Look at all the stuff you can do online with SHDC

Just go to: http://www.sholland.gov.uk/doitonline/

Abandoned Vehicles Report an abandoned vehicle.
More information: Abandoned Vehicles – Information
 
Animal Fouling Report dog fouling.
More information: Dog Fouling | Dog Warden Service
 
Dead Animal Notification Notify us of a dead animal on the highway or publicly owned land.
More information:: Dead Animal Notification – Information
 
Flytipping Report flytipping.
More information: Flytipping – Information
 
Footway Lighting Report a fault with a footway light. Street lighting faults should be reported to Lincolnshire County Council.
More information: Street Lighting
 
Graffiti Report an instance of graffiti.
More information: Graffiti – Information
 
Street Cleaning Report a road that is in need of sweeping due to accumulation of leaves, litter, etc.
More information: Street Cleaning – Information
 
Litter Bin – Report Report an issue regarding a street litter bin (e.g. if a bin has been damaged or needs emptying).
More information: Street Litter Bins
 
Litter Bin – Request Request a litter bin for your street.
More information: Street Litter Bins
 
Benefits and Couuncil Tax Support
Housing Benefits Calculator and Claim form Fill out this form to see whether you may be entitled to Housing Benefit and to submit a claim if you wish. You can also use this on-line calculator and application form to apply for Council Tax Support (if applicable)
More information: Claiming Housing Benefit
 
Local Housing Allowance Calculator Calculate the possible amount of Housing Benefit available.
More information: Housing Benefit – Local Housing Allowance
 
Council Tax Support Calculator Use this calculator to see what your new entitlement might be under the Council Tax Support Scheme. Please note this Calculation should be used as a guide only.  
Refuse & Recycling
My Collections Find out your recycling and refuse collections days.
More information: Refuse and Recycling Collections
 
Missed Recycling Collection Report a missed recycling collection.
More information: Missed Recycling Information
 
Missed Refuse Collection Report a missed refuse collection.
More information: Missed Refuse Information
 
Business
Business Inspection Request Request a business inspection.
More information: Food business – food safety inspection |Health and Safety at work
 
Industrial Unit Enquiry Express an interest in one of our industrial units.
More information: Commercial Property Lettings Advice and Allocation
 
Tenancy
Communal Repairs Report a problem on your estate or in your block.
More information: Services and communal areas
 
Leisure Event Bookings
Exhibition Booking at Ayscoughfee Book an exhibition at the Geest Gallery, Ayscoughfee Hall Museum.
More information: Ayscoughfee Hall Museum – Geest Gallery
 
Football Pitch Bookings Make a provisional football pitch booking.
Sir Halley Stewart Playing Field
Castle Playing Field
Monks House Lane
Fishpond Lane
 
Open Space Event Bookings Check availability and provide details of your proposed event.
Spalding Town Centre
Sir Halley Stewart Playing Field
Ayscoughfee Gardens
Castle Playing Field
 
Wedding at Ayscoughfee Check availability and provide details of your proposed event.
More information: Ayscoughfee Hall and Gardens – Wedding
 
Environmental
Dangerous Structures Notification Notify us of what appear to be potentially dangerous buildings, structures, or parts of a building.
More information: Dangerous Structures Notification – Information | Open and Derelict Properties
 
Markets – Cleaning Report an issue regarding market cleaning.
More information: Markets – Cleaning – Information
 
Noise Pollution Report an issue with Noise Pollution.
More information: Noise Pollution Information
 
Public Conveniences Report an issue regarding a public toilet.
More information: Public Conveniences – Information
 
Stray Dogs Report a stray dog.
More information: Stray Dogs – Information | Dog Warden Service
 
Parking
Parking Fine Appeal Appeal against a parking fine.
More information: Excess Charge Dispute
 
Parking Season Ticket Apply to go on the waiting list for a quarterly parking season ticket.
More information: Car Park Season Tickets
 
Miscellaneous
Consultation Sign Up We welcome all feedback so if you would be interested in receiving surveys or taking part in any form of consultation on Council matters, then please complete the form opposite.  
eAlerts Sign up for email alerts about job vacancies.  
E-billing Interest Register your interest in the forthcoming council tax/business rates e-billing service.  
My Lincolnshire What is My Lincolnshire?  

 

If I happened across a blog written by a moron….

If I happened across a blog written by a moron, that contained a personal attack on me, I’d probably respond to it something like this.

