We’ve already had some really super local youngsters round “trick and treating”!

We’ve seen some really great fun costumes into which a lot of time and effort has been invested. The youngsters have been really lively, bright and friendly! We also noticed that responsible parents were lurking at the end of the drive keeping a careful eye on things.

We really enjoyed it – and I haven’t been able to say that about Halloween for some years!

So, have a really good fun Halloween and if your youngsters are out trick and treating please do keep an eye on them and make sure that it all stays fun and doesn’t get out of control! Have a really good time!

STERN REVIEW PUBLISHED TODAY!

You can find the full text of the Stern Review on the environment and climate change here.

Meanwhile the BBC summary goes like this:-

AT-A-GLANCE : THE STERN REVIEW

The world has to act now on climate change or face devastating economic consequences, according to a report compiled by Sir Nicholas Stern for the UK government.

Here are the key points of the review written by the former chief economist of the World Bank.

TEMPERATURE

Carbon emissions have already pushed up global temperatures by half a degree Celsius

If no action is taken on emissions, there is more than a 75% chance of global temperatures rising between two and three degrees Celsius over the next 50 years 

There is a 50% chance that average global temperatures could rise by five degrees Celsius

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

Melting glaciers will increase flood risk 

Crop yields will decline, particularly in Africa 

Rising sea levels could leave 200 million people permanently displaced 

Up to 40% of species could face extinction

Increased examples of extreme weather patterns

ECONOMIC IMPACT

Extreme weather could reduce global gross domestic product (GDP) by up to 1% 

A two to three degrees Celsius rise in temperatures could reduce global economic output by 3% 

If temperatures rise by five degrees Celsius, up to 10% of global output could be lost. The poorest countries would lose more than 10% of their output. 

In the worst case scenario global consumption per head would fall 20% 

To stabilise at manageable levels, emissions would need to stabilise in the next 20 years and fall between 1% and 3% after that. This would cost 1% of GDP.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Create a global market for carbon pricing 

Extend the European Emissions Trading Scheme (EETS) globally, bringing in countries such as the US, India and China 

Set new target for EETS to reduce carbon emissions by 30% by 2020 and 60% by 2050 

Pass a bill to enshrine carbon reduction targets and create a new independent body to monitor progress.

Create a new commission to spearhead British company investment in green technology, with the aim of creating 100,000 new jobs 

Former US vice-president Al Gore will advise the government on the issue 

Work with the World Bank and other financial institutions to create a $20bn fund to help poor countries adjust to climate change challenges 

Work with Brazil, Papua New Guinea and Costa Rice to promote sustainable reforestation

Interesting BBC introduction to the newly published Stern Report on climate change...

Robert Preston, BBC News Business Editor offers an extremely interesting analysis of the Stern Review on Climate change. It is well worth reading...

Reports stark warning on climate...

The Stern Review says that climate change represents the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen. And on the basis of this intellectually rigorous and thorough report, it is hard to disagree.

Sir Nicholas Stern, a distinguished development economist and former chief economist at the World Bank, is not a man given to hyperbole.

Yet he says "our actions over the coming few decades could create risks of major disruption to economic and social activity, later in this century and in the next, on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th century".

His report gives prescriptions for how to minimise this economic and social disruption.

His central argument is that spending large sums of money now on measures to reduce carbon emissions will bring dividends on a colossal scale. It would be wholly irrational, therefore, not to spend this money.

However, he warns that we are too late to prevent any deleterious consequences from climate change.

The prospects are worst for Africa and developing countries, so the richer nations must provide them with financial and technological help to prepare and adapt.

Tough decisions

He believes it is practical to aim for a stabilisation of greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere of 500 to 550 parts per million of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2050 - which is double pre-industrial levels and compares with 430ppm today. But even stabilising at that level will probably mean significant climate change.

Even to stabilise at that level, emissions per unit of gross domestic product (GDP) would need to be cut by an average of three quarters by 2050 - a frightening statistic.

As well as decarbonising the power sector by 60%-70% there will also have to be an end to deforestation - emissions from deforestation are estimated at more than 18% of global emissions, more than transport. And there will have to be deep cuts in emissions from transport.

