Tag: politics

More “Penny Mordaunt” Headline Grabbing


In these austere times it is so good to know that Ms. Mordaunt has the time to devote to fighting the ivory trade.

Portsmouth North’s Penny Mordaunt has pledging her support for the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW)’s campaign to protect elephants from poachers.

Don’t take this the wrong way. I too am against the ivory trade that is based on such cruelty. There are however more important, local, issues that Penny Mordaunt could and should be focussed on.

She said: ‘We must take the lead in the international community to stop elephants dying to fuel the ivory trade.

I believe this country has been a long time supporter of the fight against animal cruelty in general and this cruel crime in particular. Many members of the general public already contribute to various funds and charities.

What the cynics amongst us don’t need is our local MPs jumping on various emotive bandwagons to up their public profiles on the run up to local elections.

Portsmouth North MP backs anti-ivory trade campaign – Environment – Portsmouth News.

Russell Brand: Addiction is an illness not a crime


Addiction should be treated as a health problem rather than a criminal matter, comedian Russell Brand has told a committee of MPs.

The 36-year-old former heroin addict described addiction as an “illness” and said that those suffering from it should be treated with “compassion”.

He advocated an “abstinence-based recovery” approach, telling MPs this was how he overcame his addiction to drugs, which he said was caused by emotional, psychological and spiritual difficulties.

He said he thought the money spent on arresting drug addicts would be better spent on treating them, as he gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee on 24 April 2012, as part of its inquiry into drugs policy.

Brand may well be right that addicts should receive treatment rather than be arrested and locked up. But that doesn’t address the real problem.

Drugs is big business and all the while it is lucrative to the criminal elements then there will be people willing to supply to the weak-willed who are willing to buy.

We still need a solution to the source and supply of drugs in this country. Only then will the cost of addiction be reduced. Whether it be by reducing the number of addicts arrested for the crimes they commit trying to fund their habit or by reducing the number of addicts that end up in our hospitals as a result of bad drugs, overdoses or drug related illnesses.

BBC – Democracy Live – Russell Brand: Addiction is an illness not a crime.

Shall We / Shan’t We Defence Policy


The continuing saga of the shall we / shan’t we defense plan.

Apparently this is the plane that the Labour government had ordered but was rejected by the current government. Now, it appears, they have changed their minds on discovering the mind-boggling costs of installing a catapult system to our new carriers.

Personally, I think I would be doing some serious auditing of the costs being put forward here.

A whole carrier can be built for £5.2bn but just one catapult system fitted to one ship will cost £1.8bn !!!

I believe that the shilly-shallying of successive governments has brought the defence of this once great nation to its knees. Yet the government is still committing the support of our forces without the relevent infrastructure being in place.

This is akin to writing cheques on an empty account.

Defence of the nation, protection of the oppressed is not cheap. Face up to it and get on with the job.

Or else, let’s forget about colonialism, worldwide policing, protection of the oppressed and let’s declare ourselves neutral and rely on other nations to protect us.

Royal Navy jet’s future up in the air – Local – Portsmouth News.

Localism Act – Your Chance To Get Involved


For some time I have been getting “unsettled” by the changes that are occurring in my local area, becoming more concerned about the way that planners seem to be taking our local community. Just take a look at some of my other posts to see my thoughts on the matter.

A few days ago I attended a meeting at which there was a presentation on the Localism Act and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). To be quite honest I wasn’t quite sure why I was there. I do know that I have been shooting my mouth of about the lack of involvement there appears to be between the community, meaning  me, and the planners.  In recent times I had seen articles which referred to Community Board meetings. To be more specific the articles typically were referring to meetings that HAD taken place, past tense. Then I saw in the paper that a meeting was to take place at Horndean Technology College so I made a note in my diary and then forgot all about it. That is until the reminder popped up a few days before the due date.

So I took myself along and it soon became clear that I was there, somewhat under false pretenses, as a resident of Waterlooville. You see, this meeting was called by the East Hampshire District Council with focus primarily on Horndean, Cowplain and Rowlands Castle but nothing to do with Waterlooville which comes under Havant Borough Council.

The really sad thing is that there were only, including me, perhaps 3 or 4 members of public in attendance. The bulk of the attendees were local councillors. Yet, the subject of the meeting, The Localism Act, is all about pushing the responsibility for planning decisions away from central government, down to the local community.

Thats you and me folks.

I  really knew nothing of the subject matter prior to the meeting.  I just saw it as a point of entry for my interest in local planning affairs. Also I was hoping that I would be able to identify some contacts and sources of information.

The meeting ran along the usual lines reading of planned agenda, acceptance of previous minutes etc. etc.. Then the presentations began ….

The Localism Act came into being 15 November 2011. The intent of the act is to  shift power from central government back into the hands of individuals, communities and councils.

The act is a recognition that central government has become too big, too interfering, too controlling and too bureaucratic. This has undermined local democracy and individual responsibility, and stifled innovation and enterprise within public services. The intention is  create a shift in the balance of power and to decentralise power as far as possible.

