Spaldington Composter fails in attempt to bring more stinking waste into area

(pictured with Spaldington residents)

Great news for Spaldington! An application by a local agricultural composter at Ivy House Farm near the Water Tower, to remove planning conditions that would allow him ‘to increase the type of stinking waste he can take in’ was unanimously thrown out by East Riding of Yorkshire Council Planning Committee. This was against the recommendations of the Council’s Planning Officers.

Spaldington resident Kath Westin spoke on behalf of the community describing vividly the foul smell which often engulfs the village. As their Howdenshire ward Councillor it was a pleasure for me to sum up and speak in support of Spaldington and Eastrington residents. I pointed out that to allow more animal bi-product waste streams, such has flesh from the tannery industry onto the site would have a serious adverse impact on the living conditions of nearby residents with respect to odour, and it was in conflict with both national and local planning policies. The applicant’s agent didn’t bother turning up for the meeting.

I felt this application was almost exactly the same as one refused by the Planning Committee in 2008 – which was subsequently appealed by the Composter, but the Planning Inspector came down on the side of the Committee in upholding their decision. The planning inspector had said “Planning policies indicate that the likely impact on the local environment and on amenity should be considerations when determining planning applications for waste management facilities” and that “it may be appropriate to use planning conditions to control aspects of the development, including impacts such as odour, where these impact on neighbouring land uses and sensitive receptors”. The Inspector also stated that he considered the present conditions to be “reasonable and necessary, and sufficiently precise to be enforceable.”

Many of you will recall I presented a motion to EYRC on the agricultural composting industry, leading to a detailed examination by the then Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee in March 2008. (for more information please click here ). Since then we have seen a great improvement in practices of many composters throughout the East Riding – unfortunately I don’t feel we have seen much improvement in this composter’s operation. Quite simply Ivy House Farm stinks, it has for a number of years – and depending on which way the wind blows - so does Spaldington and Eastrington, and I failed to see that bearing in mind this composter’s operation stinks now with the present limits on what he can take in – imagine what it would have been like if he had been given carte blanch to bring anything and everything onto the site.

Who is the regulatory body supposed to protect residents when it comes to the potential nasty effects of agricultural composting of animal bi-products? – It’s the Environment Agency. Many will know that I’ve witnessed first-hand just how poor they are when it comes to regulating composters (and also a particular landfill site) – I certainly wouldn’t and can’t believe that any resident would want to leave it solely to the EA to protect Spaldington or Eastrington from the smell of death (as described by one of the Planning Committee members). I stressed that I wanted the ERYC to continue to play its part (and its duty) in regulating this site through the planning conditions already in place. This point was taken up by members of the Planning Committee in support of the refusal.

There had been 50 letters of opposition to this application which clearly showed people are sick of the smell created by this site as it is – I cannot imagine the impact on them if this was to have been made worse had planning consent been given.

Well done and many thanks to residents, Spaldington Parish Council and particularly the ERYC Planning Committee members for seeing this application for exactly what it was, and throwing it out!

Looking at rural transport in Goole & Howdenshire

I have long been a supporter of the Goole GoFar project and its predecessor the FLEDGLING project which was based in Howdenshire. The issue of youth provision was raised by Bubwith, Eastrington and Gilberdyke Parish Councils at the recent Community Partnership meeting, where it was confirmed that all three villages had comparable issues, and shared similar feelings about the constraints due to lack of rural transport, something evident across the whole Goole and Howdenshire area including the towns of Snaith and Howden.

The issue of rural transport has been raised with both Andrew Percy the MP for Brigg and Goole and myself as a Howdenshire ERYC Councillor and Chair of the Goole and Howden Community Partnership.

A conversation around youth activities as well as activities for the elderly in rural communities resulted in Andrew and I meeting with the Goole GoFar Chairman Martin Crossland and Development Officer Christine Dales (pictured above). We discussed some of their ideas and plans for the future, and how by working together and with the ERYC and Parish Councils rural transport projects for both young and old could be developed and expanded. This could include bussing people into Goole to utilise the facilities available at for example the Leisure Centre, the Hinge or the Junction”.

Andrew Percy added, “I also wanted to ask them about a possible project for the Snaith area to run in the summer when school kids are on holiday. For a couple of years local kids have said they would like to be able to get to Xscape in Castleford during the summer”.

I am very much aware that Andrew Percy and local ward Councillors Cllrs John Barrett and Caroline Fox have had meetings with Stagecoach to see if their Hull-Leeds service could be diverted. Sadly, because of timings, this was not possible. It would therefore be great if there were other opportunities we could look at for running a project in the Snaith area over summer, even if only for a couple of trips.

Representatives and young people from Bubwith, Eastrington and Gilberdyke then gathered for a brain storming meeting in Eastrington, the findings from which will be fed back to the next meeting of the Community Partnership to be on Wednesday 18th April at 10am in Goole College, Boothferry Road, Goole.

Both Andrew Percy and I left the meeting with Martin and Christine from the GoFar feeling very positive, it was reassuring that we are all looking to work together, and with other ERYC Councillors and Parish and Town Councils to address issues of rural transport in our areas”.

Andrew concluded by saying, “Goole GoFar do a great job locally and it was great to meet with them to discuss local services. I wanted to ask them about a possible project for the Snaith area. They have said they will look at the cost of this so that I can pursue it further. It may come to nothing but at least we are looking into it”.

The Big Society is alive and kicking in Eastrington

I was proud to be part of the East Riding of Yorkshire Council Corporate Communities Overview and Scrutiny Sub-Committee that looked into ‘Promoting the Big Society’, I had suggested that the Pretty Up Eastrington (PUE) Group was a great example of the Big Society in action and Jane Irisa (pictured) from the Group attended to give a very interesting and inspirational presentation.

The PUE project ticked all the boxes when it came to what the Big Society is all about – a society where individuals and communities have more power and responsibility, and use it to create better neighbourhoods and local services. It aims to create a climate that empowers local people and communities, building a big society that will take power away from politicians and give it to people.

To develop the ‘Big Society’, cultural change is needed so that individuals take social responsibility, and an increase in community activity is supported.

But this concept is far from new, in my grandparents era it was quite normal for a community to ‘muck in’ to help one another, this is not radical in that we can learn from the past – what is radical is that politicians must devolve more power, decision making and spending to local communities and we must roll back the ‘Nanny State’.

Communication is the key to the ‘Big Society’ - in today’s times people can through the internet readily access information and examples of good practice which they can put to good use in their communities, this we saw during the heavy snow last year which coupled with the Councils winter payments grant acting as the catalyst, empowered many to take responsibility for snow clearing. Just as in the pre ‘Nanny State’ era.

