Crowds turn out to object to Darlington housing plans

Darlington and Stockton Times: RESIDENTS CONCERN: A consultation meeting about development at Bellburn Lane field. PICTURE: Stuart Boulton. (7302146) RESIDENTS CONCERN: A consultation meeting about development at Bellburn Lane field. PICTURE: Stuart Boulton. (7302146)

CROWDS of people turned out to have their say on plans to build more than 6,000 homes in Darlington.

Residents potentially affected by Darlington Borough Council’s Making and Growing Places plan turned out in their droves to a consultation event held at St Mary’s Community Centre in Cockerton today (Wednesday, June 18).

The event was staged to garner opinions on a revised draft policy prepared following an initial consultation period held last summer.

Many residents voiced their objections to the plans, which could see homes built on green spaces throughout the town.

Representatives from The Friends of Cocker Beck rallied against proposals to build close to the conservation area.

Jan Needham said: “We’ve just got planning permission to build a pond and now they’re going to dump buildings 100 metres from it.

“We’ve been doing great work down there and it’s just obscene.”

Others were there to register their dismay at plans to build on a well-used field close to Bellburn Lane.

Bev Swainston said: “Every time I’ve been out on that field it’s being used. It’s the only green area around and we don’t want it building on.”

Hazel Neasham, head of housing for the council, said: “The objections are what you’d expect from a community used to a piece of green space and concerned that it’s going to disappear.

“Fifty years ago, Branksome was farm land and people were probably saying don’t build there.

“Any town that wants to grow needs to grow properties.

“If we want to attract investment we need places for people to live – we’ve also got an ageing population and young people wanting to live independently.

“Any new housing will cause concern but we need to improve – this development will allow us to do that.”

Another consultation event will be held at St Andrew’s Church Hall in Haughton le Skerne tomorrow from 5pm.

Comments (88)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:19pm Wed 18 Jun 14

DarloXman says...

“If we want to attract investment we need places for people to live."

If the council really wants to attract investment why does it not cut the grass around the town? The town looks a complete mess - no one will seriously want to invest in Darlington when it's council can't even do the basics!

Did the council also make those attending aware that they do not intend to adopt the green areas of any future developments - meaning that any communal grassed areas will have to be cut by or organised by the residents?
“If we want to attract investment we need places for people to live." If the council really wants to attract investment why does it not cut the grass around the town? The town looks a complete mess - no one will seriously want to invest in Darlington when it's council can't even do the basics! Did the council also make those attending aware that they do not intend to adopt the green areas of any future developments - meaning that any communal grassed areas will have to be cut by or organised by the residents? DarloXman
  • Score: 39

8:54pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Chocmonster7 says...

Just how arrogant is Ms Neasham?

Whilst towns need houses they also need them to be builtt in the right place with consideration to the current residents who have lived in the town for many, many years.
Just how arrogant is Ms Neasham? Whilst towns need houses they also need them to be builtt in the right place with consideration to the current residents who have lived in the town for many, many years. Chocmonster7
  • Score: 41

9:06pm Wed 18 Jun 14

verdilith says...

WOW - Hazel Neasham sounds so bitter in her comment! "what you'd expect"?? She has no clue about the feeling of people in the area! Her comment is just rude and arrogant.
WOW - Hazel Neasham sounds so bitter in her comment! "what you'd expect"?? She has no clue about the feeling of people in the area! Her comment is just rude and arrogant. verdilith
  • Score: 49

9:15pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Markie_D says...

"The objections are what you’d expect from a community used to a piece of green space and concerned that it’s going to disappear."

What a patronising response. Did she expect everyone to roll over and agree with such a stupid proposal, when there is plenty of brownfield sites that could be built on. The attitude of Ms Neasham is disgusting, councilors are to represent the people of the town, NOT force their own politically biased opinions on the people.
"The objections are what you’d expect from a community used to a piece of green space and concerned that it’s going to disappear." What a patronising response. Did she expect everyone to roll over and agree with such a stupid proposal, when there is plenty of brownfield sites that could be built on. The attitude of Ms Neasham is disgusting, councilors are to represent the people of the town, NOT force their own politically biased opinions on the people. Markie_D
  • Score: 50

9:25pm Wed 18 Jun 14

bambara says...

Darlington faces huge cuts to it's budget from central government, one of the few ways it can get some of that money back is to build more houses, and attract more business.
The level of cuts to central funding are such that you will get both more housing AND less services. The only other choice is no more housing and even bigger cuts to services.
If the Tories get in again next year then the budget that Darlington council have to spend will have been halved by 2020.
Cutting the grass will be the least of your worries, with only 50% of the money there will be cuts to everything but the grass.
Darlington faces huge cuts to it's budget from central government, one of the few ways it can get some of that money back is to build more houses, and attract more business. The level of cuts to central funding are such that you will get both more housing AND less services. The only other choice is no more housing and even bigger cuts to services. If the Tories get in again next year then the budget that Darlington council have to spend will have been halved by 2020. Cutting the grass will be the least of your worries, with only 50% of the money there will be cuts to everything but the grass. bambara
  • Score: -14

9:26pm Wed 18 Jun 14

69lou96 says...

Does Ms Neasham live in Darlington? Why do we need so many new houses when practically every street has houses for sale?
Does Ms Neasham live in Darlington? Why do we need so many new houses when practically every street has houses for sale? 69lou96
  • Score: 33

9:34pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Chocmonster7 says...

bambara - what happens when the Council runs out of land to sell off?

They are being very shortsighted and trying to run roughshod over their current Council Tax payers for the sake of some magical ones which will appear and somehow save the town!
bambara - what happens when the Council runs out of land to sell off? They are being very shortsighted and trying to run roughshod over their current Council Tax payers for the sake of some magical ones which will appear and somehow save the town! Chocmonster7
  • Score: 24

9:35pm Wed 18 Jun 14

LUSTARD says...

be quiet its done and dusted you have no real voice
be quiet its done and dusted you have no real voice LUSTARD
  • Score: -17

9:44pm Wed 18 Jun 14

bambara says...

Chocmonster7 wrote:
bambara - what happens when the Council runs out of land to sell off? They are being very shortsighted and trying to run roughshod over their current Council Tax payers for the sake of some magical ones which will appear and somehow save the town!
They don't just get money for building the houses Choco, they also get the income from the additional council tax on the properties, and from the businesses that they are hoping to attract to the town as well.
[quote][p][bold]Chocmonster7[/bold] wrote: bambara - what happens when the Council runs out of land to sell off? They are being very shortsighted and trying to run roughshod over their current Council Tax payers for the sake of some magical ones which will appear and somehow save the town![/p][/quote]They don't just get money for building the houses Choco, they also get the income from the additional council tax on the properties, and from the businesses that they are hoping to attract to the town as well. bambara
  • Score: -8

9:49pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Got Ya says...

Well said Hazel.........they don't like it up them!

Fancy a drink tonight to celebrate a successful consultation process?
Well said Hazel.........they don't like it up them! Fancy a drink tonight to celebrate a successful consultation process? Got Ya
  • Score: -14

10:00pm Wed 18 Jun 14

micamoo says...

Well done Hazel Neasham for a completely relevant and timely example! Our situation is EXACTLY the same as when Branksome was built 50 years ago. If all of your thinking is this cutting edge I fear the campaigners fighting to save Bellburn field are no match for you.

Keep up the good work!
Well done Hazel Neasham for a completely relevant and timely example! Our situation is EXACTLY the same as when Branksome was built 50 years ago. If all of your thinking is this cutting edge I fear the campaigners fighting to save Bellburn field are no match for you. Keep up the good work! micamoo
  • Score: 13

10:04pm Wed 18 Jun 14

bambara says...

http://webarchive.na
tionalarchives.gov.u
k/20120919132719/htt
p://www.communities.
gov.uk/documents/new
sroom/pdf/1804871.pd
f

Shows which areas of the country are most dependant on the central government funding to make up for the deprivation in the area and allow the council to provide a similar level of services to those areas which are both wealthier and have less requirement for support services. (less Elderly, Disabled, and poor residents.)

It is this portion of the local councils funding that is being cut. Tory plans are that it will be cut by 87% by 2020.

By building more, larger, and more modern properties Darlington will hope to increase the number of higher band (and higher council tax level) paying people in the town. Changing the demographic to increase the average council tax level per head = a greater per capita income from personal council tax.
(10 people at band A & 1 at Band F = 10x67% + 1x200% = 870%/11 total = average approx 80%)
(10 people at band A & 10 people at Band F = 10x67% + 10x200% = 2670/20 = approx 135% average)

So without actually increasing the headline council tax figure the actual take of council tax per head goes up from say £800 per person to £1350 per person and the central government funding cuts can be absorbed without critical services completely collapsing.

(Note the fact that wealthy areas already have that higher % level take is part of the reason why they didn't get the additional funding in the first place. The other reason being that people in need of the critical services, elderly, poor, sick tend to have less money and can't afford to live in the wealthy areas, so they congregate in areas where property is cheaper and the % tax take is lower as a result.)
Slightly offset by the higher headline council tax rates in the poor areas. Only slightly though as 80% of £1000 is still less than 135% of £800

So the tory 87% cut to central funding massively impacts the poor councils, but barely touches the wealthy ones.
http://webarchive.na tionalarchives.gov.u k/20120919132719/htt p://www.communities. gov.uk/documents/new sroom/pdf/1804871.pd f Shows which areas of the country are most dependant on the central government funding to make up for the deprivation in the area and allow the council to provide a similar level of services to those areas which are both wealthier and have less requirement for support services. (less Elderly, Disabled, and poor residents.) It is this portion of the local councils funding that is being cut. Tory plans are that it will be cut by 87% by 2020. By building more, larger, and more modern properties Darlington will hope to increase the number of higher band (and higher council tax level) paying people in the town. Changing the demographic to increase the average council tax level per head = a greater per capita income from personal council tax. (10 people at band A & 1 at Band F = 10x67% + 1x200% = 870%/11 total = average approx 80%) (10 people at band A & 10 people at Band F = 10x67% + 10x200% = 2670/20 = approx 135% average) So without actually increasing the headline council tax figure the actual take of council tax per head goes up from say £800 per person to £1350 per person and the central government funding cuts can be absorbed without critical services completely collapsing. (Note the fact that wealthy areas already have that higher % level take is part of the reason why they didn't get the additional funding in the first place. The other reason being that people in need of the critical services, elderly, poor, sick tend to have less money and can't afford to live in the wealthy areas, so they congregate in areas where property is cheaper and the % tax take is lower as a result.) Slightly offset by the higher headline council tax rates in the poor areas. Only slightly though as 80% of £1000 is still less than 135% of £800 So the tory 87% cut to central funding massively impacts the poor councils, but barely touches the wealthy ones. bambara
  • Score: -10

10:16pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Chocmonster7 says...

Building 50 houses on a well used piece of green space will not attract any new businesses to the town at all. We are just pointing out that there are far better places to build the extra houses, if they are needed at all.

This isn't a political campaign, for us it's about quality of life and peaceful enjoyment of our surroundings.
Building 50 houses on a well used piece of green space will not attract any new businesses to the town at all. We are just pointing out that there are far better places to build the extra houses, if they are needed at all. This isn't a political campaign, for us it's about quality of life and peaceful enjoyment of our surroundings. Chocmonster7
  • Score: 29

10:22pm Wed 18 Jun 14

mikyman says...

Mrs Neasham forgets that its us,the rate payers,who pay her salary.She can move on but those of us who have settled here have to bear the brunt of her bad decisions.
I find her comments utterly condescending.
Mrs Neasham forgets that its us,the rate payers,who pay her salary.She can move on but those of us who have settled here have to bear the brunt of her bad decisions. I find her comments utterly condescending. mikyman
  • Score: 29

10:25pm Wed 18 Jun 14

gramps427 says...

