BOOTS ON THE DECK AND GOVERNMENT HYPOCRISY

As an ex-infantryman, I have been un-impressed with this Labour Government's blatant incompetence and hypocrisy concerning its Armed Forces in recent years and failed to get excited about the Government inspired Armed Forces Day last month, whilst British lives continue to be lost in Helmand Province, Afghanistan due to penny-pinching policies.
.
Casualties are the hazard that those at the 'sharp-end' accept and we should not become too emotional as the media uses the corteges from Lyneham to bring home the stark reality of the price being paid by servicemen closing with the enemy. What the media ignores however are the non-fatal casualties ( 3 severely wounded per one death is a conservative figure).
.
The present generation has forgotten the IRA successful double IED booby trap ambush at Warrenpoint that killed 18 soldiers including Lt Col david Blair and a Saracen APC on an Armagh country lane rendered to bits of scrap metal , killing 4 RGJ soldiers, when a large culvert bomb was detonated under it. The Brigade Commander of 3 Inf Bde was able to stop all military vehicle movement in South Armagh and then in his whole country-wide TAOR because he had helicopter resources. If I remember, his thinking was that giving the IRA a local tactical success and the resultant publicity, by killing his soldiers so easily through IEDs was just unacceptable.
.
Whilst readers listen to the posturing of Brown, Milliband or The Defence Secretary try and remember that this Government went ahead in 2003 with the biggest cut to Infantry Battalions the Army has seen in the past 40 years whilst committing the Armed Forces to Iraq and already having comitted them to Afghanistan. You will be amazed to discover as I was that last month, our Labour Government is seriously thinking about cutting another 3 Infantry Battalions and cutting back on drones, intelligence gathering equipment etc to save another £1.5 billion pounds.
.
Listening to Brigadier Ed Butler tonight, he argues quite correctly that we need boots on the deck occupying and holding ground. A former colleague of mine, Charles Heyman (ex Jayne's Editor and Editor of The british Armed Forces Guide) has described the present idea to cut Infantry Battalions as " stark raving mad" and "sheer lunacy".
.
The past few years in Helmand have seen operation after operation into areas followed by withdrawal (lack of resources to hold the ground prised from the Taliban). With the US now involved and with Afghan Government Forces coming on stream in trained numbers , hopefully this will be a thing of the past. I will not even get into details about why only now 20 Chinook helicopters are available in Afghanistan when we as a country are meant to have 80?
.
I leave you with an extract from a letter I received from a friend in HQ Helmand Task Force, Lashkar Gah in December 2007.
" There is hope in Afghanistan. We have the support of the majority of the population for now. There is a great deal of investment, this is countered inevitably by the corruption at all levels of Afghan life. The force levels are improving but are woefully inadequate, as you point out, for the successful prosecution of what we understand as counter insurgency. At the moment the Taliban remain technologically immature but this will change ......"
.
Force levels are still woefully inadequate; the Taliban is learning fast and whilst Brown et al posture and dissimulate whilst cutting Defence spending, those corteges through Wooton Bassett from RAF Lyneham will become longer and more frequent.

A LOVELY FETE!

A big well done to the Dumpton Park Drive residents who had a clear spell between the showers to hold their Summer Fete this afternoon on the 'village green' that TDC failed to get adverse posession from Land Registry.
.
Over a hundred people turned out and it was good to see at least 6 Councillors there and of course the residents' MP, Dr Steve Ladyman. In a brief speech he declared his support for the village green and open land case the residents are making and was disparaging about TDC's handling of the situation so far. Like many he clearly thinks that TDC needs to re-think and go back to their original idea of selling the probably land-locked scrubland by the railway to residents.
.
I am delighted to report that not only has a point been made to TDC, if it has the sense to see it, but perhaps more importantly, £187 was raised for Guide Dogs for The Blind.

THE MORE THE MERRIER?

