Councillor Mike Barnacle

Working hard for your community.

Budget Speech 2016

By

Thanks Provost

Whilst I agree the prudent approach advised in Paragraph 7.8 should continue since it has enabled us to be in a better position at this time than some other Authorities; I note that (paragraph 7.15) the medium term plan assumes an increase in Council Tax of 2% per annum for the provisional budget for 17/19 whilst assuming (paragraph 7.23) a 1% increase in Pay Awards for the public sector in the same period. The disproportionate squeeze on the public sector by both Governments is to be regretted.

I note that the actual reduction in Scottish Government funding of 16/17 is significantly worse than anticipated (para 2.2.4) and given that the magnitude of the reductions are unprecedented (para 7.3); I commend Officers for their work in managing this.

We are being asked to deliver Council cuts and accept this austerity agenda at a time of growing service demands (para 5.2). When I sought election successfully way back in 1999 I did not expect to be effectively a mere agent of Government policy with so little room to make a difference to the people I represent.

The source of our current predicament must be laid at the “politically popular door” of the Council Tax freeze, frozen by the SNP for an unprecedented 10th consecutive year in 2016/17 (para 2.1.9), which leaves Council very little room for manoeuvre and no realistic option but to accept. I note from John Swinney’s letter in Appendix A, reference to the Commission on Local Tax Reform; I seem to recollect the first year of the freeze was to facilitate examining this but it was kicked into the long grass, meanwhile costs and service demands continued to grow.

When I first joined the Council, local members had a much earlier and greater say in the budget process than now. I note reference to a budget consultation exercise in para 6 but no reference to local member consultation. Councillors not on the Budget Review Group, that liaise with the Corporate Management Team to produce the figures around 1 month prior to budget setting, have very little or no influence on the process.

The Independent Group view Budget Day as containing an element of farce with competing political groups vying to gain credence for unacceptable cuts added back. We have not presented a budget given the political arithmetic in this Chamber and the lack of dialogue from an ineffective Opposition but do have a clear idea on use of the available headroom and I would thank Officers in the Finance Service for their help on that assessment. It centres mainly on rejecting the many cuts to the Environment Service which, unlike Education and Housing/Community Care, has no element of ring-fencing resulting from accepting the Government offer and is the one service that experiences most of the cuts year on year, also being the most visible to constituents. I personally would like to use 0.6% of our uncommitted reserves (leaving 3% uncommitted) referred to in Paper 4 today, which effectively equates to £1,970,000 to relieve more of the effect of cuts than the headroom allows, especially in Community Care and Roads, introducing the unbudgeted £687,000 cost of the rural garden and food waste expansion presented to the Environment Committee last November and which no Group has mentioned.

We have examined what is tabled today in the short recess time available and vote accordingly!
Councillor Mike Barnacle
Independent Member for Kinross-shire
PS We decided to abstain and send a message re lack of dialogue.

Paper 5 (3)(i) of DMC 16/9/15 Breach of Conditions at Crook Moss Gypsy/Traveller site

By

A hard copy has been given to the members of the Development Management Committee

Sent on behalf of Councillor Mike Barnacle

I am away on annual vacation from 10th instant and cannot therefore attend the above Committee, although I did ask Nick Brian if he could have put back the Report for a month, which given the Report, would not have made a material difference but this was not agreed.  It is probably just as well I am not attending because I am furious with the lack of progress.

I feel it is necessary to send to you the following background information viz:

  1. My email to Committee colleagues of 14/13/15 and enclosures
  2. My email of 11/8/15 to Nick Brian
  3. Brian Stanford’s reply of 12/8/15
  4. Briefing note from Eddie Jordan re Conditions on 18/8/15 (Note that Cllr Robertson had a recent site meeting to discuss noise issues but I don’t know the outcome).

IN SUMMARY, The intervening 6 months have achieved absolutely nothing.  In fact site development into the ‘paddock area’ is a clear intention.  No monitoring of the site occurs unless the community report activity.

Graeme Drummond, Asset Planner of Scottish Water advised me today that there is no current capacity at the Drum WWTP and no more connections will be allowed into the system in the foreseeable future.  A number of properties in the settled community still await connection to what was an environmental improvement scheme both I and the community lobbied for; I do not wish to see gypsy/travellers given priority above others when they have so singularly failed to deliver on the conditions they promised to adhere to.  In my view it is totally unreasonable to allow them another 12 months to connect to mains drainage that I and the CC have been assured is not likely to be available.  A growth project is needed to stimulate further investment into the WWTP, a proposal from the settled community gaining credence with forward planning.  The applicants have been on site, within the Lochleven catchment, since March 2012 without any drainage, sewerage and water arrangements, the protocol with SNH and SEPA is totally breached and I shall be writing on my return to the most senior officials at PKC, SNH and SEPA regarding their collective failure of the statutory duty to protect Lochleven (Policy EP7).  Our ‘open-door’ policy RD5 requires immediate revision to protect the amenity of the settled community.