The question not being asked is " Do the people of this town want it to Grow?"
and does the Council have any real say in what's being proposed or is it being forced on them by London? Perhaps this paper can clear those questions up for its readers!
The question not being asked is " Do the people of this town want it to Grow?" and does the Council have any real say in what's being proposed or is it being forced on them by London? Perhaps this paper can clear those questions up for its readers! gramps427
  • Score: 12

10:30pm Wed 18 Jun 14

mikyman says...

Great sums Bambara, only problem is that these houses are scheduled as 'social ' housing,mainly small 2 beds.
Not sure how your sums equate with this size house and most occupants on benefits so not paying council tax.
Great sums Bambara, only problem is that these houses are scheduled as 'social ' housing,mainly small 2 beds. Not sure how your sums equate with this size house and most occupants on benefits so not paying council tax. mikyman
  • Score: 22

10:35pm Wed 18 Jun 14

jotheblondeone says...

This council are choosing to build on green field areas - areas which they have regenerated into a nature reserve - on their own document on the green infrastructure for the next few years, they state that CockerBeck is one of the most important areas for biodiversity and Eco systems and has to be preserved and protected !!! They also state that they will protect areas where children can play - where? .. CockerBeck!!! What is the point of building new houses aimed at young families when you are taking away the areas kids can play safely .. Off the road. They also say they will protect and extend flood storage areas .. Where?? Surprise surprise .. Cocker beck nature reserve - good luck anyone trying to get house insurance for these new properties. And if that is your only answer that people would have complained about Branksome school being built years ago - well I hate to say it love but times have moved on - we used to hang people but that doesn't mean we should accept it now! You have totally gone back on every thing you stated in your own green infrastructure document and it's a disgrace that you should choose to build on a nature reserve !
This council are choosing to build on green field areas - areas which they have regenerated into a nature reserve - on their own document on the green infrastructure for the next few years, they state that CockerBeck is one of the most important areas for biodiversity and Eco systems and has to be preserved and protected !!! They also state that they will protect areas where children can play - where? .. CockerBeck!!! What is the point of building new houses aimed at young families when you are taking away the areas kids can play safely .. Off the road. They also say they will protect and extend flood storage areas .. Where?? Surprise surprise .. Cocker beck nature reserve - good luck anyone trying to get house insurance for these new properties. And if that is your only answer that people would have complained about Branksome school being built years ago - well I hate to say it love but times have moved on - we used to hang people but that doesn't mean we should accept it now! You have totally gone back on every thing you stated in your own green infrastructure document and it's a disgrace that you should choose to build on a nature reserve ! jotheblondeone
  • Score: 32

12:09am Thu 19 Jun 14

CassEB says...

The growth of a town should not mean the loss of its Green Space sites. I was at the meeting and was told that after all the land belonged to the council. To me the council is the town, the town are its people. Therefore the land belongs to us and it's about time that those that are suppose to represent us, the councillors, started listening to their constituents and acting on what we want and need.
The growth of a town should not mean the loss of its Green Space sites. I was at the meeting and was told that after all the land belonged to the council. To me the council is the town, the town are its people. Therefore the land belongs to us and it's about time that those that are suppose to represent us, the councillors, started listening to their constituents and acting on what we want and need. CassEB
  • Score: 33

12:11am Thu 19 Jun 14

hodjie says...

lets get these developments built ! we re short of housing which isnt going to sort itself out and its not exactly in your back garden is it !
lets get these developments built ! we re short of housing which isnt going to sort itself out and its not exactly in your back garden is it ! hodjie
  • Score: -20

12:15am Thu 19 Jun 14

hodjie says...

CassEB wrote:
The growth of a town should not mean the loss of its Green Space sites. I was at the meeting and was told that after all the land belonged to the council. To me the council is the town, the town are its people. Therefore the land belongs to us and it's about time that those that are suppose to represent us, the councillors, started listening to their constituents and acting on what we want and need.
no the land doesnt belong to you ! get real !
[quote][p][bold]CassEB[/bold] wrote: The growth of a town should not mean the loss of its Green Space sites. I was at the meeting and was told that after all the land belonged to the council. To me the council is the town, the town are its people. Therefore the land belongs to us and it's about time that those that are suppose to represent us, the councillors, started listening to their constituents and acting on what we want and need.[/p][/quote]no the land doesnt belong to you ! get real ! hodjie
  • Score: -24

12:20am Thu 19 Jun 14

CassEB says...

Never has a Darlington council been so out of touch with the needs of the people. They will be leaving a very poor legacy for this town to remember them by when they go!!
Never has a Darlington council been so out of touch with the needs of the people. They will be leaving a very poor legacy for this town to remember them by when they go!! CassEB
  • Score: 23

12:23am Thu 19 Jun 14

Spy Boy says...

The council only have one plan: Make money to keep the upper echelons in power and drawing huge salaries. ( None have been hit since this austerity scheme hit.) They are determined to sell off everything they own for as much as they can get. The amount of green space left is dwindling, but they can't stop themselves. They need cash and they want it now. Darlington sits on a very small footprint and just shoving houses into every space is not the answer. If they must build more homes, they should first look at the infrastructure required to support them.

There are so many pieces of derelict land that could benefit from new builds. The reason that they are not being pushed is that the council don't own them and won't get a pot of cash from the sale.

Look at all this lot that they seem to own. http://www.darlingto
n.gov.uk/dar_public/
Documents/_Place/Pol
icyRegeneration/Plan
ningPolicy/Housing%2
0Sites.pdf#page=6
The council only have one plan: Make money to keep the upper echelons in power and drawing huge salaries. ( None have been hit since this austerity scheme hit.) They are determined to sell off everything they own for as much as they can get. The amount of green space left is dwindling, but they can't stop themselves. They need cash and they want it now. Darlington sits on a very small footprint and just shoving houses into every space is not the answer. If they must build more homes, they should first look at the infrastructure required to support them. There are so many pieces of derelict land that could benefit from new builds. The reason that they are not being pushed is that the council don't own them and won't get a pot of cash from the sale. Look at all this lot that they seem to own. http://www.darlingto n.gov.uk/dar_public/ Documents/_Place/Pol icyRegeneration/Plan ningPolicy/Housing%2 0Sites.pdf#page=6 Spy Boy
  • Score: 23

12:24am Thu 19 Jun 14

hodjie says...

69lou96 wrote:
Does Ms Neasham live in Darlington? Why do we need so many new houses when practically every street has houses for sale?
ok lets put familys who cant afford or get a morgage in them houses ! great idea !
[quote][p][bold]69lou96[/bold] wrote: Does Ms Neasham live in Darlington? Why do we need so many new houses when practically every street has houses for sale?[/p][/quote]ok lets put familys who cant afford or get a morgage in them houses ! great idea ! hodjie
  • Score: 1

12:31am Thu 19 Jun 14

hodjie says...

Spy Boy wrote:
The council only have one plan: Make money to keep the upper echelons in power and drawing huge salaries. ( None have been hit since this austerity scheme hit.) They are determined to sell off everything they own for as much as they can get. The amount of green space left is dwindling, but they can't stop themselves. They need cash and they want it now. Darlington sits on a very small footprint and just shoving houses into every space is not the answer. If they must build more homes, they should first look at the infrastructure required to support them.

There are so many pieces of derelict land that could benefit from new builds. The reason that they are not being pushed is that the council don't own them and won't get a pot of cash from the sale.

Look at all this lot that they seem to own. http://www.darlingto

n.gov.uk/dar_public/

Documents/_Place/Pol

icyRegeneration/Plan

ningPolicy/Housing%2

0Sites.pdf#page=6
i dont like this council at all but where is the derelict land ?
[quote][p][bold]Spy Boy[/bold] wrote: The council only have one plan: Make money to keep the upper echelons in power and drawing huge salaries. ( None have been hit since this austerity scheme hit.) They are determined to sell off everything they own for as much as they can get. The amount of green space left is dwindling, but they can't stop themselves. They need cash and they want it now. Darlington sits on a very small footprint and just shoving houses into every space is not the answer. If they must build more homes, they should first look at the infrastructure required to support them. There are so many pieces of derelict land that could benefit from new builds. The reason that they are not being pushed is that the council don't own them and won't get a pot of cash from the sale. Look at all this lot that they seem to own. http://www.darlingto n.gov.uk/dar_public/ Documents/_Place/Pol icyRegeneration/Plan ningPolicy/Housing%2 0Sites.pdf#page=6[/p][/quote]i dont like this council at all but where is the derelict land ? hodjie
  • Score: -7

1:14am Thu 19 Jun 14

jotheblondeone says...

Yeah let's build on the green space and destroy nature reserves and children's play areas and then when all the new families move in they will be so pleased that their children have safe places to play .. Oh wait no they won't be anywhere left to play because the council has built houses on them. Still the kids can play inside .. Not get fresh air and stop being active .. Future health problems potentially costing the government more money! They are getting government funded money for building these homes for years afterwards - and they don't care wha they ruin in the process - I'm sure we will see a reduction in our council tax though as a result if this extra income ;-)
Yeah let's build on the green space and destroy nature reserves and children's play areas and then when all the new families move in they will be so pleased that their children have safe places to play .. Oh wait no they won't be anywhere left to play because the council has built houses on them. Still the kids can play inside .. Not get fresh air and stop being active .. Future health problems potentially costing the government more money! They are getting government funded money for building these homes for years afterwards - and they don't care wha they ruin in the process - I'm sure we will see a reduction in our council tax though as a result if this extra income ;-) jotheblondeone
  • Score: 18

7:09am Thu 19 Jun 14

Homshaw1 says...

Everyone loves Darlington Council. They keep voting for them.
Everyone loves Darlington Council. They keep voting for them. Homshaw1
  • Score: 6

8:03am Thu 19 Jun 14

jandarlo says...

there are very few options of social housing left in darlington. the town needs it and a lot of the people protesting will be the children of those who bought it all up when it was sold off at discounted prices! as for people who live in social housing not paying council tax- not true! how snobbish you all appear to be. you all sound like a bunch of nimbys to me.
there are very few options of social housing left in darlington. the town needs it and a lot of the people protesting will be the children of those who bought it all up when it was sold off at discounted prices! as for people who live in social housing not paying council tax- not true! how snobbish you all appear to be. you all sound like a bunch of nimbys to me. jandarlo
  • Score: -8

8:10am Thu 19 Jun 14

jotheblondeone says...

I bought mine at normal selling price a few years ago so that generalising statement doesn't really work .. And who sold these houses off years ago . The council! Just because they need more social housing doesn't mean they can build it anywhere. Missing the point I think. A. Nimby :-)
I bought mine at normal selling price a few years ago so that generalising statement doesn't really work .. And who sold these houses off years ago . The council! Just because they need more social housing doesn't mean they can build it anywhere. Missing the point I think. A. Nimby :-) jotheblondeone
  • Score: 11

8:22am Thu 19 Jun 14

mikyman says...

Sorry to burst your bubble jandarlo, but the fight is against any building on the few green spaces left in Darlo.
We would still object if they were detatched etc.Indeed the previous plan was for 32 detatched houses and we campaigned then.
Sorry to burst your bubble jandarlo, but the fight is against any building on the few green spaces left in Darlo. We would still object if they were detatched etc.Indeed the previous plan was for 32 detatched houses and we campaigned then. mikyman
  • Score: 12

8:31am Thu 19 Jun 14

jandarlo says...

mikyman wrote:
Sorry to burst your bubble jandarlo, but the fight is against any building on the few green spaces left in Darlo.
We would still object if they were detatched etc.Indeed the previous plan was for 32 detatched houses and we campaigned then.
I wasn't aware of that milkyman so apologies to the campaigners if I appeared to question your integrity. I don't know a lot of the background of this and was going on the comments made by some who seem rather zealous! it doesn't read good in some comments and a few sound rather snobbish. I do agree that green spaces need to be preserved but social housing does need to be improved and built in the town as well. but where? its the age old problem..
[quote][p][bold]mikyman[/bold] wrote: Sorry to burst your bubble jandarlo, but the fight is against any building on the few green spaces left in Darlo. We would still object if they were detatched etc.Indeed the previous plan was for 32 detatched houses and we campaigned then.[/p][/quote]I wasn't aware of that milkyman so apologies to the campaigners if I appeared to question your integrity. I don't know a lot of the background of this and was going on the comments made by some who seem rather zealous! it doesn't read good in some comments and a few sound rather snobbish. I do agree that green spaces need to be preserved but social housing does need to be improved and built in the town as well. but where? its the age old problem.. jandarlo
  • Score: 10

8:46am Thu 19 Jun 14

jotheblondeone says...

