Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Monday, February 27, 2012
Core strategy or poor strategy? part 3
Across the borough
Chineham aside (I didn't know the Tories had the power to de-village an area, but whenever they talk about villages, they don't include Chineham) The least controversial bit was the villages. They've all ended up with a target to meet the needs of their children (minus Tadley for health and safety reasons).
The rest of the out of town development (including reserve sites) is Chineham/Lychpit 1880 homes, Basing 100, Golf Course and Kennel farm near Jct 7 M3 1400 homes and also 450 north of Popley (on top of the existing development there).
The main controversy was the exclusion of Manydown. An area of land purchased by the Council to build houses on, which the Tories have said is, and/or made, unavailable, based on the work needed to address infrastructure issues.
However in the west the Tories have been saying to voters they'll do all they can to prevent building on Manydown. So either they've stopped something that could have happened, in which case it can be built on and the decision was a purely political one.
Or they've been dishonest to those in Buckskin, Oakley and Winklebury in suggesting they're protecting Manydown from something that couldn't happen anyway. Somewhere in there we've been conned.
If the Tories really wanted to save the Loddon Valley, then they've had since 2006 to address any infrastructure problems on Manydown. Either this work has been done (the County Council Tories were spending money on such things up until 2009) and they don't want anyone to know
Or they haven't done this work; in which case what the hell were County Tories wasting tax payers money on? And if the Tories have known since 2006 that Manydown was out, they fully intended to build on the Loddon Valley. Why have they been saying they're backing the campaigns to prevent it over the last 6 years in that case? Somewhere in there we've been conned again.
We've ended up with close to 2000 to the east, 450 to the north, 1400 to the South and erm....none to the west, where a piece of land nearly half the size of Basingstoke has been purchased just for housing!
Apart from putting more pressure on the over used junction 6 of the M3 (it is hard to see how thgis can be upgraded), they've also put insufficient houses to the South to justify a new secondary school, and there isn't one already. They've put insufficent houses in the Loddon Valley to justify a new secondary school, where there isn't one already. Nothing in the west where there is enough space to build a primary and secondary school - but perhaps winning your council seat is a bit more important than educating our children if your a Tory.
Verdict - Very poor strategy
Spin watch
Watch out for Tories saying Lib Dems would have built everything in one place, their consultation said residents wanted homes distributed around the borough rather than in one place whilst and that's why so many are in the Loddon Valley. It is nonsense.
We've always supported villages growing sufficiently to sustain themselves (housing those who grew up locally') however it is not fair to those who grew up in Basingstoke to have to be re-housed in a distant village. So Basingstoke would have to expand to house its own children too - I'm not trying to hide the fact that, in our view, Manydown was the most sustainable location where development could be well planned and benefit existing residents (and make a lot of money to support Council to support infrastructure investment), but no one ever suggested Manydown would be the only place homes would be built.
Also watch out for Kemphott Conservatives saying as little as possible. They've said they will oppose development of land near Down Grange. To date they have done nothing to get it removed from the strategy. When the Council votes on the strategy they'll have the power to vote with the opposition and block it, more Tory squirming, whipping' and back tracking coming to a ward near you this summerI'm guessing.
And finally
Is the devil in the detail?
The policies within the core strategy will inform decisions over planning applications for the next 15 years. Apart from the site specific policies, which were controversial for a different reason, there seemed little debate over the detail, simply the wording. The 3 meetings devoted to this subject seemed to go on forever. Unless you have a legal or planning background and want to check the wording, I would look at the sites. In this case the devil's in the site selection.
Verdict - bore strategy?
You can make your contributions to the core strategy HERE
Chineham aside (I didn't know the Tories had the power to de-village an area, but whenever they talk about villages, they don't include Chineham) The least controversial bit was the villages. They've all ended up with a target to meet the needs of their children (minus Tadley for health and safety reasons).
The rest of the out of town development (including reserve sites) is Chineham/Lychpit 1880 homes, Basing 100, Golf Course and Kennel farm near Jct 7 M3 1400 homes and also 450 north of Popley (on top of the existing development there).
The main controversy was the exclusion of Manydown. An area of land purchased by the Council to build houses on, which the Tories have said is, and/or made, unavailable, based on the work needed to address infrastructure issues.
However in the west the Tories have been saying to voters they'll do all they can to prevent building on Manydown. So either they've stopped something that could have happened, in which case it can be built on and the decision was a purely political one.
