Gilberdyke landfill site ordered to stop taking waste

Today the Environment Agency issued a notice to stop any more waste entering the Gilberdyke Landfill site; this as a result of the operator City Plant Ltd still not complying with its environmental permit. As from 13th February 2012, waste cannot be brought on to the site until the level of waste in the landfill has been reduced to those set out in the permit.

The operator will also have to demonstrate to the Environment Agency that there is sufficient capacity left in the site to start taking in waste, once the level has been reduced. They will then have three months to reduce the site to the agreed levels.

A decision has not yet been made about City Plant Ltd.’s application to increase the annual tonnage limits on the permit from 70,000 tons per annum to 200,000 tons.

The visual height of the landfill is the responsibility of East Riding of Yorkshire Council as the local planning authority, and just last week the Council has took the first step to enforce a height reduction on the site, by formally requesting from the tip operators a timescale for bringing the height to the permitted level. A response is required by 2nd February 2012. Unfortunately at around the same time City Plant Ltd submitted a scoping request to the Council to regularise the height of the tip at its present level, this serves to delay the process.

I have little sympathy for City Plant Ltd – they have put the local communities through the mincer with foul smells, dust, mud, litter and intolerable amounts of HGV movements. The Company has played the system, by cynically and deliberately tipping quantities of waste far in excess of allowed annual quantities and at heights above double what is permitted - then submitting a retrospective requests to the EA to increase the annual tonnage and a scoping request/planning application to the ERYC to increase the tip height. But as with most things – what goes around comes around.

Although this is not the end of the matter, the Environment Agency has demonstrated it has the teeth and is prepared to use them. It is now up to City Plant Ltd, they have to come up with a realistic and acceptable plan or they will tip no more after 13th February 2012.

Environment Agency regulatory officer Matthew Woollin said: “It’s important that we control the amount of waste at the site because we issue the permit based on a set figure to protect the environment. We understand the community’s concerns and we are working hard to resolve this issue.”

To get to this stage has taken a great deal of patient work by a number of people over what seems like an eternity, and I know that residents have complained that nothing had been happening, but today we see the result. Many thanks go to Newport Parish Council and Chairman Roy Hunt in particular, residents of both Newport and Gilberdyke who never gave up the fight, and the local EA officers who have made this important step possible.

City Plant Ltd has two months to appeal against the Environment Agency notice.

Proud to be elected as the Chair of the new Goole & Howdenshire ‘Community Partnership’

This week I was delighted to be elected as the unpaid Chair of the new ‘Community Partnership’ for the Goole, Howdenshire, Snaith, Airmyn, Rawcliffe and Marshland area. Representatives from all the Town and Parish Councils, and those from the partner organisations including the Police, Fire Service, Health and the Voluntary Sector) were entitled to vote.

Many will recall I was the first Chair of the Goole and Howdenshire Local Action Team (LAT), which was the first LAT in the East Riding, and widely acknowledged as being one of the most effective. I was very proud of what the public service partners and the voluntary sector achieved by working together during my tenure as Chairman, but we were just getting started, and there is so much still to do.

The Community Partnership is a continuation of the previous Local Action Team (LAT), but also brings together under the same umbrella the previous Police and Partners Community Forums and the 3 Neighbourhood Action Teams which operated in the area. The Partnership’s role will be in local problem-solving, addressing issues of concern to local communities, as well as crime reduction and liaison between the police and the public.

The Community Partnerships will fulfil this function by :

1) Focussing on local problem-solving and adopting a multi-agency approach to solve local problems in their communities.

2) Providing a first point-of-contact for town and parish councils, and partners, for the full range of issues relating to the local area and providing the necessary linkages with partner services relevant to issues within that locality.

3) Providing ‘triage’ or ‘initial signposting’ to the appropriate partner service provider for requests for service or complaints and retaining those which are appropriate for consideration by the Community Partnership where multi-agency involvement is required. Other issues will be referred directly to Ward Members or partner services.

4) Representing and engaging with local communities while communicating LSP priorities, and developing objectives and priorities tuned to their localities.

5) Acting as an enabler linking local communities with LSP action groups and partners.

6) Working in partnership with the Police to identify crime and safety concerns and agreeing local priorities and contribute towards a reduction in recorded crime and anti-social behaviour.

7) Using a problem-solving approach to crime reduction by developing positive activities and projects that improve the local community, act as deterrents or diversionary activities to potential offenders.

8) Improving engagement and relationships with town and parish councils, engendering a local flavour and the opportunity for the greater development of local relationships and special local knowledge.

9) Working with town and parish councils to support bids for the pilot Parish Grant scheme, and carry out initial vetting and administration of the allocation of funds.

10) Taking the lead in engagement events in their localities and undertaking other public consultation as requested by the LSP Board or Council to increase local participation for a range of issues involving partners to benefit the local community by improving their quality of life and well-being, or where the LSP Board wish to use the opportunity to visit local communities.

11) Supporting parish plans, community profiles and contributing to cluster parish outcomes that are best achieved at a multi-parish level.

12) Providing a platform through which local people can have a voice on decisions which affect them and help resolve local community problems.

13) Involving communities in the planning, development, delivery and quality of local public services.

I believe in allowing town and parish councils and community groups to have more say in things that happen locally, have more powers to deliver services if they wish, and have more input on how money is spent in their villages.

To take forward the Community Partnership will require a great deal of innovation and forward thinking. I feel the members of the team have the skills, drive and enthusiasm to make it work well, and I relish the chance to once again lead the group of public sector and voluntary sector partners, to consolidate what we already have – and to work closely with the town and parish councils, and community groups to build something very good for our area.

So lots of work to do with no payment whatsoever!

Beagle Farm plans thrown out at appeal

The Robinson's have a beagle called 'Lou' (pictured above), she is a great friend and very much part of the family.

