http://www.medwayconservativegroup.co.uk Latest news from Medway Council Conservative Group en-gb http://www.medwayconservativegroup.co.uk/article.php?id=184 So, after a lengthy ongoing campaign for city status for Medway the choice lay elsewhere. Two towns – one in England and one in Scotland – and one tiny Welsh village were accorded city status in celebration of Her Majesty’s Diamond Jubilee. Good luck to all three of them. No doubt the accolade will bring about the sought of recognition and benefits for which we strove so hard in Medway. It had been a successful campaign for us in many ways, not least for the recognition it brought for Medway. Even in the betting stakes Medway moved progressively up the rankings to finish second favourite to a town which did not receive recognition either. So much for the bookies! But even our rankings in the betting odds helped to raise our profile across the country. As ever the naysayers came out of the woodwork following the announcement, saying – among other things – that it has been a waste of money. It was nothing of the sort. In fact, Medway Council spent a little under £13,000 on the campaign. To put that into context Medway annually spends over £650 million on providing a range of services. The money was well spent, for it raised Medway’s profile both regionally and nationally. Had we wanted to employ a marketing company to promote Medway over that extended period it would have cost many times that amount. People will perhaps question the benefits to flow from the campaign, which are inevitably intangible. But the sort of profile Medway achieved is almost beyond price, and will surely assist with promoting the economic and other benefits in Medway. How sad that at the eleventh hour Medway’s Liberals chose to write to the Deputy Prime Minister urging him not to award city status to Medway. It was an incredible spiteful act from a political party which obviously has long since put its shallow political aims before the good of the wider community. But despite everything, we received an amazing level of support from across our community. Not least from the Medway Messenger who remained staunch supporters of our city bid until the last. Our campaign has irretrievably put Medway on the map as never before. Medway remains a city in all but name. http://www.medwayconservativegroup.co.uk/article.php?id=183 Very soon now – so we are led to believe – the government will be publishing its consultation on future airport strategy. It will apparently have a grand title – Sustainability Framework for Aviation. Once we know the contents then we will be in a position to respond accordingly, but Medway Council is already mobilised to fight off the threat of any new “hub” airport. As we know we have been here before. The Cliffe airport proposals of 2002 were an earlier incantation that threatened our way of lives. This is one of the rare occasions where politics takes a back-seat and all elected members are united against a common foe. Whether the threat is from the so-called Boris Island, the decimation of Grain and much of the Hoo Peninsula, or a resurgent Cliffe proposal our response is the same. NO! This is not some act of Nimbyism. Rather we are developing our Stop Estuary Airport strapline into a coherent cross-party, pan-region campaign. This is not Medway acting alone. We are working with other North Kent councils, but also others who have an interest in the estuary. That means our colleagues in Thurrock, Southend and Essex, but also as far afield as Birmingham which has available airport capacity of its own. Airport capacity lies at the root of this issue. With an important piece of research into airport capacity in the South East already underway. There are a plethora of airports within a great arc from Stansted, Luton, Gatwick and Southampton, with unused capacity. A major piece of work we shall soon be realising is what the real effect will be on Medway from an airport at Grain. A new hub airport on Grain at least the size and scale of Heathrow will have massive wide-reaching consequences. There can be no doubt that the tens of thousands of new workers will need housing, while the infrastructure will gobble up what is left of our green spaces. Nowhere in Medway will be safe as the cement mixers begin to roll. We will continue to fight off those with vested interests. http://www.medwayconservativegroup.co.uk/article.php?id=182 At the Council meeting (23 February 2012) the Conservatives passed a budget that maintains service delivery, with residents set to benefit from an unprecedented second year of Council Tax freezes. The Conservative backed budget freezes Council Tax levels, which is at least £130 less than the average across Kent. And once again Labour put forward no alternative budget proposals and voted against a budget that protects services, which they claim to support. This comes after last week’s shock announcement on BBC Radio Kent that Labour would make the political choice to close Rochester Airport and Deangate Ridge – two cherished community assets. Labour also opposed the Council Plan which sets out the Council’s priorities for the coming year such as continuing to provide value for money, giving children a better start in life and ensuring Medway is safe, clean and green. The new budget honours the election commitments made by the Conservative Group last year to protect key front line services including libraries, weekly bin collection and green spaces, despite having to make savings of £14.3 million. There are no cuts to Sure Start, with all 19 centres continuing to receive annual revenue as least as large as in 2011/12, with the service receiving an additional £322,000 for extended nursery provision. Funding was also found to continue the popular free-swimming initiative, which has enabled nearly 60,000 under 11s and over 30,000 over 60s to swim for free since April. In addition, £50,000 has been earmarked to fight the proposed Thames Estuary Airport. Deputy Leader Alan Jarrett