The costs of these changes should be around 1% of global GDP by 2050 - in other words the world would be 1% poorer than we would otherwise have been, which would be significant but far from prohibitive.

To be clear, this does not mean we would be 1% poorer than we are today, but that global growth will be slower.

The way to look at this 1% is as an investment. Because the costs of not taking this action are mind-bogglingly large.

Rising estimates

Sir Nicholas Stern's start point is economic modelling carried out in other studies showing that a scenario of 2-3 degrees of warming would lead to a permanent loss of up to 3% in global world output, compared to what would have happened without climate change. But he says those estimates are too low.

He believes 5-6 degrees of warming is a "real possibility" for the next century.

Having fed the probabilities of the various different degrees of global warming into his economic model, he estimates that "business as usual" would lead to a permanent reduction in global per-capita consumption of at least 5%.

But, that estimate does not include the financial cost of the direct impact on human health and the environment from global warming, or the disproportionate costs on poor regions of the world.

It also ignores so-called "feedback mechanisms", which may mean that as the stock of greenhouse gases increases there is a disproportionate rise in warming with each new increment in emissions.

Unfair burden

Putting all these factors together, he comes up with the stark conclusion that if we do nothing to stem climate change, there could be a permanent reduction in consumption per head of 20%.

In other words, everyone in the world would be a fifth poorer than they would otherwise have been.

Even worse, these costs will not be shared evenly. There will be a disproportionate burden on the poorest countries.

So here's the winning formula: Stern says spend 1% of world GDP to be 20% richer than we will otherwise be. It looks like a no-brainer.

There is another way of presenting this analysis of benefits versus costs.

Stern says that if you take the present value (the value in today's money) of the benefits over the coming years of taking action to stabilise greenhouse gases by 2050, then deduct the costs, you end up with a "profit" of $2.5 trillion (£1.32 trillion).

Any way you look at it, the financial case for tackling climate change looks watertight.

Hurdles

That said, there are great impediments to harvesting this dividend.

One is the obvious problem, which is that it requires collective, coordinated action by most of the world's governments - and securing the requisite consensus on the way forward will not be simple.

In the interests of fairness, Stern argues that the richer countries should take responsibility for between 60% and 80% of reductions in emissions from 1990 levels by 2050.

But assuming that consensus is reached, what is the best way to correct the grotesque market failure that is currently taking us on a path to poverty? How do we start to pay a price for carbon that reflects its true economic and social costs, or a price that includes the present value of future climate change?

There are two main ways of achieving this.

One is through taxation. The other is through rationing the amount of carbon emissions that any business - or any individual - can make, and then creating a proper global market.

Such a move would allow any business or institution that wants to emit more than its entitlement to buy that right, and any business that emits less than its entitlement to sell the unused portion of its entitlement - effectively carbon trading.

Another imperative for governments is to encourage research and development on low-carbon technologies.

Governments must also encourage "behavioural change", through regulation - such as imposing tighter standards on the energy efficiency of buildings - as well as educating the public about the true costs of wasting energy.

Trouble ahead

That said, we should prepare for a whole series of shocks from the effects of climate change that are already unavoidable.

There will probably be both more droughts and more floods. An increased incidence of devastating storms is expected. And there is an increased risk of famine in the poorest countries.

So we must start to get better at monitoring of climate conditions - and adapt ourselves for the new world.

That means reinforcing buildings and infrastructure to make them sturdier in the face of extreme weather conditions, investment in new dykes, and support for financial markets so that it is possible to purchase insurance against climate-related disaster.

It will all be very expensive, disproportionately so for developing countries. So Stern argues, and it's hard to disagree, that there is a strong moral obligation on the richer countries to help the poorest ones protect themselves against the very worst that may transpire.

As Fran and I are County Councillors the COunty Council didn't bother to tell us. We found out from BBC News online...

Parent fines for under-10s crimes..

Parents of under-10s who steal, damage or destroy property could be fined £5,000 under a government crackdown.

In a pilot scheme, 10 local authorities in England are introducing Parental Compensation Orders under the 2005 Serious Organised Crime and Police Act.