I am therefore very pleased that a company breeding beagle dogs for animal experiments has lost its case at appeal. The US Company B & K Universal was originally refused permission to expand its facilities at Grimston in the East Riding of Yorkshire by the Council's Planning Committee. This after it sparked public outcry, many letters and emails, and increased security at County Hall on the day of the meeting.

The Company which had been seeking consent to breed up to 2,000 beagles at a time for experiments, has now been told by Communities Secretary Eric Pickles that its application has been rejected.

Great News!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unfair Sutton Bridge weight limit saga is coming to an end

The long running saga of the Sutton Bridge temporary weight limit is coming to an end. It has been confirmed that the weight limit on the bridge is to expire on Saturday 10th March 2012 and an order has been placed to remove the weight restriction signs, this is planned to take place on the following Monday, 12th March 2012.

This will mean the HGV movements will once again be equalised between all communities, rather than Bubwith, Foggathorpe and Holme on Spalding Moor having to bear more than their fair share as we have seen since the weight limit was imposed to allow maintenance of the bridge.

Congratulations to all residents and the three Parish Councils for their tenacity and hard work to ensure this unfair situation is shortly to be resolved. Please see past blogpost here for full story

Coriolis Energy tries to move goalposts on Spaldington Wind Farm access

Spaldington Airfield Wind Farm developers Falck Renewables and their agents Coriolis Energy are looking to move the ‘goalposts’ after the Planning Inspector granted them planning consent for a 5 turbine wind farm just outside the Howdenshire village of Spaldington, by submitting a planning application to change the previously approved access to the site. (detail shown on map above)

One of the accusations levelled at Coriolis Energy in the past has been their lack of engagement with local people, and we see that they have not learnt from previous experiences in Spaldington, as we yet again see a planning application with little or no consultation with nearby residents.

The original agreed access route to the site for all "normal" HGV traffic and the abnormal loads (crane & turbine parts) was from Howden along the A614 to the Spaldington Lane junction at Ivy House Farm (water tower), along the whole length of Spaldington Lane to the Boothferry Golf Club and then up the B1228 (Bubwith Road) to the CFS/ITS entrance.

The revised plans now show a change in the route with a new access being created directly off Spaldington Lane, which will have some benefits for one property, plus of course the Golf Club (the owner of which is also one of the landowners on which the turbines are to be constructed), who if the plans are approved, will see very few HGV movements connected with the construction. But interestingly the planned new access is now adjacent to Sandwood House, this being the property of the recent Chairman of the STOP anti-wind farm group who has obviously no interest in the wind farm.

This smacks of being a rather suspicious tactic employed by the developer and the landowner, to minimise the impact that construction traffic will have on the Golf Club. On speaking to a number of Spaldington residents, they think it is nothing more than a cynical ploy to bully and punish the STOP group for standing up to them.

Having studied the hard copy of the application it appears that it is only one property that will be adversely affected by the new access. Almost everyone else would face the same level of construction disruption that ERYC Highways and the Inspector have already found to be acceptable. There will be an increase in the total of HGV journeys to construct the new access road, but I assume this will be relatively small. With the wind farm already approved I think it is likely that ERYC will, unfortunately, look favourably on this application for a new entrance on Spaldington Lane. But having said that there seems to be no reason why the access cannot be moved further away from the boundary with Sandwood House, and I would urge Coriolis Energy to go back to the drawing board and amend their plans accordingly.

Tip Operators Look To Heap More Misery On Gilberdyke & Newport Residents

At present City Plant Ltd, the owners and operators of the Gilberdyke Landfill Site have a licence that allows them to input about 70,000 tonnes of waste per annum into the tip. They have recently applied for a licence that, if approved, would almost triple this level to 200,000 tonnes.

I have serious concerns regarding the potential for over filling this site especially when it is clear the height limit has already been exceeded by a considerable amount. I would like to see this tip filled to the approved height and capacity, capped with clay, and appropriately landscaped as soon as possible.

I would therefore urge the Environment Agency to consider the following arguments for rejecting the application:

Currently, waste being deposited at the site is being tipped at heights that are above the limits allowed by both the Environment Agency (EA) and East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC).

It is widely felt that the environmental impact we have seen from moving the waste around the site has a significantly negative effect on the amenity of Newport due to the increase in gases escaping from the waste. I want, as soon as possible, for the site to move to a situation where waste is deposited, left in situ and capped at the correct height. To achieve this will involve waste being moved from its present location above the approved height down to a compliant level, and accept this will generate further smells in the short term. It seems to me that until the height limits are adhered to, it would make more sense to stop the input of further waste onto this site rather than allow an almost three-fold increase.

Whilst it is understood that the EA and ERYC are separate organisations, the EA are aware that the planning application made in March last year stated very clearly that the void, or remaining capacity of the site, was then 104,000 tonnes. From the vehicle counts carried out by residents and the average weight carried by the lorries, it is reasonable to estimate that between 60 and 70 vehicles per day (5 days per week) visit the site carrying an average of between 15 and 20 tonnes (this is a City Plant Ltd estimate). This would suggest that since April between 180,000 and 280,000 tonnes of material have been deposited already. Thus, either the site already has more material deposited than it can hold or the 104,000 tonne figure was inaccurate.

Given the doubt about the remaining capacity of the tip, surely any application to increase waste inputs can only be established after a thorough survey has been carried out to determine any remaining capacity. Again, the threat to the amenity of the villages of Gilberdyke and Newport if it transpires that thousands of tonnes of waste have, at a later date, to be removed from the site, must weigh against the application

I am confident that the EA and ERYC will work together, and this expectation is shared by residents, to ensure that neither organisations’ actions leads to a situation whereby an approval from one authority could negatively impact a condition imposed by the other. Whilst some might understand that the EA works to different rules, the general public is less understanding and would see as bizarre a situation occurring whereby the EA sanction higher levels of tipping on a site that may already be overfull from a planning perspective.

The EA is currently in a position where there are two breaches of permit notices outstanding and there are other problems that they are aware of. Unfortunately, the EA transferred the environmental permit to City Plant Ltd when the EA were aware that the site was in breach of permit. Having lost that opportunity to insist that the site be made compliant before transferring the licence, there is now a second opportunity to withhold approval of this application until the site is made compliant.

