A program of works will start today to on maintenance and repair of footpaths around Anton Lakes. The work will take 4 – 6 weeks and may involve closure of some of the footpaths.
If you have any comments or queries please let me know and I will take them up with council officers.
It is now over a year since public access to and use of the lower Guildhall was ended and the alternative community facility was opened at the Rendezvous. Since then the lower Guildhall has lain empty and the Rendezvous underused and derided by many of the community groups relocated in there.
Previous attempts by me and Cllr Mike McGarry to find out how often the Rendezvous is used and how much this has all cost have been met with the answer that no figures will be available till the end of the financial year.
Test Valley must now have full figures for 2008/2009 so I have tabled the following questions through the council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
Can officers update me on the following?
• Current usage of the Rendezvous:
How many hours per week is it used compared to usage of the lower Guildhall?
How many hours per week is the upper Guildhall used?
How many previous users of the lower Guildhall now use the Rendezvous?
What proportion of the total usage of both is private hire as opposed to council use?
• Income from the Rendezvous and Guildhall:
What was the revenue from the Rendezvous and Guildhall over the past year? How does this compare to previous income from the Guildhall?
What was the rental income from the two shops which became the Rendezvous?
What was the business rate for the shops and what rates are now paid?
• Set up and running costs:
What were the set up costs for the Rendezvous?
What were the running costs for the Rendezvous and Guildhall over the past year?
How does this compare to previous costs for the Guildhall?
What maintenance if any has been carried out on the Guildhall over the past year and at what cost?
• For the future:
What is the projected income from the upper Guildhall and Rendezvous for the current year?
What are the expected running (admin) and maintenance costs for the two buildings over the next year?
I look forward to full and detailed answers at the next meeting in Romsey on 8th September.
A report to Test Valley Borough Council’s cabinet is recommending reversal of the previous decision to transfer monitoring of Andover’s CCTV network to Lyndhurst.
The original decision met widespread disapproval in Andover and was heavily criticised in the Andover Advertiser. I would like to thank Dick Bellringer of the Advertiser for raising the matter and advising me and other councillors of the public concerns.
In response to these concerns I asked that the matter be reviewed by the council’s scrutiny committee and asked that the committee consider the following
That report was made to the committee and officers agreed to review the decision in the light of public concerns. I also requested that a future report on the topic be in the public domain as the previous confidential report increased public fears that the decision was ill-considered and unsound.
I am pleased to see that the fresh report to cabinet has answered these concerns and is open to the public. The new proposal is to retain monitoring in Andover means a retention of the existing effective service and closer co-operation with local police and businesses. What a pity the proposals weren’t thought through in March.
Yesterday I attended a transition town meeting in Andover. For those who don’t know about the transition movement it’s aim is to improve the sustainability of communities by decreasing their dependence on oil and reducing their carbon footprint. Full details can be found at
http://www.transitiontowns.org
The Andover campaigners have been working for the last few months and already made great progress particularly the food group who aim to encourage greater use of locally produced and home produced foods.
Yesterday’s meeting was to inform local campaigners that Andover had been picked by the Energy Saving Trust for support as part of their Green Communities program. My congratulations to everyone at Transition Town Andover for this success and best wishes for future projects which I will be supporting whenever possible.
If you want to know more about Transition Town Andover email [email protected]
Cllr Lynn’s letter in the Andover Advertiser (14 August) shows a regrettable lack of understanding of the arguments for a town council and of the nature of local government. He infers the town council will detract from, and add an extra layer of administration to compete with, him and other existing councillors. A town council is not an alternative to Test Valley and it’s a pity that both sides of the argument have portrayed it as such and introduced hypothetical arguments about what might happen if it were.
The purpose of a town (parish) council is increased participation and representation. It is agreed by all the main political parties that decision making should be as inclusive as possible and made at the lowest level practicable. How strange that some reject this locally while objecting to decisions being made by central or regional government. We live in a society where everyone has a right to a say in what happens in their community. It is not the preserve of a small faction. It is time the electorate of Andover were shown some respect and trusted to make decisions about the future of their town.
Yes the 15 borough councillors represent Andover but are they representative of Andover when 11 of the 15 come from one political group and almost always vote on party lines? In every other part of Test Valley representation is augmented by parish councillors. These, mainly non-political, unpaid volunteers add to democracy not detract from it. Why should Andover be any different? If parish councils are irrelevant and expensive why is there no clamour to abolish them in Charlton, Enham, the Clatfords, etc and incorporate these areas into the unparished area of Andover? Parish councils work by increasing public involvement. I would expect Cllr Lynn and others to be in favour of this.
