WORDPRESS has proved an excellent host; but the Canvey Beat has now outgrown its facilities.
The stats helper monkeys at WordPress.com mulled over how this blog did in 2010, and here’s a high level summary of its overall blog health:
The Blog-Health-o-Meter™ reads Wow.
About 3 million people visit the Taj Mahal every year. This blog was viewed about 37,000 times in 2010. If it were the Taj Mahal, it would take about 5 days for that many people to see it.
In 2010, there were 360 new posts, growing the total archive of this blog to 920 posts. There were 103 pictures uploaded, taking up a total of 24mb. That’s about 2 pictures per week.
The busiest day of the year was May 7th with 691 views. The most popular post that day was Bye, Bye, Bob – Hello, Rebecca.
Where did they come from?
The top referring sites in 2010 were en.wordpress.com, en.wikipedia.org, facebook.com, search.bt.com, and warelane.wordpress.com.
Some visitors came searching, mostly for canvey beat, the canvey beat, terry smith armed robbery, canveybeat, and 1923turk.
Attractions in 2010
These are the posts and pages that got the most views in 2010.
Bye, Bye, Bob – Hello, Rebecca May 2010
About April 2009
CIIP Site Hacked By 1923Turk Grup March 2010
Canvey Island Votes For Independence May 2010
Castle Point Or Passport To Pimlico? March 2010
Filed under: Admin | Comments Off
NO SMILING FACES accompanied the Chancellor’s battered despatch case on its last outing to the commons, yesterday. Its contents were nothing to smile about.
Thirteen years of the last Labour government’s spending binge had left the UK with a structural deficit in which its debt would still be rising in 2014/15 to 74.4 per cent of GDP – and with annual debt interest payments set to reach £67 billion in that year.
The situation, George Osborne explained, was unsustainable.
Faced with the need to raise enough additional revenue to pay-down Britain’s record debt, the coalition government had no alternative but to raise VAT from its current level of 17.5 per cent to 20 percent from 4th January 2011; but the tax would not be extended to include currently exempt items like fresh food and children’s clothes. But the Chancellor acknowledged that the regressive tax hits the poorest in society most, and that he had modified other parts of the taxation system to mitigate this effect.
There is to be a £1,000 increase in the personal allowance – and there will be no increase in alcohol, tobacco, or petrol duty. Moreover, by reducing the level of the basic rate limit and the National Insurance Upper Earnings/Profit Limit to keep it aligned with the income tax higher rate threshold, the Chancellor ensured that higher rate tax payers would not benefit from the measure.
From 23 June 2010, capital gains tax will rise from 18 to 28 per cent for those with total income and taxable gains above the higher rate threshold; and the 10 per cent capital gains tax rate for entrepreneurial business activities will be extended from the first £2 million to the first £5 million of qualifying gains made over a lifetime. It was also confirmed that the annual exempt amount for capital gains tax will continue to rise in line with inflation and will remain at £10,100 for 2010-11.
To reign-in the country’s deficit, Osborne proposed to raise around 20 per cent of the additional funds needed through taxation – and 80 per cent through cuts in public expenditure; but the vast majority of the latter’s detail will not be announced until Autumn’s budget, which will see the majority of departments trying to cope with 25 per cent cuts.
As predicted, changes to the benefits system were announced to ensure that those whom are able to are encouraged to find work. Housing benefit would, at long last, be capped (at £280 per week for a single bedroom flat to £400 per week for a four-bedroom or larger property) and time-limited for claimants who can be expected to look for work. Housing Benefit for working age claimants in the social rented sector, who are occupying a larger property than their household size warrants, is also to be restricted.
Support for Mortgage Interest will be paid at the level of the Bank of England’s
published Average Mortgage Rate from October 2010.
Disability Living Allowance will be subject to objective medical assessments from 2013/14 and Child Allowance will be frozen for the next three years. In addition, tax credit eligibility for families with a household income above £40,000 will be reduced from April 2011 and further changes will be made to the threshold in 2012/13 to focus tax credits on lower income families. The Government also announced that it will increase the rate at which tax credits are withdrawn once household incomes rise.