I’d suggest that they didn’t ramble on and on, like somebody just back from a binge drin20130922-232829.jpgking session and lacking the brains to go to bed and sleep it off instead of scrawling on their blog page. I’d also suggest that they read more carefully what they are ranting about before going off half cocked, like a spoilt child that’s just been told they can’t have a sweetie.

Finally, I’d tell them that, if they want to keep banging on about something written months ago, all of the above applies and that they shouldn’t think themselves so important that everything that was written all those months ago, was only about them.

Oh, and if I happened to try to find out a bit more about the writer of the blog and took a look at their profile, I’d be very suspicious if I found that it actually contained 1010754.largeabsolutely nothing about them, or anything else come to that. I’d also have to wonder what they had to hide and ask how they expect to be taken seriously, when they hide themselves from their readership.

Of course I’d only respond like this if I happened to come across such a blog entry.

E20130922-232534.jpgven then, I might think twice about bothering, especially if the site was saturated with tacky adverts, designed to make money and not really communicate with local people at all.

Likewise, if the site was just a regurgitation (vomit for short) of other people’s stuff, this would clearly show that the owner had a lack of original thought, so it wouldn’t be worth reading in the first place, so I’d probably never bother reading it and wouldn’t have to respond like this after all.

20130922-232158.jpg

‘Jolly Roger’, I think I’ll get myself a flag for that

http://www.spaldingtoday.co.uk/news/opinion/letters/travellers-site-now-he-s-riding-roughshod-over-gedney-1-5489965

Normally, I would be able to say, ‘another day, another letter’, but in this case this letter appeared on the same day as the previous one!

This one immediately starts off on the wrong foot, by suggesting that my comments were made ‘in the paper’. No, the paper was only reporting on comments made by me, during a meeting of the SHDC Planning Committee, something I often do as the committee chairman.

The writer then goes on to harangue me for reminding the committee that, like it not, gipsies and travellers are treated differently by the planning system. Grabbing my statement by the throat and giving it a damned good shaking, the writer manages to create a rabid froth of rhetoric, claiming that I was part of some sort of cabinet led conspiracy. Apparently, this conspiracy had its origins with the £1m+ Travellers’ site at Holbeach and has now turned its attentions to Gedney, where it is about to somehow ride roughshod over the place.

just for accuracy, assuming that the writer is referring to the planning application H06-0145-13, for only two plots for one family and not a Holbeach sized site, then we’ve already ‘ridden roughshod’ over the village and have now returned to our dark lair in Priory Road.

Oh well, at least I’ve got yet another printable nickname out of this one, ‘Jolly Roger’. I think I might be able to get some sort of flag for that. It can then be hoisted outside Priory Rd on those days my fellow conspirators and I are out and about riding roughshod over other areas of the district.

This reply belongs in the toilet

http://www.spaldingtoday.co.uk/news/opinion/letters/public-toilets-one-of-the-most-stupid-replies-i-ve-ever-read-1-5489989

Having tried numerous times to log in to the newspaper website, so that I can respond to this letter, I’ve given up and resorted to my blog page. Although very few, if any, will read this compared to the letters page of the local paper, it will at least get it off of my chest and if nothing else, this website does let me log-in!

In truth, Mr Turps letter is so lacking in substance and so full of bile, it’s almost impossible to come up with a newspaper response, that isn’t equally bile ridden. However, as this is my blog and I can say pretty much what I like, bile ridden included, so here goes.

From the outset, I really didn’t get the, ‘the most stupid replies’ bit. Clearly this gentleman started off unhappy with my response and went on to build up a head of steam to the point of becoming slightly irrational in his arguments.

He offered some clearly insincere regret, for the verbal and sometimes physical abuse the staff suffer, by saying, “which, if true, is very regrettable”. He then goes to display a clear lack of understanding of what the problem is, by claiming that it’s all about ‘the management’ and finishes by telling me to ‘get out of the way’. Out of the way of what, to allow what to happen exactly?.

If it’s about anything, other than the totally unacceptable behaviour of a minority of users, it’s about closer supervision of the task and that will always be a major challenge with such a small street cleansing team, that is trying its best.

In conclusion, Mr Turps’s letter is, “One of the most stupid replies I’ve ever read!”.

Planning and highways spending slashed

Copied from Local Government Chronicle on line
29 August, 2013 | By Ruth Keeling

Planning and highways have seen the largest reductions in spending, according to the latest local government financial data published on Thursday.

