New Planning Applications

Dear All,   New applications in this week, have resolved problems with getting these now.   If you have any comments let me know at 01503 264823 or atoms@cornwall.gov.uk.       Armand

Looe (Looe East Electoral Division)
Land At Shutta Hill Shutta East Looe Cornwall
Redesign of dwelling to existing approval, installation of new
access, driveway and associated works. - Mr G Stevens -
PA13/10143 (Case Officer - Davina Pritchard)

Looe (Looe East Electoral Division)
Adjoining Looe Comprehensive School Barbican Road East
Looe Looe Cornwall PL13 1EU
Construction of 22 dwellings constituting a partial re-plan of
Phase 1 (99 dwellings approved by planning permission
reference PA12/04367) - Mr N Lush - PA13/10664 (Case
Officer - Mr Stephen Kirby)

Looe (Looe East Electoral Division)
Land Adjacent To Glebelands Looe Cornwall PL13 1NP
Residential development to provide 13 affordable rented
dwellings, public open space and a children's play area on
vacant land. - Ms Michelle Richards - PA13/10810 (Case
Officer - Victoria Regan)

Looe (Looe East Electoral Division)
Barratt Homes St Martins Road East Looe Cornwall
Screening opinion for the construction of 22 dwellings
constituting a partial re-plan of Phase 1 (99 dwellings approved
by planning permission reference PA12/04367) - Mr N Lush -
PA13/11093 (Case Officer - Mr Stephen Kirby)

1. 

NEW PLANNING APPLICATION

Dear All,  New appication any comments to me asap at 01503 264823 or atoms@cornwall.gov.uk    Thanks Armand

Looe(Looe EastElectoral Division)

The Fellery Shutta East Looe Looe Cornwall PL13 1LS

Replacement of single glazed windows and doors with double

glazed UPVC windows and doors - Miss Rosalind Benton -

PA13/08728 (Case Officer - Sarah Stevens)

Submission into the extra charges for the Tamar Tag

TAMAR BRIDGE AND TORPOINT FERRY

Dear Mr Boother, Thank you for giving me the chance of making a submission regarding the issue of raising payments paid by those with the Tamar Tag system. I do hold a tag as well as being a local councillor which represents a division in an area that will be affected by the surcharge. Having spoken to many people over the issue of raising this fee i would like to submit this to the committee.

The charge will affect those with jobs that need to use the Tamar Bridge especially those who cross from South East Cornwall to work in the areas economic centre Plymouth. It will also add to the costs of local business and thus reduce the benefits of having an employment centre West of the bridge. Currently the wages of the South East of Cornwall of those people who live and work in the area are the lowest in Cornwall at 14k which is 2k lower then all other areas of Cornwall. Plus the average of the wages of all working groups only raises with the impact of those working in Plymouthto 3rd out of 6 areas of Cornwall. So by increasing the charges to locals working in Plymouth will have a great impact to them and the local economy.

Set this against the 60m that is due to be spent on duelling the A30 it may well drive economic growth North as there will be no toll on this road for both business or tourists. There is a lot of talk about how the recession has hit the number of crossings yet to do what is proposed will hit it even further. To put up the charges will have a duel impact reduce the number of crossings and affect the economy. The main impact on the Bridge would be for the A38 to be duelled from Saltash to Bodmin to provide the economic growth to bring more business and tourists to the South and South East of Cornwall.

My major worry is that the councillors for Plymouth see the bridge of a lost opportunity for business and economic growth as what stays East of the Bridge helps them. The residents of my area are not happy with the proposal

Regards

Armand Toms cc
Looe East and St Martins

MARITIME ORGANISATION BAN PIBs FANTASTIC NEWS

Below is a press release from the International Maritime Organisation regarding the ban on the chemicals that killed so many seabirds, great news and very quick, 

Seabird death chemical to be banned

Wildlife charities have welcomed the International Maritime Organisation’s (IMO) swift action to ban ships across the world from discharging all forms of high viscosity polyisobutylene (PIB) into the sea during tank cleaning operations. PIB was the chemical responsible for the deaths of over 4000 seabirds on the south west coast earlier this year.

