Spotted on the Macclesfield Forum:
Some nice Town Hall action there...
Thursday, 9 April 2009
Wednesday, 8 April 2009
Cheshire East Website
As spotted by eagle-eyed Joe - Cheshire East council has been hijacked somewhat on the interweb.
Our site is there, it's fine, where it should be at www.cheshireeast.gov.uk.
However the sneaky fellas at macclesfieldforum have purchased the .co.uk domain, meaning that cheshireeast.co.uk will take you to the macc forum site.
I must admit that I'm quite pleased that they beat the crewe blog to it.
Our site is there, it's fine, where it should be at www.cheshireeast.gov.uk.
However the sneaky fellas at macclesfieldforum have purchased the .co.uk domain, meaning that cheshireeast.co.uk will take you to the macc forum site.
I must admit that I'm quite pleased that they beat the crewe blog to it.
Potholes
In the news yesterday was a small amount of discussion about potholes - which is a coincidence because I was with the chaps from Highways on Monday and got the chance to discuss this very subject.
As this jolly piece from the BBC points out, it's the weather that's mostly the cause of the potholes.
There is an interesting comment on the BBC site from a reader:
Yet there is a point here - and it's about unintended consequences.
Cheshire East council has a pothole policy which says that any hole larger than 2cm in depth on the road (1cm on the pavement) will be fixed within 24 hours of being reported. As well as relying on reports from the public* (I make it my business to report every pothole I find) the council also sends engineers out on major routes to locate surface defects. This policy is to protect individuals (cyclists and pedestrians are especially vulunrable) and to reduce the amount of claims we receive about damaged cars.**
This all seems good so far, and I'm sure that there's not many people who disagree with this (unless your some crackpot that wants a 10 minute pothole rapid response team).
This policy was intended to make roads safer - but it actually has the opposite effect.
Repairing potholes piecemeal is not cost effective. They are likely to reappear in the same place in the near future. This is because repairs are never as good anyway, and sometimes have to be made in non-ideal weather conditions. The best thing to do is resurface the whole road and create a clean, water tight seal over the carriageway.
But this can't be done in 24 hours, so we do an expensive quick fix.
This means that there is less money available for resurfacing. So more potholes appear, which have to be fixed, which means there is less money for resurfacing, which means more potholes....
You get the gist. We're firefighting. A policy that was intended to improve the quality of our roads has actually made them worse.
There must be a better way to do this. Can we have a longer turnaround and fix the holes better? How do we deal with the safety issues? Can we make it cheaper?
**********************************************************
* Use the reporting tool on the CE website. It's really rather good.
** Most of which I understand are successfully defended because we have a good policy towards defects which is rigorously implemented. We don't have to ensure the road surface is 100% perfect because that's obviously not possible. 24 hours is a very respectable turnaround.
As this jolly piece from the BBC points out, it's the weather that's mostly the cause of the potholes.
There is an interesting comment on the BBC site from a reader:
If the "compo culture" disappeared, would councils spend this extra £53m on fixing potholes? Why on earth do we allow people to sue councils and public services anyway?OK. Whilst we don't want people suing the councils left right and centre the thought of not being able to take legal action against a negligent council is more terrifying, so I don't think there's any chance of making progress there.
Yet there is a point here - and it's about unintended consequences.
Cheshire East council has a pothole policy which says that any hole larger than 2cm in depth on the road (1cm on the pavement) will be fixed within 24 hours of being reported. As well as relying on reports from the public* (I make it my business to report every pothole I find) the council also sends engineers out on major routes to locate surface defects. This policy is to protect individuals (cyclists and pedestrians are especially vulunrable) and to reduce the amount of claims we receive about damaged cars.**
This all seems good so far, and I'm sure that there's not many people who disagree with this (unless your some crackpot that wants a 10 minute pothole rapid response team).
This policy was intended to make roads safer - but it actually has the opposite effect.
Repairing potholes piecemeal is not cost effective. They are likely to reappear in the same place in the near future. This is because repairs are never as good anyway, and sometimes have to be made in non-ideal weather conditions. The best thing to do is resurface the whole road and create a clean, water tight seal over the carriageway.
But this can't be done in 24 hours, so we do an expensive quick fix.
This means that there is less money available for resurfacing. So more potholes appear, which have to be fixed, which means there is less money for resurfacing, which means more potholes....
You get the gist. We're firefighting. A policy that was intended to improve the quality of our roads has actually made them worse.
There must be a better way to do this. Can we have a longer turnaround and fix the holes better? How do we deal with the safety issues? Can we make it cheaper?
**********************************************************
* Use the reporting tool on the CE website. It's really rather good.
** Most of which I understand are successfully defended because we have a good policy towards defects which is rigorously implemented. We don't have to ensure the road surface is 100% perfect because that's obviously not possible. 24 hours is a very respectable turnaround.
