PRESS RELEASE

ISSUED 13 JANUARY 2010

TWO PAGES

Special refuse collection this week

A SPECIAL refuse collection service will take place in Hinckley & Bosworth this week for all those residents whose black bins were not emptied last Thursday and Friday because of the bad weather.

The additional collections will take place on Thursday (14) and Friday (15), with affected householders requested to present their black bins on whichever day their collection normally takes place. So anyone whose bin was missed last Thursday should present their bin this Thursday.

On this occasion, the crews will also collect additional bags of refuse that may have accumulated due to the delayed collection.

The special service will operate in addition to the plastic and cardboard recycling collections scheduled on these dates – so residents are asked to present these for collection also. Due to the additional refuse collection, the brown bin garden waste service has been suspended for Friday 15 Tuesday 19 and Wednesday 20 January. Please note these arrangements are subject to weather conditions.

Blue box/ bag recycling collections were also affected by the weather throughout last week. All residents who did not receive a scheduled blue box collection last week are asked to retain their recyclables until the next scheduled collection date shown on their calendar. Any excess recyclables should be placed in plastic bags and presented with the blue box on the collection day.

Alternatively, residents can make use of the recycling sites provided throughout the borough.Please visit www.recyclemore.co.uk for details of the nearest site.

The Borough Council would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused to residents by this disruption to services.

ENDS

Following on from yesterdays note about waste collections in the snow:

The council were unable to collect black bins from some areas this Wednesday and Thursday, and so have arranged (weather permitting) additional collections for next Wednesday and Thursday.

The scheduled composting and recycling services planned will be carried out as normal.

Disappointed to see that the Planning Inspectorate overturned the ruling of the Planning Committee, and granted planning permission for a new dwelling on Flamville Road in Burbage - despite the protests of the Parish & Borough Councils, and the local residents.

Below is the official ruling on this:

Main Issues
3. I consider the main issues to be the effect of the proposal on the character and
appearance of the streetscene and on the living conditions of surrounding residents
by reason of overlooking of 12 Flamville Road.
Reasons

4. The site, which has a front and side to Flamville Road, forms part of the rear
garden of 60 Lychgate Lane, one of a pair of semi-detached properties. Flamville
Road is a cul-de-sac that runs along the side of No 60 and then has two branches;
Appeal Decision APP/K2420/A/09/21082452the western branch has semi-detached houses to both sides and the eastern
branch, which the site fronts, has semi-detached houses on its southern side only.
The semi-detached houses are of modest scale with narrow separation between
them. The exception is a new terrace of three properties with a central gable
feature opposite the main Flamville Road access. There are no footpaths or verges
to the two arms of Flamville Road, although the main access is wider, with a clear
verge on the western side and a hedge covered verge to the east.

5. The proposal is for a detached two-storey house with a garage and two parking
spaces facing the eastern arm of the road and a front elevation facing the main
Flamville Road access. It would adjoin a garage in the rear of No 62. The Council
do not object to the principle of residential development or to the proposed design,
which would reflect the design of surrounding properties. The Burbage Design
Statement 2006 indicated that Lychgate Lane / Flamville Road area has a mix of
housing from Victorian cottages to a few modern detached houses.

6. Whilst the house is detached, I do not consider that this would conflict with the
regular pattern and spacing of semi-detached properties, as there are no similar
properties on the northern side of the eastern leg of Flamville Road. The opposite
side of Lychgate Lane has a variety of detached and semi-detached houses and
occasional bungalows, so that variety within the area is apparent. In addition, the
new development of three terraced houses already interrupts the flow and rhythm
of the semi-detached houses on the southern side of Flamville Road. The footprint
of the proposed house, although different from the nearby semi-detached houses,
would reflect that of the new development opposite and would not introduce a
conflicting note.

7. The house has been designed to front both frontages of Flamville Road. Whilst
different to the semi-detached houses in the area, this would produce an active
frontage to both elements of Flamville Road and would provide an enhanced
appearance and aid integration of the new dwelling into the area.

8. For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposal would not harm the character
and appearance of the streetscene. It would comply with saved Policy BE1 of the
Hinckley & Bosworth Local Plan 2001 [LP] that aims to ensure a high standard of
design to secure attractive development that will safeguard and enhance the
existing environment.

9. The property would have an elevation facing the semi-detached houses on the
southern side of Flamville Road. There would be a ground floor lounge window and
two first floor bedroom windows facing No 12, which is directly opposite the site.
There would be some 17 metres between facing windows across Flamville Road.
The Council in support has referred to Supplementary Planning Guidance: New
Residential Development [SPG], revised in 1997, although this was not referred to
in the decision notice. This guidance has been adopted following public
consultation and I attribute moderate weight to it although it was produced in
advance of Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing.

