Telford & Wrekin Council Watch

Analog Clock2
Paypal Donate
Thankyou ALL for your valued support.
j7TitleScroller
Simple Page Options
Add Site to Favorites
Add Page to Favorites
Make Homepage
Print Page
Donations

Secure Login Form





Lost Password?
No account yet? Register
Personal Messages

You are not logged in.

Surveys List
Main Menu
Home
Forums
Tell a Friend about TCW
Telford & Wrekin In Pictures
TCW VIDEO NEWS
News
Contact Us
Search
Links
News Feeds
FAQs
TCW ONLINE STORE
Play Games
Community Builder
TCW Yello Pages
Calender
TCW Gallery
RSS
Whos Online
No Users Online
Tab News Module
Follow telfordcouncilw on Twitter

SponsoredTweets referral badge
Call For A Health impact Assessment
Tag it:
Delicious
Furl it!
Spurl
NewsVine
Reddit
YahooMyWeb
Technorati
Subjoin
User Rating: / 1
Written by johnfranklyn   
Monday, 20 October 2008

 

Call for a Health Impact Assessment
 
Communities up For Incinerator Fight
 
Communities around Telford and Wrekin are now up for a fight against an incinerator on the Granville.
 
Whilst there are a number of benefits to incineration, the risks to public health out way any benefit. 
 
So What Are the Health Risks and where do they come from
 
It is believed that the proposal for the new plant will filter airborne particles down to PM5 size, but the issue of health risks revolve around the smaller particles that are considerably smaller and are PM2.5.
What are the Health Risks from Particles of this size.
 
·           increased total mortality;
·           increased respiratory deaths;
·           increased cardiovascular deaths;
·           increased cancer deaths;
·           increased risk of premature births and infant mortality;
·           increased risk of pneumonia;
·           increased risk of postneonatal mortality from respiratory disease and sudden infant death syndrome;
·           increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits;
·           increased hospital admissions, emergency room visits and surgery for respiratory and cardiovascular conditions;
·           exacerbation of asthma attacks, increased bronchodilator use and increased hospital admissions due to asthma attacks;
·           increased pneumonia, bronchitis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease;
·           increased respiratory symptoms in both the lower and upper respiratory tract;
·           decreased lung function;
·           increased incidences of rhinitis;
·           increased absenteeism and  increased number of days of restricted activity.
 
It is well known that the health effects will not be immediate, but are likely to occur over a 10 year period after residents, those living and yet to be born have in hailed the dangerous particles, therefore this installation will be poisoning future generations, some of whom are not yet born.
 
We have no choice but to call openly and loudly for a full public debate and a full
 
Health Impact Assessment
 
With any HIA concentrating on health affects of residents living down wind of of any incinerator.
 
Public Meetings are being held
 
A public meeting is arranged for Dr Dick van Steenis to speak TOMORROW Tuesday 21 October at Sheriffhales Village Hall, 6.45pm, on the health impacts of the proposal.
 
FRIENDS OF THE EARTH
 
 
Wed. 19 November at Turreff Hall, Turreff Avenue, Donnington. Watch out for further information. Keith Kondakor, a recent EarthMover award winner, will be our keynote speaker.
 
Members acting on behalf of SITA have already said that the life of the Incinerator is expected to be approximately 25 years. A short term plan than will have a negative impact on public Health for decades.
 
Telford and Wrekin Council Watch is now calling for a Health Impact Assessment with the assessment concentrating on health effects of residents living down wind of the incinerator.
 
 
 
HOUSING SUMMIT
 
The Housing Summit was quite a feature of the Full Council of 25th September 2008 and became quite a political game of ping pong.
 
Some Councillors are saying how this topic has gone very quiet, it has and that is because of the politician.
 
In a letter addressed to myself on 11th September 2008 it said,
 
“I have asked for a meeting to be set up with a Senior Representative of the Council and the Trust to discuss the scope of the Summit. I want this meeting to take place in the next two or three weeks and I will ensure that you are invited”
 
You wont be surprised to note that this never happened and the date for a Housing Summit is said to be set for 17th November 2008, but this is yet to be confirmed from any official source.
 
A Parish Councillor has said that I
 
“Get up his nose”
 
To that, I say
 
“Tough”
 
Maybe you would change your mind if you had the courtesy to actually speak to me, which you have never done.
 
There is a grave concern that any Summit will be held behind closed doors and exclude Residents and agencies who regularly work with and assist residents who have housing and/or homelessness problems.
 
MP Mark Pritchard has been very quiet on the issue of Housing, especially Social Housing and Homelessness,
 
“So just where do you stand MP Mark Pritchard?”
 
Do you know that Telford and Wrekin Council are the major referrer to places like the KIP PROJECT, yet give them nothing in terms of financial support, not even match funding.
 
