http://www.medwayconservativegroup.co.uk Latest news from Medway Council Conservative Group en-gb http://www.medwayconservativegroup.co.uk/article.php?id=176 By Cllr Rodney Chambers and Rehman Chishti MP. This article orginally appeared on Conservative Home. The news this week that the Coalition government is preparing to consult on a Thames Estuary airport has a deep sense of déjà vu about it. For they are another in a long line of governments, spanning some forty years, who have looked east to the Estuary to solve their aviation issues. Yet they have all discovered that there are overwhelming economic, environmental and safety issues that stand up against such a scheme. It is an area where an aircraft would be 12 times more at risk of bird strike than at any other major UK airport. It would be close to Thamesport – where huge container ships unload one fifth of the UK’s Liquid Natural Gas supplies – and the proposed London Array wind farm. Then there is, of course, the SS Richard Montgomery ship, packed full of explosives. Proponents often dismiss these issues saying we can just move these things elsewhere – such as setting up a new reserve for the 300,000 migrating birds who flock to the estuary’s environmentally and scientifically significant sites each year. The inconvenient truth is, as the RSPB has pointed out, you have to take drastic action to stop birds returning. Some have pointed to the great economic benefits to North Kent of building an airport. What area wouldn’t want thousands of new jobs and businesses? Whilst it would create jobs, such an airport would be decades away. We need sustainable jobs now not in 10 or 20 years time. It would come at great cost to Kent – the garden of England would become the capital’s concrete car park– with great swathes of the countryside making way for new roads, rail links and industrial estates. An airport of that size would require at least 70,000 employees – that’s much more than all the unemployed in Kent. It would require a mass influx of people and new houses, which is completely unsustainable. And what about the effect such a new airport would have on the UK’s existing airports? The experience of other countries shows that it is extremely difficult to maintain two competing hub airports. Research by Medway Council has shown that nine out of ten international airlines at Heathrow are against an estuary airport. The implications are clear – which Boris Johnson has admitted to MPs - the government would have to legislate to force airlines to move from Heathrow, which could lead to its closure. Evidence also shows that an airport in the Thames estuary would be in the wrong place. As the Mayor of London’s adviser Doug Oakervee has highlighted – Upper Heyford, in Oxfordshire, is the centre of passenger demand for the whole of the UK, he seems to suggests that if a new airport facility is needed it should be to the west of London rather than the east. Of course we need to maintain the UK’s competiveness and aviation needs, so what are the alternatives? London is currently served by five airports, which is two more than New York, and these between them have direct flights to more places and more often than any city on the continent, with almost as many international passengers as Paris and Frankfurt put together. And whilst Heathrow may be almost full, there is spare capacity available at Stansted and Luton airports. Gatwick has also announced plans to increase flights by 44,000 a year. Capacity could be further improved as larger aircraft are used. And there are proposals to improve the interconnectivity between London’s airports. The so-called ‘Heathwick’ plan, could link London airports with high-speed rail. Regional airports can also assist in meeting our future demand for aviation. Recently, EasyJet began flying from Southend. Birmingham airport has suggested that it could double its passengers and Manston in Kent could also expand. We must put this into context. Birmingham will be connected to London via Highspeed two, while Manston is close to the first high-speed rail link to the capital – one that is already in place. If a new airport is still found to be needed then why not look to use abandoned RAF airfields which could be brought into service at a fraction of the £70 billion an estuary airport could cost. We believe that there are better alternatives and solutions to the UK’s aviation needs than the Thames Estuary airport. Let’s make sure that the government finally dismiss it for good in their consultation this year. http://www.medwayconservativegroup.co.uk/article.php?id=178 Two issues remain at the forefront of our thinking at Medway Council. Firstly, and it seems repeatedly, there are the continuing attempts to build a massive new airport in or near Medway. However, we have recently upped our game in terms of opposing some ill-thought-out proposals. This takes a number of forms. Importantly we do not stand alone in this fight, having joined forces with councils in Essex – notable Thurrock and Southend. We all share the same concerns, and by standing together we maximise our chances of success. The same applies to the Local Strategic Partnership for our area, which as commissioned research into the need for more airport capacity in the South East. The outcome of the research will no doubt be informative. Gatwick airport has already admitted to having found a lot more capacity, which means we have every reason to be hopeful that those who use lack of capacity as an excuse for decimating much of Medway’s countryside will be proven wrong – yet again. At last week’s meeting of Medway Council we eventually achieved cross party unity in opposition to the proposals. However, sadly, not until there has been some bloodletting with regard to a rather silly and time-wasting amendment proposal from Labour. Although the idea of a Medway-wide referendum on the subject was couched in the terms of more public involvement, the actual debate