If it transpires that the current annual waste input level to the site has already been exceeded, surely all tipping should be stopped until such time as a new licence is issued – This would certainly focus the minds.

Should anyone also like to object to (or support) this application to increase the amount of waste that can be tipped on the site, letters of emails can be sent to the following:

Matthew Woollin
Environment Agency (Willerby)
1 Viking Close
Great Gutter Lane (East)
Willerby
Hull
HU10 6DE
e-mail: matthew.woollin@environment-agency.gov.uk

Appalling Gilberdyke Tip Problems Given Oxygen Of Publicity

The appalling problems with the Gilberdyke Tip were well and truly brought out into the open yesterday, when we saw the East Riding Mail, Radio Humberside, KCFM, and both local TV News programmes namely Look North and Calendar running the story, which first appeared in the Goole Times last week.

Many thanks to Kevin Clifford, Parish Council Chairman Roy Hunt, and all those who took part in Dave Burns' phone in on Radio Humberside yesterday morning which can be found on the BBC iplayer here (my contribution is at 2hrs 6mins in)

The East Riding Mail is running the story again today and can be found here

I hope the fact that the media are running this story so powerfully yesterday and today will give the required impetus to influence the decision makers into action.

The Onward March Of The Machines

People recently travelling along the M18 will not have failed to notice the massive wind turbine towers soaring over Thorne and Moorends – these bladeless monsters are remarkably reminiscent of those large aggressive robotic beasts, terrifying people and attacking communities in the film ‘War of the Worlds’.

Fully functional tri-bladed monsters have already advanced to our western border, where they stand over and intimidate the good people of Airmyn from the far side of the River Ouse, this stealthy advance to our border allowed and approved of by our neighbours.

Somewhat larger second generation monster turbines are already on their way to invade Howdenshire from the south, they plan to march into Sixpennywood, between Gilberdyke and Howden and cast their long shadows over Balkholme, this invasion was approved by the previous government’s appointed Planning Inspector against both the will of the people, and ERYC Planning Committee.

Shortly after we will see a further approved invasion, this time from the north east as the tri-bladed monsters make their way down from the Wolds to settle menacingly above Sancton, spoiling the much valued view of the hills, and no doubt paving the way for further invasions from the north.

It may be that before this advance from the north east is fully realised, we see an approved outpost established just outside Holme upon Spalding Moor, as two huge humming tri-bladed monster centurions are erected to guard the Gallymoor landfill site.

Needless to say a powerful and well-funded invasion on the southern front was halted by a courageous rear-guard stance by the village of Spaldington, who last year went into battle against not one, but two wind farm companies seeking to build giant wind turbines at each side of their small village. To fight this battle the community raised in excess of £80,000 to enable a courageous leader, Barrister Tina Douglas & her team of expert witnesses to be employed, and under this leadership, true grit, fortitude and the British bull-dog spirit shone through, and by putting together a fantastic case at the public enquiry, the result was that one wind farm application was thrown out by the Planning Inspector and the other conditioned in such a way that the turbines will not be able to operate at full capacity because of noise. It was an honour and a privilege to charge over the hill into battle alongside those brave Spaldington warriors.

One would have thought the Spaldington warriors had gone through enough and deserved a break, to lick their wounds, take time to reflect and to recoup their financial losses, but alas warfare is never like that. I received notice just before Christmas that more invaders from the south were on the march, this time planning to bypass Spaldington and group at a place further north towards Holme upon Spalding Moor and Foggathorpe. A letter from RWE npower renewables informed me that they had recently started to investigate the potential for wind farm development on land North of Spaldington around Gribthorpe and Arglam, and that they would be submitting a planning application to the East Riding of Yorkshire Council for an anemometer mast.

The company acknowledges that it is aware of the recent ‘Battle of Spaldington’ and has learnt from it. They have studied those applications, and they are giving careful thought to how their proposals would fit with the consented wind farm. They also state that they are taking into account the reasons for refusal for the Spaldington Common wind farm to ensure they can work with the community and key stake holders to design a wind farm that is suitable for the area. They then purport to recognise the importance and sensitivity of the recent decisions…. Is this the action of a desperate enemy trying to lull us into a false sense of security one wonders? But they will ignore at their peril the fact that the ‘Spaldington Warriors’ are only resting, rebuilding and rearming for any future challenge.

We should also not forget the threat from Goole Fields, for there is also a great army of huge tri-bladed monsters ready and waiting to be amassed south of the River Ouse, and stacked in rows to intimidate us from over the water.

But as in that great ‘Terminator’ movie franchise, the forces for good have been able to capture and reprogram not just one, but two of the tri-bladed machines, adopted and renamed by the Children of Howden, and now working for the good of Howdenshire as they stand proudly over the water treatment works at Loftsome Bridge. With each turn of their mighty blades the water we drink is pumped and purified.

The largest of the tri-bladed machines are to be placed off our coastline, which will hopefully serve to protect and guard us from any 'further advances' emanating from the EU.

My message is, we have to be vigilant, we have the knowhow gained from the ‘Battle of Spaldington’ and we have the determination - but we also have the confidence that the monsters have a lifespan of only 25 years and we can outlive them – just like we can outlive the career of the Climate Change Minister!

Are those lights from a 'piste machine' on a ski slope or just Gilberdyke's Landfill Mountain?

I heard an interesting comment from a Gilberdyke resident over the weekend, “I feel like I’m on a skiing holiday, when every evening I look across to see a piste machine battering the ski slopes of the mountain over there.”

Needless to say he was referring to the lights from the machinery working on the Gilberdyke Tip, which has grown to such heights to be frankly laughable, if it was not so serious.