Or they've been dishonest to those in Buckskin, Oakley and Winklebury in suggesting they're protecting Manydown from something that couldn't happen anyway. Somewhere in there we've been conned.
If the Tories really wanted to save the Loddon Valley, then they've had since 2006 to address any infrastructure problems on Manydown. Either this work has been done (the County Council Tories were spending money on such things up until 2009) and they don't want anyone to know
Or they haven't done this work; in which case what the hell were County Tories wasting tax payers money on? And if the Tories have known since 2006 that Manydown was out, they fully intended to build on the Loddon Valley. Why have they been saying they're backing the campaigns to prevent it over the last 6 years in that case? Somewhere in there we've been conned again.
We've ended up with close to 2000 to the east, 450 to the north, 1400 to the South and erm....none to the west, where a piece of land nearly half the size of Basingstoke has been purchased just for housing!
Apart from putting more pressure on the over used junction 6 of the M3 (it is hard to see how thgis can be upgraded), they've also put insufficient houses to the South to justify a new secondary school, and there isn't one already. They've put insufficent houses in the Loddon Valley to justify a new secondary school, where there isn't one already. Nothing in the west where there is enough space to build a primary and secondary school - but perhaps winning your council seat is a bit more important than educating our children if your a Tory.
Verdict - Very poor strategy
Spin watch
Watch out for Tories saying Lib Dems would have built everything in one place, their consultation said residents wanted homes distributed around the borough rather than in one place whilst and that's why so many are in the Loddon Valley. It is nonsense.
We've always supported villages growing sufficiently to sustain themselves (housing those who grew up locally') however it is not fair to those who grew up in Basingstoke to have to be re-housed in a distant village. So Basingstoke would have to expand to house its own children too - I'm not trying to hide the fact that, in our view, Manydown was the most sustainable location where development could be well planned and benefit existing residents (and make a lot of money to support Council to support infrastructure investment), but no one ever suggested Manydown would be the only place homes would be built.
Also watch out for Kemphott Conservatives saying as little as possible. They've said they will oppose development of land near Down Grange. To date they have done nothing to get it removed from the strategy. When the Council votes on the strategy they'll have the power to vote with the opposition and block it, more Tory squirming, whipping' and back tracking coming to a ward near you this summerI'm guessing.
And finally
Is the devil in the detail?
The policies within the core strategy will inform decisions over planning applications for the next 15 years. Apart from the site specific policies, which were controversial for a different reason, there seemed little debate over the detail, simply the wording. The 3 meetings devoted to this subject seemed to go on forever. Unless you have a legal or planning background and want to check the wording, I would look at the sites. In this case the devil's in the site selection.
Verdict - bore strategy?
You can make your contributions to the core strategy HERE
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Core strategy or poor strategy? part two
What does it mean in Eastrop?
From an Eastrop point of view, a number of sites within the town area have been included with virtually no debate. This is, in part, as they are already within the settlement boundary and therefore infrastructure largely exists. However it also means that some of these sites have significant constraints that have not been properly considered. Although Greytown and Brook House are a given, proposals to build on Central Car park and Castons Car Park are quite likely to not happen.
Thanks to the successful Lib Dem campaign to protect parking spaces in the town centre, the Council has a policy that will 'broadly maintain' parking provision in the town centre. That means these sites can only be used for flats (which developers already have a land bank for) combined with a multistorey car park (which is hugely expensive).
At present the scheme could only go ahead without affordable homes (which would be against our existing and proposed policy) and need a significant financial contribution from the Council who normally make money from new developments, not spend it.
Redevelopment of the Brambly's Grange surgery is the other site expected to be developed in Eastrop. I have little issue with the principle of it being used for housing, but it should fit in with the existing homes in the area - semi detached and terraced family homes, that may impact on the numbers.
The problem for the Council is if the urban sites don't come forward, pressure will put on the 'reserve sites'.
The limited activity on Eastrop should not stop residents having a good look at the core strategy, just because most homes are not in our back yard we must remember that development to the East of town has a major impact on junction 6 of the M3 and the roads to the town centre, many of which are at the end of our back yards.
Also many of children who will live in the Loddon Valley will end up needing dropping off at Costello, already an issue.
Verdict - poor strategy
You can have your say by clicking HERE
Spin watch - I doubt there will be much Eastrop specific, but get ready for the Tories to say they'll do all they can to save the reserve sites.