Expenditure on planning services fell by 13.2% between 2011-12 and 2012-13 while spending on highways and transport services fell by 9.5% over the same period.

The cut in spending on services linked to growth, a number one priority for the government, contrasts with much smaller cuts in social care spending and increases in spending on housing benefit costs.

The LGA has previously warned that the combination of growing demand for social care services and significant funding cuts would mean spending in other areas, such as planning and highways, would be squeezed harder and harder.

Social care spending fell by just 0.2%. However that masked a different story for children’s social care, where spending increased by 2.8%, and adult social care, where spending fell by 1.4%.

Other areas of increased spending were housing benefit costs, which increased by almost 5%.

Although education spending fell by 7.7%, government statisticians warned that comparisons should not be made over the two years because the reduction was caused by academies leaving local authority control.

While total revenue expenditure fell by 5% between 2011-12 and 2012-13, the reduction was just 0.2% once changes to education responsibilities and funding were removed from the comparison.

The figures also show that councils increased their reserve levels by £1.7bn, not including a £0.9bn addition to the Greater London Authority’s reserves.

However, there were a quarter of councils which did not add to reserves and ended the year with less in the bank.

Treasury rent control threatens house building

Yet another way for this government to milk the local government cash cow.

Copied from LGC online
22 August 2013 | By Keith Cooper

Some of the most ambitious council housing building programmes for decades have been put into jeopardy by the surprise Treasury plan to seize control of local authority rent levels.

Officials have been warned by the Chartered Institute of Housing that the shake-up of ‘social rent’ policy unveiled during the spending period announcement will pull £1.2bn out of council housing budgets over the next decade.

The policy will cut short an arrangement that allowed councils to align rents with those charged by housing associations and undermines key assumptions in their 30-year housing budget plans.

LGC understands ministers are preparing to take a hard line on enforcing the rent policy as the Treasury is concerned that councils will refuse to comply. This includes the option of central regulation of council rents for the refuseniks.

CIH analysis predicts that the authority hardest hit by the policy will see £300m stripped out of its housing revenue account, a budget councils have only controlled since April last year. Until then the HRA had been in the Treasury’s hands.

Croydon LBC, which is hoping to build almost 2,000 homes a year, has calculated that the changes could suck £254.8m out of its HRA. Such a loss would force it to “fundamentally review” its business plan, according to Richard Simpson, its director of finance and assets.

Camden LBC has warned that the new policy could substantially heighten the risk of its 1,100 house building programme. Its £400m plan to refurbish existing stock might also have to be put back, a spokeswoman said. Investment decisions would become “more difficult and risky”, she added. “The potential loss of revenue has been estimated at £75m over a 10 year period.”

The threat of centrally imposed rent controls comes at time when councils have just begun gearing up for large-scale house building schemes.

Camden and Croydon’s house building plans would dwarf the tiny numbers of new local authority homes built during the past two decades.

Reliable evidence of the new rent policy’s impact has only just emerged, following detailed analysis of the proposals by the Chartered Institute of Housing and consultancy Sector.

Abigail Davies, assistant director of policy and practice at the institute, said the changes would over 10 years cost around 125 authorities £1.2bn in ‘net present value’.

This takes into account economic projections and is understood to be the most accurate representation of the impact to date.

The hardest hit authorities are in London and the southeast, with around 24 authorities losing more than £10m each, according to the CIH. “There are some councils which will be very severely affected,” Ms Davies said.

Sector’s analysis of the government’s new ‘rent guarantee’ suggests that it could see £250m pulled out of many councils’ housing budgets.

The guarantee expects all social landlords to increase rents by the consumer price index +1% for 10 years from 2015-16. Until now, councils assumed rents would rise by the retail price index +0.5% for three decades, as government policy papers had indicated.

Ian Green, a manager at Sector, said it was acting for several concerned councils.

“The worry for local authorities is that at the end of 10 years, the government will change it to CPI only,” he added. “If they do that, it will have a substantial impact.”

Ms Davies urged ministers not to undermine council housing investment so soon after local authorities had regained control of their budgets.

A spokeswoman for the DCLG described the new rent policy as a “fair deal for tenants and landlords”.

Explainer
The Treasury’s new social rent policy has two key elements. The first cuts short ‘rent convergence policy’ one year early. Introduced by the previous Labour administration, this had allowed councils to bring their rent levels into line with those of highercost housing associations. Without the extra year, most authorities will be left out of pocket.

