More shame for Reading Buses

Some more embarrassment today for Reading Buses, where it has turned out that instead of running their number 17 route buses on sugar beet waste from Norfolk, they are actually running on wood pulp from Sweden…

The song ‘it’s not easy being green’ comes to mind.

How they can confuse wood pulp imported from Sweden with sugar beet from Norfolk goes beyond belief. The fact that Reading Buses used the number 17 route with this apparent unique quality as their flagship service makes even more of a mockery of Reading Buses. Which is a shame. Personally, i love to champion the use of buses, even if they are run purely on petrol.

The main problem with Reading Buses however, is that they appear to have the idea that to make more money they need to raise prices. So a few months ago, to make up for the £40,000 they were reportedly losing per week they cut services and raised prices. Now, i know i only did economics at A-Level, but i am sure  even those more experienced with economic matters would agree with me that if prices were to fall, then it would entice more people onto the buses and therefore lead to a price rise… Maybe this would still not stop services being cut, but perhaps the increased demand would give Reading Buses more room for improvement…?

Power to the People

So it has been a relatively fantastic few weeks for the environmental movement, not just on a national level, but also on a local level.

Nationally, BAA have announced that they are scraping plans for a new runway at Heathrow and E.ON are throwing their plans for Kingsnorth power station away (at least for the time being).

This is fantastic news, as although blame has been put on the ‘credit crunch’, in reality, these are two projects that have drawn immense protest from the environmental movement, and it would be ridiculous to suggest that opposition to these projects did not play its part in their scrapping – although also ridiculous to suggest that other issues did not also influence the decision.

In Reading, after a 13 year struggle by campaign groups, Reading Borough Council have rejected current plans to build new homes on the Bath Road Reservoir. Elsewhere in Reading, groups campaigning to stop development on King’s Meadow have also recently enjoyed success.

In both these cases it previously looked as though Reading Borough Council were to give in to the developers, and although there is still a long way to go with both of these campaigns, their recent successes can only encourage fellow campaigners and local people in Reading that people power can win through. Exemplified further by BAA’s and E.ON’s recent news nationally.

So next stop is a campaign surrounding the future of Pincent’s Hill in Reading that i have previously written about (here, here, here and here). Blue Living, have recently put in a planning proposal, and the Save Pincent’s Hill campaign are working hard to ensure that as many letters of objection to this proposal are sent to West Berks as possible. Even Reading Borough Council are putting in a letter of protest to the plans.

Although i admit that my last few months in Reading i have been a bit lax in this campaign, i do know that there are some fantastic and committed people working hard to stop these developments in Pincent’s Hill, and i would ask everyone reading this to visit their websites, to send in letters of protest to West Berks Council (you don’t have to live in the area to do so) and to send messages of support to the group.

Let’s build on recent successes and really show what people power can achieve.

Reading Buses to increase prices again

In those high fuel price days of October/November 2008 where the price of fuel went up around 44%, you couldn’t blame Reading Buses on raising the cost of their tickets. Even though they proudly boast that their premier number 17 route runs on sugar waste- you couldn’t really blame them, the recession was hitting most companies in some way or another.

So, the current prices are £1.70 adult single journey, £3.20 for an adult ‘Busabout’ (means unlimited travel in one day in one zone) and £10 for a west Reading weekly bus pass.

But now the price of fuel has fallen drastically, you’d expect Reading Buses to pop along and say “hey, we have gotten through a period of high fuel prices, let’s reward you for your patience and lower our ticket costs to reflect this fall”.

Nah, not at chance.

It has now been announced that prices are in fact going to rise even more. The reason? Well they say they have lost £100,000 in single fares these last couple of months. Face of it, that sounds reasonable, but i want  to know more.

For example, who much money did they make on Busabouts and Weekly Passes? Do the maths quickly, and it makes much more economic sense to buy a Busabout than a single fare, so of course they are going to lose money on single fares, especially when people use buses more.

