Stephen Hodgson

Archive for the ‘Charnwood’ Category

Charnwood Borough Council’s Plans Committee this evening (27 May 2010) voted by a majority of 6-4 (if I counted correctly) with 1 absention to approve the application by David Wilson Homes to build 58 houses on land off Loughborough Road to the south of Hathern. The report that went to the Plans Committee can be accessed on Charnwood Borough Council’s website.

The application was opposed by neighbours and other Hathern residents, by Hathern Parish Council and by both Charnwood Borough Council ward councillors (including me). In the end the Plans Committee seemed unable to find strong enough reasons to reject the development. My personal view is that this development is a mistake. Here are some of the problems I envisage:

1. There will be increased congestion and dangers on the busy A6 road through Hathern because there is a single access road off the A6 to the 58 new houses, with an inadequate right-turn lane and on the edge of the speed limit boundary from 60mph to 30mph. The developer has promised to contribute £10,000 to ‘traffic calming’ on the A6 but it is difficult to imagine what form this will take and that it will make the A6 any safer – certaintly ‘traffic calming’ will not reduce the volume of traffic on the A6 or allow for a bigger right-turn lane.

2. The development is on open countryside and represents not only a threat to Hathern’s separate village identity (as land is increasingly ‘filled in’ between Hathern and Loughborough and Hathern and Shepshed) but also a permanent loss of important (and constantly threatened) green space.

3. The plans make no effort to integrate the 58 new houses into Hathern. The development is effectively a stand-alone housing estate on the edge of Hathern, with a single access road and no integral links to the heart of the village. These houses are not an effective way of building the community in Hathern.

The development even contravenes planning policies relating to increasing development on ‘brownfield’ sites (rather than green space) and ensuring developments contribute to community-building. Unforunately not enough members of the Plans Committee found these issues sufficiently persuasive. Sadly the Plans Committee’s thinking seemed to be dominated by the previous national government’s rules requring the local planning authority to ensure a ‘five year’ supply of housing, even if that means building outside the limits to development on open countryside next door to a small village.

Frustratingly for those of us opposed to the development, the planning policies that allowed this development to go ahead may be changed in the near future by the new coalition government so that applications like this may not be so readily approved. Any changes now will come too late for this part of Hathern.

My congratulations to Councillor Jill Vincent, who was elected as the Mayor of Charnwood for the council year 2010/2011 at last week’s Full Coucil meeting of Charnwood Borough Council.

Jill will make both an excellent chairman of Full Council and a great First Citizen of Charnwood. Already at last week’s meeting Jill showed she has the skills and the respect of councillors to make a great success of her new role.

I’d also like to take this opportunity to extend my appreciation to Councillor Roy Brown, who served as mayor for the year 2009/2010. Roy has been a committed and enthusiastic mayor and he now goes on to serve as deputy mayor supporting Jill Vincent in her role during 2010/2011.

A full schedule of St George’s Day celebration events taking place in Charnwood can be viewed on Charnwood Borough Council’s website. The celebrations begin with the raising of St George’s flag at the council offices at 9.15am.

Respondents now have until 28 April 2010 to submit comments to Charnwood Borough Council’s planning officers in relation to the controversial plans to build 58 new homes on open countryside off the A6 to the south of Hathern.

Documents relating to the planning application, including objections submitted to date, can be viewed on the council’s online Planning Explorer.

I am personally opposed to the development as the plans stand primarily on the following grounds:

• * The development is on open countryside and will erode green space;
• * The development threatens the separate identity of Hathern; and
• * 58 new houses in this location will exacerbate traffic problems on the congested A6.

Villagers have a number of other concerns as well and it is important that as many people as possible from Hathern and surrounding locations have their say by submitting comments to the council by 28 April 2010.

The easiest way to submit comments is to do so online via Planning Explorer. Comments can also be sent by post, quoting application number P/10/0415/2.

The first hustings for Loughborough candidates in this year’s General Election has been announced.

Details are as follows:

Time: 7.30pm, Tuesday 13 April 2010
Location: John Storer House, Loughborough
Host: Action for a Better Charnwood (ABC)
Discussion: Environmental policies

This is the first opportunity of this election campaign for people in Loughborough to see the candidates on the same platform. ABC have not announced a limit on attendance or pre-registration requirements so please simply come along on the night.

Leicester Mercury education correspondent Ian Wishart has blogged about the recent news that Leicestershire County Council’s bid to improve schools in Loughborough, Barrow and Quorn has fallen through.

Ian’s analysis is a useful summary of what happened and where it leaves the county council’s plans to change the education system across Leicestershire – and in Loughborough, Barrow and Quorn.

Ian sums up the rather bleak position:

You only have to look at the new school buildings in the city of Leicester, which was in the first phase of the government’s Building Schools for the Future (BSF) money, to see the transformation that can take place. I have walked around all of the four so far and they are quite amazing places.

Leicestershire is already practically the lowest-funded per-pupil education authority in the country. Now there will be no real investment in school buildings for the foreseeable future either.

The government says Leicestershire could resubmit its bid at a later date. But let’s be honest – this was all-or-nothing. While even the Conservatives haven’t (yet) said categorically they will shelve the BSF scheme, the post-general election financial landscape will be very different, whoever gets in.

The entire post is well worth reading.

Things have moved quickly since Monday (8 March 2010) when the government’s Partnerships For Schools quango announced it had decided not to progress Leicestershire County Council’s Building Schools for the Future (BSF) bid. A successful bid would have unlocked £80m of government investment for schools in Loughborough, Barrow and Quorn and enabled the county council to both reorganise schools, moving to a ‘through’ school basis (11-16 or 11-18), and to invest in new buildings and equipment. It was bitterly disappointing to find out that the county council’s bid had not succeeded.

Here’s how events have played out since Monday:

Monday 8 March 2010

Partnerships For Schools confirmed Leicestershire’s bid had not progressed. The Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) issued a press release naming the successful BSF bids.

Loughborough MP Andy Reed asked the Secretary of State Ed Balls about the county’s BSF bid in Parliament. Ed Balls used the question as an opportunity to attack the Conservatives instead of as an opportunity to offer any real assistance (much as Harriet Harman misused Andy Reed’s question about AstraZeneca in the same way just last week).

Andy Reed wrote on his website:

I will now ask for an urgent meeting with County Council officials to see what they plan to do next. I don’t want them to walk away from BSF and the £80m that could be available. I don’t want them to try and come up with a cheap version of reorganisation. They should continue to work up a proper widely supported BSF Bid which will not split the town again.

I am happy to help them rebuild the trust they have lost amongst so many parents and staff as the future of our children’s education is at stake.

Prospective Conservative MP for Loughborough Nicky Morgan said Andy Reed had tried to “derail” the county’s bid:

This is a lost opportunity for our students, both present and future. It is also a huge blow to plans for a new Area Special School. Yet again the Labour Government has ignored Leicestershire’s schools and pupils and shown it is not interested, despite its rhetoric, in making a difference to children’s lives in our local area. They were aided by Loughborough’s Labour MP who seemed to forget that he represents residents from across the constituency, including on the West of Loughborough and outside the town. Everyone I spoke to wanted to make the change to 11-16 education – even Option C campaigners. But Mr Reed worked to derail Leicestershire’s bid and then blame the County Council. I absolutely understand why staff, governors and students at Limehurst and Garendon did not want their schools to close. But it is an MP’s (and prospective MP’s) duty to stand back from individual situations and work out what is best for the whole community. Mr Reed failed to do that and, as a consequence, has let down several generations of students.

I spoke to the Conservative Shadow Minister for Schools on Friday. He assured me that a Conservative Government would scrap the surplus places rule almost immediately, which takes care of one problem Option C campaigners were facing. If elected I pledge to work with all interested bodies to see how we get over this and continue the move to 11-16 schools. It is also worth noting that a Conservative Government will allow parents and other groups to set up their own schools. We may need to explore this locally to structure the education we all want.

Tuesday 9 March 2010

The Leicester Mercury reported on the BSF bid not succeeding:

Leader of the county council David Parsons said he was “deeply disappointed”.

He said: “I will do all I can to ensure the one-through-school model for Loughborough, which many parents have spoken to me about, is delivered.

“However, I’m also aware of the views wishing to retain education provision on the Limehurst site.

“What neither the county council nor the Government can ignore is the big problem of surplus school places in Loughborough – currently 700. It is clear that something has to be done.”

The Mercury reported that local One Through School campaigner Simon Ghent is very disappointed – and blames Loughborough MP Andy Reed for negatively affecting the county’s bid:

Simon Ghent, a parent who has been campaigning for the changes as part of the One Through School group, said he was “absolutely appalled”.

He blamed MP Andy Reed and county councillor Jewel Miah who had both said Limehurst should remain open, even though the council said this would be least likely to get funding.

Mr Ghent said: “They spoke in favour of plans they knew their own Government wouldn’t accept.

“We’re stuffed now. What we are left with is how to implement the one-through-school system with next to no money.

“I’m not only gutted personally but I’m also very annoyed that we’ve been campaigning hard for three years and now have nothing to give future generations.”

But Labour borough and county councillor Jewel Miah told the Mercury that the bid failing is “good news” for Limehurst High School:

Labour county councillor Jewel Miah, who was fighting against the plans to close Limehurst, said: “It’s devastating for Leicestershire that the bid has failed but for people campaigning for Limehurst it’s good news.”

Wednesday 10 March 2010

The leader of the Labour group at County Hall, Max Hunt, called for Leicestershire County Council’s Lead Member for the Children and Young People’s Service, Councillor Ivan Ould, to resign over the BSF bid.

The Mercury reported:

Labour has called for Leicestershire’s education chief to resign following the county’s failure to get cash to rebuild schools.

Councillor Max Hunt, leader of the Labour group at County Hall, said Councillor Ivan Ould should take responsibility for “the worst day the county’s education department has ever had”.

Coun Ould said he had no intention of resigning.

The Mercury continues:

Labour councillors and MP Andy Reed were criticised by Conservative councillors for not backing County Hall’s bid – in particular by opposing the closure of Limehurst High School, Loughborough, which some believe affected the bid.

Coun Ould said the Government had indicated it was looking favourably on Leicestershire’s bid – particularly as the county council had been encouraged to submit its plans earlier than expected.

The Leader of the Opposition at County Hall, Lib Dem Councillor Simon Galton, was also reported to be concerned:

Simon Galton, leader of the Liberal Democrat group, said he was not calling for Coun Ould’s resignation but there needed to be “a public apology” for the situation.

The Mercury sums up the present situation:

At a meeting of the county council’s cabinet yesterday, education bosses said they would now review the situation in Loughborough to consider what to do next.

It could mean officials will submit another bid or proceed with reorganisation, despite no money for new buildings.

Andy Reed wrote on his website:

I am very disappointed that Cllr David Parsons [the Leader of Leicestershire County Council] has taken every opportunity to try to spin his way out of their failure by blaming everybody else without taking any responsibility themselves. (sic)

He knows full well that their bid was not recommended by the independent body set up to look at bids – Partnership for Schools to Ministers. Ministers agree the recommendations made to them by P4Schools – they had no sight of the bids until they were given the list of 6 successful authorities deemed ready to deliver and a follow up list of a further 3 authorities nearly ready to deliver. So at best it is misleading to suggest Ministers and national politicians had any say over the final shortlist. They deliberately keep themselves out of the process until the very end. I call on him to withdraw these remarks so that local people can have trust in what they say about listening this time round (sic)

We still need consensus and partnership. Until he withdraws these misleading statement we cannot move forward (sic)

Andy Reed also went on, in a separate post, to directly attack local campaign group One Through School (OTS):

As soon as the plans were announced opposition groups were set up and Parents (sic) were organising. This is democracy in action. I attended meetings packed with angry parents demanding changes to the plans.

At this stage you would have thought County Hall would have shown some contrition and made serious attempts to find a solution. Instead they kept hiding behind the ‘criteria’ and Partnership for Schools technicalities.

Parents, schools and governors wanted more choices to consult on. The idea of opponents having to create their own Option C emerged as it became clear County Hall weren’t willing to listen or help.

I called a meeting of Heads and included the OTS campaign. Details of an Option C emerged and were agreed. It was far from a a detailed worked up option – but we did not have the resources of County Hall. Rightly we felt it was there (sic) job to do the detailed workings!

OTS suddenly dropped out a week later without telling anybody and then started attacking supporters of option C. This was the low point.

Friday 12 March 2010

Page 7 of tomorrow’s Loughborough Echo (12 March 2010) features a round-up of the BSF bid under the headline ‘£80m schools bid ends in failure’.

Summary

The news that the bid has failed is really disappointing for Loughborough, Barrow and Quorn. Clearly the next steps will be quite different to the current bid – we’re only weeks away from a General Election and whichever party forms the next government is going to have to work hard to reduce the national debt and that will include cutting budgets and reforming how departments work. Michael Gove, the Conservative education spokesman, has very different ideas about how education should work in England to present Labour Secretary of State Ed Balls.

Locally it’s frustrating and confusing to see the different messages coming from local Labour politicians.

On Monday MP Andy Reed wanted to talk to County Hall, he wanted an “urgent meeting” and he wanted to help the county council “rebuild trust”. By Wednesday he was “disappointed” with the county council, said he wouldn’t engage unless the Leader withdraws certain remarks and used his website to directly attack the One Through School campaign group!

On Tuesday Labour county councillor Jewel Miah said the bid failing was “good news”. On Wednesday the Labour group leader at county hall, Max Hunt, said the news was so bad that the Conservative Lead Member should resign!

What on earth are we to make of all this to-and-froing by local Labour politicians? The most obvious answer: they are trying to play politics with an £80m bid to improve education in Loughborough, Barrow and Quorn for many generations. Unfortunately the bid has now failed. I hope the county council will find a way round this set-back for moving to a through-school system in the Loughborough area and improving educational facilities but I know it won’t be easy.

Prospective Conservative MP Nicky Morgan appeared on the BBC East Midlands Politics Show yesterday (7 March 2010) to talk about the announced closure of the AstraZeneca Charnwood facility in Loughborough.

Locally various organisations and politicians are working hard to try to mitigate the effects of the closure and to help those directly affected. Let’s hope the AstraZeneca issue moves further up the national government agenda soon.

The local AstraZeneca action group convened by Charnwood Borough Council met for the first time yesterday. The action group includes representatives from Charnwood Borough Council, Leicestershire County Council, Loughborough Town Centre Partnership, Loughborough University, Loughborough Chamber of Trade and Commerce, Leicestershire Chamber of Commerce, Prospect Leicestershire and AstraZeneca.

Following the meeting the group issued a joint statement.

Joint Statement from the AstraZeneca Action Group

All parties were grateful for the opportunity to meet today at this early stage. We had a very constructive discussion. The meeting today has been an important step in the process of exploring future options for the Charnwood site and how best to support all those who are affected.

It is still early days and there is much to be done over the next 18 months but it is important that we put plans in place as a matter of urgency to help deal with the situation.

At the meeting today it was agreed that EMDA will establish a task force including AstraZeneca. The priority will be to put support in place to help the people affected to find new jobs or set up their own businesses. The other important aspects will be finding new uses for the site and creating new employment opportunities in the local economy.

One of the early actions will be to carry out an economic impact assessment which will help the task force decide where to focus its efforts.

We have agreed to meet again within the next month.

This is a positive first step and it’s pleasing to see how quickly local organisations have been able to get together to try to mitigate the effects of the AstraZeneca Charnwood closure.

Charnwood Borough Council has covened an action group which will meet for the first time this Friday to discuss the consequences of the decision to close the AstraZeneca Charnwood facilitiy in Loughborough and to agree ways to support the staff and plan for the future use of the AstraZeneca site. Local organisations involved in the action group include Leicestershire County Council, Loughborough Town Centre Partnership, Loughborough University, Loughborough Chamber of Trade and Commerce, Leicestershire Chamber of Commerce and Prospect Leicestershire. AstraZeneca has also been invited to join the action group.

The Leader of Charnwood Borough Council, Councillor Mike Preston, has said:

We are moving as quickly as we can to see what we can do in terms of reducing the impact of that blow as much as possible.

It is early days but I think it is important everyone works together to address this now.

Prospective Conservative MP for Loughborough Nicky Morgan has said:

This will be a huge shock for staff and their families and very difficult news to take on board. The company must do all it can to support them and to ensure staff are given the option of working for the company elsewhere in the UK and overseas, if they want to pursue that option.

It has always been important to Loughborough to have such a large company based locally and to lose the site now is extremely bad news for our town and local area. I hope to be discussing this matter with the company as soon as practicable.

Meanwhile Loughborough MP Andy Reed raised the issue in the House of Commons this afternoon:

Mr. Andy Reed (Loughborough) (Lab/Co-op): AstraZeneca in my constituency has decided to relocate its research and development facilities to Cheshire, which will cause 1,200 jobs to be lost to the local economy in 2011. Overall, pharmaceuticals are strong in the United Kingdom, and the Office for Life Sciences has ensured that many such jobs remain in the UK. However, that is no consolation to the 1,200 people who will have to relocate from my constituency, so will my right hon. and learned Friend assure me that the Government will give every assistance to the taskforce that we will set up this week to address the situation and ensure that there is economic and development help for the constituency of Loughborough and the people who will be affected?

Ms Harman: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We do not believe in standing by, letting people fend for themselves, letting recession take it course, or that unemployment is a price worth paying. We have an active interventionist policy to support industry, including in the regions, which would suffer if the regional development agencies were abolished, as proposed by the Conservatives.

Unfortunately people in Loughborough can take little assurance from Harriet Harman’s reply in the Commons. Instead of giving a serious answer to a serious question and offering an actual government commitment to help people in Loughborough, Ms Harman instead used the question as an opportunity to make partisan political comments about the Conservatives.

People in Loughborough want to know how the Labour government will help, not what Ms Harman thinks of Conservative Party policy on the economy. Perhaps Ms Harman doesn’t appreciate that there are 1,200 jobs at stake, 1,200 families directly affected and an entire town, borough and county that will feel the effects of the closure of AstraZeneca’s Loughborough site.

Loughborough MP Andy Reed should be furious that Harriet Harman used his question as a cheap opportunity to attack the Conservatives.

Hopefully the meeting of the action group this Friday will produce positive ideas and plans to help those directly affected by the closure of the AstraZeneca facility and to mitigate the effects of the closure on the local economy.

There has been a lot of bleating in the last few days by Labour politicians about the role of Conservative Party Deputy Chairman Lord Ashcroft in financing the Conservative campaign since he revealed that he is a ‘non dom’ (someone who doesn’t pay UK tax on overseas earnings because of overseas heritage). Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, has even said that the idea of a non dom donating money to British politics is ‘unpatriotic‘. All this despite the Labour Party being far more reliant on non dom donors than the Conservative Party. Labour’s high-rolling non dom donors include Lord Paul, Lakshmi Mittal, Sir Ronald Cohen, Sir Christopher Ondaatje, Sir Gulam Noon, Mahmoud Khayami and Dr David Potter. Since 2001 Labour have received £10m of donations from wealthy non doms. In the same period, the Conservatives have received £5m from Lord Ashcroft.

Between 2001 and 2008 wealthy Labour non dom Lord Paul claimed £281,000 in Lords expenses. During that time Lord Ashcroft didn’t claim a penny in Lords expenses (regardless of the fact he attended the Lords).

Labour politicians would have the public believe that Lord Ashcroft has untold power and influence over the Conservative Party, especially in marginal seats like Loughborough. Loughborough MP Andy Reed has repeatedly said that Lord Ashcroft has a big influence in Loughborough (in fact, he said it again just yesterday). Last year Andy Reed even accused one local Conservative prospective MP – Ross Grant in Leicester South – of ‘laundering’ money on behalf of Lord Ashcroft!

The truth of campaign funding in Loughborough was revealed in an article in Saturday’s Independent (27 February 2010, published online in part).

The Independent revealed that just 18 percent of money spent by the Conservatives in marginal seats is funded by Lord Ashcroft, with the other 82 percent being money raised locally.