“Localism” isn’t simply about giving power back to local government. Rather it shows the government trusts people to take charge of their lives and is prepared to push power downwards and outwards to the lowest possible level, including individuals, neighbourhoods, professionals and communities as well as local councils and other local institutions.

There are five key measures core this new approach to decentralisation.

  • Community rights
  • Neighbourhood planning
  • Housing
  • General power of competence
  • Empowering cities and other local areas

You can read about the detail behind these bullets here

The other key item presented was CIL.

The Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) Regulations 2011 came into force on 6 April 2011 and is a levy on new developments over 100 square metres in size. The money raised by CIL will be ring fenced for local infrastructure.

In other words it is a tax.

Who is supposed to benefit from this tax ? Supposedly the community that has to suffer the new developments is the community that reaps the benefit from the moneys raised by the levy.

The money can be used to support development by funding infrastructure that the council, local community and neighbourhoods want – for example new or safer road schemes, park improvements or a new health centre. The system is very simple. It applies to most new buildings and charges are based on the size and type of the new development.

As I said earlier, he sad thing is that there were only a few members of public at the meeting. The whole point of the Localism Act and CIL is to put power back into the hands of the community.

Unfortunately, the community on the face of it doesn’t seem to care.

Personally I don’t think that is true. I think that people do care but they are not engaged by local council. The local councils don’t, in my opinion, do a very good job of communicating what is going on in their parishes and boroughs. From my own personal experience, when you do try to get involved it is difficult.

There are, apparently, Community Forums where this stuff is discussed. I tried to find out about the local Waterlooville forum and sent emails to the contacts published on the Havant Borough Council website. Either the links are dead or the owners of the email address choose not to respond.

Which is how I ended up as an interloper at an East Hampshire Community Forum meeting in Horndean.

My thanks to Cynthia Haveron who took the time to discuss the meeting set up with me, to introduce me to the Horndean representatives during the discussion period and also to send me contact names and email addresses for the Waterlooville Community Forums.

Localism Act will not stop new homes plan – Politics – The News.

Dunsbury Hill Farm – New Development Proposal Affects on Waterlooville


Today I received a letter from HBC (Havant Borough Council) pertaining to the proposed development of the Dunsbury Hill Farm site, adjacent to the A3(M).

The description of the development is as follows:

Site Address: Dunsbury Hill Farm, Park Lane, Cowplain, Waterlooville

Proposed Development: Hybrid planning application comprising a part outline application relating to employment uses and a hotel with conference  facilities and a part detailed application for a new link road with bus gate to Woolston Road; together with landscaping, infrastructure and associated works.

I am sure that they don’t intend to hide what this development really means but on first reading I was quite happy to go along with it. After all a new hotel and conference centre would not increase the daily traffic levels and road traffic noise. The additional employment opportunities that this would bring is also to welcomed.

However, without reading the actual proposal one is not likely to see what this really is. In their own words …

… proposed development of agricultural land at Dunsbury Hill Farm, Havant into a business and technology park with hotel, conference facilities and associated infrastructure

The  development proposal includes the creation of a new roundabout and potential dualling of a section of the Hulbert Road. In addition there are plans to create a new parking area double the area of the current lay-bys this development will replace. All of this is an indication of the increased traffic that the developers are anticipating.
I have lived in this area since 1985. The survey that I had on my house at the time carries a final comment

shame about the noise from the motorway

Over the years  I have become aware of the increasing noise levels and the changing nature of the noise. Waterlooville, specifically Junction 3 (J3), the junction of the B2150 with the A3(M),  has become something of a hub for the emergency services. As a result anyone living near to this junction will have noticed the increased siren activity. If recent news articles are to be believed the newly opened Hindhead Tunnel is also contributing to increased noise levels along the A3(M) due to heavy goods traffic choosing the A3(M) in preference to the M3 now that the Hindhead traffic jams have been eliminated.
The application pack includes  tables indicating noise levels. The constant theme running through the comments section is

A3 constant and dominant.

What is wrong with these tables is that they are taking noise level reading from a point on the centre line of the A3(M) into the development area and on into Calshot Road & Park Lane areas of Leigh Park. No measurements seem to have been taken from the Waterlooville side of the A3(M).

Yet this is the area that will probably be most affected by the additional traffic generated by the new development.

The location of this new development makes total sense when you consider the easy access to the motorway. Allowing traffic to clear the area very quickly.  However, the very fact that all that traffic will be coming and going via J3 of the A3(M) is going to have a negative effect on the area.

Presumably the planners are thinking that this new development will provide jobs for the soon to be residents of the Berewood (ex Newlands) development on the opposite side of Waterlooville. Did they also consider the additional traffic that will inexorably be sucked across the town ? Such traffic will also be using the J3 roundabout.