I recently chaired a difficult meeting of the Tip Liaison Committee when it was confirmed that the tip has recently changed hands and is now both owned and operated by City Plant Ltd, it was also established that the operators had deliberately breached the planning conditions by tipping at considerable heights above the permitted 8.0m level, with the reality being that the company have actually tipped to a level which has effectively doubled the permitted height, and they had recently breached the Environment Agency permit regarding mud on the roads surrounding the site. But most worryingly, due to ‘misunderstandings during the planning process’ the community was now faced with a further two years tipping to fill or perhaps overfill the site rather than the one year envisaged.

The City Plant Ltd consultant, Kevin Wanlass, was asked when the levels of the tip would be reduced to the permitted height; I was very disturbed to have my fears confirmed that instead of reducing the tip height to the permitted 8m level, the operators are likely to submit a planning application to maintain the existing levels. I view this as a disgraceful, deliberate and cynical ploy on the part of City Plant Ltd, and I will be consulting with the East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC) to take appropriate action to make the height of the tip compliant as soon as possible.

I made it quite clear that I was not happy for anything other than the permitted heights to be met on the site and it was highly unlikely that anything other than this would be supported by the local community.

Fellow community representative and Newport Parish Council Chairman Roy Hunt and I also raised the issue of mud on the roads from the tip, namely Newport’s Leatherdog Lane and Thimblehall Lane, and the many complaints received. It was confirmed that many calls of complaint had been received by the ERYC, the Environment Agency and the Parish Council; it was interesting that one of the tip representatives said it was only muddy on one day; this was robustly challenged and contradicted by Roy Hunt, who confirmed that he’d witnessed and had photographs of mud on a number of consecutive days.

I find the mud on the road to be totally unacceptable, and subsequent to the meeting rode along the roads, and witnessed the crude attempts at wheel washing by the operators. I raised this issue again with the Environment Agency the following week and demanded action. It was later confirmed that on 20th December an enforcement notice on City Plant Ltd was issued for a breach of the permit conditions relating to mud. Failure to comply with the notice by the end of January will be an offence, which I am hoping will spur City Plant Ltd into installing proper facilities as soon as possible to stop the mud leaving the site rather than trying to clean the roads with road-sweepers afterwards. It seems incredible that this site was allowed to continue to operate after the previous facilities were removed with the obvious impact on road users, particularly during wet weather.

The operators have installed gas collection equipment on the tip, including a new gas flare at the site entrance, although very welcome as this should reduce some of the foul stink emanating from the site, the gas flare was installed without planning consent.

Clarification was also sought regarding lorries NOT using the site weighbridge, it was alleged by City Plant Ltd. that all lorries entering the site to tip waste passed over the weighbridge, although lorries bringing material to the site for engineering operations would not as they were not delivering waste. Further clarification was sought on this by the community representatives because of multiple claims that lorries were seen entering and leaving the site without passing over the weighbridge either on entry or exit.

It was established that any complaints from residents about the operation of the tip should be made to the Environment Agency by telephone on 0800 807060.

The issue of site working outside the permitted hours of operation was also raised. I stated that it would be a lot better for the local community if the company could let people know what was happening on the site and what measures they were being taken to resolve any problems. A pro-active as opposed to a re-active approach should be promoted. The Council Planning Officer said that the operators should let the local Council know if they were planning on doing any work outside the parameters of the planning permission. This could then be shared with community representatives and agreement reached before the activity took place.

A Happy & Successful New Year to all readers

Once again, many thanks to all of you for taking the time to read my blog this past year. It has been an interesting year for me as a blogger, with an increased readership and an all-time high for hits on one day in November – the day after I was hauled before the East Riding of Yorkshire Council’s Standards Committee over comments made by others on the blog.

To see the story rocket around cyberspace and be re-posted on so many blogs and websites, including by Tim Montgomerie on conservativehome, and to read all the comments, emails and messages of support, meant that the minimal censure the Committee imposed became somewhat meaningless. The wider debate in the media clearly indicated that freedom of speech will not be stifled.

The wonder of Google means that many of my old blogposts still get regular hits, and the increased use of Facebook and Twitter (follow me at #paul12clear) has resulted in many more re-postings.

2011 has been a really good year for me personally, with many ups - but surprisingly few downs. Amongst other achievements, I have managed to get the new company website up and running – and, yes, it has its own blog which can be found here.

One of the year’s highlights was being re-elected to represent Howdenshire in May’s local elections. The fantastic numbers of votes I received from all the parishes (including the Gilberdyke Parish Council election) that make up Howdenshire, vindicated the stance I had taken on a number of issues. These ranged from wind farms, landfill sites, affordable housing and flood relief, to senior Council employee early retirement packages. The election saw an increase in the Conservative majority and brought some really good new councillors to County Hall. The age profile of councillors was brought a little more into line with the area demographics with the election of the youthful duo of Josh Newlove (Labour) and Bradley Birmingham (Conservative) both of whom are in their twenties.

The election result was tempered a little by the ERYC Council Leader’s decision to remove me from my previously held position as Chairman of the Goole and Howdenshire Local Action Team, and from the Council’s Planning Committee. The level of support I subsequently received from the public was very humbling and sometimes came from unexpected quarters. I’m really enjoying my role as a backbencher, but people keep reminding me of that famous quote of Arnold Schwarzenegger – “I’ll be back!” - Who knows?

If I could give an award to the community of the year it would be to Spaldington, who went into battle against not one, but two wind farm companies seeking to build giant wind turbines at each side of their village. This community raised in excess of £80,000, employed their own barrister and expert witnesses, and showed true teamwork in putting together a fantastic case at the public enquiry, with the result that one wind farm application was thrown out by the planning inspector and the other conditioned in such a way that the turbines will not be able to operate at full capacity because of noise. It has been an honour and a privilege to work with the people of Spaldington.

A close second would be Gilberdyke, where we have seen a great example of the community taking responsibility for themselves in the construction of the flood relief culvert. This, coupled with the snow clearing efforts at the end of the previous year, shows that localism is alive and kicking here and in many other East Riding villages. The Government’s Localism Act should enable more power, decision making and spending to cascade down to the local level – I for one will be pushing for this to happen in Howdenshire over the next year.