Town halls will apply for the orders when all other moves to persuade parents to take responsibility fail.

Parents failing to pay could be jailed. Offenders above the age of 10 can be fined in their own right.

The orders - to compensate for financial loss - can be made against one or more parent, carer or guardian.

They will be summonsed to court, where their means and circumstances will be taken into account before the level of compensation is set.

Courts only have to be persuaded to the civil standard of proof - "on the balance of probabilities" - that a child has committed what would be an offence if they were above the age of criminal responsibility.

The 10 pilot areas are Hampshire, Hertfordshire, Nottinghamshire, Worcestershire, Gateshead and South Tyneside, Leicester, York and the London boroughs of Southwark and Wandsworth.

The legislation prevents orders being brought against children in local authority care, and ministers believe they should not be imposed on foster parents.

Home Office Minister Tony McNulty said: "Children under 10 can cause havoc... and their victims can feel powerless.

"Most parents take this seriously, but a minority do not make the effort and even just sit back while their children run wild. We will not tolerate this.

"Parents play a key role in children becoming responsible citizens.

"Parental Compensation Orders go hand-in-hand with intervention and support programmes to address the problems underlying the behaviour, making our communities more pleasant places to live for everyone."

It'll be interesting to see how this one works out in reality. Most Government "initiatives" on this issue simply haven't actually materialised!

Random thoughts about two issues in the news...

Well, I'm entitled to a little "rant" once in a while...

Telling the Iraqi Government what to do...

Just for the moment forget all the arguments about whether or not we should be in Iraq in the first place (for the record I was against the invasion and am all in favour of getting our troops out fast).

Doesn't the recent story go something like this:

1. America imposed a Constitution on Iraq that they would probably never have agreed on their own.

2. America imposed a Political Settlement on Iraq that they would probably never have agreed on their own.

3. America imposed a Military Strategy on Iraq that they would probably never have agreed on their own and, further more it is a Military Strategy that even the Americans cannot deliver.

So how exactly do the Americans expect the Iraqi's to suddenly take everything over and make it work?!

and that Religious Schools debate...

I am NOT talking here about local schools. Most of my 28 years in teaching took place in urban and city centre schools.

With a few honourable exceptions most of the C of E Primary Schools in those areas were really no different to ordinary schools except that the local Vicar rolled in once a month to take Assembly. Some of them had a majority of C of E children but many had school populations that were predominantly non C of E. I remember one C of E school that had a 100% Muslim intake!

Catholic Primary Schools had a generally more religious and caring ethos. Most of them had substantial numbers of non-Catholic pupils - often from families living very close to the school and in some cases from professional Muslim families who were anxious for their children to learn about and develop a real respect for other people's religions. I always found Catholic Primary Schools to be very outgoing and very commuity involved.

In other words I don't see what the fuss is all about because what nervy politicians want has actually been going on for years!

As I said at the start of this I haven't commented on local schools as I haven't had any personal teaching experience in any of them. However, I am obviously aware as a Governor and a local Councillor that C of E Schools in this County do have a special C of E ethos and contribution alongside the local State and Catholic Primary Schools. One of the great strengths of the vast majority of all or local Primary Schools is their commitment to community involvement. I cannot see that having a range of schools available - religious and state is in practical tems any way divisive.

On local problem, however, is the County decision to reduce numbers at St Ambrose RC in Kidderminster and St Wulfrun RC in Stourport - just before Polish Catholics started arriving here in significant numbers!

Well, that's enough "ranting" for one Friday night!

The King Charles I Room...

Yes, I know it's all personal taste but I really do NOT like the new style King Charles I Room at Kidderminster Town Hall. The entry "lobby" is a sickly green which does NOT match any of the rest of the KCI room which is decorated in a rather attractice and restful shades of mushroom cream. The redesigned end of the KCI Room (toward the main staircase and the Mayor's Parlour) is, in my opinion a good example of modern, civic, lobby outside the toilets, downright ugly. The shrunken version of the once glorious photograph of the town taken from the top of the old gasometer can only be described as a total insult to past glories.

So what exactly is on the 9th Floor of the Town Hall?