The fact is the chances of all the other developments in the urban area coming forward and yielding the numbers expected are pretty much zero and the tories know it. If by miracle the reserve sites survive until 2027, they'll be first on the list in the next LDF if the same Tories are in control.
Note: The Council have already factored in the 'windfall sites' - unexpected developments which usually mean a small number. Often an unused office being converted or where a big house is demolished and replaced by 2 or 3 smaller homes, Eastrop could see a few of these.
From an Eastrop point of view, a number of sites within the town area have been included with virtually no debate. This is, in part, as they are already within the settlement boundary and therefore infrastructure largely exists. However it also means that some of these sites have significant constraints that have not been properly considered. Although Greytown and Brook House are a given, proposals to build on Central Car park and Castons Car Park are quite likely to not happen.
Thanks to the successful Lib Dem campaign to protect parking spaces in the town centre, the Council has a policy that will 'broadly maintain' parking provision in the town centre. That means these sites can only be used for flats (which developers already have a land bank for) combined with a multistorey car park (which is hugely expensive).
At present the scheme could only go ahead without affordable homes (which would be against our existing and proposed policy) and need a significant financial contribution from the Council who normally make money from new developments, not spend it.
Redevelopment of the Brambly's Grange surgery is the other site expected to be developed in Eastrop. I have little issue with the principle of it being used for housing, but it should fit in with the existing homes in the area - semi detached and terraced family homes, that may impact on the numbers.
The problem for the Council is if the urban sites don't come forward, pressure will put on the 'reserve sites'.
The limited activity on Eastrop should not stop residents having a good look at the core strategy, just because most homes are not in our back yard we must remember that development to the East of town has a major impact on junction 6 of the M3 and the roads to the town centre, many of which are at the end of our back yards.
Also many of children who will live in the Loddon Valley will end up needing dropping off at Costello, already an issue.
Verdict - poor strategy
You can have your say by clicking HERE
Spin watch - I doubt there will be much Eastrop specific, but get ready for the Tories to say they'll do all they can to save the reserve sites.
The fact is the chances of all the other developments in the urban area coming forward and yielding the numbers expected are pretty much zero and the tories know it. If by miracle the reserve sites survive until 2027, they'll be first on the list in the next LDF if the same Tories are in control.
Note: The Council have already factored in the 'windfall sites' - unexpected developments which usually mean a small number. Often an unused office being converted or where a big house is demolished and replaced by 2 or 3 smaller homes, Eastrop could see a few of these.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Core strategy or poor strategy? part one
On the 10th of February the Council launched its public consultation on the Core Strategy, a detailed document that will shape the borough. Regardless of your views, I would encourage as many as possible to take a look and make comment. After the consultation is complete, councillors will consider the comments and make changes where possible (if the Tories allow it) If the public don't make a loud noise, the current strategy could simply be sent off to the Government to be inspected as it is.
The Council has produced an 8 page leaflet, which I felt was a bit leading, mentions a lot of things that aren't controversial (e.g. regenerating Basing View, the alternative was letting it fall apart, no one's ever called for that!) The main issue is housing for our children, how much, what design and perhaps more critically where. I will blog later on Eastrop and the wider borough, but start with how many.
You can see, read and comment by clicking HERE
The numbers
I have always felt the importance of numbers has been over played. Does anyone think the next generation should be homeless, of course not. Can anyone say with any certainty how many homes we'll need over the next 15 years, no, it is guess work- albeit fairly educated guess work. Local groups, political and otherwise, have called for anything between 300 to 900, the Council have gone for 600 (594 to be accurate).
To give you an idea how relevant the numbers are, the last Labour government imposed a target of 945 new homes a year in the borough, The Tory run Council built around 1100 a year during the mid noughties. Last year the Labour target was still in force, the Council built just 800 and no one was arrested. The reality is we're in the hands of developers much of the time, various sites in Eastrop have planning consent - Greytown House in the town centre and Brook House next to the Anvil, both have sat ready to go for years, but developers have held back as the apartments market is...well flat.
Equally if 600 is not enough, the town will face a housing crisis. Young families, the working age population, will be priced out of the area and businesses will leave the borough as, due to an ageing population, it lacks a workforce. With business rates being more localised, the Council can't afford that and will be forced to review its target.
I doubt the numbers will change as a result of the consultation, although the independent inspector may not agree with them. My hunch is they'll either be rejected as insufficient by the inspector or adjusted upwards by the Council in a few years.
Verdict - Poor strategy
Spin watch
Get ready for the Tories rambling on about Lib Dems, some nonsense that we would apparently build more homes on green fields.
I promise that no Lib Dem has ever suggested building more homes than we need just for the sake of covering a green field. As mentioned above, our hunch is 594 new homes a year will not be enough, we've simply been honest about that, and suggested, to insure better planning, more sites need to be identified now. If they're not required, developers won't develop them. Instead we now risk poorly planned, ill though out rushed developments a few years down the line. We'll end up with the same number of homes on greenfields, my view is it is better to have 'master planning' rather than 'panic planning'.
The Council has produced an 8 page leaflet, which I felt was a bit leading, mentions a lot of things that aren't controversial (e.g. regenerating Basing View, the alternative was letting it fall apart, no one's ever called for that!) The main issue is housing for our children, how much, what design and perhaps more critically where. I will blog later on Eastrop and the wider borough, but start with how many.
You can see, read and comment by clicking HERE
The numbers
I have always felt the importance of numbers has been over played. Does anyone think the next generation should be homeless, of course not. Can anyone say with any certainty how many homes we'll need over the next 15 years, no, it is guess work- albeit fairly educated guess work. Local groups, political and otherwise, have called for anything between 300 to 900, the Council have gone for 600 (594 to be accurate).
To give you an idea how relevant the numbers are, the last Labour government imposed a target of 945 new homes a year in the borough, The Tory run Council built around 1100 a year during the mid noughties. Last year the Labour target was still in force, the Council built just 800 and no one was arrested. The reality is we're in the hands of developers much of the time, various sites in Eastrop have planning consent - Greytown House in the town centre and Brook House next to the Anvil, both have sat ready to go for years, but developers have held back as the apartments market is...well flat.
Equally if 600 is not enough, the town will face a housing crisis. Young families, the working age population, will be priced out of the area and businesses will leave the borough as, due to an ageing population, it lacks a workforce. With business rates being more localised, the Council can't afford that and will be forced to review its target.
I doubt the numbers will change as a result of the consultation, although the independent inspector may not agree with them. My hunch is they'll either be rejected as insufficient by the inspector or adjusted upwards by the Council in a few years.
Verdict - Poor strategy
Spin watch
Get ready for the Tories rambling on about Lib Dems, some nonsense that we would apparently build more homes on green fields.
I promise that no Lib Dem has ever suggested building more homes than we need just for the sake of covering a green field. As mentioned above, our hunch is 594 new homes a year will not be enough, we've simply been honest about that, and suggested, to insure better planning, more sites need to be identified now. If they're not required, developers won't develop them. Instead we now risk poorly planned, ill though out rushed developments a few years down the line. We'll end up with the same number of homes on greenfields, my view is it is better to have 'master planning' rather than 'panic planning'.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Thoughts on Basingstoke Town Football Club part 2
The word ‘sustainable’ has sadly been abused over recent years. When someone struggles to defend or oppose something they simply add ‘it is not sustainable’ or ‘only sustainable option’. It also sums up why the Old Common site is not ideal, but I will use it, rather then abuse it, by explaining why.
As a fan, football is all about skill and passion. That last minute wonder free kick winner. The moment that your ‘rock solid’ goal keeper took the almighty clearance ‘air’ kick as you watched the back pass trickle into the net and cost your team the game. The ‘against the odds’ cup upset, the young debutant scoring the winner, the rubbish player your team offloaded last year scoring the winner against you. And the referee, well just what was he thinking, how did he give/miss that. And all of the comical chants that ring round the stadium.
Football takes you through a roller coaster of emotions. Heroes become villains in 90 minutes and visa versa. And as a fan you can hurl abuse at your local rivals on a Saturday afternoon and meet up as work colleagues on Monday morning and laugh about it.
Whether we like it or not, football has another side, it’s a business and at the moment it’s is bloody awful business.
It was Rafi who reminded me of the Reading Chairman’s quote
“How do you make a fortune out of football? Start with a bigger fortune.”
Few football clubs make money and rely on wealthy supporters to write out cheques every year to keep the club going. Rangers are the latest victim and Portsmouth FC is making it a habit of running out of cheques. The amounts may be smaller, but the pressures down the leagues are no different and survival off the pitch means generating more revenue than just tickets and a shirt logo.
With any business, income generation means using every asset and football can’t afford to be different.
If you have a gym for part time players, you need to rent it out the rest of the week for a few extra quid. The social club needs to host conferences all day and wedding receptions on the nights you don’t use it. On match days advertising boards bring in a bit extra. The outside of the stadium needs to do the same all week. A stadium can’t sit empty for the whole of summer, you need to get money from it somehow. And in the evening boxing, pop concerts even Billy Graham style events need to be hosted to keep the flow of money coming in to cover the football business losses.
As you would have seen from part 1, if the football club got permission to move to the Old Common there will be restrictions. Will there be so many restrictions that prevent the club balancing the books?
The time restrictions rule out concerts and some sporting events. Basingstoke festival, the circus etc, rule out many weekends during the summer, the ground will be hidden from view by the trees, so no extra advertising money. The clubs alcohol licence will be limited.
It is for this reason that most new football stadiums are situated in business parks. Clubs need parking in the evening or weekend, the factories, offices and warehouses don’t, they can share it.
The roads that can cope with 10,000 workers on a Monday morning will have no problem accommodating the same number of supporters on a Saturday afternoon. An empty office block is never going to moan about noise. The hardly used gym provides a service to office workers and the club house can offer a service to businesses. The betting shop will happily pay more rent if it has potential punters 6 days a week rather than one.
The challenge for the club (and for me as some one who genuinely wants the best for the football club) is finding that site. Basing View would have been perfect, but regeneration is too far down the road and it doesn’t have the space (I have checked)
The next best is a site where the football stadium is the start of development rather than an unwelcome addition to an established community. Someone has already mentioned Manydown and junction 7 of the M3, feel free to add your own ideas.
As much I support the football club, its owner, supporters and their ambition, so far, most local residents have said, for good reason, they don’t want the club to move to the Old Common – and it is my job to be on their side.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Thoughts on Basingstoke Town Football Club – Part 1
Before I start, I should apologise
Several times a year I, with Stuart, put together the ‘Focus’ newsletter to keep you up to date on what we’re doing. When the Football club decided to consult on whether they could move to Eastrop, in true Lib Dem style, I sent out a resident’s survey. Calling it ‘Football Focus’ was automatic, if a little predictable.
Here’s a summary of the clubs position. They use the Camrose ground. It is old, but the site doesn’t have the flexibility to house a modern sporting venue that you have to have to be allowed in the football league. The other problem is the club have the ground on a lease which the landowner has no intention of renewing. The only way out, is to buy the option on the lease, sell the site for retail development and use the receipts to build a new ground on land they can use for a peppercorn. I should make it clear that no Council money was needed to fund the new stadium and as a small parcel of the Camrose site belongs to the Council they would have actually had a windfall if the scheme goes ahead.
The search for the perfect site has been going on for a few years. (I understand Down Grange was the original idea and before the athletics track was upgraded. It could have been perfect as is already use for formal recreation, rather than public open space and the changing and social club facilities could have served hockey and rugby teams as well. A new entrance off the A30 would have kept traffic off Pack Lane and it would have been close to the existing stadium. But this idea was thwarted by Labour and Conservative councillors as well as other Down Grange users, all this before I was a councillor so I could be corrected)
I have a lot of respect for Rafi Razzak and what he has done for Basingstoke and share his vision that we should have a football team that is successful on, and off, the pitch that the Town can support and be proud of.
I welcomed the clubs consultation and attended the event in Eastrop. The club could have simply submitted a planning application, but took the time to seek the views of their supporters as well as residents who will be impacted upon by the possible change of use of both the existing Camrose and Old Common sites.
I approached these consultations with an open mind. I even spent much of time at the consultation with residents who were opposed, challenging their reasons and exploring what could be changed to win over their backing. And to their credit the club have not said ‘this is what we’re doing’, but are considering the views of the public to see what could be changed.
What the results of our survey showed was the majority of residents opposed the proposal – 65% were against full stop, 15% were opposed, but could be persuaded if changes were made. 20% were supportive of the idea. In the survey we put out we mentioned the possibility of the Old Common site being a cemetery (it had been muted at that time) and that was even less popular that a football stadium!
So where are we now?
I have not had any recent contact with the club and assume they’ll make some changes and then submit two planning applications – and this is where it gets tricky. Unless they get permission for a retail park on the Camrose site, they won’t have the money to build a stadium. And until they get permission to build a new stadium on the Old Common, they can’t vacate the Camrose site.
The retail park is not a forgone conclusion, after all Tesco are getting knock backs from the Highways agency on the same stretch of Winchester Road. And surveys suggest some South Ham residents will oppose it.
Then there is the Old Common which most local residents are opposed to so far.
But there is a bigger issue with the Old Common site. Top issues from the survey were traffic, not a problem with current crowds more a potential issue for the future. And of course a new entrance in Old Common road would limit traffic onto London Road.
Parking, which could be improved without loss to used public open space. Some residents have mentioned noise, which restrictions on ‘hours of use’ could solve. Likewise with any light pollution (though the phrase floodlights is a bit dated and modern stadium lights tend to be more like spot lights and only directed at the pitch) The social club could also be restricted in hours.
The loss of open space is trickier, however let’s pretend for a moment that that too was overcome and along with the MUGA for community use, the all weather pitch for Costello and the potential for the football ground being used as a far safer student drop off point during the week and don’t forget only one tree is likely to be felled. There is another reason I think the club needs a better site. An issue that bothers me (as a football fan) about the Old Common site, which I will blog about in part 2.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Alcohol - The Price is Right....................................or irrelevant?
This week Cameron was on the case of the cost burden alcohol missuse puts on the NHS (here). Hardly a new story, first mentioned on this blog back in September 2009.
I understand many countries have considered 'minimum pricing', but only Scotland seems to going ahead with it. I'm not convinced it will work. I don't doubt increasing price will reduce the sales of alcohol, but that is different to cutting excessive drinking.
Problem drinkers largely fall in to two categories, dependant drinkers and binge drinkers.
Dependant drinkers are those who can't function without alcohol, The day starts with a drink and revolves around drink. They'll drink all the money they have, and after that borrow, beg or steal to get the next drink. It is that third reason (steal) that makes minimum pricing a bit pointless. If you have no intention of paying for something the price ticket is hardly going to put you off. These drinkers need treatment, how you get a someone who is drunk by 9.00am and has no fixed abode and spends much of their time unsure of what day it is to attend an appointment they don't want to go to, is of course another matter.
It is the binge drinker that perhaps causes a greater burden. Binge drinkers don't drink during the day, mnay go weeks without drinking, but when they do, they drink a lot. Although they increase the risk of getting the liver problems and stomach cancers in the future, it is the fights and accidents that see A&E fill up on a friday and saturday night that put extra pressure on the NHS.
Most binge drinkers are in employment, often well paid and drink until all the bars are closed or they can no longer walk to the bar. And by going to the town centre bars they're paying more that the minimum pricing is likely to be.
So how do you solve binge drinking? I doubt there is only one answer, but perhaps part of the solution lies in this very blog?
If it takes the body an hour to deal with a unit of alcohol, the speed at which people drink is an important factor.
Most people have sat up all night drinking and playing cards at some point, and into the early hours, are still able to play. Why? because you have the cards in your hand and you're talking to those around you. Without noticing, you're drinking much slower and therefore your body is not getting so poisioned by the alcohol enabling you to make sensible decisions.
Contrast this with a night in any city centre. Music full blast so proper conversations are out. No seating or table so you can't put your drink down. The very clever breweries have removed every possible barrier between you and your drink, so you get through it faster and get another. And lets face it, the brewery wants your money as quickly as possible.
Now most people have some idea of their limit, that little nagging voice telling you to get a taxi or start the walk home, but when you're dinking fast it is harder to notice when the limit has been reached, especially if you hit the spirits, the time between 'enough' and 'black out' can get very short. And there's the peer pressure, if you've agreed to go out until 2.00am, you're not likely to tell your friends you're done at 10.00pm because you drank too much too soon. No, you'll drink some more and you've just entered 'binge world' and at great risk of causing or suffering harm. And although people are responsible for their own actions and choices, you can see how young adults, perhaps newer to drinking can be sucked in.
So is it the extended licensing hours? Probably not, after all the whole point in them was to create the continental 'cafe culture', where people will take their time with a drink rather than have to rush as many pints down before the bell rang at 11.00. Sadly the British bar can't or won't create this environment.
In the old days the trick was to sell nuts, crisps and pork scratchings over the bar, as we all know salty foods make you thirsty, and pubs want thirsty customers. Now we have gone for the noise to stop you talking, less seats to stop you sitting etc and created 'drunk' factories.
The government need to revist licencing law. Perhaps a noise level limit for music, or time limit on loud music, perhaps bars should have to offer 'quiet rooms', perhaps capacity should be limited to the number of seats you have, who knows?
What I am certain is, the financial greed of bars and clubs are a big cause of the binge drinking culture that strains our emergency services and costs you, the tax payer, billions every year.
