Friday, 13 July 2018

The labyrinth of planning ......... and a way out of it

The Minotaur surprised while eating
Maggi Hambling - Tate
I know this may seem stupid but I am starting to feel really sorry with all those involved with the AVBC attempts to produce a viable Local Plan .......... from the understaffed planning department to obviously befuddled responsible councillors .... oh and not forgetting the large number of Amber Valley residents who make their views known at hearings and through the consultation process. It brings to mind the Labyrinth in which the Minotaur was trapped; constantly revisiting passageways that never led to freedom. Does that sound like the AVBC Local Plan process? Ah yes, the beast of planning, never sure of what it is trying to do nor how to do it. I draw this allusion because of the maze that AVBC now inhabits (hopefully there is no need to apologise for including Maggi Hamblings wonderful painting - - that's how I see the current impasse).

It just gets worse : AVBC's Local Plan Inspector's note July 2018

Timetable chart extract from Inspector's note
So the hearings will resume just around the time that AVBC staff will be organising an election in 15 wards ................ but there are serious doubts that they will be able to redraft their plan by April'May 2019. What AVBC is attempting is a complete rewrite of the Local Plan so many factors have to be considered; not least because the inspector wrote:

"The process of identifying and proposing additional sites for housing and other uses should be carried out in an open and transparent way, using an appropriate methodology which objectively considers and assesses the reasonable alternatives. The Council should set out clearly its reasons for selecting the reasonable alternatives chosen, which should then be subject to an equal examination. This would be best achieved by the production of an Addendum to the Sustainability Appraisal (SA).

 With regards to the submitted SA, although I acknowledge, for instance, that it is important to take into account additional information that may be available in respect of a site which is the subject of a current planning application, this should not be at the expense of a site which does not have the benefit of further detailed supporting evidence. In cases such as this, the Council should consider the possibility of similar provision being made on the other site or sites in order that the reasonable alternatives are assessed on an equal basis". (that second paragraph is a killer)

There is considerable cause for concern as they have been basing the housing forecasts on pre-existing planning applications and it would be prudent to assume that the green belt assessment will follow this pattern, a re-assessment of hitherto rejected planning applications to develop land such as AVA/2017/0322 which proposed 185 homes on 10.6 hectares of green belt land off Crich Lane in 2017.  (more on planning application AVA/2017/0322 go here)

A pertinent question would be, "how many rejected applications to build on green belt land could be referenced by AVBC?"

Back to the positive


Pinglewick village at the end of Acorn Drive in Belper. Admittedly built in the 1970's on a green field site.
The boxed in area is 0.1477 hectares containing 65 dwellings with a density of dwellings per hectare of over 400.
You can find a video of the developer describing the construction of Pinglewick here.

We discussed in a previous blog post that a better way forward for AVBC would be to assess how much development could be undertaken on brownfield sites ............ using as an example the work undertaken or commissioned by the NP4B team. This prompted a thought ........ just how many hectares of brownfield locations were included in the AVBC brownfield site register?  The answer, after a simple totting up (didn't even have to take my socks off) is 149.36 hectares. Which leads on to how many dwellings could be built on these brownfield sites:



Yes of course not all of the sites would be suitable for housing or at appreciable densities but as the target number of homes in Amber Valley is 9,770 there is a fair degree of leeway ........... especially as there are a considerable number of windfall and other large housing developments that have been built since 2011. The Office of National Statistics (ONS) lists 56,130 households paying council tax in 2016 whereas in 2011 there were 52,596 ............ an increase of 3,534 though how many of these extra dwellings are counted towards the Local Plan target is a moot point (a development below a certain number of houses is not "statistically" relevant ... apparently). If we assume an incremental increase of 700 homes per year of which a conservative third or 233 can be counted as part of the Local Plan target then by now (mid-summer 2018) the target has dwindled to somewhere around 8,200. If these calculations were acceptable to the inspector then there would seem to be enough brownfield site capacity in Amber Valley to match the target. If, as would seem sensible, the Local Plan end date was adjusted (2011 - 2028 = 17 years) to 2035 then we could assess the true value of brownfield sites for years to come. No need for development of green belt or green field land.