Our plans went from 8 houses last year - to four, 3 storey houses continuing 24 flats, new roads and a car park -which we found out about a couple if weeks ago .. all put on an existing 'supposedly protected' nature reserve and kids playing area. I'm not complaining about new houses but they seriously should not build on the few green spaces we have left .. Maybe they need to buy up some of the many disused buildings and land (invest) in already built up areas.
Our plans went from 8 houses last year - to four, 3 storey houses continuing 24 flats, new roads and a car park -which we found out about a couple if weeks ago .. all put on an existing 'supposedly protected' nature reserve and kids playing area. I'm not complaining about new houses but they seriously should not build on the few green spaces we have left .. Maybe they need to buy up some of the many disused buildings and land (invest) in already built up areas. jotheblondeone
  • Score: 13

8:52am Thu 19 Jun 14

Homshaw1 says...

"It's the council's land" comments shows the mentality of councillors and senior council officials. It should be used to do the best for Darlington and its ratepayers. It's not there to raise money for the use of councillors and senior employees. I heard this before when talking to the Town Centre Manager about parking. His view was they were a council asset that had to reap a dividend for the council. The notion that they belong to the people of Darlington and should be used in the best overall interests of everyone is alien to them. With DBC it's Me Me Me and to hell with the ratepayer
"It's the council's land" comments shows the mentality of councillors and senior council officials. It should be used to do the best for Darlington and its ratepayers. It's not there to raise money for the use of councillors and senior employees. I heard this before when talking to the Town Centre Manager about parking. His view was they were a council asset that had to reap a dividend for the council. The notion that they belong to the people of Darlington and should be used in the best overall interests of everyone is alien to them. With DBC it's Me Me Me and to hell with the ratepayer Homshaw1
  • Score: 22

9:36am Thu 19 Jun 14

Chocmonster7 says...

250 residents went to that meeting last night yet the Echo reporter gives those opposing the schemes a tiny small section in the article while Ms Neasham is given free reign to rant away and insult us.

I think Mr Barron needs to stop wandering around promoting his own books and look to review the standard of writing and bias shown in his own so called independant newspaper!
250 residents went to that meeting last night yet the Echo reporter gives those opposing the schemes a tiny small section in the article while Ms Neasham is given free reign to rant away and insult us. I think Mr Barron needs to stop wandering around promoting his own books and look to review the standard of writing and bias shown in his own so called independant newspaper! Chocmonster7
  • Score: 24

10:31am Thu 19 Jun 14

LUSTARD says...

CassEB wrote:
The growth of a town should not mean the loss of its Green Space sites. I was at the meeting and was told that after all the land belonged to the council. To me the council is the town, the town are its people. Therefore the land belongs to us and it's about time that those that are suppose to represent us, the councillors, started listening to their constituents and acting on what we want and need.
i gave a thumbs up for your comment but it will fall on deaf ears
[quote][p][bold]CassEB[/bold] wrote: The growth of a town should not mean the loss of its Green Space sites. I was at the meeting and was told that after all the land belonged to the council. To me the council is the town, the town are its people. Therefore the land belongs to us and it's about time that those that are suppose to represent us, the councillors, started listening to their constituents and acting on what we want and need.[/p][/quote]i gave a thumbs up for your comment but it will fall on deaf ears LUSTARD
  • Score: 8

10:37am Thu 19 Jun 14

LUSTARD says...

Chocmonster7 wrote:
250 residents went to that meeting last night yet the Echo reporter gives those opposing the schemes a tiny small section in the article while Ms Neasham is given free reign to rant away and insult us.

I think Mr Barron needs to stop wandering around promoting his own books and look to review the standard of writing and bias shown in his own so called independant newspaper!
yes but hes from the back streets of downtown boro or the out skirts of same, that means he wont realise his own subconcious mind even though/ now hes in a prime job, top wage and now livin it up in hurworth probably socialices in rock ford hall or whatever they call it , does this make sense.
[quote][p][bold]Chocmonster7[/bold] wrote: 250 residents went to that meeting last night yet the Echo reporter gives those opposing the schemes a tiny small section in the article while Ms Neasham is given free reign to rant away and insult us. I think Mr Barron needs to stop wandering around promoting his own books and look to review the standard of writing and bias shown in his own so called independant newspaper![/p][/quote]yes but hes from the back streets of downtown boro or the out skirts of same, that means he wont realise his own subconcious mind even though/ now hes in a prime job, top wage and now livin it up in hurworth probably socialices in rock ford hall or whatever they call it , does this make sense. LUSTARD
  • Score: 4

10:39am Thu 19 Jun 14

LUSTARD says...

jotheblondeone wrote:
Yeah let's build on the green space and destroy nature reserves and children's play areas and then when all the new families move in they will be so pleased that their children have safe places to play .. Oh wait no they won't be anywhere left to play because the council has built houses on them. Still the kids can play inside .. Not get fresh air and stop being active .. Future health problems potentially costing the government more money! They are getting government funded money for building these homes for years afterwards - and they don't care wha they ruin in the process - I'm sure we will see a reduction in our council tax though as a result if this extra income ;-)
u do realise theyll have an answer to that,,, pop the kids along black path past honeypot site over the rd and into the large park north park isnt it
[quote][p][bold]jotheblondeone[/bold] wrote: Yeah let's build on the green space and destroy nature reserves and children's play areas and then when all the new families move in they will be so pleased that their children have safe places to play .. Oh wait no they won't be anywhere left to play because the council has built houses on them. Still the kids can play inside .. Not get fresh air and stop being active .. Future health problems potentially costing the government more money! They are getting government funded money for building these homes for years afterwards - and they don't care wha they ruin in the process - I'm sure we will see a reduction in our council tax though as a result if this extra income ;-)[/p][/quote]u do realise theyll have an answer to that,,, pop the kids along black path past honeypot site over the rd and into the large park north park isnt it LUSTARD
  • Score: 14

10:40am Thu 19 Jun 14

LUSTARD says...

mikyman wrote:
Mrs Neasham forgets that its us,the rate payers,who pay her salary.She can move on but those of us who have settled here have to bear the brunt of her bad decisions.
I find her comments utterly condescending.
does she give a monkeys
[quote][p][bold]mikyman[/bold] wrote: Mrs Neasham forgets that its us,the rate payers,who pay her salary.She can move on but those of us who have settled here have to bear the brunt of her bad decisions. I find her comments utterly condescending.[/p][/quote]does she give a monkeys LUSTARD
  • Score: 11

10:53am Thu 19 Jun 14

jotheblondeone says...

I got the impression from speaking to the council representatives yesterday that they do not care at all and they didn't have many answers to anything put to them - they have gone back on everything they said and their only answer was "well it's our job to build new affordable houses". In fact when I brought up that the area is used by children and adults daily - one representative said "well I've just been up there and there was only one man walking his dog" ! Oh well that's ok then you've got the proof you need to demolish a communal area/nature reserve on that finding alone and your actions will be vindicated. Arrogance, ignorance and disregard for anyone's opinions other than her own was shown in abundance.
I got the impression from speaking to the council representatives yesterday that they do not care at all and they didn't have many answers to anything put to them - they have gone back on everything they said and their only answer was "well it's our job to build new affordable houses". In fact when I brought up that the area is used by children and adults daily - one representative said "well I've just been up there and there was only one man walking his dog" ! Oh well that's ok then you've got the proof you need to demolish a communal area/nature reserve on that finding alone and your actions will be vindicated. Arrogance, ignorance and disregard for anyone's opinions other than her own was shown in abundance. jotheblondeone
  • Score: 26

1:45pm Thu 19 Jun 14

Timb67 says...

Anyone know why the brown field areas on Faverdale Ind. Est aren't being considered for housing?
The former Rolling Mills site on Whessoe Road is an eyesore and ripe for development, and of course you have the building that is being vacated by DFE when they move into the town centre.
It's not just the houses' that people need. There is a whole infrastructure of roads, schools, shops, jobs, doctors etc that also need to be considered.
Another example of "do as I say" from DBC.
Anyone know why the brown field areas on Faverdale Ind. Est aren't being considered for housing? The former Rolling Mills site on Whessoe Road is an eyesore and ripe for development, and of course you have the building that is being vacated by DFE when they move into the town centre. It's not just the houses' that people need. There is a whole infrastructure of roads, schools, shops, jobs, doctors etc that also need to be considered. Another example of "do as I say" from DBC. Timb67
  • Score: 26

2:05pm Thu 19 Jun 14

mikyman says...

In talking with the planners last night we found that most of them had never bothered to drive round Darlo and identify brownfield sites.
Many of us advised them of a more suitable site,part brownfield that could replace Bellburn Lane.
They were unaware of it as it was in the Teeside Green corridor!
Such joined up thinking.
We were then told that they would look at this other site and might consider it as well as Bellburn!
You just carn't win with this bunch of jobsworths
In talking with the planners last night we found that most of them had never bothered to drive round Darlo and identify brownfield sites. Many of us advised them of a more suitable site,part brownfield that could replace Bellburn Lane. They were unaware of it as it was in the Teeside Green corridor! Such joined up thinking. We were then told that they would look at this other site and might consider it as well as Bellburn! You just carn't win with this bunch of jobsworths mikyman
  • Score: 22

6:06pm Thu 19 Jun 14

Spy Boy says...

hodjie wrote:
Spy Boy wrote:
The council only have one plan: Make money to keep the upper echelons in power and drawing huge salaries. ( None have been hit since this austerity scheme hit.) They are determined to sell off everything they own for as much as they can get. The amount of green space left is dwindling, but they can't stop themselves. They need cash and they want it now. Darlington sits on a very small footprint and just shoving houses into every space is not the answer. If they must build more homes, they should first look at the infrastructure required to support them.

There are so many pieces of derelict land that could benefit from new builds. The reason that they are not being pushed is that the council don't own them and won't get a pot of cash from the sale.

Look at all this lot that they seem to own. http://www.darlingto


n.gov.uk/dar_public/


Documents/_Place/Pol


icyRegeneration/Plan


ningPolicy/Housing%2


0Sites.pdf#page=6
i dont like this council at all but where is the derelict land ?
You need to get out more. Just drive around the town and you can see land that is no longer in use. Most of it was industrial. Houses are popping up on sites all over as I type.
[quote][p][bold]hodjie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Spy Boy[/bold] wrote: The council only have one plan: Make money to keep the upper echelons in power and drawing huge salaries. ( None have been hit since this austerity scheme hit.) They are determined to sell off everything they own for as much as they can get. The amount of green space left is dwindling, but they can't stop themselves. They need cash and they want it now. Darlington sits on a very small footprint and just shoving houses into every space is not the answer. If they must build more homes, they should first look at the infrastructure required to support them. There are so many pieces of derelict land that could benefit from new builds. The reason that they are not being pushed is that the council don't own them and won't get a pot of cash from the sale. Look at all this lot that they seem to own. http://www.darlingto n.gov.uk/dar_public/ Documents/_Place/Pol icyRegeneration/Plan ningPolicy/Housing%2 0Sites.pdf#page=6[/p][/quote]i dont like this council at all but where is the derelict land ?[/p][/quote]You need to get out more. Just drive around the town and you can see land that is no longer in use. Most of it was industrial. Houses are popping up on sites all over as I type. Spy Boy
  • Score: 4

6:17pm Thu 19 Jun 14

Spy Boy says...

