TORIES last night announced
they were back in charge of
Southampton City Council by
igniting a heated row when they
formally scrapped a controversial
gypsy and traveller site proposed
for Swaythling.
New Labour leader Richard Williams
quickly accused them of leaving the city in
"confusion over of key area of policy" while
freshly installed Lib Dem sheriff Liz Mizon
said that a "emotional" and "expensive" race
would have to start to find an
alternative to Monks Brook.
Conservatives had opposed
the site and pledged to ditch
the proposal during an election
campaign that saw them
sweep back to power with
their first majority in 24 years
after they were ousted in
February by a Labour and Lib
Dem budget pact.
Deputy leader Royston
Smith said: "We will look at
alternatives where practical."
He later added: "There is no
law that says we have to have
one. We don't think the case
has been met." Tories drew further criticism
when they ditched a £90,000 Lab Lib proposed
campaign to encourage residents to
take up be Government paid benefits.
Tories claimed it would serve "no clear
purpose" or guarantee savings. Labour
called the decision "spiteful" and said it
made "no economic sense."
advertisement
Conservatives confirmed veteran councillor
Alec Samuels, 78, as council leader and
he appointed an eight man Cabinet.
The annual council meeting began with a
warning from new Tory chairman Brian
Parnell that he would operate a football style
card system to keep unruly councillors in
check. He was earlier elected as the city's
786th mayor at a ceremony at the Guildhall
where he was praised for his "charm and
good humour". It is the second time he has
held the job - the last time, as a compromise
candidate - was when Southampton Football
Club made The FA cup final
in 2003.
Mike Read
He joked: "I congratulate
Portsmouth for taking our
place this year."
Councillors thanked the
"exceptional" outgoing
mayor, Labour councillor
Stephen Barnes-Andrews,
who attended 450 engagements
in the previous year
while holding down job as
manager of a Waitrose
supermarket in the city. For
the first time since 1971
councillors appointed an
Honorary Recorder - the
city's "firm but fair" crown court judge
Derwin Hope QC.
The founder of the city' boat show Norman
Kemish and lollipop lady Anne Newell
received the City of Southampton Award
while the city's territorial army unit was
given the honorary Freedom of the City.
Proposing the volunteer soldiers for their
service to the country and local community
Cllr Smith, a former RAF man, said the city
owned them a debt of gratitude that could
not be repaid.
In Winchester the city's mayoral chains of
office were handed over to Mike Read.
So a pot load of cash has been wasted just so they can keep election promises to a small percentage of the city, a further pot load of cash will be spent in relation to an alternative site which will then result in opposition parties promising to scrap that which will see a change in power once more with the only constant being the waste of tax payers money, there is a reason Monks brook was chosen, simply because it was the most suitable !!!
Any and all who have a recreation/unused area close to their homes must now be very concerned
So a pot load of cash has been wasted just so they can keep election promises to a small percentage of the city, a further pot load of cash will be spent in relation to an alternative site which will then result in opposition parties promising to scrap that which will see a change in power once more with the only constant being the waste of tax payers money, there is a reason Monks brook was chosen, simply because it was the most suitable !!!
Any and all who have a recreation/unused area close to their homes must now be very concerned
[quote][bold]Here[/bold] wrote:
So a pot load of cash has been wasted just so they can keep election promises to a small percentage of the city, a further pot load of cash will be spent in relation to an alternative site which will then result in opposition parties promising to scrap that which will see a change in power once more with the only constant being the waste of tax payers money, there is a reason Monks brook was chosen, simply because it was the most suitable !!! Any and all who have a recreation/unused area close to their homes must now be very concerned [/quote] "There is no law that says we have to have one. We don't think the case has been met."
Let's just save the cost of construction and move on to something voters want.
Good start IMO.
Here wrote:
So a pot load of cash has been wasted just so they can keep election promises to a small percentage of the city, a further pot load of cash will be spent in relation to an alternative site which will then result in opposition parties promising to scrap that which will see a change in power once more with the only constant being the waste of tax payers money, there is a reason Monks brook was chosen, simply because it was the most suitable !!! Any and all who have a recreation/unused area close to their homes must now be very concerned
"There is no law that says we have to have one. We don't think the case has been met."
Let's just save the cost of construction and move on to something voters want.
Posted by: Spencer the Rover, Southampton on 10:56am Thu 15 May 08
So the Council doesn't need to provide temporary taveller sites eh Royston? The idea of the sites is that travellers can be moved swiftly from illegal sites to the temporary ones. It's harder to move them on legally without identifying a place for them to go. So next time travellers move into Riverside Park, Peartree Green or Redbridge playing fields and cannot be moved for a few days, we'll know exactly who's responsible. Well done Royston.