A further look at densities

We should also note that densities above 80 are achievable on some sites as per these two examples:

  • Belper East Mill development proposal is over 600 dwellings per hectare so renovation of existing though moribund industrial premises offer significant advantages.
  • Pinglewick is over 400 dwellings per hectare.
Examples of acceptable housing densities can be found here in an Architect's Journal article - Planning Suburban Housing Density and three informative graphics from that publication are copied below:

35 dwellings per hectare


50 dwellings per hectare

80 dwellings per hectare
A cautionary note is that two extant planning applications for local brownfield development sites, the Arbru site in Milford and Derwent Street North in Belper were for density of dwellings per hectare of 22 and 26 respectively. There is obviously a lot of scope for the council to be in discussion with developers and funding bodies in an attempt to unlock the potential of our derelict brownfield sites.

Tuesday, 3 July 2018

Despite election pledges AVBC look to develop on green belt land?

The performance of Amber Valley Borough Council is becoming more and more disturbing. This blog has referenced AVBC quite a few times, admittedly never from a position of approval except for that one post about homelessness in Belper when the diligence and obvious compassion of the council officer involved was duly noted. I am sure that there are other officers who are equally as involved with their allotted responsibilities but I fear that they are battling against overwhelming odds. I am trying to hold on to this belief though a recent development in the inspection process of the AVBC Local Plan has once again led to questions of competence. The nub of the Local Plan is to allocate land for the development of 9,770 homes within the time period of 2011 - 2028. There is also an added imperative that development should not be delayed towards the latter end of this period so AVBC has to demonstrate that 5,000 homes will be built in the initial 5 years. In the real world the 5 years started in 2011 but in the world of Amber Valley the 5 years starts now. According to Labour Councillor Ben Bellamy AVBC had spent over £1 million by 2017 on unsuccessful attempts to produce a plan (see here Ben's excellent article in Nailed - Belper Independent news).

It is obvious that AVBC has been struggling to produce a viable Local Plan for some years and yet again their shortcomings have hit difficulties during the inspection process:

Inspector’s Note on Land North of Denby

The Council considers that the process of identifying and proposing additional sites is likely to require the release of land currently within the Green Belt. As such, the Council proposes to undertake a Borough-wide Green Belt boundary review in order to inform this process. The Council has confirmed that, given that part of the site known as Land North of Denby is within the Green Belt, any review of the Green Belt boundary is likely to include an assessment of this site. 

Following the review of the Green Belt, the Council will then consider whether any potential sites within the Green Belt, including that which forms part of the Land North of Denby, could be identified and proposed as Housing Growth Sites, including the assessment of Reasonable Alternatives. A Sustainability Appraisal will also be carried out. 

This map is helpful in understanding what land is being considered :



This map which is included in AVBC's Local Plan clearly identifies the green belt land that is to be considered for development. AVBC is employing external consultants to carry out this appraisal which, as the council admits, is looking solely at green belt land re-designation. This is not just waiving the white flag of defeat but a clear statement that after years of election promises to voters this Tory administration is willing to renege on their pledges (for more on this see here .........and also here where the Tory record of building on green belt land is explored plus Labour's opposition to it). Apologies for the seeming incestuousness of referencing earlier BelperStuff posts but they do contain some interesting links.