So perhaps it is greed? That was the charge levied at them when they rose the prices in November- but i gave them the benefit of the doubt, but now, now i am not so sure.

I would like to say as a user of the buses to get to and from work everyday i am generally pleased with them. After experiencing the services on offer in other towns and cities and the conditions on the bus, i think Reading Buses rank right up there with the best. But this price rise to me stinks- there is something fishy going on.

Plus, what good is it going to do for the transport problems there already are in Reading? There are way too many cars. The rise in bus fares is only going to put more people in cars. We are meant to be going green! The buses and other such public transport are meant to be one of the vanguards in reducing mans impact on the environment, yet price rise after price rise is only going to weaken this.

Finally, i wonder what makes better economic sense; raising the prices even higher to make more money (you hit those reliant on buses hardest while others move into cars) or lowing the prices to encourage more people to use the buses (especially during quieter spells and routes) and increase profit that way?

Do we really have to ponder that?

To abstain or not to abstain, that is the question

It’s only fair that in a debate or argument that both sides should be able to put their point of view across or defend their position or to hit back at other people’s claims. In this spirit, i would like to post here the response by Cllr Emma Webster to reports that she abstained. This is her comment on an article on a popular local blog site:

Please note I did not abstain from the vote, I was unable to participate because the company that I work for are promoting another site being considered as part of the consultation.

After taking legal advice I was advised that it would be inappropriate for me to be involved in the vote and I therefore removed myself from the meeting and the vote. I did not as you have reported abstain.

I am in the process of taking further advice so that I am in a position to be able to speak against the proposal when it comes before a later meeting.

Okay, so didn’t abstain… and still didn’t vote, or amend, or propose, or voice opposition. Let’s see what direction her campaigning over Pincents Hill will take- or will a conflict of interests plague her at very attempt to stop this development taking shape?

I have just noticed that on the Reading Chronicle Website the article about the Tory councillors being accused of bottling it has been removed. It was posted on the website on 30 April 2009, whereas other articles about Pincents Hill going back to 28 August 2008 can all still be accessed. What? I’m not hinting at conspiracy! *rings lawyers*

Tory Pincents Hill Bulls***

I wrote a very short while ago about how the local Tories have betrayed the community by allowing the Local Development Framework to be voted through with Pincent’s Hill as one of the proposed sites to build on. Well now i dirtied myself by stumbling through the West Reading Conservative website where i found this.

There are two quick points i want to make. The first is the results of the survey they put round the local area about building on Pincent’s Hill, i think the results are pretty conclusive:

87% of respondents felt that the Government’s housing target of a minimum of 10,500 homes between 2006-2026 for West Berkshire was not reasonable nor acceptable to existing local residents
A massive 85% of respondents want NO development at all on the Pincents Hill Site
96% of the respondents are concerned about the impact of traffic from any development
87% are concerned about the loss of a green space
86% are concerned about the pressure on local public services such as education
82% are worried about the impact of development on the environment and wildlife

The second point is the comments by Birch Copse ward Tory Cllr Emma Webster. Before reading it remember that she abstained from the vote for the Local Development Framework because of a ‘conflict of interests’.

“I very much hope that Pincents Hill is not included as a preferred site in West Berkshire’s Local Development Framework plans (LDF) and the feedback from 896 local people clearly demonstrates the strong level of local feeling about this issue.  The battle to save the Pincents Hill site from development is one which we must win.”

You can never trust a Tory

Just over a week ago, West Berkshire Council voted through the Local Development Framework core strategy that lists potential sites for housing development in West Berkshire- including Pincent’s Hill.

Without digressing, here’s a picture to absorb:

From left to right; West Berkshire Tory Cllr Emma Webster, West Berkshire Tory MP candidate Alok Sharma, West Berkshire Tory Cllr Joe Mooney and West Berkshire Tory Cllr Tony Linden.

