The great eyesore of Chatham will at last be demolished

11 Comments

1. Rob says:

   Tuesday 26th February 2008 at 16:42

   The new road system in Chatham is awful. The one way system worked fine, there was no reason to muck it up.

   Plus, most of the signs are wrong.

   Whatever happened to that cable car idea?!?
2. Alan Collins says:

   Tuesday 26th February 2008 at 17:34

   Firstly, the regeneration of Chatham (which includes the road system) is mid-process, as I have pointed out to Sam many times.

   Now, I can’t say much for the signs, but the actions of CRAG slowed down the regeneration process, plus huge oppposition to each option for the site of the new bus station, meaning that, whilst the argument raged, the present, problematic situation remained.

   Now that this battle has been won, the bus station can be built. This means that phase 2 of the road system can begin – which includes junction improvements and widening “The Brook” to improve the traffic flow.

   As for the cable car, the latest information I could find was from a progress report to the October 17, 2007 meeting of the Council’s Regeneration & Development Overview & Scrutiny Committee.

   The report states that a feasibility study has been commissioned, which is vitally important to ensure that the Council doesn’t rush head-first into a project which is simply not feasible.

   For up-to-date information, you can always visit the Medway Renaissance Framework website. The cable car is part of project #051 “Landmark Cultural Facility”.
3. Rob says:

   Tuesday 26th February 2008 at 20:11

   Right okay, thanks.

   Knowing this country’s history with road building it’ll will probably ALWAYS stay half finished (a la M25).

   But yeah, cheers for the info.
4. Twydall Man says:

   Tuesday 26th February 2008 at 22:43

   People may accuse Gordon Brown of dithering (with some justification at times) but I don’t think the Conservative controlled Medway Council are much better. They only held the Flyover demolition proposal to stay in power, wasting money in the process, have dithered some more, costing even more money,then have the cheek say they haven’t received enough money from Government because they are Conservative.

   What a waste of time both the main parties are – unless you can convince me otherwise?
5. Alan Collins says:

   Tuesday 26th February 2008 at 23:27

   You are obviously a man set in your opinions, Twydall Man, which is admirable, but makes my job in trying to persuade you otherwise difficult. I shall, however, try my best.

   The pledge to reopen the flyover may have seemed like a desperate act to stay in power, and I have to admit, at times my thoughts did waiver and point towards that conclusions. However, the fact is that they closed the flyover prematurely. There was no agreement in sight as to the location of the new bus station and at the same time the flyover was just standing there, being unused whilst the traffic flow in the two-way system needed some help.

   It may have seemed like a party political decision, but the Conservatives did what I feel was the admirable act, and pledged to reopen the flyover until an agreement between the Council and the public could be met on how to proceed with the various stages of the Chatham Regeneration, in a manner which would not damage Chatham’s aesthetics, but would still be beneficial to the economy.

   After much lengthy consultation with the public and especially local traders who would be most affected by any course of action taken, they have decided upon “Option 4″, as described in my post. It is unfortunate to say these sorts of decisions do take time, however a little short-term loss is better than the long-term economic loss that could be endured if a wrong decision were taken now.

   As for the funding argument. In my opinion the Council does sometimes play this once too often, however their arguments are valid and very real.

   The majority of local funding comes from the Government and one of the problems cited is the Barnett formula, used to work out what percentage of the UK fund was spent in each constituent Country since the late 1970s. According to a House of Commons Research Paper, it has no “legal standing or democratic justification”, and the end result is that England is left with less to spend on each citizen than Northern Ireland, Scotland (prompting questions about prescription charges, tuition fees etc.) or Wales.

   As for funding to different areas of England, in general Conservative Councils receive less funding from the Government. The spending per person in the South East (mostly Conservative Councils) is £6,304, whilst the spending per person in London (Labour Mayor) is £8,404 and the West Midlands is £7,065.

   What is worse is when a local Council is told it will be given £X for the coming financial year, so it gets to work budgeting. Then, close to the budget publication, it is told that, in fact, the amount will be £1 million less, for example. Suddenly, almost overnight, it must plug a sudden £1 million deficit.

   The final problem facing people in Medway is that the last Labour Council, with help from the Lib Dems, turned a £150 million surplus into a £350 million deficit which the Medway taxpayer is still having to repay without the Council cutting too many services.

   I am sorry for the lengthy answer, but I hope this answers your concerns. And if you would like me to elaborate on anything, you only have to ask.
6. Alan Collins says:

   Wednesday 27th February 2008 at 00:15

   Oh and Rob, I may explain a tad more in Physics, but the Leader of Medway Council, Cllr Rodney Chambers, has written an article for today’s Yourmedway, finishing by talking about “what may become Medway’s boldest regeneration project”:

   “We’re exploring the idea of a ‘skycab’ cable car system that would cross the river at key points, connecting the new city. Proof – if it were needed – that for Medway the sky’s the limit.”

   So don’t worry, it’s not been forgotten
7. Cllr John Ward says:

   Wednesday 27th February 2008 at 23:00

   Hmm, interesting…

   The only reason the flyover was re-opened was because — despite all the effort we had put in to ensure full consultation with the public before taking any action — the council officers’ views on this differed so much from the traders’ views that it became necessary to put things back for the duration. I must state here that I wasn’t over-keen on this move, but did at least realise why it was being done.

   It didn’t cost more than a nominal amount from council funds, as it was nearly all covered from a small part of the contingency provision in the capital bid funding.