Those lone parents with their youngest child over five will be moved onto Jobseekers Allowance rather than Income Support from 2011-12; and from April 2011 the government will restrict eligibility to the Sure Start Maternity Grant to the first child only and abolish the Health in Pregnancy Grant from January 2011.
The Chancellor announced that the government will use the CPI for the price indexation of benefits and tax credits from April 2011. The change will also apply to
public service pensions through the statutory link to the indexation of the Second State Pension.
The basic State Pension will be uprated by a triple guarantee of earnings, prices or 2.5 per cent, whichever is highest, from April 2011; and it will increase in April 2011 by at least the equivalent of RPI.
From April 2011, the government will end the existing rules that create an effective obligation upon private pension holders to purchase an annuity.
With 25 per cent cuts in departmental spending on their way in the Autumn, George Osborne laid out changes aimed at encouraging the private sector to expand and take-on more staff.
The main rate of corporation tax will be reduced from 28 per cent to 24 per cent over the course of four financial years from April 2011; the small profits rate to 20 per cent, instead of the planned increase to 22 per cent, from April 2011.
There is, however, to be a reduction in the capital allowances main rate from 20 per cent to 18 per cent, and the special rate is to be reduced from 10 per cent to 8 per cent from April 2012. Similarly, there is to be a reduction in the Annual Investment Allowance from £100,000 to £25,000 from April 2012.
The Emergency Budget was broadly welcomed as being both necessarily firm and fair; but the real pain, for Castle Point residents, will not be apparent until the Autumn when those 25 per cent cuts are announced…
IT SEEMS THAT Canvey Island Town Council, under the new chairmanship of CIIP member John Anderson, are now about to spend more residents’ money in obtaining the views of islanders regarding a pedestrianised shopping precinct in Canvey’s town centre.
Not content with wasting £180,000 on Canvey Lake, which is in any case earmarked for improvements under the Town Centre’s regeneration plans, the Town Council has apparently decided that the 3,687 participants in the public consultation process do not reflect islander opinion. They are certain that, given the opportunity, islanders would choose a pedestrianised High Street as opposed to wider pathways; cycle tracks; and a two-way traffic system to overcome the present congestion problems.
Indeed, it seems that congestion – whether it be island traffic or just petulant opposition to any modern progress – is the Town Council’s stock-in-trade. They have had the opportunity, since September last year, to promote their own ideas regarding the town centre’s regeneration; but instead they have, as usual, waited until the last moment to criticise the consultation process and infer that the developers have it all wrong.
True to form, the local Echo has taken to providing its column inches to the Town Council’s view – with no coverage of the alternatives that the visitors to Canvey Island’s Regeneration Shop have had the opportunity of choosing between. Furthermore, the Town Council is not urging residents to visit the Regeneration Shop to make their views known, they would rather just pose a simple question to residents – rather than give them the opportunity of making an informed decision.
The Town Council’s proposed opinion survey is heavily weighted against the developers. Most people, asked if they would like to see the Town Centre pedestrianised – and given no alternatives – are likely to say, ‘Yes.’ A fact that is not lost upon the Canvey Island Independent Party (CIIP), which has a reputation for taking arguments out of context and then organising petitions around them.
The protests over the Concord pool and Kismet Park’s Adizone have since flowered and gone to seed; but the CIIP is determined, in this the Town Council’s election year, to create another local issue that it can use to retain its political foothold.
Max Orbach, presumably stung into action by a Canvey Island Independent Party source, was, I am told, querying my interpretation of the Town Council’s latest budget; but dispensed with trying to contact me after looking at the actual figures.
Interestingly though, the Echo did not run a similar article. Instead it reverted to rehashing an old piece on Kismet Park’s Adizone – with a twist.