Tuesday, 7 April 2009
Beer Tax vs. VAT
Noted at Mark Wadsworth and tipped off by SumoKing, some rather common sense about leveling the playing field for Supermarkets vs Pubs by looking at how we currently impose beer tax (on both) and VAT (on pubs only):
So if a pint of beer in a supermarket costs 80 pence, and a pint in a pub costs £2.40 (i.e. three times as much), the total tax on the pint from the supermarket is 50p but the total tax on the pint in the pub is 70p. Ask yourself...
1) What would happen if they went the whole hog and scrapped the beer tax entirely in some vague attempt to help pubs, and both supermarkets and pubs passed on the full saving to the consumer* - then the pint in the supermarket would fall to 40p and the pint in the pub would fall to £2. All of a sudden, a pint in the pub would cost five times as much as a pint from the supermarket that you drink at home. Would this help pubs? Methinks not.
2) What would happen if they went the on the other tack and scrapped VAT but increased beer tax to 55p per pint (in the interests of some sort of fiscal neutrality), and both supermarkets and pubs passed on the full tax changes to the consumer* - then the pint in the supermarket would increase to 95p and the pint in the pub would fall to £2.25. All of a sudden, a pint in the pub would only cost two-and-a-third times as much as in the supermarket. Would this help pubs? Methinks it would.
Ergo, if 'they' really want to help pubs via the tax system (rather than just scrapping the smoking ban), it's not the beer tax they should be looking at, it's the bloody VAT, The Worst Tax of All.
Yesterday
Found out a lot more about the Town Centre redevelopment and made some progress with the improvements I want to see with the town, found out about the average speed cameras planned for the cat and fiddle (possibly costing over £1 million?! You'll be hearing a lot more about this one...) and had a hall full of guide leaders sing happy birthday to me.
What a day.
What a day.
Thursday, 2 April 2009
Good News
I have just had an email from the most excellent Beth @ Groundwork Cheshire confirming that the grant for the play area has been received and the contractors have been instructed:
Good news - I have in my hand the grant agreement for £50k for the Weston Toddler Area from WREN!Now just to be clear - this is Macclesfield in spring time, so it seems likely that Hail, Snow and Torrential rain will probably prevent the works being completed on time, but at least it's all underway.
I have spoken to the contractor and they will be able to start on site on the 20th April. The latest the play area should be finished (barring any major problems) is 29th May.
A new dawn indeed
I have just received a phone call from an officer of the new council with regards to the information I mentioned in my blog post yesterday morning. (Which was written, if I'm honest, at a point where I was feeling pretty low about things).
As well as helping me along the current route I am pursuing, he has also suggested another couple of avenues that I could investigate.
Whilst I haven't got what I'm after yet (Rome wasn't built in a day), it's a refreshing change and an excellent start to Cheshire East.
As well as helping me along the current route I am pursuing, he has also suggested another couple of avenues that I could investigate.
Whilst I haven't got what I'm after yet (Rome wasn't built in a day), it's a refreshing change and an excellent start to Cheshire East.
Wednesday, 1 April 2009
Roadworks
An update and reminder on the gas works due to take place.
In addition to the works on Gawsworth Road, we will also have:
A reminder about Gawsworth Road:
In addition to the works on Gawsworth Road, we will also have:
Ivy Road - from junction of Bransdale Way moving towards Chester Road - two-way 24 hour traffic signals starting on Saturday 4th April -these works will not proceed beyond Earlsway until the works scheduled to start on Gawsworth Road next week have been completed.
A reminder about Gawsworth Road:
The effect of these restrictions will be to prohibit the driving of vehicles in that length of Gawsworth Road, Macclesfield between its junctions with Chelford Road/Broken Cross and Pexhill Road other than in a south-westerly direction (from Broken Cross towards Pexhill Road) whilst major gas main replacement works are carried out by Enterprise Ltd on behalf of National Grid Gas.
These restrictions will come into force on Monday 6th April 2009 and it is anticipated that these works will take approximately six weeks to complete.
The alternative route will be on a signed diversion route via Gawsworth Road, Earlsway, Ivy Road and Chester Road.
A new dawn, a new day....a new culture?
Today is the first day of the new Cheshire East Council - and I hope that you will indulge my longer than usual rant on a rather important subject.
When I started as a Cheshire East Councillor nearly a year ago, one of the things that struck me was how much a certain select group of existing Councillors bleated on about culture, secrecy, too many Councillors cosying up to officers, etc.
It didn't really strike a chord with me. I didn't believe that this could be the case. These were strong, political people who should easily be able to overcome obstacles such as these.
What's become clear over the last couple of months, as I've really started to stretch my limbs, is that it is the case. And more specifically, some Councillors would like it to stay that way. It's not that they have bad intentions - no Councillor I have met does - it's just that I think they find it reassuring and comfortable. I don't believe they realise how much it damages the model of democracy and the reputation of Councillors all over the land.
If you're one of my fellow Councillors and you're reading this, then consider how you feel about that paragraph. If it gets your blood up then you might be one of those I'm talking about - and is that who you set out to be?