   It didn’t impact the election — indeed the CRAG campaign continued throughout that time — and I don’t recall the “election” aspect even being mentioned in our Group meetings around that time, though I might have missed it I suppose… It certainly wasn’t important to me.

   The Government funding issue is well documented (including on my own ‘blog, taken from official Government info, as I often do). Medway is underfunded to the tune of some £28 million every year now, including both the current year and the next three.

   We have been hit by a further £100,000 or so deduction in our final settlement (as it is called) and all the figures are in the public domain so anyone could check them if desired.

   We are well aware how the funding has been deliberately fiddled (it isn’t exactly hard to see how and why it was done anyway) including how (for example) the Labour Government have completely ignored their own Multiple Index of Deprivation (MID) to attempt to “justify” their stance, backed up by their counterparts on Medway Council.

   It is the people of Medway who suffer, and they are (generally) too sharp to fall into the trap of blaming the Conservative Administration of the Council. Why else does the proportion of Conservative Councillors here go up, up, up at every local election, and Labour’s representation goes down, down, down — every single time, and even between elections.

   Real facts sway opinion, not “good facts” (spin). I have made a habit of working from a wide range of sources, including all the official data that I can get at (some is not available to the public) and have become the Medway Labour Group’s “public enemy number one” as I perpetually reveal uncomfortable (to them) truths that anyone can go and confirm completely independently.

   The worst members of the Labour Group really don’t like me!
8. Twydall Man says:

   Thursday 28th February 2008 at 22:50

   Alan

   Thanks for your response, one thought comes to mind about the Barnett formula, did the Conservative Government of 1979-1997 use this for funding Local Government?

   Following on from Cllr Ward’s remarks the sad fact about local elections in general is the poor turnout, so much as it is tempting for Councillors of whatever party to claim that when their party’s representation increases at an election they are there by the will of the people, it very rarely happens as a result of a large turnout. The problem locally is that when the wards were drawn up there are only a few wards that can actually change hands (River, Gillingham North and Rainham Central), I don’t think that helps turnout and voter engagement either.
9. Alan Collins says:

   Thursday 28th February 2008 at 22:59

   I daresay they probably did, Twydall Man. However, the general trend over the past ten years is that the formulae used seem to have been “tweaked”, even if they actually haven’t in practice, to ensure a disproportionate amount of the money went to Labour heartlands.

   As for the ward boundaries comment, I think that one of the reasons so few wards can change hands is because of the voter turnout – it works both ways. My perception is that some people think that their vote won’t change the Party, even though they don’t support them, so they don’t bother voting, whilst the supporters rally around their Councillors to ensure they get re-elected.

   It is a trend that, with hard work and positive campaigning, can be overturned. In Rainham Central last year, for example, the Liberal Democrats embarked on what Cllr Jarrett called their “most shameful campaign” during his political career, which even included racial slurs against one of our Candidates – I know, I was heavily involved in that campaign. On the other hand, we were out canvassing every week end, whatever the weather, campaigning positively and campaigning hard – I even have the leaflets still to prove it.

   Suffice to say the people of Rainham Central were impressed by such a hard-working team and their positive campaign, and so voted in Barry Kemp, Mike O’Brien and Rehman Chishti with an overwhelming 1,000-vote majority, with the highest turnout in Medway.

   It was, however, only 42%, just a start. But it was a good start, and lays the foundation stones on which we, the Conservative Party, are intending to build upon, and hopefully the opposition parties will take our lead and campaign positively as well, without twisting and misrepresenting the truth as they have sometimes been known to do.
10. Twydall Man says:

    Friday 29th February 2008 at 00:20

    Spot on about positive campaigning – also another way to improve turnout is if there is a local issue that needs addressing that has cross community support, political parties should drop their tribal differences and work together. On reflection I seem to recall on a national issue (the appalling Dunblane shootings) John Major and Tony Blair visited the town together, and that reflected well on both of them.

    I also feel when David Cameron’s behaviour on the day that Tony Blair left office reflected well on him. It is very important for democracy that politicians deal with each other with an element of respect, how can they lecture us about good behaviour when they don’t behave well themselves?
11. Cllr John Ward says:

    Friday 29th February 2008 at 11:09

    Alan has it right in Comment 9, especially regarding campaigning and the funding fiddle (for that is what it is, as I mentioned again at last night’s budget-setting Council meeting).

    Turnout was definitely up significantly last May; and if the negative campaigning by opposition parties and the CRAG campaigners had any effect, I’d say it was fairly marginal. We probably lost two seats (narrowly) as a result — the second River seat, and one in Strood North.

    I picked up off the ground the odd opposition leaflet, and scanned it in here at “Chateau John”, so I know and have proof of what they were putting out. Dirty campaigning! Not that I was surprised: they are getting desperate, especially Labour who are in terminal decline as THIS graph shows.

    I am pleased that Twydall Man appreciates the respect shown by opposing party leaders — something I also find uplifting. It even happens here in Medway sometimes, with our local party leaders. Even last night’s Budget Council was conducted in generally good humour across and around the Chamber.

    One of my personal contributions is taking every opportunity I reasonably can to lavish praise on members of all persuasions when I have witnessed good and useful behaviour from them.

    Such behaviour has happened at Scrutiny Committees on occasion, and I report it during the regular item to Council on Scrutiny activity (usually agenda item 9, if anyone reading this wants to look it up) in a congratulatory mode.

    I look forward to those occasions!

Leave a Comment