So the Council doesn't need to provide temporary taveller sites eh Royston? The idea of the sites is that travellers can be moved swiftly from illegal sites to the temporary ones. It's harder to move them on legally without identifying a place for them to go. So next time travellers move into Riverside Park, Peartree Green or Redbridge playing fields and cannot be moved for a few days, we'll know exactly who's responsible. Well done Royston.
Posted by: Swaythling Boy, Swaythling on 11:25am Thu 15 May 08
I can guarantee that the residents who would have had to put up with this imposition will be delighted that the plans have been abolished. It is rather a shame that the Liberal Democrats didn't listen having lost their seat there last year, and it took them losing another seat there(in what isn't natural Conservative territory) for these plans to be abolished. I for one am very pleased. Judging from the vitriolic comments above, some supporters of Labour in particular seem not have learnt anything from 1st May. In Portswood and Swaythling, I suggest the local Liberal Democrats get out their exercise books pretty quickly before it is too late even if Labour cannot be bothered.
And to coin a phrase, when I heard that the plans had been abolished I thought "GET IN THERE!"
I can guarantee that the residents who would have had to put up with this imposition will be delighted that the plans have been abolished. It is rather a shame that the Liberal Democrats didn't listen having lost their seat there last year, and it took them losing another seat there(in what isn't natural Conservative territory) for these plans to be abolished. I for one am very pleased. Judging from the vitriolic comments above, some supporters of Labour in particular seem not have learnt anything from 1st May. In Portswood and Swaythling, I suggest the local Liberal Democrats get out their exercise books pretty quickly before it is too late even if Labour cannot be bothered.
And to coin a phrase, when I heard that the plans had been abolished I thought "GET IN THERE!"
Posted by: Keith Oftergrass on 1:22pm Thu 15 May 08
Oh great, so now they are likely to pitch up anywhere !!
Surely it's better to have designated area for these people - especially if it's in a hole like Swaythling it will hardly bother decent hard working people ?
Oh great, so now they are likely to pitch up anywhere !!
Surely it's better to have designated area for these people - especially if it's in a hole like Swaythling it will hardly bother decent hard working people ?
Posted by: Susie, Mansbridge on 1:34pm Thu 15 May 08
How dare Keith call Swaythling a hole. i am proud to live here. it is a friendlt safe neighbourhood. What is he scared off? the site might come near his house? I guess for many people it being at Swaythling meant it wasn't going to be near their house. [italic]italic[/italic]
How dare Keith call Swaythling a hole. i am proud to live here. it is a friendlt safe neighbourhood. What is he scared off? the site might come near his house? I guess for many people it being at Swaythling meant it wasn't going to be near their house.
Posted by: Red Rooster, Bitterne on 1:38pm Thu 15 May 08
"There is no law that we have to have one."
Er, yes there is. It's called the 2004 Housing Act, and you can read the relevant stuff here:
http://www.opsi.gov.
uk/ACTS/acts2004/ukp
ga_20040034_en_20#pt
6-ch5-pb6
Also the 2003 Anti-social behaviour Act, which says you can only move on traveller encampments if there is suitable accomodation provided in the local authority. Which now there won't be.
Royston Smith is a half-wit.
"There is no law that we have to have one."
Er, yes there is. It's called the 2004 Housing Act, and you can read the relevant stuff here:
Also the 2003 Anti-social behaviour Act, which says you can only move on traveller encampments if there is suitable accomodation provided in the local authority. Which now there won't be.
Posted by: Keith Oftergrass on 5:45pm Thu 15 May 08
[quote][bold]Susie[/bold] wrote:
How dare Keith call Swaythling a hole. i am proud to live here. it is a friendlt safe neighbourhood. What is he scared off? the site might come near his house? I guess for many people it being at Swaythling meant it wasn\'t going to be near their house. [italic]italic[/italic] [/quote] Friendly and safe neighbourhood - have you just moved there from Baghdad or Beirut ?
I don't think many people would agree with you there sweetheart. You'll be saying the Flowers Estate is a community of decent, hard working people with great community spirit and honesty next !!!
Troll are you ?
Susie wrote:
How dare Keith call Swaythling a hole. i am proud to live here. it is a friendlt safe neighbourhood. What is he scared off? the site might come near his house? I guess for many people it being at Swaythling meant it wasn\'t going to be near their house.