revealed it was nothing more than a spiteful attack on this administration. Eventually the amendment was defeated, and every member of the council voted to oppose any airport proposal. Perhaps the time has come for the Leader of the Labour group to knock some heads together among his backbenchers! The other main area of concern is how we continue to provide high quality public services in the face of less money coming from government. This took a helpful turn for the better as the Medway Cabinet approved a proposal to allow private sector involvement in the running of one of our leisure centres – the Stirling Centre at Rochester. If the proposal comes to fruition there will be major financial investment in the centre, while retaining the same level of public usage. Crucially the fee structure will remain on par with our council leisure centres. This demonstrates that by working in partnership with others improvements can be made. Everyone wins. http://www.medwayconservativegroup.co.uk/article.php?id=175 Medway Council is engaged in an efficiency programme designed to ensure that Medway taxpayers get even better value for money. Providing value for money has been a catchphrase for the council over many years becoming ever more important as government funding is squeezed. One major area of work is for us to look at the way we provide adult social care and in particular how cost effective are our care homes. Consultation has begun about how our four main centres should be managed over the years ahead. The Balfour Centre, Robert Bean Lodge, Platters Farm and Nelson Court are all in the spotlight. Why? When these four centres have been run by Medway Council for years without any apparent problems. Successive Conservative administrations have retained these important services in-house, but things have changed. Financing has changed, and so have the expectations of service users. The Balfour Centre provides day care, but since the introduction of personalised budgets by the last Labour government there is more choice available. Now increasing numbers of people are taking the payments to which they are entitled and using it to buy a host of different services. This increasing trend away from traditional day care provided by a local council is obviously good for service users. But it means that the Balfour Centre is no longer financially viable, but with plenty of alternatives available for those seeking traditional day care. The three residential care homes are increasingly uneconomic. All provide a good standard of care, but at more than twice the cost to be found in other parts of the care homes market in Medway they no longer represent good value for money. Care home users expect the highest modern provision – such as that offered by the recently opened Amherst Court. Such provision can be achieved under an out-sourced model of care at the three care homes and the current consultation is seeking views on that. Crucially, contrary to the stories being bandied around by those who seek to alarm and frighten vulnerable people, Medway Council will not be closing any of the three homes. Rather consulting on a different form of management. Robert Bean Lodge, Platters Farm and Nelson Court will remain as care homes, irrespective of the result of the consultation under way. http://www.medwayconservativegroup.co.uk/article.php?id=174 Another year, and it seems another airport report – this time from Lord Foster. There is one significant similarity between this report and its predecessors – he has got it completely wrong. The problem with what appears to be another desktop piece of work is there is no relationship between the report and what is actually happening on the ground. The idea of building an airport on what is seemingly a barren empty place – the Isle of Grain – takes no account what is actually there. For example a village full of people, Thamesport, the LNG plant, a power station and a massive industrial complex that is in the planning stage. But of course any airport proposal could only be viable if it extended beyond the Isle of Grain, which would mean the destruction of more villages such as Allhallows. It would mean the destruction of much of the Hoo Peninsula, while even more would be consumed by the infrastructure needed to service a massive hub airport. That is to say nothing of the huge damage it would cause to the habitats of the wildlife – some 300,000 over-wintering wildfowl and waders across two major Special Protection Areas designated and protected by European law. Of course we have been here before, when our combined lobbying effort successfully defeated the ill thought out proposals to build an airport at Cliffe. This latest idea is perhaps even more barking mad! These latest proposals are largely as a result of the Mayor of London having ideas that stretch well beyond his actual sphere of influence, and it seems are designed to placate the voters ahead of the 2012 mayoral elections in London. But even the Mayor of London himself does not seem to know what he wants. His ideas have swung from estuary island airport, to faster links to regional airports, to an airport on the Hoo Peninsula. What as not changed is the resolute opposition to any idea for an airport. Medway Council will continue to lead the opposition, and we expect our opposition to eventually prevail. http://www.medwayconservativegroup.co.uk/article.php?id=172 First impressions are vitally important. That is one of the reasons that Medway Council has been so intent on improving the look of various areas. The proactive approach to keeping our gateways into Medway free from litter with the grass mown regularly is designed to say welcome to Medway, and makes a clear statement of arrival. In Medway our other gateways are receiving even more meticulous attention, and arrival points for the travelling public are crucial. That is why the Medway Park area of Gillingham is being revamped, and why Gillingham railway station