We always thought that the Town Hall had only TWO main floors plus an attic. The Ground Floor, now housing the 'hub', and the First Floor - which houses the Council Chamber. Old Court Room, Mayor's Parlour, KIng Charles I Room and Council Offices being the main public area.

The magnificent new lift (which incidentally does NOT talk to you - It SHOUTS at you VERY loudly!), however, firmly asserts that there are no less than NINE floors! It has sparkling new buttons which claim to take you to floors TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT and NINE!

This raises a whole range of interesting and exciting questions! Has anybody yet had the nerve to press the button to the NINTH floor? What did they find on the NINTH floor? Has anyone ever returned from the NINTH floor? What state were they in? What does this lift know that we don't know? "There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear!"

Council agrees on move to single site HQ...

At last night's Special Meeting of the Wyre Forest District Council the Council at long, long last grasped a 33 year old 'nettle' and voted to build a single site Headquarters at the back of Kidderminster's Crossley Park.

The new HQ will basically be the base for detailed day to day work by Council Officers while the public access to all local Council Services (District & County) will be via the 'Worcestershire Hub' situated in the ground floor of Kidderminster Town Hall.

The decision will put an end of the flow of £750,000 every year of Wyre Forest District Council Taxpayer's money straight down the drain to pay for the current extra and unnecessary costs in having Council Officers spread all over the District!

LIberal and Conservative Councillors spoke enthusiastically in support of the Motion and ALL voted FOR the Motion. Health Concern. Labour and Liberal Democrat members ALL voted AGAINST the Motion. Of the two Independents - one voted FOR the motion while the other voted AGAINST the motion.

Chairman,

Firstly, I am delighted at Cllr Clee's "road to Damascus" conversion. He used to be the leading opponent of single site. Now he has seen the light. Usually when Cllr Clee sees the light at the end of the tunnel he simply responds by building more tunnel! On this occasion, fortunately, he has well and truly seen the light. Glory Hallelujah!

Chairman, one of the things you learn on this Council is that Health Concen will always find a way of avoiding taking decisions. Indeed, Health Concern are to good decision taking what Howard Martin and I are to musical good taste.

Now it is no secret that I have supported moving to a Single Site Headquarters throughout!

The crunch for me is on page 7 of the excellent and detailed report which accompanies this agenda. Year in and year out we have been pouring revenue down the drain on an appallingly large scale. In earlier years I was told we were losing £300,000 a year, then it was £500,000 per annum and now we are being officially told that we are throwing away £750,000 of Council revenue - Council Taxpayers money - simply on the extra and totally unwarranted costs of being spread over so many sites!

Think about it. Think about how that money could have been used in whole or in part, depending on the democratic wish of Council and public consultation to hold down Council Tax! Think about how that money could have been used in whole or in part, depending on the democratic wish of Council and public consultation to deliver all those crucial little improvements in services which you have argued for in various Committees over the last few years and had to abandon through lack of cash.

The funding for a Single Site Headquarters will come from "CAPITAL" - that CANNOT, by law, be used to improve services or cut Council Taxes. It basically will be paid for by selling buildings we no longer need! It will NOT affect Council spending on Social Housing. That money is there and it will be used on Social Housing.

The savings will come in "REVENUE" - that cannot be used on building but CAN be used to improve services and hold down Council Tax! For a small authority like Wyre Forest a revenue saving of £750,000 per annum would have an enormous impact for the better!

I am also convinced by the argument that says we should never have got into Duke Place on a short  term lease with no clear exit strategy. That was a mistake. We need to get out of there fast as part of the move to a Single Site HQ.

Chairman, fellow Councillors, tonight is the beginning of a process. Tonight we take an "in principle" decision. Over coming weeks and months we have to steer the project through. We have to get every last detail right. There will be numerous opportunities for individual Councillors to be fully involved at every stage. I certainly expect that the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee will be heavily involved.

Chairman, I strongly urge every member of the Council to vote for the motion for a Single Site Council Headquarters tonight!

Council HQ move agreed...