Timb67 wrote:
Anyone know why the brown field areas on Faverdale Ind. Est aren't being considered for housing?
The former Rolling Mills site on Whessoe Road is an eyesore and ripe for development, and of course you have the building that is being vacated by DFE when they move into the town centre.
It's not just the houses' that people need. There is a whole infrastructure of roads, schools, shops, jobs, doctors etc that also need to be considered.
Another example of "do as I say" from DBC.
The Rolling Mills site is already earmarked for a garden suburb that runs from The King's Centre all the way along the railway almost as far as the recycling centre. On the other side of the line, the Favourdale Project is already drawn up. Add to this new homes on the Alderman Leech School site, the old Eastbourne School site and the vaunted Central Park development, I can't see the need to tear up a long established green space for a small handful of low cost housing. I can only suggest that the council have some done deal up their sleeves for ready cash.
[quote][p][bold]Timb67[/bold] wrote: Anyone know why the brown field areas on Faverdale Ind. Est aren't being considered for housing? The former Rolling Mills site on Whessoe Road is an eyesore and ripe for development, and of course you have the building that is being vacated by DFE when they move into the town centre. It's not just the houses' that people need. There is a whole infrastructure of roads, schools, shops, jobs, doctors etc that also need to be considered. Another example of "do as I say" from DBC.[/p][/quote]The Rolling Mills site is already earmarked for a garden suburb that runs from The King's Centre all the way along the railway almost as far as the recycling centre. On the other side of the line, the Favourdale Project is already drawn up. Add to this new homes on the Alderman Leech School site, the old Eastbourne School site and the vaunted Central Park development, I can't see the need to tear up a long established green space for a small handful of low cost housing. I can only suggest that the council have some done deal up their sleeves for ready cash. Spy Boy
  • Score: 20

12:01am Fri 20 Jun 14

Gamechanger says...

I live locally and am broadly supportive of the council's plans. However the council needs to apply common sense to the solution. I believe the plans could be scaled back to retain a green corridor. Those who mourn the loss of this green space could use the denes instead. Agree with Darloxman on litter - there was loads in front of the town hall today and I didn't see Ada Burns picking it up.
I live locally and am broadly supportive of the council's plans. However the council needs to apply common sense to the solution. I believe the plans could be scaled back to retain a green corridor. Those who mourn the loss of this green space could use the denes instead. Agree with Darloxman on litter - there was loads in front of the town hall today and I didn't see Ada Burns picking it up. Gamechanger
  • Score: 2

8:22am Fri 20 Jun 14

mikyman says...

Gamechanger makes the point about using the Denes.
These are not safe places for children to play unattended, young lads who want to play football would have to cross two busy roads to then find there is no where suitable for sports.
With regard to litter,didn't know we were discussing it, why didn't you pick up a few items of litter and put them in the bin?
Or is it a 'not my job guv' attitude?
Quite a few of us do this on the 'field' to keep it tidy.
Gamechanger makes the point about using the Denes. These are not safe places for children to play unattended, young lads who want to play football would have to cross two busy roads to then find there is no where suitable for sports. With regard to litter,didn't know we were discussing it, why didn't you pick up a few items of litter and put them in the bin? Or is it a 'not my job guv' attitude? Quite a few of us do this on the 'field' to keep it tidy. mikyman
  • Score: 10

8:46am Fri 20 Jun 14

Gamechanger says...

Having lived in Darlington all my life I know that the denes have been well used by kids for many years and long may it continue. I am against nimbyism. Yes I pick up my own litter
Having lived in Darlington all my life I know that the denes have been well used by kids for many years and long may it continue. I am against nimbyism. Yes I pick up my own litter Gamechanger
  • Score: 4

8:49am Fri 20 Jun 14

Homshaw1 says...

mikyman wrote:
Gamechanger makes the point about using the Denes.
These are not safe places for children to play unattended, young lads who want to play football would have to cross two busy roads to then find there is no where suitable for sports.
With regard to litter,didn't know we were discussing it, why didn't you pick up a few items of litter and put them in the bin?
Or is it a 'not my job guv' attitude?
Quite a few of us do this on the 'field' to keep it tidy.
The more litter you pick up the less those idle money grabbing morons at Darlington Council will do. The notion of paying for a service then having to do it yourself is a nonsense. I'll be more than happy to clean your windows for £5 a week if you go up the ladder and do the job yourself
[quote][p][bold]mikyman[/bold] wrote: Gamechanger makes the point about using the Denes. These are not safe places for children to play unattended, young lads who want to play football would have to cross two busy roads to then find there is no where suitable for sports. With regard to litter,didn't know we were discussing it, why didn't you pick up a few items of litter and put them in the bin? Or is it a 'not my job guv' attitude? Quite a few of us do this on the 'field' to keep it tidy.[/p][/quote]The more litter you pick up the less those idle money grabbing morons at Darlington Council will do. The notion of paying for a service then having to do it yourself is a nonsense. I'll be more than happy to clean your windows for £5 a week if you go up the ladder and do the job yourself Homshaw1
  • Score: 8

9:01am Fri 20 Jun 14

Chocmonster7 says...

The nearest Dene to the Bellburn Field is the Play Dene, which apart from being across two very busy roads has steep sides and no flat area so a simple game of football is impossible.
The nearest Dene to the Bellburn Field is the Play Dene, which apart from being across two very busy roads has steep sides and no flat area so a simple game of football is impossible. Chocmonster7
  • Score: 12

9:47am Fri 20 Jun 14

CassEB says...

The Denes have been used for many years by children but they have like society declined and are no longer safe for children to be left unsupervised. Bellburn Lane Field is a large open area, which offers a safer setting for them
The Denes have been used for many years by children but they have like society declined and are no longer safe for children to be left unsupervised. Bellburn Lane Field is a large open area, which offers a safer setting for them CassEB
  • Score: 13

10:35am Fri 20 Jun 14

save it says...

if the local police would venture into the denes an do there job it may help we do actually pay them for this
if the local police would venture into the denes an do there job it may help we do actually pay them for this save it
  • Score: 6

10:36am Fri 20 Jun 14

jotheblondeone says...

Darlington borough council .. Coming to a green field near you!
Darlington borough council .. Coming to a green field near you! jotheblondeone
  • Score: 13

2:01pm Fri 20 Jun 14

jandarlo says...

i take back my apology. I decided to look into this with a view to supporting you and saw some disgusting attitudes about social housing and its occupants on your official facebook page. my initial instincts were correct...
i take back my apology. I decided to look into this with a view to supporting you and saw some disgusting attitudes about social housing and its occupants on your official facebook page. my initial instincts were correct... jandarlo
  • Score: -10

2:50pm Fri 20 Jun 14

DarloXman says...

Homshaw1 wrote:
mikyman wrote:
Gamechanger makes the point about using the Denes.
These are not safe places for children to play unattended, young lads who want to play football would have to cross two busy roads to then find there is no where suitable for sports.
With regard to litter,didn't know we were discussing it, why didn't you pick up a few items of litter and put them in the bin?
Or is it a 'not my job guv' attitude?
Quite a few of us do this on the 'field' to keep it tidy.
The more litter you pick up the less those idle money grabbing morons at Darlington Council will do. The notion of paying for a service then having to do it yourself is a nonsense. I'll be more than happy to clean your windows for £5 a week if you go up the ladder and do the job yourself
I'll do it for £4.50!
[quote][p][bold]Homshaw1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mikyman[/bold] wrote: Gamechanger makes the point about using the Denes. These are not safe places for children to play unattended, young lads who want to play football would have to cross two busy roads to then find there is no where suitable for sports. With regard to litter,didn't know we were discussing it, why didn't you pick up a few items of litter and put them in the bin? Or is it a 'not my job guv' attitude? Quite a few of us do this on the 'field' to keep it tidy.[/p][/quote]The more litter you pick up the less those idle money grabbing morons at Darlington Council will do. The notion of paying for a service then having to do it yourself is a nonsense. I'll be more than happy to clean your windows for £5 a week if you go up the ladder and do the job yourself[/p][/quote]I'll do it for £4.50! DarloXman
  • Score: 1

3:37pm Fri 20 Jun 14

Chocmonster7 says...

jandarlo wrote:
i take back my apology. I decided to look into this with a view to supporting you and saw some disgusting attitudes about social housing and its occupants on your official facebook page. my initial instincts were correct...
If you are refering to the photos which were posted yesterday afternoon then they were deleted by the Admins as soon as they were notified of them.

As with any public forum you get people who want to express their views just as people are doing here.

What is relevant is that none of the Facebook members want to see the greenspace built upon and are fighting hard to stop it happening.
[quote][p][bold]jandarlo[/bold] wrote: i take back my apology. I decided to look into this with a view to supporting you and saw some disgusting attitudes about social housing and its occupants on your official facebook page. my initial instincts were correct...[/p][/quote]If you are refering to the photos which were posted yesterday afternoon then they were deleted by the Admins as soon as they were notified of them. As with any public forum you get people who want to express their views just as people are doing here. What is relevant is that none of the Facebook members want to see the greenspace built upon and are fighting hard to stop it happening. Chocmonster7
  • Score: 6

5:54pm Fri 20 Jun 14

save it says...

Most people don't want any houses not social or executive
Most people don't want any houses not social or executive save it
  • Score: 9

6:20pm Fri 20 Jun 14

Woodenhead says...

This is not about the type of housing or what the buildings will be used for but the loss of a green space. Why ruin an area just because it is there. I have a feeling it will be cheaper to build on this land because it is near to existing services, roads, water, etc. and the council will collect more rates so they just don't care.
This is not about the type of housing or what the buildings will be used for but the loss of a green space. Why ruin an area just because it is there. I have a feeling it will be cheaper to build on this land because it is near to existing services, roads, water, etc. and the council will collect more rates so they just don't care. Woodenhead
  • Score: 12

9:48pm Fri 20 Jun 14

jotheblondeone says...

jandarlo wrote:
i take back my apology. I decided to look into this with a view to supporting you and saw some disgusting attitudes about social housing and its occupants on your official facebook page. my initial instincts were correct...
If this is indeed true jandarlo, then I understand your sentiment. No area is better than another and to judge people for the area they live shows snobbery and narrow mindedness. We are all fighting for the same thing - that our green spaces (and in our case a nature reserve) are preserved for our children and our children's children - surely we should be helping and supporting each other not trying to point score on who is socially more deserving of support and success. I think some people should remember class can not be bought .. It is measured by your conduct, your attitude towards others and your own humility - not by the price of your house. Hopefully these attitudes are in the minority and we can help each other in this cause.
[quote][p][bold]jandarlo[/bold] wrote: i take back my apology. I decided to look into this with a view to supporting you and saw some disgusting attitudes about social housing and its occupants on your official facebook page. my initial instincts were correct...[/p][/quote]If this is indeed true jandarlo, then I understand your sentiment. No area is better than another and to judge people for the area they live shows snobbery and narrow mindedness. We are all fighting for the same thing - that our green spaces (and in our case a nature reserve) are preserved for our children and our children's children - surely we should be helping and supporting each other not trying to point score on who is socially more deserving of support and success. I think some people should remember class can not be bought .. It is measured by your conduct, your attitude towards others and your own humility - not by the price of your house. Hopefully these attitudes are in the minority and we can help each other in this cause. jotheblondeone
  • Score: 6

7:26am Sat 21 Jun 14

jandarlo says...

jotheblondeone wrote:
jandarlo wrote:
i take back my apology. I decided to look into this with a view to supporting you and saw some disgusting attitudes about social housing and its occupants on your official facebook page. my initial instincts were correct...
If this is indeed true jandarlo, then I understand your sentiment. No area is better than another and to judge people for the area they live shows snobbery and narrow mindedness. We are all fighting for the same thing - that our green spaces (and in our case a nature reserve) are preserved for our children and our children's children - surely we should be helping and supporting each other not trying to point score on who is socially more deserving of support and success. I think some people should remember class can not be bought .. It is measured by your conduct, your attitude towards others and your own humility - not by the price of your house. Hopefully these attitudes are in the minority and we can help each other in this cause.
well said jo- if all the supporters were like you I would have had no hesitation in supporting the cause however the pictures and comments by some, and I must stress some, not all, were disheartening to see and only served to confirm my initial thoughts that this campaign is nimbyism- which I despise. good luck though to all you decent campaigners!
[quote][p][bold]jotheblondeone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jandarlo[/bold] wrote: i take back my apology. I decided to look into this with a view to supporting you and saw some disgusting attitudes about social housing and its occupants on your official facebook page. my initial instincts were correct...[/p][/quote]If this is indeed true jandarlo, then I understand your sentiment. No area is better than another and to judge people for the area they live shows snobbery and narrow mindedness. We are all fighting for the same thing - that our green spaces (and in our case a nature reserve) are preserved for our children and our children's children - surely we should be helping and supporting each other not trying to point score on who is socially more deserving of support and success. I think some people should remember class can not be bought .. It is measured by your conduct, your attitude towards others and your own humility - not by the price of your house. Hopefully these attitudes are in the minority and we can help each other in this cause.[/p][/quote]well said jo- if all the supporters were like you I would have had no hesitation in supporting the cause however the pictures and comments by some, and I must stress some, not all, were disheartening to see and only served to confirm my initial thoughts that this campaign is nimbyism- which I despise. good luck though to all you decent campaigners! jandarlo
  • Score: 4

7:37am Sat 21 Jun 14

mikyman says...