Instead of padding its allegations of yobbish behaviour with comments drawn from CIIP councillors, it introduced the island’s latest local celebrity, Colin Letchford, as the unhappy residents’ spokesman. And Colin, true to form, gave his own inconsistent take on why the public gym should be removed.
Whenever I go past there are children as young as eight playing on it, even though a sign clearly states it is only meant for 12 years and over.
It is dangerous for them, but they use it because the neighbouring playground for younger children is so run down.
Shouldn’t the council have some form of security to ensure younger children are not injured using it?
This is the same Colin Letchford who, when speaking to Rebecca Harris, in my presence, completely sided with her view (regarding Canvey’s Concord pool) that the Labour Government’s onerous Health and Safety Legislation needed to be rolled-back and a more sensible approach adopted to public facilities. And the same Colin Letchford (whose own report on the Concord pool highlighted its dangers to youngsters) who took the view that those dangers were acceptable and the council need only erect a sign saying that the facility is used at the public’s own risk to avoid any possible prosecution.
So, having a youngster injure a limb through jamming it in dangerous rock crevices, or falling 1.8 metres from a slippery foothold is acceptable to Colin; but having the same child use the Adizone’s equipment as a climbing frame is not.
The Echo does not make clear which council Colin is referring to in his statement. Logically, it is the Town Council (TC) to whom residents should first make their complaints; but it seems that the TC, rather than taking responsibility for the island’s yobbery alluded to in the article, would rather remain silent and pass the buck onto the local Borough Council, via Colin, in an effort to gain political points. (The Echo willingly conspired with this strategy later in the week by again raising the Concord pool topic - and quoting more Letchford comments).
Refreshingly though, Matthew Stanton at the Yellow Advertiser, decided to adopt an objective approach to the Kismet park story. Moreover, he actually chased down Lee Barrett for a comment and succeeded in getting behind the real reason for CIIP-led residents’ protests. Despite the numerous press articles on the Adizone facility’s proposed location; coverage of its installation; announcements of its opening and, some time beforehand, having been informed by CPBC letter of the decision to erect it in Kismet Park, it seems that some 40 residents do not check their letter-box or read the local papers.
Lee Barrett was reported as saying:-
… The residents who want the equipment moved feel they were not consulted properly and only knew about the work when it was happening.
I had a few calls from confused residents asking what was going on but it was too late to do anything about it.
Meanwhile, on the subject of the Town Council and my Freedom Of Information (FOI) Act requests, the TC has not even acknowledged my last FOI’s receipt. Nor has it deemed to provide any further information regarding my first. It seems that, like denying residents their right to an Annual Town Meeting this year, the Town Council is determined not to release details of the companies and individuals whom have benefitted from their enormous expenditure over the past three years.
YESTERDAY EVENING’S Cabinet meeting had two surprises in store: an admission by a Canvey Island Independent Party member that the borough has a housing problem, and the reported support of Canvey Island Town Council (CITC) for a cabinet proposal to introduce a borough-wide dog fouling scheme. (The Town Council has, of course, been endlessly debating its own costly proposals regarding dog fouling on the island, which have been heavily criticised).
Unlike the Town Council’s proposals, however, Castle Point will enforce its scheme using current personnel and introducing maximum fines.
The plan was put to cabinet by Cllr Peter Burch, the cabinet member for Leisure and Environment, who recommended that:-
- The Cabinet endorses the proposal to make a borough- wide Dog Control Order which would make failure to remove dog faeces on all open land to which the public have access, an offence;
- The Cabinet endorses the proposal to set the fixed penalty fine at the maximum allowable, i.e. £80 and to prosecute persistent offenders (maximum fine £1000); and
- Officers undertake the necessary consultation and report back their findings prior to Cabinet determining whether to recommend to Council to proceed with the making of the Dog Control Order.
Castle Point Borough Council (CPBC) is obliged to consult with CITC on its plans.
Cabinet member and Town Councillor, Ray Howard, spoke of the Town Council’s strong support for the measures proposed, which were carried unanimously.
