DON’T uncork the champagne or hang out the bunting just yet.
Yes, it is very good news that Sainsbury’s have pulled out of the scheme to build a supermarket-on-stilts on an unspoilt water meadow alongside Southampton Road.
But their change of heart wasn’t prompted by concern about our environment or the hundreds of public objections.
It was because of “significant changes in customer shopping habits”, i.e. profits have plummeted.
The would-be developers, Salisbury Gateway – don’t let the grandiose title fool you into thinking this is anything but a money-making exercise – are far from admitting defeat, however, and say they are already talking to other potential partners.
The site is not zoned for development under our core strategy. There are good reasons for that. They involve flooding, landscape value, wildlife, and traffic congestion.
Now the core strategy is being revisited.
Even before the wretched document was formally adopted in January – and it was sold to us on the basis that it would meet all our housing needs until 2026 – council planners had launched a search for more land for new estates. Coming soon, to a green field near you.
It’s no wonder developers push their luck all the time when officialdom keeps moving the goalposts.
Once a site has been ruled out for development, our diminishing band of public servants - whose salaries are paid by your taxes and mine - shouldn’t be required to spend their time in ‘pre-application talks’ with people who want to build on it.
All they should have to say is: “Look mate, read the strategy. This land is not up for development. Go somewhere else.”
But I’m told they have to follow “due process”, which dictates that they should also waste the time of all the highly-trained staff who are required to submit reports on planning applications – landscape officers, ecologists, traffic officers, the fire service, you name it ……
The would-be developers, meanwhile, who stand to make zillions, pay less than £34,000 by way of an application fee for a project of this size.
By the way, nobody much in this general election campaign seems to be talking about the environment.
It was a big issue last time round, but now it’s as if our political classes mostly concur with David Cameron’s view of “all this green crap” as just a passing fad.
Of course there are matters of more apparent urgency commanding public attention, such as the NHS, immigration and what Harold Wilson called “the pound in your pocket”.
But many people do care about wider issues, and if they don’t, they jolly soon will when the natural resources that we treat so wastefully start to run out.
Friday, April 17, 2015
This campaign calls for a Human Shrub
HE calls himself the Human Shrub, and the camouflaged campaigner wants his local council to turn over a new leaf.
In recent years his guerrilla gardening tactics have turned neglected municipal plots in Colchester, Essex, into wildlife-friendly green oases.
I reckon a visit from this eccentric eco-hero could be just what’s needed in Harnham.
Otherwise the lovely meadows on the corner of Britford Lane with their unspoilt views of our cathedral may soon be just a memory, an archive photo in the reference library, uprooted to make way for 100 ‘high quality’ homes.
The vast majority of people I’ve spoken to, and those who’ve commented on the Journal website, share my sadness at the prospect of this wanton destruction.
The land is what’s known as a ‘windfall site’ in council jargon, since it hadn’t previously been publicly earmarked for large-scale housing by the planners but just kind of fell into their hands like an overripe apple.
Well, development would certainly mean a massive windfall for the owners - the Longford Estate and St Nicholas Hospital - and for the builders, if not for the neighbours whose environment would be ruined.
Their new Facebook campaign, Save The Meadows, has sprouted 660-plus supporters, and a petition has been launched on change.org.
Many have pointed out that these fields are extremely boggy in the winter and the water has to go somewhere.
The developers argue that they are not officially part of our flood plain. But officialdom’s definition of flood plain so often seems at variance with the reality experienced by local people.
The proposed hotel and drive-thru next to Tesco spring to mind.
The meadows are not quite in the heart of Salisbury, if you choose to define our city purely in terms of historic buildings.
But they are a vital part of its green lung – the network of undeveloped sites which gives the place its character, its sense of space and scale, and its wild creatures a refuge.
While I’m on the subject, keen as the building industry is to persuade us otherwise, it needs to understand that you can’t just designate the odd acre of land here and there as a nature park and expect birds, bees and butterflies to thrive.
They need safe corridors through our urban jungle.