These three councillors represent all the seats in the Birch Copse Ward (my local ward- in fact Cllr Joe Mooney lives literally just round the corner from me).

Over the last few months i have received several leaflets through the post detailing how West Berkshire Conservatives are against the proposed housing development at Pincent’s Hill. In November they organised a local meeting at Little Heath School (attended by around 300 people) where they once again voiced their opposition to the development.

Now consider their voting actions during the voting for the Local Development Framework:

• Cllr Emma Webster- abstained
• Cllr Joe Mooney- voted for the LDF without amendment
• Cllr Tony Linden- did not turn up

The following reasons where given for these positions. Emma Webster holds a conflict of interests as she works for a company bidding to build another development in West Berkshire. Tony Linden was away on other council duty, and as he is not a member of the executive he couldn’t vote on this anyway. Joe Mooney pointed out that “the vote taking place is for this to go out to consultation, and not on any specific sites mentioned. That will take place when it goes to planning.”

A few things. One, don’t voice opposition to a proposal and hold public meetings to oppose something if you have a conflict of interests in the first place. Two, even if you can’t vote you can still turn up and voice your opinion and opposition if you indeed feel strongly about it. Three, if you are opposed to the development, you should do what you can to stop it happening- such as working to remove the site completely from the Local Development Framework.

What this comes down to really is that these councillors are only voicing in public what their Tory overlords require of them. It is indeed the New Labour government that is enforcing local councils and West Berkshire in particular to build 10,500 new homes, and because of this the council need to find places for these. Nationally the Torys, as you would expect them to do, oppose this New Labour idea. [So do i]. Our local councillors need to show that they support what the Tory headquarters says. Whether they put it into practise or not is irrelevant as long as you get the message out that your party is united.

The local Tory opposition has now been exposed as a front for national Tory opposition to New Labour’s national housing policy. These councillors don’t care about what their constituents think, instead they are turning this issue into a political issue in an attempt to mobilise their constituents against New Labour and for the Tories.

Local New Labour MP Martin Salter is opposed to the Pincent’s Hill development (despite his government’s housing plans) and has said “They [the Tories] had the perfect opportunity to deter the developers once and for all by deleting this site from the preferred list, but they have bottled it.” I would go further- i don’t think you can trust a Tory (not even David Davis in his crusade for civil liberty). I think it is obvious that the West Berkshire Conservatives are deliberately leading people in the local area on- opposition to the development is understandably widespread in the area- if the local Tories were not seen to be with the majority public, then god forbid they may lose their seats at the next election.

In simular vein to a local political blogsite, click here and here for good analysis of some of the political goings on surrounding the development. And carrying on the tradition of my last post on the topic, please sign the petition against building on Pincent’s Hill here, visit the local campaign website here and the facebook group here.

For those who wish to take the fight further and directly voice your disappointment to those councillor ‘betrayers’ then here are their emails: jmooney@westberks.gov.uk ewebster@westberks.gov.uk and tlinden@westberks.gov.uk

Further from the email i sent to West Berkshire Planning department you can view near the bottom of this blog post, i have received the following reply:

Thank you for your e-mail objecting to potential housing development at Pincents Hill.

The Council is currently preparing the Core Strategy of the Local Development Framework, which will set out the strategic vision for the development of the district to 2026. As part of this work we need to identify a number of strategic housing sites which can help deliver the housing that will be needed over the next 17 years. The Council have recognised throughout the preparation of the Core Strategy that some greenfield land will be needed to meet the housing requirements of the district.

The site at Pincents Hill has been brought forward for consideration, along with a number of other large sites, and we have carried out assessments of the sites, including sustainability appraisal covering analysis of the social, economic and environmental issues.

The Council is intending to carry out extensive consultation on the options for the Core Strategy shortly. If you wish to receive notification of the consultation you can register on our consultation database at www.westberks.gov.uk/ldfconsultation . Alternatively you can e-mail planningpolicy@westberks.gov.uk or contact the planning policy team by post or phone with your details.