The tragedy, the largest marine pollution incident of its kind in the region since Torrey Canyon, shocked thousands of people.

At a meeting of the IMO’s working group on the Evaluation of Safety and Pollution Hazards of Chemicals (ESPH) in London today, it was decided to change the classification of high viscosity PIBs to require full tank prewash and disposal of all residues at port and prohibit any discharge at sea from 2014. This will also apply to new “highly-reactive” forms of PIB, which are currently being transported un-assessed.

The recommendation to do this had been made by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) on behalf of the UK Government, following vigorous campaigning by wildlife charities and the public.

Alec Taylor, Marine Policy Officer for the RSPB said; “We are delighted with the action taken by the IMO. The global trade in PIB products is increasing and with it the risks to our precious marine environment. Today’s global ban on the deliberate discharge of high viscosity PIBs into our seas is a real step forward and one that we hope will end this particular pollution threat to seabirds and other marine life.”

Between February and April this year over 4000 seabirds, of at least 18 species, mainly guillemots, were washed up on beaches from Cornwall to Dorset in two separate incidents. The majority were dead, but some were alive and taken for treatment by the RSPCA at their West Hatch Centre. The subsequent MCA investigation revealed that the birds had been smothered with high viscosity PIB. The same substance was also responsible for the deaths of hundreds of seabirds off the Dutch coast in March 2010.

RSPCA senior wildlife scientist Adam Grogan said: "We welcome this decision. Our staff worked around the clock washing and treating these poor birds in January and April and it was heartbreaking seeing the pitiful state they were in.  Hopefully this will help stop incidents like these happening again, and save wildlife from suffering and dying like this in the future.”

Joan Edwards, Head of Living Seas for The Wildlife Trusts, said:  "We welcome today's ban. The thousands of dead and dying seabirds witnessed earlier this year were the most visible victims of mismanagement. Impacts on other parts of marine life support systems may have been just as widespread, and more serious. Not to mention the impacts on tourism of dead seabirds on the beach - particularly pressing in south-west counties which rely so heavily on summer visitors."

Peter Burgess, Devon Wildlife Trust's Conservation Advocacy Manager said; "This is an important decision for wildlife. It's pleasing to see how quickly the IMO has acted and heartening to hear that local people's concerns have helped build momentum towards achieving this. However, we do see the PIB incidents of 2013 as a wake-up call. Dead and dying seabirds washed up on some of the south-west's most popular beaches were hard to ignore. But how many unseen and unreported activities are damaging our precious marine wildlife in undersea habitats that are almost completely unprotected by law?"

The public response to the tragedy was significant, with more than 25,000 people signing petitions organised by 38 Degrees and Avaaz calling for a ban on the discharge of PIB.

Alec Taylor from RSPB added; “There was a lot of hard work by RSPB, other wildlife charities and the MCA, with support from several MPs on the south west coast. But the huge support we received from members of the public, many of whom experienced the effects of this pollution first hand as they walked the beaches, was perhaps the clinching factor in achieving such a quick decision to prevent discharges of harmful PIBs.”

ENDS

HARBOUR ELECTIONS ON THE 17TH OCTOBER, 2013

Dear Electorate,   I once again but myself forward for the Harbour Commissioners Elections on which i have acted as a commissioners since 2001.   Having been a commercial fisherman for 25 years working from the port, this part of my life is something that i have always not only enjoyed but is part of my families history going back 14 generations in the area.    The harbour is the heart of the community and it is why so many people wish to come to visit and live in Looe, it is governed by an Act of Parliament.  It is an important part of Cornwall's fishing community and a jewel in the crown of South East Cornwall.    As such it is a major economic driver for the area and helps sustain many local jobs, the harbour and it's success is important to the people of Looe and the area.

When i first became a commissioner it had depleted funds and some poor infrastructure and buildings.   Over that period i have been very proud to play my part in the regeneration of much of the harbours fabric but the success of many of the towns fishermen and decommissioning of some of the fishing fleet the numbers of working boats has decreased.  Recent discussions have, i believe put in place the seeds for a bright future for the towns fish market, which i hope will bring new boats to the town and it's market.  Also the new development in West Looe The Quayside Centre (Mally's Shed) has brought new vigour to the business of West Looe and a asset for the town and it's people.