10. SPG indicates that the Council will negotiate to try to achieve a minimum
separation distance of 25 metres between facing habitable room windows. The
existing properties across the western arm of Flamville Road have a separation
distance of around 15 metres. Whilst less than the distance recommended in SPG,
bearing in mind that the ground floor windows face a highway with its attended
lowering of privacy, I do not consider that the interaction between bedroom
Appeal Decision APP/K2420/A/09/21082453 windows at a distance of 17 metres would have an adverse impact on the living
conditions of residents.

11. For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposal would not harm the living
conditions of the residents of No 12 by reason of overlooking. The proposals would
comply with saved LP Policy BE1, which aims to ensure that there should not be an
adverse affect on the occupiers of neighbouring property.

12. The residents of No 62 also have concerns in respect of living conditions. The
properties would be some 25 metres apart and the main two-storey element of the
proposed house would lie next to No 62’s garage, with a single storey element
projecting along the boundary. I consider that the distance and the relationships
of the proposed house to the house and garden at No 62 would not have an
unacceptable impact on living conditions through loss of light, overlooking or loss
of outlook.

13. Concern has also been expressed in relation to the access and parking situation in
the area, as many properties do not have or use off-street parking. The access
exists and, whilst close to a corner, is on a minor cul-de-sac where traffic speeds
are likely to be low. The proposal would have three off-road parking spaces, which
the Council consider adequate for the size of dwelling proposed. A new access and
of-street parking have been provided off Lychgate Lane for No 60, so I do not
consider that the proposal need give rise to any significant amount of on-street
parking.

14. In respect of flooding, it is indicated that this is an existing problem of run-off from
the adjacent highway. Soakaways are proposed for the house that would need to
meet regulatory standards and I do not consider that the proposal would contribute
further run-off that would have an impact on the existing problem.

15. For the reasons given, and taking all other matters into account, I conclude that
the appeal should be allowed.

16. I have considered the conditions submitted by the Council having regard to the
advice in Circular 11/95: The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions. I have
adjusted their wording where necessary in the interests of clarity. I agree that a
condition relating to materials is necessary to ensure that the appearance
contributes to the character of the area.
Andrew Jeyes
INSPECTOR

Just to catch up on a couple of things that I have been doing in Burbage of late

1) Flooding - following contact from some residents on Goosehills Road after the extremely strong rain we had earlier in the summer, I have been involved with trying to ameliorate the problem. So far, between myself and my colleagues we had the drains on Goosehills Road repaired, and the gutters re-swept as they were full of debris that was being swept into the drain. We are now waiting for another deluge to see whether this has had the desired effect.

Colleagues across the town are engaged in similar efforts in their areas.

2)  Rugby Road development. Following an outcry from residents around the Johns/St James’ Close area, I spoke against the proposed development of new modernist dwellings on Rugby Road. The main areas of concern were that the designs were totally out of keeping with the area, violated the Burbage Visual Design Statement, and would involve a considerable loss of amenity for the rear neighbours. There were a host of subsidiary problems, that I won’t go into here.

Unfortunately the Planning Ctte decided to vote through the proposals, despite the opposition of the ward Councillors and the entire Parish Council, leaving some extremely angry residents.

3)  Flamville Road - we are now waiting for the decision of an appeal on the proposed development on the rear of a property on Lychgate Lane, opening onto Flamville Road. This was an application that I spoke against in the early part of the year, in support of the surrounding residents efforts via letters and petitions, and was successful in getting it turned down.

The applicant appealed the rejection, and there has been a lot of work from the residents writing to the Inspector in charge, re-stating their opposition to the size of the proposed dwelling, and the likely impacts on drainage and parking.

A decision should be due in about a week.

4) Colts Close. There will be some further movement on the Colts Close issue over the coming months, though it remains confidential for the present time.

Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council

Council Offices, Argents Mead, Hinckley, Leicestershire, LE10 1BZ

PRESS RELEASE

ISSUED 4 AUGUST 2009

TWO PAGES

Agreement signed and sealed for Bus Station Site

The Borough Council and Bus Station development partners, The Tin Hat
Regeneration Partnership have signed a Development Agreement which sees both
parties legally committed to work together to redevelop Hinckley’s town
centre bus station site.