There is another way - the alternative of Brownfield site development

Here in Belper there has been a spirited opposition to development of greenfield land such as Bullsmoor and Belper Lane and we can now see that Neighbourhood Plan for Belper has taken this on board with their strategy of restricting any large scale development in the parish to brownfield sites (see here NP4B Viability study of brownfield sites for the Parish of Belper). The majority of these sites are contained within the AVBC Local Plan but they have relied solely on the planning applications by developers to determine the number and types of housing that would be built. NP4B has realised that the AVBC plan envisages larger homes configured to a suburban density; for instance the Arbru site in Milford comprising 136 homes has a density of 22 dwellings per hectare. By raising the density and type of dwelling ( less bedrooms to suit starter homes and downsizing from larger homes on the outlying estates) to 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare, which is more in line with the urban nature of these sites the target figure for development in the parish can be contained on brownfield sites. Indeed, with careful planning these sites could provide the homes needed for the next 20 years without recourse to development on green field or green belt land. This depends upon the NP4B being passed at a referendum and a methodology being found to produce the homes that are desperately needed rather than the AVBC method of relying on what he market decides to build.

Brownfield sites in Amber Valley (from AVBC Local Plan)

So what should AVBC do?

The simple answer is that the borough should decide that: 

Has AVBC done any of this?

Cognitive dissonance

Last year I shared a conversation with a Tory borough councillor (representing Duffield) who boasted that, "we have reduced Amber Valley staff numbers by 134 ......... that is the way you manage local government". He said far more than that but I found his comments so unsavoury that I'll not repeat them here. I could see that he was convinced that staff cuts were a good thing but when I pointed out the consequences of a reduced planning department that was struggling to deal with planning applications and produce a viable Local Plan he could not see the connection.  The point was not lost on me that he measured borough council success on how much money could be "saved" by making staff cuts rather than the council serving the community in a meaningful way. It is the mentality of small government.

Local Government planning departments have lost 60% of their funding since 2010

The Councillor's belief that the market will supply the homes needed without any intervention by local authorities is current Conservative thinking and has been since the Thatcher years so he's not alone. The evidence however does not support this belief:

The private sector and housing associations have proved to be inadequate providers of new homes for a growing population. Privatisation of housing supply has failed. For anyone who believes in smaller government and the primacy of private companies in dictating what and where is to be built a chart such as the one above will cause them to have a headache. So what do they do? The evidence disproves core conservative doctrine ........... the only way is to let private developers loose on virgin land whilst in our town centres old industrial buildings rot.

But what would Labour do?

We will protect the greenbelt, and prioritise brownfield land for development. (an extract from their 2017 Housing Manifesto - New Deal on Housing

This is also the policy of local Labour councillors.



Monday, 7 May 2018

HS2 will reduce number of East Midlands trains through Derby

A 2015 BelperStuff post explored the claim of Alistair Darling that building HS2 would drain money away from the existing rail network. He was rubbished by the then transport secretary Patrick McLaughlin who eventually went on to postpone the East Midlands electrification. The sorry saga of political shenanigans has taken the odd twist since then, first reinstatement of electrification but eventually cancelled by the incoming transport secretary Chris Grayling once the 2017 general election was safely out of the way.

I suspect Alistair Darling of possessing a crystal ball because the reasons finally admitted to by Grayling for cancellation was that the cost benefit ratio for electrification of the Midland Mainline (MML) was now so low that it made more economic sense to use by-mode trains that could run as electrics under wires and diesels everywhere else. The MML wires would only go as far north as Kettering with a branch off to Corby. Trains to Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield would be diesel powered.

HS2 Phase 2 planned for sometime in the early 2030's once a route through Nania has been agreed

This came as a surprise to many of us who remember that in 2015 the cost benefit ratio for MML electrification was stated as being between 1:4.7 or :7.4 (that's for every £1 spent the benefit would be between £4.70 and £7.40). Now Grayling claims it's only 0.8:1 (which should have read 1: 1.25, for every £1 spent you gained £1.25 - sorry to bang on about this). So what happened between 2015 and the 2017 Grayling statement? That is very clear:

HS2 would, by 2033 carry all Sheffield passengers that currently use East Midland trains.

That was the justification for cancelling MML electrification, just as Alistair Darling predicted. The Tories went into 2 general elections promising electric trains and improved services on the MML only to break those promises to shore up the weak economic case for HS2.