Founded and inspired in 2008 by Jill Cole, Pretty Up Eastrington (PUE) began as a small group of local enthusiasts in the local pub, who had lots of ideas and examples of good practice from other communities. With help and advice from East Riding Voluntary Action Services (ERVAS) the group was able to formalise its structure with a constitution in order to manage fund raising properly.

The group has developed its own website; a facebook page, a photomontage on YouTube, and regularly communicates with the community through traditional means with regular articles and updates in the Parish magazine and has also been featured frequently in local newspapers.

PUE work closely with other village groups as well as Eastrington Parish Council, East Riding of Yorkshire Councillors and national charities like the Big Tidy Up campaign. The Group values its links with other groups and individuals in the village who are also working to make Eastrington a great place in which to live. The Group enjoys great support from Eastrington Parish Council, local Councillors, the Eastrington Golf Society and a number of local farmers and businesses.

The Group’s core mission is to work with, and for the benefit of the whole village and everything they do is based on making their village tidy, pretty and a nice place to live. Their activities help to create a better community spirit, encourage cooperation and communication especially between old and young, and newcomers and established residents of the village. It’s about local people taking responsibility for their own environment.

The Group have also organised the first ever Eastrington Open Gardens Weekend, and an Easter Family Fun Day as well as having a stall at Eastrington Show, and supporting other village activities and fund-raising events including the village open days, the school Gardening Club and the Church’s scarecrow festival.

By fostering good neighbourliness and encouraging creativity, and by learning skills from one another, they have been able to achieve a great amount including the planting flowerbeds around the village, providing hanging baskets, tubs and wall baskets, painting the church gates and railings, helping with village snow clearance efforts and harvesting and sharing fruit. The Group is constantly looking to develop friendships with all ages, seeing neighbours getting to know their neighbours, celebrating their community and playing an active role in society, and having some fun in the process.

The Groups fundraising activities have provided lasting community assets including welcome signs on all four approaches to the village, (I provided the bricks!), litter bins, a village notice board and a school greenhouse. The school greenhouse acts as a focus for the gardening club, fostering a love of nature and an interest in the environment among young children. A knitting and craft club was established to produce items for sale in aid of the Groups projects, lots of tips were picked up from experts including veteran village gardeners and fundraisers, which has enabled the Group to now produce such things as Christmas welcome wreaths, wine (not for sale I may add), juice, jams, pickles and chutneys - details of which can be found here.

Monthly litter picks on the approach roads into Eastrington are organised, and a great many bulbs have been planted in the verges, together creating a pleasant sense of welcome and a spectacular display when driving into the village during spring. This theme is continued in the village with raised beds, tubs, hanging baskets and wall baskets. Much work has also been done at the village pond and the railway station.

There are future plans to develop an allotment and a community orchard.

The group meets regularly at the local pub in Eastrington or the village hall.

Goole area MEDiBUS now available in Howdenshire to take people to hospital

At the recent meeting of the Goole and Howdenshire Community Partnership, Parish Councillors from Eastrington and Gilberdyke raised the issue of the changes to the East Yorkshire Motor Services (EYMS) number 155 bus running between Elloughton and Goole.

Residents have also approached me directly, and I share their concerns about getting to appointments at Goole hospital and/or their GP surgery following changes to this bus service.

Susan Oliver from the Humber and Wolds Rural Community Council (H&WRCC), who is the voluntary sector representative on the Partnership, has looked into this and the options available and provided the following information.

I am pleased to say that the Goole area MEDiBUS is available to take people in our area to hospital and medical appointments. Medibus provides you with transport from your front door to morning clinic or early afternoon appointments and transport home after your appointment.

It operates Monday to Friday and passengers are picked up at home. Pre booking is essential, and must be done no later than the day before a person needs to travel. However, most people book the service as soon as they know when their appointment is.

Fares are charged for the service but concessionary passholders travel free.

Although MEDiBUS has been operating in parts of the East Riding, for a number of years, the Goole area service is relatively new, and not everyone will be aware of it. We have asked for leaflets about the service to be delivered to shops, garages, etc. in the villages concerned, and this information should be out there within the next few days.

The telephone number to book (and for further information) is 08456 44 59 59

or visit: http://www2.eastriding.gov.uk/environment/public-transport-travel/medibus/#medibus

Have Your Say On Gilberdyke, Newport, North Cave & Eastrington to Hull and Goole Bus Changes

A number of people have contacted me regarding the changes to the 155 bus that runs between Goole and Hull announced by East Yorkshire Motor Services, proposed to take effect from 6th February 2012.

The operator says alterations between Goole, South Cave, Gilberdyke, Brough, Hull and York will mean faster journey times and new links.

EYMS consulted hundreds of passengers last year who called for more express buses to Hull and services to Market Weighton and York. After reviewing passenger feedback, EYMS has decided to make changes to the X55 and 155 services to and from Hull and introduce a new service to York, a link to Castle Hill Hospital and extra express buses.

The proposed new 155 bus timetable to run from 6th Feb 2012 can be found here

EYMS is holding drop-in events where passengers can find out more at:

* Brough Morrisons, today, 10am to 2pm.
* Howden Co-Operative, Wednesday, 10am to noon.
* Gilberdyke Memorial Hall car park, Wednesday, 12.30pm to 2.30pm.
* Goole Boothferry Road, Thursday, 10am to 2pm.
* South Cave Town Hall, Saturday, 10am to noon.
* Elloughton EYMS Depot, Saturday, 12.30pm to 2.30pm.
* North Cave Village Hall, Sunday, 1pm to 3pm.

Laxton Flood Relief Scheme Moving Forward

The flood prevention scheme for Laxton is moving ahead, as a member of the Lower Ouse Internal Drainage Board I have continued to press the case for Laxton and Eastrington.

I am happy to say that at this time the scheme has so far survived the axe and the money is still in the budget with the Environment Agency. The Engineers employed by the Drainage Board have over the past couple of weeks been taking levels and measurements in Laxton.

The scheme is important as it involves replacing the existing tidal door with one that is less prone to jamming, increasing storage capacity in the dykes, and a system for pumping the water into the river rather than just the gravity outfall we see at present, meaning that the surface water can enter the river at all times rather than be dependent on the state of the tide.

It will also ensure that the levels in the dykes surrounding the villages can be lowered to create a fall through the system, ensuring that the flood risk to Laxton and Eastrington residents is reduced.

