On Wednesday, the author of East Anglia’s Premier Political Blog observed the Ipswich borough Executive meeting.
Item 8 was IPSWICH URBAN CHARACTER SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT – CHANTRY, STOKE PARK AND MAIDENHALL https://democracy.ipswich.gov.uk/documents/s11106/E-15-03%20Urban%20Character%20SPD%20Chantry%20Stoke%20Park%20Maidenhall.pdf
This covers area’s not protected by conservation area status. The SPD’s are really fascinating documents which not only talk about the character of the area but also have a lot of information about the history of the area. Conservative group Leader, Nadia Cenci asked if it would be presented to the relevant Area Committee. The portfolio holder informed her that it would be.
Item 10 was about the future of the Ipswich Pravda, Ipswich Labour propaganda sheet, the Angle.
The portfolio holder mentioned paragraph 3.8 of the item
During this interim period it is proposed to carry out independent customer research as part of the Communications and Marketing Service Review into the effectiveness of The Angle as a vehicle for communicating with residents. The results will be included in a further report to Executive on The Angle in January 2016.
Conservative group Leader, Nadia Cenci asked about social media. The portfolio holder gave a long winded reply.
Item 11 was about the discriminatory policy of having solar panels on some council houses to enable the tenants with the panels to save money while other tenants will not benefit from the policy. Conservative group Leader, Nadia Cenci said that she felt sorry for the tenants who would not benefit from the policy. It is based on where the property is. It will only benefit council tenants who have properties with south facing roofs. Conservative group Leader, Nadia Cenci also asked about what effects the right to buy would have on the policy.
Item 12 was Financial Out-Turn Annual Report 2014/15 During this time The leader of the council started talking about the non existent bedroom tax. We believe he was referring to the removal of spare room subsidy which was brought in to tackle under occupancy to reduce overcrowding elsewhere. Those effected haven’t lost any money because they didn’t have it in the first place. Labour do not understand what a tax is. This may explain why we ended up with less money coming in through tax than we were spending. The situation where you are spending more than receiving in tax is called a deficit and the deficit is Labour’s creation. The people of Ipswich rejected Labour’s nonsense but according to Ellesmere Logic, the people haven’t heard it yet, so he is carrying on like a stuck record, continuing to bore us all with what has clearly been rejected.
Item 13 was Revised Tenancy Agreement for Existing Ipswich Borough Council’s Social Housing Tenants. We were informed that unfortunately tenancy agreements have to be long and very complicated.
Item 14 was Property Acquisition Fund Update – 1 January 2015 to 30 June 2015
There was a lot about South Street Car park and I couldn’t help but think about how bad the junction of Orford Street and Norwich Road is.
Now when it comes to property acquisition, we see Ellesmere Logic in full swing. If you want the town to flourish you must encourage enterprise and private ownership but according to Ellesmere Logic for the town to flourish the council must own lots of things. It was best to have the former police station demolished and the council should have bought the former Odeon as they already own the Regent next door, but Ellesmere Logic stated that it was better that the council wasted money buying the former police station so they got lumbered with the cost of demolishing it. It doesn’t actually take much thought to work out that the areas in need of redevelopment are along the river between Stoke Bridge and Station Bridge and along Princess Street between the Double D’s and the Grey Friars Junction. Redeveloping these area’s would connect the Railway Station, Town Centre and the Water Front together. But Ellesmere Logic stipulates that it is better to acquire a contaminated, disused Sugar Beet site outside the borough boundary instead of acquiring property in Princess Street in an area where they already own a lot of the land already where redevelopment would be beneficial to the town as a whole.