A multi-million pound council headquarters is to be built in Kidderminster after a landmark decision which ends a 30-year wrangle.The HQ , which could be shared with the police and health trust, is to be built at Crossley Park, Kidderminster.

A depot is also envisaged at nearby Churchfields as part of the development which was finally agreed last night and which is expected to be completed in three years time.

A new theatre hall is also planned at Stourport-on-Severn.

Wyre Forest councillors claim the move will not cost taxpayers a penny, with the cost being met from the sale of its existing offices across the district.

Wyre Forest District Council leader Stephen Clee said today: “The driving force behind his move is to save council taxpayers £750,000 a year which is currently wasted annually because of the split site working across six offices.”

Athough the move might have an impact on 15 jobs from a workforce of 400 ,the council had a policy of filling empty posts. It meant no members of staff should feel under threat, he said.

The proposals would see a new municipal headquarters, possibly also used by the police and health sector, built on land at Crossley Park which the council already owns, a depot at Churchfields, and a brand new theatre hall built on part of the existing site at Stourport-on-Severn.

A one-stop council shop is to be created in the building at Stourport which will also be used by town councillors.

The remainder of the present site at Stourport-on-Severn and other buildings elsewhere owned by the council are to be sold off.

However, Labour members voted against the single-site proposals and group leader councillor Jamie Shaw said today: “We do not believe there has been sufficient public consultation.

“To reach this point of no return by a series of behind-closed-doors meetings is profoundly unsatisfactory.”

Story by Sue Smith

A PROPOSAL to move Wyre Forest-based revenue and benefit workers to a new location 30 miles away have been given a thumbs down by councillors.

Conservative plans to see the 60-strong workforce transfer to Pershore as part of a shared Worcestershire scheme were rejected by nine votes to two during Wyre Forest District Council's efficiency scrutiny panel meeting on Monday.

A motion moved by Councillor Fran Oborski that panel members recommend to the cabinet the shared revenues and benefits service proposal should not be supported was backed by three Tory members, as well as Health Concern and Labour councillors.

She added: "Wyre Forest has always been one of the top performing authorities for these services and it is crazy, on the basis of a possible saving, some years in the future, to risk a good service with a stable and loyal staff team and divert a large financial resource into setting up this new service.

"We are already committed to moving the public access to the new Worcestershire Hub office at Kidderminster Town Hall. We need to make sure that that works before embarking on any other adventures."

The Health Concern group leader, Howard Martin, who seconded Mrs Oborski's motion, said: "We didn't believe the business case stood up financially and the only issue that it could have stood up on was financial savings."

The proposal will be discussed during tonight's cabinet meeting before it comes before the full council on Wednesday, November 15.

Well maybe they knew what they meant?

We won't name names but tonight's Council Meeting was greatly enlightened by two throw away remarks in debate:

From a Tory colleague:-

"I am going to extinguish that duty to the best of my ability."

While a Labour member happily reflected:-

"If you think the electorate read a third of what goes through their door steps you must be joking."

Asha Open Day...

Asha Wye Forest have an OPEN DAY at their New Womens Centre at 430 Hurcott Road from 10.00 am to 2.00 pm on Monday 30th October.

Something is missing...

...from the Wyre Forest District Council Web Sites lengthy list of Frequently Asked Questions. Between "Factory Units" and "Flooding" there is no mention of Fireworks. However, you can find a very bland and not particularly useful article on Fireworks and the Law.

The County Council is busy telling you to buy from Fit For Fireworks retailers.

The Hereford & Worcester Fire Bigade site hasn't caught up with November the 5th yet - unless I'm missing something.

However you might find this FIREWORKS SAFETY page a good starting point for relevant safety information with lots of other information on the history of fireworks etc.. The DTI also have a good FIREWORKS SAFETY site.

Always follow the Firework Safety Code...

• Only buy fireworks marked BS 7114.

• Don’t drink alcohol if setting off fireworks.

• Keep fireworks in a closed box. 

• Follow the instructions on each firework.

• Light at arm's length, using a taper.

• Stand well back.

• Never go near a firework that has been lit. Even if it hasn’t gone off, it could still explode.

• Never put fireworks in your pocket or throw them.