The strength of parish councils lies in their influence on decision making at all levels and their administration of purely local matters more effectively than the borough council. It makes no sense for a town council to take on responsibilities done cheaper and more efficiently by the borough and vice versa. Claims of massive increases in costs and bureaucracy cannot be substantiated. Any costs incurred by the town council must be matched by savings in the borough’s budget.
The Andover Forum is not an alternative to a town council; Romsey has both and benefits from this. The Andover Forum is no real forum as debate is minimal. It is widely regarded as just a PR vehicle for Test Valley – no wonder increasingly few councillors and fewer residents bother to attend.
Whether the Saturday surgeries are non-political remains debatable. They are primarily MPs surgeries and the majority of councillors attending are from the parished areas outside of town. These surgeries are not relevant to the town council debate or to the need to increase public involvement in the future of Andover.
Cllr Lynn asks what can parish councillors do that he can’t. Perhaps he should be asking that of borough councillors with parish councils. In Alamein ward they increase involvement and add to my effectiveness as a councillor. We work together to represent local communities more efficiently than only borough councillors can.
Ask yourself why public satisfaction and involvement is greater in Romsey and why Andover looses out again and again. What has Cllr Lynn & Co got to fear and why are they raising irrelevant arguments against Andover having the same rights as Romsey? Then decide whether Andover needs a town council and return your consultation papers.
I recently carried out a residents’ survey in the Lillywhite Crescent area in response to calls from a number of local residents. Results highlighted their concerns about traffic, youth nuisance and litter.
Respondents expressed concerns about speeding along Icknield Way, the use of this road by East Anton contractor traffic and the ineffectiveness of new traffic calming measures installed. I have been passed these comments on to the police, Hampshire Highways and the contractors. Contractor traffic is monitored and action taken against drivers using this route. The current traffic calming measures are the first stage of a program which will eventually see the north of Icknield Way closed to through traffic except buses and emergency vehicles. The completion of the scheme depends on building progress at East Anton.
Residents reported they were satisfied with measures taken by the police and wardens to control motor bikes and nuisance along Dark Lane although some problems still exist. The police nuisance vehicle campaign will continue throughout the summer and I am talking to council officers about other measures to make the path safer for walkers and cyclists.
Fly-tipped rubbish and garden waste has been removed from Icknield Way and Dark Lane and the area will be monitored to prevent re-occurrence. Council officers are investigating the possibility of extra dog waste and litter bins here and along the path to Viking Way.
A number of other issues were also raised including damaged signs, improvements to footpaths, 20 mph speed limits and graffiti. I have referred all of these to council officers for further investigation and action.
At Friday’s full council meeting TVBC approved plans for the second stage of the consultation on a town council for
I had some serious reservations on the proposals, particularly regarding the number of councillors and the suggestion that we should re-ask the previous question because the first round consultation “did not give a clear answer.” There is a widely held view that
Some have questioned the validity of the first round consultation because of low turnout. This, unfortunately, is a fact of life and why we need a town council to re-engage with the public of
I was also concerned that the number of members proposed for the town council was somewhat arbitrary. I raised this point on Thursday and Cllr Carr was happy to consider alternative proposals. As a result Cllr Rod Bailey and I proposed, and the leader accepted, an amendment to the original plans changing the number of councillors to 19, one for every 1500 voters across
What I was not prepared to accept was a recommendation which is seen as an attempt to negate results of the first part of the consultation – the proposal to ask residents to choose between a town council and the current system. It was argued that the “no town council” had not been given as a clear option first time round. It was, I believe, clear and understood by respondents that a “no” vote was a vote for no change. In fact many of the replies received actually said so, keep things as they are.
We consulted and there was a clear majority in favour of change. To imply people didn’t understand, or they made the wrong decision and must be asked again is patronising. Because of this, I called for a separate vote on this proposal. I, all of the Liberal Democrats and some other
All of this is academic because I’m sure the people of
Earlier this week I was fortunate to spend some time with Manuela Wahnon discussing her attitude of gratitude campaign to clean up
Manuela starts from the simple premises that we should be grateful for what we have and look after it. We live in one of the most beautiful parts of the country and it’s up to us to make sure it stays that way. If we see litter in our town it is our responsibility to pick it up no-one else’s. By doing so we make
Some people would argue that we should stop everyone dropping litter in the first place and this is what Test Valley Borough Council does try to do. But if litter is there someone has to deal with it. Why not you?
