need may in time change however and future development of such sites is not impossible.’
I asked under what circumstances development would take place in as many different ways as I could but got the same answer every time, which was that it depends on the individual case. There are clearly no guarantees for protection of parks, open spaces and the greenbelt in this document.
The final ‘interesting’ part of the meeting happened when the officers were questioned about a line in the report that said that property was reviewed on a ward by ward basis on a rolling schedule. When asked if the committee could see the schedule there was a whispered conference between the two officers followed by a we will have to see if that’s allowed response. Can anyone suggest why Councillors should not have access to this schedule?
Thursday, February 12, 2009
The Barnet Press catch up
The Barnet Press are reporting the proposed sheltered housing cuts that I blogged about a few days ago. click here to see what they have to say.
Monday, February 09, 2009
The end of Sheltered housing?
I was recently contacted by a resident of sheltered housing scheme in my ward. He had been told that it was very likely that there would be stringent cuts to supporting services for people living in sheltered housing including the withdrawal of emergency pull cord systems. What is actually happening is nothing less that the removal of any distinction between those living on their own and those living in sheltered accommodation with warden supervision.
The budget for support services for sheltered housing is expected to be £1.3 million. Barnet’s Tory administration is cutting this by 75% (a whopping £950.000). This will affect 1500 tenants in 59 locations.
This expenditure pays the costs of employing sheltered housing wardens and similar staff providing support for tenants, and the costs of the alarm systems provided in sheltered housing. So you can imagine with this level of cut there won’t be much left.
The justification for this makes interesting reading. Below are the reasons from the councils briefing paper (in italics) and my response (normal type).
The Case for Change
• Expenditure on sheltered housing support services is double the amount spent by the council on support services for other older people living in Barnet, although sheltered housing tenants make up just 2% of Barnet people aged over 60.
Isn’t that the point of sheltered housing? To provide a higher level of support. Surely it’s a lot cheaper that putting people in nursing homes?
• Many people in sheltered housing have very low support needs and no particular need for a support service based where they live. The councils’ preferred system of support for people with low support needs is “floating support”, which offers visiting support wherever people are living. This system offers a more efficient and flexible way of delivering support to those who need it
If this is the case then the fault is with the selection process for choosing who gets a place in a sheltered housing scheme. Surely we should be allocating places to those who need the increased level of support but don’t require full nursing care.
• Almost all support services in sheltered housing are provided by the organisations that own and manage the housing. Housing and support are different kinds of business and it would be better to commission them separately. It is also inefficient for the Council to manage a large number of small-scale contracts for identical kinds of service for sheltered housing tenants
This should not be about making life easy for the bean counters. It is the old big is beautiful argument. The focus must be on quality of service not just how efficiently it can be procured.
• All sheltered housing tenants are liable for weekly charges for their support services whether or not they use the services. The council pays the charges for tenants who cannot afford them but 20% of tenants have to pay the charges from their personal income
People should be in sheltered housing because they need it. If they don’t need the care then why are they there?
• The Council uses two very different systems of providing financial help for people who have to pay weekly charges for alarm services. The system used for sheltered housing takes no account of people’s need for the service, unlike the system used for all other Barnet residents applying for help with alarm charges It would be fairer to operate a single system that takes account of need and ignores where the service user is living.
Note the justification for removal of the difference between sheltered housing and normal housing.
• The Council is in the position of needing to set its 2009/10 budget within a highly challenging financial context. There is no good evidence to support the present distribution of funding for support services for older people. A reduction in funding would enable other services for older people in Barnet to be maintained.
Rubbish! There are plenty of other places where cuts could be made that would not affect front line services. Not paying senior officers more that the Vice-President of the USA would be a start!
This cut is aimed at some of those least able to cope. It is also going to end up costing more in the long run as people who are unable to live independently but could live in sheltered housing will now end up in nursing homes.
The budget for support services for sheltered housing is expected to be £1.3 million. Barnet’s Tory administration is cutting this by 75% (a whopping £950.000). This will affect 1500 tenants in 59 locations.
This expenditure pays the costs of employing sheltered housing wardens and similar staff providing support for tenants, and the costs of the alarm systems provided in sheltered housing. So you can imagine with this level of cut there won’t be much left.
The justification for this makes interesting reading. Below are the reasons from the councils briefing paper (in italics) and my response (normal type).
The Case for Change
• Expenditure on sheltered housing support services is double the amount spent by the council on support services for other older people living in Barnet, although sheltered housing tenants make up just 2% of Barnet people aged over 60.
Isn’t that the point of sheltered housing? To provide a higher level of support. Surely it’s a lot cheaper that putting people in nursing homes?
• Many people in sheltered housing have very low support needs and no particular need for a support service based where they live. The councils’ preferred system of support for people with low support needs is “floating support”, which offers visiting support wherever people are living. This system offers a more efficient and flexible way of delivering support to those who need it
If this is the case then the fault is with the selection process for choosing who gets a place in a sheltered housing scheme. Surely we should be allocating places to those who need the increased level of support but don’t require full nursing care.
• Almost all support services in sheltered housing are provided by the organisations that own and manage the housing. Housing and support are different kinds of business and it would be better to commission them separately. It is also inefficient for the Council to manage a large number of small-scale contracts for identical kinds of service for sheltered housing tenants
This should not be about making life easy for the bean counters. It is the old big is beautiful argument. The focus must be on quality of service not just how efficiently it can be procured.
• All sheltered housing tenants are liable for weekly charges for their support services whether or not they use the services. The council pays the charges for tenants who cannot afford them but 20% of tenants have to pay the charges from their personal income
People should be in sheltered housing because they need it. If they don’t need the care then why are they there?
• The Council uses two very different systems of providing financial help for people who have to pay weekly charges for alarm services. The system used for sheltered housing takes no account of people’s need for the service, unlike the system used for all other Barnet residents applying for help with alarm charges It would be fairer to operate a single system that takes account of need and ignores where the service user is living.
Note the justification for removal of the difference between sheltered housing and normal housing.
• The Council is in the position of needing to set its 2009/10 budget within a highly challenging financial context. There is no good evidence to support the present distribution of funding for support services for older people. A reduction in funding would enable other services for older people in Barnet to be maintained.
Rubbish! There are plenty of other places where cuts could be made that would not affect front line services. Not paying senior officers more that the Vice-President of the USA would be a start!
This cut is aimed at some of those least able to cope. It is also going to end up costing more in the long run as people who are unable to live independently but could live in sheltered housing will now end up in nursing homes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