Jandarlo have you ever thought that your own council is promoting 'social class'? According to the councils website there are over400 empty 'social housing units' in Darlo.So we don't desperately need these 50 but the govt pays them to build,so its back to money grabbing again.
Jandarlo have you ever thought that your own council is promoting 'social class'? According to the councils website there are over400 empty 'social housing units' in Darlo.So we don't desperately need these 50 but the govt pays them to build,so its back to money grabbing again. mikyman
  • Score: 3

8:15am Sat 21 Jun 14

jandarlo says...

mikyman wrote:
Jandarlo have you ever thought that your own council is promoting 'social class'? According to the councils website there are over400 empty 'social housing units' in Darlo.So we don't desperately need these 50 but the govt pays them to build,so its back to money grabbing again.
have just checked the tees valley website and am not sure where you got the figure of 400 from?
I think you or someone advising you has done the full search which includes all properties from the whole tees valley region or a search for darlington including those that are available for rent and also mutual exchanges on request.
in darlington there are a total of only 29 properties available at present. 2 x studio flats. 18 x 1 bed flats, including 5 that are sheltered accommodation, 3 x 2 bed houses/flats including 1 that is promoted as for disabled, 4 x 3 bed houses and 2 x 4 bed houses.
although I do agree with your sentiment regarding the council your figures, in this instance are very wrong.
[quote][p][bold]mikyman[/bold] wrote: Jandarlo have you ever thought that your own council is promoting 'social class'? According to the councils website there are over400 empty 'social housing units' in Darlo.So we don't desperately need these 50 but the govt pays them to build,so its back to money grabbing again.[/p][/quote]have just checked the tees valley website and am not sure where you got the figure of 400 from? I think you or someone advising you has done the full search which includes all properties from the whole tees valley region or a search for darlington including those that are available for rent and also mutual exchanges on request. in darlington there are a total of only 29 properties available at present. 2 x studio flats. 18 x 1 bed flats, including 5 that are sheltered accommodation, 3 x 2 bed houses/flats including 1 that is promoted as for disabled, 4 x 3 bed houses and 2 x 4 bed houses. although I do agree with your sentiment regarding the council your figures, in this instance are very wrong. jandarlo
  • Score: 2

9:58am Sat 21 Jun 14

CassEB says...

I like this definition of Nimbyism:

'the conviction that development should take place anywhere other than where the nimby lives. NIMBY stands for Not In My Back Yard

Nimbyism is the default mode of politics. It is where we scuttle when representative democracy has failed.'

Everyone who is objecting to the council building in their area can be deemed guilty of this. What we are doing is fighting our corner because no one else will if we don't. It has nothing to do with the types or number of houses, we dont want any that is going to rob us of the little green space Darlington has to offer. Yes we are doing it for ourselves and our families. If just one of the areas can win we can look to help others, like using an oxygen mask on a plane you have to save yourself first to be of use to those in this with you.
I like this definition of Nimbyism: 'the conviction that development should take place anywhere other than where the nimby lives. NIMBY stands for Not In My Back Yard Nimbyism is the default mode of politics. It is where we scuttle when representative democracy has failed.' Everyone who is objecting to the council building in their area can be deemed guilty of this. What we are doing is fighting our corner because no one else will if we don't. It has nothing to do with the types or number of houses, we dont want any that is going to rob us of the little green space Darlington has to offer. Yes we are doing it for ourselves and our families. If just one of the areas can win we can look to help others, like using an oxygen mask on a plane you have to save yourself first to be of use to those in this with you. CassEB
  • Score: 8

10:31am Sat 21 Jun 14

jandarlo says...

CassEB wrote:
I like this definition of Nimbyism:

'the conviction that development should take place anywhere other than where the nimby lives. NIMBY stands for Not In My Back Yard

Nimbyism is the default mode of politics. It is where we scuttle when representative democracy has failed.'

Everyone who is objecting to the council building in their area can be deemed guilty of this. What we are doing is fighting our corner because no one else will if we don't. It has nothing to do with the types or number of houses, we dont want any that is going to rob us of the little green space Darlington has to offer. Yes we are doing it for ourselves and our families. If just one of the areas can win we can look to help others, like using an oxygen mask on a plane you have to save yourself first to be of use to those in this with you.
I applaud people like yourself cass, you are obviously campaigning for the right reasons... no one in their right mind wants darlington to be a concrete jungle! surely there must be other options? for example all the houses available to let by private landlords? couldn't the council strike a deal to make these houses more affordable? then everyone is a winner, the landlords whose property is no longer empty, the tenants and of course the green spaces which would then be left alone for communities to enjoy...anyway as I said previously good luck to all you campaigners who are doing this for the RIGHT reasons!
[quote][p][bold]CassEB[/bold] wrote: I like this definition of Nimbyism: 'the conviction that development should take place anywhere other than where the nimby lives. NIMBY stands for Not In My Back Yard Nimbyism is the default mode of politics. It is where we scuttle when representative democracy has failed.' Everyone who is objecting to the council building in their area can be deemed guilty of this. What we are doing is fighting our corner because no one else will if we don't. It has nothing to do with the types or number of houses, we dont want any that is going to rob us of the little green space Darlington has to offer. Yes we are doing it for ourselves and our families. If just one of the areas can win we can look to help others, like using an oxygen mask on a plane you have to save yourself first to be of use to those in this with you.[/p][/quote]I applaud people like yourself cass, you are obviously campaigning for the right reasons... no one in their right mind wants darlington to be a concrete jungle! surely there must be other options? for example all the houses available to let by private landlords? couldn't the council strike a deal to make these houses more affordable? then everyone is a winner, the landlords whose property is no longer empty, the tenants and of course the green spaces which would then be left alone for communities to enjoy...anyway as I said previously good luck to all you campaigners who are doing this for the RIGHT reasons! jandarlo
  • Score: 6

6:28pm Sat 21 Jun 14

theWorkerScum says...

I'd say people have a right to be concerned about green space disappearing, Hazel Neasham. The council can do what they want and it is complete corruption, but a small time person with a brownfield site that has had buildings on it can't.
I'd say people have a right to be concerned about green space disappearing, Hazel Neasham. The council can do what they want and it is complete corruption, but a small time person with a brownfield site that has had buildings on it can't. theWorkerScum
  • Score: 2

7:46pm Sat 21 Jun 14

Mr Dixon says...

Very disappointed with the councils condescending, arrogant attitude they showed to the residents at the consultation meeting.
Hazel Neasham talked to me with total discontent,
Councillor Baldwin revealed he wasn't going to talk if i was there to argue against loss of green field.
Its a sad day when money comes before nature/green fields when we have acres of cleared brown sites ripe for developement
Very disappointed with the councils condescending, arrogant attitude they showed to the residents at the consultation meeting. Hazel Neasham talked to me with total discontent, Councillor Baldwin revealed he wasn't going to talk if i was there to argue against loss of green field. Its a sad day when money comes before nature/green fields when we have acres of cleared brown sites ripe for developement Mr Dixon
  • Score: 8

4:52pm Sun 22 Jun 14

mikyman says...

Sorry Jandarlo, but this council wouldn't be interested in your idea,although it makes sense.
Why?
A) the council owns the land,it was zoned for a school once,as our councillors keep telling us.
B) the Govt is giving councils a hand out for each new 'social' housing they build.
C) darlo council arn't concerned about 'social' housing only the money they get.
D) As soon as these houses are built they will be handed over to a housing association and Darlo council will pocket the money.
E) this money will help clear the overspend from other useless projects we have been saddled with.this.
Just ask your local councillor to confirm/deny this.
Sorry Jandarlo, but this council wouldn't be interested in your idea,although it makes sense. Why? A) the council owns the land,it was zoned for a school once,as our councillors keep telling us. B) the Govt is giving councils a hand out for each new 'social' housing they build. C) darlo council arn't concerned about 'social' housing only the money they get. D) As soon as these houses are built they will be handed over to a housing association and Darlo council will pocket the money. E) this money will help clear the overspend from other useless projects we have been saddled with.this. Just ask your local councillor to confirm/deny this. mikyman
  • Score: 8

5:55pm Sun 22 Jun 14

jandarlo says...

mikyman wrote:
Sorry Jandarlo, but this council wouldn't be interested in your idea,although it makes sense.
Why?
A) the council owns the land,it was zoned for a school once,as our councillors keep telling us.
B) the Govt is giving councils a hand out for each new 'social' housing they build.
C) darlo council arn't concerned about 'social' housing only the money they get.
D) As soon as these houses are built they will be handed over to a housing association and Darlo council will pocket the money.
E) this money will help clear the overspend from other useless projects we have been saddled with.this.
Just ask your local councillor to confirm/deny this.
obviously the idea of using available housing to aid the housing shortage is too simplistic for this and every council mikyman!
there is a significant affordable housing shortage in this town but heaven forbid utilising the housing already built and ready to move into..
i hasten to add that most people who are allocated social housing are decent people who ask for nothing more than decent housing. they are just as likely to be employed as reliant on benefits. albeit on minimum wage hence the need in this and every town for affordable social housing.
I agree wholeheartedly with you that this is likely to be money motivated but there are plenty of other sites within the town boundary that aren't used and enjoyed as yours is that could surely be considered first?
[quote][p][bold]mikyman[/bold] wrote: Sorry Jandarlo, but this council wouldn't be interested in your idea,although it makes sense. Why? A) the council owns the land,it was zoned for a school once,as our councillors keep telling us. B) the Govt is giving councils a hand out for each new 'social' housing they build. C) darlo council arn't concerned about 'social' housing only the money they get. D) As soon as these houses are built they will be handed over to a housing association and Darlo council will pocket the money. E) this money will help clear the overspend from other useless projects we have been saddled with.this. Just ask your local councillor to confirm/deny this.[/p][/quote]obviously the idea of using available housing to aid the housing shortage is too simplistic for this and every council mikyman! there is a significant affordable housing shortage in this town but heaven forbid utilising the housing already built and ready to move into.. i hasten to add that most people who are allocated social housing are decent people who ask for nothing more than decent housing. they are just as likely to be employed as reliant on benefits. albeit on minimum wage hence the need in this and every town for affordable social housing. I agree wholeheartedly with you that this is likely to be money motivated but there are plenty of other sites within the town boundary that aren't used and enjoyed as yours is that could surely be considered first? jandarlo
  • Score: 3

6:14pm Mon 23 Jun 14

LUSTARD says...

you should run for the position of local councillors yourselves and get rid of the ones been in for donkeys years, far to comfy for them with little organized opposition.
you should run for the position of local councillors yourselves and get rid of the ones been in for donkeys years, far to comfy for them with little organized opposition. LUSTARD
  • Score: 4

7:10pm Mon 23 Jun 14

mixxer says...

