Once again we had much to discuss at this month’s Council meeting. You can find the full minutes of the meeting on the Town Council website. A number of items were on the agenda that show the responsibilities of the Town Council continue to grow.
We are starting to look at services currently delivered by Northumberland County Council but likely to be transferred to Alnwick Town Council next year. These include responsibilities for bus shelters, seats and litter bins. Services including grass-cutting and floral planting are likely to have significant additional costs if we want them to continue at the current level.
No decisions on funding have been taken by the Town Council yet. We will be requesting more information and reviewing the implications of these responsibilities at future meetings. What is clear is that there will be cost implications that mean difficult decisions to take over our budget and the precept we set in January. The precept is the amount added to the council tax that provides a budget for the Town Council to carry out its responsibilities. Incurring new costs is likely to mean raising the precept or cutting existing expenditure – or both.
I had this in mind when we discussed the implications for the Town Council following the Community Development Trust going into administration. We were asked to vote on whether to take on the responsibility for a number of assets. As a result we agreed to maintain 4 seats in the market place, 8 town map display cases and some equipment including electrical stanchions, marquees and a gazebo. All were given free of charge with the exception of the electrical stanchions for which we will pay £200.
We were also asked to take on responsibility for the Hotspur Statue but we decided not to do this. I voted against taking it on because the cost implications of insurance, maintenance and CCTV monitoring were unknown. I felt I could not vote to take it on when we could soon be asking local taxpayers to pay more in their council tax or reduce funding to other projects, so that we can meet all our responsibilities.
This decision is front page news on the Northumberland Gazette this week. I’d really like to know what you think about it, so please feel free to comment here, or contact me using the details on the contact page of this blog.
I am absolutely delighted at coming top of the poll in the Castle Ward by-election and winning a seat on Alnwick Town Council. I would like to thank everyone who placed their trust in me (and the Greens), spent time discussing issues on the doorstep and gave me their vote on Thursday. I am now eager to repay the faith you have shown in me by working hard to represent all the residents of Castle Ward. I’d also like to congratulate Bruce, Jim and Jilly on their success and look forward to working with them and all the existing councillors for the good of the town. One of my election promises was to keep in contact with you and to this end I have set up this blog. You can subscribe to receive alerts when I add a new post – just click on the subscription box. Alternatively email me via the contact page to request a monthly email update or let me know if you’d like these in print. Outside of this, everyone in the ward will receive a quarterly newsletter from me through their door.
20′s Plenty part 2
I’d like to thank Gordon Castle for recently responding to my post of the 11th July and address each of his points in turn. You will find the original post and Gordon’s comments below this post.
Gordon states I should declare an interest. At the start of this blog post I state exactly why I am interested and where I live – I am not sure how much more open I can be. My address details are also on the contact page. Having said that, I’m not sure how I personally have an interest in this just because I live on the road where the trial took place. After all, the road now has a 20mph limit and there is no plan to change it back. My interest is in other roads! Gordon lives on a road adjacent to Swansfield Park Road that currently has a 30mph speed-limit – does this mean he hasn’t declared an interest?
It is also suggested I am unwise to speak publicly on this issue and that I am attacking a fellow councillor. I find the word attack a bit strong. I only mention that I am disappointed in Gordon’s response. Gordon made the statements that I’ve quoted in a public meeting with the press in attendance – is he suggesting that I am unwise to disagree with him in public? I feel it would be unwise of me not to be open with the public about my views even if they are different from a fellow councillor.
So to the crux of the issue. The trial results were not taken over a year. Speeds were recorded before the 20mph limit was introduced, in February 2010. The speed-limit was introduced in April 2010 and then speeds were recorded in October 2010. Before the trial, westbound mean speeds were 23.3mph and after they were 23.5mph. Eastbound mean speeds were 22.5mph before the trial and 22.3mph after the trial. So speeds didn’t increase or decrease significantly. However, in my view, 23-24mph as an average speed on a road with three schools, is much better than 30mph. As the decision to use Swansfield Park Road as a trial site for a 20mph speed-limit was taken in October 2009 and this information was available to the public, could some self-regulation on speed have taken place before the first trial speeds were ever calculated? I agree that enforcement and traffic calming measures could reduce speeds further but am realistic that this is costly and sometimes unpopular. That doesn’t mean that 20mph speed-limits on their own have no impact in reducing speeds, even if 20mph is not adhered to. Perhaps even 25mph is a good compromise!
I mentioned that changes in speed-limit can take time to bed in. If you use a road infrequently but have used it for years, it is easy to miss a change, even with sign-posting. Certainly, people have told me that it is hard to read the signs turning into the bottom of Swansfield Park Road, if coming from the east. I don’t think it is “ludicrous” to suggest that some drivers may have missed the change on the road in a six month period – after all they may realise their mistake part way along, so reduce their speed but already have their initial speed recorded.
Reports on the speed trials in Northumberland are linked from the agenda of the 11th July 2011 meeting of the North Area Committee. If you want to have a look at these, see the Northumberland County Council website.
A majority of the residents who responded to a survey didn’t feel speeds had reduced significantly. However, this was only 26 of the 70 houses on Swansfield Park Road. Comments from the residents who did respond include requests for enforcement, traffic-calming and speed-cameras, so there was still support for the 20mph speed-limit among many who hadn’t seen a significant speed reduction.
Nowhere have I said that 20mph should be the default speed-limit. I have looked into this issue because many residents are concerned about the speeds driven on their streets and have told me they would welcome 20mph speed-limits on their roads to aid speed reduction. Gordon says he doesn’t like the slogan ’20′s plenty’. It is much more than a slogan. 20′s Plenty For Us is a campaigning organisation working to support those who want to reduce speed-limits. Their website provides information, research, networks and advice to those wanting more 20mph speed-limits. The facts speak for themselves;
I agree that tax-payers’ money shouldn’t be wasted on schemes that have no impact. But there is evidence that 20mph schemes can reduce driving speeds and accident numbers and so we shouldn’t just dismiss the idea. Instead we could be asking local residents what they think is needed on their own streets and let them decide whether it is worth the money.
The comment I made about supporting drivers who find it difficult to drive at 20mph was tongue-in-cheek. It refers to the view Gordon expressed to me at the meeting that 20mph driving could cause accidents if drivers are regularly looking at their speedometer to check their speed. If that is the case, then perhaps those drivers shouldn’t be on the road. As for being a member of the Institute of Advanced Motorists, I am confident that 20 years of accident free driving means I am safe on the road and that 20mph driving is not an advanced skill.
→ Leave a comment
Posted in News and updates
Tagged reply to comment, speed limits