Pedestrians to benefit from £345,000 of funding to Kendal's Highgate (From The Westmorland Gazette)
When news happens, text KENEWS and your photos and videos to 80360. Or contact us by email or phone.
Pedestrians to benefit from £345,000 of funding to Kendal's Highgate
2:20pm Tuesday 24th January 2012 in News
PEDESTRIANS are set to benefit from £345,000 of improvements to Kendal’s Highgate shopping street.
Cumbria County Councillors this week agreed details of the scheme to be funded with £185,000 from the authority’s transport capital programme together with £160,000 from South Lakeland District Council. Works will take place along the stretch between Lowther Street and Gillinggate. The improvements will see the current paving flags replaced with ‘tegula’ paving blocks. The old paving will be removed and restored for future use elsewhere. Better street lighting and more crossing points will help make pedestrians safer. Clutter will also be removed from the pavements, such as signs which could be better placed elsewhere.
Many local people had their say on proposals for the improvements to Highgate at consultation event held at Kendal library late last year. Coun Geoff Cook, Chair of South Lakeland Local Committee and County Councillor for Kendal Highgate, said: “Highgate is an important part of Kendal’s economy as it is home to so many shops and businesses. It is obviously very well used by pedestrians so it’s important that the pavement is in good condition and clear of clutter. “These works will have a big impact on the look and condition of Highgate and it is excellent news that this has got the backing not only of councillors on the county council’s South Lakeland Local Committee but also from South Lakeland District Council.”
SLDC Leader Coun Brendan Jameson said: “During difficult economic times it is essential that we support and help our retail areas. The funding being made available and the works planned will help increase footfall to the area and increase its attractiveness to potential businesses and customers.”
Alistair Whittaker, manager of Highgate Carpets, said he had worked on the road for approximately 25 years and in that time had only seen it 'deteriorate'.
"I have seen 25 years of decline," said Mr Whittaker. "Now we have this chance of new improvements I want to make sure we make it a great scheme and not waste this opportunity."
Coun Clare Feeney-Johnson (Kendal Nether) said: "We must not overlook the economic benefit this scheme will bring. It's an exciting project for the whole town."
Comments(31)
gadgetgadget
says...
3:31pm Tue 24 Jan 12
TomHarvey
says...
3:37pm Tue 24 Jan 12
In fairness this is matched funding that will certainly improve Highgate and give the businesses there a welcome boost and maybe stimulate businesses to return, but at least be clear and accept there is a decent chance of not recovering the money.
Following the above and in reply to another post
Unfortunately, the S106 money can only be spent in a limited number of ways and was part of the grant of planning permission (this in fairness is common practice to S106 agreements everywhere), otherwise SLDC may have got nothing. This is probably the best use of it. Go here for more comprehensive details on 'the rules' in the Cabinet report! http://goo.gl/aY0l8
You may argue that in due course we get nothing anyway looking at K-village performance, but as you say, another story and a risk the Cabinet thought was worth taking.....
gadgetgadget
says...
3:40pm Tue 24 Jan 12
Sorry but I can't agree this is a risk worth taking - much more important matters locally at present.
What was wrong with keeping hold of the 100k and spending 60k on other projects ? Oh sorry that requires an element of common sense !!
gadgetgadget
says...
3:50pm Tue 24 Jan 12
100k "lent" to K Village
160k for this project
60k (minimum) on Olympics
that's 320k from SLDC's budget. No real guarantee when the 100k "loan" will be recovered.
That doesn't even start to take into account other things like the amount of money spent on public consultations for the likes of New Road, LDF etc etc.
Still think it's worth the risk everyone - Tom's given his view - what does everyone else think ? IMO not a risk worth taking - no real tangible immediate or necessarily long-term benefit.
TomHarvey
says...
4:09pm Tue 24 Jan 12
But since the decision HAS been made to spend it, I think its the best use of the money relative to other options (see the Cabinet report) and may deliver some benefit. Hope that clarifies things.
gadgetgadget
says...
4:10pm Tue 24 Jan 12
The simple fact that you think it's best use of the money says you go along with the risk ! If not then shouldn't the decision be recalled ?
gadgetgadget
says...
4:14pm Tue 24 Jan 12
Don't care whether the decision HAS been made - doesn't make it the RIGHT decision.
TomHarvey
says...
6:00pm Wed 25 Jan 12
gadgetgadget wrote:If you read the report then you will see where the £60k comes from and realise that it is proper use of it in this circumstance - answers on a postcard when you find out.
What about the 60k that isn't part of the loan money Tom - no comment I note on that.
The simple fact that you think it's best use of the money says you go along with the risk ! If not then shouldn't the decision be recalled ?
If you feel its a poor use of the money then why not let the Cabinet members who made the decision know this. As I have said, if the S106 money is guaranteed its a good investment (£60k from SLDC that brings in another £285k, not a bad return), as it stands its a risk that I don't agree with but has been taken.