The Independent print edition even lists local party spending for the years 2007 and 2008 (combined) across the 55 most marginal seats in the country. The Independent’s findings in relation to Loughborough are as follows:

Loughborough Conservatives Total Income: £45,676
of which donations from Lord Ashcroft: £11,778

Loughborough Labour Total Income: £51,430

Loughborough MP Andy Reed also claims the Parliamentary ‘Communications Allowance’ expense. He has claimed an average of £9,348 of the £10,000 annual allowance producing and distributing his annual report. The cost of the local Conservative candidate’s annual report has to come out of general donations. That puts like-for-like spending for the time period examined by the Independent at:

Loughborough Conservatives: £45,676

Loughborough Labour: £60,778 – £70,126*

* A range is given because the Communications Allowance was not introduced until the 2007/2008 financial year

Labour politicians can complain all they like about Lord Ashcroft’s money but the Labour Party receives more non dom money than the Conservative Party and, in Loughborough, the local Labour Party has, on a like-for-like basis, outspent the local Conservative Party by as much as 53 percent. This must make Labour’s repeated local election defeats in Leicestershire even more frustrating and bitter.

David Cameron has said that if the Conservatives are elected they will change the law so that all politicians sitting in the House of Commons and the House of Lords must pay full UK tax. Gordon Brown hasn’t made any similar promise. The Conservatives have also pledged to scrap the ‘Communications Allowance’ which allows sitting MPs to produce and distribute literature at taxpayers’ expense.

The results of Leicestershire County Council’s consultation on Loughborough schools reorganisation were today published in a paper that will be sent to next week’s meeting of the county council’s Cabinet. The reorganisation proposals, part of an £80m funding bid under the government’s Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme, were put out to public consultation in January. The county council offered two options for consultation, with respondents also able to write in an option of their own choosing.

The county council’s options were:

Option A
An 11-16 school on the Burleigh/Garendon site with 1,200 places
Woodbrook Vale turned into an 11-16 school with 1,050 places
Limehurst tunred into a post-16 school with 800 places
Humphrey Perkins tunred into an 11-16 school with 900 places
Rawlins College rebuilt as an 11-16 school with 900 places
A new 4-19 area special school on the Burleigh/Garendon site with 120 places
Refurbishment of the existing De Lisle school
A new 14-19 university technical college close to Loughborough University

Option B
As Option A but with post-16 education provided by way of 449 sixth form places on the Burleigh/Garendon site and 335 sixth form places at Rawlins College

The governors of Garendon and Limehurst schools proposed an ‘Option C’ which would involve 11-16 schools at Garendon and Limehurst and a small 11-16 Woodbrook Vale school. Loughborough MP Andy Reed and local councillor Jewel Miah both encouraged people to respond to the consultation expressing the preferred choice of ‘Option C’.

The county council’s options A and B were designed in the way they were both to meet local educational needs but also to comply with the government’s national criteria to unlock funding through the BSF programme. I discussed this issue here a few weeks ago.

The results to-date of the consultation (which closes tonight) are:

Option A: 270 responses in favour
Option B: 311 responses in favour
Option C: 630 responses in favour
Other: 410 responses

Of course the county council has a duty to give regard to all consultation responses – but it also has a duty to follow national government guidelines and to try to secure significant additional funding for Leicestershire schools. On the basis that Option C does not meet the BSF bid criteria, and is therefore not a viable option if the county council is to secure £80m of investment, responses for Option C and other variants have had to be discounted by the county council. This leaves Option B (with 41 more responses than Option A) as the option recommended to the Cabinet by the county council’s Director of Children and Young People’s Service.

I had favoured Option A – for the reasons I gave in early February and for the reasons given by Councillor Peter Lewis in a letter to the Loughborough Echo just a couple of weeks ago. As Peter says, under Option A, Limehurt can be an exciting and vibrant post-16 school. Under Option B there won’t be a school on the Limehurst site.