Please click on the 'flyer' for details.
.
I must congratulate the residents of Dumpton Park Drive for their initiative to publicise in such a great way, what many perceive to be an erroneous and wasteful effort by TDC in pursuing its asset disposal in the way it has done. Who is to blame for this?
.
From where I sit, it seems to be Mr Brian White leading Cllr Latchford by the nose, with the Leader acting the part of the organ grinder. All TDC has to do is to follow its own Cabinet decision of August last year and re-start discussions with residents to dispose of its probably 'land-locked' piece of scrubland!
.
I suspect this whole business will be viewed by many Conservative Councillors as yet another unmitigated PR disaster concocted by their Leadership and senior officers. What they also need to realise is, that whatever the eventual outcome, this is yet another instance of losing the support of the electorate in a ward that used to be solidly Conservative. The Conservative Party in Thanet needs to wake up quickly to the possibility that in 2011 its natural supporters might teach it a sharp lesson by supporting Independent local candidates as a protest at the continued poor, discredited administration in Cecil Square led by Councillors who clearly failed to maintain 'Standards'.
.
So go along tomorrow to The Village Green in Dumpton Park and join in the Summer Fete! By just poling up at 2.00pm and being there for a while, you will demonstrate to TDC that you do not approve of its present conduct. In addition you can support the charity Guide Dogs for The Blind, to whom all proceeds will be donated.
.
The more the merrier and the bigger the message to those who seem unable to run Thanet's affairs competently any more!

WHEN DID PRIME AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THANET BECOME VACANT LAND?

With interest on Strife being focused on China Gateway this time last year, I had no time to draw readers' attention to a little application by a Mr R Vanderweele to expand Bradgate Caravan Park at Lydden by using another 1.78 hectares of prime agricultural land in order to add 51 more 'mobile homes' to the 181 already on the site. (See UK Planning and F/TH/08/0892).
.
This application was about to be approved by Planning Officers but was 'called in' to be looked at by Councillors of The Planning Committtee. It was refused. The main points of refusal were that:
1. It ran contrary to TDC policy of developing on prime agricultural land.
2. There were concerns on vehicle movements on narrow roads.
3. Southern Water had concerns that its supply and sewerage at Lydden could not cope.
.
Well it should be no surprise to readers that Mr R Vanderweele is back with another application within 12 months (no extra fee needed!) that is effectively identical! (see F/TH/09/0515).
.
It would now seem that by making a £10,000 s.106 payment of £10,000 to Kent Highways to help put in a 3m? wide cycle way and footpath along Manston Court Road from Lydden up to Haine Road and with Southern Water now saying its sewerage system will be able to cope after all, two of the objections to the original application have been got round!
.
However, as the picture above (courtesy of Bing) shows quite clearly (the land in question is within red boundary), this is yet another slice of prime agricultural land about to be built on. What might surprise readers is that Mr R Vanderweele, in his present application now describes prime agricultural land as 'vacant' land! Is this a cynical redesignation to fool our Councillors? Surely, whether you till prime agricultural land or not, it still remains prime agricultural land? Here is the rejection case for last year's application in regard to agricultural land:
.
'The proposed development would result in a loss of best and most versatile agricultural land and represent unacceptable development within the countryside that would result in an erosion of the openess of the countryside which would be harmful to the character and appearance of the landscape and the applicant has failed to demonstrate an overriding need for the development that would outweigh the requirement to protect the countryside. the proposal is therefore contrary to policies SS8, EN1, EP9 and EP10 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan and Policies CC1, CC2, CC9 and T3 of the Thanet Local Plan."
.
Signed: B. White, Head of Development Services
.
In light of the above from Mr White, it will be interesting to see what a Planning Officer at TDC advises on the present application to Councillors, as presumably the application will be called in again to be decided by The Planning Committtee members? Is not the land the same land?
.
Another thought about a number of our 'caravan' sites around Thanet comes to mind. It is interesting that Bradgate is already larger than the village of Lydden in terms of occupants. The same goes for Quex Park caravan Site and Two Chimneys, which between them take up more space and have more 'residents' than Acol.
.
What I am also worried about is that it is quite clear that a number of 'residents' at some caravan sites are effectively full time residents with no other permanent residence even if they have to leave their mobile home for a few weeks between Jan and Mar each year. Has TDC effectively been checking that 'residents' do have a permanent residence elsewhere or has this little Planning requirement been over-looked and not enforced? It makes a farce of the 'tourism' claims for employment and income if it should transpire that many mobile homes are actually main residences, doesn't it?