Cllr Jeffrey Stanley, cabinet member for Corporate Policy Resources and Performance, provided a detailed assessment of the important Housing Revenue Account reforms, enacted by the previous Labour government and now under consultation.
Unlike the present situation, where the difference between rent income and maintenance costs disappears from the Borough to assist other local authorities with poor housing stock – and 75 percent of any revenue from tenant home-purchase is paid to central government – CPBC would be able to retain all those funds to build affordable housing of its own.
However, in order to ensure poor local authorities are not disadvantaged, the Borough would need to take-on a central government debt of £33.9 million – to be repaid over 30 years.
The proposals would not provide CPBC with the ability to meet its own housing needs; but would go a short way towards it – perhaps providing enough funds to build some six units per year. The vast majority of the borough’s affordable housing would still need to be met by local housing associations and private developers.
Surprisingly, Lee Barrett, of the CIIP, took time-out to attend the cabinet meeting and speak in favour of the proposal. He read a prepared statement in which he accepted the need for more affordable housing and, in his personal capacity as serving on the Audit Committee, provided his support.
It is the first time, to this author’s knowledge, that a CIIP member has ever formally accepted the need for additional housing in the borough – or address the financial issues involved.
It was agreed to note the report’s contents and approve the draft responses to the consultation.
Steve Rogers, Head of Regeneration and Homes, addressed the Coalition Government’s changes to PPS3 (its Planning Policy Statement regarding housing).
‘The government reissued its policy statement on 9 June,’ he said, ‘to give local authorities the opportunity to prevent overdevelopment and garden grabbing.’
Under the new PPS3, private residential gardens have been excluded from the definition of ‘previously developed land,’ and the national indicative minimum density of building 30 dwellings per hectare has been deleted.
However, he continued, local authorities are still expected to demonstrate the extent to which their existing plans identify and maintain a rolling five-year supply of deliverable land for housing. So it continues to be the case that CPBC needs to ensure that plans demonstrating a five year supply remain in place.
His explanation made clear the reasons why Cabinet was still obliged to present its Core Strategy for approval by the government inspector.
In proposing: ‘That the Cabinet notes the commencement of the Examination of the Castle Point Core Strategy Development Plan Document on Tuesday 22nd June 2010, and agrees that the Chief Executive or the Head of Regeneration and Homes in consultation with the Leader of the Council may agree to minor amendments to the Core Strategy which the Inspector may suggest or recommend to the Council,’ the Leader of the Council, Pam Challis, highlighted:-
- On 27 May 2010, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government wrote to Council leaders highlighting the new Government’s commitment to rapidly abolish Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) and return decision-making powers on housing and planning (including housing supply and the provision of travellers sites) to local councils without the framework of regional numbers and plans.
- Formal revocation of the RSS has not yet occurred and, in legal terms, the current RSS (East of England Plan) is still part of the development plan. National policy (including PPS12 & PPS3) also remains in force. Nevertheless, because the Government intends to abolish RSSs this becomes a material consideration in examining development plans. For this reason, it is necessary to defer, at the very least, the hearing session on housing (Matter 7) into the Castle Point Core Strategy until clarity is provided in a formal Ministerial statement.
- It may also be necessary to revisit matters where the consequences of abolishing the RSS could have some effect although there is no intention to do so at the moment.
- Should national or regional policy change, or the scope and nature of the examination alter as a result of new government statements, the agenda, nature and content of the matters and issues for examination may need to be further amended.
- In light of these changes hearing statements on housing matters should not be submitted until indicated by the Inspector.
In addition, she noted that: ‘An additional question has been added to the opening session of the Examination (Matter 1) in order to provide all parties with the opportunity to comment on the changes now being proposed to the planning system.’
It remains to be seen how quickly the Coalition Government can act to prevent the previous government’s Regional Spatial Strategies from being adopted.
That’s not what was said when he wanted to stand for election as a CIIP county councillor!
I wonder what has changed?..