Firstly I must apologise as I may have mislead all the Liberal-Democrat readers in last months issue. Councillor Stanley Sharpe reminded the Town Council meeting in October that it was not intended that 300 houses should be built in Berkhamsted which he believed I wrote and at least one other Councillor thought I should have checked my facts before going into print. He felt that the true picture was that they should be built around Berkhamsted. Having now read several times just wot I rote, it appears that I actually said that 'our share was 300 and it was reported that only 190 now need to be built in the town'. Those are facts as issued by the Borough Council. If you missed the Berkhamsted Structure Plan exhibition, then you have another chance on Friday 11th December between 10am and 9pm in the Northchurch Social Centre.
Whilst on the subject of electioneering, if you thought voting Independent was a waste of time, we actually overturned the will of the Labour majority group at the October Borough Council meeting. We all would like you to take more interest in local government but when only around 40% (on a good day) turn out to put a cross on the ballot paper we have a lot of work to do. The Labour and Liberal-Democrat groups thought that the idea of having elections every year would inspire you all to take an interest. The Conservative group believes as I do that the cost of elections every year could not be justified. To get the motion through, they needed a two-thirds majority. All the Labour and Lib-Dems voted for annual elections and the Conservatives all voted against. As the three Independents do not have a 'party whip', one was for the motion and two against. The motion was lost by one vote, so you know whom to blame or who to praise according to your point of view. I believe the only way to get people to vote and take an interest is to make it more interesting, which, of course, is exactly why I contribute to this superb publication. Each year I find someone else who reads my column and I have now run out of fingers to count on.
Land once owned by the Berkhamsted School is rapidly becoming an issue for residents of Chesham Road and Priory Gardens. Applications are currently going through the system for blocks of flats on both the Incents Lawn site (that's the green bit on the right before the footpath to Butts Meadow) and the ex-prep school, which was previously just a detached house, about one hundred yards farther up the hill. I consider both these applications are not within the spirit of the area character study recently published by the Borough planning department. This study was undertaken because of concerns by both the Town Council and Borough planning department that unsuitable developments were being proposed and very little could be done under the planning laws. The thinking was that if an agreed strategy was in place, then refusals could be defended if appeals against decisions were made. I'm sure this publication has been totally ignored by developers in the town and they continue to use the 'housing need' and 'we have to make a profit' motives to justify the application. Just to make sure, they often put in duplicate applications so that one can go to appeal while the other is determined. Do not be surprised to see the lower left-hand side of Chesham Road being redeveloped over the next year or so if these applications are either refused or scaled down.
The Borough planning department in conjunction with the majority group has decided to compile a code of conduct for Councillors in relation to applications. A number of opposition members have expressed the view that the code, as will be agreed - good that, remember the inbuilt majority and what happens if you don't toe the part line - will ensure the officers will make all the decisions. Members of the development control committee will not be allowed to vary officers' recommendations or conditions. Ward members who are members of the committee will not be allowed to discuss applications that have been made, or have not yet been made, with anyone without an officer being present. The idea is that if anyone wishes to discuss any planning matter members must avoid talking to anyone who may have a say in the decision. I was on development control for three years and I found it helpful and interesting to get 'unofficial' background from both those who are in favour and those opposing applications, but I never made a final decision until the public had had their say, the reports presented and officers verbal comments made at committee. This is the way it should be done and the proposed code does have some good points, so it will be interesting to see if the political groups actually start to break rank and members think for themselves, although several have found out what happens if the party line is not toed.
The new parking charge regime recently came into force in the Town and even after all the suggestions, comments, compromises and consultations that have been done, we still have more parking requirements than space available. What a surprise! We need to reduce the number of vehicles coming into the town centre. This could be achieved by pricing, restricting or good old education. Railtrack have effectively priced their car parking facilities to reduce demand. The Borough Council has used a combination of pricing and time restrictions to manage the town centre car parks. This just leaves further restrictions hopefully combined with greatly improved public transport and possibly out of town additional parking facilities (Park 'n' Ride!). Even partial pedestrianisation could be tried for a period as has been done in High Wycombe. You notice I have ignored education, as I am sure that is a lost cause. I mean, out of all the Town Councillors (13) and staff (4), only two or three usually walk to the civic centre, so should they expect others not to use the car?