Is anyone aware that Brunel House has closed down and those benefitting from the support offered are now spread out across the Borough in bed and breakfast?
 
The demand for Social Housing is increasing daily, yet it remains a very quiet topic.
 
Homelessness is going to increase.
 
Non Statutory Homelessness will increase yet only the third sector do anything to assist.
 
We need a return to Council Housing and affordable rents, not “affordable housing” that very few can actually afford.
 
English Partnerships and Stirchley land
Tag it:
Delicious
Furl it!
Spurl
NewsVine
Reddit
YahooMyWeb
Technorati
Subjoin
User Rating: / 0
Written by John Evans   
Saturday, 11 October 2008

 

English Partnerships and stirchley Land

I received this useful letter today from David Wright.M.P.He makes some positive comments and has shown genuine interest.
 
Dear John,
 
I have now received a reply from English Partnerships about the land off Stirchley Avenue......It would appear that the site is included for development in the Telford and Wrekin Local Plan.There is no timescale for this development process and the site will be allocated as grazing land in the medium term.The remaining area is designated as open space and will remain as such.
 
I have to say that with the housing market as it is,it seems unlikely that this site will be used for development in the near future. It may be that when the Telford and Wrekin Local Plan is next reviewed,it should be reconsidered for an open space designation.
 
DavidWright.M.P.
 
Now to the letter sent by E.P.
 
Dear Mr Wright,
 
I can confirm that the site has been recently fenced is owned by E.P. and lies within the wider area which is now referred to locally as "Randlay Valley".It was created by the former Telford Development Corporation as part of the overall masterplan for the area and is committed for development within the current plan.
 
The site represents only a small proportion of the overall area,the majority having previously been subject to a Community Related Asset transfer as open space and amenity land to the Local Authority when T.D.C. was wound up in Sept 1991.
 
E.P. has continued to manage its residual land in Randlay but there has been no physical boundary separating it from the adjoining owned Open Space and Wildlife area. I enclose a plan................
 
Whilst we have no timescales for development at Randlay it is E.P policy wherever possible,to secure and erect signage on areas mot classified as "Open Space".and particularly where there are known problems with motorcycle nuisance and other trespass issues as there are at Randlay. E.P.considers its Health and Safety responsibilities very seriously in sites such as this and further sites are likely to be secured in due course.
 
Further more the area you refer to has been identified as being suitable for pony grazing.The fencing has been upgraded for this purpose.However,prior to letting the field,and in accordance with good estate management we are proposing a programme of woodland management including tree thinning so it is essential that the public are excluded on safety grounds during these works. We are intending to erect signs in advance of the work to notify residents of the proposals.
 
As I have already mentioned the fenced off area represents a small proportion of Randlay Valley,the surrounding area,which has been designated as "Open Space"by T.D.C,and now in Council ownership offers ample opportunities for walking dogs and other suitable leisure activities, by means of the extensive of green spaces and pathways. The new fencing does not interfere with any of the formal pathways within the wider Open Space .
 
Nick Ashcroft,Assistant Land Manager. 01952 237723
 
I will now dissect this ludicrous and convoluted barricade of bureaucratic dissembling paragraph by paragraph.
 
Para 1 is self evident
 
Para 2 . The area is not particularly small in relation to the overall area. Also, the nature of the remaining area needs examination.See below.
 
Para 3 E.P has in fact done little to maintain the area since taking responsibility.It has not been interested in physical boundaries until now. It is necessary to ask why this has become so essential.Reasons are given but I will challenge them. At this point I suggest that EP's need may be to deny free access as from 1991 when it presumably took over from T.D.C. This may be in order to prevent the argument of free access for twenty years having any effect.
 
Para 4. It is admitted that there is no timescale for development but that there is a policy of signage ,particularly where there has been nuisance.This is grossly exaggerated and in fact it has been local people who have kept an eye on any unacceptable use. The E.P. has not been particularly concerned about this but have placed specific notices restricting certain activities as a result of public co-operation.The more restrictive signage and fencing is to do with administrative convenience.
 
The para ends with quite obvious subterfuge about Health and Safety. Given this has not concerned the agency until now one is compelled to ask if this is just another ploy.Something to do with award gathering,as is now common in local government and quango's. Or is it perhaps partly the above and the tactical administrative convenience combined?.
 
Para 5. Now the story changes to accommodate another diversion. This is the pony grazing idea which ,one must presume ,fits administrative convenience as well as allowing the E.P. to pimp off the land as a form of income with no concern about the leisure needs of the public in their own parish,or those in adjoining parishes.Various people have also been told that it is to fence out gypsies,prevent biking,and even to prevent dogs falling down a manhole. The latter claim being about a manhole somewhere on the road to the Nedge.
 
The smug inclusion of "good estate management" is a typical piece of market speech.Again ,why is it suddenly applicable?.Why was the tree thinning and other environmental improvements not done over the period since 1991?.
 