(In the accompanying cost benefit chart only the minimum benefits have been listed but it should be noted that the MML scheme ranged from £4.70 to £7.40. The HS2 figure was scrutinised in 2016 by the House of Commons Account Select Committee who found that it should be nearer £1.10).The true costs will emerge in time but many believe that Phase 1 between London and Birmingham will go so far over budget that Phase 2 will never be completed. (More of that in a following post).

But what of the future? 

What does this mean for East Midland trains? Grayling has already stated that HS2 and the West Coast franchise passenger service (WC) will be merged with first contracts to be signed as early as 2019. The consequence of this is that a significant number of MML passengers will be counted as HS2/WC passengers which will make East Midlands Trains loss making. The DfT and HS2/WC will move to deter passengers staying loyal to the MML route to St Pancras so a decrease in the number of MML trains would seem a likely outcome; the existing East Midlands services will not survive in their present form so our 2 trains an hour from Sheffield and similar 2 trains an hour from Nottingham will at best be cut back to 1 per hour .............. the Sheffield services may be cut back to Derby with Chesterfield, perhaps with the most to lose, served by Cross Country trains (though even these are under threat from HS2).

Even if my pessimistic view is proved wrong (and I don't think it will be) we will be condemned to a second class service on the MML. Already the trains are slowing:

The April and May times are factual whilst the 2033 times are a best possible time guess.

These timings are partly the result of  more intensive Thameslink train services south of Bedford resulting in slower running MML trains and more time spent changing trains at Derby. Electrification of all East Midlands trains to London was originally planned for 2019 and would have mitigated against these extended journey times.

Grayling says that new by-mode trains will perform just as well but does not say when these new trains will be available. The surprise is that the railway industry has not called Grayling out on this because the technology he proposes will add to operational costs and struggle to match the existing Meridian performance levels. The current East Midlands Meridian fleet were due to be cascaded to other routes with the InterCity electric trains currently working on the East Coast mainline (Kings Cross <> Leeds/Edinburgh etc) moving over to the MML. This will not now happen. The Meridians were built in 2003 and have an expected minimum life of 25 years so could be around on the MML well after HS2 is introduced in 2033. Can we believe Chris Grayling when he says that new by mode trains will replace them before 2033? I have serious doubts. Whatever the outcome we here in Derbyshire will suffer diesel fumes for years to come. Grayling tries to placate environmental criticism of the continued use of diesel by claiming that the hybrid trains will eventually be converted from electric/diesel to electric/hydrogen power yet this is a technology that is unproven in such an environment as the MML.

Data equates to Passenger journeys made in 2016 - 17

What we need in the East Midlands is a transport strategy that delivers what local people need and not counted as makeweights used to bolster an HS2 scheme that is seriously flawed. Only 27.3% of East Midland passengers travel to London, whilst a similar number stay within the regional boundary, basically short commuting or shopping trips to local centres. The main growth is seen on cross country routes to the North West, North East and West Midlands. Just how HS2 can improve these journey experiences is debatable once we factor in the necessary transfers to and from Toton. If anything, the passenger journey data underlines the case for re-opening the through route to Manchester via Matlock .......... I am sure that the cost benefit ratio for the old Midland route through the Peaks would make interesting reading. 



That 13% of East Midlands passengers are journeying to the West Midlands is significant (around 4.6 million per annum) though a fair proportion of these are travelling to and from the Leicester area which is bypassed by HS2. For East Midland passengers in the Derby area HS2 offers no real benefit for travel to Birmingham, the added mileage to Toton and extra time changing trains eating away at the fast HS2 journey time to Birmingham Curzon Street. There is claimed to be a benefit for Nottingham <> Birmingham passengers but here there is a much cheaper and immediately deliverable alternative ............... a fast connection utilising the freight branch between Sheet Stores Junction (near Long Eaton) and Burton, thence to Birmingham. This would be an additional service that would cut the current 74 minute journey to around 50 minutes by avoiding Derby. This offers a centre to centre journey time comparable to the 44 minutes claimed by HS2 for a fraction of the cost. We are talking of a couple of cascaded diesel multiple units to maintain an hourly service that could even offer new journey opportunities for the good folk of Burton. The resultant loss of journey opportunities on the Derby <> Birmingham route would also have to be addressed but there would be no loss of capacity as astute Nottingham passengers would avoid trains routed through Derby.