To date Manuela has won support from dozens of local businesses, the borough council and our MP. She also speaks regularly to local schools. I fully support her campaign and urge everyone else to do the same.
To find more about what the campaign has done visit
The bandstand hasn’t been used as a bandstand since the 1960s. Most recently it was used as an aviary and many locals fondly remember the budgies in there. They were re-housed two years ago when changes in animal welfare legislation made it impossible to keep them there any more. Their removal in no way affected the integrity of, or future uses for, the building. Neither does the fact that once someone let a cat into the aviary.
Since then the building has been left empty, boarded up and frequently vandalised. The costs of repairing damage have run into thousands of pounds but at no time has anyone from
The decision was discussed informally by cabinet members, but at no time were other councillors informed or consulted. To date neither Cllrs Noakes nor Carr have felt the need to contact any of the three councillors in whose ward the bandstand stood and discuss the matter. The first they knew of the demolition was when they heard from the local press at least a month after the decision was made.
Since then both I and Cllr Bailey have had detailed conversations with council officers about the bandstand. Unfortunately, the bandstand was beyond repair, refurbishment or relocation elsewhere. The only reason for its removal was to get it out of the way in time for the BigFest on August 15th. This is despite the fact that the plans for the BigFest show all activities taking place at the other end of the park. Any attempt by us to postpone demolition would be referred to the next cabinet meeting in September. In other words it was coming down within the next week whatever local members said or did.
We did manage to agree with officers that we and a representative of the local history society could attend the demolition to ensure as much as possible of the building and its history could be saved. To that end I, Cllr McGarry and David Borrett checked the building before work started and monitored the works. As a result the weathervane and an engraved beam (previously unknown to council officers) were saved. Nothing else could be saved, a sad end to a much loved building.
Talking since to residents it is apparent there is a need and demand for a replacement. I and my colleagues will be pushing for this as soon as possible. We also need to ask why and how it came to this stage that there was no option but demolition. And we need some explanations and apologies from Cllrs Carr and Noakes who have lost touch with Andover, its people and their views.
Andover Liberal Democrat councillors have reacted angrily to council leader Ian Carr’s decision to demolish Vigo Road’s bandstand.
Speaking on Andover Sound Cllr Carr claimed it was within the remit of council officers to demolish the bandstand whenever they wanted. Officers consulted Cllr Carr and other cabinet members but significantly no-one bothered to advise or consult local councillors. When asked whether an Andover town council could have saved the bandstand he retorted the bandstand belongs to Test Valley and so they can do what they like with it.
Discussions have taken place about moving the bandstand and Cllr Carr also admitted he had no resources for a new bandstand and appealed for members of the public to come forward and pay for a replacement. When quizzed on the adverse publicity the decision had received he angrily blamed people for giving false information to the press. He also accused fellow conservative members of forgetting they had been advised of the decision which was made by the council’s cabinet only one of whom is an Andover member. Significantly only Tory councillors were advised of the decision.
St Mary’s councillor Rod Bailey said “The bandstand is an important local landmark and residents are furious that the decision has been made without consultation. The first I knew about it was when the story appeared in the local paper. This is unacceptable.”
Fellow ward councillor Mike McGarry said “I am appalled at the way this whole fiasco has been handled by the Leader and his Cabinet, firstly they make this decision without consulting the local people or the ward councillors, undemocratically giving us no chance to comment, secondly when residents are up in arms they try to rush it through so there is no going back and thirdly Cllr Carr makes promises about a replacement that he knows can’t happen in the current economic climate. How can he justify spending money on knocking it down, let alone building a new one when TVBC are making people redundant? ”.
My own view is that once again Cllr Carr and his colleagues have shown complete disregard for the people of Andover and behaved like feudal landlords in their attitude to the town. As with the Guildhall, the bandstand has been allowed to fall into disrepair and then this disrepair used as an excuse to destroy another part of Andover’s heritage. The latest claim is that the bandstand is so unsafe that it must be demolished immediately. If this is the case, surely it has been unsafe for sometime and has not therefore been maintained adequately. Andover residents deserve some straight answers from Cllr Carr.”
Liberal Democrats on Test Valley Borough Council are currently seeking a review of the decision making process, access to the surveyors reports and assurances that the bandstand will be retained and restored either at its current location or elsewhere in the park.