I also have other questions, ones that I have asked in other of my posts …

  1. Are there any potential tenants who have committed to take up residence of these new units when they are built ?
  2. Has a major hotel chain registered any interest in running this proposed hotel and conference centre ?
  3. Was the land adjacent to Junction 2, Horndean, considered as the site for this development ? If it was, why was it rejected since there is less potential for affecting local residents and the motorway access is just as good ?I am assuming that the answer is that the land comes under East Hampshire District Council rather than Portsmouth City Council.

I am the first to bemoan the fact that the planners don’t seem to have done much to provide employment for the residents of Waterlooville. So I am loath to be totally negative about this proposed development. However, I don’t believe that the planners have got the true measure of the impact that this development will have.

As usual the only people who will truly gain from this are the developers and, for a short while, the folks employed to carry out the construction.

Plans for business hub at Daedalus given the go-ahead


Thousand of new jobs can be expected for the region after plans for the creation of a huge new business hub were given the green light.

Outline planning permission to provide more than 1m sq ft of business space has been granted for the former HMS Daedalus airfield in Stubbington and Lee-on-the-Solent.

Good News for the Gosport and Lee-on-the-Solent communities. Any potential for new jobs are always welcome.

Councillor Mark Hook, leader of Gosport council, said: ‘We are talking about creating potentially 4,500 jobs from this particular site.

‘What we are being asked is to kick-start the economy again here in Gosport. It’s jobs that are critical.’

4500 jobs is not to be sneezed at. I think the key word we should focus on in that statement is “potentially”. Nowhere do I see the local council publicising that any companies have committed to moving into the area.

There will also be more than 200 homes, some shops, allotments and a 34-acre public open space.

Nobody disputes that we need more homes in this area. More affordable homes. The big problem is where are all the jobs that are needed by the inhabitants of these homes. I refer you back to that word again ….. “potentially” 4500 jobs….

Another factor that might have slipped under the readers radar is a little matter of a new housing development planned for just north of Fareham. There they are planning to create over 7000 homes. The “potential” inhabitants of those properties also have their beady little eyes on jobs in the “The Daedalus enterprise zone”.

Underlying all of this is the total lack of infrastructure to support these plans.

Ian Lycett, chief executive of Gosport Borough Council, said: ‘The Daedalus enterprise zone is a vitally important project for Gosport. Not only will it create thousands of jobs for local people, but it will generate improvements to the surrounding infrastructure which will benefit all residents of the peninsula.’

Peter Grimwood, chief executive of Fareham Borough Council, added: ‘This is an important milestone in the development of Daedalus. We have always taken the view that the future of the site depends on the operation of a viable airfield.’

What I see here is, two different councils, each with their eye on the main chance.

Watch your backs !!!

For the moment, the only folks that I see will definitely gain from this is the developers.

Plans for business hub at Daedalus given the go-ahead – Politics – The News.

Monstrous evil – Remember When


On this day in 1864 a letter appeared in the Hampshire Telegraph drawing attention to ‘the monstrous evil which has been permitted to exist for a considerable time past without any effectual attempt being made to check it’.

The writer was referring to the nightly assembly on the main roads crossing Southsea Common of prostitutes of ‘the most vile and abandoned character’ who ‘assail every passenger, even in the hearing of the guardian policeman, with their filthy invitations, couched in language the most revolting and obscene’.

The preceding text was taken directly from The News. I have highlighted a few words and only suggest that the venue may have changed but you only have to visit Guildhall Walk when some of the noisier clientele spill out of the many hostelries. I am not suggesting that they are prostitutes but the language of some of the “ladies” can leave a lot to be desired and many of them are not wearing any more than the ladies of the night who used to frequent Southsea Common just a short walk away.

The following week the newspaper reported that ‘we understand that the authorities have given instructions to the police to remove these creatures from all places where they are a nuisance to passengers and more particularly from Southsea Common’.

Methinks, Nothing changes

Monstrous evil – Remember When – The News.

Carriers ‘may have no jets until 2025’ – Britains Shame


The labour government sold this country down the pan and our current government isn’t doing anything to stop things going from bad to worse.

It is no wonder that the likes of Argentina are playing silly buggers by turning away British cruise ships and any ships flying the Falklands flag. This is what they did when, under Maggie’s government, they thought that Britain couldn’t reach them militarily.

Here we are, once the greatest sea power on the planet, reduced to a toothless second-rate nation.

There have been many warnings by folks far better qualified than me. Yet the British government takes no notice.

We are going to have two new aircraft carriers but no aircraft to put on them. The aircraft that were planned to be used are “not fit for purpose” as, due to a design fault, they cannot be landed on an aircraft carrier. At least the government could have kept the Harrier but apparently our planes have been sold off “cheap” to the US. Surely the fact that they wanted to buy them should have said something to our government.

How can anyone one allow us to end up in this situation. We have no carriers until 2020 and no aircraft to populate them until 2025.

Our government, both Labour and our current unholy alliance, should hang their heads in shame. They have not served the British people as they deserve.

Carriers ‘may have no jets until 2025’ – Local – The News.