What next


The usual justification cited by those who promote HS2 is the claim that we desperately need more capacity. The next BelperStuff post should perhaps take a look at this and perhaps try and make sense of some of the doom-laden forecasts of spiraling HS2 costs. The bill so far is at least £2.7 billion and they haven't even started building anything yet.

Friday, 4 May 2018

Results of yesterdays Belper AVBC elections ............. an analysis for nerds

Success in Belper but losses elsewhere means Tories increase their majority hold of the borough. Congratulations to Carol and Fay.


Both Labour candidates won their wards with Carol retaining Belper South whilst Fay wrested Belper East from the Tories. A good result for Belper Labour but not so successful elsewhere as we did not make any inroads in Duffield and lost 2 wards in Heanor and 1 in Ripley.

Further analysis



Belper East

What the figures show is that a 6% increase in turnout favoured Labour and easily offset the fallout from the UKIP disintegration (if not fielding a candidate can be so described). Labour campaigned hard to win this ward and fielded an excellent candidate, backed by a dedicated team of supporters which netted a 52% increase in their vote. In contrast, the Tories relied upon their incumbent retaining the seat with the help of UKIP voters in search of someone to vote for which gave them a 29% increase over 2014. The strong LibDem increase of 141% is encouraging for them and evidence that they are emerging from the cloud cast over them from their alliance with the Tories at national level (or is it ...... see Belper South results).

Belper South

With only a 1% increase in turnout Belper South should be an easier analytical proposition but the emergence of both Green and Independent candidates coupled with the towel being thrown in by UKIP  leaves this ward hard to read. Labour and Tories increased their vote by a similar percentage amount but Carol Angharad attracted an extra 182 votes (evidence of incredibly hard work and application) whilst Tim Sutton (who is presumed to be the next Belper mayor) could only manage an extra 148 votes. In 2014 it seemed that the UKIP vote was a decisive factor in Erik Johnsen winning for Labour, the theory being that UKIP took votes away from the Tories. The 2018 result does not support this analysis as Labour's showing suggests that many UKIP voters have moved to Labour. The significance of the 200 Independent and Green votes tends to confirm this.

The collapse of the Liberal vote in Belper South is at variance with their strong showing in Belper East which could or could not be reflection of strength of candidate and campaign.  

Looking forward to 2019



It should be noted that Labour now has 4 seats in Belper so has emerged as a strong force in the town's representation. In 2019 a further 4 Belper borough council seats (all Tory) will be up for election. The work never stops.


One last comment

I would like to thank Erik Johnsen for his hard work over the past 4 years, not only for Belper South but for the help he gave to BelperStuff, supplying accurate feedback to ensure that this blog remained truthful. Well done Erik and good luck for the future.

Tuesday, 1 May 2018

YOU HAVE TO THINK THROUGH THE CONSEQUENCES ................... Amber Valley council election 2 days to go



In yesterdays blogpost I mentioned the content of Belper Tories facebook page. I braced myself and took another look today and, to be fair, the content, in the main is an acceptable expression of the image that local Tories want to promote about conservatism. Unfortunately some of their posts need closer scrutiny such as their slant on parking. In their zeal to attack Labour they have not thought about the consequences of their car park plan. I noticed that they had a graphic that attacked the Labour plan to sell off the Field Lane car park extension (so-called). I thought this warranted a closer look because I consider the Tory position to be illogical and ill thought out.

Additional note: It has just been brought to the attention of BelperStuff that whilst the Tories attack Labour about wanting to sell off the parcel of land off Field Lane it was the Tories  themselves who actually did  propose to sell it off in March 2014. As you read through this blog keep in mind that the land is still up for sale by the Tory controlled borough council despite what Tories would have you think. Theirs is not a well thought out strategy ....... more akin to knee jerk reactions.