What will the future bring, well some of the quay walls are in need of some works to keep them safe and the Sardine Factory needs some major works.   With it's sound finances the harbour is well placed to assist the town in holding and helping with events to bring people and business to the town.  The key element  for the future is looking at an outer breakwater or harbour to aid with the flood defences and economic growth for the town.   It is necessary to develop plans and consult with the residents so we leave a town that is not to succumb to a storm as it did in the 1840s and why the Harbour Commissioners were formed.   People often believe that they can become a Harbour Commissioner and change the way the harbour is run but the commissioners are governed by a Act of Parliament and Port Marine Code so what you can do is somewhat restricted.   But i have always put the town, it's people and the economy of it at the forefront of my involvement.

Just to give you a flavour of why to commissioners were formed i am including an abstract from the Corporation  Chronicles for East Looe

Shortly before 1848 East Looe was threatened with destruction by an irruption of the sea, which disturbed by the erection of wharves within the mouth of the river, had made a large breach in the shore at Churchend.   The harbour was injured in many places by boulders and rocks in it's bed, the quays were inconvenient and dilapidated, and the narrow time eaten bridge of fourteen arches, with the steep approach from West Looe, has become ruinous and dangerous.   At this time the place had to depend on the exertions of it's inhabitants and neighbours for existence and improvement.  Mr J Buller, of Morval and his family, always evinced an interest in it's welfare, and with his advise and that of his nephew, the member for Liskeard and the Rector of Lanreath, it was decided to seek Parliamentary powers to improve the port Under the Act which was entitles "the East and West Looe Harbour and Bridge Act" thirteen commissioners were elected, viz;- The Mayors of East and West Looe and Liskeard, the Treasurer of the Looe and Liskeard Canal, six persons of Looe, St Martins and Talland, and three from Liskeard.  The board caused a breakwater to be constructed at Churchend and a groin at the mouth of the river, and this fully repaired the former injuries from the sea.   New and convenient quays were built and others repaired and altered.   The harbour was deepened by removal of rocks and stones from the bed, in consequence of these improvements much material prosperity was experienced by the inhabitants.

This abstract shows that the protection of the town relies on the harbour being maintained and kept in order, whilst getting this right in the future it will assist with the problem of flooding and drive the local ecomomy.  

Thank you for reading this and i hope it helps making your choices for the forthcoming election

Regards Armand Toms

PROMISES AND AFFORABLE SUSTAINABLE HOUSING

PROMISES AND AFFORDABLE SUSTAINABLE HOUSING

With the greater part of the party conference season over it has become clear that we live in the promised land and no wonder so many people want to come to live in this country.   Our party political system is geared to making promises that are in the main not costed or undeliverable and in truth will do nothing to support the normal working man or woman of this country.  How can i say this because take the minimum wage for years they have kept this at the true level of poverty as without the benefits system to back this up they would be in poverty.   For many of these people it would be better for the family finances if they left work and were on the dole, so it is clear that all the political parties do not understand how to make work pay.    Now they go onto the saga about the living wage and this is more of a comedy then the minimum wage, they claim that this is £ 7.20 per hour times 40 per week = £288.  Now take rents at £100 plus per week add rates, electric, gas, water and natural living expenses they still need the benefits system to keep them where they can live a normal existance.   How is it that we keep people on such low wages and then need to top this up with public finances to help them survive, wouldn't it be cheaper to remove all payment of income tax until they earn above a true living wage which in truth is around £400 per week.  The saving in the tax, tax credit and benefits system would cover the costs of the shortfall in lost tax, as someone who has helped people fill in forms i know how complicated they are and how over administered the system is.

