Spaldington Wind Farms Appeal Public Inquiry Presentation

The following is the presentation I gave to Spaldington Wind Farm Appeal Public Inquiry today. I'm not sure how it played with the inspector - but I think it totally wrong-footed the two barristers acting for the two windfarm companies. - in so much has they couldn't find it in themselves to ask me a single question at the end.


1. Introduction

If one was to ask, “How do I get to Spaldington?” Imagine if one or both of these wind farms were approved the answer would be “follow the road to the wind turbines - that’s Spaldington”.

This is not about the proximity of a wind farms to a village - it is simply about Spaldington being at the centre of a wind farm, with residents living between the turbines. It’s akin to separating the Lissett wind farm and dropping Spaldington right in the middle. If the applications are considered separately then either one is far too close to properties, we have not seen anything like the numbers of residences being so close to these large generation turbines anywhere else in the East Riding.

Visualising cumulative impact is very difficult when the number of wind farms that have been consented have yet to be built. This is why it is important to consider not only the 14 wind turbines already built within 20km of Spaldington but also the 78 consented, giving a total of 92 within 20km.

2. Howdenshire

When entering the East Riding of Yorkshire from the west one sees Drax Power Station, followed by the Rusholme Windfarm on the left, on the right you see Goole’s Capital Park with its 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.

Continuing over the Ouse Bridge into Howdenshire we see the port of Howdendyke and the two large distribution centres on the right, and when one looks 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.

Howdenshire then stretches almost uninterrupted to the Vale of York to the north, the foothills of the Wolds to the northeast and towards the distant views of 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.

Here I would take the advocate for the Common wind farm back to early in the inquiry when he mentioned the view in some way could be impeded by the crash barrier at the nearside of the M62. I hope since making that statement he has taken the time to join the 18,000 vehicles crossing over the Ouse Bridge daily from the west, and has driven in each of the three lanes of the motorway and seen for himself the unimpeded view of the Minster, and witnessed the potential impact that 12 moving 126m high turbines will have behind and above the roof and tower.

3. The East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC) Planning Committee

It is important to state that during the period from May 2007 to May 2011 I was a member of the East Riding of Yorkshire Council 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 during this period, including both Spaldington applications. I am not a policy maker nor qualified to defend any of the Council’s planning policies, I consider my role is to give overview, interpretation and weighting to those policies when making decisions. I would say that I have always voted to grant consent unless there was a clear reason not to.

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

Prior to 2007 the Planning Committee approved the wind farm at Lisset and the turbines at Loftsome Bridge. From 2007 the Committee has approved commercial wind farm applications at Twin Rivers, Goole Fields, Sancton, Burton Pidsea, and recently at Carnaby.

I have voted to support each one of these applications, and actually moved approval on many. I therefore take great exception to the advocate for the Airfield scheme previously alluding to the East Riding of Yorkshire Council being somehow against wind turbines. What I would say is that wind turbines or wind farms, along with other renewable energy applications have been approved when they have been of an appropriate size and scale for the landscape, have been in the right place, and have not had a negative cumulative impact on a locality or residences.

The problem is that Inspectors at Sober Hill, Routh, Sixpennywood, Tedder Hill, Roos and Withernwick have said that we have got the balance wrong. It is true that those Inspectors may not have got it right themselves, and it is important to recognise that ERYC got it right at Monkwith.

An interesting example of the Planning Committee’s decision making was at the meeting held on 8th October 2009 where two wind farm applications were considered.

The first application for the 3-turbine Monkwith wind farm on the East coast was difficult for members; I struggled with the site and the cumulative impact of 3 wind farms surrounding a village and the harm to the coastal landscape, which I felt had not been adequately considered, all members supported a my motion for a deferment, which led to the eventual refusal, and which was subsequently upheld at appeal.

Conversely the second application for the 16-turbine Goole Fields wind farm was considered to be very well sited, being remote, windy, and a considerable distance away from residences, an excellent application for a large wind farm in an appropriate location. It was clear the applicant had worked very closely with the communities neighbouring the site, there were very few objections but 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 determined at a previous meeting, which I had also supported.

I find that when making decisions on wind farm applications it is always a question of balance. It may well be quite clear that a proposal is just plainly of such a size and scale to be unable to be incorporated within the surrounding landscape within the locality, but it can also be more subtle, the wind turbines may have a negative impact on the setting of a town such as we see here with Howden. More often it is that the location may not be quite right with the turbines being better located a couple of fields further away from residences to reduce the impact, or to take advantage of natural screening wherever possible, or in the case of the Airfield application being too close to Breighton aerodrome.
All this can be 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.

4. Increasing numbers of wind turbines getting closer to residences

If one looks at the consented wind farms in the East Riding it is clear that the physical size of the turbines is generally increasing, but worryingly we are seeing more turbines planned to be built ever closer to properties. I would take you to four applications.

The Goole Fields application saw no properties within 750m and only 3 properties within 1,000m.

Withernwick then saw 5 properties within 1,000m and none within 750m, and 100m to tip turbines.

The Sixpennywood application then saw 5 properties within 1,000m but of which 2 properties were within 750m.

Then at Monkwith 12 properties within 1,000m, of which one was within 750m.
Of all the wind farm applications the Planning Committee has considered – I can’t recall any where we’ve seen so many properties so close to 126m high turbines as the Spaldington applications. In the case of the Airfield application 30 residences are within 1,000m and alarmingly 7 (if one includes Mount Pleasant) are within 750m - which is beyond what is reasonable. In the case of the Common application we see 19 within 1,000m and 16 within 750m and the closest being around 450m must on the face of it be unacceptable. Also the centre of the village is less than 1,200 away from the nearest turbines on each application.

Considering the two Spaldington applications together we see 49 properties within 1,000m of which 24 are within 750m, with the closest being within 450m. Quite simply this is too many properties, too close to some of the largest wind turbines in the country.

At some point a line in the sand has to be drawn when it comes to how close 126m turbines can be built to unaffected properties – for me both these applications have crossed over that line.

5. Motion to the East Riding of Yorkshire Council

Recalling the evidence of Miss Bolger, I do think the Council’s Interim Planning Document leaves a lot to be desired and that is why in my motion to the Full Council on 13th October 2010. I asked that the Council “undertake a review of its ’Interim Planning Document on Renewable Energy’, which could include minimum distance criteria between wind turbines and sensitive land uses such as residential dwellings, rights of way and roads”.

As part of the same motion I requested that the Council asked the Secretary of State to give urgent consideration to reviewing the government’s planning guidance on renewable energy as clarification is needed on national minimum distances between wind turbines and affected residences taking into account the size of the turbine.”

In his reply the Minister of State at the department of Energy and Climate Change, Charles Hendry MP says:

“There are no plans for the government to introduce a proximity rule. The assessment of an application to develop a wind farm already includes, amongst other things, an analysis of visual and landscape impacts to ascertain whether the location and height of the wind farm is acceptable”.

The minister also added;

“The Government considers that these impacts are best assessed on a case by case basis so that local factors can be taken fully into account, regardless of whether applications are dealt with at a national or local level. Where applications are dealt with at the local level, we believe that councils should have the opportunity to decide these matters on behalf of their local community”.

6. Miss Bolger’s Evidence

The Councils Interim Planning Document ‘Planning for renewable Development’ states in its Landscape Character Assessment type 5 - “there may be a greater capacity in this landscape character type to accommodate small scale wind farm development if appropriately located” – Clearly neither of these applications are small scale and are certainly not appropriately located. This is the real problem - there are much better sites within 4 miles that are infinitely preferable for smaller developments - being more remote from residences. In my opinion there is no reason whatsoever to locate 12 x 126m turbines within just 750m of domestic dwellings. I feel this does not fit within the Policies EN19 or EN73 in any way shape or form.

I share Miss Bolger’s concerns regarding the landscape character assessment being used in the Council’s Interim Planning Document, which of course was based on the much smaller generation wind turbines being considered at the time of publication.

Miss Bolger raised a very good example of the landscape around the Goole Fields and Twin Rivers wind farm sites which are clearly conducive to Windfarm developments - although in the Council’s assessment this area has landscape sensitivity more in keeping with that of a National Park, and less suitable than the area around Spaldington – clearly this isn’t the case. One is very open with few hedgerows or trees; the other has smaller fields with hedgerows, trees and associated wildlife. The former is able to accommodate the larger size and scale of a modern wind farm development; the latter is not.

This was my thinking when I was able to support the Goole Fields and Twin Rivers applications but not the ones here at Spaldington. What could be a clearer indication that the Council’s Planning Committee is not anti-wind farm, but rather more competent in understanding the local issues, and more reasonable in our decision-making then some would give us credit for?

7. Local support for and opposition to the Airfield and Common applications

There have been questions raised about levels of support for the wind farm applications.

As an elected ward Councillor representing Spaldington and the surrounding villages, I have had the opportunity to probably listen to more than most when it comes to resident’s attitude to these applications.

Whilst I acknowledge that local opposition in itself is not a good reason for refusing a scheme, I don’t ever recall receiving so many letters and emails asking me to reject a planning application, and we have all the surrounding Parish and Town Councils representing 13,755 local residents all objecting to these applications.