The graphic that they produced is:



The graphic is intentionally misleading as it suggests that Labour want to sell Field Lane car park in its entirety which is not the case; though the Tories do admit in the accompanying text that it is only the so-called extension that is proposed for sale (that's the lighter square of land under the "LE!" of the word "SALE" superimposed on the above image).

Now if I was a Tory I would want to keep very quiet about this small parcel of land. It was bought by AVBC Tories to be the site of a new leisure centre and never intended to be a car park. Those plans had to be scrapped because the scheme depended upon a level of government funding which, when applied for was declined on the basis that Belper already has a leisure centre. Unfortunately, the Tories had already bought the land so to make the best of a bad job they re-purposed the land as a car park extension. The shame of it is that they shunned the opportunity to buy some land adjacent to Derwent Street that would have cost a third of what they spent on Field Lane and provided far more car parking spaces. What we have ended up with is car parking at a cost per space similar of what you would expect to spend in central London and not in a small Derbyshire town. The cost per car in Belper should be under £5,000 but the Tories have managed to spend nearer £50,000 per space. You could finesse the site to bring that cost down but this only to around £40,000 per space. ( for an insight into the methodology of this calculation you should start here).

What are the consequences of the Tory proposals?

By making this attack on Labour's plans the Tories have put forward what they intend to do about parking in the town once the residential development of Derwent Street North commences, bringing with it the closure of the Derwent Street car park.

Derwent Street car park on a typical midweek day. Yes the Sun is shining. Photo by BelperStuff
The Tory plan is that all these cars will be transferred to the Field Lane car park. That means that there will be a considerable extra number of cars entering the car park via the Bridge Street/Field Lane junction or the rat run through Church Street/Green Lane. Many feel that Bridge Street is already saturated with traffic so any increase in the number of vehicles making a right turn into Field Lane could prove to be chaotic. The Tories have already lodged objections to planning applications on Derwent Street based on concerns of traffic congestion but now they propose to increase the number of vehicles entering Field Lane even though it is a far more sensitive junction.

The traffic problem in Belper warrants a far more intelligent approach than what we are offered by the Tories. Now that I am aware that they base their car parking strategy on a small parcel of land that they actually want to sell I find the situation quite bizarre.  There is of course the adjacent Ada Belfield care home site with the residents moving to the new facility being built within the old chocolate factory on Derwent Street. I expect that the potential of the combined care home/car park extension area has not escaped the notice of potential developers.

Google Maps satellite image overlaid with typical traffic flows on a weekday morning
The effect that a supersized Field Lane car park would have on these flows can be easily imagined.

So what is the Labour alternative?

Labour propose selling off the so-called car park extension and, if they can recoup the full amount that was paid by the Tories for the site, use the money to realise the dream to rebuild the River Gardens Tea Rooms as envisaged by the Friends of Belper River Gardens. The residue should then be more then enough to enable an invigorated Labour controlled AVBC to explore sensible parking options that would utilise far less costly land and have minimum impact on traffic levels in the town.

The town deserves an overarching traffic plan for the town and not this bodging approach we have at the moment. The plan should be evidence driven and complimentary to the historic nature of the town. The ultimate solution for Belper is that we have an enhanced public transport network plus residential development that encourages people to walk rather than use their cars. Strategies such as this are needed now and this is what you will get if you vote for Fay and Carol in 2 days time on May 3rd.

I know that those seeking your vote often make the claim that a vote for them is a vote for change but this Thursday in Belper that is exactly how it is. A vote for Fay and Carol in Belper East and Belper South would help to ensure that the Tories are ousted from power in Amber Valley so that we bring forward policies that are of real benefit rather than those proposed by the Tories as they try to paper over the cracks of their mismanagement.