• Always supervise children around fireworks.

• Light sparklers one at a time and wear gloves.

• Never give sparklers to a child under five.

• Keep pets indoors.

Stinging defeat for Wyre Forest Tory administration...

Tory plans to shunt off Wyre Forest's Revenue and Benefits Service to a shared County scheme based in Pershore was thrown out by 9 votes to 2 at Monday night's meeting of the Wyre Forest Council's Efficiency Scrutiny Panel. Their recommendation now goes to Cabinet on Thursday.

Two Tories stuck to their party line and opposed the motion while three Tories abandoned the Tory line to vote with opposition members.

The Motion moved by Liberal Counciilor Fran Oborski declared "Efficiency Panel recommends to Cabinet that they do not support the move to shared services for Revenues and Benefits across Worcestershire".

Cllr Fran Oborski explained afterwards "The proposals have been bitterly contentious. I am not against shared services in principle but you do not experiment with a service which deals with the most vulnerable members of our community".

"I have always been proud that Wyre Forest has always been seen to be a good employer. Yet these proposals would see a number of staff being forced to travel an additional 50 or so miles to work each day, as the main office would be based at Wychavons HQ in Pershore. This is completely environmentally unsustainable and would be impossible for many of our mainly female work force many of whom have child care or other family carer responsibilities. In total it would add an extra 12,000 miles a year to staff travel costs!"

"Wyre Forest has always been one of the top performing authorities for these services and it is crazy, on the basis of a possible saving some years in the future, to risk a good service with a stable and loyal staff team and divert a large financial resource into setting up this new service. We are already committed to moving the public access to the new Worcestershire Hub office at Kidderminster Town Hall, we need to make sure that that works before embarking on any other "adventures"."

"One of the most shameful aspects of these proposals has been the total failure to consult with those members of the public who will be most affected or with the Registered Social Landlords who are our major partner organisations in dealing with Housing Benefit clients."

The Motion was supported by Cllr Baker Conservative), Cll Ballinger (Liberal), Cllr Eeles (Health Concern), Cllr Hazelwood (Conservative), Cllr Kelly (Labour), Cllr Martin (Health Concern), Cllr Fran Oborski (L9beral), Cllr Mike Salter (Conservative), Cllr Thomas (Health Concern).

The Motion was opposed by Cllr Williams (Conservative) and Cllr Yarranton (Conservative).

And now for something completely different...

Yes, we know it's nothing to do with local affairs but today Fran and I, with Kidderminster's local Polish priest Ks Jan Marek Gora, visited the Polish Airforce graves at Dodington on the outskirts of Albrighton in Shropshire. It's part of the run up to the Polish commemorations marking All Souls and All Saints. It's important from time to time to pause and remember the sacrifices of the wartime generation.

Congratulations Fran!

Fran won the Worcestershire County Council "I'm a Councillor get me out of here" - taking 58% of the votes in the final round against Tory County Councillor Barry Gandy. Health Concern's County Councillor Jill Fairbrother-Milis was knocked out earlier on. Given that there were only three of them in the field it's not a big thing but all three of them put in a lot of extra hard work on top of their normal Council committments.

Basically it is all part of the national LOCAL DEMOCRACY WEEK and is an opportunity for Middle and High School pupils to post questions on a web site and to take part in life chat room sessions in a very secure and well moderated online environment.

Fran was very impressed by the overall knowledge and social awareness of the youngsters taking part and the quality of their questions. Pupils from Elgar High posted some very good questions in a structured chat room session at the end of a citizenship lesson. Pupils from Blackminster MIddle posted some really stretching questions about the problems faced by youngsters in our smaller villages. On the final day there was a brilliant unstructured chat room session with youngsters from Bewdley High School - some of whom have truly wicked senses of humour combined with a remarkable degree of social awareness.

Fran says that answering questions took a lot of time and thought but that the whole thing was well worth while because of the sheer enthusiasm and knowledge of the pupils concerned. It would be nice to see more Schools and more County Councillors taking part in future years.

Good Farepak advice...

Under the headline "Our Savings Are All Gone" the front page of Thursday's Express & Star recounts the stories of Wyre Forest families whose Christmas will be ruined by the Farepak collapse.