said: "Its business as usual at the Council with service delivery and key front line services secured. Yet again we see that Labour has no ideas of their own and oppose everything including the council tax freeze, funding for the stop estuary airport campaign, Sure Start and free swimming. "Labour say they support services but its not words that count but actions and Labour’s only action is to oppose all the great services that the council provides. They even chose to oppose the Council Plan that outlines the priorities for the next year." ENDS http://www.medwayconservativegroup.co.uk/article.php?id=180 By the time this column appears, Medway Council will have passed its budget through cabinet. Now it is on to full council on February 23. One overriding concern has been exercising our minds – budget sustainability. How do we keep services running to a high standard year on year at a time of continuing budget cuts? The context for that is £30 million in grant cuts over the past couple of years. There are some deep and muddled paradoxes in government thinking concerning local government funding. First they cut our grants, then they tell us we should not raise income. According to a government minister, we should not treat car parking – for example – as a cash cow. At the same time they have cut our grant by 28%. The two things do not sit well together – everything has to be paid for. Previously we managed to freeze car-parking charges for three years and intend to do so again. Last year we introduced a range of popular measures – such as free swimming for under- 11s and free parking at Christmas – and we need to find the money to continue with those initiatives. Our work in budget-setting this year has been to reset our spending in a major way in order to prepare us for the years ahead. Some of the savings proposals recommended will have a full effect in subsequent years and help us to keep services running. Increases in charges are never popular, but neither are service cuts. As decision makers we are therefore faced with a real conundrum. We choose to freeze council tax again this year and can do so because of a specific government grant. We will have to see what next year brings. At an incredible difficult time, we are making recommendations affecting vulnerable people, and have successfully found ways of continuing service delivery using different models. We believe that continuing service delivery is far more important than who provides it. As will all budgets, things will soon settle down and most people realise that everything has to be paid for. The something-for-nothing culture that characterised the last Labour government and brought us to the sorry financial mess which we now face is being swept away. Protecting the vulnerable remains a cornerstone for this Conservative administration, but realism is also the order of the day. http://www.medwayconservativegroup.co.uk/article.php?id=179 The Conservative group has expressed shock that Medway Labour has called for the closure of two cherished community assets. In an interview on BBC Radio Kent (14 February 2012), Labour Deputy Leader Cllr Vince Maple called for Medway Council to make the political choice to close Rochester Airport and Deangate Ridge Golf Course. Such a move could see them concreted over and turned into housing and industrial development. Cllr Maple said on Radio Kent: "You can choose to have a mixed economy of care provision and you can choose to have Deangate Golf Club and Rochester airfield. There are political choices there." In response Conservative Deputy Leader Cllr Alan Jarrett said: "This clearly shows what Labour would do if they were ever in charge. It is disgraceful that they want to concrete over these two important and cherished areas in Medway and turn them into industrial and housing estates. "In Medway the Conservatives are proposing to safeguard care provision for the long term and maintain the airfield and the golf club along with many other front line services. The only political choice people in Medway face is between Labour who would cut front line services and the Conservatives who will maintain them." ENDS Notes to editors: The BBC Radio Kent Interview can be heard here (approximately 1 hour, 13 minutes in). http://www.medwayconservativegroup.co.uk/article.php?id=181 Letter to the editor from Cllr David Brake How disappointing that at the eleventh hour Messrs. Sams and Jeacock should write to Nick Clegg, the leader of their political party, the Liberal Democrats in an attempt to undermine the hard work and effort by so many in the bid for city status for Medway (Messenger, January 27). In May 2010 on becoming Mayor of Medway, I committed to put the bid for city status at the heart of my year in office. Never afraid of missing an opportunity to talk about our aspirations, I subsequently spoke to and with individuals and groups representing the diverse community of Medway. Included in the list were church and community groups, industry and commerce and young people in our schools and youth groups, which included scouts, guides and our armed forces cadets. I recall so well the questions, particularly those from young people and the enthusiasm and support by so many. As my term in office drew to a close in May 2011, I invited Mayors and Civic Leaders from across Kent and South London to visit Medway in support of our city bid. With the help of the Historic Dockyard, Directors of the Kingswear Castle Paddle Steamer and the Royal Engineers Museum, we were able to give our guests a taste of Medway. The setting of the St.George’s Centre proved to be ideal place for our guests to pledge their support by the signing of a flag. I sincerely hope that in reaching a decision, Mr. Clegg looks long and hard at the Medway bid which is professional in every way possible and reflects on Medway today, our historic past, commitment to the Crown and the future we have. Cllr David Brake, Former Mayor of Medway 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.