Monday, 30 April 2018

THE FIRST CASUALTY OF ELECTIONS IS TRUTH ----------------- Amber Valley council election in 3 days time

Yes I know that the actual quotation concerns war and not elections but as canvassing skirmishes intensify there is an uncanny resemblance to warfare. I suppose every candidate starts out with the intention of running a, "positive campaign" but as election day draws near the temptation to be negative about your opponents becomes irresistible. The crucible of social media has added a seductive layer of opportunity to candidates and supporters to get "down and dirty", the smell of political cordite overpowering good sense but this is not a new phenomenon.

Canvassing for Votes -  William Hogarth (1697-1764) Sir John Soane's Museum

As I was writing that flowery introduction it occurred to me that I should take a look at the main protagonists face book pages to see the current state of play. Facebook has never appealed to me so I rarely consult it but I do rely on regular facebook users to promote this blog. Anyway, I first looked at Belper Conservatives on facebook and in just a few seconds noticed 3 pure (impure) character slurs on local Labour councillors and candidates. Turning to the Belper & Duffield Labour Party facebook page I found no references to local Tories (pure or impure); all posts concentrated on issues rather than personalities .................. except for this:

Belper News article about the Amber Valley Tory planning board chair, Councillor Jack Brown's failure to declare a pecuniary interest. I'm still trying to get my mind around this. He used his casting vote to agree a green field development in Somercotes whilst not declaring that his wife stood to gain financially if the application was passed. Did I just try to cast a slur on a Tory? No, he did it himself. I am genuinely saddened by this news as it demeans a public office. In spreading such news I am reminded of this, "Do not gloat when your enemy falls; when they stumble, do not let your heart rejoice."

This news item is relevant because Belper Tories are claiming that a vote for Labour would usher in green field development despite the fact that our candidates plus all sitting AVBC Labour councillors have pledged that they will vote against green field development (oh yes I have asked for an assurance) and Labour councillors voted to reject all green belt development. I feel strongly about this Tory mendacity because on the doorstep in Belper East we have heard voters saying that they were told by Tories that voting Labour would be a vote for such development. We've been here before see here and here where the then Tory leader of AVBC tried the same tactic in 2016. If you remember the vote went against him. We have to ask ourselves why is it that despite years of Tory electoral promises to stop green field development we still have the Tory controlled AVBC planning board approving applications such as the Belper Lane development?

Evidence shows that voting Tory increases the risk of green field development

I have interacted with all three local Tory candidates at some point and, to be honest I have to admit that I trust just one of them to honour his election pledges. Unfortunately if by his election Amber Valley remains in Tory hands then more green field development schemes will be accepted. The only way to ensure that untouched land surrounding our town remains undeveloped is to remove control of the council from the Tories.

Just so you know who to vote for in Belper

Fay Atkinson and Carol Angharad ...... thankfully running a positive campaign


Wednesday, 25 April 2018

More comments on Antisemitism

Before you read on just let me state that BelperStuff (well me actually) is against all forms of racism including antisemitism. My ancestors left Africa 500,000 years ago and ---- well you can see where I'm coming from?

There has been no backlash from the last blog post relating to antisemitism in the Labour Party (yet) so here I am, once again, foolishly (I initially typed fearlessly) making further comments. I am prompted by remarks made on the BBC by the President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Jonathan Arkush on BBC Newsnight speaking after he had attended the meeting with Jeremy Corbyn to discuss antisemitism in the Labour Party (link to it here). The BBC reported in another article,"Corbyn meeting disappointing say Jewish leaders" and these specific points were said to have been rejected by the Labour leader:
  • A fixed timetable to deal with anti-Semitism cases
  • Expedite the long-standing cases involving Mr Livingstone and suspended party activist Jackie Walker
  • No MP should share a platform with somebody expelled or suspended for anti-Semitism
  • Adopt in full the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism
  • Transparent oversight of the disciplinary process


I get the impression that nothing would have satisfied Jonathan Arkush. Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree that charges of antisemitism should be dealt with swiftly but a fixed timetable could hinder a proper process that contained the right to defend oneself and possibly to appeal against suspension or expulsion. The cases of Ken Livingstone and Jackie Walker do fall into this category and apparently will be dealt with by July.