is being improved. Corporation Street in Rochester has been given a new lease of life. In Chatham the improvements to Union Street, The Brook and Chatham Bus Station are there for all to see. But this work is far more than cosmetic. It is aimed at making life better for residents and visitors alike, and crucially to make a statement to investors that Medway is open for business. This is bearing fruit, as investor interest remains high. That will ultimately mean a better Medway with more jobs and a resultant higher standard of living. But not all have been in favour, with opposition to change to some degree expected. It is always far easier to object and propose nothing constructive, than it is to promote change and get on and deliver it. The latest public row about change and improvement is in Luton. Luton remains high on any index of deprivation and the council has been working with partners such as police and health to improve things. It's proving a tough job, but progress is being made. The idea of having a Healthy Living Centre in Luton has been welcomed by many, but to date effectively blocked by a few. Where these centres have been built elsewhere in Medway - such as Rochester, Rainham and Lordswood - they have proven a marvellous asset to the community. Time is short, the money to build this centre will soon be lost if progress is not made. There are always plenty of reasons for not doing something - whether it be parking, open space or slow worms! If the obstacles and prevarications continue, this marvellous facility will be lost. Sadly if the objectors have their way, it will be the good people of Luton who will lose out. http://www.medwayconservativegroup.co.uk/article.php?id=171 Students in Medway will be able to benefit from an improved bus scheme thanks to their local Conservative Council. Today (4th October 2011) Medway Council’s Cabinet took the decision to extend the current half price scheme to include weekends, giving 11-18 year olds the opportunity to benefit from cheaper bus travel 7 days a week. This will assist young people who rely on public transport to get to the many clubs, activities and events taking place throughout Medway. The introduction of the new Medway young people’s pass is due to the Conservative Group’s decision to allocate an additional £250,000 in its budget for this year, which the Labour Group refused to support and voted against. This is being used to improve concessionary travel in Medway and move towards a Freedom Pass in a sustainable and affordable way, as the Conservative Group promised in the local elections in May. The new pass is expected to be introduced by January 2012. Portfolio Holder for Front Line Services Cllr Phil Filmer said: "Many young people rely on public transport to travel around Medway and this scheme will make this more affordable. With the new pass, 11-18 year olds will be able to benefit from half price travel throughout Medway seven days a week. "At a time when many other councils are cutting back or ending concessionary travel for young people, because of the current reductions in public finances, Medway Council is expanding its scheme. "This is thanks to the additional funding we provided for concessionary travel this year and is moving Medway towards a Freedom Pass in a sustainable way." http://www.medwayconservativegroup.co.uk/article.php?id=170 Despite the best attempts of Medway's Labour group to cause frustration and delay, Chatham regeneration forges ahead. The long-awaited new bus station nears completion, with an early October opening date just around the corner. Of all the regeneration projects in Medway, Chatham has been the most difficult. The difficulties have manifested themselves in various ways. The ground conditions have been fraught with hidden surprises - such as unmapped underground wells. Severe winter weather brought its own understandable delays, while the challenge of keeping traffic moving through what was effectively a long-running building site was never easy. But underlying all of the physical constraints were the dark political forces of the Labour group in Medway, determined to do all it could to cause delay. But why should they? The aim was clear at last week's meeting of Medway Council. Delay could be blamed on the Conservatives, and that would surely be a political winner for Labour. The latest row centred on whether Medway Council should pay the lease costs for Arriva - the main bus provider in Medway - to vacate the old bus station in the Pentagon for a shiny new one. With lease costs exceeding £300,000, the matter was not to be taken lightly. Labour complained about the cost as a waste of taxpayers' money, only to produce its own proposal that cost the same. The message from Labour was clear - they were not worried about the money, but intent on delaying the bus station opening and scoring petty political points. The Conservative proposal was to use a one-off payment from reserves - for a known amount. Labour's answer was to forego future income from the bus station - for an unknown amount that would be at least as much as the call on reserves. The row in the council chamber was short-lived. Labour's proposal would mean a new bus station with no buses. When it came to the vote Labour and the Independents voted to have no buses, but thankfully sense prevailed and the new bus station will open as planned complete with buses. The Labour deputy leader even stated that it would be nice to have buses in the new bus station - then voted against that very thing. The voting show that the Conservatives stand for Chatham's - and Medway's - future, while Labour stand for Chatham's past. http://www.medwayconservativegroup.co.uk/article.php?id=168 During a special Council meeting (15th September 2011) Medway’s Labour Group once again attempted to obstruct the new Chatham bus station. Labour councillors opposed a deal which will ensure Arriva moves into the new bus facility when it opens next