This isn't to say that as Councillors we need to rebel and fight viciously against the ever engorging, collectivist machine that any public sector body is. It just means that we have to question and query in an open, honest, fair and most importantly friendly way. Officers might not like that, but they shouldn't take offense. It's what 1,457 people elected me to do and they would feel very let down if I didn't do it.
I've been trying to get hold of a copy of the agreement between WB and MBC. Whilst I have been offered this privately and off the record by several people, I would like to be released under the Freedom of Information act* (or the nearly equivalent EIR), but this has been strongly blocked by MBC. I have taken independent legal advice from a professional and the Information Commissioners office and have been told that the response from MBC is incorrect. I have fed back this information to the Council with another request for the document to be released.
That was a week ago. I have yet to receive a response.
The principle is this. The FOI/EIR is designed to give the public information about anything they want, unless there is a really good reason not to (usually privacy or security concerns of some sort). It is not designed to give the council power to release only what it feels like. The intention is not that the Officers of a Council should be able to decide what they think the Councillors and the public need to see.
Now that I've started to challenge the current consensus with the WB/MBC example, I've been contacted by several Councillors telling me that "I've gone too far this time" and I shouldn't "Rock the boat".
What have I done that's so wrong? I used the legislation for the purpose that it was intended, to get an agreement that constituents have asked me to see. I've done it in a polite and friendly way. Who is it, hidden away it the creaking machine at Town Hall, that has decided that local rules and Macclesfield culture is more important than legislation passed to ensure everything was fair?
Lets get to the point. I hope this will change in Cheshire East. We have new officers, we have new councillors, we have new aspirations. In fact, in an email received this morning from our Chief Executive, Erika, I read:
I'm delighted to be serving as your "proper" Councillor from today. All I can promise is that I'll do my best.
****************************************
p.s. Couldn't help myself after that headline:
* Once it's released under the FOI I'm free to discuss it here and follow up on queries that I have.
When I started as a Cheshire East Councillor nearly a year ago, one of the things that struck me was how much a certain select group of existing Councillors bleated on about culture, secrecy, too many Councillors cosying up to officers, etc.
It didn't really strike a chord with me. I didn't believe that this could be the case. These were strong, political people who should easily be able to overcome obstacles such as these.
What's become clear over the last couple of months, as I've really started to stretch my limbs, is that it is the case. And more specifically, some Councillors would like it to stay that way. It's not that they have bad intentions - no Councillor I have met does - it's just that I think they find it reassuring and comfortable. I don't believe they realise how much it damages the model of democracy and the reputation of Councillors all over the land.
If you're one of my fellow Councillors and you're reading this, then consider how you feel about that paragraph. If it gets your blood up then you might be one of those I'm talking about - and is that who you set out to be?
This isn't to say that as Councillors we need to rebel and fight viciously against the ever engorging, collectivist machine that any public sector body is. It just means that we have to question and query in an open, honest, fair and most importantly friendly way. Officers might not like that, but they shouldn't take offense. It's what 1,457 people elected me to do and they would feel very let down if I didn't do it.
I've been trying to get hold of a copy of the agreement between WB and MBC. Whilst I have been offered this privately and off the record by several people, I would like to be released under the Freedom of Information act* (or the nearly equivalent EIR), but this has been strongly blocked by MBC. I have taken independent legal advice from a professional and the Information Commissioners office and have been told that the response from MBC is incorrect. I have fed back this information to the Council with another request for the document to be released.
That was a week ago. I have yet to receive a response.
The principle is this. The FOI/EIR is designed to give the public information about anything they want, unless there is a really good reason not to (usually privacy or security concerns of some sort). It is not designed to give the council power to release only what it feels like. The intention is not that the Officers of a Council should be able to decide what they think the Councillors and the public need to see.
Now that I've started to challenge the current consensus with the WB/MBC example, I've been contacted by several Councillors telling me that "I've gone too far this time" and I shouldn't "Rock the boat".
What have I done that's so wrong? I used the legislation for the purpose that it was intended, to get an agreement that constituents have asked me to see. I've done it in a polite and friendly way. Who is it, hidden away it the creaking machine at Town Hall, that has decided that local rules and Macclesfield culture is more important than legislation passed to ensure everything was fair?
Lets get to the point. I hope this will change in Cheshire East. We have new officers, we have new councillors, we have new aspirations. In fact, in an email received this morning from our Chief Executive, Erika, I read:
"We’ve got a fresh, clean page in front of us on which we can map out our future - new ways of working, new ways of involving local people in their own destinies and innovative ideas for meeting the economic and other challenges of these shifting times."I hope that's sincere.
I'm delighted to be serving as your "proper" Councillor from today. All I can promise is that I'll do my best.
****************************************
p.s. Couldn't help myself after that headline:
* Once it's released under the FOI I'm free to discuss it here and follow up on queries that I have.
*** Crewe Council Offices Vandalised - "No 2 Cheshire East" ***
According to the The Crewe Blog, the Council Offices in Crewe were vandalised overnight with the slogan "No 2 Cheshire East" painted on the wall.
Bit late now, really.
Bit late now, really.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