The second change is a new ‘rent formula’ which states that social rents should increase by CPI +1% for 10 years from 2015-16. Both policies could save the exchequer £1bn between 2015-16 and 2017-18, a sum which depends on whether councils will toe the policy line.

“The main uncertainty [about the savings] is the behavioural response from local authority landlords,” Treasury documents say. The DCLG is therefore considering rent regulation.

Minimum room size standards – if you can afford it.

This extract from the DCLG press release, really gives me the willies, as my old dad used to say. I don’t have a problem with making sure homes work for older people – as I will be one, sooner than I wish to admit – and disabled people, so they should be. What I don’t like and what makes me both suspicious and, as usual, extremely cynical, is the bit in bold. How can one local authority have different room size needs, compared to another? Are there any secret pockets of pygmies or giants DCLG know about and we don’t?

Or is this DCLG speaking out of both sides of their collective mouths? They give you an opportunity to make an improvement in your policies, but only if you are willing to invest in proving that it is justified for your particular area? This is of course standard practice in Local Plan preparation. Producing the evidence required to justify NOT providing enough housing land, being the most obvious one. Gypsy and Traveller sites, leisure, public open space requirements and road infrastructure, are all evidence based requirements that are totally appropriate, as somebody has to pay for them and they should not be required just for the sake of it – but room sizes, really?

This statement is clearly designed to con people into thinking that DCLG are, to quote Eric Pickles, “on the side of hard working taxpayers”, whilst at the same time discouraging cash strapped councils from actually doing the evidence gathering required. If DCLG were genuine in their wish to see our rabbits hutch homes consigned to history, they would simple produce a national standard to be applied in the same as the building regulations are. Score another one for the vested interests of the planning industry me thinks.

The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) said the administration was inviting views on “minimum space and access standards that would allow councils to seek bigger homes to meet local needs, including those of older and disabled people”.

Early figures reveal cuts of 16% for some councils

Copied from Local Government Chronicle online
8 August, 2013 | By Ruth Keeling

Councils forced to revamp their savings plans after early sight of their individual funding allocations revealed cuts as high as 16% in 2015-16.

The indicative allocation figures, released last month by the Department for Communities & Local Government, have caused alarm within local government which had expected cuts of around 10%.

Councils suffering the deepest cuts have warned they could now be pushed towards a ‘doom’ scenario where services would have to be closed and vital growth plans ditched.

The extent of the cuts is the result of a series of ‘top slices’ taken from councils’ revenue support grant to fund central government programmes, such as the ‘Dilnot new burdens’ budget announced by the chancellor last month.

The hardest hit councils have been told their funding settlement assessment could fall by 16% in 2015-16. Only two authorities, Wokingham BC and Surrey CC, face cuts of less than 10%.

North Kesteven is among 69 councils facing a 16% cut. Deputy chief executive Alan Thomas said the authority might have to rethink its growth priorities. Its previous £1.75m saving plan will now have to be increased to £2.25m, equivalent to 15% of its £11.5m a year net budget.

Mr Thomas said the Conservative-run council might also review its existing policy of reserving New Homes Bonus payments for infrastructure spending. “I think we are going to have to take a different view of that now and use quite a bit of that New Homes Bonus to support core spending, otherwise we won’t be able to balance the books,” he said.

The authority was already reeling from the “absolutely devastating” government announcement that up to 35% of New Homes Bonus income will be handed to local enterprise partnerships from 2015-16, he added.

Districts and inner London boroughs were the hardest hit group of councils in 2015-16, facing 15% cuts on average. Outer London boroughs, metropolitan districts and unitaries face reductions of 14%; counties will see an average reduction of 13%.

David Huxtable (Con), cabinet member for resources at Somerset CC, which faces a 15% cut, said the reduction matched its most pessimistic plan and would have “a huge impact on services”.

He said: “We will have to stop doing things… We will only be looking after statutory services.”

While the early release of individual figures for 2015-16 has been welcomed, treasurers bodies are due to meet senior civil servants to discuss missing details in the coming months.

Brian Roberts, former president of the Society of County Treasurers and Leicestershire CC director of corporate resources, said: “Having these before the summer recess is very helpful. But there is still a lot of uncertainty.”

Money from a supermarket, or blood from a stone?