From past experience I can confidently state that Hazel Neasham has a rather tenuous grasp of the real world and it is a complete waste of time to try and reason with her. She is more than happy to waste taxpayers money rather than deal with an issue in the correct manner.
From past experience I can confidently state that Hazel Neasham has a rather tenuous grasp of the real world and it is a complete waste of time to try and reason with her. She is more than happy to waste taxpayers money rather than deal with an issue in the correct manner. mixxer
  • Score: 6

10:04pm Mon 23 Jun 14

jotheblondeone says...

jotheblondeone wrote:
I got the impression from speaking to the council representatives yesterday that they do not care at all and they didn't have many answers to anything put to them - they have gone back on everything they said and their only answer was "well it's our job to build new affordable houses". In fact when I brought up that the area is used by children and adults daily - one representative said "well I've just been up there and there was only one man walking his dog" ! Oh well that's ok then you've got the proof you need to demolish a communal area/nature reserve on that finding alone and your actions will be vindicated. Arrogance, ignorance and disregard for anyone's opinions other than her own was shown in abundance.
It comes as no surprise to learn that the lady (cough) I mentioned in the post above - was indeed Hazel Neasham. Pure arrogance in her manner and tone and she was clearly annoyed that us 'little people' from the estate should question her plans at all - and she looked even more Irritated at the fact we did it in an intelligent, dignified and justified manner! She had no answers to give - some consultation!
[quote][p][bold]jotheblondeone[/bold] wrote: I got the impression from speaking to the council representatives yesterday that they do not care at all and they didn't have many answers to anything put to them - they have gone back on everything they said and their only answer was "well it's our job to build new affordable houses". In fact when I brought up that the area is used by children and adults daily - one representative said "well I've just been up there and there was only one man walking his dog" ! Oh well that's ok then you've got the proof you need to demolish a communal area/nature reserve on that finding alone and your actions will be vindicated. Arrogance, ignorance and disregard for anyone's opinions other than her own was shown in abundance.[/p][/quote]It comes as no surprise to learn that the lady (cough) I mentioned in the post above - was indeed Hazel Neasham. Pure arrogance in her manner and tone and she was clearly annoyed that us 'little people' from the estate should question her plans at all - and she looked even more Irritated at the fact we did it in an intelligent, dignified and justified manner! She had no answers to give - some consultation! jotheblondeone
  • Score: 4

10:01am Tue 24 Jun 14

Chocmonster7 says...

This consultation has really shown how much of a mess the Council are in. Departments not speaking to each other and refusing to share information internally let alone pass it on to the residents. We must keep the pressure on to show them that we won't just fade away.
This consultation has really shown how much of a mess the Council are in. Departments not speaking to each other and refusing to share information internally let alone pass it on to the residents. We must keep the pressure on to show them that we won't just fade away. Chocmonster7
  • Score: 4

5:48pm Tue 24 Jun 14

mikyman says...

Jandarlo,thought you might be interested in this comment from Councillor Chris McEwan sent recently to someone who wrote to him with concerns;
'The owners or tenants of any new homes will also pay a levy in addition to the usual council tax to ensure a high standard of grounds maintenance'
So they are going to make people on lower incomes and/or benefits to pay an extra levy!
You just carn't make it up!
Jandarlo,thought you might be interested in this comment from Councillor Chris McEwan sent recently to someone who wrote to him with concerns; 'The owners or tenants of any new homes will also pay a levy in addition to the usual council tax to ensure a high standard of grounds maintenance' So they are going to make people on lower incomes and/or benefits to pay an extra levy! You just carn't make it up! mikyman
  • Score: 6

7:47pm Tue 24 Jun 14

jandarlo says...

mikyman wrote:
Jandarlo,thought you might be interested in this comment from Councillor Chris McEwan sent recently to someone who wrote to him with concerns;
'The owners or tenants of any new homes will also pay a levy in addition to the usual council tax to ensure a high standard of grounds maintenance'
So they are going to make people on lower incomes and/or benefits to pay an extra levy!
You just carn't make it up!
you really cant mikyman and I would query the council on that point alone! because despite popular belief-or media manipulation as I prefer to call it -all people on benefits now pay something towards council tax so why the additional levy? it seems the council doesn't have enough faith in its own tenants to keep their living spaces tidy and well maintained! that in itself is highly insulting to council tenants...or could it be for more money?? hmmm now theres a thinker..
[quote][p][bold]mikyman[/bold] wrote: Jandarlo,thought you might be interested in this comment from Councillor Chris McEwan sent recently to someone who wrote to him with concerns; 'The owners or tenants of any new homes will also pay a levy in addition to the usual council tax to ensure a high standard of grounds maintenance' So they are going to make people on lower incomes and/or benefits to pay an extra levy! You just carn't make it up![/p][/quote]you really cant mikyman and I would query the council on that point alone! because despite popular belief-or media manipulation as I prefer to call it -all people on benefits now pay something towards council tax so why the additional levy? it seems the council doesn't have enough faith in its own tenants to keep their living spaces tidy and well maintained! that in itself is highly insulting to council tenants...or could it be for more money?? hmmm now theres a thinker.. jandarlo
  • Score: 6

9:41pm Tue 24 Jun 14

jotheblondeone says...

It's always about the money.
It's always about the money. jotheblondeone
  • Score: 2

10:59pm Tue 24 Jun 14

DarloXman says...

jandarlo wrote:
mikyman wrote:
Jandarlo,thought you might be interested in this comment from Councillor Chris McEwan sent recently to someone who wrote to him with concerns;
'The owners or tenants of any new homes will also pay a levy in addition to the usual council tax to ensure a high standard of grounds maintenance'
So they are going to make people on lower incomes and/or benefits to pay an extra levy!
You just carn't make it up!
you really cant mikyman and I would query the council on that point alone! because despite popular belief-or media manipulation as I prefer to call it -all people on benefits now pay something towards council tax so why the additional levy? it seems the council doesn't have enough faith in its own tenants to keep their living spaces tidy and well maintained! that in itself is highly insulting to council tenants...or could it be for more money?? hmmm now theres a thinker..
The council will not be adopting any green areas of any future developments - despite still charging all residents council tax and any business rates! So if you want the council to cut the grass around your property (road verges, communal areas etc) then they will charge you an additional levy!

They are abdicating their most basic responsibilities. However they still manage to continue to pay our Chief Executive Ms Ada Burns her obscene £186,000 annual salary - for this pitiful level of performance!

People of Darlington have to wake up and see what this council is doing to the town - the only way of doing this is to vote accordingly at the next election in May 2015!
[quote][p][bold]jandarlo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mikyman[/bold] wrote: Jandarlo,thought you might be interested in this comment from Councillor Chris McEwan sent recently to someone who wrote to him with concerns; 'The owners or tenants of any new homes will also pay a levy in addition to the usual council tax to ensure a high standard of grounds maintenance' So they are going to make people on lower incomes and/or benefits to pay an extra levy! You just carn't make it up![/p][/quote]you really cant mikyman and I would query the council on that point alone! because despite popular belief-or media manipulation as I prefer to call it -all people on benefits now pay something towards council tax so why the additional levy? it seems the council doesn't have enough faith in its own tenants to keep their living spaces tidy and well maintained! that in itself is highly insulting to council tenants...or could it be for more money?? hmmm now theres a thinker..[/p][/quote]The council will not be adopting any green areas of any future developments - despite still charging all residents council tax and any business rates! So if you want the council to cut the grass around your property (road verges, communal areas etc) then they will charge you an additional levy! They are abdicating their most basic responsibilities. However they still manage to continue to pay our Chief Executive Ms Ada Burns her obscene £186,000 annual salary - for this pitiful level of performance! People of Darlington have to wake up and see what this council is doing to the town - the only way of doing this is to vote accordingly at the next election in May 2015! DarloXman
  • Score: 9

8:56am Wed 25 Jun 14

CassEB says...

DarloXman wrote:
jandarlo wrote:
mikyman wrote:
Jandarlo,thought you might be interested in this comment from Councillor Chris McEwan sent recently to someone who wrote to him with concerns;
'The owners or tenants of any new homes will also pay a levy in addition to the usual council tax to ensure a high standard of grounds maintenance'
So they are going to make people on lower incomes and/or benefits to pay an extra levy!
You just carn't make it up!
you really cant mikyman and I would query the council on that point alone! because despite popular belief-or media manipulation as I prefer to call it -all people on benefits now pay something towards council tax so why the additional levy? it seems the council doesn't have enough faith in its own tenants to keep their living spaces tidy and well maintained! that in itself is highly insulting to council tenants...or could it be for more money?? hmmm now theres a thinker..
The council will not be adopting any green areas of any future developments - despite still charging all residents council tax and any business rates! So if you want the council to cut the grass around your property (road verges, communal areas etc) then they will charge you an additional levy!

They are abdicating their most basic responsibilities. However they still manage to continue to pay our Chief Executive Ms Ada Burns her obscene £186,000 annual salary - for this pitiful level of performance!

People of Darlington have to wake up and see what this council is doing to the town - the only way of doing this is to vote accordingly at the next election in May 2015!
You are so right. This is the only way Darlington is going to improve, vote against this council
[quote][p][bold]DarloXman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jandarlo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mikyman[/bold] wrote: Jandarlo,thought you might be interested in this comment from Councillor Chris McEwan sent recently to someone who wrote to him with concerns; 'The owners or tenants of any new homes will also pay a levy in addition to the usual council tax to ensure a high standard of grounds maintenance' So they are going to make people on lower incomes and/or benefits to pay an extra levy! You just carn't make it up![/p][/quote]you really cant mikyman and I would query the council on that point alone! because despite popular belief-or media manipulation as I prefer to call it -all people on benefits now pay something towards council tax so why the additional levy? it seems the council doesn't have enough faith in its own tenants to keep their living spaces tidy and well maintained! that in itself is highly insulting to council tenants...or could it be for more money?? hmmm now theres a thinker..[/p][/quote]The council will not be adopting any green areas of any future developments - despite still charging all residents council tax and any business rates! So if you want the council to cut the grass around your property (road verges, communal areas etc) then they will charge you an additional levy! They are abdicating their most basic responsibilities. However they still manage to continue to pay our Chief Executive Ms Ada Burns her obscene £186,000 annual salary - for this pitiful level of performance! People of Darlington have to wake up and see what this council is doing to the town - the only way of doing this is to vote accordingly at the next election in May 2015![/p][/quote]You are so right. This is the only way Darlington is going to improve, vote against this council CassEB
  • Score: 5

8:59am Wed 25 Jun 14

bambara says...

Yet again the right wing mouthpieces attempting to blame the council for cuts that have been imposed on them from central government.

The Tory government has imposed a cut on Darlington Council of 25% of the entire council budget already, and plans to cut that by a further 25% by 2020. (Official figures - no estimations, guess work or allegations. Figures are from the ONS and YouGov)

So a 25% cut to the budget, and just as much to cover with that money, Education, Social care, Police, Fire, etc...

It is the Tory Central Government that is "abdicating their most basic responsibilities" They are imposing huge cuts on the most deprived areas, while protecting the budgets of the wealthiest areas.

