Most recent story at top of page
Later Stories: 16 - 31 July 2006
Previous stories: 16 - 30 June 2006

TEACHING CHINESE
18/7/06: The Hua Xian Chinese Society (www.huaxiansociety.co.nr) has organised an introductory meeting for people interested in learning Mandarin Chinese.
Taking place from 12 noon - 2.00pm on Saturday 22 July at the Friends Meeting House, Meeting House Lane, Lancaster, the Society is looking to offer the opportunity to teach Mandarin Chinese to children and young adults.
Society members will be on hand to help with teaching materials at the event, which includes an exhibition of Chinese ethnic clothes. Refreshments will be provided. Tel: 01524 400161 for more information.

NO CHAMPION FOR CENTROS
18/7/06: Coun Ian Barker has denied any suggestion he is fully behind developer Centros Miller, following suggestions that as the leader of a Council working in partnership in the proposed Lancaster Canal Corridor development he was a "champion" for the company's plans.
I'm certainly not aware that I have been appointed any sort of "champion" for the development," Coun Barker told virtual-lancaster. "My mind is not yet made up nor will it be until I have all the evidence."
At a meeting called by campaign group It's Our City last week, Steve Bryson, Halogen's PR Consultant for Centros Miller revealed their Lancaster champions were the City Council's Head of Planning and the Leader of the Council, Ian Barker, as the relationship is a partnership.
The Council's cabinet is due to discuss the Canal Corridor plans on Thursday 25 July. Although the agenda for the meeting is available the documents relating to the scheme have been classified as 'restricted business".

BYPASS: GOVERNMENT CLARIFIES FUNDING DECISIONS
18/7/06, updated 20/7/06: Responding to questions from Morecambe MP Geraldine Smith, two government ministers have clarified the funding of the proposed M6 - Heysham bypass, or northern route.
Asked by Geraldine if the government had indeed granted funding to the Heysham M6 Link, subject to planning approval, Stephen Ladyman (Minister of State, Department for Transport) told the MP in a parliamentary written answer "The Heysham scheme does not yet have scheme approval but Ministers have agreed with the region's recommendation that it may receive funding in the next three years.
"The Department's provision of funding will, of course, be subject to the scheme securing all necessary statutory powers, demonstrating sufficient value for money, and being supported by a satisfactory business case in line with the departmental requirements.
Earlier this month, the original announcement by the Department for Transport outlining a 10-year national road building plan had caused considerable confusion, with those for and against the Heysham link arguing funding had or had not been granted (see updated story below).
Geraldine also asked the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government whether there would be a public inquiry on planning for the Heysham M6 Link road. Yvette Cooper (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Department for Communities and Local Government) replied, stating that the planning application for the proposed Heysham M6 Link road is currently being considered by Lancashire county council. "Should the council be minded to approve the application it will be referred to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government under the terms of a Direction (article 14 of the Town and Country Planning Act (General Development Procedure Order 1995)) issued on 8 March 2006. "On receipt of the application from the council, consideration will be given to the possibility of calling it in for determination by the Secretary of State."
"Steven Ladyman's reply exactly agrees with what I said," Coun Ian Barker told virtual-lancaster. "Indeed, it is almost word for word the supplementary report I gave to Council last week.
"It refutes Geraldine's previous assertion that there would be no funding before 2010.
"I hope that Transport Solutions for Lancaster and Morecambe and Councillor Whitelegg will now stop spinning the Secretary of State’s announcement as a setback for the road. It was not. It was a major step forward. Ministers clearly expect to fund the road in the next three years if it obtains planning permission and satisfies the same value for money and business case tests as other transport schemes. They expect to do so before the end of the financial year 2008/09. This is clearly contrary to claims that there will be no money before 2010."