(Pictured with Laxton Parish Council Chairman Win Collins)

Re-opening (yes RE-OPENING!) of the Eastrington Shop and Post Office

Great news for Eastrington residents – this morning saw the RE-OPENING (yes re-opening!) of the Eastrington Shop and Post Office. This is the first Post Office to re-open in the East Riding of Yorkshire.

(pictured with Sub-Post Master John Shepherd and David Davis MP who performed the re-opening honours)

This would not have happened without the drive and determination of Gilberdyke Sub-Post Master John Shepherd who has taken on the Eastrington office in addition to Gilberdyke.

When the post office and shop closed residents feared for the worst as a valuable asset to the community was lost, a number of people voiced their concerns to both John Shepherd and I, with many not realising just how important the shop was until it closed.

Ironically the Post Office closed but the post box didn’t, therefore Eastrington people could post a letter in the village but not buy a stamp.

I really think this is a real win for Eastrington and seriously good news, and I’m sure this valuable village resource will go from strength to strength.

Interestingly the ‘Post Office Local’ concept means that it’s open after hours and seven days per week - not just as a shop - but a Post Office too.

Yorkshire Water working in Eastrington to reduce flood risk

Yorkshire Water contractors have really progressed since starting work on a project to reduce the flood risk to a number of properties in High Street, Eastrington and, hopefully, to reduce the pressure on the sewage system elsewhere in the village. The work is expected to last for 3 to 4 months in total.

High Street was closed for a period of time and there was also a period of one way traffic, controlled by traffic lights, whilst new drains were installed.

(pictured on a visit to the site)

The Yorkshire Water Scheme involves the installation of two large underground storage tanks along the eastern boundary of the playing field. They will be used to store excess water at times of heavy rainfall which will then be pumped back into the drainage system at a controlled rate when the pressure on the village sewer network reduces.

On completion a small control cubicle, vent pipe and manhole lids will be all that is visible. The playing field will be returned to its original condition and Yorkshire Water has said they will do everything possible to avoid any disruption for the playing field users and that Eastrington Show will not be affected.

As a temporary measure the main ingress into the village hall and car park will be through the entrance known as Jubilee Gates, which will lead also to an area of additional parking places by the cricket score box. It is hoped that by using care and consideration during this period that damage to the field will be minimised, and that once the work has been completed the entrance, driveway and car parking area will be back to normal.

“I am led to believe that a small amount of compensation will be payable by Yorkshire Water and current expectations are that this will be used to improve the village hall car park.”

“Whist appreciating the inconvenience to road users, especially those like myself that forgot the road was closed; the permanent benefits to the properties to the west along High Street would appear to outweigh the minor disruption. Having seen the flooding to some of the properties, and water coming up through the manholes and running down High Street during times of heavy rainfall in the past - I certainly welcome this work.”

Eastrington Village Shop to re-open

Having listened to Eastrington residents and spoken to Gilberdyke Post Office owner John Shepherd a short time after Eastrington Post Office and shop closed; I certainly welcome his plans to re-open this valuable village facility. I don’t think people appreciated just how important it was to the community until it closed.
John realised the need when people from Eastrington started to use the Gilberdyke Post Office, telling him how difficult it was for some of the older people to get to Gilberdyke.
I am led to believe that there is a few weeks to go before the formal agreements are signed, but once open we will see the shop containing a ‘Post Office Local’ - which is somewhat different to a fully-fledged post office, but offering most of the same services.

For the most part it will be a village shop with the post office facilities at the till, therefore being more economical to run than the previous arrangement.

The big advantage is that some post office facilities, including buying stamps, posting letters and withdrawing cash will be available not just Monday to Friday - but also Saturdays and Sundays from 9am to 1pm.

We hear a great deal of bad news concerning rural villages losing services, but in this case we have very good news as we see a service returning. I am confident that Eastrington people will support the ‘Eastrington Village Shop’ as it is to be known.

Howdenshire Parish Councils take the lead in organising snow clearing & gritting

Many thanks to the Howdenshire Parish Councils for taking the lead in organising snow clearing and the gritting roads and footpaths over the past couple of weeks. Those residents who picked up shovels to clear snow and grit footpaths and streets independent of the Parish Councils should also be recognised for the tremendous work they did. Although the task was great as we had not seen the amount of snow or the freezing temperatures for many a year, and it was never going to be possible to remove the snow and ice from every street and footpath, the work carried out by communities has been humbling. It has also sent out a clear message that the ‘Compensation Culture’ is not going to stop communities working together to help each other in times of need. The £175,000 made available to Parish Councils by the East Riding Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) and administered by the East Riding of Yorkshire Council was certainly welcome, and enabled equipment to be hired and grit to be purchased. North Cave Parish Council certainly took the lead and brought in snow clearing equipment and with a small team of volunteers cleared the snow and ice from a good number of streets within the village, primarily to allow people to be able to drive from their houses to the main roads running through the village. This work continued and well done to Parish Council Chairman Steve Skipsea for taking the initiative and all the other Parish Council volunteers and resident who ‘mucked in’ to help. Gilberdyke Parish Council saw volunteers working with equipment provided by a local farmer, and also employed a local contractor to remove the snow from the main village roads and to snow plough almost all the streets within the village. This removed the surplus snow to the side but unfortunately was a little too late to address the issue of the snow that had become packed and turned to ice. After many calls from residents the Parish Council then cleared the carpark and paths in front of the shops, with the landowner not only giving his consent, but also agreeing to pay for digger used to carry out the work. The Parish Council then purchased 4 tonnes of grit and a team of volunteer Parish Councillors, the road sweepers and residents spread it on numerous paths and roads in the village. This was then followed by clearing of packed snow and ice from footpaths and a number of the streets within the village using both a mini digger and JCB tractor. It was the priority to clear the footpath near the school and other key walking routes within the village. Those residents who were proactive in clearing snow and gritting footpaths did a fantastic job too. Holme on Spalding Moor Parish Council organised a team of volunteers including diggers and equipment provided by local businesses and farmers, and also buying in grit. I spent the first Saturday morning working with the volunteers and was certainly impressed with the way so many people were able to achieve so much in a relatively short space of time. The tenacity of the Parish Council Chairman Chris Worrall should also be recognised in sticking with the task, for more information please click here Eastrington Parish Council organised plant and equipment to clear the streets in the village particularly after the snow had become packed and frozen. It was certainly impressive to see the size of the equipment employed and in a very short time a number of key streets were cleared. Parish Council Chairman Rob Martinson and fellow Parish Councillor Gina walker did a tremendous job as did all the others involved. Bubwith Parish Council organised equipment and volunteers and in a relatively short space of time made a significant impact. Well done to Parish Council Clerk Steve Young, Handyman couple Gill and Nigel, the Parish Councillors and volunteers for a job well done. Blacktoft, Broomfleet, Kilpin and Laxton did a sterling job with local farmers toiling to keep the roads clear throughout the Parishes. Newport Parish Council purchased grit for the community to use. Many thanks to the small group of volunteers that spent Sunday morning clearing the footpaths ,and others who have also cleared snow and ice in the village. Other villages and communities did sterling work, and all concerned should be recognised for their efforts. There are countless stories of the good work done by Parish Councils, volunteers and residents. No Parish Councillor is paid to do anything in their community, never mind clear snow. The task has been great and so many have risen to the challenge. There has been some criticism that some paths and roads have not been cleared or the work was not done quickly enough, but by and large the comments have been positive and people have been grateful for the work having been done.