A couple of weeks ago I found a dead otter in Harnham. It had been run over.
We’ll be a lot less likely to see otters, dead or alive, if we lose the meadows.
Save them, don’t pave them.
In recent years his guerrilla gardening tactics have turned neglected municipal plots in Colchester, Essex, into wildlife-friendly green oases.
I reckon a visit from this eccentric eco-hero could be just what’s needed in Harnham.
Otherwise the lovely meadows on the corner of Britford Lane with their unspoilt views of our cathedral may soon be just a memory, an archive photo in the reference library, uprooted to make way for 100 ‘high quality’ homes.
The vast majority of people I’ve spoken to, and those who’ve commented on the Journal website, share my sadness at the prospect of this wanton destruction.
The land is what’s known as a ‘windfall site’ in council jargon, since it hadn’t previously been publicly earmarked for large-scale housing by the planners but just kind of fell into their hands like an overripe apple.
Well, development would certainly mean a massive windfall for the owners - the Longford Estate and St Nicholas Hospital - and for the builders, if not for the neighbours whose environment would be ruined.
Their new Facebook campaign, Save The Meadows, has sprouted 660-plus supporters, and a petition has been launched on change.org.
Many have pointed out that these fields are extremely boggy in the winter and the water has to go somewhere.
The developers argue that they are not officially part of our flood plain. But officialdom’s definition of flood plain so often seems at variance with the reality experienced by local people.
The proposed hotel and drive-thru next to Tesco spring to mind.
The meadows are not quite in the heart of Salisbury, if you choose to define our city purely in terms of historic buildings.
But they are a vital part of its green lung – the network of undeveloped sites which gives the place its character, its sense of space and scale, and its wild creatures a refuge.
While I’m on the subject, keen as the building industry is to persuade us otherwise, it needs to understand that you can’t just designate the odd acre of land here and there as a nature park and expect birds, bees and butterflies to thrive.
They need safe corridors through our urban jungle.
A couple of weeks ago I found a dead otter in Harnham. It had been run over.
We’ll be a lot less likely to see otters, dead or alive, if we lose the meadows.
Save them, don’t pave them.
Voters have the power to axe Wiltshire's crony cabinet
WELL, now we know what Wiltshire leader Jane Scott thinks of her minions in the south of the county.
They’re good enough as lobby fodder. They can be relied upon to vote the right way to force through her pet policies.
But cabinet responsibility? No way, they’re just not up to it.
Tribalism being what it is, none of our Conservative councillors has erupted in fury publicly following Mrs Scott’s less than diplomatic comment that promotion is based on “a number of factors” including “skills, experience and capacity”.
She doesn’t think they’ve got enough of those crucial qualities, or she’d have done the electorally popular thing and picked one of them when she chose to expand her inner circle in a mini-reshuffle.
But she knows they’ll stay schtum, however humiliated they feel, for the sake of the party and to keep any faint hope of future promotion alive.
Did you know, folks, it doesn’t have to be this way? Legally, I mean.
We don’t have to tolerate the absence of representation for the south of the county on the only decision- making body that counts.
Since the Localism Act of 2011 there has been no compulsion for local authorities to be run by a leader and cabinet.
Indeed, not far away in Bridport, Dorset, some people are campaigning for a referendum to do away with what they call “government by contempt” and to have a cross-party committee running the show instead.
If the Public First group can collect signatures from five per cent of the West Dorset district electorate, voters will have to be offered that choice.
There are several structural options that are possible if enough people want them, and I recommend the Local Government Association’s publication, Rethinking Governance, which you can find online, to anyone interested in finding out more.
In West Dorset, the district’s Conservative leaders failed to attend a public meeting called by the campaigners, though the local Tory MP, Oliver Letwin, did turn up and dutifully defended the status quo as “more efficient”.
It will be fascinating to see how this develops.
Some residents down there are so disillusioned that they’re starting to call for a unitary authority. Poor, deluded souls. They need saving from themselves.
Don’t do it, chaps! Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. Learn from our experience and just don’t go there!