The Tin Hat Regeneration Partnership comprising Wilson Bowden Developments
and Centenary Ashcroft were selected last year by the council and their
advisers, as the preferred development partner for this landmark project.
This followed a rigorous selection process and public consultation, when all
three of the three short listed schemes went on display in the town last
summer. Additionally, the Tin Hat Partnership’s concept proved to be the
most popular with the public.

Since the selection process, the Council and The Tin Hat Regeneration
Partnership have been working together closely in evolving the proposals and
securing the Development Agreement.

A planning application for the scheme, known as The Crescent, is due to be
submitted by Spring 2010 and will comprise a major new food store,
Hinckley’s first multiplex cinema, restaurants, new shops and a 500 plus
space car park.

A start on site is expected in 2012 with a scheme opening in 2014. Further
consultation will take place with local residents and businesses on the
scheme during September, ahead of the planning application.

Council leader, David Bill, said: “I am delighted that we have passed this
important milestone bringing forward the redevelopment of the Bus Station
site and in particular the delivery of a multiplex cinema which the
Borough’s residents have wanted for so long. I am also pleased that the bus
station will be modernised and hope that this will encourage the use of
public transport. The design of the new centre complements the street scene
of central Hinckley and will improve the variety of shopping available in
the town.”

Will Robinson, Retail Director of Wilson Bowden said: “The signing of the
Development Agreement demonstrates the level of all parties commitment to
this key project in enhancing and securing Hinckley Town Centre’s retail and
leisure offer and we are already in detailed discussion with retail and
leisure anchor operators. We will now be working closely with the council
in working up the planning application and look forward to working with both
the council and people of Hinckley to deliver a landmark project of which
everyone can be proud.”

Bill Cullen, Deputy Chief Executive of Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council
said: “I am pleased with the level of progress that we have achieved with
our development partners to get the scheme to this stage, particularly given
the challenges of the current economic down turn. Whilst this has led to
all parties having to consider the implications for the scheme, a lot of
work has been going on behind the scenes to bring it to this key stage.
This gives us confidence that we will have a fantastic and vibrant mixed use
leisure and retail complex that the town can be proud of in years to come.”

ENDS

A somewhat belated report on Burbage Carnival, from last Sunday.

All in all, a tremendous day for both participants and spectators. The weather held for the day, which was always a worry after the re-scheduling of Hinckley.

The floats were excellent, clearly an awful lot of work and enthusiasm had gone into them as ever. The Carnival field was very well supported, with probably 30+ local organisations holding stalls or doing something in the arena, as well as the fairground rides and stalls. Hundreds of people throughout the day.

Everybody seemed in very good spirits, and all the stalls seemed to go well - ours certainly did well.

Full marks to the Carnival Committe, a triumph in my opinion.

The thunderstorm yesterday afternoon brought an extremely concentrated burst of rain over Burbage - 27mm in 20 minutes - and this completely overwhelmed the drainage system, resulting in more flooding on Brookside and Southfield Road.

I visited one lady who had had her ground floor more or less completely flooded out. the council staff did a sterling job delivering sand bags, but the sheer speed of the deluge made it impossible to react quickly enough to stop water entering properties.

Severn Trent staff and contractors were about, cleaning up some of the debris and calling insurers on behalf of residents.

Severn Trent water are responsible for maintaining the water courses in the area, and keeping them clear of obstruction. There is very real concern that this is not being done effectively, and this is exacerbating the problem of overwhelmed capacity in the drains and Sketchley Brook.

This was something of an exception, in terms of the intensity of the rain, but the flooding events on these two roads are increasing every year.

The proposed redevelopment of the Johnsons site on Rugby Road may present an opportunity to sort some things out with the drainage basin of the Sketchley brook, since this development will likely effect the brook up and downstream.

The Liberal Democrat Councillors in the area will be pressing Severn Trent to do all they can to mitigate any problems in the area.

Well, it’s been saved. By all accounts the local residents are delighted.

It was by no means an easy decision, but I think we have made the right one. We have stood by our election pledges.

This is part of our wider project of protecting green spaces within the Borough - Mount Road, Big Bit etc.

And so it has come to pass that Vodaphone are once again sniffing around the Rugby Road site, and apparently have started unauthorised test trenches.

This site was rejected several years ago, and all the reasosn for the rejection remain completely valid today.

I have written to the consultants operating on behalf of Vodaphone stating my oppositon to this site.

I’m not against mobile phones, or masts in principle - but there are several siites available right away from peoples houses and bothering nobody.

This is virtually in peoples front gardens.

Several people took the time to post comments on the link I posted about Colin Pitchfork - essentially Neighbourhood Watch were running an online survey around the fact that Mr Pitchfork is coming up to the time he can appeal for release.