The transparent oversight of the disciplinary process is rather vague. As shown in the last BelperStuff post the Labour Party Rule Book is freely available on line and clearly states the process involved. Perhaps what is being asked for here is something above and beyond. I do wonder if such requests are made of other political parties.

That no MP should share a platform with somebody expelled or suspended for antisemitism is something I totally agree with and we should expect self discipline from MP's on this point. Just how you deal with an MP who does share a platform with such a person is perhaps something that the party should address (or is it dealt with in the rule book or a matter referenced in the Chakrabarty report ........... must check).

Turning to the idea that the Labour Party should adopt in full the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism I am confused. The Labour Party has already adopted the International Definition of Antisemitism (IDoA) alongside other UK political parties and many governments. Does the Board of Deputies of British Jews find fault in all these other institutions? Delving further into this I find that many have problems with this definition; some saying it stifles genuine criticism whilst others claim that it does not go far enough. The issue seems to revolve around the perception that adverse comments about Israel can be construed as antisemitic which I think is the crux of the matter. The IHRA has further clarified that this could include criticisms which target Israel, if this was “conceived as a Jewish collectivity”. It added: “However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.” I don't find the Jewish collectivity element too difficult as I know that  the State of Israel is a multi-ethnic democracy. Of course the acceptance that "criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic" is a welcome definition. Here to I have to ask if the British Jewish establishment is critiscising other adopters of the IDoA for not accepting further IHRA wording?

Other points of interest 

  • Jonathan Arkush claimed on Newsnight that the majority of British Jews would not vote Labour. Not much change there then as a poll carried out prior to the 2015 general election found that 69% of the Jewish electorate would vote Tory with around 73 per cent of Jews saying the political parties’ attitudes to Israel were “very” or “quite” important in influencing how they would vote. link here to Jewish Chronicle 
Who pays for all this Photograph: Matthew Chattle/Barcroft Images

  • The British Board of British Deputies pulled out of a further "round table" meeting with Labour today as they objected to some of the Jewish groups that would be attending. link here to a Guardian article . We are back to the wrong type of Jew scenario.
  • The Jewish Chronicle is today running an article claiming that Jeremy Corbyn has backtracked on Labour adopting the international definition of antisemitism see here. I don't think he as an individual, even one as influential as leader of the party, can unilaterally make such a decision. We await clarification. The NEC make the rules following a democratic process.
  • The British Board of Deputies of British Jews sent a message of congratulation to Donald Trump when he became US President. Some find that interesting though I couldn't possibly comment.

Just out of interest

THE INSTITUTE FOR JEWISH POLICY RESEARCH  carried out a survey in 2010 to discover the POLITICAL LEANINGS OF BRITAIN’S JEWS link to it here

SURVEY SUMMARY 

1. Among the Jewish population, leanings towards Conservative and Labour are evenly split, yet many people are undecided. 

2. Younger respondents are more likely to be undecided, and less likely to support the Conservatives, than older respondents. Support for Labour does not vary with age. 

3. Jewish men are considerably more likely than Jewish women to prefer the Conservatives. 4. Jews who are married are more likely to prefer the Conservative Party; single Jews are more likely to prefer Labour. 

5. The self-employed are more likely to prefer the Conservatives (39% Conservative versus 29% Labour), whereas full-time employees prefer Labour (38% Labour versus 25% Conservative). 

6. Jews demonstrate very different political preferences depending upon which part of the country they live in. 

7. Jews with a ‘Secular’ outlook prefer Labour; those with a ‘Religious’ outlook prefer the Conservatives. 

8. Political preferences among Jews vary significantly depending upon which synagogue denomination they belong to. (56.3% of Jewish households have one or more persons attending a synagogue - gleaned from the BDoDoBJ website).