Police, Fire, Council & Local Neighbourhood Watch working together on crime and fire prevention

The past two weekends have seen the Howdenshire Neighbourhood Action Team having stands at North Cave Gala and Eastrington Show. This is a great example of organisations such as Humberside Police, the Fire Service, the East Riding of Yorkshire Council, and the local Neighbourhood Watch working together to listen to residents, book in home fire and safety checks, and deliver messages around crime and fire prevention.

The Police and Fire services also picked up quite a lot of information regarding local issues, as I did as the Ward Councillor. A very worthwhile project, with good results, put on at very little cost to the taxpayer.

(pictured with Gina Walker of the Eastrington Neighbourhood Watch, PCSO Simon Palmer, and Martin Conley from Humberside Fire and Rescue)

The Environment Agency plans to regulate all Agricultural Composters

I am very pleased to say the Environment Agency has brought forward plans to regulate the agricultural composting industry by bringing all operators under regulation, rather than some being exempt as we see, and smell, at present.

Over the last 3 years many residents have raised the issue of composting and the foul smells drifting across the Howdenshire villages of Spaldington, Brind, Wressle, Holme on Spalding Moor, Eastrington and North Howden.

The East Riding of Yorkshire is home to a significant number of composting operations, most of which cause very few problems and don’t come to the notice of residents, the Council, or the Environment Agency. Unfortunately a small minority of composters operating under a licence exemption have not followed the rules, and have caused serious odour problems for local residents and whole villages. It was clear that the past regime of self-policing was not working for this small minority of composters

The composting of animal by-products has been a concern to me, especially if the raw materials are transported from far away, not composted correctly or for sufficient time, resulting in the foulest smells imaginable.

Many of you will recall that I originally raised the issue of composting in a motion to the East Riding of Yorkshire Council, after which the Council’s Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee looked further into the issue, the Council then expressed its concerns to the Government’s Environment Agency.

The Environment Agency also wants to see operators attend formal training, which along with the proposed permitting and regulation will have a cost implication for the composters, although in fairness many other industries require operators to undergo training before being able to carry out work. (e.g. CORGI registration for gas heating engineers)

Bringing all composting operations into the general permitting framework and undergoing formal training is a positive step and will be good for the industry as a whole, and certainly good for the public. It is always a question of balance between regulation and cost, and I would hope that the charges to be levied are based solely on the costs for regulation rather than yet another stealth tax.

I have a great deal of sympathy for those farmers, who have diversified into composting as a replacement for conventional fertilisers and operated in a responsible manner, and are now going to have to pay increased fees for regulation, unfortunately this means the whole industry is being made to pay for the actions of the few.

David Davis MP and I have worked closely on this for a considerable time, and he was able to add his weight to the case by raising the issue with the Shadow Minister and the Chief Executive of the Environment Agency.

David adds; “I welcome the plans for more rigorous inspection and regulation of the agricultural composting industry. A great many of my constituents have had to put up with vile smells associated with composting animal by-products for far too long as some operators have been working outside regulation through an exemption. For to long the inspection regime on this unpleasant Industry has been to lax it is time to put this right”

“It is essential that the charges should cover the full cost of the proposed inspection and regulation. Firm regulation is needed whatever the cost, which should be borne by the composters and not the taxpayer.”

Sixpennywood Windfarm Appeal Decision - Another Kick In The Teeth For Local Democracy

The decision by the Government appointed planning inspector to overrule the East Riding of Yorkshire Council’s Planning Committee by granting permission for the Sixpennywood Windfarm application near Howden is yet another kick in the teeth for local democracy. Clearly the inspector has played lip service to the Governments agenda and completely failed to take into account the Council’s good record of having already exceeded its 2021 renewable energy target by some 26%, he has not taken into account the local feeling, and he has completely failed to recognise the devastating effect a windfarm of such size and scale will have on the landscape.

In the past, as a member of the ERYC Planning Committee I have voted for and against windfarm applications depending on their size, scale and location. But for me this particular application was never about wind energy, it was never about a windfarm on this site – it was all about sheer size and scale of the proposal and the greed of Your Energy the company behind the application, maximising it’s profits by having the greatest number of the largest turbines on the site, with the nearest being 630m from a dwelling.

The company has acted in a very questionable manner from the very beginning, playing scant regard to community engagement, riding roughshod over local concerns, measuring the background noise in very dubious circumstances, and changing the size of the turbines between the Planning Committee making its decision and the case going to appeal. Your Energy comes out of this whole sordid affair with a planning consent worth millions but with it’s credibility seriously questioned.

Needless to say the residents of Kilpin, Laxton, Balkholme and Eastrington will be overlooked by 10 of the largest wind turbines constructed in the Britain, and with each turn of the gigantic blades raking taxpayers money into the coffers of an offshore company. I am aghast at the inspector when he says in his decision notice “Subject to suitable conditions I do not find that there would be unacceptable harm to the living conditions of nearby residents” I would find it very difficult to explain this to those residents whose lives are going to be changed.

This is an appeal that we could not afford to lose, I now fear for other areas and communities of the East Riding of Yorkshire that are likely to suffer the same fate, as the speculative windfarm developers move in with applications of a similar massive size and scale, at a distance of less than 650m from people’s houses. Local democracy is worth fighting for, local voices are important and should be heard, alas this is clearly not the Governments understanding, when they trample all over local democratically elected Councillors, the sooner this centralist government with its complete lack of understanding of rural issues is thrown out the better.

To listen to an interview I gave to BBC Radio Humberside's Peter Levy on this item please click: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p005drw5/The_Peter_Levy_Show_09_12_2009/ the interview starts at 11.40 in.