CITY CENTRE PLAN SPELLS TRAFFIC CHAOS
12/7/06, updated 18/7/06: Traffic gridlock and the death of Lancaster's existing city centre -- that's the future for the city if the City Council signs a deal with Centros Miller later this month, claim campaigners.
The grim predictions for Lancaster's future came at a packed public meeting – some 200 people attended – organised by pressure group It's Our City at Lancaster Town Hall on Monday.
The Council's Cabinet will be deciding whether to sign a Development Agreement contract with Centros Miller at its next meeting on 25 July at 10.00am at Morecambe Town Hall.
Speakers outlined the City Council's proposal to grant developers Centros Miller a 250 year lease on a massive new private retail development later this month that will replace Stonewell, St Leonardsgate car park and the now derelict Mitchells Brewery.
Campaigners, who have long argued for an alternative, low cost housing and proper arts quarter development for the area, say the Centros Miller development would effectively create a new, privately-owned city centre that will draw customers away from existing centre businesses.
Car traffic in Lancaster is also likely to increase, with the proposed new development generating perhaps over 10,000 extra car trips per day (currently, the one-way system carries approximately 32,000 vehicles daily).
The IOC group believes the Centros Miller 'champions' on Lancaster City Council – outlining their development strategy recently, a Centros Miller executive described their strategy as relying on 'champions' within local councils to steer their 'Anytown UK' retail developments into reality - are determined to push through a decision to sign a contract with the company.
Opponents say they are also concerned by the whole process by which Centros Miller became a 'preferred bidder', since it was generously spared the inconvenience of having to compete or tender for the opportunity.
Steve Bryson, Halogen's PR Consultant for Centros Miller who was at the meeting revealed their Lancaster champions were the City Council's Head of Planning and the Leader of the Council, Ian Barker, as the relationship is a partnership - a claim which Ian Barker has subsequently refuted, see story above. (It is perhaps no surprise then that John Donnellon, the Council's Corporate Director with overall responsibility for Planning recently attacked the IOC group for acting prematurely, accusing them of being against development in the city in a Council press release. Perhaps he would rather IOC protested after controversial contract had been signed).
• Read more about this development and find out what you can do...
• Visit the It's Our City website

FUNDING PENCILLED FOR NORTHERN BYPASS - IF PLANNING APPROVED
7/7/06, updated 18/7/06: In a ten year programme announced by the Department for Transport on 6 July, Lancashire County Council's request for funding for the M6 Link - or Northern Bypass of Lancaster -- was given approval, subject to planning approvals. “It is a scheme that the Government will consider for approval in the future once further work has been satisfactorily completed”, the government stated.

The Regional Funding Allocation announcements by the Department for Transport caused great confusion, prompting national campaign group Road Block to write a strong letter of complaint to DfT. Locally the announcement prompted press releases from opposing camps in the ongoing debate over the controversial road scheme, likely to cost over £100 million if it ever gets the go ahead.
Two government ministers clarified the funding statement on 17 July, in Written Answers to Morecambe and Lunesdale MP Geraldine Smith (see news story above) -- essentially stating that funding was in place for the road, but only if it got planning permission.
David Gate, chair of Transport Solutions for Lancaster and Morecambe argued the phrasing of the announcement had to be seen as a major setback for the Lancashire County Cabinet who returned to the originally unpopular scheme when plans for a Western Route broke down.
“We all know that a great deal more work would have to be done, including a bridge redesign," said David. "The costs are mounting by the day. The Government will have to be convinced of value for money, but with no answer to congestion, no regeneration assistance south of the river, and the wanton destruction of the Green Belt,  LCC faces an uphill battle. At the moment, approval would be like writing a blank cheque, because so many things are unsatisfactory and unresolved.
"TSLM has not lost sight of the main issue for the massive dual carriageway: the need for independent and professional scrutiny of the plans. It is not acceptable that the County Councillors merely grant themselves planning permission. TSLM will now step up the campaign for a public inquiry to review the scheme."
Councillor Ian Barker, leader of the City Council, offered a very different interpretation of the announcement, welcoming the news, as he saw it, that the Heysham M6 Link would be funded in the three year period 2006/07 to 2008/09.

"This is brilliant news for the district," he announced. "It is absolutely vital to the regeneration of Morecambe and the development of the Port of Heysham and other employment sites in the district that we have a good link to the motorway."
Barker is adamant the road -- despite ocal oppostion and recent studies which have proven, again, that new roads do no necessarily improve traffic problems -- will give a huge boost to the local economy.
"It will help us get heavy lorries off local roads," Ian argues. "The road space it will free up will help us introduce sustainable transport measures. I have already had encouraging talks with the County Council about this and these will continue. This is a golden opportunity for the district and one we must not waste."
"Today’s announcement comprehensively refutes the claims of opponents of the road that the Government would never fund it. The North West Regional Assembly and the North West Development Agency produced a prioritised list of transport projects for the region met the Government’s budget and scored highly on economic, social and environmental criteria. It is clear from the Minister’s letter that that was a major factor in securing approval.
"There is still work to do in securing planning approval, but this is a major step forward. I am delighted that our case has been recognised."
Opposers of the road plans argued furiously that Barker had misinterpreted the statement. "Clearly the road does not yet have approval," argued Green councillor John Whitelegg, basing his interpretation of the fiunnding news on more detailed government information (detailed here), asking Barker to correct his press release -- which Barker refused to do.
"I have read the whole of the document you refer to and I am satisfied my press release is accurate," he told John by e-mail, circulated to local press. "You are entitled to your opinion but I disagree and will not make changes.
"We have been accepted into the three year programme which the government expects to fund. That is subject to planning permission and detailed VFM appraisal of the individual schemes (The two previous subsections are ones that have passed the PP and VFM tests already.) but the Minister says he believes the assessment by Atkins consultants for the NWDA and NWRA is robust and fair."
Jo Lappin, Director of Transport, Planning Implementation and Europe, backed Coun Barker's claims, telling MP Geraldine Smith it was "right to say that the third category schemes haven't been approved for funding, as they haven't been through the statutory process; the important point is that DfT confirms that it expects to fund the schemes".
TSLM's David Gate clearly admires Councillor Barker's optimism but points out that the announcement -- born out by later Written Answers ( see story above) -- indicated that the Government would only consider the road for (funding) approval in the future "once further work has been satisfactorily completed”.
"Barker simply doesn't mention this, and talks as if they've got funding already," David told virtual-lancaster. "He admits 'there is still work to do in securing the planning approval' -- too true there is! -- but that's a different issue: planning is different from funding.)"
Condemning the council leader's "wishful thinking", David argues that it's also "wishful thinking that the road would relieve congestion (it won't), bring regeneration (no proof) and free up space for sustainable transport measures (any space will quickly fill with cars).
"And," he added, "it's wishful thinking that the Government will write a blank cheque for this destructive scheme."
It is unlikely that the pressure to pursue this project will ever ease off, given the prospect of an almost bottomless well of public money for the construction company that wins the scheme, should it ever get approval.
"Of course we still have to get planning permission and get further detailed  VFM approval," Ian Barker told virtual-lancaster, "but since I reall TSLM saying we would never get this far their claims have to be taken cum grano salis.
"This is a major step forward but not the final step."
"Road cheerleader Coun Janice Hanson has also issued a press release which echoes Cllr Barker's words," TSLM announced in a further press statement. "We say that also changes nothing. So far there has been a deafening silence from the people who made the funding application, Lancashire County Council, that speaks volumes.
"They went hell for leather to get money in this round of funding and they have not got it. The County Council went too early in the hope that they would get a foot in the door. But they don't know how much money the scheme needs and they can't demonstrate value for money, because they are behind schedule. The Government will not give them a blank cheque."
"We will not get diverted by town hall posturing. The facts remain the same: the road is no answer to congestion, it does nothing for anyone or any business south of the river, it destroys the Green Belt and it affects the health and wellbeing of our communities.
"When the costs of the revised plans are made known, everyone will see that the road does not represent value for money and the Government will not pay up."

• Read the original government statement regarding funding in Appendix A to the letter from the Secretary of State to the North West Regional Assembly and Regional Development Agency.

UNCERTAINTY OVER CRACKS IN REACTOR CORE
5/7/06: Appropriate safety action is not being taken over unexplained cracks in the cores of aging nuclear reactors, including Heysham 1, because it would be politically inexpedient at a time when the government is hoping to push through a new programme of nuclear development, according to reports in the Guardian newspaper.
Read more..

Previous stories: 16 - 30 June 2006