Latest figures appear to show sales of alcohol in decline, not just since the 2008 crash, as you would have expected, but since 2004. It is worth noting that youth unemployment has been on the increase since 2001 so may be a factor.
I understand many countries have considered 'minimum pricing', but only Scotland seems to going ahead with it. I'm not convinced it will work. I don't doubt increasing price will reduce the sales of alcohol, but that is different to cutting excessive drinking.
Problem drinkers largely fall in to two categories, dependant drinkers and binge drinkers.
Dependant drinkers are those who can't function without alcohol, The day starts with a drink and revolves around drink. They'll drink all the money they have, and after that borrow, beg or steal to get the next drink. It is that third reason (steal) that makes minimum pricing a bit pointless. If you have no intention of paying for something the price ticket is hardly going to put you off. These drinkers need treatment, how you get a someone who is drunk by 9.00am and has no fixed abode and spends much of their time unsure of what day it is to attend an appointment they don't want to go to, is of course another matter.
It is the binge drinker that perhaps causes a greater burden. Binge drinkers don't drink during the day, mnay go weeks without drinking, but when they do, they drink a lot. Although they increase the risk of getting the liver problems and stomach cancers in the future, it is the fights and accidents that see A&E fill up on a friday and saturday night that put extra pressure on the NHS.
Most binge drinkers are in employment, often well paid and drink until all the bars are closed or they can no longer walk to the bar. And by going to the town centre bars they're paying more that the minimum pricing is likely to be.
So how do you solve binge drinking? I doubt there is only one answer, but perhaps part of the solution lies in this very blog?
If it takes the body an hour to deal with a unit of alcohol, the speed at which people drink is an important factor.
Most people have sat up all night drinking and playing cards at some point, and into the early hours, are still able to play. Why? because you have the cards in your hand and you're talking to those around you. Without noticing, you're drinking much slower and therefore your body is not getting so poisioned by the alcohol enabling you to make sensible decisions.
Contrast this with a night in any city centre. Music full blast so proper conversations are out. No seating or table so you can't put your drink down. The very clever breweries have removed every possible barrier between you and your drink, so you get through it faster and get another. And lets face it, the brewery wants your money as quickly as possible.
Now most people have some idea of their limit, that little nagging voice telling you to get a taxi or start the walk home, but when you're dinking fast it is harder to notice when the limit has been reached, especially if you hit the spirits, the time between 'enough' and 'black out' can get very short. And there's the peer pressure, if you've agreed to go out until 2.00am, you're not likely to tell your friends you're done at 10.00pm because you drank too much too soon. No, you'll drink some more and you've just entered 'binge world' and at great risk of causing or suffering harm. And although people are responsible for their own actions and choices, you can see how young adults, perhaps newer to drinking can be sucked in.
So is it the extended licensing hours? Probably not, after all the whole point in them was to create the continental 'cafe culture', where people will take their time with a drink rather than have to rush as many pints down before the bell rang at 11.00. Sadly the British bar can't or won't create this environment.
In the old days the trick was to sell nuts, crisps and pork scratchings over the bar, as we all know salty foods make you thirsty, and pubs want thirsty customers. Now we have gone for the noise to stop you talking, less seats to stop you sitting etc and created 'drunk' factories.
The government need to revist licencing law. Perhaps a noise level limit for music, or time limit on loud music, perhaps bars should have to offer 'quiet rooms', perhaps capacity should be limited to the number of seats you have, who knows?
What I am certain is, the financial greed of bars and clubs are a big cause of the binge drinking culture that strains our emergency services and costs you, the tax payer, billions every year.
Latest figures appear to show sales of alcohol in decline, not just since the 2008 crash, as you would have expected, but since 2004. It is worth noting that youth unemployment has been on the increase since 2001 so may be a factor.
Friday, February 17, 2012
Full Council - The Budget Meeting
Last Thursday saw Basingstoke and Deane Council meet to discuss the budget and Council plan. With the risk of snow on their minds, repetition was limited, which was good and contributed to a reasonable finishing time.
Apart from not agreeing with the budget or Council plan which was voted through by the Tories (which I kind of expected) I was a little disappointed with the Labour group who didn't appear to have much to say apart from call the Conservatives arrogant and not listening which I though was a bit harsh.
But the biggest disappointment was the Tories who went on to make a speeches about what the Lib Dems and Labour had said in there budget speeches, which hadn't said at all.