One of my most satisfying experiences was in my role as a governor at Howden Secondary School and Technology College. As a part of ‘Team Howden’ we pulled the school out of special measures in record time and the pupils achieved their best ever exam results at the end of the year. I have every confidence that the momentum will continue and that this year will be even better.

I’ve also enjoyed doing a number of fundraising activities, including the Humber Bridge Midnight Walk (dressed as Elvis!) and speaking about my ‘African Odyssey’ to a number of groups. I had received many requests to talk on this subject and this was the year I finally bit the bullet. I look forward to doing more talks next year, beginning with the W I in February.

In conclusion, I will continue to engage with the community and champion free speech via my blog and other social networking media, or by ‘Witchcraft’ (as some of my colleagues would have it), and who knows - we may see a couple of other ERYC Councillors blogging in the coming year?

It has been a pleasure to represent Howdenshire, and East Riding residents during 2011 and I will do my utmost to speak up for, and fight their causes during 2012.

I wish you all a very Happy and Successful New Year

Democracy prevails in Gilberdyke - but at what cost?

I don't normally allow posts by others on my blog, but Gilberdyke Parish Council Chairman Nick Norris (pictured) has asked me to post the following on his behalf regarding this past week's Gilberdyke Parish Council by-election.

Congratulations to Chris Newsome on winning the Gilberdyke Parish Council by-election and I look forward to working with him in the future.

Needless to say Gilberdyke taxpayers have had to stump up some £3,000 to pay for this by-election, an election called by just 10 Council tax payers as is the minimum required. The 10 in this case were family and neighbours of Mike Whitley, the losing candidate of the two who stood for the election and someone who has form when it comes to using £1,000’s of taxpayer’s money to further his own agenda.

The Gilberdyke Parish Councillors were democratically elected in May of this year; Mr Whitley failed in his quest to be elected by a considerable margin at that election. Due to one of the Councillors having to step down on health grounds a vacancy arose, and the decision of the 10 in calling the by-election after just 7 months means the taxpayer is saddled with having to pay for two elections in the one year.

I fully agree with the democratic process and everyone’s right to call for an election, and for anyone to put their name forward and be able to lay their case before the electorate. What I do not condone is the actions of a person, whose family and friends calling an election which resulted in that person receiving so little support - namely 83 votes out of a possible 2,557* and much, much fewer then he polled in the May election. This, when Chris Newsome was prepared to be co-opted onto the Parish Council at no cost to the taxpayer before the election was called.

I also have real problems with Mr Whitley when in his by-election literature it states that those Gilberdyke Parish Councillors elected in May, had somehow prevented a fair election at that time. I am tempted to ask for this disingenuous and offensive statement to be investigated, but to what end? For him to be reprimanded or censured after a lengthy investigation, costing and ultimately wasting even more taxpayer’s money.

I take the view that this by-election result shows conclusively that the Gilberdyke electorate has seen through Mr Whitley’s wild accusations, and seen his actions in delaying the flood relief work for what they were – the pursuit of a personal agenda that has resulted in increased costs and wasted time. They have also seen through his frivolous vexatious complaints about Parish Councillors, and particularly our ward Councillor Paul Robinson to the ERYC Standards Committee, they’ve seen through his threats, his complaints to the police, his letters in the press and statements on his website.

The Parish Council now has the opportunity to move forward on many important projects, and hopefully will not have to spend time on defending itself against the constant barrage of complaint and question from Mr Whitley as it as in the past. But unfortunately he will not be totally absent from our thoughts as we have to find some £3,000 from next year’s budget to pay for this by-election, so we will not be able to do as much as we’d planned.

The only reason that I have taken the time to compose this letter is that prior to the election result even being announced, Mr Whitley while standing alongside me actually said to another person present, ‘To be honest I didn’t think I had a chance of winning’. This admittance only confirmed to me that he was well aware that every single person within the Parish of Gilberdyke would have to pay for this election however he didn’t really care about the result.

Finally I would like to thank the people of Gilberdyke for sending out a clear message to Mr Whitley that enough is enough.

*Number of Gilberdyke voters at 1st December 2010

Nick Norris

Chairman, Gilberdyke Parish Council

November sees record high for Blog readers

Many thanks to all my blog readers for achieving the 2nd highest number of hits in a single month during November, the highest ever on a single day on 10th November, plus the highest number of 1st time visitors in any given month - Why you may ask? My altercation with the East Riding of Yorkshire Council’s Standards Committee over allowing third party comments on here…

Many thanks once again for all your support!

Gilberdyke Flood Relief Work Restarts After Delays

After all the delays, frustrations and the waiting, construction of the East Riding of Yorkshire Council funded second and third phases of the new Gilberdyke surface water drainage system is underway and should be complete within a few weeks. This £85k to £90k investment includes a 300mm diameter culvert which will connect the previously flooded properties on Westbrook Close and Westbrook Road to the new 900mm diameter culvert, funded by Gilberdyke Parish Council as phase one of the overall scheme. This first phase was completed some months ago by the same contractors and performed as designed during the heavy rainfall experienced on August 3rd this year - which offered some peace of mind for the residents flooded in June 2007.

Once complete this new drainage scheme will take a significant amount of surface water out of the village during heavy rainfall, reducing the pressure on the Yorkshire Water system, and existing surface water systems (which have also been improved by the East Riding of Yorkshire Council, the Lower Ouse Internal Drainage Board and Network Rail), therefore almost all Gilberdyke and Sandholme residents will benefit from a reduced flood risk in the future.

Although the conventional wisdom is that this type of work is best not done in the winter, but the on-going delays resulting from the mischief making from a very small number of residents have left the Council and their contractors with little option but to push on regardless.

I know that the delays experienced on the first phase did cost the Gilberdyke taxpayer more financially, and has had a knock on effect - but we are very lucky that this section was up and running before the rains seen in August.