Yours, in disgust

Councillor Mike Barnacle

Independent Member for Kinross-shire

Download (PDF, 632KB)

Download (PDF, 24KB)

Download (PDF, 23KB)

Download (PDF, 1.3MB)

Note for Editor re Crook Moss

At the subsequent Committee, my colleague Councillor Cuthbert successfully moved an amendment that a report be brought back to the Committee on 13 January 2016 regarding enforcement of conditions.  Unfortunately, the applicants were given another  year to secure connection to the Drum WWTP and meet conditions relating to water supply.  In my view, this continues to represent a complete failure by the planning authority in their statutory duty to protect Loch Leven under Policy EP7 and I shall be writing further on this.  At the Member Officer Working Group on Planning Meeting of 28 September 2015 when Policy RD5(b) on new gypsy/traveller sites was stated as effective in current form, I requested it to be minuted that I did not agree that it was ‘fit for purpose’ in that it did not include reference to sites not having a detrimental effect on the residential amenity of the settled community and did not secure a reasonable distance of sites from settlement boundaries.  I still feel this policy needs re-examining during the review of our Local Development Plan.

Boundary Commission Proposals Split Kinross-shire

By

Sent on behalf of Councillor Mike Barnacle

Dear Eileen

This is the final piece for the newsletter, I will ring you later today regarding the newspaper cutting of the poem referred to.

Readers should note my representation to PKC on 11 May 2015 (shown below) reproduced here from the June edition.

At Full Council on 13 May 2015 it was unanimously decided to support all the Kinross-shire members in opposing the Commission’s proposals and write to maintain PKC’s position that there should be no reduction in councillors and Kinross-shire’s Ward boundary to the north, along the ridge of the Ochil Hills, should be preserved, along with the incorporation of the parish of Arngask.

The faceless bureaucrats that run Britain, of which the Commission are clearly a part, have effectively ignored PKC’s representatives in their latest proposal, subject to a public consultation that runs until 22 October 2015 (see display at Lochleven Campus library). 

It is still proposed to reduce our councillors from 4 to 3 and the northern boundary of the ward has been moved slightly north of the A91 to reflect the Milnathort Polling District.

This is a blatant, but not unsurprising, disregard of the elected view of PKC and I call upon the people of Kinross-shire to oppose the Commission’s proposals vigorously and support your elected members.

When one considers Kinross-shire was a county in its own right until the 1970’s, why should there be a reduction in our representation up at Perth when our population has not only grown since then but is forecast to grow significantly in the future?

My colleague, Councillor Cuthbert, is working on a detailed analysis of the flawed methodology the Commission have employed in reaching this extraordinary and illogical boundary proposal.  A summary of this and suggested arguments to counter what’s proposed will be made available to assist folk who feel strongly about Kinross-shire’s historic boundaries and identity in writing their objections to the Commission.

I very much hope that our voice will be heard and that the Commission reconsider their rejection of the Council’s position.  I suspect, if not, that this could lead to Scotland’s ‘Rutland’ moment.  The smallest county in England, which has a landscape dominated by the large expanse of Rutland Water, had been incorporated with Leicestershire, but effectively won its county back after a hard fought campaign.  Kinross-shire’s landscape dominated by Lochleven, has a “claim of right” that may be heard again.

Food for thought and action folks.

Kind regards

PS  In 2010, another unaccountable body in the form of the Royal Mail unveiled plans to delete county names from its database by 2016, inspiring representations that “We are not a postcode” and a      specially written poem by our laureate Carol Ann Duffy “The Counties” is reproduced below:

Councillor Mike Barnacle

Independent Member for Kinross-shire

Sent on behalf of Councillor Mike Barnacle

Dear Colleagues

I am writing to your from a cottage on Colonsay in the Hebrides where I am on a short vacation so cannot attend the above meeting, the Report on the above paper not being available before I left Kinross-shire.

It is my understanding that the Commission’s proposals include the outrageous option of dividing the current Kinross-shire Ward and reducing its number of Councillors from 4 to 3.  This appears to be proposed in the interest of voter parity on ward numbers and a projected reduction in voter numbers, rather than any interest in maintaining local identities.

As you should be aware, Kinross-shire has been a county since 1685 and merged with Perthshire in government reorganisation during the 1970’s.  The current Ward reflects the shire’s historic boundaries with the addition of Glenfarg, whose services and school catchment lie in Kinross-shire.  There is a strong sense of local identity that will be broken by this proposal.

I understand that the other boundary changes proposed are minimal for PKC with the exception of the Kinross-shire Ward.  I also fail to understand the voter projections given the level of proposed and ongoing development taking place resulting from our Local Development Plan and Tayplan.

I would argue that there is a strong case for maintaining PKC numbers at 41 (good to have an odd number in the unlikely event of a close political vote), retaining the current Kinross-shire Ward boundary and 4 Councillors.  I sincerely hope you will adopt this position in your response to the proposals and support my local Ward member colleagues who I understand share my concerns about this proposed change.  I will be interested to learn of the period for public consultation thereon, being certain of a strong community objection from Kinross-shire folk to this latest attempt to ignore their historic boundaries and identity.

Kind regards.

Councillor Mike Barnacle

Independent Member for Kinross-shire

Mob:  07590 312428