I was trying to flesh out the whole article from the standard SLDC press release as it was clear you didn't understand where the money came from and how it could be used.
There are numerous posts asking why Councillors don't comment more. Maybe the above is a good example of this?
gadgetgadget
says...
6:32pm Wed 25 Jan 12
SLDC's remit isn't to speculate on money at all - it should be recovering the "loan" money first prior to spending more on the anticipation it's going to get it back. Or perhaps you prefer to adhere to the "borrow more to keep spending form" of economy.
As for reading reports - why don't SLDC ensure that the facts are released to the press not just snippets then ?
As for why councillors not commenting perhaps it's because here they have a really bad track record of never answering direct questions.
Frankly the public don't care at large about which budgets public money comes out of - it's still council tax money that COULD be spent on more needy projects etc. Ever heard of creative accountancy - oh hang on - SLDC must have !! ;)
TomHarvey
says...
9:44pm Wed 25 Jan 12
All details are available and released to the press. They choose what to publish, or do you think SLDC should dictate what the papers publish? You clearly have an interest in how Councils operate so I would think it worth your while delving a little deeper than a press article on an issue such as this to allow you to make a fully informed comment - you could attend the meetings and speak if you wish, airing your concerns. It would be genuinely welcome by all parties.
gadgetgadget
says...
10:18am Thu 26 Jan 12
No point in discussing this anymore with you - you're simply missing the bigger issue not just your own opinion on this matter.
nixon1
says...
10:42am Thu 26 Jan 12
And
It seems to me (my opinion) that you have a personal vendetta against CCC and SLDC, please help me (and other readers no doubt) understand why it is that you vindicate?
These are not questions looking to start and argumnet or antagonise you in any way, or even to cause offence.
These are genuine questions i have been wanting to ask for some time now.
Please do not be defensive or insulting towards me in your resonse and i am in no way demanding a response from you. If you feel obliged to respond to answer these questions then do. Otherwise please do not respond in any other way.
Thank You.
gadgetgadget
says...
11:33am Thu 26 Jan 12
If he and others are genuinely concerned about the Cabinet decision to spend public money in this way then they have recourse to have the decision recalled and reconsidered.
I have genuine concerns about how OUR public money is being spent locally especially by SLDC (and to a lesser extent CCC) because of their seeming obsession with vanity projects above real-life requirements (e.g. proper help for homelessness, elderly care etc etc) and their seeming inability to respond to what the majority want when they conduct so-called public consultations. Numerous examples of that locally.
We elect councillors to represent US their electorate - not their OWN or their party interests and as such in a democracy that is normally to represent the many not the few. Some of them completely forget that when they are in office and especially when they have been incumbant for many years.
I don't have a personal vendetta against either council (although I can see why you think so) I have a serious and valid concern about how our public money is being spent especially in the current financial climate.
If you think my posts are argumentative frankly that's down to individual interpretation - they are mostly attempts to get to the truth not BS or to try and get through the over-protectiveness that some exhibit. If councillors or public officials don't like that then frankly tough - they shouldn't make rods for their own backs.
nixon1
says...
11:52am Thu 26 Jan 12
Being humble i have to admit that i agree with your responses to my questions. I understand that you "mean well" with what you post but sometimes i feel they are written in anger. And from this i can also understand that other readers will be offended by what you say on occasion(me being one of them).
But might i alos point out to ALL that "smarmy" unnecessary comments written too annoy ar not necessary.
gadgetgadget
says...
12:01pm Thu 26 Jan 12
Perhaps if you look between the lines sometimes at WHY I might be angry with a response or issue then maybe you'll understand me a little better (maybe).
I would agree that "smarmy" unecessary comments annoy and are completely un-necessary.
nixon1
says...
12:12pm Thu 26 Jan 12
gadgetgadget
says...
12:13pm Thu 26 Jan 12
nickjohn
says...
6:01pm Thu 26 Jan 12
Cheers
life cycle too
says...
1:35am Fri 27 Jan 12
As I read it, he has offered further information here as to the history of the funding.
This is not expressing support - in fact he points out several times that he is not happy with the decision - and at one point invites anyone else who is not happy, to express their concerns to the rest of the council, not himself via this discussion.
I understand why you are angry, and I too feel this is not the climate to be throwing tax payers money at this scheme.
However, Tom Harvey should not be the target of that anger - he is not THE council, just one SMALL part of the process - and sympathetic to your case from what I can tell!
SLDC seem intent on making political capital at every opportunity at the council tax payers expense.
If they were a BUSINESS, and had to use their own money to fund the way they operate, they would go bankrupt - you only need to see the way they have handled the closure of TICs, public toilets, and numerous financial disasters!
I for one welcome the input from Tom and Ben Berry - at least they are not afraid to face their public!
gadgetgadget
says...
10:28am Fri 27 Jan 12
I too welcome input from local councillors but frankly they can't just expect people to go along with what they say without some disagreement (where appropriate) or indeed requests to think about matters differently - that does a dis-service to those they represent.
SLDC would do well to stop and think about where the bigger budget is being spent and less time worrying about making political capital - as you correctly point out there are numerous local financial disasters these present councillors have presided over - however to temper that we also have to remember that they are often guided by what officers/employees of the council want them to do - I personally would expect them to be a lot stronger in that respect and stand up to some of the recommendations and question why a lot more - to me (at least) it seems they don't do that enough.
life cycle too
says...
11:03am Fri 27 Jan 12
I DO wish that more people would get involved in public meetings - I have successfully appealed to my local council on issues that affected the whole community, but very few people turn up to watch or take advantage of their right to be heard in meetings.
TomHarvey
says...
11:24am Fri 27 Jan 12
Moving on. Any decision can be called in by any three Councillors. It is then scrutinised by committee and sent back to the original decision making body or full council with recommendations. These can be considered, ignored or acted on. There was unanimous cabinet support so a call in would have resulted in the expense of more meetings (its needs to be public and have all the associated staff etc present) with the same result standing. You sometimes have to accept to agree to disagree and move on to fight another battle. Most of the Cabinet are Kendal Councillors so residents are welcome to voice their (dis)pleasure at elections. That also doesn't stop the public voicing their opinion through the press, at meetings (as LC says, very few use their right to turn up and speak, which is very disappointing) and as mentioned through your vote. You can also ring up your ward Councillor and ask them why they voted as they, you will get a much better and comprehensive answer than posting on a web site which is easily ignored. All Cabinet members got a healthy vote so there is an argument that you the electorate are happy with them. I can't understand why you are, but there you go :-) An example of a recent call in was over night time parking charges. Cabinet voted to bring in new charges which would mean costs of up to £4 a night to park after 6pm. It was poorly presented and costed and if any bank manager saw it as a business plan it would have been laughed out. We called it in, it was scrutinised with a net result of charges of £1/night for a 12 month period. This is still not ideal (and is a separate argument) but it does work, just a shame no one turned up to hear about it - again.
gadgetgadget
says...
11:58am Fri 27 Jan 12
As you've already pointed out on the Car Parking charges Cabinet decisions are not flawless.
I appreciate you posting here and what you are trying to achieve, but as you probably already know (and as LC2 has pointed out) these financial decisions when all put together as a whole raise serious questions about the management/mismanage
ment of public money under the present SLDC cabinet/council.
Regardless of what the last election results were - those will no doubt be very different next time - I'm sure you'll recognize there is a real danger that councillors who think their seat is safe just become complacent and forget who they are really representing.
This isn't a pop at you personally BTW but more at the way in which SLDC portraying itself to the public as being incompetant and gambling with public money. As a councillor with obvious genuine concerns for the community I would hope you'll accept that's not good for anyone at present.
TomHarvey
says...
12:17pm Fri 27 Jan 12
There is also a good chance that I am wrong, its only my opinion, in which case the right decision was made!
There is almost never a decision made that has unanimous support
Concerns were raised here and I set out why there was no call-in.
gadgetgadget
says...
12:34pm Fri 27 Jan 12
Isn't that part of the problem - if it was widely known that certain high monetary value decisions were pending then maybe, just maybe, more people would be interested.
However being as it's the USUAL fait-accompli that occurred in this instance it would have probably have been pointless anyone else turning up anyway ;)
I fully understand and appreciate what you are saying about how councils work (I used to work for one) however I don't agree and won't that when risky decisions especially about large amounts of public money being "gambled" like this that there shouldn't be more scrutiny of the decision and even if the decision itself is the right one doesn't mean that it's the right time to make it !
TomHarvey
says...
1:11pm Fri 27 Jan 12
You are right, most people will have had no idea about the decision being made but all agendas, meetings etc etc are publicly accessible and I am not sure how more people can be made aware of what goes on - suggestions would certainly be appreciated
life cycle too
says...
1:24pm Fri 27 Jan 12
Look what happened when the public wee allowed to vote on Strictly Come Dancing, and John Sergeant got returned week after week while more worthy candidates were voted off!
Referendums attract some - but not me, because voters are all too easily swayed by fickle things!
By the time elections come around next, THIS argument will have been forgotten, and another issue which shows councillors in a better light will have made headlines!
Cynical? Moi?
gadgetgadget
says...
1:40pm Fri 27 Jan 12
Plenty of relatively easy ways to get more information out there. Needs addressing.
@LC2 - You and me both then !
carlsonsfish
says...
12:55pm Tue 31 Jan 12
Kent123
says...
10:41am Mon 13 Feb 12
http://www.3caonline
.com/2012/02/kendal-
highgate-to-benefit-
from-345k-but-who-is
-paying-for-it/
gadgetgadget says...
3:29pm Tue 24 Jan 12
About time some of the local councillors were frankly replaced - grown too complacent and have forgotten who they represent.