They’re good enough as lobby fodder. They can be relied upon to vote the right way to force through her pet policies.
But cabinet responsibility? No way, they’re just not up to it.
Tribalism being what it is, none of our Conservative councillors has erupted in fury publicly following Mrs Scott’s less than diplomatic comment that promotion is based on “a number of factors” including “skills, experience and capacity”.
She doesn’t think they’ve got enough of those crucial qualities, or she’d have done the electorally popular thing and picked one of them when she chose to expand her inner circle in a mini-reshuffle.
But she knows they’ll stay schtum, however humiliated they feel, for the sake of the party and to keep any faint hope of future promotion alive.
Did you know, folks, it doesn’t have to be this way? Legally, I mean.
We don’t have to tolerate the absence of representation for the south of the county on the only decision- making body that counts.
Since the Localism Act of 2011 there has been no compulsion for local authorities to be run by a leader and cabinet.
Indeed, not far away in Bridport, Dorset, some people are campaigning for a referendum to do away with what they call “government by contempt” and to have a cross-party committee running the show instead.
If the Public First group can collect signatures from five per cent of the West Dorset district electorate, voters will have to be offered that choice.
There are several structural options that are possible if enough people want them, and I recommend the Local Government Association’s publication, Rethinking Governance, which you can find online, to anyone interested in finding out more.
In West Dorset, the district’s Conservative leaders failed to attend a public meeting called by the campaigners, though the local Tory MP, Oliver Letwin, did turn up and dutifully defended the status quo as “more efficient”.
It will be fascinating to see how this develops.
Some residents down there are so disillusioned that they’re starting to call for a unitary authority. Poor, deluded souls. They need saving from themselves.
Don’t do it, chaps! Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. Learn from our experience and just don’t go there!
Parking limit puts paid to a lunch in the city centre
RECENTLY some people dropped in to visit my mother in her new home in Salisbury.
The three of them – one was a sprightly 87-year-old – intended to have lunch in the city centre beforehand, with a gentle stroll in the Close to stretch their legs.
They were breaking a long journey by coming here, and a park and ride bus didn’t figure on their list of options.
So, they told us, they looked up Mum’s address and headed for what seemed to be the most handily located car park. It was Salt Lane.
When they read the signs there, however, they realised that parking was limited to three hours. And given that most 87-year-old ladies’ sprinting days are well and truly behind them, they wouldn’t have time to do everything they wanted.
They decided not to have lunch in Salisbury after all.
They got back into their car, drove out into the countryside, and came across the Wheatsheaf at Woodford, where they had a lovely meal.
Then they drove back to Salt Lane and paid for three hours so that they had time for a nice catch-up with us without rushing.
Who was the loser in all this? You might think it was Wiltshire Council, because if these visitors had been offered the facility to pay for four or five hours instead of three, they would have done.
Indeed, if they’d asked me before setting out, I’d have directed them to the privately-run New Street multi-storey, where they could have stayed as long as they liked, with no risk of encountering a ticket-wielding warden.
But they didn’t know it would be necessary.
More to the point was what our visitors didn't buy - a meal for three in the city centre.
There’s nothing wrong with the Wheatsheaf - as it happens, it's one of Mum's favourites - so we agreed that next time they were passing through we'd meet them there, which would make things easier for them.
That's another meal - this time for five people - that won't be bought from a business in the city centre.
I remember from my reporting days hoteliers complaining about the damaging effect of the short-stay limit on their trade, particularly when guests were coming here for business meetings, maybe over a meal. It’s simply too short.
This is the result of what passes for a parking strategy under Wiltshire Council.
If I ran a restaurant in Salisbury I'd be joining forces with all my competitors to campaign for common sense on this issue, and asking my customers to sign a petition in support.
I’d ask all our local councillors to sign up too. Unless they think the city can afford to simply throw away custom?
The three of them – one was a sprightly 87-year-old – intended to have lunch in the city centre beforehand, with a gentle stroll in the Close to stretch their legs.
They were breaking a long journey by coming here, and a park and ride bus didn’t figure on their list of options.