Sixpennywood Windfarm Appeal Presentation

Today was the last day of the Sixpennywood Windfarm Appeal public enquiry, it was great to hear the many speakers voicing their concerns (including the three who supported the application - none who would be directly affected by the proposal or could articulate any local reasons to support a windfarm of this size and scale). The following is the presentation I gave to try and sum up the reasons why a windfarm of such size and scale would not be suitable for this area.

Sixpennywood Windfarm Appeal Presentation

This appeal is not about windpower as a concept, it’s not about national policy, it’s not about targets - it is simply that this is not a small windfarm (as the appellant would have us believe) and the simple question…. “Can a windfarm of such size and scale with it’s out of character vertical structures fit into the existing landscape without a significant adverse effect, on this part of the countryside and those residents who choose to live in it?”

I have seen the area change and the communities adapt over the years - but they have never been faced with anything like this.

Howdenshire

When entering the East Riding of Yorkshire from the west you see Drax Power Station on the left and Goole’s Capital Park on the right with it’s massive buildings including the glassworks, pelleting factory, and large distribution centre. In the background we see the iconic salt and pepper pot towers, the church spire and the cranes on the Goole docks, an area described as the economic powerhouse of the East Riding. Continuing over the Ouse Bridge into Howdenshire where we see the port of Howdendyke and the two large distribution centres on the right, and the two Loftsome Bridge wind turbines at the water treatment plant to the left.

A large expanse of rurality then opens up before you – in the foreground we see trees, woods and hedges planted by farmers who over the generations have invested to shape the area. Then stretching to the vale of York to the north, the foothills of the Wolds to the northeast and the Humber Bridge and City of Hull to the east. It is this tranquil, intimate, rurality dominated only by the tower and green roof of the historic Howden Minster that makes Howdenshire special.

The East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC) Planning Committee

It is important to state that I sit on the ERYC planning committee, although I am not representing the committee, these are my views. I have been involved in the decision making process regarding all the renewable energy applications brought before the committee since May 2007, including the Sixpennywood application. I am not a policy maker nor qualified to defend any of the Council’s planning policies, my role can be described as trying to give overview, interpretation and weighting to those policies.

Why did the applicant move straight to appeal rather than submit an amended scheme?

It was disappointing that the applicant didn’t consider, and take into account the thoughts of the Planning Committee including the narrowness of the vote on the day, and resubmit the application, reconfiguring the proposal to include fewer turbines, and certainly removing the turbine which at 630m would be closest to South Lea farm (which does not have a landowner interest in the application).

The ERYC Planning Committee and recent windfarm applications

The Planning Committee can only make a decision on what is in front of them, which can at times be very frustrating for members with some applications. I have always been open to arguments from all sides when it comes to windfarms and have voted both for and against, depending on the individual application

At the recent meeting of the Planning Committee the members considered two windfarm applications

The first application for the 3-turbine Monkwith windfarm on the East coast was difficult for members; I struggled with the site and the cumulative impact of 3 windfarms surrounding a village, which I felt, had not been adequately considered, all members supported a motion for a deferment.

Conversely the second application for the 16-turbine Goole Fields windfarm was considered to be very well sited, being remote, windy, and a considerable distance away from residences, an excellent application for a large windfarm in an appropriate location. It was clear the applicant had worked very closely with the communities neighbouring the site, and there were very few objections but also not a significant number of supporters either. This application was fully supported by the Committee.

This was exactly the same with the nearby Twin Rivers application, which I again supported earlier in the year.

As a member of the Planning Committee I find that when making decisions on windfarm applications it is always a question of balance. It may well be quite clear that a proposal is just plainly out of scale with the surrounding landscape, or has the potential to have a negative impact on the setting of a town such as we see here with Howden.

Issues with windfarm applications can also be more subtle – the number of turbines may be too great - perhaps 4 o r 5 would be more acceptable than say 10 as we see in this case. This can also be said for the height of the turbines in some locations, there are of course smaller generation turbines, which can blend more easily into the background. Sometimes the location is not quite right e.g. the turbines may have been better a couple of fields further away from housing to reduce the impact, or to take advantage of natural screening wherever possible. But this is very difficult when the industry is being led by speculative developers who cannot always persuade the owners of the land most suitable for locating wind turbines to become involved.

Profitability v Public Concern

It is understandable that a developer wants to maximise the profitability of any given windfarm by having the maximum number of turbines of the largest size and capacity – but a little more care and consideration for the communities surrounding a windfarm could make the passage through the planning process much easier.

Here in lies a contradiction. When the application was submitted it was for a 30 Mw installation consisting of 10 x 3 Mw turbines with the company stating this would supply electricity for up to 14,000 homes, this was an important factor in the decision making. Now we are led to believe that these may be 10 x 2 Mw turbines. There is anecdotal evidence as introduced by David Davis MP and other speakers that these larger capacity turbines as proposed originally have issues with noise, but perhaps less so with the smaller ones as now proposed. Doubt is certainly raised when the application changes between when the planning committee refused an application for reasons of size and scale, and the situation at appeal where the turbines are to be of a lesser capacity, although It is accepted that they will be the same height and diameter.

I feel the applicant should have taken more care with this application, they did not have to propose the 10 largest turbines, that for many people are cumulatively unacceptable, and they certainly did not have to propose to locate a turbine within 630m of the home of a resident unconnected with the application.

The hearing has received information on how the noise measuring has been ‘suspicious’ in the minds of some – I know first hand that some of the practices described by residents occurred, and this is very worrying.

For me this application has always been about imposing something on the local people rather than working with… The company will tell us they consulted the communities – but in reality this was a one-way conversation, which is not what community engagement is about. It is certainly more than just £2,000 per turbine per year in community contributions. It is about listening and compromise

Other windfarms approved in the area that are different in size, scale and proximity to residents

The Lissett windfarm just south of Bridlington, an application very similar in size and scale to what is being considered with the Sixpennywood application - BUT located on an old airfield and what was thought to be a good distance away from residents. The Planning Committee at the time approved the application and it is now a reality. Many lessons have been learnt from this application as it has caused a massive visual impact for miles and miles around, and there are noise issues for residents living close by (with the nearest not being connected with the application being a distance of 850m away). The committee was told these would not be significant issues, but the actuality is very different. One important lesson that we must consider much more carefully is the number of turbines and their fine siting detail, in order to determine how they can be best built into the landscape. A similar size and scale windfarm as Sixpennywood but in a different landscape and further away from properties

The Routh windfarm just east of Beverley was a contentious application, refused by the Planning Committee but subsequently overturned at appeal. This was for 12 smaller generation turbines at 100m from the base to the blade tip, and 60m to the hub, and located between 700m and 900m from any property not connected with the application. These turbines are some 25m lower than what is being proposed at Sixpennywood, plus some 5 km from the historic Beverley Minster instead of the 3.8 km we see here from Howden Minster. A windfarm of a different size and scale and located further away from properties, and the historic Minster

The Withernwick windfarm application on the east Coast was granted at appeal after the planning committee refused it on similar grounds to the Sixpennywood application. The major differences between the applications being the size and scale of the development – namely 9 turbines at a 111m from base to blade tip and 70m to hub height at Withernwick - compared to 10 turbines 125m from base to blade tip and 80m to the hub. Therefore 9 turbines instead of 10 and each 14m lower than those proposed at Sixpennywood and also 899m from the nearest property not connected with the application. Again a windfarm of a different size and scale and further away from properties

With further reference to the Goole Fields and Twin Rivers applications, both of which are examples of a large windfarm in the right location with few objectors. Conversely this application at Sixpennywood is an example of a large windfarm in the wrong location with a significant number of objectors. Neither the Goole Fields or the Twin Rivers application will have an adverse impact on an historic town and a number of listed buildings, but the same can not be said this application, here the general location is wrong for such a large scale windfarm, as it would have a negative impact on not only town of Howden, but will also dominate the communities of Kilpin, Laxton, Saltmarsh, Balkhome, Metham, Greenoak, Bellasize and Eastrington, some of which have historic buildings….

I use these examples to show that the Sixpennywood application is very, very different in size and scale both in height and number of turbines – it is not to be built on an old airfield and away from properties.

There has been debate about the landscape character being the same for both the Goole Fields and Twin Rivers applications as it is for this application…. this may be the case BUT the sub character areas are very, very different – one only has to visit the three sites to see this.

If this application is approved it will result in the greatest number, of the largest turbines, built as close to any property not connected with an application, in the whole of the East Riding of Yorkshire. This is in my view a step too far. Windfarms yes, but of an appropriate size and scale and far enough away from communities not to leave them swamped.

Possible significances of the changes to the proposed grid connection

The hearing has heard an update about the grid connection now being possible in the verge at the side of the B1230 running across the north of the site. Myself and others recall asking about grid connections at the public exhibitions put on by the applicant, and told the nearest grid connection was approx. 4km away at Howden and this would probably require an underground cable being installed the full length. I took this into account when considering the application, and rightly or wrongly, assumed the number of turbines included was in part a reflection on the economy of scale required (or number of turbines) to fund such a long and expensive underground cable.

Summary

In summary, and indicated previously, the most important lesson learnt from the Lissett windfarm is that we must consider much more carefully size and scale, the siting of individual turbines, how windfarms can be built into the landscape, and the effect on properties, and for this reason the following 3 criteria have not been satisfied in this application.

1....Is the scale and size of the windfarm appropriate for the location? – This is the crux of the issue and in my opinion the location is not capable of accommodating such a large windfarm without unacceptable adverse effect on the landscape and communities. Quite simply these massive turbines would dominate a number of settlements in what is an otherwise flat rural landscape. If the two electricity pylons are Blacktoft are considered as a benchmark, these are 114m and 112.6m high and can be seen for miles around, imagine adding a further 11 m or almost 10% to the height of these and this is the height of the turbines as proposed.

2....Is the location of the turbine just 630m from a resident not connected with the application appropriate? – This is clearly not acceptable and for the applicant to persist with this turbine location as part of the application and it typifies a complete lack of meaningful community engagement, and awareness of the noise issues.

3....Would the siting of the turbines have an adverse impact on Howden Minster? –This is subjective but personally speaking yes I think it does.

Comments regarding the ERYC Planning Committee

There have been some comments made about ERYC Planning Committee at this hearing. To be clear, I am proud of the Committee’s good record of approving windfarms of appropriate size in appropriate locations. It has been agreed by all parties that the applications approved exceeds the 2021 target by some 26%. The decision of the planning committee on the Sixpennywood application (a decision I supported personally) was summed up in the three reasons for refusal as follows:

“The proposed development because of its size and scale would visually dominate and cause substantial and unacceptable visual impacts to the area”

“The proposed development because of its tall structures would introduce uncharacteristic vertical structures and an industrial element, which would detract from the rural character of the area”

“The proposed development would have an adverse impact on the setting of the Minster Church of St Peter and St Paul Howden”

During the hearing, a lot of issues have been brought to the fore. The reasons the planning committee gave for refusal are very clear and I feel these reasons are as strong now as they were then.

It is a question of balance and judgement – and in this instance the balance is surely tipped by the sheer size and scale of the proposed windfarm. Unless a line is drawn in the sand on size and scale of windfarms in close proximity to residences, I really fear for some communities in the East Riding, at some point someone has to say ‘this is acceptable - but this is not’, the ERYC Planning Committee said this application is not acceptable because of this, and I hope that the inspector can come to the same conclusion and dismisses the appeal.

Finally….

On day two Mr Stewart the main witness for the company was talking about counting renewable energy figures when he said:

“When it comes to wind turbines – you can’t really miss them” ….

Mr Inspector, How right he is……

Eastrington and Howden dropped kerbs issue continues

The issue of dropped kerbs across footpaths and verges to allow access to driveways again came to the fore at a public meeting held this week in Eastrington for both Eastrington and Howden residents, who had received letters from the East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC), informing them of the legal position under the Highways Act, where the Government legislation insists the council is required to maintain the highway including kerbs, verges and footways. The Council being the body that enforces the construction of appropriate vehicular crossings.

The problem arises, as now many households possess at least one vehicle, very often 2 or 3, and the streets were not originally designed to accommodate the present requirement for off road parking. Naturally people want to park their vehicles off the road if possible, to avoid damage and congestion and many have constructed driveways - but without having the correctly constructed dropped kerbs.

Beneath the verges and footpaths there are located gas, electrical and other service lines, which can be damaged by vehicles passing over the un-supported ground cover. The repairs to these can lead to inconvenience and costs that put pressure on Council Tax contributions or increased utility bills.

The issue first came about a year ago when letters where received by a dozen or so residents of Eastrington’s Pinfold Street and of Howden’s Derwent Crescent. I shared the feelings of the residents when they said the letters were badly written and somewhat heavy-handed, we as a Council looked into this, lessons were learnt and the format and tone of the letters subsequently changed. Residents where also given a grace period to have the work done whilst still using their drives.

Some residents have questioned why some dropped kerbs have been installed in Goole free of charge. I have looked into this and found that this work has been funded as part of a ring-fenced Government regeneration budget, which if not spent in Goole, it would be taken back, by the Government, and given to another authority.

Working with Eastrington’s Pinfold Street residents, we were able to find ways to take advantages of economies of scale. This included purchasing just one vehicle access information pack, working with the council so all the work was covered under one single planning application, and obtaining a very good deal from one contractor who offered a reduced price for doing all the driveways at the same time. Unfortunately one or two residents decided not take advantage of this and are now faced with a higher cost if they choose to have the work done, having to park on the street in the meantime, and enforcement action if they continue to use their driveways.

Ten further Eastrington households have recently received letters from the Council asking them to consider installing dropped kerbs; I am committed to helping these residents as before, in trying to make the process as straightforward and cost effective as possible.
I have a great deal of sympathy with householders having to pay for their own 'dropped kerb access', if it is their responsibility, but ultimately this is Government legislation, with the Council’s role being to ensure that residents comply with the law.

(For the original story and comments please see post passim of 1st Sept 2008 at - http://paul-robinson-howdenshire.blogspot.com/2008/09/eastrington-howden-residents-hit-with.html or by typing Eastrington dropped kerbs into the blog search box at the top left of blog header and hit 'search blog')

Speed limit between Gilberdyke and Howden is legally enforceable

As both a Howdenshire Ward Councillor and Chairman of the Police and Partners Community Forum, I have been asked many questions regarding the need for, and the legality of the speed limit on the section of the B1230 running through Eastrington Parish between Gilberdyke and Howden .

I cannot recall ever seeing a speed limit on a section of road quite like this, a limit in place to allow horses to use the road as a bridleway – but I’ve yet to see a horse, hear of anyone else seeing a horse, or know of any horse owners daft enough to ride a horse on this dangerous section of road.

It is all very confusing, with some people suddenly coming across the speed limit, braking hard and continuing at 30mph through the limited section, some vehicles behind are then surprised by the sudden braking and have to brake harder, and those behind them having to brake harder still. A great number of vehicles completely ignore the speed limit altogether and continue through the limited section at the normal speed - overtaking those travelling at 30mph at will.I am told by a local magistrate that he has fined people for travelling on this section of road, conversely I've had members of the public telling me the limit is not legally enforceable due to incorrect signage and warnings, including the lack of a 40mph buffer as the limit drops from the speed limit of 60mph for this type of road down to 30mph.

The Definitive Answer

The East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC) has looked into this on my behalf has provided me with some definitive information.

The Highways Agency is carrying out essential repairs to Addle Lane Bridge, which crosses the M62, and forms part of a bridleway used by pedestrians and horse riders etc. A risk assessment carried out by the Highways Agency stated that with the bridge being closed and horse riders having to travel along the B1230 to another bridge to cross the M62, that the route should have a temporary 30mph speed limit for the duration of the works.

A temporary 30mph speed limit was introduced on the B1230 between Addle Lane junction and Newland Gate junction under Section 14(1) of The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The temporary order is dated 16/10/2008 and came into operation when the works started on 28/10/2008 and is valid for up to 18 months. It was anticipated that the works would have been completed within 5 months but the works have exceeded the anticipated completion date and the latest estimated completion date is 28/10/2009. This is still within the 18-month duration of the temporary order.

I am told there is no legal requirement to introduce a 40mph speed limit before entering a 30mph speed limit, either as a temporary or permanent order. 40mph buffer speed limits are occasionally put in place on “A” and “B” classified roads to help speed reduction prior to a 30mph speed limit in built up or partially built up areas or where there is a history of traffic injury accidents.

It has been confirmed to me that the temporary 30mph speed limit on the B1230 is signed correctly with 30mph / national speed limit signs on both sides of the road at the entry points. Specifically, there are five 300mm diameter repeater signs at approximately 200 metre intervals on alternate sides of the carriageway (the maximum distance between repeaters on alternate sides of the carriageway is 250 metres; Chapter 3, Traffic Signs Manual 2008, page 117, table 14-4).

I am also informed that only issue that might affect the legality of the 30mph speed limit is an interpretation of the distance from the terminal sign of the speed limit and the first repeater sign. The recommended maximum distance on a 30mph speed limit without street lighting should be 200 metres (Chapter 3, Traffic Signs Manual 2008, page 117, table 14-4). The distance from the terminal signs and the first repeater on the B1230 is 220 metres, at both the eastern and the western ends of the temporary speed limit. Whilst this is outside the recommended distance, it is a recommendation and not a mandatory distance. At 20 metres over the recommended distance, it is still within 10% of it.

In conclusion the ‘speed limit is legally enforceable - please drive with care’

Speed Limit on the B1230 between Howden and Gilberdyke

Since the autumn of last year I have had many people asking me questions regarding the mysterious 30mph speed limit on the B1230 between Balkholme and the Eastrington turn off, on the Howden to Gilberdyke section.

The temporary speed restriction was requested by the Highways Agency, after carrying out a risk assessment for the temporary diversion of the Bridal path onto the B1230 road, to allow the reconstruction of the bridge over the M62, whilst still allowing the path to be used for horses and others.

I did raise my concerns with the Highways Agency during the first week of the speed limit period regarding the lack of signage warning of the approaching speed limit when coming from Howden, and to their credit the agency did respond by placing additional warning signs near the top of Balkholme flyover

When the reasoning behind the limit is explained as it being mainly for horses, the question often turns to a complaint or criticism.

The East Riding of Yorkshire Highways Engineer explained to me that, “The low level of bridal way use does not in its self remove the need for placing the restriction. Where figures are not available, assumptions can be made that will air on the side of caution. The restriction will be lifted at the completion of the works at the end of March/early April”.

I have also spoken to my friend and fellow East Riding of Yorkshire Councillor Matthew Grove, the Portfolio Holder for Highway Safety at the Council who says:

"Unfortunately some people welcome speed restrictions that protect their family in their village, but oppose similar restrictions that protect other users of the highway in adjacent areas. As an authority we are highly committed to reducing the number of people killed or seriously injured which stood at 276 last year. The temporary reduction in speed on the B1230 is in line with this priority and I believe justified".

He continues,

"I have received similar complaints to this, concerning school safety zones that reduce speed limits to 20 mph, 24 hours a day, which irritates some residents. My response is that speed limits have to be permanent due to the legislation, but that the police enforce speed restrictions sensibly using risk assessment and will not enforce 20mph school zones at night etc".