Inside on page 27 is some excellent advice!

Please, please pass on this advice to anyone hit by the Farepak collapse:-

DO NOT send any more money to the company

Keep all your original documents

Lodge a claim with the company by writing to Kings Wharf, 20-30 Kings Road, Reading, Berkshire RG1 3EX. In addition, emails can be sent to customer.claims@farepak.co.uk or faxes to 01793 606012. Although the Farepak page says fax 01793 606057

You may receive some money back but not all and claims may take months

Log on to www.farepak.co.uk for regular updates

No money (I assume they actually mean "NEW" money) should change hands between agents and customers and any money stll held by the agent should be returned

Vouchers, other than Choice vouchers, which you hold will be valid and can still be used

Health Concern's Cllr Jill Fairbrother-Millis was the first County Councillor voted out by County youngsters today.

NO, we are NOT going to crack silly jokes at her expense.

It was very good of Jill to give up even more of her time to take part and answer online questions from youngsters across the County - all on top of her busy schedule as a County Councillor, District Councillor and community activist. It's interesting how it's always the busiest people who are ones who are prepared to take on yet more work!

To be honest it's sad that only three Worcestershire County Councillors were prepared to take up the challenge - Health Concern's Cllr Jill Fairbother-Millis, Conservative Cllr Barry Gandy and Liberal Cllr Fran Oborski.

I'll try and excuse myself on the grounds that we thought that TWO Oborskis would have been, in this context at least, an Oborski too far! But you can give me a good kicking if you like.

Anyway, nothing but respect to Jill, Barry and Fran for taking up both the challenge and the extra work. Fran tells me that some of those High School students out there don't half ask some first rate, not to mention difficult, questions! It is important to get them involved in democratic processes and to take their views and concerns seriously - after all - the future is theirs!

You can find them online here. At times they seem rather unsure how far to go with the advice.

I particularly like this one! Nobody would ever think of this without official Government advice:-

"If a bomb goes off in your building, look for the safest way out."

Their "PREPARING FOR EMERGENCIES What You Need To Know" booklet is online in pdf format

WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

Incidentally would anyone like to try and explain exactly what the contents of the 6 circles in their logo actually means...

All answers - serious and hopefully not so serious - welcome. Use the "Comment" function below to let us know!

Future development in the Oldnall Road area...

It looks as if the reasons for turning down a recent planning application could set a very desireable precedent in the area. We have just written to local residents:-

As you may be aware the planning application for the demolition of 37 Oldnall Road and the building of 14 flats has been withdrawn following a recommendation of refusal from the County Council’s Environment Directorate.

The recommendation of refusal is particularly important for the future of the area because of the exact details of what it actually stays:-

1. The adaptation and use of the existing access to serve the proposed development involving additional vehicle turning movements, where the visibility is restricted in both directions, due the proximity of mature highway trees within the visibility splay of the access with its junction to the adjoining unclassified road, Oldnall Road, (U12603) would be contrary to the interests of highway safety.

2. The increased use of the unclassified road, Barnetts Lane (U12600) at its junction with the Oldnall Road U1260, where the visibility is severely restricted in a south-westerly direction, would be contrary to the interest of highway safety. 

3. Furthermore the increased use of Barnetts Lane which currently provides a busy cut through for traffic from the Class I A448 Comberton Road, and Class I A449 Chester Road South, where Barnetts lane is deficient in horizontal width and vertical alignment, would be likely to compromise the safe movement of traffic and the safe use of the road by others.

4. The layout indicated on the deposited plan accompanying this application does not provide for the safe movement of service vehicles and is therefore at variance with the requirements of the County Council document “Highway Criteria, Policy and Layouts for New Developments.

We believe that these reasons for refusal could probably be used to make sure that it will be extremely difficult to get any further flats developments in the Oldnall Road, Russell Road or Barnetts Lane area!

This is extremely good news for all those local residents who have been telling us that you do not want to see any more flats changing the nature of this area.

We have a good balance between houses and flats now and we do not need to alter that balance.

Please do get in touch if you have any further comments or queries on this or any other issue. 