So, they told us, they looked up Mum’s address and headed for what seemed to be the most handily located car park. It was Salt Lane.
When they read the signs there, however, they realised that parking was limited to three hours. And given that most 87-year-old ladies’ sprinting days are well and truly behind them, they wouldn’t have time to do everything they wanted.
They decided not to have lunch in Salisbury after all.
They got back into their car, drove out into the countryside, and came across the Wheatsheaf at Woodford, where they had a lovely meal.
Then they drove back to Salt Lane and paid for three hours so that they had time for a nice catch-up with us without rushing.
Who was the loser in all this? You might think it was Wiltshire Council, because if these visitors had been offered the facility to pay for four or five hours instead of three, they would have done.
Indeed, if they’d asked me before setting out, I’d have directed them to the privately-run New Street multi-storey, where they could have stayed as long as they liked, with no risk of encountering a ticket-wielding warden.
But they didn’t know it would be necessary.
More to the point was what our visitors didn't buy - a meal for three in the city centre.
There’s nothing wrong with the Wheatsheaf - as it happens, it's one of Mum's favourites - so we agreed that next time they were passing through we'd meet them there, which would make things easier for them.
That's another meal - this time for five people - that won't be bought from a business in the city centre.
I remember from my reporting days hoteliers complaining about the damaging effect of the short-stay limit on their trade, particularly when guests were coming here for business meetings, maybe over a meal. It’s simply too short.
This is the result of what passes for a parking strategy under Wiltshire Council.
If I ran a restaurant in Salisbury I'd be joining forces with all my competitors to campaign for common sense on this issue, and asking my customers to sign a petition in support.
I’d ask all our local councillors to sign up too. Unless they think the city can afford to simply throw away custom?
No escape from reality, but it needn't all be grim
WHEN I read that someone wanted to open an escape room in Salisbury I thought “What an inspired idea.”
Naturally, I’d got the wrong end of the stick.
I imagined it would be like a retreat – a place where middle-aged women like me who have perfectly comfortable lives but are prone to grumpy fits and get easily stressed for no good reason could escape for a few hours’ luxurious R&R.
A world full of loveliness and yoga and floaty white costumes where everybody’s nice to everybody else and the sun’s always be shining and we lounge around elegantly in the shade of a cool fountained courtyard surrounded by exotic blooms and sip Earl Grey from bone china cups and just smile beatifically. You know the kind of thing. You see it in adverts. Dreamland, I believe it’s called.
As opposed to same-old Salisbury on a very grey afternoon, which is when I’m writing this.
That’s the trouble with escaping, of course. When you’ve finished, the real world’s still there and it’s got to be dealt with.
Not that reality is without its lighter moments.
The turf war that appears to have erupted within the Church of England provided one of those recently.
With an honorary assistant bishop from Winchester reported to have crossed the border into our Diocese to commission a new church, and a miffed Bishop of Salisbury “seeking clarification” of the breach of protocol, it all sounds tremendously exciting.
The establishment in Salisbury seem to think we’ve got quite enough Anglican churches already, thank you very much, while at the upstart Christ Church, the Rector begs to disagree, telling the Church Times there’s “lots of room for Christ’s Kingdom to grow” and he hopes there’ll be more new churches to come.
Hee hee! Unholy joy! This one could run and run.
But anyway, back where I started, I’d completely misunderstood what escape rooms are about. Apparently they’re a big hit worldwide, and what we’re going to have is four ex-detectives running a venue where teams of adults immerse themselves in solving clues and riddles, working against the clock to free themselves from a locked room.
Sounds like fun – I’d certainly give it a go - and it could be a great new attraction for the city. Maybe some of our guest houses and hotels could join forces with the organisers to offer package deals, encouraging visitors to spend more time and money here. Good luck, guys.
The establishment in Salisbury seem to think we’ve got quite enough Anglican churches already, thank you very much, while at the upstart Christ Church, the Rector begs to disagree, telling the Church Times there’s “lots of room for Christ’s Kingdom to grow” and he hopes there’ll be more new churches to come.