After looking at the wage structure they need to look at the housing problems which are much of the cause of why we need such a high benefits structure in this country.  We all know that when they started to sell council houses it was the start of a big problem for the country as the failed to reinvest the money from those sales into building new homes.   This has caused a shortage of social housing which created both larger markets with social landlords and private rented housing.  It is clear that with the lack of investment by government in true social housing (the old council homes)  the private sector is now in control of the public finances in this area.  Look at it this way because there is a lack of social housing and an ever increasing demand it pushes up the prices of housing.   As the price of houses increases the so does the need to meet the greater investment costs by increasing the rent to meet the social need the costs are spiralling out of control.  With a million people on council social housing lists waiting for homes and increasing by the day the costs of rents will go up and the costs to the nation in housing benefits will increase also.  Since the last election the government has cut the money given to councils (outside London) for the provision of social housing but without this investment the costs to the welfare system are increasing.   But thats where i started this conversation, politicians making promises that are not costed, unaffordable and not sustainable, with a get rich quick (or richer) side to the polices they have.   Many will be the same as me i bought my home for £56k in 1991 and it is worth £180k now, great for me but is it really ?  If i sell i have to live somewhere and although i could choose to move somewhere smaller and cheaper i would gain out of it, i'm not so sure.   But then again i could wait for old age and let the state take it for my social car (another blog another time).    

For nearly 11 year i have been involved in council work and it is clear that the system is broken and what needs to be done is put councils of a sustainable footing to meet the demands for housing needs of it's area.   I have an idea but it's no good sharing that without a council and bank/building society that are brave enough to look at it.   Some years ago i put an idea to Cornwall Council and i wasn't even asked to the committee meeting when they discussed it, so no luck trying there again.  Are you able to help, do you work for a bank or mortgage company and would they be willing to try something if so get in touch   Armand Toms 01503 264823

DO WE CARE ENOUGH ?

Getting older sometimes give you an insight into what the future holds as your elder peer group are where you will be in such a short space of time.   I remember when I started work many of those who i worked with were fit strong men, they worked hard and enjoyed life to the full.  Now many of them are in there 70s and 80s not so mobile and some in the need of help to stay within the community.   As the age demographic in Cornwall changes so will the difficulty to meet the demands place on it by the increasing numbers of people needing adult social care.   To show this look at the figures, in April 2010 there were 3238 service users then come forward to April 2013 and that figure has increased to 4766 not far off 50% increase.    You will know that costs have not gone down in the same period which will also impact on the budget, yet the current coalition government have place further cuts into the system.   My question is and will always be how do we continue to provide a service whilst the money to meet the increased demand is not there, a question that has no easy answer and places enormous pressure on those in charge of social care.  So far social care services in Cornwall have managed by taking out management costs and removing or reducing costs to services on the edges but there is only so much you can do to meet the extra demand.

Talking to local people they want to keep public conveniences, bus routes, repair roads whilst cutting car parking charges but they say very little about social care.    Perhaps much of this is about them not knowing what social care does and will only know when they need it or one of their family needs it.  So how does the Council meet all the demands of the public to keep services and meet demand, well the truth is that they will not be able to do so.    Unless council tax goes up to cover this or the government realises that the cuts they have introduced will hurt local people and reverse them, but i don't think either of those will be allowed.  In 10 years of being a councillor i have never known a time like it, you can reorganise, reduce, cut and shed staff but there becomes a point that to go further will hurt people.    I believe that we are at that tipping point when the balance of services in social care are such that demand will exceed the available resources.   Please don't get me wrong the decisions to be made in the next couple of years will be more then difficult, some will be life changing for the people of Cornwall and the Council.  

This financial year Adult Social Care needs to save £18.5m to keep pace with demand, next year it will be £13m and this from a total budget of £140m this on the back of three years of tough budgeting.  Everyone who works in social care do so because they want to help and support the community, yet with savings to meet such as those above it is near impossible to do what is needed for clients they meet.   I have at first hand seen how hard those involved have worked to improve the services provided in Cornwall yet are we helping them with such budget constraints ?

It is for all the people of Cornwall to make our voices heard to make sure that Cornwall gets a fair share of funding to meet the basic demands on services, so write to your MP and councillor to make your views known.  My feelings are that those in London don't see Cornwall as a priority, our road, rail links are poor and our funding per head of population is less then the city.  We get European funding because of the inequality we have with the average european living standards why does our own government not care about us.