I’m willing to hazard a guess that a lot of Option C responses came from parents, governors and teachers at Limehurst who want to see their school saved. It makes sense for parents, governors and teachers to want to protect a well-performing school and avoid the disruption of transforming Limehurst into a post-16 school. However, the BSF bid criteria set down by the national government mean that Option C would never have been a viable option – and if the county council elects for Option C, it will be throwing away the opportunity to unlock £80m of investment and to transform the way education is provided in Loughborough and surrounding areas. Sadly, the shift in responses away from the mainstream options offered by the county council (Options A and B) has created a split vote across Options A and B, with Option B just narrowly receiving more favourable responses than Option A.

If the county council’s Cabinet approves Option B next week then unfortunately the BSF bid will not involve creating a post-16 school at Limehurst.

At the evening’s Full Council meeting of Charnwood Borough Council members of the council voted to approve the local authority’s budget for the 2010/2011 financial year.

Some of the highlights of the budget are:

• * A 2.0 percent increase in council tax (against a current rate of inflation of 3.5 – 3.7 percent)
• * Sensible planning based on realistic savings across all areas
• * Consciously rebuilding council reserves
• * Significant progress towards building the housing revenue account (HRA) balance, which protects council housing
• * A strategic approach to reducing the cost of running the council whilst maintaing good quality services
• * Keeping costs down, keeping council tax down and delivering value for money, as demanded by people across Charnwood and as promised in the Conservative manifesto since the 2007 local elections

Charnwood Borough Council is now the best-performing district authoritiy in Leicestershire in terms of producing savings. The current Conservative administration has consistently delivered on its promises to run the council more efficiently, to identify cost savings whilst maintaing front-line services and to keep taxes down. All of these things are more important than ever in the current difficult and uncertain economic climate and the Conservative approach to finances locally reflects the national approach if the Conservatives are elected at the General Election: cutting down on waste, tackling the culture of debt and reducing taxes – all of which promote long-term growth and stability for individuals, businesses and the economy as a whole.

The full budget is available to read on the council’s website.

The closing date for responses to Leicestershire County Council’s Building Schools for the Future (BSF) bid is Tuesday 2 March 2010 – less than a week from now.

If you live in Loughborough, Quorn or Barrow-upon-Soar and surrounding areas and you have an interest in the future of education in the area then please take a couple of minutes to complete the county council’s online consultation response form.

The bid will only succeed with the support of local people and positive consultation responses.

This week’s Loughborough Echo (19 February 2010) features a letter from borough and county councillor Peter Lewis about the county council’s ‘Building Schools for the Future’ (BSF) proposals. Peter’s letter, which is available to read in full on the Echo’s website, makes some excellent points about the schools reorganisation that perhaps haven’t so far received the attention they deserve:

Peter writes:

I’ve no wish to reiterate whats been well presented elsewhere, but rather to highlight two particular points not covered to date.

The first is, at least under Option A, education would not cease at Limehurst. The proposal is it would become a new Post 16 Centre for up to 800 students. Such a facility can offer the full range of diplomas, certificates, A levels etc., in a way smaller numbers could not. It also brings our young people into the heart of town, and were they to offer music, dance, plays etc., these and community activities would be easily accessible to the wider public because of the location – next to the new Inner Relief road – but far less dangerous than it would be for much younger children. I believe Limehurst would offer an exciting and vibrant place, bringing together all our local talents, working side by side. My personal view is that on balance this is better for students than being in smaller separate sixth forms – but I know many will disagree. But under Option A learning at Limehurst will continue.

My second point is to draw attention to the creation of our new Area Special School to replace Ashmount. This would not be affordable under the recently promoted alternative Option C. Ashmount has for years existed in buildings which were not even designed to be a school. It offers a wonderful and life-affirming school experience for our very vulnerable young people four-19. But the promise of a new school has remained unfulfilled until this exciting opportunity arose. This new school for 120 pupils is essential on both educational and moral grounds.We should not pay lip service by saying these pupils matter and then immediately ignoring them out of self interest. For this county and for Loughborough, it is right to put these special needs students high on our agenda.

If you haven’t already responded to the county council’s public consultation, please take a moment to fill in the consultation response form now – there are only two questions and it takes literally less than two minutes to register a positive vote in favour of unlocking £80m of investment that will benefit people in Loughborough, Quorn and Barrow for decades to come. The deadline for responses is Tuesday 2 March 2010.