Hee hee! Unholy joy! This one could run and run.
But anyway, back where I started, I’d completely misunderstood what escape rooms are about. Apparently they’re a big hit worldwide, and what we’re going to have is four ex-detectives running a venue where teams of adults immerse themselves in solving clues and riddles, working against the clock to free themselves from a locked room.
Sounds like fun – I’d certainly give it a go - and it could be a great new attraction for the city. Maybe some of our guest houses and hotels could join forces with the organisers to offer package deals, encouraging visitors to spend more time and money here. Good luck, guys.
'Mission creep' makes it hard to keep costs down
BY the time you read this, Wiltshire Council will have set its budget for the coming year.
Among what it calls ‘strategic savings’ are cuts in grants to the arts and to charities such as the Burnbake Trust, and a review of bus subsidies - which we’ve always been told are funded out of parking charges, so where will that money go instead?
Then there’s the closure of the school music service which, the council blithely assures us, “won’t affect children”. Tell that to the teachers.
Plus, of course, we’re going to be charged for garden waste collections – though I suspect a lot of people will not pay, and will either fly-tip, light bonfires, or drive to the dump (reduced opening hours!) more often, so that eventually the collection service will become uneconomic to run and will then be axed due to ‘lack of demand’.
There’s no denying that the government is making life tough for local authorities, even tame Tory ones, and that difficult decisions have to be made. Compared with some places, we’re getting off comparatively lightly.
But rather than getting rid of, or making life impossible for, people who are actually doing useful things, why don’t our leaders start by examining whether their increased public health promotion role actually achieves anything?
A few weeks ago I highlighted the utter pointlessness of Wiltshire’s deputy leader John Thomson issuing a press release urging drivers to slow down in bad weather. I’m not sure whether any newspaper bothered to print it.
Now we’re being consulted (didn’t you know?) about a countywide Alcohol Strategy which, among other things, aims to “promote a sensible drinking culture”.
Praiseworthy, but is it likely to put even one bunch of lads off their Friday night Jagerbombs or deter a single middle-class couple from polishing off that bottle of Merlot in the comfort of their own living room? I sincerely think not.
The council has an important role to play as the licensing authority, but this public health stuff strikes me as a kind of ‘mission creep’ where there’s always scope and justification for another well-intentioned initiative, however costly and however futile.
Among what it calls ‘strategic savings’ are cuts in grants to the arts and to charities such as the Burnbake Trust, and a review of bus subsidies - which we’ve always been told are funded out of parking charges, so where will that money go instead?
Then there’s the closure of the school music service which, the council blithely assures us, “won’t affect children”. Tell that to the teachers.
Plus, of course, we’re going to be charged for garden waste collections – though I suspect a lot of people will not pay, and will either fly-tip, light bonfires, or drive to the dump (reduced opening hours!) more often, so that eventually the collection service will become uneconomic to run and will then be axed due to ‘lack of demand’.
There’s no denying that the government is making life tough for local authorities, even tame Tory ones, and that difficult decisions have to be made. Compared with some places, we’re getting off comparatively lightly.
But rather than getting rid of, or making life impossible for, people who are actually doing useful things, why don’t our leaders start by examining whether their increased public health promotion role actually achieves anything?
A few weeks ago I highlighted the utter pointlessness of Wiltshire’s deputy leader John Thomson issuing a press release urging drivers to slow down in bad weather. I’m not sure whether any newspaper bothered to print it.
Now we’re being consulted (didn’t you know?) about a countywide Alcohol Strategy which, among other things, aims to “promote a sensible drinking culture”.
Praiseworthy, but is it likely to put even one bunch of lads off their Friday night Jagerbombs or deter a single middle-class couple from polishing off that bottle of Merlot in the comfort of their own living room? I sincerely think not.
The council has an important role to play as the licensing authority, but this public health stuff strikes me as a kind of ‘mission creep’ where there’s always scope and justification for another well-intentioned initiative, however costly and however futile.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)