Credit for this should be given not just to the Parish Council and the Flood Action Group, but also the Lower Ouse Internal Drainage Board, the East Riding of Yorkshire Council Land Drainage section, the consultants Mason Clark Associates, and the contractors L & K Warkup – all of whom had to put up with so much, but prevailed.

I hope that fewer problems are experienced on the second and third phases and the work is completed as soon as possible.

No respite for Spaldington as yet another wind farm planned

Many will be aware that the Howdenshire village of Spaldington has for this past two and a half years been fighting off two wind farm companies each wanting to construct overly large wind turbines close to the village. One application was granted consent recently at appeal but the other was dismissed....

One would have thought the residents had gone through enough and could do with a break, take time to reflect and time to recoup their financial losses.

I was therefore staggered this weekend to receive a letter from RWE npower renewables informing me that they had recently started to investigate the potential for wind farm development on land near Spaldington, and that they would be submitting a planning application to the East Riding of Yorkshire Council next week for an anemometer mast.

The letter acknowledges that the company is aware of the recent appeal decisions on the Spaldington Airfield and Spaldington Common Schemes and have studied those applications, and they are giving careful thought to how their proposals would fit with the consented wind farm. They also state that they are taking into account the reasons for refusal for the Spaldington Common wind farm to ensure they can work with the community and key stake holders to design a wind farm that is suitable for the area. They then purport to recognise the importance and sensitivity of the recent decisions…. Is this some sort of sick joke?

The community of Spaldington is still trying to recover from the imposition of one wind farm next to their village, having failed in their gallant attempt to fend off two wind farm developers at the same time, despite the village funding their own team of expert witnesses and a barrister at the recent Public Inquiry. So before the dust has settled, before those residents have the chance to reflect on what has been a difficult and costly year for them, we have another wind farm company putting forward plans for an alternative site next to their village.

My message to RWE npower renewables is simple, this may well turn out to be a wind farm in the right place, but where is the sensitivity you talk about in your letter, could you not wait until the residents of Spaldington had been given the time to reflect on their difficult year over the Christmas period? Your actions are akin to fighting over a dead man’s estate before the funeral has been held – you should be ashamed!

Am I a victim of 'Double Standards'?

Regular readers of this Blog will be aware of my most recent run-in with the Standards Board - the body who believe in principled local politics, which was set up at your expense to champion and promote high standards of conduct amongst our local politicians - but when is a politician a politician?

After a lengthy and protracted investigation by a highly paid consultant- for which you the taxpayer have to pick up the tab, I was cleared of all of the plethora of spurious and salacious allegations made by the complainant, Mr Mike Whitley, apart from one point for which I received the most insignificant sanction possible, a ‘censure’.

The points at issue appear to be that my blog is somehow considered an ‘official blog’ (as detailed in the Committee’s determination) and through it I conduct ‘the business of the council’ - and whether the Councillors code of conduct can be applied to those of you who comment on posts that I publish. It is clear and obvious that the answer is no in each case with some serious implications for free speech and the rule of law arising from the judgement.

You might have thought that the decision would be the end of it, but no. The details of the case have to be published in a local newspaper. So yesterday, the East Riding of Yorkshire Council’s Monitoring Officer published a notice detailing the findings. This included all the discredited allegations made against me.

In making his complaints Mr Whitley attempted to hide behind anonymity but was not allowed to do so – given that ruling, it is inconsistent that the complainant’s name was withheld from the notice. This means that the details of the unfounded accusations are laid bare for everyone to see but not the name of the person making them.

In many situations this would be perfectly acceptable but one of the reasons Mr Whitley was not allowed to hide his involvement is his habitual use of the Standards Board. He has made two other unsubstantiated and thoroughly discredited allegations against me and many separate complaints against other members of Gilberdyke Parish Council – all of which had to be investigated at taxpayer’s cost before being thrown out. He also made complaints about me to the Police which were without foundation and also dismissed. Not forgetting a complaint to the Police against the contractors installing the new culvert in Gilberdyke - they were accused of fly tipping the excavated soil at the side of the dyke! The motives for all this I cannot comment on.

Readers will be aware that Mr Whitley is a failed political opponent of mine, and the complaint was made in the run up to the May 2011 elections. Are these the actions of a concerned citizen or a political campaign using the taxpayer to fund a cynical attempt to gain some sort of electoral advantage? It’s not for me to decide.

These facts could not be tested as a part of my defence. Political exchanges between Councillors are considered to be ‘Rough and Tumble’- all part of the process. However this does not apply to candidates who are treated as any other member of the public. There are no standards applied to those would-be politicians seeking office.

So in a nutshell I cannot allow you as my blog readers to express your moderate opinions - but an unelected candidate can make wild, unsubstantiated accusations against me, and my fellow Parish Councillors including such things as embezzlement, misappropriation of funds, hiding money and siphoning off money, and make so many vexatious complaints to the Standards Committee and the Police. All of which are time consuming and costly to investigate – but when these accusations are found to be untrue the complainants name is kept out of the public domain – DOUBLE STANDARDS perhaps?

Pubs, Punters and Price Fixing

I heard someone say recently, "Pubs are like churches - not used all the time but there when you need them and both sadly suffering from falling rolls".

Often we hear about the ‘drinking culture’ in this country – true perhaps, but we shouldn’t necessarily be ashamed of that. This week, I had the great pleasure of listening to Lee Le Clerq from the Beer and Pub Association, who got me thinking about this.

I, for one, think alcohol is OK. Pubs and drink bring enormous enjoyment and benefits to individuals, communities and society as a whole.

What is not OK is the bad behaviour that too frequently accompanies alcohol consumption, serving alcohol to children or drinking to the extent that it causes physical or mental damage.

Alcohol has a dark side and its impact on individual health, family stability and our streets are all too apparent. However, let’s not lose sight of the fact that around 90% of the adult population drinks alcohol and most of us do know how to behave ourselves. Most licensees don’t sell alcohol to kids and thankfully most of us will not be burdened by alcohol-related illness.