Digressing from the email but not the topic, one thing i will be looking into concerning Pincent’s Hill is what precisely the large trench is for that has been dug from the site of the proposed development down through the park and which stops just before the A4 Bath Road. Looks suspiciously like water/sewage supply. Now i don’t want to initiate a conspiracy here, and it is probably something completely innocent, but, perhaps the council have decided that this development is going to happen regardless- so they feel they may as well get everything in place beforehand? No, no that must not be right- surely local government wouldn’t try and pass one over the residents like that…. would they?

Save Pincent’s Hill

I will not go into all the details and the arguments, but i would like to mention about some opposition to a proposed development on Pincent’s Hill in Tilehrust/Calcot.

A housing developer- Blue Living- which has been created and touted as a ‘green’ developer and who, to be honest, do have some slightly impressive history in the green movement and green development (albeit through previous incarnations and parent projects) want to build around 900 homes on an area of land in Reading called by us local’s Pincent’s Hill.

On the face of it the project is not about sticking 900 houses up like a traditional housing estate. At a meeting a few months back with the director of Blue Living, i was assured the plans do try to cater for as much environmental friendliness as a housing estate could, and i will admit that when i am older if this development was created and if it was anything like the plans show to me then i might consider consider living there.

But.

I don’t agree that it should be built. There are several reasons for this:

• Loss of green space
• Eyesore
• Destroying a settlement gap between Tilehurst and Theale (against CR6)
• As the proposals bring it right up to an area of Natural Beauty, pressure will increase to build on further
• Destruction of local habitat that is home to wildlife
• Cutting off of a wildlife gap going into central Reading
• It will become a commuting hotspot for London and do nothing for the local economy
• Focus should be put on developing empty office space into flats
• Pincent’s Hill will open Little Heath Road to more traffic thus increasing amount of traffic through Tilehurst (my home), directly past a large secondary school and coupled with the commuting hotspot will make Junction 12 on M4 a carpark
• Not enough services currently in the local area (schools, doctors etc) to cater for another 900 homes
• It is against the Replacement Structure Plan and Draft Local Plan
• Part of the area has been recognised as part of the West Reading Woodlands Conservation Target Area and as such been incorporated into the South East Biodiversity Strategy

There is a lot of political force being voiced in this debate, for example i am constantly getting leaflets through the post telling me that West Berkshire Conservatives [sic] are against the proposals- i read them as they are a good source of information. Furthermore, my local Labour [sic] MP Martin Salter has also voiced his opposition to the plans.

There is a petition on the Number 10 petition website. This can be accessed here.

This post is missing a lot more indepth analysis of the issues involved and why we should be against the proposals, but for the time being here are a few sites that you can visit for more information and coverage:

http://www.savecalcot.co.uk/

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=82071780444&ref=mf

This site provides good coverage of many political issues and this post highlights some of the political fights going on

http://bythemuddybanksofthethames.blogspot.com/2009/04/pincents-hill-ablaze-with-blame.html

There are several template letters floating around that can be sent to West Berkshire council. This is not just for residents as anyone can write to voice their objections. The best place to send objections is to the West Berks planning department who can be contacted either by emailing them at planapps@westberks.gov.uk or by post at: Planning Department, Council Offices, Market Street, Newbury, Berkshire, RG14 5LD.

A copy of the email i have sent is as follows:

Dear Sirs

RE: Proposed Development Pincent’s Hill

I am writing to voice my objection at the proposed plans by Blue Living to build a housing development on the above site.

Aside from my objections at the impact this development would have on the loss of this green space, the threat to the wildlife that inhabit the area and indeed the closing off of an important wildlife corridor to green spaces towards central Reading- my major objection is the proposed development’s impact upon the Tilehurst area.

