I was put in my place by the Town Mayor, Cllr. John Brookes, at the September meeting of the Council when I suggested the Council should take heed of residents views. He pointed out that the Council had to act in the interests of the town and obey the law, rather than reacting to 'pressure groups'. On reflection, this seems a strange attitude when the Council is only 'consulted' on just about every matter of local government that occurs in the town. This suggests that the Council should reflect the views of the Town, not just the Council. I seem to recall that the Council of 1991/95 included Cllr. Brookes and that particular attitude did not go down well with residents.
This all makes you wonder exactly what the Council actually exists for when it turns down many initiatives put to it. Street naming has been suggested as has Tree Preservation Order Appeals. Even promoting the town has been reduced to co-operation projects with the Borough, although if you have you seen the Hemel Hempstead Internet site, which Cllr. Sharpe says has had a great deal of input from Berkhamsted, you will wonder if Tring, Berkhamsted or Kings Langley actually exist in the Borough of Hemel Hempstead - sorry - Dacorum. Even the Berkhamsted Town Centre Forum (Borough organised) still has no Berkhamsted Borough Councillor representation. They are now talking of introducing Town Centre management and when your Council saw the words 'at nil net cost to the Borough Council' and they quivered at the thought of actually getting involved and spending time and money on anything to improve the Town. At the forum, I actually suggested that the Borough actually let Berkhamsted people run the town. I mean, we pay our Council Tax and it's not too much to ask for a proper say in our future. Why not attend the next meeting on January 12th in the 'Clock Room' of the Town Hall and have your say?

By the time you read this, the new Town Council newsletter, will be available and in line with most Council publications will either tell you what they have done or what they intend to do. Discussion is rarely any more than lip service as our Councillors know best. If even I could get elected, can you believe that? The one thing I know will not be included, is the answer to the old REX building. As the majority of the Council I believe support the 'saving' of the building, and we have 'proof' that it can be made viable, the solution seems to be so obvious that they cannot bring themselves to do it. As I said at the beginning, the Town Council is apparently charged with obeying the law and act in the interests of the Town, so if sorting out the REX isn't in the interests of the Town, what is?
The answer is in a past article and if you can't remember, shame on you. Just to jog your memory, the Local Government Act allows Town & Parish Councils can raise money for the good of the town, providing it is spent within the Town or Parish and just to rub salt into the wound, it comes off the amount the Borough Council can raise!

The Borough Council is currently rewriting the draft local plan, to suit its idea that the green belt should be protected. It has shifted things around and its proposals will go to the public enquiry in the spring of 2000. It seems like only yesterday that I was warning you all that all is not sweetness and light on this front. If you now turn to your October 1998 copy of the Review, you will spot that although the County & Borough are talking in public about 2006 & 2011, coming up are the latest  proposals for the period to 2016 by that other well known organisation SERPLAN. This stands for SouthEast Regional PLANning. For some reason, Hertfordshire comes under the South East for this project, but eastern region for other matters. I understand that it is proposed that Hertfordshire 'share' will increase from around 50000 to 88000. Following current logic, once they start discussing the 'needs' for 2021, the numbers will increase once again and the south-east be required to take the lions share of the nations housing 'need'.

Let's be radical and also be logical. The present government wants to be involved in Europe, so it makes sense to assume that what the government wants, the government gets particularly with as large a majority as Mr Blairs Labour Party currently has. The theory goes along the lines that what is good for Britain is also good for Europe and vice-versa. Now, if it is as quick and easy to commute from the suburbs as it is from Northern France, via the tunnel, then - steady, you're getting ahead of me - it makes sense to consider letting this area have our housing 'need allocation' rather than building on the green belt. Northern France is underpopulated and one of Europe's more deprived areas. The shot in the arm that all this housing development will provide will be good for France, good for Britain and thus, good for Europe. You have to admit it makes sense if you want to protect the green belt, build the countries housing 'needs' in the southeast and generally bolster the prosperity of southern England.
On the other hand, perhaps, like me, you believe that until one language is agreed, Europe will never be united. Mr Haig has committed the Conservatives to the view that we should be part of Europe, not controlled by Europe. I was one of those who stupidly believed a certain Mr Heath, and voted that Britain should be part of a European Common Market and we know how that simple statement has mushroomed into the idea of U.S.E. It must be as difficult for the Italians to reach their European markets as, say, Northern England; so to say that everything must happen in the southeast, is taking a very narrow view.  The government should make up its mind to be European and take Europe into their planning considerations or decide that the Common Market was/is a good idea and Britain should play its part, not just the southeast. This could mean upsetting some of our 'partners' who currently play the 'interpretation' game.

Europe says that British beef is now as safe as anyone's and should not be excluded. France & Germany disagree. Europe says that refugees should be granted asylum in the first country they arrive in. Remember the television pictures of refugees waiting in Calais for a 'lift' to England. Why was I stupid enough to think that Calais was in France and France was in Europe. It all comes down to interpreting the rules again. Mainland Europe appears to believe that unless you are under threat from government agencies, then you are safe. We, on the other hand correctly, in my view, consider a threat as a threat, whoever it comes from. I'm afraid Europe has a long way to go before I will even consider I should be part of anything more than a European Common Market.