I received this email text today, it contains an intriguing idea, that seems almost too good to be true. A way of getting supermarkets to put something back into the communities from which they get so much!

I am contacting you to ask for your help regarding a new idea that would bring your Council more money.

The idea is based on legislation passed last year by the Northern Ireland Parliament to add a new levy on large supermarkets of 8.5% based on their current rateable value. Last year the Scottish Parliament passed similar legislation for a levy of 9.3%.

The idea is for English local authorities to be given the power to introduce a similar levy in their areas and to collect the revenue and spend it in ways they think would help local communities.

Evidence shows that the revenue from this levy has helped local businesses and communities in Northern Ireland and public services in Scotland.

Furthermore the concerns about this levy are unfounded: the British Retail Consortium have specifically said that the levy will not be passed on to customers, inward investment has increased in Northern Ireland and there would be a positive effect on employment.

Specifically, the proposal is:
“That the Secretary of State a) gives Local Authorities the power to introduce a local levy of 8.5% of the rate on large retail outlets in their area with a rateable annual value not less that £500,000; and b) requires that the revenue from this levy go directly to the Local Authority in order to be used to improve local communities in their areas by promoting local economic activity, local services and facilities, social and community wellbeing and environmental protection.”

The evidence for this and more is in the updated proposal here.

To date, 63 councils (of all party leaderships) have expressed serious interest in submitting this idea as a proposal under the Sustainable Communities Act. I very much hope that your council would be interested in joining them. We think this proposal now has a real chance of success and want to work with councils to help achieve it.

Could you please put forward a motion for your next Council meeting resolving to submit this proposal under the Sustainable Communities Act? Further below is a suggest version for convenience.

Please keep me informed of any progress on this matter. Please contact me if can provide any assistance with this. My contact details are directly below.

Kind regards
Steve Shaw
National Co-ordinator
Local Works – helping councils use the Sustainable Communities Act
office: 020 7278 4443 direct: 020 7239 9053 mobile: 07788 646 933website: http://www.localworks.org

SAMPLE MOTION
notes the request from ‘Local Works’ to consider submitting the following proposal to the government under the Sustainable Communities Act:
‘That the Secretary of State gives Local Authorities the power to introduce a local levy of 8.5% of the rate on large retail outlets in their area with a rateable annual value not less that £500,000 and requires that the revenue from this levy be retained by the Local Authority in order to be used to improve local communities in their areas by promoting local economic activity, local services and facilities, social and community wellbeing and environmental protection.’
The Council notes that if this power was acquired it would present the opportunity to raise further revenue for the benefit of local communities, should the Council wish to use it.
The Council resolves to submit the proposal to the government under the Sustainable Communities Act and to work together with Local Works to gain support for the proposal from other councils in the region and across the country.

Scrutiny is no more than whistling in the wind

20130730-085704.jpg

Nearly every other day now, councillors are being told that they are, ‘key to driving forward the innovations needed to transform local government, so that it can weather the current financial storm being visited upon it by Westminster’.
Along with this often junior government minister uttered blurb, which is actually code for we’re passing the buck – they wouldn’t describe it as a ‘financial storm’, but rather, local government doing its bit – comes advice that the scrutiny process is an integral element in any transformation strategy.
It’s somewhat disingenuous to identify scrutiny as the way forward, given the abysmal record it has even when richly resourced and supported, as in the case of the Parliamentary scrutiny system.
Almost every other week we hear and read statements from various Parliamentary committees, with Keith Vaz and Margaret Hodge having a seemingly insatiable appetite for appearing on our TV screens, with the opening words, “The government needs to….”, yet what difference does it make to what the government actually does?
Translate this to the amateur, volunteer ‘scout master’ world of the local government councillor, where officer support is always at a premium and constantly under threat from the slash and burn economics of deficit reduction, and scrutiny looks more like whistling in the wind, than an insightful process, that can beat a path to innovative service delivery.

By way of a footnote, I would point to the recent revelations regarding the Lincolnshire Hospitals Trust. Lincolnshire County Council has a health scrutiny committee, with South Holland District Council represented by an independent councillor, who takes every opportunity to tell us what the committee is, or more accurately, isn’t doing. I say isn’t doing, because, in theory, if LCC’s scrutiny of our local hospitals was in any way effective, Lincolnshire hospitals wouldn’t have one of the highest abnormal death rates in England would it? Unfortunately, they seem to have gotten themselves completely hung up on the proposed changes to our local ambulance service instead.