WELL DONE TDC OFFICERS - NOW ITS UP TO PLANNING MEMBERS!

Michael Child (http://www.thanetonline.blogspot.com/), has put up links to The TDC Planning Committtee Agenda for Wednesday 15th July regarding 1 Granville Marina, that readers may wish to view in full.
.
Suffice it to say that after Councillors turned down Auclair's attempts to 'redevelop' the site at Planning last month, TDC officers are now recommending that Planning Committtee members:
.
' seek a Compulsory Purchase Order in relation to 1 Granville Marina as defined in the site plan (Appendix 2). Included with the order would be a request for a Direction of Minimum Compensation.'
.
This is excellent news and will be welcomed by most. The aspect I find interesting is the order is to include a Direction for Minimum Compensation.
.
Whilst Auclair Properties has the right to appeal to a Magistrates Court to stay proceedings on the grounds that they have taken reasonable steps to ensure the preservation of the building, it would appear from the briefing prepared for Planning Members, that TDC believes otherwise and the details of events surrounding the two thirds demolition back in Feb 2008 make interesting reading. Quite simply, contractors on behalf of TDC entered the property on 28 Jan 2008 to begin the urgent works needed under a Notice issued on 15th Aug 2007. The following day the owners poled up and assured TDC Officers that they were in a position to commence the works instead and somehow the building became dangerous within 72 hours leading to a two thirds demolition on 1st Feb 2008.
.
The information to Councillors in their briefing about Minimum Compensation reads as follows:
.
'Upon compulsory order of a building it is assumed , for the purpose od assessing compensation payable to the owner, that its value would be the open market of the structure and land AS IT STANDS (my capitals). However, if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the structure has deliberately been allowed to fall into dis-repair for the purpose of justifying its demolition and redevelopment, He/She may include in the Compulsory Purchase Order a direction for minimum compensation.'
.
So it would appear that instead of 'barking', TDC is now prepared to bite. It will of course be up to Planning Members to consider the matter carefully on 15th July, but one sincerely hopes that they will decide to seek a Compulsory Purchase Order with a request for a Direction of Minimum Compensation.
.
If they do, this will send out a clear message that TDC is not to be messed about with in regard to Grade 2 listed structures. Isn't it about time that they considered the same compulsory purchase business with the Grade 2 listed Scenic Railway and the land it stands on in Dreamland, as TDC threatened to do in April 2008?

ONE RULE FOR KCC & TDC AND ANOTHER FOR US?

I think Michael Child (http://www.thanetonline.blogspot.com/) picked up first on TDC and KCC's contractor down at Margate Harbour, dumping tons of chalk from the Turner Contemporary building work on the cliff face above the promenade, where the public have access. The story was followed by Your Thanet this week with concerns expressed about damage to the ecology of the cliff face, particularly on the north-side where rare plant species make Thanet's cliff chalk faces a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSIs) and are thus protected in law from dumping and damage to them.
.
Birchington Geologist, Kim Bruce has described the action as 'scientific and environmental vandalism' and it would appear that Natural England are looking into the matter. It would seem that KCC and TDC have completely ignored the law in regard to dumping material on SSIs. Cllr Mike Hill, KCC's Cabinet Member for Communities excused the dumping and said " The chalk is being temporarily stored on the site as part of the building work".
.
Now, I am not an expert in these matters but a pile of loose chalk up against a solid face with heavy rain falling on it, doesn't seem very safe on a promenade let alone the SSI aspects.
.
More interestingly though is the story, regular reader Walter, has reminded me about! (The link is http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/3054903.stm )

The picture above shows builder's chalk dumped against the cliff face in Pegwell in June of 2003. It would seem that a builder, Mr Bernard Baldwin had tipped an estimated 100 tons of chalk on a cliff face, a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSI). What will surprise readers is the attitude taken by TDC and KCC in 2003 compared to their present environmental vandalism and casual approach to the law in 2009!