The results of the survey were an overwhelming ‘No’ he should not be released - over 90% I believe.

A very useful public meeting last night at the Millenium Hall on the thorny issue of the proposed allocations for gypsy sites.

I say a thorny issue, but really all sides were in agreement - there must be no travellers sites in Burbage.  The rumpus was caused by the two Conservative County Councillors trying to claim that a site will be built near Rugby Road.

Fortunately the public requested to hear from us, and David and Stuart were able to give the solid assurance that no site will be built in Burbage - even if that means throwing the whole LDF process out, and starting with a blank piece of paper.

The whole meeting was conducted with a good temperament, and I hope that everybody got the answers they were looking for. People often say that huge suburban housing estates like those we have in Burbage have no sense of community - I think that was proved categorically wrong last night.

Other villages in the Borough are feeling very aggrieved about the fact that they are on a list of preferred options, and nowhere in Hinckley or Burbage is - but there are sound reasons for it.

If anybody is unclear about how they make their views known on this issue, then they can write to Richard Palmer, at HBBC, and that will be received as part of the consultation project. In addition to this, we are resending all the consultation documents, and there will be a new exhibition/consultation scheduled for Burbage.

I have agreed to go and look at the existing sites in the northern Parishes, at the request of the Conservative County Councillor, so he can demonstrate the difficulties they already face.

I shall report back here.

Answer: a total shambles.

The numbers in detail:

45,000 + 12 = The number of homes expected to be repossessed in Britain in the next twelve months.

200,000,000 = The amount in pounds that the government has set aside to help.

6000 = The amount of households that the government estimate will be assisted (note, not saved).

These figures are taken from a brief introduction to the new Mortgage Rescue Scheme, that I received in my council post this morning.

The aim of the scheme is to assist households who own their own home, but have got into difficulties with their mortgage repayments due to the prevailing economic conditions. The MRS is designed to be a safety net for families at risk of homelessness if the bailiffs turn up and ask for the keys.

They offer two ways out of such a situation - (a) shared equity with a third party Registered Social Landlord, with resulting substantial decrease in mortgage repayments or (b) A government mortgage to rent, that effectively allows the occupants to remain in the property as a Registered Social Landlord tenant, on an assured short hold tenancy on a sub-market rent.

I think this is a laudable effort, there are a surprising number of families sold completely unsuitable mortgages - partly their fault, sure -  who are now on the ropes. Hopefully this could be combined with a number of other efforts,  such as the financial education classes for parents scheduled to begin at SureStart centres.

However, like most efforts of the Labour Government, it is stupidly complicated and virtually nobody is eligible for the relief.

To qualify households must or must not:

1) Be eligible for assistance under Part Seven of the House Act (1996) - how many families do you know who keep a copy of that on the coffee table? Essentially it means that for priority status there must be either (a) dependent children in residence (b) a pregnant woman (c) someone who is designated as vulnerable or in possession of a disability. Single people or childless couples are not eligible.

That’s quite reasonable - it’s aimed to protect families.

2) The home in danger must be the primary residence, not the second home by the seaside. Again perfectly reasonable.

3) The house in question must not be worth more than £145,000.

I think that’s daft - the bulk of family homes in Hinckley & Bosworth (and I imagine elsewhere), and I’m talking particularly about new builds, tend to start at £150,000.

How did they arrive at the figure of £145,000? Setting such an arbitrary limit seems to exclude most family homes.

4) Homeowners in negative equity need not apply.

Utterly stupid - surely the families most at risk of being booted out of the house are those who are in negative equity, and have suffered resulting financial problems?

5) Gross household income must not exceed £60,000 per annum. I think that’s reasonable, if you have £60,000 income you should be able to sort your own solution out.

6) No outstanding charges or ownership disputes on the property.

It seems reasonable, but I would submit that the most vulnerable families are also the most likely to have such charges against them.

It seems to me that to be eligible for this scheme, you have to be in a financial position where you do not need it anyway. The restrictions are such that they effectively exclude those most likely to need it.

I would rather the £200 million was spent cracking down on shonky forms of credit - ‘payday’ loans, logbook loans and so on. I think it would help a great deal more people, without all the bureaucratic nonsense.

To further complicate matters there are a number of other options:

Unemployed homeowners may be eligible for Mortgage Interest Support, and those who have suffered an ‘income shock’ may be eligible for the also recently announced Homeowner Mortgage Support Scheme. The Council operates a Homeless Prevention Fund in addition to this.