Friendly and safe neighbourhood - have you just moved there from Baghdad or Beirut ?
I don't think many people would agree with you there sweetheart. You'll be saying the Flowers Estate is a community of decent, hard working people with great community spirit and honesty next !!!
Posted by: Swaythling Boy, Swaythling on 8:21pm Thu 15 May 08
[quote][bold]Red Rooster[/bold] wrote:
"There is no law that we have to have one." Er, yes there is. It's called the 2004 Housing Act, and you can read the relevant stuff here: http://www.opsi.gov. uk/ACTS/acts2004/ukp ga_20040034_en_20#pt 6-ch5-pb6 Also the 2003 Anti-social behaviour Act, which says you can only move on traveller encampments if there is suitable accomodation provided in the local authority. Which now there won't be. Royston Smith is a half-wit.[/quote] Red Rooster, yuo are wrong. Section 225 Housing Act 2004 (as amended) requires a local authority to carry out an assessment of the needs of gypsies and travellers who reside in or resort to their area. This does mean that a local authority HAS to have a site. It merely means that, if it appears to the LA that there is a need, they have to meet it. Equally, if it appears to the LA that that need is met then no further provision need be made. The law is better viewed at www.statutelaw.gov.u
k where Acts and Regulations appear in their amended form (on the OPSI's site, they are as passed, not as amended - but not being a half wit yourself, you knew that, didn't you)
Red Rooster wrote:
"There is no law that we have to have one." Er, yes there is. It's called the 2004 Housing Act, and you can read the relevant stuff here: http://www.opsi.gov. uk/ACTS/acts2004/ukp ga_20040034_en_20#pt 6-ch5-pb6 Also the 2003 Anti-social behaviour Act, which says you can only move on traveller encampments if there is suitable accomodation provided in the local authority. Which now there won't be. Royston Smith is a half-wit.
Red Rooster, yuo are wrong. Section 225 Housing Act 2004 (as amended) requires a local authority to carry out an assessment of the needs of gypsies and travellers who reside in or resort to their area. This does mean that a local authority HAS to have a site. It merely means that, if it appears to the LA that there is a need, they have to meet it. Equally, if it appears to the LA that that need is met then no further provision need be made. The law is better viewed at www.statutelaw.gov.u
k where Acts and Regulations appear in their amended form (on the OPSI's site, they are as passed, not as amended - but not being a half wit yourself, you knew that, didn't you)
Posted by: Richie, bitterne park on 8:04am Fri 16 May 08
[quote][bold]Susie[/bold] wrote:
How dare Keith call Swaythling a hole. i am proud to live here. it is a friendlt safe neighbourhood. What is he scared off? the site might come near his house? I guess for many people it being at Swaythling meant it wasn't going to be near their house. [italic]italic[/italic] [/quote] Susie, dont bite,this idiot is out to annoy as many people as possible as he has tried to in the passed,i think HE is a NIMBY as he has called swaythling residents in the passed.Just ignore him he WILL go away.
Susie wrote:
How dare Keith call Swaythling a hole. i am proud to live here. it is a friendlt safe neighbourhood. What is he scared off? the site might come near his house? I guess for many people it being at Swaythling meant it wasn't going to be near their house.
Susie, dont bite,this idiot is out to annoy as many people as possible as he has tried to in the passed,i think HE is a NIMBY as he has called swaythling residents in the passed.Just ignore him he WILL go away.
Posted by: Richie, Bitterne on 8:06am Fri 16 May 08
[quote][bold]Richie[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Susie[/bold] wrote: How dare Keith call Swaythling a hole. i am proud to live here. it is a friendlt safe neighbourhood. What is he scared off? the site might come near his house? I guess for many people it being at Swaythling meant it wasn't going to be near their house. [italic]italic[/italic] [/quote] Susie, dont bite,this idiot is out to annoy as many people as possible as he has tried to in the passed,i think HE is a NIMBY as he has called swaythling residents in the passed.Just ignore him he WILL go away.[/quote] idiot keith oftergass comments that is.
Richie wrote:
Susie wrote: How dare Keith call Swaythling a hole. i am proud to live here. it is a friendlt safe neighbourhood. What is he scared off? the site might come near his house? I guess for many people it being at Swaythling meant it wasn't going to be near their house.
Susie, dont bite,this idiot is out to annoy as many people as possible as he has tried to in the passed,i think HE is a NIMBY as he has called swaythling residents in the passed.Just ignore him he WILL go away.
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
Print
Email this
Comment