The decline of the Local Pub

The government’s 1989 Beer Orders were introduced to reduce the apparent monopoly big brewing companies exercised in the pub sector. Today, the largest pub companies own many more pubs than the biggest national brewery estates back in 1990 – so large monopolies have in fact been replaced with larger ones.

The vast majority of these premises are tenanted or leased so while the pub company will own the freehold, the licensee is often committed to certain supply agreements in return for a low cost entry to the trade; the pub is run as an independent small business with the licensee responsible for its operation.

We then saw the introduction of the smoking ban in pubs, something I have serious issues with. I would have much preferred air quality legislation to force pubs to install appropriate extraction and filtration to maintain acceptable standards.

In addition, I don’t think a year has passed since the Licensing Act came in when we have not seen yet more laws, and dozens of regulations and restrictions primarily aimed at the pub trade. So much legislation in fact, that the government has found it necessary to run three separate series of road shows touring the country to explain the powers within the legislation.

Would minimum pricing help the pub industry?

The issue of minimum pricing is something largely driven by the public health lobby. A modelling study, carried out by Sheffield University in 2008, claimed that a 50p per unit minimum price would bring about a 6.9% reduction in overall alcohol consumption. This would, they predicted, lead to 97,700 less hospital admissions per year and the saving of around 3000 lives.

Since 2008, overall alcohol consumption (without minimum pricing) has dropped by more than 6.9%. As a nation we are now drinking 13% less than the peak in 2004 and yet – according to the health lobby - we are not seeing any such savings in lives or hospital admissions. On the contrary, these continue to rise. Of course there is a link between price and consumption but the link between national consumption levels and health is not as simple and clear cut as the Sheffield model suggested. They are currently revisiting their studies at the request of the Scottish Parliament and it will be interesting to see what they have to say this time around.

So, would a 50p unit price suddenly make the pub a significantly more attractive option than drinking at home? I suggest not.

Let’s consider 80p a unit, favoured by some members of the Scottish Labour Party. A pint of beer in packaged form in a supermarket would cost £1.60, still considerably cheaper than the same quantity in a pub. However, the cheapest bottle of spirit on a supermarket shelf would be priced at £24. The implication here is that at this price why anyone would buy blended whisky, when for very little more one could buy a 10 or 15 year old single malt? This would almost certainly signal the end of the Scotch whisky industry as it exists today, as the ‘wee dram’ became an elite beverage, only for the wealthy.

We’re told that sensible, moderate drinkers would be unaffected by minimum pricing but the evidence does not appear to support this. Would this reduce the consumption by heavy or dependent drinkers? Perhaps they would just spend a greater proportion of their income on drink, and as for deterring under-age drinkers a great many rarely pay for the alcohol they consume anyway.

Indeed, minimum pricing could be counter-productive by leading to an increase in the production and consumption of ‘moonshine’. Illegally produced alcohol is incredibly dangerous, sometimes containing levels of methanol high enough to cause instant blindness. What will be the cost to the NHS when those who want to drink turn to illegally produced alcohol, because they do not have the means to buy it legally, either in pubs or from shops?

The EU may have something to say if the Scottish Parliament tries to bring in minimum pricing, as there are indications that it would be illegal under UK legislation, namely the 1998 Competition Act, and these are laws that are not devolved to Scotland for them to amend at will.

What would the Office of Fair Trading do as the body responsible for monitoring price fixing in the UK? Will it take action against the Scottish Parliament if it embarks on such a scheme, or would it ignore it? There is no minimum pricing on anything anywhere in the EU so why start with alcohol?

I have often voiced my concerns regarding the ‘Tescofication of the high street’ and some of the large supermarket pricing policies are cynical, and have a detrimental effect on the suppliers, particularly farmers. The Government has recently announced the ‘below cost’ minimum pricing option which simply takes into account excise duty plus VAT which should ensure that supermarkets cannot sell alcohol below this price. This is, I think a positive step and goes a long way to address the issue of alcohol being a ‘Loss Leader’ for the supermarkets - so perhaps a little good news for pubs here.

The dilemma ....

We’re all consumers and the overwhelming majority of us use supermarkets. Do we really want the government artificially increasing prices to protect us from ourselves when the overwhelming majority of ‘ourselves’ need no such protection? If an argument is made for minimum pricing, why should it stop with alcohol? The NHS spends three times as much on combating obesity as it does on dealing with alcohol abuse. Would the next target be McDonalds? How dare they sell a calorie laden burger for only £1.99! Then there’s the inestimable environmental damage caused by global aviation. What if those advocating minimum pricing decide that we should no longer allow hard-working families to holiday abroad at ridiculously affordable fares?

The industry knows that it is necessary for sale of alcohol to be licensed, regulated and monitored. Pubs understand their responsibilities. It’s important that everyone who retails alcohol understands the regulations and complies with them, and the vast majority of our pubs do so. There should be no state interference in fixing prices – especially when the consequences cause more harm than good.

Thanks for all your support

I would just like to thank all of those who have offered me their support this week and continue to do so – friends, colleagues and those from across the political spectrum and around the world. I thank all of you that have blogged or reposted the story, including those through facebook (or that “form of witchcraft” according to some of my fellow East Riding Tory Councillors…).

The update 2 at the end of the previous blog post shows exactly what for I have been censured for.

Having read the post I realised that I made a startling omission - When making the complaint to the Standards Committee, Mr Whitley attempted to do so under the cloak of anonymity. His request was certainly at odds with his numerous critical letters referring to me in the Goole Times, the Goole Courier and the East Riding Mail, as well as his own Lib Dem site (closed since he deserted the Lib Dems for Labour) - clearly not the actions of a man looking to keep his name out of the public domain. Attempting to anonymously place a complaint to the Standards Committee in the run up to an election, where he was planning to stand against me, is in my opinion nothing short of cynical.

I am at least grateful that this request was not granted by the Standards Committee.

