Protests, Council Tax And Secret Papers

Last night I attended a Full Council meeting held at Ripley Town Hall. The meeting was well attended by members of the public, many of whom watched from the public gallery, whilst those who could not gain admittance continued with the protest outside the building. The protest included a Wall of Shame which named those councillors who had voted in support of the sale of land at Ripley to Morrisons.

The majority of the meeting was devoted to setting the council tax for the upcoming financial year. I supported the setting of a budget which will result in no increase in Amber Valley Borough Council's council tax requirement.

In fact, with the exception of precepts for some town and parish councils, there will be no increase in overall council tax within the borough this year. This is because Derbyshire County Council, Derbyshire Police Authority and Derbyshire Fire Authority have all announced that they will not be increasing their precepts for the upcoming financial year.

I also opposed plans to allow developers to reduce the number of affordable homes they have to provide on sites which they claim would be unviable were the requirement imposed. The policy was, however, imposed by a majority vote of Council.

A member of the public asked the Mayor about the reason why some reports are discussed in camera. Although Council decides which documents are to be discussed in a closed session, the reason for the document being confidential is not usually disclosed to the public.

The law which controls this area of the Council's activities is Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. This gives the following reasons why documents may be withheld from the public:

1. Information relating to any individual;
2. Information  which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual;
3. Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information);
4. Information relating to any consultations or negotiations, or contemplated consultations or negotiations, in connection with any labour relations matter arising between the authority or a Minister of the Crown and employees of, or office holders under, the authority;
5. Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings;
6. Information which reveals that the authority proposes — (a) to give under any enactment a notice under or by virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person; or (b) to make an order or direction under any enactment;
7. Information relating to any action taken or to be taken in connection with the prevention, investigation or prosecution of crime.

Members of the public may be surprised to learn that even Members of the Council sometimes find it impossible to access confidential reports. In 2009 members of the British National Party Group were refused access by officers to confidential documents which were given to every other councillor.

Tricks Of The Trade

Following my recent article that exposed one of the tricks of the trade used by developers to reduce the costs associated with the provision of affordable homes, it seems appropriate to reveal another such activity.

It is not unknown for developers to build a development which differs from that for which planning permission has been granted. The developer will subsequently apply to the Council to 'regularise' the development, by applying for the correct planning permission.

It does not take a genius to work out that the Council is less likely to refuse the permission, and subsequently enforce the demolition of the development, than it would have been to reject the application before the development had been built.

This is indeed the situation with a development which borders my own property, at the site of the former Orchards Nursing Home at Ilkeston Road, Heanor.

The original developer, Resurrection, sold the partially built development, known as Malik Way, to West Register, who trade as Turnkey.

The new owner, wishing to complete the development, carried out a new survey of the site before work commenced, and found several large discrepancies, including houses located 2.5 from their correct position and houses orientated incorrectly. In one instance, this has resulted in a car parking space on one driveway which would only be able to accommodate a 2m long car!

The new developer has submitted applications to regularise the new location of the houses, and to allow a redesign of the parking spaces.

Whilst I acknowledge that Turnkey is an innocent party which has been left to rectify and regularise a site it purchased partially completed, this episode shows either incompetence by Resurrection who had abandoned work on the site months ago, or a deliberate attempt to play the planning system.

Resurrection have indeed been caught out before, and were forced to regularise variations from the planning permission on their adjoining development on the former Sacred Heart Church site after I made a complaint to enforcement officers.

Resurrection have also failed to complete construction of the roadway and alterations to the junction at the former Sacred Heart Church site, and have ignored all requests from me to discuss the matter.

Naive Tories

It was bizarre to hear Tory Minister Chris Grayling bemoaning the campaign against his Work Experience Programme which has caused several employers to withdraw from the scheme.

Grayling, undoubtedly correctly, pointed out that the protest group Right to Work, which campaigns against the scheme, is a front for the sinister ultra-left Socialist Workers' Party.

Perhaps Grayling, now that he has woken up to the danger posed by the extreme communist group, will persuade his boss, David Cameron, to withdraw his support from another Socialist Workers' Party front organisation, Unite Against Fascism.

Unite Against Fascism, commonly known as the UAF, is well known for its violent campaigns against political free speech. Despite being part of the ultra-left Socialist Workers' Party, UAF garners support from all three Establishment political parties.

Right to Work and the UAF are just two of many front organisations run by the marxists of the Socialist Workers' Party. Locally, an organisation which has latched onto a popular campaign, thus drawing in many genuine people with no left-wing sympathies, is BATS, purportedly a campaign against a new superstore by Tesco in Belper.

Socialist Workers' Party activist Andy Minion.

Socialist Workers' Party activists Andy and Vickie Minion, who run BATS, will not only take the opportunity to gradually indoctrinate members, but will also use the large number of people to try to influence policy in an ultra-left socialist direction.

Extremists from the ultra-left Socialist Workers' Party and the Communist Party of Great Britain marching in Codnor in 2008.

The Tail Wagging The Dog

It seems that the Tory-led administration of Amber Valley Borough Council have decided to allow the bleatings of poverty from developers to dictate planning policy.

In February 2011 Miller Homes successfully applied for a variation of a previously granted planning permission, on the basis that it was economically unviable for it to provide the required number of affordable homes within the development.

A subsequent planning application for a William Davis development at Adale Road in Smalley was later rejected, partially on the basis that it did not provide a sufficient proportion of affordable homes. The developer appealed to the Planning Inspectorate, which decided that the Council should have taken into account that the development may not take place if the desired proportion of affordable homes was made a condition, thus meaning the Council would fall further behind in reaching its five-year housing target.

The Council was also deemed to have acted unreasonably, and costs were therefore also awarded against the Council.

Affordable homes are often required to be built as part of a development as a condition of the planning permission, and represent homes subsidised by the developer in order that they be sold at a lower price.

Unfortunately, so-called 'affordable homes' are often still out of reach of local people struggling on poverty-level wages, and I would like to see developer subsidies increased to a more realistic level.

However, developers have now latched on to the idea that they can argue that affordable homes are not economically viable, and thus keep those subsidies to boost their profits, whilst the Council's business-friendly Tory administration signals its intention to let them do so.

This policy would take home ownership further out of the grasp of local first-time buyers, but of course would curry favour with the developers the Council wishes to encourage to concrete across our borough in its quest to meet housing targets. Unfortunately, what Amber Valley needs is affordable housing, not highly profitable large houses that are only affordable to those from outside our area.

Full Council will be asked to approve the policy during its upcoming meeting on 29 February 2012.

A Thoroughly Enjoyable Evening

I have just returned from one of the most successful ever meetings of Amber Valley British National Party, at which local members were joined by those from neighbouring areas to listen to rousing speeches from several guest speakers.

Derbyshire Organiser Paul Hilliard spoke of the exciting and pioneering advances made within our county due to co-operation between groups which come together to mount joint days of action. The large number of activists that attend campaigns means we can more effectively spread our nationalist message of hope throughout Derbyshire.

We were pleased to welcome East Midlands Organiser Geoff Dickens who gave us a very entertaining an enlightening speech about the dangers posed by the Frankfurt School of cultural marxism.

An excellent evening was rounded with an inspirational speech by Ashfield Organiser Leigh Talton.

The British National Party is, above all else, about people, and so there was plenty of opportunity to socialise with old friends in-between speeches, and a thoroughly enjoyable evening was spent by all.

Hardy Barn Development

Amber Valley Borough Council has announced that the potential development of land at Hardy Barn in Shipley will be discussed at a meeting of the Amber Valley Local Development Framework - Member/Officer Working Group which will be held at 7pm on 7 March 2012 in the Council Chamber at Ripley Town Hall.

Members of the public will be able to attend the meeting, and time will be allocated for public speaking.

The same meeting will also discuss the possibility of allocating land for development at Codnor and Waingroves.

A separate meeting of the Working Group concerning development at Swanwick will be held at 7pm on 20 February 2012 in the Council Chamber at Ripley Town Hall. This will also be open to the public, and time will be allocated for public speaking.

Delves Court And Asbestos

I have recently come under pressure to remove an article about the demolition of Delves Court, which referred to short cuts taken by a demolition contractor. This reminded me of the old wisdom that one knows when one is closest to the truth when those implicated protest loudest.

I therefore started to ponder what other issues surround the demolition of Delves Court that those involved would rather remained hidden from the public gaze.

In 2006 the demolition contractor, G Fry, worked on the regeneration of the Tarran estate in Maltby for Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council. It is alleged by local residents that G Fry failed to follow correct safety procedures when removing and storing asbestos, thus putting the public at risk. The contractor was subsequently removed from the site by the Council.

I have now obtained documents relating to asbestos at Delves Court, which is in a residential area and very close to a primary school.

It appears that white asbestos was found to be present at 17 locations within Delves Court during a pre-demolition asbestos survey. White asbestos is reported to be the least hazardous form of the mineral, but it does still present a possibility of health hazards to those exposed to its fibres.

Amber Valley Housing, as Futures Homescape was known at the time, claimed that G Fry had followed proper asbestos disposal procedures, but despite this, fibres of white asbestos were found in a sample of the crushed rubble which was left on the site.

Amber Valley Housing asked specialists to carry out further tests to establish the extent of the asbestos remaining on the site within the crushed rubble, and it appears that no asbestos was found in the ten samples tested.

It is also interesting to note that the land, which is partially encroached upon by an old landfill site, contains heavy contamination within its soil from other chemicals. Arsenic and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, including naphthalene and benzene compounds, have been found in hazardous levels. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are associated with coal deposits, and are known to be carcinogenic.