Wyre Forest Disability Equality Scheme...

Pick up on all the details here. Lots of interesting pdf files!

You can download for free the latest edition of Adobe for reading pdf files here.

Those glass panels...

Those glass panels outside the Town Hall are truly, truly horrid!

Let's get it clear:-

1. Siting the "Hub" (basically a one stop point for everyone who wants anything to do with any Council services both County and District) at the Library would have been a disaster wiping out most of the ground floor Library facilities.

2. Siting the "Hub" in the grossly underused and beautifully centrally sited Town Hall is brilliant - and kills the long term "if you don't use it you'll lose it" threat to the Town Hall.

3. We would have far preferred to see access to the "Hub" through the new "arches" at the side of the Town Hall on the walk way leading through to Weavers Wharf. There would have been no need for special disabled access there as the access would have been perfectly flat and easy for all anyway. We lost that debate with the Tory administration on the District Council. They considered it too expensive and impractical because of internal access problems through to the rest of that side of the building. We think it could have been pursued further but that's all history now.

4. As soon as they decided to have the access at the front of the building that inevitably meant a ramp for disabled access under new disabled access legislation - and quite right too.

5. The Council wanted Victorian style painted iron hand rails along the edge of the ramp which would have been in keeping with the whole traditional Victorian style of this historic and much beloved building.

6. English Heritage intervened to say the railings would be inappropriate (!) and that they wanted glass panels along the edge of the ramp because they would be far less intrusive (!). They have the whip hand as Council opposition would have led to appeals and crucial long and potentially highly expensive delays in opening the "Hub" not to mention the fact that in such issues English Heritage generally get their own way in the end with Government support.

7. Far from being somehow invisible or unobtrusive the glass panels are huge and obstructive and the whole thing projects out far too much into the highway.

8. Far from being somehow invisible or unobtrusive the glass panels carry huge highly visible and totally inappropriate large diameter and brightly metallic silver coloured hand rails - not to mention the similar associated pillars!

9. The panels are an obvious target for graffiti, fly posting and vandalism not to mention, so far, the odd cup of coffee and are, bluntly, simply asking for it!

10. I am told that every second panel may be etched with the "Hub" logo (scroll down to story below) which I don't think will make them any more attractive. Quite the contrary!

The whole think is a nightmare. A first rate project - siting the "Hub" at the Town Hall - has be completely spoilt by outside interference and these obtrusive, ludicrous and ugly panels with their ugly and totally inappropriate modern shiny hand rails! What a mess! What a shame!

Well, it's all a matter of taste at the end of the day and that's my opinion for what it's worth.

Incidentally, Fran saw it all in its full "glory" for the first today and it was a case of total and furious hatred at first site.

I suppose I should add that the surfacing to the new steps is not yet finished - they are running late on supplying the finishing slabs and so may well be finished after the "Hub" actually opens - so it's not fair to comment on that aspect of the design yet.

Mike looking not so happy outside the Town Hall...

Those glass barriers...

Given the look of the Town Hall no comment...

When is an emergency not an emergency? Severn Trent seem to have rather strange ideas on this one!

On Wednesday rasidents at the bottom of Sheraton Drive noticed some rather unpleasant items in their back gardens. Severn Trent came out but thought it didn't amount to much. By the early hours of today the situation had deteriorated sharply. In at least one case sewage lapping across\the patio and already in the garage. According to Severn Trent this wasn't an emergency because it hadn't yet entered the house!

After some strong words Severn Trent are now out on site and there may be a problem running behind the houses towards Wordsworth Crescent - which if unsorted could leave Offmore First School pupils plodding through something unpleasant. Hopefully, though, it will now be sorted fast today!

However, we will be following up Severn Trents odd idea of what is and what is not an emergency. Personally if we had raw sewage lapping at the back door and already in the garage I would certainly think that I already had an emergency well and truly on my hands!

That Labour webcom spoof on Cameron....

Personally I thought the spoof was in poor taste and utterly humourless so it was interesting to find this on the blog of Labour West Bromwich MP (and originally Kidderminster boy) Tom Watson:-

Head in hands