The ERYC Planning Committee had 395 letters of objection and 431 letters of support of the Airfield - but in the application for the Spaldington Common site we see 370 letters of objection but only 56 letters of support. Why is this? I wonder if it is anything to do with the agents for the Airfield applicants being more proactive in gathering letters of support from passers-by on the streets of places as far away Goole and beyond – One of the applicants was so proactive in Holme on Spalding Moor, that the Parish Council Clerk raised concerns about their aggressive actions in the village in an email to the Council as detailed in the STOP objection file appendix 15.

8. Impacts on Spaldington

Mr Stewart said the wider benefits outweigh any local environmental effects which have been identified. I take this with a very large pinch of salt, just like I did with his statement that golfers use wind turbines to gauge the wind direction, are we assuming from this that your amateur golfer will be able to gauge the wind direction and wind speed on a golf course using a turbine over a 1km away, at some 100m above the ground, and allow for any feathering into or out of the wind, or more importantly the wind speed at that height….. Perhaps not?

I would also like to pick up on Mr Stevenson’s comments regarding the residents of Spaldington being selfish when it comes to not wanting these wind turbines close to their village, and I for one found his comments a little repulsive, and statements such as ‘the residents are throwing the kitchen sink at this appeal’ are hardly helpful. I very much admire the residents for doing what they’ve done, it is to be commended not ridiculed, and if that’s perceived as throwing the kitchen sink at it then so be it – but it is nothing when compared to what either of the applicants have thrown at these applications.

9. Visual Impact

All the photomontages can show is a static picture when in reality we should be looking at a succession of movie clips, nothing is static (not including those many days that wind turbine blades don’t turn) what will the views be like if you walk through the village, or travel into the East Riding.

I also take issue with some of the viewpoints chosen by the applicants for the photomontages. What is perhaps more telling is that neither Mr Stevenson nor Mr Ingham has tried to produce photomontages from just outside residential properties that are known to be affected. E.g. The swallows, The lodge (even though Mr Stevenson suggested a planting scheme for this property), Fir Tree Stud, Cottage Farm etc.

Then we saw photomontages showing turbines behind trees when if taken a few meters to the left or right would have shown a true picture, or alternatively a stacking effect. I would certainly consider a 126m wind turbine within 450m of Avian Pastures to be somewhat of a ‘Holy Moley’ or a ‘show stopper’ and certainly in the ‘Red Zone’ as referred to by the Airfield advocate – I wonder why a photomontage was not produced from the viewpoint through the windows of this property.

10. Detrimental impact on Breighton Aerodrome

I have listened to almost all the evidence regarding the impact the Airfield application may have on Breighton Aerodrome, and I am somewhat surprised in the vast differences of opinion between the expert witnesses, and the fact that Mr Spaven seems to be very much at odds with the others.

It is abundantly clear that the Airfield Wind Farm presents an unacceptable threat to the safety of flights to and from Breighton Aerodrome. I am very concerned about inexperienced pilots being able to safely use the aerodrome from what I have heard and I am very concerned about pilots being able to safely fly vintage aircraft from there too.

Nothing that has been said by the developer’s representatives gives any assurance that the legitimate and serious safety concerns can be adequately mitigated. Tony Smith, who is vastly experienced in operating the aerodrome and in flying its vintage aircraft, said in his evidence that if the wind farm is built, it becomes a matter of when a serious or fatal accident occurs and not if.

It would be a serious loss to the area if Breighton Aerodrome, with its museum and its general aviation facilities were forced to close by the presence of the wind farm, whether as a result of the real safety issues or of reduced numbers of visiting aircraft, kept away by the perceived difficulty of operating so close to the turbines.

In his evidence Mr Spaven appeared to say that a 3 degree approach angle is not the norm and was ‘misleading’ and cited the example of Fife Aerodrome where the approach angle was 7 degrees, with this being a much more normal approach angle. This appears to be contradicted by Mr Spaven’s report he wrote in opposition to the Westfield Wind Farm, near Fife planning application*, where he clearly accepts the 3 degree approach calculations when clearing the turbine blade tips by only 200 feet.

Reading the content of Mr Spaven’s report, it would appear to be so contradictory to the evidence he provided to this inquiry so as cast serious doubts on its reliability and his credibility. (this is fully explained in the attached letter from Mr James Dalgliesh).

We have a saying up here in Yorkshire “you can’t run with the hare and hunt with the hounds” – I suspect Mr Spaven might just have been trying to do both.

11. Targets

During this appeal we have heard a great deal about targets, we could argue about the interpretation of the wording and the thrust in the Regional Spatial Strategy when it comes to approved or installed capacity for renewable energy. It is my opinion that the East Riding is already carrying more than its fair share of the region’s renewable energy targets in those applications that have been approved.

It is clear that the area has met the 2010 target and its 2021 target but having said that the capacity to accept more wind farms is not in question – it just comes down to size, scale and location. What is also clear is that particular areas could become saturated with the cumulative impact of the many turbines when all those already approved are built, creating in effect wind farm landscapes.

The Monkwith scheme being so close to the consented turbines at Roos, Burton Pidsea and Tedder Hill, would have crowded that part of Holderness with turbines if it had been allowed to proceed. Here in lies the problem that many of us have to grapple with - many wind farms have planning consent, but apart from Lisset and Out Newton none are yet built.

12. Noise

The starting point for noise impact is the 1997 ETSU Guidance, which is based on average background noise levels at residences likely to be affected by wind turbines. This is open to abuse by wind farm developers as it based on average background noise levels, which can be affected by a number of factors. These were clearly identified in the evidence provided by Mr Stigwood. It is acknowledged by many, including myself and alluded to by David Davis MP that this 1997 government guidance is out-dated and flawed.

It would appear that the Common site is going to have issues resulting in the wind farm not being able to operate at its full rated capacity because of noise, as well as restrictions as a result of shadow flicker.

I listened with interest to Mr Bennett and as a layman found serious issues with his credibility. When one considers both applications the Airfield application was preceded by that for a large anemometer mast which is still in situ.

The Common application did not and resulted in a very temporary mast, that was not as high as recommended, it was supposedly struck by lightning, had a rain gauge that was working but Mr Bennett was unsure as to what it was actually measuring, and a wind vane that became frozen and only recorded wind in one direction, then a wiring fault that appeared to repair itself, we heard evidence about Mr Bennett not explaining to residents why equipment was being installed or the criteria being used, locations chosen near sources of higher background noise, like a domestic sewage treatment plant. There is also anecdotal evidence that so called farming activities had taken place around the noise measuring equipment during the period of measurement – including constantly working the land in the vicinity of the noise measuring equipment – all this giving a higher than normal reading. He then intimated that residents tampered with the equipment.

Early in his evidence he quite clearly said, “When the wind is blowing from the east the village will hear the turbines from the Common and when the wind is blowing from the west the village will hear the turbines from the Airfield”.

He also stated that his wind vane evidence “leaves a lot to be desired”.

When it comes to the Common site, I have serious doubts regarding the validity of this noise evidence, from what I have heard I believe it is reasonable to conclude that the protection of residents from noise is reliant on faulty equipment and it’s positioning, which has led to inadequate or invalid results.

13. Summary

This appeal is not about wind power as a concept, it’s not about national policy, it’s not about targets - it is simply that these are not small wind farms “Can two wind farms of such size and scale with their 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?”

If either of these applications 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. Wind farms yes, but of an appropriate size and scale and far enough away from communities and residences so as not to leave them swamped with the inescapable and repressive impacts of wind turbines.

The decision making has to be about what is reasonable and what is not. No resident is entitled to a view nor entitled to silence, but they are entitled to reasonableness and I hope you sir will share my opinion that neither of these wind farms, either singularly or cumulatively satisfy the test as to what is reasonable for significant numbers of Spaldington residents.

There will be no relief from wind turbines for Spaldington residents - whichever way they look they will see them, whichever way the wind blows they will hear them. Whichever way they drive into the village they will be there – an inescapable presence.

14. Finally….

I would like to draw the inspector to a phase we have heard a few times during this inquiry that of an inescapable impact on individual properties and the village in general if either of these applications are approved. This starts when people enter the East Riding from the south or the west as they are returning home, they will see the 68 already consented turbines in the south west quadrant of the 20km radius of Spaldington.

Imagine when all the wind turbines within that 20km of Spaldington are constructed and a resident is travelling back home by road, let’s say they’ve been away on holiday and they’re travelling back from any of the airports at Doncaster, Leeds Bradford, Manchester or East Midlands. They journey north along the M18 or east along the M62 and the first sign of approaching the East Riding is the beginning of what will be a wind farm landscape, the turbines showing the way home and drawing them in. Getting nearer they rise over the Ouse Bridge and see the turbines that surround their houses viewed over the minster, continuing past Howden towards Spaldington village the turbines loom larger and larger before turning at the water tower to drive through the Common wind farm with the Airfield wind farm in front of them… they return home to the overpowering inescapability of living far too close to any of the two wind farms.

I hope that you Sir will draw the same conclusions, and dismiss both of these wind farm applications.

Cllr Paul Robinson

How public service organisations can save a colossal amount of money without cutting front line services

The following is a speech I gave to the East Riding of Yorkshire Council meeting this afternoon.

Public Service Organisations all working from separate buildings is not the best use of public money, and much could be saved if buildings were to be shared – this is termed ‘Asset Rationalisation’.

Asset rationalisation is all about money, lots and lots of it. Not what it will cost but how much it will save. It’s a way of not just the Council but other public service providers saving significant amounts of money without cutting frontline services – but for it to work requires a major shift of thinking, and herein lays the problem, the thinking within the public sector must change. We must move away from protectionism and look more towards sharing; we must move away from regionalisation and move more towards localism.

Do Public Service providers making the best use of their assets? I would suggest not, and for one simple reason – there is almost no sharing of assets. Why, because there is not sufficient will or desire amongst the providers to break out of their individual silos.

Taking the asset values of just two of the Public Sector organisations in the area - the Council and the Fire service. Then Council’s assets are in the region of £1.4 billion of which some £750million is accounted for in land and buildings, £439millon in Council housing and £180million in roads, bridges and coastal protection. Humberside Fire and Rescue have building assets worth some £13.6million, the Police, NHS, probation, and other partner assets are in addition to this - A colossal amount of money.

I suggest there would be significant savings if we were to share buildings, particularly between the ‘Blue Light’ services. We have 12 Fire Stations and 14 Police Stations strategically placed covering the East Riding with over 80% in the same village or town.

Would it not make sense for Police and Fire to come together and either share existing buildings, allowing the surplus buildings and land to be sold, or sell off both existing sites and use the proceeds to construct a purpose built facility in the area?

BUT let’s take it one step further - There happen to be 14 East Riding of Yorkshire Council customer service centres located strategically across the East Riding which mirror almost exactly the Fire and Police Stations. Would it not make sense to consider relocating these into the shared buildings?

Let’s go one step further and have the NHS Paramedics move in too.

So where would the savings be? Firstly the obvious cash from the sales of assets, but then the on-going savings in heating, lighting, power, water, insurance, cleaning, catering, telephones, not to mention backroom staff, but what about pooling and maintenance of vehicles and equipment, and the favourite expenditure… I.T !

If we look at just the ‘Blue light’ Services – imagine the efficiencies if they were all based at the same place, working together as a fully integrated team.

So if we had multi-agency, multi-service centres strategically placed across the East Riding – the logical step would be to devolve power and decision making to these areas – and that would be localism, would it not?

The key to making asset rationalisation work is changing the mind-set, elected Councillors make up the Fire Authority, are by far the largest part of the Police Authority, and will have an increasing role in the Health service. Councillors do have a role in setting the strategic direction of partner organisations. To really make asset rationalisation work I’m absolutely certain members can play more of a pivotal role in setting the strategic direction of the public service providers in this area – and I urge them to do so.

Spaldington Wind Farm Appeals hears 'very interesting' evidence from noise experts

This week at the inquiry looking into the two wind farm proposals at each side of Spaldington the issue of noise was discussed at length by the expert witnesses and each cross examined by the others barristers.

The Governments 1997 ETSU Guidance is used as the starting point for the assessment of noise impact, taking the average background noise levels at residences likely to be affected by noise from the wind turbines. This is open to abuse by wind farm developers as it is based on noise levels measured at only a few points around an application site, which can be easily affected by a number of factors. These were clearly identified in the evidence provided by Mr Stigwood representing the STOP campaign team. It is acknowledged by many, including myself and alluded to by David Davis MP that this 1997 government guidance is out-dated and flawed and was put in place a long time before we as a Council were looking at these massive 2 and 3 MW, 126m high turbines. We’ve also heard during the week that this guidance is ‘blind to wind direction’.

It became clear that the Spaldington Common site to the east of the village would have noise issues resulting in the wind farm not being able to operate at its full rated capacity, an issue I raised at the Planning Committee meeting when the application was originally refused.

I listened with interest to Mr Bennett, the expert witness for the Common Site and found serious issues with his credibility. When one considers both applications, the Airfield application to the west was preceded by a large anemometer mast which is still in situ. The Common application has only ever had a very temporary mast, that appeared not to be as high as recommended, was apparently struck by lightning, had a rain gauge that was working - but Mr Bennett was unsure as to what it was actually measuring, a wind vane that became frozen and only recorded wind in one direction, and a wiring fault that appeared to repair itself. Interestingly I did raise the lack of an anemometer mast for the Common site at the Planning Committee stage.

Then we had the sorry saga of the noise monitoring equipment, with stories about Mr Bennett not explaining to residents why the measuring devices were being installed or the criteria being used, and locations initially not even on residents own property and near sources of higher background noise. There is anecdotal evidence that so called ‘farming activities’ had taken place around the noise measuring equipment during the first period of measurement – including constantly working the land in the vicinity of the noise measuring equipment – thereby giving a higher than normal reading. He also intimated that unusually high night time noise at one site may have been caused by residents tampering with his equipment, when in fact it can be explained by the night-time operation of the resident’s sewage treatment plant!

Early in his evidence he quite clearly said, “When the wind is blowing from the east the village will hear the turbines from the Common and when the wind is blowing from the west the village will hear the turbines from the Airfield”.

He also stated that his wind vane evidence “leaves a lot to be desired”.

There is a question of what is reasonable, especially when it comes to the Common site, I have serious doubts regarding the validity of this noise evidence as it is reliant on faulty equipment whose positioning could lead to inadequate or invalid results. This is about the protection of residents from noise if this wind farm is given the go ahead to be built.

Then there is the problem of drafting enforceable planning conditions should both wind farms be consented. The two developers assured us they would cooperate and each be responsible if “their” turbines were downwind and hence appeared to be the source of the noise-nuisance. In principle this seems OK, the Airfield to the west, and the Common to the east – BUT what happens when the wind is from the north or the south? I can see the residents and the Council’s Public Protection department being placed in an intolerable situation, with it being impossible to determine which wind farm is the prime cause of the noise-nuisance, and the nuisance actually being due to the interaction between noise from both wind farms as Spaldington effectively becomes located in the middle of a wind farm.

Bubwith residents organise petition against Sutton on Derwent weight limit

Residents of Bubwith have decided to take action by raising a 580 name petition in support of the lifting of the 7.5 tonne weight limit through Sutton on Derwent and Elvington in place since the Sutton on Derwent Bridge on the B1228 was repaired this past year.

Prior to the weight limit being imposed the HGV movements from Breighton Airfield Industrial Estate went either North through Sutton on Derwent or either west through Bubwith or east through Foggathorpe and Holme on Spalding Moor. This meant that the HGV movements were somewhat shared between all the communities - alas since the weight limit the village of Bubwith particularly, has borne the brunt of these lorry movements.

The petition has been organised by Bubwith residents Pauline Witt and Caroline Taylor, who presented it to fellow Howdenshire ward councillor Nick Evans and I handed it to the ERYC Service Manager Paula Danby on their behalf.

Bubwith Parish Council have also been very proactive in pushing the case forward, being insistent that the East Riding of Yorkshire Council assess both the bridge on the A163 and the Sutton Bridge, as both bridges are about the same age and both awkward to cross, and subject to traffic light controls to ensure single file traffic. The result is that both bridges are deemed capable of taking HGVs, the signs indicating a weak bridge have been removed from the Highfields crossroads in Bubwith, but the bridge does have a 7.5 tonne environment weight limit signed upon it.

Bubwith Parish Council Clerk Steve Young says, “Bubwith Parish residents are fed up with taking more than its share of HGVs because of the weight limit, and that Ellerton & Aughton Parish Council, Foggathorpe Parish Council and Holme on Spalding Moor Parish Council are all very strongly opposed to the weight limit”.

In an email to Bubwith Parish Council Paula Danby states, “A report is to be presented to the councils Environment and Regeneration Overview and Scrutiny sub Committee on the 20th July 2011. This meeting is held at County hall and usually starts at 10am. The public are allowed to attend the meeting and the report is made public one week prior to the meeting”.

“There have been a large number of responses both in favour of keeping the weight limit and also asking for its removal. The views of the parish councils are being taken into consideration and will be included within the report”.

I certainly do not support this ill thought out experiment, and would like to see it removed as soon as possible and the HGV movements shared between all the communities rather than one or two having to cope with the whole lot.

To re-route HGVs through rural villages such as Bubwith, Holme on Spalding Moor, Foggathorpe and Harlthorpe not only passes the problem from one community onto others, but also has a detrimental effect on both the businesses that have to foot the extra fuel costs and increased travelling times, and the wider community with the increased emissions associated with lorries travelling the extra distances. I do not think this fits with the ERYC policy of reducing emissions through reduced journeys”.

Elected Police Commissioners and why I support the idea

This week the East Riding of Yorkshire Councils Corporate and Communities Overview and Scrutiny Sub-Committee looked at the issue of elected Police and Crime Commissioners. This is a committee on which I sit.

As a great supporter of extending democracy, devolving power and giving people more choice in who represents them; to have elected Police Commissioners is a positive step in this direction.

Elected Police Commissioners were a key plank of the Conservative Party manifesto, the concept is enshrined in the Coalition agreement. I have spoken in support of this concept many times, including on the doorstep during the election campaign, at meetings and to the Police themselves.

Looking at how officials are elected in America, not perfect by any means but it brings in democracy and more importantly accountability to Policing. It leads to more people taking an interest and becoming involved – something we have seen very little of at many of our Police and Partners Community Forum meetings.

For me this is about devolving democracy, decision making and accountability to local people.

In fact I would like the concept of elected Police Commissioners extended – to include fire and health commissioners.

I do not believe overall neither the Police Authority nor the Fire Authority are efficient uses of public money. They have grown into overly large self-serving organisations that could, and should be more accountable and democratic.

Lessons can certainly be learnt from the past. If we look back to 1996 the Council’s previous Chief executive acted as Clerk to the Humberside Police Authority. The Director of Finance of North Lincolnshire Council acted as the Treasurer. Since then the growth in scope of the Police Authority has meant they have appointed their own chief exec and secretariat including staff to meet their requirements.

With Humberside Fire Authority, the Council’s Chief Exec was the Secretary and Solicitor to the organisation from 1996 until 2004, and we provided legal, committee management and property services. Hull City Council provided finance and audit services. Since then the Fire Authority has appointed its own solicitor/secretary and finance personnel. Although the council continues to provide property services to the Fire Authority.

It is hard to believe that since then the arrangements put in place by these relatively small public authorities/bodies represent value for money and are cost effective compared with the services available from the local authorities.

In this respect I would certainly welcome a new Police Commissioner learning from, and revisiting the financial benefits of this partnership working we saw previous to 1997.

There is far more scope for councils to share services between themselves and with other public bodies, if the major public service providers were more willing to bring officer functions together as we saw in the past, we would see less staff to deliver the same output - Achieving colossal savings without cutting front line staff. I cannot see this happening with the Police Authority as we see it – BUT I believe a Police Commissioner elected with a clear mandate to improve policing will be the catalyst for this to happen.

I welcome the plans to introduce Police and Crime Panels consisting of a minimum of 10 councillors to scrutinise the work of Commissioners. This will ensure elected members still have a key role and a say in how policing is delivered in the area.

I also welcome the proposal, and the Local Government Association (LGA) support for the Police and Crime Panels being able to veto a Commissioner’s proposed budget by a three quarters majority vote, and also to veto any candidate recommended by the Commissioner for Chief Constable.

Cost – the cost to run an election is not so high as to be prohibitive, especially if run in conjunction with local elections, which we will no doubt see in some parts of Humberside.

The culture of horizontal thinking and protectionism we see in parts of the public sector is unacceptable… We see Police and Fire looking to regionalise rather than work together… flying in the face of localism by moving decision making away from the area and from local people – and the election of Local Police Commissioners will go a long way in addressing this.

At the end of the debate the Conservative Councillors and the Independent Member on the Committee agreed with my proposal and it was resolved that:

The Committee support the concept of Elected Police Commissioners and:

1. Welcome the plans to introduce Police and Crime Panels consisting of a minimum of 10 councillors to scrutinise the work of Commissioners. This will ensure elected members still have a key role and a say in how policing is delivered in the area.


2. Welcome the proposal and the Local Government Association (LGA) support for the Police and Crime Panels being able to veto a Commissioner’s proposed budget by a three quarters majority vote, and also to veto any candidate recommended by the Commissioner for Chief Constable.

Record number of new blog readers in the last month

The past month of May saw a record number of hits on my blog, over 4,000 in the month for the first time and of these 28% were new readers.

The most popular post was 'Farewell as Chair of the Goole and Howdenshire Local Action Team' on 13th May which generated 388 hits (with over 76% being first time readers) on the 14th May, the post also received the most ever comments (31) of which I could only allow 11 as the remainder where, let’s say ‘overly critical’ and named names - and only two that where critical of me – one of course I allowed, and the other I couldn’t because of an on-going Standards Board Case.

The second half of the month was much busier than the first although the first week around the local elections was busier than normal.

Many, many thanks to all that read my blog, for your comments, messages and support, and knowing that it is read makes it worth doing.

Best wishes to you all

Paul

Spaldington Wind Farms Public Inquiry

As the Spaldington wind farms appeal public inquiry moves through its second week the pattern is becoming clear. It’s the Council and the ‘STOP’ Team* working on the side of the residents against the two wind farm developers, and each developer defending their position but going out of their way to rubbish the other. (*STOP is the Spaldington Turbine Opposition Project with its own barrister and expert witnesses all funded by the community)

Week one saw the opening exchanges with the Council’s expert landscape witness, the landscape witness employed by STOP, and the expert witnesses employed by the two developers taking the stand. They all presented evidence and were cross examined by the four barristers, with each trying to score points against the other. There is certainly an interesting atmosphere between the two appellant teams and their barristers, Mr David Hardy representing Falck Renewables and Mr Jeremy Pike representing Volkswind.

The evidence provided can come across as rather complicated and extremely detailed as it focuses on degrees of potential impact on the landscape, and how the landscape can be defined and compared with other areas. It also goes very deep into the potential theoretical impact on individual residences, the distances of turbines from the houses, likely views from different windows, and from what angle turbines are expected to be seen. There are photomontages provided by all parties showing views from near and far, from house windows and from gardens, from roads and footpaths. These are then challenged by the other parties for accuracy and consistency. Interestingly the most widely used and referred to photographs are the aerial shots provided by STOP, these taken from a helicopter hovering at the tip height of each of the 12 planned turbines. This being the first time this type of photograph has been used at any wind farm inquiry in the East Riding.

There are many references to planning inspector’s decisions at previous wind farm inquiries, and paragraphs from those decision documents quoted by all sides by the barristers and witnesses to back up their positions. However it has been frequently stated in the proceedings the the inspector will come to his own conclusions.

The Inquiry also saw 4 witnesses from Spaldington take the stand to give evidence and undergo varying degrees of cross examination; these included Parish Council Chair Kath Westin, local horse and rider trainer and businesswoman Janice Chadwick, Beryl Norris a medium at the Fir Tree Spiritualist Church, and local resident Ann Marie Jackson. All gave very passionate and emotional presentations, and stood up to the questioning extremely well.

As the Councillor on the East Riding of Yorkshire Council’s planning committee who moved the successful refusal of both wind farms before they were appealed and therefore some would say an ‘informed member’ of the public, I think the inquiry can be interesting if somewhat tedious at times. I keep saying to myself and others that the witnesses and the barristers don’t need to impress each other, me, or the public, they only have to impress the one person – and that is the Planning Inspector sitting on his own at the top table, who will ultimately make the decision to allow or refuse the appeals.

I am to give evidence on Friday 10th June 2011 !

Holme on Spalding Moor Road improvements to start soon

Sections of HOSM's Selby Road and High Street between the mini roundabout at the junction to the A614 and Major Bridge are due to be repaired and resurfaced as part a programme to improve roads within the East Riding of Yorkshire. This in addition to the recent repair and surface dressing work due to be completed by the Councils’ direct works department.

The work is programmed to commence on Monday 13th June 2011 and is expected to take 2 weeks to complete (weather permitting). Should there be delays due to weather or other unforeseen circumstances, the scheme may extend beyond the expected completion date. The sections to be repaired are from the mini roundabout to Runner End, from Sands Lane/Station Lane to Water End farm (just beyond Bulmer Lane) and approximately 200 meters either side of Major Bridge.

Unfortunately, due to the narrow width to sections of the carriageway and to undertake the work safely, it will be necessary to close the road to through traffic during working hours. The road will be closed at 9.15am until 5.00pm Monday to Friday and 8.00am until 8.00pm Saturday and Sunday. Temporary traffic lights may be in operation outside of these times with the road open to traffic. When the surfacing is undertaken at Major Bridge, it will be necessary to close the road to all through traffic for one day due to the narrow section on a bend. This is programmed to take place on Sunday 26th June 2011. Please note that on this day the 0900 from Holme on Spalding Moor to York and the 1710 from York to Holme on Spalding Moor will operate as normal. All other buses on service 18A will start and finish at Foggathorpe Heavy goods vehicles will be diverted at Bubwith using the B1228 and A614 via Howden. Light vehicles will be diverted via Runner End and Back Lane where a 7.5 tonne weight limit exists.

Access will be maintained for shop deliveries, emergency services, refuse collection, mobile library, mobile optician and postal services. The existing bus services, including school buses, will be allowed through the works and operate as normal. Residents living within the work areas will be able to access their properties from Runner end or the A614, dependent on the location of the surfacing operation but are requested to avoid attempting to travel through the works. The contractor will be able to advise residents regarding access on a daily basis (contact details below).

Galliford Try Highway Maintenance Ltd has been contracted to undertake the work on behalf of East Riding of Yorkshire Council.

Should you have any questions or require further information please contact the project Engineer Jeff Taylor on 01482 395504 or the above mobile number. (Email: - jeffrey.taylor@eastriding.gov.uk). During his absence you may wish to contact James Sissons (Project Manager) on 01482 395644. To discuss access or work related matters, you may wish to contact the contractor’s representative, Chris Moody (mobile: 07885 135439) or Kev Thompson (mobile: 07888 027192).

Meeting with Gilberdyke Tip Operators

I was recently given the task of chairing a meeting facilitated by the Goole and Howdenshire Local Action Team (LAT) between representatives from the new owners of the Gilberdyke Landfill Site site Mr Kevin Wanlass and Mr Sam Juggins, Matthew Wollin from the Environment Agency, Newport residents and representatives of both Gilberdyke and Newport Parish Councils.

Although the meeting went quite well, everyone was civil to each other, and many questions were answered, but I certainly felt that a number of unanswered questions remain and there are series issues that need to be addressed. I was reassured that the Environment Agency who monitor the site has visited the site each week in the past six weeks, but what was clear from the beginning is there had been almost no communication from the tip’s new owners and the community, and for me this had led to the tensions. I hope the putting forward of views and the answers given will in some way reduce these tensions.

I am still at a loss as to why a company applying to extend the life of a tip would put the residents through so much suffering in the lead up to the application being heard. It was not made clear as to why we had seen the vast increase in HGV movements to and from the site, and why many of the HGV movements appear to be by trucks originating in the North East of the Country.

From the information given by the representatives from the tip it would appear that the original owners have made the application to extend the life of the tip, this being ‘City Plant’ which operated as a sole trader. A recent change has taken place with the operators now being a limited company trading as ‘City Plant Limited’ which corresponded with a cash injection into the business. However, the identity of the directors of this new company was withheld. What is clear is that Mr Kevin Wanlass confirmed that he is employed by North East based waste company Niramax and is acting as a consultant to the new operators of the site.

Gilberdyke Parish Councillor John Jessop adds, “It was confirmed that the injection of new finance with the aim of utilising all the available space left in the site, will result in a very significant number of lorry movements over and above those estimated in the City Plant planning application to extend the life of the tip”.

“Complaints from residents about the offensive stench were virtually ignored and claims by the company and the Environment Agency that any smells were ‘Agricultural in source’ were made. Unfortunately many of the group of residents were of farming stock and the claim completely rejected. The stench (the company describe it as an odour) had become particularly bad over recent weeks, an explanation was offered but there was a degree of scepticism from the residents and Parish Councillors.

Concerns were also raised regarding the discharge of foul, black liquid into the dyke alongside the tip, this was denied and at one point the EA officer tried to suggest that the resulting elevated level of liquid in the dyke was due to the tide – The dyke is not tidal, it has tidal doors at the River Ouse end and the River Foulness at the other end is not tidal! Photographic evidence of pollution of the dyke as far as Gilberdyke Medical Centre was produced. Unfortunately no answer could be given that was acceptable to the residents and Parish Councillors.

A promise was given that the life of the tip would not be extended again if this extension were to be granted - can we really believe this or to paraphrase Mandy Rice Davies of Profumo case fame many years ago "Well they would say that wouldn't they?"

Sixpennywood Wind Farm Access Road Saga Continues

The Sixpennywood wind farm saga continues to rumble on, and agreement has still not been reached over access to the site near Howden, as this coming week Howdenshire residents look to try and fight off two other wind farm developers proposing to build wind farms at each side of Spaldington, a village also near Howden. The battle commences at the Planning Appeal Public Inquiry beginning in Goole on 24th May.

This past week I was proud to join Balkholme residents, Parish Councillors, and representatives of the ‘Sixpennywood Not’ anti-wind farm group on a site meeting with representatives of wind farm developer ‘Your Energy’ and a Government appointed Planning Inspector. The purpose of the visit was to look at the piece of land being offered by the developer as ‘Common Land’ as a replacement for a piece of ‘Common Land’ they wish to take in order to construct the wind farm access road.

I really struggle with the idea that an area forming a rectangle of some 500 square meters is to be taken, and replaced with a strip ‘43cm wide by over a 1km long’.

The consultation reply from the British Horse Society sums it up very well:

“The replacement land is of inferior quality, being at the edge of a deep dangerous drain, overgrown with trees and shrubs and what is to all purposes the rough ground where the drain is cleaned out onto.

The land proposed as replacement is not as stated on the 'edge of agricultural land ' and a less than half a metre strip of 'waste' can hardly reciprocate for the present common.

The consultation on this proposal was poor and the maps wholly inadequate and the equestrians feel that the scheme could go ahead with a permit to work on the common without the need to de-register it”.

Is this really the best Your Energy can come up with? Why instead could a useful area of land (of 500 square meters) not be provided for community use?

The Planning Inspector has my sympathies here, because it is a question of what is technically right and what is morally right.

The other point is that the access road, if given the go ahead, will have to cross a bridleway, well used by local people - especially on horseback. Your Energy is applying to close a 12m section of this bridleway for a period of 6 months during the construction of the wind Farm. Apparently, due to the risks posed to public safety.

Once the construction period is complete, the bridleway will be re-opened and access will remain as it currently exists but with an access track, constructed of compacted stone surface, crossing the bridleway for the operational lifetime of the wind farm (25 years).

The British Horse Society has also raised points about this, and I for one would not like to see the bridleway closed or significantly diverted. A compromise is certainly possible here.

I also struggle with why the access to construct this wind farm was not part of the original planning application. It this yet another example of ‘Your Energy’ playing fast and loose with the feelings of local residents and the system?

Environment Agency Update on Gilberdyke Landfill Site

The following is the information I have received from the Environment Agency about the work they are doing at the Gilberdyke landfill site.

Across England and Wales, millions of tonnes of household and business waste end up in landfill.

The Environment Agency makes sure that landfill sites are meeting their high environmental standards and have a minimal impact on people and the environment.

Modern landfill sites are created to an agreed standard to minimise gases or polluting liquids being released. Polluting liquids – known as leachate – and landfill gases are extracted from the waste and need to be disposed of accordingly.

How we regulate the site
In the past, landfill sites had a mixture of modern areas and older areas where, the control of these gases and liquids were not to the current standard. Gilberdyke landfill site is one of these. The continued development of the site is in part based on improving the way the site operates.

Fortunately, because of the site’s location, there is a very low chance of any liquids being released into the ground, even from the older sections In 2006, we issued Gilberdyke landfill site with an environmental permit. The permit imposes a series of conditions aimed to minimise the risk to the environment from elements such as odour, dust and litter.

We regularly inspect the site to make sure that the operator is complying with the conditions of their permit. If we feel that conditions have not been met, we raise them with the operator to resolve. If these are not resolved to our satisfaction, we have a number of options we can use to make sure work is carried out.

There are a number of things that other organisations, such as the local authority, are responsible for at the site. These include:

• how many hours the site operates for;

• how many vehicles tip at the site;

• the access routes used to get to the site;

• the time limit for the life of the site;

• the final height of the site - this is determined by planning permission.

What we have being doing
The site has recently become busier than it has been in the last few years. This occurred at the same time as a change in ownership, with the new owner being Cityplant Ltd. This has coincided with an increase in the number of complaints we have received from local residents. Consequently, we have increased how often we inspect the site and have prioritised our efforts to ensure that they are operating correctly.

Below are examples of issues that we have dealt with recently:

• At the start of April, the operator disconnected the extraction system that removes odorous gas so that they could carry our engineering work. This may have been the source of some of the odours attributed to the site at the time. The system has now been reconnected and was also improved.
• A new fence has been erected at the top of the site to control litter during high winds. This is working well.
• There are now permanent litter pickers employed at the site to remove any litter that does blow away from the working area.
• Recent complaints about odour and litter may have been due to a shortage in materials that cover the waste during and at the end of the day. Consequently, the operator received a large amount of material that will cover the waste better. Because of such a large delivery, there was a short term increase in the number of vehicles going to the site. The operator is also planning to operate a narrow tipping area and cover waste repeatedly during the day to help control litter.
• The operator has used tankers to remove leachate from the site for disposal elsewhere. This has minimised the risk of water pollution or odours.

Work in the future
The operator has agreed to install a number of extraction wells to help minimise odour. This is planned for the autumn but will depend on the amount of waste coming onto site.

We are currently in discussions with the operator to investigate ways of minimising the odour before the full extraction as mentioned above.

Further information

We welcome any further information you may have relating to the landfill site. This will help us to ensure that the site is being operated correctly.

If you notice odours or litter from the site, please call our 24 hour incident line on 0800 80 70 60.

If you have any further questions about our role at Gilberdyke landfill please contact:

Matthew Woollin
Regulatory Officer
matthew.woollin@environment-agency.gov.uk


Tel: 01709 312 933

Farewell as Chair of the Goole and Howdenshire Local Action Team

It has been covered in today’s Yorkshire Post that I have been removed from the Chairmanship of the Goole and Howdenshire Local Action Team (LAT) by the Leader of the East Riding of Yorkshire Council.

Having received calls and messages from many people last night and today - I feel very humbled by the support offered. Interestingly, I have not heard it from anyone that I have been removed for lack of effort, hard work or commitment – and I do not believe I have been removed for any of these reasons.

I am not alone in being removed from a position of responsibility within the Council; three of my close Councillor colleagues have suffered the same fate for what appears to be similar reasons.

Most know me as a very principled Councillor, and I believe it is for standing up for those principles, particularly around the issues of early retirement for senior officers, and supporting the Conservative Party and Howdenshire residents on a number of issues not in tune with the thinking of the Leader of the Council, that I have been removed from the post.

I’m feeling quite philosophical about all this; to lose the Goole and Howdenshire LAT Chairmanship is sad, and I’m sure has nothing to do with what I have achieved, but under the circumstances was to be expected, and predictable. I’m looking forward to spending more of my time working for the residents of Howdenshire whilst still continuing with my role on the Council’s Corporate Communities Scrutiny Committee and discovering the intricacies of the Licencing 2003 Committee – to which I have been appointed.

I will of course continue to work with the new Goole and Howdenshire LAT Chair, and have already pledged my full support and offered to help in any way I can.

At the end of the day it is the Leader of the Council that has the power to appoint Councillors to Cabinet posts, Committee places, and Chairmanships – he also has the power to remove them….

I would like to thank all the partners that make up of the Goole and Howdenshire LAT, all the ward Councillors, Parish and Town Councillors, Council Officers and members of the public with whom I've worked over the past 3 years - it's been fantastic!

As a footnote, Cllr Parnaby still enjoys my support as Leader of the Council.

Boothferry Bridge reopened ahead of schedule

This week saw the re-opening of Boothferry Bridge to traffic following completion of the major maintenance by the East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC); this has been completed in less time than the advertised ten week closure.

The main contractor 'C Spencer Ltd' who in conjunction with specialist paint and mechanical & electrical sub-contractors must be congratulated on completing a varied and challenging scope of works within a tight working area and programme. Savings on certain activities also enabled additional works to be undertaken to prevent major disruption in the future.

Even though the available scheme funding was focused on the main structure improvements to the bridge approaches have been made at minimal cost with assistance provided both internally by ERYC Streetscene - and externally by the Humberside Probation Service in putting offenders to work.

Given the feedback the ERYC has received from users it is believed that the temporary transportation measures implemented to assist pedestrians and cyclists worked well during the closure period.

Further minor works to the bridge together with removal of fencing, welfare facilities and equipment will continue over the next week or two. Signing for the temporary traffic management measures introduced as a result of the closure are currently in the process of being removed which should be completed this week.

I would just like to thank people for your co-operation and that of the local community who have shown great patience given the duration of the closure.

A great job done by the East Riding of Yorkshire Council - below budget (so as to allow additional works to be carried out) and ahead of time.

Photograph by Bernard Bradley

Paul Robinson re-elected in Howdenshire

Many thanks to the 2,640 Howdenshire people who gave me their vote on Thursday, enabling me to top the poll by 297 - and along with my two Conservative Colleagues, Doreen Engall and Nick Evans elected to represent you on the East Riding of Yorkshire Council for the next four years. It was humbling to receive such great support from all the 15 Parishes that make up Howdenshire.

The Conservatives also did very well across the East Riding as a whole with us gaining many seats, to now hold 53 of the possible 67 seats.  (For the results please click here)

I would also like to thank all those people of my home village of Gilberdyke for their support in re-electing me to the Parish Council as part of ‘TEAM GILBERDYKE’ and congratulations to the other ten members who were also elected. We set out our priorities and now we have to look to deliver on them over the next four years.

I would like to thank my wife and daughter, family and friends for their support, my team of supporters and helpers – and in particular my agent, Victoria Aitken.

I also recognise those people who did not vote for me in either of the elections and will strive to work for, and represent them too.

I have always said that I would be “Howdenshire resident’s representative on the East Riding Council rather than the Council’s representative to them” – this is what I will continue to be.

The work continues with a number of issues having to be worked on this weekend.

Once again thank you to the residents of the parishes of Gilberdyke, Newport, North Cave, Hotham, Broomfleet, Blacktoft, Laxton, Kilpin, Eastrington, Spaldington, Wressle, Holme on Spalding Moor, Foggathorpe, Bubwith, and Ellerton and Aughton for again putting your faith in me.

(Picture courtesy of Sean Stewart)

The Campaign is Over

So the campaign is over, the last leaflets are delivered and people have been canvassed, and now it’s up to the electorate – many, many thanks for all that have helped us in Howdenshire, but also thanks to all those who offered me their support, especially my friends and family.

I wish all my friends who are standing for election tomorrow, for whichever Party (or Independent) the very best of luck – I’ve seen the time and effort you’ve put into your campaigns – well done!

Finally to all those living in the wonderful area of Howdenshire - I would really appreciate your vote tomorrow!

For those living in Gilberdyke - my fellow Members of TEAM GILBERDYKE and I would also appreciate your vote.

... and finally and not forgetting a vote for NOtoAV.

Thanks

Paul

Goole and Howdenshire Local Action Team to facilitate meeting over Gilberdyke tip

The issue of the tip between Gilberdyke and Newport was brought up at the Goole and Howdenshire Local Action Team (LAT) meeting held in Goole last week.

One of the LAT partners, Neighbourhood Police Inspector Mike Bower drew attention to the police concern about the apparent growing tensions between residents and the tip operator. These allegedly due to the poor management of the site, rubbish blowing off site, smell, high number and speed of HGVs using the site.

It was decided that the best way forward to reduce the tensions and was for the LAT to organise a meeting between the tip operator, a representative group of residents and other interested parties.

According to Humberside Fire and Rescue Service, another partner on the LAT, some of the litter/fire risk hazards have been dealt with e.g. the tip coated with soil and the lorries are being netted reducing the amount of litter in the road, lay-bys and fields.

However, the LAT is concerned that something is done about the situation as soon as possible and that tensions are reduced.

Just a small point of clarification, many will know that I chair the Local Action Team, but due to protocols in the run-up to the local elections that prevent elected Ward members calling a meeting with Council Officers and the public, it was agreed that the LAT officer call a meeting between residents, the tip operator, Council and Environment Agency, to start a dialogue with the aim of resolving some of the issues in the short term, before the future of the tip is determined by the ERYC Planning Committee.

Hopefully the meeting will be held within the next week.

Gilberdyke Parish Council says No to extending the life of local tip

At last week’s meeting of Gilberdyke Parish Council the members decided to oppose the planning application to extend the life of the Gilberdyke Landfill Site on Leatherdog Lane.*

Eleven Newport residents attended and were given the opportunity to put their concerns to the members. It was accepted that over the long years of operation of this particular landfill site there had been many complaints to the Parish Council, and it was believed complaints had also been to the Environment Agency.

The Parish Council agreed that the site should be allowed to run until November 2011, then for operations to cease for good, but raised concerns that the amount of traffic, the size of the lorries, and the fact that long hours during the 6½ days the tip is open is affecting the day to day living experiences of the residents on Thimblehall Lane and through the village of Newport. Concerns were also raised that HGVs were also using other routes to the tip including Newport’s Mill Lane.

The Council also raised concerns regarding health and safety in respect of litter from the tip being allowed to blow over the surrounding land and nearby properties.

It was demanded by the Parish Council (not requested) that a classified vehicle count be conducted at the entrance to the site, to indicate the size, type and number of vehicles using the site and at what times, and this should be done immediately.

In conclusion Gilberdyke Parish Council requests that both parts of the planning application be refused and use of the site ceased for good in November 2011.

(*As an ERYC Councillor who presently sits on the Planning Committee that will ultimately decide the future of the site, I took no part in the debate or the decision making – so as not to pre-determine my position which could prevent me from voting on the application as a Planning Committee Member)

Why I will be voting NO to AV

Many people are angry about the way some politicians abused the way they were able to claim expenses – but for me this doesn’t mean the system for electing them is at fault. We have good politicians locally, but this may not be the same in other areas, therefore we may need better politicians - but to get these we certainly don’t need to change the way they are elected.

The current system is called ‘first past the post’ where the winner is the one that comes first, and has stood our Country, and many others around the world, in good stead for hundreds of years. In election after election, it has given our country the kind of government it was seeking – the occasional coalition mixed in with plenty of strong governments that reflected the type of leadership, we wanted at the time.

There are lots of genuine reforms which would go some way to restoring people’s trust in politics, many of these that will enable local people to have more say in the decisions that affect them. I am all for reform of many of our present systems of government, but the way we elect our politicians is not one of them.

The current system creates strong governments, it’s simple to understand, it’s the most widely used system in the world, it’s quick and easy to count, but importantly it’s cheap to administer, and above all else its fair – giving one person, one vote, rather than some people’s vote being counted more than once.

Newport Tip - the situation getting worse for residents

I have a great deal of sympathy for the residents of Newport who are affected by the smell, litter and Vehicle movements associated with the tip located at the side of the M62 between Gilberdyke and Newport. The tip has been on the site for many years and for the most part has been a reasonable neighbour to residents.

But all this seems to have changed over recent months and we now see the amount of waste being delivered to the site increasing significantly. This is having a negative impact on the quality of live for a great many Newport and Gilberdyke residents as they are subject to, increased HGV movements past their homes from very early in the morning till late at night, plastic bags and other rubbish being blown across the fields and littering the hedgerows, and obnoxious smells coming from the site.

Early on Tuesday morning some residents of Newport’s Thimble Hall Lane parked their cars at each side of the road to prevent the passing of HGVs onto the site for a short period of time, as a gesture against the HGV movements. I am told that two representatives (thought to be from one of the companies using the tip) stopped in a Range Rover, and rather than engaging with residents to listen to their concerns, informed them they’d called the police. Ironically I have today received complaints from the residents of Newport’s Mill Lane about a Range Rover travelling along Mill Lane at high speeds thought to be above the speed limit.

At last night's Newport Parish Council meeting an unheard of 35 members of the public attended, and proceeded to describe the situation. I was certainly surprised to hear that yesterday they had witnessed over 150 HGV movements along Thimblehall Lane to and from the tip, and the day before the last lorry passed at ten past ten in the evening. But it was surprising to hear from residents living alongside the other routes to the tip along both Mill Lane and Landing lane that were also complaining about the increased HGV movements. It was also stressed that a number of the vehicles were from the North East of the Country.

I certainly find it very disturbing to see the operation of the tip expanding at such an alarming rate, especially when the documentation from the applicant received by the East Riding of Yorkshire Council on 8th March 2011, as part of the Planning Application to extend the life of the site states, “ Due to the much reduced input of waste, traffic volumes have consequently reduced. At the anticipated revised output, traffic levels will remain below those expected in 1999. On Average, 20 vehicle movements per day, including employees and visitors are expected”.

“To be blunt, on the evidence I’ve seen I really wonder just who the applicant is trying to kid here”.

Newport littered by plastic bags blowing from tip

I’ve had a number of calls recently regarding the amount of litter and in particular plastic bags blowing across the fields from the west towards Newport.

When I checked, I found this is coming from the tip alongside the M62 adjacent to Gilberdyke’s Leatherdog Lane, blowing across the fields and getting caught in the hedgerows and fences, particularly along the side of Newport’s Thimblehall Lane and the hedgerows between.

When I looked closer the amount of litter coming from the tip is quite widespread and clearly not acceptable. I have asked the Council’s public protection officers to look into this. I have also had a number of historic complaints from the farmer of the land south of the tip regarding surface water run-off and potential pollution.

The owners of the tip have recently made an application to the East Riding of Yorkshire Council to extend the life of the site. This follows a similar extension approved in 2006. Whilst the site is technically in Gilberdyke Parish the HGV movements to and from the site are almost all via Newport’s Thimblehall Lane. A number of people have raised issues around this application to vary the condition on the life of this site.

I hope that this application will be heard before the Council’s Strategic Planning Committee (which is made up of Councillors) rather than be determined by Council Officers under delegated powers. This would allow for a full and frank debate and for residents to be given the opportunity to put their points to the Committee.

I feel that Newport Parish Council should be fully consulted on this planning application because of the HGVs travelling to the site down Thimblehall Lane.

Details of the application can be found by clicking here

If you wish to comment on the application please write to: Pete Ashcroft, Head of Planning, ERYC, County Hall, Beverley, HU17 9BA – or by email at pete.ashcroft@eastriding.gov.uk quoting reference. Application 11/00931/STVARE, Gilberdyke Landfill Site, Leatherdog Lane, Newport

Howden Secondary School Moving Forward

As both a parent of a year 7 pupil and Governor at Howden Secondary School, I attended last week’s parents meeting to discuss the progress the school is making on implementing our Post Ofsted Action Plan, and to discuss the findings of the Local Authority inspections.

As a Governor appointed after the school found itself in special measures I feel one of my key roles is to scrutinise the school leadership and the performance of the school, and whenever possible be the voice of the parents – asking the questions they would want to ask. But as Governors, our job is also to take an overview and to offer support to staff and, where possible, advice.

I have been impressed by the concept of ‘Team Howden,’ the team ethos that now runs through everything the school does. This has improved communication throughout the school, and brought together teachers, pupils, parents and Governors in one team to move the school forward and lift if out of Special Measures – a tag nobody connected with the School or any parent wants to see.

The progress since September has been excellent in my view. Attendance has improved, the number of children being removed from lessons has reduced, the number of exclusions has fallen, and most importantly very few of the lessons observed by the School’s Leadership Team and the independent Local Authority Inspectors have been graded as unsatisfactory, with most now being satisfactory to good.

The extra pressures of being in Special Measures have of course affected the staff. The changes in ways of working and the increased workload have contributed to the rise in the sickness rates, resulting in a bigger dependency on supply teachers, which is a concern. The resulting lack of continuity, being real or perceived, does raise questions as to whether the pupils are reaching their full potential. This is something the Governors and Leadership Team are aware of and are looking to address as soon as possible.

At the recent Governors meeting is was unanimously agreed to continue with the services of Dave McCready as Executive Head and Gary Garghan as Acting Head for a further year. I have been seriously impressed with what both have done for the school, they have in many ways renewed the school and by putting in place new policies and procedures have laid a strong foundation on which to rebuild. I stated at the meeting that Dave McCready and Gary Garghan were best qualified to rebuild on that foundation, and am pleased to see them continue their great work.

HGVs mis-directed through Broomfleet

HGV movements through Broomfleet are a long standing issue that has been raised with me by a number of people.

The problem appears to be confusion with lorries following a Satnav when travelling to the Broomfleet Works of Sandtoft Tilleries, and confusion with a HU15 postcode directing them to the village. Both these factors result in heavy lorries destined for the tile works finding themselves in the village, and having to turn around or back up, especially when they get to the weak bridge and weight limit sign at the end of Main Street.

To have the software on Satnav systems changed is very difficult and can take a long time to be effective. But I have asked the ERYC to look at whether the signage can be improved and if additional signage directing HGVs to the tile works can be installed, particularly in Newport at the junction where vehicles turn off the B1230 onto Wallingfen Lane, but also at other routes to Broomfleet.

I have spoken to Sandtoft Tilleries and I’m reassured that they are doing their bit in directing delivery lorries via Gilberdyke’s Tongue Lane, including giving out the DN14 postcode for the road at Oxmardyke.

Windfarm company still playing ‘fast and loose’ with resident’s concerns

Many will recall when I spoke against the Sixpennywood Windfarm application at the appeal hearing - I said the company Your Energy had 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.

Needless to say the actions of the company continue to raise concerns and annoy a number of residents as they now try to take 'common land', and look to close a bridleway for their convenience during the construction process.

Nearby Spaldington is poised for a similar battle against not one, but two large wind farm developers – one at each side of the village, as both go to appeal simultaneously in mid-May after yet again being refused by the ERYC Planning Committee.

Local democracy is worth fighting for, local voices are important and should be heard, alas this was clearly not the previous Labour Governments understanding, when they trampled all over local democratically elected Councillors, hopefully now that centralist government with its complete lack of understanding of rural issues has been thrown out. The new Coalition Government with its Localism agenda will hopefully give us a fairer hearing.

How ironic the number of times (like today), that I drive over the Ouse Bridge to see the wind turbines west of Airmyn at a standstill, but Drax in the background still churns out the megawatts.”

A fair solution required to the Sutton-on-Derwent weight limit conundrum

Today, Sutton on Derwent Parish Council presented a petition to the ERYC Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee asking that the trial weight limit on the bridge over the River Derwent in the village is made permanent, two members of the Parish Council appeared and gave an interesting presentation in support of their case.

I also appeared before the committee and spoke against the proposal, because the result of the trial weight limit has been to pass the HGVs movements from Sutton on Derwent to the Howdenshire villages of Bubwith, Foggathorpe and Holme on Spalding Moor.

Mr Kirby, the Chairman of Sutton on Derwent the Parish Council spoke very vividly about the dangers of HGVs coming through his village prior to the weight limit, sadly what he was describing is what we presently see in Bubwith. This is more than a case of moving the problem from one village to another - in the past all villages had a share of the HGV movements but now as a result of closing off one route - the villages on the other routes have been left with a greater problem. For me it is a case of balance, bearing in mind the old adage that for every action there is always a reaction – but which can be disproportionate, as we have seen in this case.

To re-route HGVs through rural villages such as Bubwith, Holme on Spalding Moor, Foggathorpe and Harlthorpe not only passes the problem from one community onto others, but also has a detrimental effect on both the businesses that have to foot the extra fuel costs and increased travelling times, and the wider community with the increased emissions associated with lorries travelling the extra distances. I do not think this fits with the ERYC policy of reducing emissions through reduced journeys.

Mr Kirby also raised the issue of HGVs leaving Howden and Goole and their Sat Navs sending them up the B1228 instead of the route to York via the M62 and the A19. It was acknowledged that changing Sat Nav routing can be difficult and somewhat long term, but my suggestion was accepted and agreed for the ERYC to write to all the large companies in Goole and Howden handling large numbers of HGV orders, highlighting the negative impact of HGV movements on the B1228 and for them to ask the operators to avoid this route.

The Committee agreed to look again at this issue of the trial weight limit on the Sutton on Derwent Bridge in the future, as more information around HGV movements in the area, and comments from residents become available.

Ultimately we need a solution that is fair to all communities.

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.

Major Roadworks begin on Holme On Spalding Moor's High Street and Selby Road

Holme On Spalding Moor (HOSM) residents will have noticed that the East Riding of Yorkshire Council has begun repair work on A163 Selby Road, with some of the most damaged sections being excavated and patched, and some sections of dropped kerb entrances replaced.

(pictured with the Council staff carrying out the preparation work at Rowan Court/Selby Road junction)


This work is in preparation for surface dressing to be commenced in the middle of June, with the work held back and programmed to avoid clashing with the major repairs to Boothferry Bridge - as the A163 is one of the diversion routes.

Also in mid June we will see the major works required to High Street which will involve some rebuilding of the road, including removing and replacing the top 160mm (6”) in places.

The first part of the HOSM programme is the considerable works involved in the resurfacing of the A614 Rush Corner, which is due to commence on 4th June 2011.

During all the works there will be temporary road closures through the narrow sections for safety reasons, and the ERYC will organise these closures to commence at 9.15am until 3.15pm in order to minimise disruption to commuter traffic. Local diversions will be put in place for local traffic and light vehicles.

First the flooding then two severe winters, there is little wonder that some of the roads, not just in and around HOSM, but throughout the East Riding are breaking up, and this is compounded by the fact that the roads were never designed for today's HGVs.

Clearly this is not a matter of filling in potholes, some sections of roads in the East Riding are so damaged they will have to be rebuilt as we will see in HOSM's High Street, and some £20million will be spent on road repairs throughout the county over the next twelve months.

The cost of highway maintenance is funded through road tax, however the amount the last Government paid back to local authorities was much less than they took in taxation and not sufficient to maintain the roads.”

“To repair and rebuild our damaged roads will take time, but East Riding of Yorkshire Conservative Councillors have made a pledge that we as a Council will undertake this work”.

North Cave litter pick yields almost 50 bags of rubbish

A litter pick was carried out on sides of the B1230 as it passes through the village of North Cave, this as part of the ‘Wallingfen Way Project - a scheme to improve and develop the road as it continues through the villages of Gilberdyke and Newport as well as North Cave.

Many thanks to the 21 people who gave their time free of charge, including Parish Councillors, members of North Cave in Bloom, First Responders, the Womens Institute and other people who took part in wanting the village to be clear of unwanted litter and rubbish. (you're all great!).

We collected almost 50 bags of litter, plus a lot of other rubbish, including goodly amounts of vehicle parts.

I am told that my 2½ hours raised £16.68 in matched funding from the LEADER programme, with the other volunteers achieving the same. This money has been made available for this worthwhile project and will be initially spent on landscaping, and the planting of shrubs and trees along the B1230 through our villages.

The Coast, Wolds, Wetlands and Waterways LEADER funding programme was launched in April of last year. The area covers most of the rural East Riding of Yorkshire as well as parts of Ryedale and Scarborough.

Special thanks to North Cave Parish Council Chairman Steve Skipsey (pictured) although not able to pick up the litter, played a key role in organising the morning’s activities.

Staff proud to work for the East Riding of Yorkshire Council

The East Riding of Yorkshire Council conducted its annual workforce survey in November 2010, the 2,769 responses showed a positive increase in some areas, notably in pride in working for the Council which has increased by 3% to 72%.

This is very positive if coupled with the attendance rates and average days lost to sickness falling to around 7.5 days per year, this despite the incidences of swine flu and other winter viruses, plus the bad weather. These figures are something the Council staff should be extremely proud of, and compare very well with most Local Authorities and other public services.

I think the East Riding of Yorkshire Council employees do a terrific job and are a credit to the Authority. The Council has placed itself in a stronger position than many other local authorities by anticipating and planning carefully for funding reductions before they were announced by the Government in December. The Council has been asked to find £30 million of savings over the next four years, but most importantly has already approved savings of £9.5million which will be achieved through projects to improve productivity and service delivery.

The budget approved by council will result in the reduction of up to 145 posts across the Council over the next two years although this will be lower through redeployment and retraining. This compares very favourably with our neighbouring authorities which in some cases are looking at four figure job losses.

What is particularly galling is the posturing and scare mongering of Goole’s Labour Coucillors in last week’s Goole Times when they ‘estimated a further 500 council jobs would have to be cut’ – SOMETHING THAT IS COMPLETELY UNTRUE. They have both had plenty of opportunities to raise this during the Council’s budget setting process and the last Council meeting, but failed to do so – in fact if I recall correctly the Leader of the Labour group complimented the Council on its strong financial position.

What the two Goole Labour Councillors should consider is the effect these untrue scare stories have on the moral of the Council employees and their families, and they should certainly not forget that it was their previous Labour Government that got us into this mess in the first place.

No reduction in fire appliance crewing - as Fire Chief goes back to the drawing board

As one of the Conservative Councillors who vehemently opposed the downsizing of provision at the Goole Fire Station in July 2008, it will come as little surprise that I strongly opposed the general thrust of the proposals to reduce spending by some £7million being put forward by the Humberside Fire Chief to the Humberside Fire Authority members who met this past week.

(picture with David Davis MP on a visit to Goole Fire Station)

The Chief’s plan for the reduction of Fire Appliance crewing down from 5 fire-fighters down to 4 was most contentious - and in this respect I am grateful that the Fire Authority members have listened to what many people said as part of the consultation process, and rejected this key proposal.

Unfortunately my other major concern for changing of the crewing arrangements for specialist appliances attending road traffic collisions, was approved by the Fire Authority members.

But I can accept the proposals for changes to the Command Unit crewing and technical rescue fire station crewing arrangements, and also changes to the Operational Command to give a more flexible duty system.

Fire Chief Frank Duffield is quoted as saying “We have to look at all of the options; I am disappointed the members have chosen to reject some, but I understand they are responding to the consultation. The authority has now tasked me with finding that shortfall, so we will be going back to the drawing board and come up with further suggestions.”

The Government has made it clear that the cuts in public spending following the Comprehensive Spending Review should not, where possible, reduce front line services but rather that savings should be made through further partnership working, cutting back office support, curbing excessive spending and eradicating economic wastage.

“When the Fire Chief goes back to the drawing board I would suggest that instead of looking at cuts to front line services, more emphasis should be given to reducing non-operational officers and by exploring local partnership arrangements with other public services. I hope that lessons are learnt from the scrapping of the plans for a Regional Call Centre in West Yorkshire that the Fire and Rescue Service does not go down the regionalisation route to look for further savings. I believe it is essential that Humberside Fire and Rescue Service look at improved localised partnership working as a driver to cut costs, as stated in their own Strategic Plan.”

Subsidised buses from Bubwith and HOSM to Woldgate College to continue

As a result of many Holme On Spalding Moor (HOSM) and Bubwith parents raising the issue of the continued funding for the school buses from the villages to Pocklington's Woldgate College, I called a meeting with the College Head Jeff Bower and Business Manager Hugh Peake, and ERYC transport and education Officers to thrash out a solution to enable the subsidised service for pupils choosing to attend the College to continue.

A resolution was reached which means the current arrangement where pupils pay £180 per year is extended for the next academic year 2011/12, and which fits with the East Riding of Yorkshire Council’s (ERYC) policy for bussing pupils into a school from outside the catchment area.

The Head confirmed that this will be a “rolling arrangement subject to review each year”.

The College has accepted responsibility for those pupils travelling on the bus from HOSM and Bubwith and will continue to recover funding from them as at present. It is important that the College be accountable for organising the allocation of places for HOSM and Bubwith children, as this will ensure that the buses are operated in a controlled way.

There are two buses involved: 1W that serves Bubwith through to Holme on Spalding Moor and 2W that has been rerouted to pick up in Holme on Spalding Moor.

Parents must inform the College of those HOSM and Bubwith pupils who wish to travel on the bus 1W (to a maximum of 38), and those HOSM pupils who wish to travel on 2W bus (maximum 28). The college will then need to provide the ERYC with names, addresses, DOB and photo ID by 19th August, 2011.

The ERYC will send out bus passes to home addresses prior to the start of the autumn term.
A strict no pass no travel scheme will be operated. If there are more than 66 passengers’ alternative arrangements will need to be made by the College and parents as no additional pupils will be allowed to travel on these buses.

As we have seen during the present year, some pupils will no longer wish to travel on the buses leaving spaces for those that do. At any time over the year if a pass is returned another pass can be issued to another pupil.

“This is certainly a good compromise with parents continuing to have choice as to where their children are educated whilst contributing a nominal amount for the transport cost, with the College picking up the remainder and the ERYC taking care of the tendering process and some of the administration – a great example of what can be achieved by sitting around a table and working out the issues.”

Proud to yet again be part of the 'Marie Curie Great Daffodil Appeal’

It was great to yet again be part of the ‘Great Daffodil Appeal’ raising much needed funds to help Marie Curie Nurses care for people with cancer and other terminal illnesses. Five wonderful ladies and I gave two hours of our time in Howden dressed ‘appropriately’ in yellow hats and tabards raising money by handing out small cotton lapel daffodils. In the two hours we managed to raise £405.73

This was followed by lunch with the five ladies who turned out to be ‘ladies who lunch’ - to be in the company of not one, not two, not even three, nor four, but FIVE charming ladies has made my whole week!

(Pictured with Jackie Cox - one of the 'Ladies who Lunch')

Special thanks to the local Marie Curie fundraising superstar that is local Pauline Hornsey for organising everything – she is certainly one of my heroes!

I have again committed to the Humber Bridge midnight walk during the summer – and promised Pauline that this year I will take part dressed as Elvis!