I can’t keep up with all the jargon and over complication and I receive regular briefing notes - what chance have the average family got to understand the various options that they almost certainly wont be eligible for?

Why can’t we just roll it all into one programme called ‘Help’ or something similarly self explanatory?

I have changed the straw poll question on the right hand side to canvass some opinions on this - your responses and email addresses remain hidden.

The application to erect a 10m high phone mast was rejected at Planning Committee last night, on the basis that it would be an eyesore in that location.

We had big support from the local residents, including 217 petition signatures, several letters of objection and one member of the public spoke. Both Stuart Bray and I attended the meeting and opposed the application.

The committee concurred with the view of the officers, ourselves and residents and unanimously rejected the application.

I seem to have found my way onto the mailing list of something called the Rural Services Network, something that I never subscribed to but I assume that I have been added to because I am a Councillor in a relatively rural Borough.

This seems to be happen quite a lot at the moment - I have also been added to a rather strange email list from some anti-european organization (Is this because I write so much about Europe on here?).

Normally I would be annoyed by this, but some are quite good - the RSN does seem to be quite useful, offering what it calls a rural take on all the news of the day. It contains a wealth of information that I otherwise would not have found out about, and does seem to be vaguely intelligent in its style.

I await the next email list I am subscribed to.

Leicestershire Fire & Rescue are bringing the Princes Trust Team Programme to Hinckley & Bosworth.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with this programme, take a look at the local website: http://www.lfrs-team.org/

This is an excellent scheme for young people, and especially those that have not had the easiest start in life - it makes them work both physically and mentally, and if it all goes to plan then it should help them on the road to long term quality employment and being generally good citizens.

At the moment they are looking for 2 week work placements for the young people, and also for a community project for them to get stuck into.

If anybody knows of anything that might suit, please let me know!

The plans for the redevelopment of the bus station site recently approved by the Council look very exciting.

If the development can be made to chime with the redevelopment of the Britannia Centre, then it should be part of a real transformation of the town centre.

Between the two developments I’m hoping for a diverse mix of tenants, to avoid the ‘anytown’ syndrome.

I am one of the people that Leicestershire Promotions insist on bombarding with emails proclaiming their successes, modest though they sometimes are (in the interests of fairness, they are sometimes noteworthy too).

Normally I only glance at these, but today’s missive warranted further reading as it was their Annual Report - or at least I tried to read it. Due to the subject matter of my PhD I am well versed in the lexicons of management, but this was something else.

This was a symphony of impenetrable prose and daft acronyms. Consider if you will their mission statement

Leicester Shire Promotions will help to shape and
facilitate a strong and successful destination renowned
for its progressive, well-rounded approach and its
unique blend of world-class attributes. We will
establish and develop a profile of Leicester and
Leicestershire as destinations of choice within England
and the most distinctive within the East Midlands. We
will strive to deliver one cohesive destination, which
seamlessly embraces the diversity of facets.

I freely admit that I have written (indeed, published) some absolute nonsense in the past but I recognise when I am beaten. The first sentence sounds like they are describing good Californian red wine (progressive, well rounded, world class…), and the second sentence means nothing at all.

Happily they stop talking balls after a few pages and talk about some things they have actually done - and not just sending me emails either.

As most people are aware we are on the cusp of a transformation of Hinckley Town Centre.

One of the signature projects is the redevelopment of the bus station site, something that has been a difficult project in the past. Our administration has done things a little differently to normal, in that we have begun the public consultation process much earlier than is traditional - we have opted to begin consultation right from the very start of the process, before a design or contractor has been selected rather than drawing up plans and contractors and then asking for feedback.

I know which option I favour, and I encourage everyone to get involved with the consultation process and have their say.

When this development is considered along with the development of the Britannia Centre, the new Leisure Centre and other bits and bobs, then there is a very bright future ahead for Hinckley.

From Stuart Bray’s site:

Liberal Democrats are concerned that Mr McMahon’s decision to retire as the dentist at the Cowper Road dental surgery could leave Burbage without a dentist. Health officials have admitted that alternative provision will be made but this could be outside Burbage. Liberal Democrat Parish Councillors Stuart Bray and Ann Hall tabled a motion at February’s Parish Council meeting urging health officials to ensure Burbage doesn’t lose this vital facility. We also want to put on record our thanks to Mr McMahon for all his years of loyal service on behalf of his 5,500 patients.

I was a patient with Mr McMahon as a child, and while I was an appalling patient, he was (still is!) a great dentist. It’s important Burbage keeps its dentist, and preferably an NHS one!