Finally there is the piece about excluding the public on safety grounds. This could be quite easily arranged as each part of the woodland is worked on. As it is people will be passing the worked areas on the foot paths so as to go to work ,or proceed to where they will be allowed to take their leisure some distance away. Once more,the smokescreen of evasion can be penetrated and seen to be callous nonsense.
 
Para 6.I said above that this area is not a small area within the Valley. The E.P. recognises that the wider area includes wildlife.Much of it is wetland and is difficult to penetrate.Incidentally any future development will threaten the flora and fauna.
 
In the meantime it is ridiculous to suggest that the community,those nearest to the Nedge in particular, should seek their leisure,walk the dogs ,etc, by going some distance to Randlay Valley. This will be inconvenient and even potentially dangerous in parts of the area. Older people,disabled persons,women on their own, and families after a long day at work,will be substantially deprived of an immediate outlet.
 
What for ,one asks?.So that this agency can exclude the rate payer and taxpayer(paying for E.P.by the way) and ,dog in the manger like ,prevent the democratic use of land that may never be developed. It is essential that the parish council ,the borough council,and above all the general public,unite to prevent this. The type of selfish society that has formed over the last thirty or so years is cracking as a result of moral failure built into the social and economic system. A system which has thrown up unaccountable monstrosities like English Partnerships. It is time to stop them.John.D.Evans
 

 

Last Updated ( Saturday, 11 October 2008 )
 
CRB Checks and Telford Town park
Tag it:
Delicious
Furl it!
Spurl
NewsVine
Reddit
YahooMyWeb
Technorati
Subjoin
User Rating: / 1
Written by johnfranklyn   
Wednesday, 08 October 2008

 

Telford Town Park has been the subject of much discussion over recent weeks.
 
We must remember that the initial issue was raised in 2007 when John Evans was asked to leave the Town Park when handing out leaflets about Town Park Boundaries, this issue was then recently duplicated when Telford and Wrekin Council Staff ejected Rachel Whittaker and Neil Donaldson were ejected from the Town Park after handing out leaflets about climate change.
 
We will all recall how the issue then progressed into a series of crazy rules and the misinterpretation of CRB requirements.
 
Telford and Wrekin Council wanted people who were handing out leaflets in the Town Park to have a CRB check as well as lone adults to be subject to giving reasons as to why they were in the Town Park.
 
This caused wide spread outcry and condemnation of a policy that would only serve to endanger the whole issue of child protection.
 
As a result of this, Telford Council Watch has asked questions with regards CRB checks under the FOI Legislation and these were the following replies to our questions,
 
Question 1
 
How many T&W Council Staff are employed to work within Telford Town Park?
 
Answer
 
30 (this includes full – time, part – time, seasonal and buildings ad cleaning staff)
 
Question 2
 
Can you advise how many contractors work within Telford Town Park?
 
Answer
 
14 Contracting Organisations
 
Question 3
 
Can you advise how many people rent ground or any area within Telford Town Park for any period of time in the year?
 
11 organisations and 8 graziers (ie individuals who rent land for grazing their horses)
 
Question 4
Can you advise how many of the above have been CRB Checked as they can and will come into contact with young and vulnerable people young people?
 
Answer
 
30 T&W council staff who are employed to work in the Town Park are all List 99 / CRB Checked.
 
Refusal Notice under s17 – Information Not Held
 
With regard the remaining organisations, relating to question 4 above, they may be List 99 / CRB Checked. Unfortunately, we do not hold this information as it is subject to the following exemption:-
 
Exemption :- Procedural
 
The reason(s) for this is:
 
The council does not hold this information and therefore is unable to release it.
 
 
 
Telford and Wrekin Council has provided a list of 25 organisations that use Telford Town Park for a variety of reasons, some will have staff checks or will not for various reasons.
 
This displays that Telford and Wrekin Council know about CRB checks, who requires them, but because of their procedure do not know who has CRB checks outside their organisation, but clearly gives them access to vulnerable young people, in the areas they say that they are monitoring residents in.
 
This further displays that Officers in Telford and Wrekin Council interpreted the legislation in the way they wanted to interpret it.
 
Telford and Wrekin Council have provided a list of contractors so I can forward my questions to them.
 
 As Telford and Wrekin Council have said they have a duty of care to our children, they should know who is having access to our children, having access to their areas and should be in a position to tell us who has been checked to the relevant level.
 
Unfortunately, they clearly choose to apply policy in a spurious way and will almost make things up to prove their control.
 
This makes me wonder about the people who have access to schools and the checks they are or are not having.
 
Or as a resident, are we expected to put up with rules they clearly do not apply evenly across the board, even to their own contractors and partners?
 
 
 
 
 
 
<< Start < Prev 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next > End >>

Results 61 - 64 of 92