month. And the Liberals decided not to even attend the meeting. Fortunately, the Conservatives voted for the deal to ensure that the bus station will be successful. This was the culmination of long running negotiations over many months with Arriva and is the best agreement possible. However, if it were left up to the Labour Group then there would be no buses in the new bus station. The new Waterfront Bus Station in Chatham will transform public transport in Medway, serving 117 destinations across the area. It will replace the antiquated 1970s bus station in the Pentagon, and make it easier for the 60,000 passengers a week who use buses in Chatham. Deputy Leader Cllr Alan Jarrett said: "The Labour Group’s stance throughout the regeneration programme has been to try to block and wreck every improvement we’ve made in Medway and in particular in Chatham. "They campaigned in the last election on a promise of 'getting Medway moving', but haven’t kept this promise and have simply attempted to hinder all moves to improve public transport in Chatham and regenerate the area. "We have always said that the regeneration of Chatham would be the most difficult and complex, but we are now seeing projects coming to fruition which will considerably improve the area and assist in levering in more private investment. "The Arriva discussions were long running over several months and we have reached the best agreement possible. However, if it were left to the Labour Group there would be no buses in the new bus station. "The Conservatives stand for Chatham’s future and Medway’s future. Labour stand for Medway’s past." http://www.medwayconservativegroup.co.uk/article.php?id=165 Proposals by Kent Police to reduce the Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) in Medway by more than half is a retrograde step and have been condemned by Cllr Mike O’Brien, Medway Council portfolio holder for Community Safety and Customer Contact. Currently, the sixty-six PCSOs in Medway carry out an invaluable role in the community in helping to reduce anti-social behaviour and crime generally. They work closely with communities in Medway, including supporting the work of Police and Communities Together (PACT) groups, schools and young people. People in Medway value the important role that PCSOs play in helping make Medway a safe place to live and work. However, Kent Police has suddenly announced plans to reduce the number of PCSOs in Medway by thirty-five without consultation with local residents, councillors, the Community Safety Partnership or Medway Council. Portfolio Holder for Community Safety and Customer Contact Cllr Mike O’Brien said: "Residents have been treated poorly by this decision to reduce PCSOs in Medway. Only a few weeks ago we were promised that no reductions would be made, now suddenly without consultation, Kent Police has changed their mind. "We have been working closely with the Police at a strategic level to assist in implementing the reductions in public finance and have maintained throughout that our PCSOs were an important and integral part of our police requirement in Medway. Our results speak for themselves. "Kent Police has said that Medway, because of its size and the fact it’s a first tier authority, is a special case, yet now they are planning to more than halve the number of PCSOs on our streets. They have made a real difference to the quality of life of people in Medway and any reduction in the number of PCSOs by Kent Police will be bad news for Medway. "I will be seeking a meeting with the Chief Constable Ian Learmonth so that we can learn why Kent Police are now planning such a retrograde step and seeking meetings with our three Members of Parliament." http://www.medwayconservativegroup.co.uk/article.php?id=162 Proposals to bring a University Technical College (UTC) to Medway have moved one step closer after receiving the backing of Lord Baker. After visiting Medway last week (24 August 2011) and meeting Cllr Les Wicks, along with representatives from Medway Council, local businesses, college and universities, Lord Baker said, "the Medway UTC will certainly have the strong support of the Baker Dearing Trust." Bids for UTCs are co-ordinated by the Baker Dearing Educational Trust, headed by Lord Baker, which together with the Department for Education will judge the bids. This new concept in education offers 14-19 years olds technically orientated courses. They are sponsored by a University and supported by local businesses and offer a clear progression into higher education or further learning in work, including apprenticeships. UTCs provide opportunities for young people to combine academic study with practical learning, studying GCSEs alongside technical qualifications. They specialise in subjects requiring industry equipment, such as engineering and construction, and teach these disciplines alongside business skills and the use of ICT. The government has pledged funding to open 24 UTCs by 2014 across the country. Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services Cllr Les Wicks said: "This is a very important development in getting a UTC in Medway established. With Lord Baker’s support we can move forward with the application and see how we can bring the benefits of this new concept to Medway. "The UTC will provide new possibilities for young people who wish to study more vocational courses. It will certainly add to the opportunities that our young people have to follow a specialist course to suit their abilities and ambitions. "One of the features of the UTC is that it works in a very practical, hands on way, working jointly with local industry and colleges. We are very fortunate in Medway to have such a positive relationship already with such partners, including the Royal Engineers. Thanks to the support of local businesses, the college and universities, we’ve shown that we are a strong contender for moving this project forward. The UTC gives us much to look forward to."