I was accused of wanting to recklessly spend all the Councils reserves, which I never had or would have said.
I just suggested adding to them right now is not a priority. I also said said I would invest reserves in green energy (again) and social housing (ourselves if necessary).,this is not spending reserves as both provide revenue in return. Certainly in the case of green energy I am sure the return would be far greater that the 1.5 -3% than we get from gilts and bonds.
Any way I thought the Tories made themselves look a bit silly. They seem to get offended when they're accused of not listening, on Thursday they went a long way to proving their critics right.
If you want to know what I actually said the text is below
Apart from not agreeing with the budget or Council plan which was voted through by the Tories (which I kind of expected) I was a little disappointed with the Labour group who didn't appear to have much to say apart from call the Conservatives arrogant and not listening which I though was a bit harsh.
But the biggest disappointment was the Tories who went on to make a speeches about what the Lib Dems and Labour had said in there budget speeches, which hadn't said at all.
I was accused of wanting to recklessly spend all the Councils reserves, which I never had or would have said.
I just suggested adding to them right now is not a priority. I also said said I would invest reserves in green energy (again) and social housing (ourselves if necessary).,this is not spending reserves as both provide revenue in return. Certainly in the case of green energy I am sure the return would be far greater that the 1.5 -3% than we get from gilts and bonds.
Any way I thought the Tories made themselves look a bit silly. They seem to get offended when they're accused of not listening, on Thursday they went a long way to proving their critics right.
If you want to know what I actually said the text is below
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Nightmare on some street
It was 11.00pm, after a day at work and straight on to a committee meeting, I finally arrived home and there on the doorstep was every parents nightmare. A pair of school shoes.
As anyone with young children knows the only reason a pair of childrens shoes is left outside is..........................dog pooh.
When you're six, the world is an exciting place and with so much to see an learn about, you tend be looking at what is around you rather than watching where you're about to tread. This seems obvious to me, but why do some (a minority) of dog owners not get it.
It is quite simple. If the task of picking up dog pooh is something you don't want to do, you shouldn't own a dog!
If you don't do the task of 'bag it and bin it' (easy enough), some child will end up do 'tread it and spread it' leaving a parent to work out the best way of scraping your pooh off a shoe.
As anyone with young children knows the only reason a pair of childrens shoes is left outside is..........................dog pooh.
When you're six, the world is an exciting place and with so much to see an learn about, you tend be looking at what is around you rather than watching where you're about to tread. This seems obvious to me, but why do some (a minority) of dog owners not get it.
It is quite simple. If the task of picking up dog pooh is something you don't want to do, you shouldn't own a dog!
If you don't do the task of 'bag it and bin it' (easy enough), some child will end up do 'tread it and spread it' leaving a parent to work out the best way of scraping your pooh off a shoe.
Yes, I did try turning it off and then back on again!
As the title suggests, the long gap between blogging was a result of my computer choosing to no longer compute. A blue screen telling me to restart in a different mode, identical to the one I'd just tried that had taken me to the same blue screen. Although I purchased a new computer quite soon, It has only stopped demanding that I install updates I'm not sure I want or select options I really could not care less about.
It means this picture of a Christmas fail is much later than I intended. It was just before Christmas that I went on the annual pilgrimage to buy sprouts (sprouts are a great veg, why are they christmas only?).
I was puzzled by the Tesco display that showed a varity of pack types and sizes and alarmingly a huge variation in pricces for the same vegetable. Depending on whether you bought them loose, in a net, in a small bag, large bag or on a stalk prices ranged from 89p per kilo to £4.00 a kilo (not that you'd know at a glance). How can this be justified?
Of course the shelves were well stoicked so you could make your choice. However don't always trust the small print that tells you price per kilo.
Sprouts £1.00 for 250g. How is that £3.34 per kilo.
It means this picture of a Christmas fail is much later than I intended. It was just before Christmas that I went on the annual pilgrimage to buy sprouts (sprouts are a great veg, why are they christmas only?).
I was puzzled by the Tesco display that showed a varity of pack types and sizes and alarmingly a huge variation in pricces for the same vegetable. Depending on whether you bought them loose, in a net, in a small bag, large bag or on a stalk prices ranged from 89p per kilo to £4.00 a kilo (not that you'd know at a glance). How can this be justified?
Of course the shelves were well stoicked so you could make your choice. However don't always trust the small print that tells you price per kilo.
Sprouts £1.00 for 250g. How is that £3.34 per kilo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)