Finally I would like to add, I have not seen a single horse using this section of the B1230 as a bridle way during the time the limit has been in place, nor have any of the people who have contacted me. In fact it appears to me this section of road would be very dangerous at this time of year for horses and riders, even with the traffic travelling at 30mph, but I can see the logic in catering for them providing we don’t see accidents as some drivers slow down - only for others not to... there is also the serious issue of a 60mph limit coming down instantly to a 30 mph, as many have commented.

'On The Buses' to Howden School

It appears there have recently been several behaviour-related incidents and concerns about overcrowding on some school buses picking up pupils going to Howden School.

So on Wednesday of this week, following a number of calls from, Newport, Gilberdyke and Eastrington parents of Howden School pupils regarding problems with the school bus, I got up early and made my way to Elloughton bus depot, where I met with East Riding Motor Services (ERMS) and East Riding of Yorkshire Council staff (ERYC) staff for a morning briefing, before boarding the school bus destined for Howden School via Faxfleet, Blacktoft, Yokefleet and Eastrington.

It was reassuring to see both the transport operators and ERYC working closely with the school to address the situation, with none of the partners being prepared to tolerate any behaviour on buses which endangers the safety or well being of other passengers and all students are expected to conduct themselves in a respectful and sensible manner whilst journeying to and from school. This is the case for the vast majority of students whose general behaviour is excellent and it is not fair that they should suffer as a result of the actions of a few.

It is vital, from a safety perspective, that buses are not overloaded and that the partners know exactly which vehicle everyone is travelling on. For this reason pupils must carry their bus pass and travel on the right bus. This has not been happening in the Newport, Gilberdyke and Eastrington areas, and, coupled with the bad behaviour issues, which have occurred on two of the buses, has led to a number of measures being adopted to tackle concerns, including the following:

*Regular checks by bus drivers to ensure that children are eligible to travel on particular buses and that they have the correct pass. If students do not have their pass they may be asked to pay for travel. Lost passes will need to be replaced and parents can do this by contacting the East Riding Passenger Services Department.

*Students who misbehave or fail to live up to the expectations required may face a ban from the bus imposed by the bus company or the Council. If this happens, it then becomes the responsibility of parents to ensure that alternative transport arrangements are put in place. It is the Council who has jurisdiction in terms of deciding who travels on buses or implementing bans, but the school do support the Local Authority in their efforts to prevent poorly behaved students from accessing school transport.

*In serious cases, where the actions of a student breach Health and Safety regulations or bring the school into disrepute, the school may implement additional sanctions, including the possibility of exclusion.

The school, ERMS and ERYC will continue to monitor the conduct of students on buses to ensure that all users of school transport can do so without having to suffer unpleasantness or risk. I trust that the school can rely on the support of parents to tackle this issue head on and the head would value any feedback on the approach intended to be used. The school, working in partnership with parents, the ERYC and ERMS, hopefully can ensure that the poor behaviour of a few does not adversely affect the majority of students who are extremely well behaved and simply want a trouble-free journey to and from school.

If you have any concerns please contact Mr David Boden, Passenger Services Manager on 01482 395521.

Dropped Kerbs update

After looking further into this issue I can confirm that it is the law of the land that dictates that residents must provide dropped kerbs in front of their driveways, and although some council houses have dropped kerbs, allegedly provided by previous authorities, some have not, ultimately a proper form of access over the footpath is required, and unfortunately it is the responsibility of the householder to provide that access.

Originally it was the wording and aggressive tone of a letter from the East Riding of Yorkshire Council (as detailed previously)regarding the dropped kerb issue that had caused the anxiety amongst the residents who had received it. I have now had it confirmed that there will be no further letters sent out to residents until it has been redrafted.

It is a credit to the residents of Eastrington's Pinfold Street that they have been able to form their our community group, to work together in order to minimise the cost to install dropped kerbs at the front of their properties. The costs are reduced by only having to submit the one joint planning application and benefiting from the economies of scale gained by using one contractor to carry out all the work.

Residents who continue to use their drives should be mindful of their liability for any damage to underground services in the footpath caused by vehicular movements above, and although using unauthorised accesses across the footpath is still technically illegal, I would hope the council would not be rushing out to fine residents, particularly if they have already made contact with the council in reply to the original letter.

Eastrington & Howden Residents Hit With Demand To 'Drop Kerbs'

With Howden Councillor Mark Preston and Eastrington Residents

A number of East Riding residents have been receiving a somewhat threatening letter from the East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC) regarding ‘Unauthorised Vehicular Access’ from public highways. The letter informs residents that they must stop using their drives until a satisfactory means of access to the ‘kerbed footway or verge’ has been constructed to the satisfaction of the council – or in layman’s terms: until the householder has paid a council approved contractor to install dropped kerbs in the footpath fronting their property at a cost estimated to be £800. Failure to do so and residents will be guilty of a criminal offence and liable to a fine not exceeding £1,000.

A dozen or so residents of Eastrington’s Pinfold Street received these letters, and after meeting with them I can confirm their attitude ranged from anger to worry, angry that the issue of the dropped kerbs had not been picked up during the process when they purchased their homes (in some instances buying the house from the council), and worried that they will be faced with a fine if they continue to use their drives as they have done for as many as 40 years. Some of the residents are pensioners; others are even council tenants – living in council houses!

I am led to believe that since receiving the letters some householders have parked their vehicles on Pinfold Street which had the effect of blocking the road for farm vehicles, particularly combine harvesters, who were trying to get to their fields after the crops had at last dried out sufficiently to harvest. If all the residents on Pinfold Street resort to parking their cars on the road, I'm sure the resulting traffic congestion in the area would be unacceptable. We have to remember that for an action there can sometimes be an equal or greater reaction that is not foreseen.

Residents on Howden's Derwent Estate who received similar letters have the same concerns and contacted my fellow ERY Councillor Mark Preston regarding the issue.

I share the feelings of the residents of Eastrington and Howden when they say the letters are badly written and somewhat intimidating. I don't have a problem as such with the concept of householders paying for their own 'dropped kerb access', if it is their responsibility.

It is unfortunate that residents were not given a notice period rather than the threat of a £1000 fine, and in the present climate many people may not be able to find the £800 at one time to pay for this work. Obviously this is an internal matter for the Council of which I am a member, BUT I hope the sending out of such ‘heavy handed’ letters will not be repeated and lessons will be learnt.