Some of those blogs/sites are carrying this story are:

Conservativehome blog

Taxpayers Alliance website

Carl Minns Blog - A View from Hull

HU12Online - The Hedon blog

John in Gilberdyke blog

and the great reporting by the East Riding Mail at here and especially here

A sad day for bloggers, a sad day for freedom of speech, and a sad day for democracy

Today I had to appear before the East Riding of Yorkshire Council’s Standards Committee to answer charges that in response to a posting on this blog, I had allowed two specific comments written by others to be published. I was found to have breached the Code of Councillors and received a written censure.

The complaint was brought by Mike Whitley of Gilberdyke, who stood against me as a Labour candidate at the May 2011 East Riding of Yorkshire Council and Gilberdyke Parish Council elections - he failed to be elected to either.

Although disappointed, I certainly feel that the Standards Committee was put in a very difficult position today because of the evidence and recommendation provided by the Council’s Monitoring Officer, and in only censuring me I appreciate that they gave me the absolute minimum punishment they could.

I am particularly disappointed that the evidence provided was as narrow as it was and resulted in the decision being made on a very technical point. Some of the evidence was subjective and some clearly wrong, and both the Monitoring Officer and Investigating Officer have some serious questions they need to answer, and I will be buying them both an English Dictionary for Christmas.

I have been censured not for anything I have said or done but for failing to censor the free speech of Howdenshire residents, who understandably feel strongly about the continued actions of an individual that has put their homes and livelihoods at risk.

I understood we have free speech in this country and unless a comment is defamatory or untrue I will continue to allow free speech and debate on my blog. I did not then and still do not, believe the key comment was defamatory and it is certainly true that Mark Twain did include such events in his novels. I accept that this is subjective and accept that the Committee did not share my understanding of the strength of feeling locally.

The Standards Regime is supposed to deal with wrongdoing in the public interest not give a voice to Political candidates to score points against their opponents. The committee was not allowed to look at the wider context of the repeated and unfounded complaints – (8 times this individual has referred me or Gilberdyke Parish Councillors to the Standards Board and every one cleared) and also reporting me to the Police which was also deemed to be unfounded. Conversely the Investigating Officer was free to attempt to mislead the committee and to raise other matters unrelated to the narrow accusation.

The Political context of the repeated complaints, and the totally untrue comments and accusations the complainant put into the public domain was also not considered.

In short the public has just paid for a failed political stunt.

Councillors who break the law should face the full force of the law - everything else is a matter for the electorate. If a Councillor does not reach the standards expected of them they will not be re-elected. I am at a loss to know what this process has achieved. A censure is meaningless but has cost an enormous amount of taxpayers’ money. A retired officer brought back at who knows what rates to undertake extensive investigations. How much has this cost and what services to our residents do we cut to pay for this?

If ever there was an example of why the Government is right to abolish this expensive and misused system, this is it. Absolutely nothing has been achieved and no difference has been made apart from the taxpayers get the bill for someone to pursue a personal, vexatious Political agenda.

I will continue blogging!

The East Riding News coverage of the story can be found here

Update - The paper copy of the newspaper article in addition carries an interesting quote from an unnamed fellow ERYC Conservative Councillor at County Hall:

"Many in our group believe facebook and Twitter are akin to witchcraft"

Oh dear, we really do need to drag ourselves into the 21st Century.....


Update 2 - The comment (not written by me) but which I allowed on my blog was, ‘In Mark Twain’s classic literature perpetrators of anti-social activity were stripped, tarred and feathered then ridden out of town on a rail. Not that I would suggest such a thing mind’

“Guidance published by Standards for England about blogging” – because there was other part of the guidance included in the Investigators report I can only assume this is what he used to base his decision and subsequent recommendation – This guidance quite clearly states that a comment has to be defamatory or obscene to be in contravention.

If one looks in the English Dictionary it says that, “defamatory remarks are not true and make people have a bad opinion of someone” (so logically any remarks have to be untrue before they can be defamatory)

The dictionary also states that obscene remarks are, “indecent, disgusting or likely to deprave or corrupt”

I’m still at a loss, because the advice I was given supported my thinking that there is nothing that could be considered UNTRUE, INDECENT, DISCUSTING or LIKELY TO DEPRAVE OR CORRUPT in the comment.

Roadworks the American Way - Lessons to be learnt?

Having spent some time in America this past couple of weeks, one thing that I was able to look into was roadworks, as this is somewhat topical around Howdenshire at the moment, and whilst driving in Alabama and Mississippi took the opportunity to investigate further as to how significant repairs and road construction are able to be carried out with seemingly minimum disruption to road users, and residents.

The first thing to notice was the lack of the 1,000’s of cones we see when roadworks are carried out locally, with the works are carried out at night when the roads are less busy, they appear to avoid peak traffic periods, and relatively short sections are started and completed before moving on to the next. There also seems to be fewer workmen and the road construction is somewhat simpler, without kerbs for the most part and constructed slightly higher than the verge to aid drainage.

The speed enforcement signage is also quite interesting, there are no fixed or variable speed cameras, to ‘trap the motorist’ along the whole section of the repair all of the time, instead there is a limit and double fines only when ‘workmen are in the road’ - not when they’re not, this is clearly signed and enforced by a combination of gun-toting State Troopers, Sheriffs and Local Enforcement Officers.

On talking to one of the construction teams working near the State border, they were a little surprised on seeing a ‘foreigner’ in those parts when I stopped to talk about roadworks, but quite amused when I described the way roads are repaired in England. It was clear that they looked at what could be done in a day (or night) and broke the whole job down into daily segments where they could plane the road surface, remove the scalpings and lay the new tarmac, before moving on to the next section the following day. The traffic is normally controlled by flags, stop/go boards and sometimes traffic lights, and diversions as a last resort.

Interestingly they described how the scalpings are recycled, remixed with tar and re-used as a base.

All in all a very different carry on to what we see in England, and some of their traffic management arrangements we could learn certainly learn from – BUT then there is that small issue of Health and Safety legislation which we would perhaps find difficult to get over.