Any plans to develop Pincent’s Hill will very likely – and Blue Living suggested this themselves at a Friends of the Earth meeting a few months back- mean that the top of Pincent’s Hill/Little Heath Road will be opened up to traffic.

Currently traffic is diverted down Langley Hill, but by opening up this new route the consequence will be an increased traffic flow through what is a relatively low traffic area in Tilehurst. More importantly, it will divert traffic along Little Heath Road, right next to Little Heath School- one of the biggest schools in the area. I dread to think about the clash of rush hour traffic and school children/families. It is only common sense to realise that any accidents that occur after the building of this proposed housing development is going to be linked directly to it.

I am also concerned at the obvious lack of economic benefit this proposal will have to the Reading area.

The site’s position on the edge of M4 Junction 12 will make this development a prime location for London commuters, despite Blue Living’s suggestion that this will not be the case. The only contribution this will give to Reading will be from an increased evening meal shop in Savacentre.

I hope that once Blue Living’s proposal is submitted you will carefully study all of the issues involved, and that the voice of legitimate protestors is not brushed aside as general NIMBYism. I hope that you reject this proposal.

Regards

Matt Blackall

Please support the campaign. Even if it is just to sign the petition.

*****

Update 4/6/2009: It is nice when other websites reprint your article, please visit this page to view it and please visit and support this site and campaign.

Who does their homework now?

From: http://blogs.amnesty.org.uk/ (http://blogs.amnesty.org.uk/blogs_entry.asp?eid=2994) By Me!

Following on from previous blog posts about the media coverage our Reading AI group have been getting concerning the lack of specialist services for women in the Reading area, the coverage came to a head when our local MP, Martin Salter (former Amnesty member) got involved.

To remind people of the press release and the premise of the campaign, check out these two links: http://www.box.net/shared/pvpco4d5ue and http://www.mapofgaps.org/

Our main local paper, the Reading Evening Post jumped on this story and went straight to Martin Salter MP for his reaction. To see the article go here: http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2047102_mp_hits_back_at_amnesty_claims

So…. apparently we don’t do our homework. Riiiiight.

There are a few points of this article that stand out. The first is that we are talking about specialist services for women who have suffered any kind of violence. For example, a women’s refuge without the prescence of men. So it is funny to see the article talking about Crossing Bridges, an important service, that helps both men and women… Go to http://www.mapofgaps.org/ to see why specialist (i.e. women only services) are important.

Our press release, along with the MofG findings say that there is only one service in Reading that specially caters for women, and that is Berkshire Women’s Aid (BWA), so it is amazing how everything that the article/Martin Salter talks about is run/co-ordinated by or have an involvement from BWA. Even if you read the comments at the bottom of the article, the first comment from janestheone (a pen name for former Reading East MP Jane Griffiths) mentions the group Sahara… scroll up a bit and there is a comment from Kitty K that confirms this has been taken over by BWA.

Comments from people/contacts i have strongly suggest that BWA struggle some years with the funding they do have- yet considering that nearly every service in Reading for women involves BWA (as Martin Salter and the article point towards) it is surely a strong indication that they need more funding.

I have saved the best till last though. In the article Martin Salter says, “I am more than happy to support their EDM” (EDM 653). We are still waiting to see his signature on the list though. Anyway, i would like to point out that the EDM states “That this House welcomes the `Map of Gaps’ report and website by the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the End Violence Against Women coalition” http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=37703&SESSION=899. Our press release used parts of this report to point out the lack of services in Reading for women, and it was from this that we were accused of not doing our homework. Well, in actual fact it looks like Martin Salter had not done his homework in not reading the EDM, as although i am sure he would had supported it regardless, i doubt he would had said what he said if he had read it.

Political win? I think so.

To view our full response to the article in full then check this out: http://www.box.net/shared/qi1jzh350q

Next stop is Reading East MP Rob Wilson who has told us that he is not supporting the EDM…