As to Ms Burns salary (as has been highlighted previously) £186k is a lot of money, but it is just on a par with all the other Chief Executives of councils across the country. (Check the list of people earning over £100k compiled by the taxpayers alliance.) It is a lot of money but it is no more excessive than other local council CEO's salaries for similar sized councils. A few picked out below from the 2010-11 list (to exclude exceptional payments which are added in for 2011-12) - Note these are not cherry picked numbers just similar roles from the most Tory areas as I scrolled down the top few pages.
Kent - £198k
East Sussex - £183k
Wiltshire £225k
Kensington & Chelsea - £268k
Cheshire West and Chester - £232k
Buckinghamshire - £259k
Essex - £271k
Hertfordshire £250k
You could equally look at Dorset, or Dudley, or Dumfries, or Durham.

The people of Darlington need to look beyond the council and see what the Tory government is doing to the country, and vote accordingly in May 2015!

Link provided for anyone who wants to check the figures.
(http://www.taxpayer
salliance.com/home/2
013/05/revealed-2525
-council-staff-earni
ng-100000.html)
Yet again the right wing mouthpieces attempting to blame the council for cuts that have been imposed on them from central government. The Tory government has imposed a cut on Darlington Council of 25% of the entire council budget already, and plans to cut that by a further 25% by 2020. (Official figures - no estimations, guess work or allegations. Figures are from the ONS and YouGov) So a 25% cut to the budget, and just as much to cover with that money, Education, Social care, Police, Fire, etc... It is the Tory Central Government that is "abdicating their most basic responsibilities" They are imposing huge cuts on the most deprived areas, while protecting the budgets of the wealthiest areas. As to Ms Burns salary (as has been highlighted previously) £186k is a lot of money, but it is just on a par with all the other Chief Executives of councils across the country. (Check the list of people earning over £100k compiled by the taxpayers alliance.) It is a lot of money but it is no more excessive than other local council CEO's salaries for similar sized councils. A few picked out below from the 2010-11 list (to exclude exceptional payments which are added in for 2011-12) - Note these are not cherry picked numbers just similar roles from the most Tory areas as I scrolled down the top few pages. Kent - £198k East Sussex - £183k Wiltshire £225k Kensington & Chelsea - £268k Cheshire West and Chester - £232k Buckinghamshire - £259k Essex - £271k Hertfordshire £250k You could equally look at Dorset, or Dudley, or Dumfries, or Durham. The people of Darlington need to look beyond the council and see what the Tory government is doing to the country, and vote accordingly in May 2015! Link provided for anyone who wants to check the figures. (http://www.taxpayer salliance.com/home/2 013/05/revealed-2525 -council-staff-earni ng-100000.html) bambara
  • Score: -7

9:16am Wed 25 Jun 14

Homshaw1 says...

Go to Redcar and see how much cleaner the streets are, how tidy the parks are, how there are toilets even in small picnic sites. Why are our parking charges higher than neighbouring councils? Why do we pay to get rid of old toilets when Durham and North Yorkshire don't?

Darlington Council is C***.
Go to Redcar and see how much cleaner the streets are, how tidy the parks are, how there are toilets even in small picnic sites. Why are our parking charges higher than neighbouring councils? Why do we pay to get rid of old toilets when Durham and North Yorkshire don't? Darlington Council is C***. Homshaw1
  • Score: 7

9:16am Wed 25 Jun 14

mikyman says...

Bambara,that's an 'interesting' rant. Please explain in simple terms for thickos like me what its got to do with building houses on well used and loved green spaces. Even with a reduced budget it dosn't give the council that you obviously worship, the right to cement over our heritage,wouldn't you agree?
Bambara,that's an 'interesting' rant. Please explain in simple terms for thickos like me what its got to do with building houses on well used and loved green spaces. Even with a reduced budget it dosn't give the council that you obviously worship, the right to cement over our heritage,wouldn't you agree? mikyman
  • Score: 6

12:08pm Wed 25 Jun 14

CassEB says...

This isn't about Tory or Labour, it's about poor judgement, bad management and not representing their constituents as they should. They are not fit for purpose whatever their salary or party politics.
This isn't about Tory or Labour, it's about poor judgement, bad management and not representing their constituents as they should. They are not fit for purpose whatever their salary or party politics. CassEB
  • Score: 5

1:25pm Wed 25 Jun 14

DarloXman says...

bambara wrote:
Yet again the right wing mouthpieces attempting to blame the council for cuts that have been imposed on them from central government.

The Tory government has imposed a cut on Darlington Council of 25% of the entire council budget already, and plans to cut that by a further 25% by 2020. (Official figures - no estimations, guess work or allegations. Figures are from the ONS and YouGov)

So a 25% cut to the budget, and just as much to cover with that money, Education, Social care, Police, Fire, etc...

It is the Tory Central Government that is "abdicating their most basic responsibilities" They are imposing huge cuts on the most deprived areas, while protecting the budgets of the wealthiest areas.

As to Ms Burns salary (as has been highlighted previously) £186k is a lot of money, but it is just on a par with all the other Chief Executives of councils across the country. (Check the list of people earning over £100k compiled by the taxpayers alliance.) It is a lot of money but it is no more excessive than other local council CEO's salaries for similar sized councils. A few picked out below from the 2010-11 list (to exclude exceptional payments which are added in for 2011-12) - Note these are not cherry picked numbers just similar roles from the most Tory areas as I scrolled down the top few pages.
Kent - £198k
East Sussex - £183k
Wiltshire £225k
Kensington & Chelsea - £268k
Cheshire West and Chester - £232k
Buckinghamshire - £259k
Essex - £271k
Hertfordshire £250k
You could equally look at Dorset, or Dudley, or Dumfries, or Durham.

The people of Darlington need to look beyond the council and see what the Tory government is doing to the country, and vote accordingly in May 2015!

Link provided for anyone who wants to check the figures.
(http://www.taxpayer

salliance.com/home/2

013/05/revealed-2525

-council-staff-earni

ng-100000.html)
bambara - I doubt anyone reads your drivel - I certainly don't!.

I'm not a right wing mouthpiece - but I am certainly a Darlington Council critic. I'm well aware that they have had to make changes - but as a Darlington resident for 24 years who like everyone else has had above inflation council tax rises over that time, what I am critical is of the choices they are making! They are abdicating their basic responsibilities, reducing the salaries of their lowest paid employees in Streetscene yet still have a bloated senior management team on excessive, obscene salaries, led by an incompetent Ms Ada Burns.

They are deliberately trying to cause inconvenience to the majority of their "customers" - and then trying to blame the government for their own mismanagement! They are playing politics with peoples lives - shame on them!

I repeat I'm not a right wing mouthpiece - I just comment on what I see! I do see you as a Left Wing Apologist - which is a very difficult job based upon the recent dire incompetent Labour party performance you have to work with - both at a national and local level!
[quote][p][bold]bambara[/bold] wrote: Yet again the right wing mouthpieces attempting to blame the council for cuts that have been imposed on them from central government. The Tory government has imposed a cut on Darlington Council of 25% of the entire council budget already, and plans to cut that by a further 25% by 2020. (Official figures - no estimations, guess work or allegations. Figures are from the ONS and YouGov) So a 25% cut to the budget, and just as much to cover with that money, Education, Social care, Police, Fire, etc... It is the Tory Central Government that is "abdicating their most basic responsibilities" They are imposing huge cuts on the most deprived areas, while protecting the budgets of the wealthiest areas. As to Ms Burns salary (as has been highlighted previously) £186k is a lot of money, but it is just on a par with all the other Chief Executives of councils across the country. (Check the list of people earning over £100k compiled by the taxpayers alliance.) It is a lot of money but it is no more excessive than other local council CEO's salaries for similar sized councils. A few picked out below from the 2010-11 list (to exclude exceptional payments which are added in for 2011-12) - Note these are not cherry picked numbers just similar roles from the most Tory areas as I scrolled down the top few pages. Kent - £198k East Sussex - £183k Wiltshire £225k Kensington & Chelsea - £268k Cheshire West and Chester - £232k Buckinghamshire - £259k Essex - £271k Hertfordshire £250k You could equally look at Dorset, or Dudley, or Dumfries, or Durham. The people of Darlington need to look beyond the council and see what the Tory government is doing to the country, and vote accordingly in May 2015! Link provided for anyone who wants to check the figures. (http://www.taxpayer salliance.com/home/2 013/05/revealed-2525 -council-staff-earni ng-100000.html)[/p][/quote]bambara - I doubt anyone reads your drivel - I certainly don't!. I'm not a right wing mouthpiece - but I am certainly a Darlington Council critic. I'm well aware that they have had to make changes - but as a Darlington resident for 24 years who like everyone else has had above inflation council tax rises over that time, what I am critical is of the choices they are making! They are abdicating their basic responsibilities, reducing the salaries of their lowest paid employees in Streetscene yet still have a bloated senior management team on excessive, obscene salaries, led by an incompetent Ms Ada Burns. They are deliberately trying to cause inconvenience to the majority of their "customers" - and then trying to blame the government for their own mismanagement! They are playing politics with peoples lives - shame on them! I repeat I'm not a right wing mouthpiece - I just comment on what I see! I do see you as a Left Wing Apologist - which is a very difficult job based upon the recent dire incompetent Labour party performance you have to work with - both at a national and local level! DarloXman
  • Score: 4

1:28pm Wed 25 Jun 14

DarloXman says...

Homshaw1 wrote:
Go to Redcar and see how much cleaner the streets are, how tidy the parks are, how there are toilets even in small picnic sites. Why are our parking charges higher than neighbouring councils? Why do we pay to get rid of old toilets when Durham and North Yorkshire don't?

Darlington Council is C***.
I drove round Redcar last night and thought the same. I was also in Sunderland at the weekend and likewise the town was in good order - grassed areas cut, pavements/gutters had been sprayed with weedkiller and there was signs of pot holes having been filled!

Yarm recently voted to leave Stockton Council to rejoin North Yorkshire! I would happily vote to be governed by Stockton Council rather than Darlington - nobody could be any worse than the incompetent bunch we have!
[quote][p][bold]Homshaw1[/bold] wrote: Go to Redcar and see how much cleaner the streets are, how tidy the parks are, how there are toilets even in small picnic sites. Why are our parking charges higher than neighbouring councils? Why do we pay to get rid of old toilets when Durham and North Yorkshire don't? Darlington Council is C***.[/p][/quote]I drove round Redcar last night and thought the same. I was also in Sunderland at the weekend and likewise the town was in good order - grassed areas cut, pavements/gutters had been sprayed with weedkiller and there was signs of pot holes having been filled! Yarm recently voted to leave Stockton Council to rejoin North Yorkshire! I would happily vote to be governed by Stockton Council rather than Darlington - nobody could be any worse than the incompetent bunch we have! DarloXman
  • Score: 5

3:28pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Homshaw1 says...

I take my girlfriend and her daughter to Redcar most Saturdays. We go to Zetland Park, We have a game of tennis and play basketball. There is always council workers working hard picking rubbish and cutting grass. There is a toilet in Redcar Centre, one in Zetland Park, one in each of the two picnic sites going towards Marske and one at Saltburn. There may be more.

A little picnic and then on to the beach.

If they can do it so can Darlington
I take my girlfriend and her daughter to Redcar most Saturdays. We go to Zetland Park, We have a game of tennis and play basketball. There is always council workers working hard picking rubbish and cutting grass. There is a toilet in Redcar Centre, one in Zetland Park, one in each of the two picnic sites going towards Marske and one at Saltburn. There may be more. A little picnic and then on to the beach. If they can do it so can Darlington Homshaw1
  • Score: 3

4:13pm Wed 25 Jun 14

bambara says...

mikyman wrote:
Bambara,that's an 'interesting' rant. Please explain in simple terms for thickos like me what its got to do with building houses on well used and loved green spaces. Even with a reduced budget it dosn't give the council that you obviously worship, the right to cement over our heritage,wouldn't you agree?
No "rant" milkyman, just a response to the right wing "rants".