In 2003 TDC issued an Enforcement Notice for removal of the chalk from the cliff despite Mr Baldwin arguing (as Cllr Mike Hill argues in 2009) that this was chalk from a cliff and put back on a cliff.

Now TDC and KCC in 2003, when it wasn't 'their' chalk from 'their' building project, took a much sterner line. Cllr John Kirby, at the time KCC's Cabinet member for Planning said:

"the Council was likely to take legal action to make sure Mr Baldwin complied with the enforcement notice."

It seems to me that we should expect consistency and upholding of the law in regard to dumping and SSIs by KCC and TDC. The arrogance implied in the present stance by KCC and TDC is quite unbelievable and I hope Cllrs will take this matter up with their various Councils urgently. This is an unmitigated PR disaster and further illustrates the degree of incompetence and mismanagement that seems to have infected TDC at the moment.

INTERESTED IN TDC'S FINANCIAL REPORT?

Tony Flaig at http://www.bignewsmargate.blogspot.com/ , has mentioned the small item on Page 7 of this week's Thanet Times concerning a recent East Kent Audit Partnership report that highlighted a waste of tax payer's money by TDC in insuring 28 vehicles it was not using and failing to insure a 7.5 tonne rubbish lorry it was. As TDC has now altered what it does in vehicle insurance, we are assured that £400,000 has now been 'saved'. How much was wasted then? This might be of interest to those who now find their local loo closed, TDC flower beds unplanted, or are still waiting for a wheelie bin or resent the closure of Margate Museum.
.
I went to look for East Kent Audit Partnership reports and couldn't find them. If any reader can steer me where to look, I would be most grateful. It would seem that Canterbury, Dover and Thanet have pooled their internal audit effort as well as having the Audit Commission look over their affairs. It is also that time of year when members of the electorate are invited to talk to the Audit Commission over issues that worry them and details on how to do this are shown at
http://www.thanet.gov.uk/council__democracy/performance/financial_services.aspx. If you want to contact them quickly then e-mail Lisa Robertson at l-robertson@audit-commission.gov.uk .
.
If you visit TDC's website you can access TDC's Financial Report for 2008/09. As a non-accountant it is pretty much indecipherable to a simple chap like myself but a number of snippets caught my eye.
.
With a ferry operator, wind-farm stuff and a basin full of yachts in Ramsgate, one wonders why Ramsgate Harbour is costing us all £750,000 a year to support?
.
I was unaware, for example, that under 'debtors', our Council is acting as a money lender to employees for car purchase! Hardly seems a 'green' policy but car loans to employees is surely not what a council should be involved in? How much money is involved and at what rates of interest and to how many employees, is not clear.
.
Under 'Related Party Transactions' it would seem that works and services of £50,767 were commissioned from companies in which two TDC Councillors had an interest and that a grant of £77,901 was paid to a private sector company which one Councillor declared an interest in. It would be nice to know what companies and which Councillors and their level of 'interest', particularly as East Kent Audit Partnership indicated concern of internal TDC control of compliance with 'Contract Procedure Rules'. This seems like pen pusher speak for rules on awarding contracts not being followed !
.
I will need help to explain what state TDC's Pension Fund is in and what the implications could be for the Council Tax Payer. It would seem that the deficit in the generous pensions for our local government employees is now at £53, 220,000 with a hole appearing in the last 12 months of £22, 033,000! Does the council tax-payer effectively underwrite these generous pensions?