All of the old website is still available here.
Unfortunately the site had grown to such an extent that it was taking far too much time to keep it updated it so I have simplified the site to just give the information that is really necessary - New Planning Applications and Traffic incidents. If anybody wants to add more pages then I am only too happy to attempt to do so but it will be with words, links and images that are supplied by you.
All of the videos are still there so if you need to check you still can.
The Planning Committe meeting for this month has been cancelled. I wonder why? Could it possibly have anything to do with having to find the sites for an ADDITIONAL 2,000 to 2,500 dwellings that we have had lumped on us? Is there any possibility that a more careful approach to the original Local Plan would have not left us in the appalling position that we now find ourselves? It might be easier to accept if somebody would be prepared to accept responsibility for the situation that we are now in had PUSH not been so keen on the total urbanisation of South Hampshire.
So now I guess we must get prepared for the Daft Local Plan mk lll. One wonders when our MP and Executive Leader will be meeting with James Brokenshire to "Lay it on the line that the Borough should not be expected to cope with an ever-rising volume of housing thrust on it by Whitehall" (quote from Summer 2018 In Touch). At the moment I would think that at least one floor in the Tower of Power is burning the midnight oil trying to shoe horn these additional dwellings in.
Then don't forget that there is a very interesting appeal coming to our Borough on November 26th and 27th about the Compulsory Purchase Order for Stubbington By-Pass that our EL has kept saying doesn't exist. Maybe the latest fiasco will finally force the admission that it was meant to be the Newlands access road all along. Funny really how quiet this has been kept - nothing in the press, no announcement by our Council on something that is very close to many residents hearts.
Original planning application 19/11/2014
The Hampshire County Council Stubbington Bypass Compulsory Purchase Order 2017"
The Hampshire County Council (B3334 Stubbington Bypass) - Compulsory Purchase Order 2018"
£10M is to go on redeveloping Ferneham Hall. The idea is that the Community Infrastructure Levy should be spent on making improvements to infrastructure or facilities. Accepted that this is a community building but should not this money be spent on helping to offset the problems caused by the developments for which the charge was made?
According to the report tabled at the last Executive Committee meeting on average only 53% of the seats are used at any performance. A quote from the reprt says
"It is clear, however, that the layout and design of the building is no longer fit for purpose. Customer expectations have changed significantly since 1982, and they are attracted to large, air-conditioned buildings, with lots of space and natural light, offering comfortable seats with unrestricted views in the auditoria. There is also the expectation of a café culture where people can relax, meet, eat and drink in an attractive location at any time of the day.
A great deal has been learnt about venue “accessibility” over the last 40 years and Ferneham Hall struggles to meet current customer expectations"
Bear in mind that the multi-storey car park is due to be replaced by more housing and that public transport ceases in the early evening, will the venue be any more accessible after this spend? Would it not be more appropriate to spend the money on projects local to the developments that raised the levy? Will Warsash residents, for example, make much use of this facility? The more popular the venue becomes the more difficult it will be to get there unless residents want to invest in taxi fares, still at least the taxi will be less polluting after we have subsidised their replacement by cleaner vehicles.
Link to the FBC development brochure.
Link to an article in the Daily Echo
In April I was informed by the monitoring officer of Fareham Borough Council I had brought he Council into disrepute by publishing this post on Facebook.
To be accused of bringing the council into disrepute is a serious charge and has consequences on my integrity and a stain on my record.
I do believe in fair play and I requested who made the complaint.
Cllr Woodward and a staff member of Fareham Borough Council made the complaint.
It is appalling and outrageous that Cllr Woodward finds it necessary to trawl through social media analysing Facebook posts and using them to bring Code of Conduct complaints against other elected members of Fareham Borough Council.
In my opinion, it is nothing short of bullying and intimidation to try and silence others who do not believe in his vision of utopia, heaven on earth.
It is clear to me, any elected member seen to publicly criticise Fareham Borough Council will be targeted for using the main pillar in our democratic system, the voice of opposition. This attempt to shut down and stifle debate must be challenged, such moves cannot be acceptable and must stop NOW.
1) Is it right for the leader of the council to act in this manner?
2) Why are Council staff reading members Facebook posts? Are they acting under instructions? Surely they have more productive tasks to get on with.
I will say this to Cllr Woodward, you have failed in your quest to silence me and I will not be intimidated by such practice and will continue representing the residents of Portchester East and the wider community of Fareham, speaking out when the need arises.
I have refused to accept the charge that I have brought Fareham Borough Council into disrepute and have informed the Council of my position.
As for the staff member of Fareham Borough Council who was party to the complaint, I feel disappointed in their action, because the complaint in my opinion is politically motivated. Perhaps the officer was merely a tool in some grand plan. I take the view that officers should show political independence at all times because otherwise there will inevitably be a loss of confidence which is so important in a councillor’s working relationship with them.
I spend a great deal of my time investigating issues raised by ward residents and in the course of addressing those issues I have to speak with council officers at all levels. I have always thanked them for their time and for their efforts in bringing solutions forward and praised them for a job well done when I believe it is appropriately to do so.
I hold great respect for the member's code because it is there for a reason, to uphold high standards in public life, however, when it is used to try and close down and stifle councillors from representing residents then that is not acceptable to me and should not be acceptable to others either.
While members may sit at opposing ends of the political rainbow that does not remove an important quality that we all need adhere to, respect for each other.
I hope Cllr Woodward will now reflect on his actions and start working with all elected members of the council.
Cllr for Portchester East