The unfortunate fact is that Darlington have some unenviable decisions to make, they have been deliberately starved of funding by central government and they have no choice but to cut core services as a result of that.
They get some money for every new property built, and additional council tax for it subsequent to that point. They have limited funds, and the only way they can realistically increase them is to increase the population within the area they serve.
From everything I am reading on here this is maybe not the best place to build, but they need to do something to mitigate the disaster which this Tory government is imposing on them. So what do you propose they do?

We have already determined that the Darlington CEO is paid on a rough par with most other local government CEO's (somewhat less than most of the Tory ones I picked out) and cutting the entire admin budget, all the execs, and the finance department would only take out 4% of the total budget, so given that a cut of 25% has been imposed over the 5 years of Tory rule, where do you want the cuts to fall?

A map of the cuts is given below. When compared vs the per capita spending it is interesting to note that while spending on the south coast, South West and Isle of Wight is on a par with Durham and Darlington, the cuts are between 4 and 8 times as high for this region.

http://www.theguardi
an.com/news/datablog
/interactive/2012/no
v/14/local-authority
-cuts-map

The North East region faces an 18% cut,
London and the North West a 17% cut,
Yorkshire and Humber, and the West Midlands a 16% cut each,
The East Midlands a 12% cut.
The South West 9%
The East of England 8%
The South East region faces a 6.6 per cent cut.

That being region wide, within regions the disparity is marked. The poorest areas take the brunt of the cuts.

Even in a time of economic austerity it does not give the government you obviously worship the right to target cuts in a partisan manner, to abandon the poor, the weak, the elderly and the sick, and to protect the wealthy from the impacts of the cuts.
[quote][p][bold]mikyman[/bold] wrote: Bambara,that's an 'interesting' rant. Please explain in simple terms for thickos like me what its got to do with building houses on well used and loved green spaces. Even with a reduced budget it dosn't give the council that you obviously worship, the right to cement over our heritage,wouldn't you agree?[/p][/quote]No "rant" milkyman, just a response to the right wing "rants". The unfortunate fact is that Darlington have some unenviable decisions to make, they have been deliberately starved of funding by central government and they have no choice but to cut core services as a result of that. They get some money for every new property built, and additional council tax for it subsequent to that point. They have limited funds, and the only way they can realistically increase them is to increase the population within the area they serve. From everything I am reading on here this is maybe not the best place to build, but they need to do something to mitigate the disaster which this Tory government is imposing on them. So what do you propose they do? We have already determined that the Darlington CEO is paid on a rough par with most other local government CEO's (somewhat less than most of the Tory ones I picked out) and cutting the entire admin budget, all the execs, and the finance department would only take out 4% of the total budget, so given that a cut of 25% has been imposed over the 5 years of Tory rule, where do you want the cuts to fall? A map of the cuts is given below. When compared vs the per capita spending it is interesting to note that while spending on the south coast, South West and Isle of Wight is on a par with Durham and Darlington, the cuts are between 4 and 8 times as high for this region. http://www.theguardi an.com/news/datablog /interactive/2012/no v/14/local-authority -cuts-map The North East region faces an 18% cut, London and the North West a 17% cut, Yorkshire and Humber, and the West Midlands a 16% cut each, The East Midlands a 12% cut. The South West 9% The East of England 8% The South East region faces a 6.6 per cent cut. That being region wide, within regions the disparity is marked. The poorest areas take the brunt of the cuts. Even in a time of economic austerity it does not give the government you obviously worship the right to target cuts in a partisan manner, to abandon the poor, the weak, the elderly and the sick, and to protect the wealthy from the impacts of the cuts. bambara
  • Score: -3

4:32pm Wed 25 Jun 14

bambara says...

Homshaw1 wrote:
I take my girlfriend and her daughter to Redcar most Saturdays. We go to Zetland Park, We have a game of tennis and play basketball. There is always council workers working hard picking rubbish and cutting grass. There is a toilet in Redcar Centre, one in Zetland Park, one in each of the two picnic sites going towards Marske and one at Saltburn. There may be more.

A little picnic and then on to the beach.

If they can do it so can Darlington
The same council that has so far faced a 30% cut, and has had to make 750 people redundant up to this year and then a further 150 more this year (Jan 2014) so far.
The same council that has had to halve the frequency of street cleaning and litter collection, that have had to close Upsall Hall which had been used for the disabled and those with learning disabilities.

While it is of course impossible to prove what you do or do not experience in Zetland Park homshaw, all I can suggest is that perhaps Redcar are targeting these for special service in an attempt to maintain the tourism income. Of course if the Tories do get in again, and follow through on the planned cuts, then a further cut equal to that already experienced will see Redcar have to provide services on only 40% of the income they had before the Tories took power. (Paying for care homes, looking after the sick and disabled, education...)
For most local councils 40% of the budget would not even cover the costs of the education budget. - Maybe the Tory plan is that kids from poor areas should leave school at 11 and go into service again, just like in the good old days?
[quote][p][bold]Homshaw1[/bold] wrote: I take my girlfriend and her daughter to Redcar most Saturdays. We go to Zetland Park, We have a game of tennis and play basketball. There is always council workers working hard picking rubbish and cutting grass. There is a toilet in Redcar Centre, one in Zetland Park, one in each of the two picnic sites going towards Marske and one at Saltburn. There may be more. A little picnic and then on to the beach. If they can do it so can Darlington[/p][/quote]The same council that has so far faced a 30% cut, and has had to make 750 people redundant up to this year and then a further 150 more this year (Jan 2014) so far. The same council that has had to halve the frequency of street cleaning and litter collection, that have had to close Upsall Hall which had been used for the disabled and those with learning disabilities. While it is of course impossible to prove what you do or do not experience in Zetland Park homshaw, all I can suggest is that perhaps Redcar are targeting these for special service in an attempt to maintain the tourism income. Of course if the Tories do get in again, and follow through on the planned cuts, then a further cut equal to that already experienced will see Redcar have to provide services on only 40% of the income they had before the Tories took power. (Paying for care homes, looking after the sick and disabled, education...) For most local councils 40% of the budget would not even cover the costs of the education budget. - Maybe the Tory plan is that kids from poor areas should leave school at 11 and go into service again, just like in the good old days? bambara
  • Score: -5

4:55pm Wed 25 Jun 14

CassEB says...

Bambara, your Party and your Council must be very proud of you but no one here appears to agree. This is about them not listening to the people of Darlington. This is about the Green Spaces we are trying to save!
Bambara, your Party and your Council must be very proud of you but no one here appears to agree. This is about them not listening to the people of Darlington. This is about the Green Spaces we are trying to save! CassEB
  • Score: 6

4:59pm Wed 25 Jun 14

mikyman says...

Sorry Bambara but its rather presumptuous of you to assume I worship any particular political party,especially the Torys.
Please explain!
After all there are a lot of traditional labour supporters in Darlo who are saddened at the way the town is run .
In answer to your question: where should they build?,there are plenty of 'brownfield' sites around this town that those nasty TORYS will give them money to develop
,But they want the easy option of taking away open space used for generations.
I want to save somewhere for my grandson to play in safety rather than have all of Darlo cemented over for a quick buck.
We have even identified a site locally,under the noses of the planners who didnt even know it existed!
So you are in favour of building on every open space in Darlo just to balance the books and provide funds for inflated salaries.
Comments on here mention other local councils,whom I assume,must be just as hard done by the hated Torys but seem to not have the problems that exist in this council.
Sorry Bambara but its rather presumptuous of you to assume I worship any particular political party,especially the Torys. Please explain! After all there are a lot of traditional labour supporters in Darlo who are saddened at the way the town is run . In answer to your question: where should they build?,there are plenty of 'brownfield' sites around this town that those nasty TORYS will give them money to develop ,But they want the easy option of taking away open space used for generations. I want to save somewhere for my grandson to play in safety rather than have all of Darlo cemented over for a quick buck. We have even identified a site locally,under the noses of the planners who didnt even know it existed! So you are in favour of building on every open space in Darlo just to balance the books and provide funds for inflated salaries. Comments on here mention other local councils,whom I assume,must be just as hard done by the hated Torys but seem to not have the problems that exist in this council. mikyman
  • Score: 5

5:48pm Wed 25 Jun 14

jotheblondeone says...

Yes, this is not a political argument at all - it is a moral one. I defy any one of you council members to come down to the area near cocker beck and stand and look at where your proposed buildings will be - and truthfully not think it is wrong. Beautiful, landscaped green space, a playing area, a nature reserve and a well established, well used community space that needs protecting from the bad decisions that are being made by our current council. Like I have stated before there is no point attracting more people to the town, young families .. if there is no green space for their children to use ... You really don't get it do you!
Yes, this is not a political argument at all - it is a moral one. I defy any one of you council members to come down to the area near cocker beck and stand and look at where your proposed buildings will be - and truthfully not think it is wrong. Beautiful, landscaped green space, a playing area, a nature reserve and a well established, well used community space that needs protecting from the bad decisions that are being made by our current council. Like I have stated before there is no point attracting more people to the town, young families .. if there is no green space for their children to use ... You really don't get it do you! jotheblondeone
  • Score: 3

6:07pm Wed 25 Jun 14

DarloXman says...

bambara - I actually read one of your posts (note to self - do not do it again as it just annoys my how facts are distorted to try and prove a ridiculous argument)..

Anyway, you say "similar roles from the most Tory areas as I scrolled down the top few pages.
Kent - £198k
East Sussex - £183k
Wiltshire £225k
Kensington & Chelsea - £268k
Cheshire West and Chester - £232k
Buckinghamshire - £259k
Essex - £271k
Hertfordshire £250k"

Two wrongs certainly don't make a right! Tthat said, these are mostly large counties - Darlington is a small town with a population of just 100,000!

Please tell me why a Labour run council for as long as I can remember believe Ms Ada Burns is worthy of a £186,000 salary? This is your Labour Party who are meant to look after the poor - yet what are they doing - they're taking £2,000-3,000 from a group of about 50 of the lowest paid employees of the council yet have not reduced the pay of a single member of the senior management? What would you say if this was a Tory run council? I'll tell what I would say - that it was disgusting! It is disgusting - whether this is being done by a Labour or a Tory council - but it has been done by those who you worship!

All decisions by this council are to look after themselves. The housing plans in this article are proposed to generate cash to be spent on themselves - not to improve Darlington for the betterment of the residents - either existing or new!
bambara - I actually read one of your posts (note to self - do not do it again as it just annoys my how facts are distorted to try and prove a ridiculous argument).. Anyway, you say "similar roles from the most Tory areas as I scrolled down the top few pages. Kent - £198k East Sussex - £183k Wiltshire £225k Kensington & Chelsea - £268k Cheshire West and Chester - £232k Buckinghamshire - £259k Essex - £271k Hertfordshire £250k" Two wrongs certainly don't make a right! Tthat said, these are mostly large counties - Darlington is a small town with a population of just 100,000! Please tell me why a Labour run council for as long as I can remember believe Ms Ada Burns is worthy of a £186,000 salary? This is your Labour Party who are meant to look after the poor - yet what are they doing - they're taking £2,000-3,000 from a group of about 50 of the lowest paid employees of the council yet have not reduced the pay of a single member of the senior management? What would you say if this was a Tory run council? I'll tell what I would say - that it was disgusting! It is disgusting - whether this is being done by a Labour or a Tory council - but it has been done by those who you worship! All decisions by this council are to look after themselves. The housing plans in this article are proposed to generate cash to be spent on themselves - not to improve Darlington for the betterment of the residents - either existing or new! DarloXman
  • Score: 6

5:01pm Tue 1 Jul 14

Chocmonster7 says...

If you want to think what the Council Leader Bill Dixon thinks then just watch this video done by Buzz TV!

http://vimeo.com/996
26107
If you want to think what the Council Leader Bill Dixon thinks then just watch this video done by Buzz TV! http://vimeo.com/996 26107 Chocmonster7
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree