Cornwall Anti-Cuts Alliance

Saturday 19 November 2011 (evening):  fundraising WCGP social with live music at The Western Hotel, St Ives

meetings
2011 meeting
5 November 2011    11-2 Railway Club, Truro (joint meeting with WCGP to discuss Cornwall manifesto)

2012 meetings (all starting at 12 noon)
14 January       Railway Club, Truro - AGM 
10 March         Venue to be confirmed
12 May "
7 July "
15 September "
10 November "

Come and say hello at one of our stalls and take home a leaflet or two about the Green Party.

You can find us at the following place and time.

Looe - 12th November 10.00 am

We look forward to meeting you!

Letter sent to West Briton by Tim Thomson

It seems that the smoke and the mirrors are still being operated by the forces of democracy!

No less than two of last week’s correspondents mentioned that it would cost us in excess of £300 million ‘not to have’ the incinerator at St Dennis. Considering that Councillor Robertson, in his pleading letter to Eric Pickles, did not feel able to put the cost of losing the planning battle any higher than £30 million, with a few million more for additional landfill tax, I can’t understand where this £300 million figure came from.

If you keep in mind that the £30 million figure was being put about by the pro-incinerator lobby, it is safe to assume it is on the high side. Add to that the fact that it would include the purchase from Sita of the assets they already have in place, and it starts to look quite tame!

If we consider the figure of £30 million in the context of what the incinerator is going to cost us over thirty years, it is pretty small beer.

I would stake a significant chunk of my pension on the fact that an independent auditor would find that having the incinerator will cost us a great deal more than not having it. Of course I can’t be completely sure because the relevant details of the contract are not available to the general public.

I would stake another chunk of pension that, contrary to the statements of Councillor Robertson and his friends, alternative solutions could be up and running more quickly than the incinerator if the political will was there, and if that were to happen the County would be a greener and wealthier place.

Despite Mr Pickles and his decision, the incinerator does not have to be built. Greener, cheaper alternatives are available. Am I optimistic that that will happen? Not really – my faith in our local authority is fading fast! But life is full of surprises.

Letter sent to West Briton by Tim Thomson

Many people were shocked to discover that Councillor Alec Robertson, after first leading a Council which stated that it would ‘robustly defend’ itself against Sita’s appeal regarding the St Dennis incinerator, then wrote a personal letter to Secretary of State Pickles urging him to uphold the appeal.

It is of course to be expected that Mr Robertson should echo, in his letter to Pickles, that well known Tory cry, that he had inherited the situation from his predecessors. (If he didn’t like his inheritance, he shouldn’t have taken it on!)

I am puzzled, however, by this paragraph in the letter, ‘I and my cabinet Colleagues are unanimously of the view that the appeal needs to be upheld and strongly urge you to uphold it’.

The letter, starting ‘Dear Eric’, and signed ‘Alec’, not only suggests a whiff of party political collusion, but also sought to influence the decision at a time when we had been informed by the Inspector that after the Inquiry was complete no further input to the process was permitted.

However, what concerns me more is this claim of unanimity amongst the cabinet that the appeal should be upheld.  If this was so then some of his colleagues were saying one thing in Cabinet and another outside. I wonder if there is a record of a vote on the subject.  But to go to the extreme of spending many millions of pounds defending a position at an Inquiry, whilst simultaneously undermining that position in a letter to the Secretary of State, seems to me to be a singular misuse of public funds.  If the cabinet universally supported Sita’s project, why did they commit to spending all this tax payers money in a ‘robust defense’ of the original planning decision, especially at a time when funds were so short.

The letter from Councillor Robertson to Eric Pickles reveals one of the inexcusable sins of modern politics – inconsistency.  We might want to add such things as lack of probity, and a failure to consider the overwhelming view of the residents of Cornwall, particularly at St Dennis.

I believe that any MP caught in a similar act of double-talk would be obliged to resign from any Cabinet post he might hold.  Can Councillor Robertson do any less?

Tim Thomson

Letter sent to Eric Pickles by Audrey Bryant

Dear Mr Pickles

The Integrity of an Elected Council Officer

I write in regard to the enclosed copy of a letter to you dated 7th April from Mr Alec Robertson, Leader of Cornwall County Council.  This letter has only yesterday come to my attention with the accompanying email.  The subject is the duplicity of our Council Leader regarding the incinerator proposed to be built at St Dennis in the china clay area of Cornwall.

Mr Robertson’s letter was sent to you unilaterally and without consultation with the people of St Dennis and surrounding area through their representatives and elected councillors in direct contradiction of Mr Roberson’s publicly stated position at the Planning Inquiry held on March 26th, 2010, when the County Council refused the Application to build the incinerator by 20 votes to one – Mr Robertson’s vote was with the majority.

The residents of the area which will be affected by the proposed incinerator have a legal right for the elected Leader of the Council to keep his word, to accept the outcome of the Inquiry and to do as he proclaimed – which was to stand against the incinerator in favour of a more environmentally friendly alternative for the county’s waste disposal.

I understand that his quoted figure of about £30 million in fines and compensation should the Application be refused is drawn out of the air and, if the incinerator is built, costs would be much higher in the long term.

His letter was kept secret until May 18th when rumours of its existence forced him to disclose the contents.  How can we be sure that he will not deceive us, and you, again?

Surely, Minister, approval built on such a deception is not in the interests of the government’s reputation – or to the credit of any Cornwall Council Cabinet members who may have encouraged him to write the letter to you.  His plea of a financial priority is to mistake money for the real things that an abstract financial evaluation seeks to represent:  social responsibility, environmental resources, security for the future (including a clamp down on carbon emissions), priceless natural amenities for the next generation, honest accounting and integrity in negotiations with the electorate.

This letter is copied to the officers of the Tenants Forum and the County Council and to the press.

Yours sincerely,

Audrey T Bryant, Tenant Representative.  Government Project Manager and Bishop’s Council

Letter sent to West Briton by Tim Thomson

I am the first to admit that when it comes to the workings of government, both local and national, I am pretty naïve. But I am beginning to understand what the present Government means by ‘localism’.  They are like the grown-up at the Christmas party who says, “I will decide where to put the Christmas tree, and how big it will be; and you, my children, may put the fairy on the top!”

The letter from Caroline Jones about the proposed Duchy/Waitrose development resonated very strongly with me, and strengthened my conviction that we are being governed not by elected politicians but by the mass retail industry.

Permissions will soon be sought for developments along the A390.  These are the sites chosen by developers as being suitable for housing and supermarkets (i.e. showing the greatest potential for profit).  Other sites are available, but the developers are not interested in these.

The only ‘defense’ which the Local Authority has is to provide a brief for developers to follow, thus retaining a little control – the fairy on the Christmas tree.

If the Council had the temerity to refuse permission for these sites to be developed, there would be a public inquiry, and the Secretary of State would find in favour of the developers, in the interests of that myth, economic growth.

Why these sites?  Because there needs to be enough housing to accommodate the residents needed to service the supermarkets – to work in them, but more importantly to shop in them.  And there lies the irony!  I am old enough to remember when big business was there to service the population, but now it’s the other way round!

Never mind that we might prefer to move away from the superstore model, and encourage locally owned retail units processing and selling local goods – although this would provide more local employment.  The unfortunate fact is that we do not have the clout or the cash that the Tescos and Asdas of this world have, who continue to suck the money out of the local economy and channel it out of the County, or even the Country.

These large transnational chains are able to buy the developers, who in turn are able to buy the land for eye-watering sums even before a planning application is made, secure in the knowledge that with the Westminster Government’s agenda behind them, the Local Authority doesn’t stand a chance.  Thus local residents are reduced to a shopping statistic.

Meanwhile, what of the Core Strategy Document? Although the initial consultation period has only just finished, it seems to have become irrelevant!  It appears to have already been superseded by these proposals.

So localism does not mean local decision-making.  It does not mean either National Government or developers accepting the views of local communities, how ever much they pretend.

And while ‘consultation’ may mean Cornwall Council listening to the views of residents and parish and town councils, it does not mean that National Government will put the views and interests of local communities above its own.  And, let’s be honest, we know who carries more weight with the Government – you only have to note that occasionally a Councillor may get an MBE, while supermarket bosses get knighthoods!

Every supermarket that gets built reduces the viability of small customer-friendly shops, not just in the City, but also in surrounding communities where local shops are not just a convenience but a point of social contact.  As these shops lose custom to supermarkets, and as village residents are more inclined to shop away from their village because the small shop can no longer afford to stock a wide range of goods, the village itself slowly withers.  An increasing proportion of residents work and shop away from the village, then start to send their children to the bright new school in the new development, as promised by the developer; the village becomes a dormitory and loses any chance it might have had to become a sustainable community with some measure of self sufficiency.

I don’t know what measures our elected Councillors could take to protect us from the destructive power of these retail giants, but I wish I could feel that they are all on our side (as I know that some are).  Of course there is a need for more housing.  But it should be up to us where it goes and how many there should be – just as Councillor Kaczmarek’s Core Strategy Document suggested.  Was that document just another PR exercise? Do we have to continue to give in to blackmail – no Park and Ride without Waitrose?

So while I am deeply sympathetic to demonstrations and campaigns against cuts, or student fees, what would really get me marching is a campaign, led by our Councillors, in favour of genuine localism, as against the sham policies of this Coalition and its Big Society.

Tim Thomson

Chairman, Chacewater Parish Council