Political View: A difficult Task with flytipping

The Extraordinary meeting of the Full Council last Thursday saw a vote in favour of an amendment designed to bring about a solution to the long running saga know as ‘Werrington Fields’.

Hopefully the compromise proposals will be mutually accepted, by both residents and the school management. However the reality is that for any compromise to work it must be accepted and fully supported by both parties; interestingly the mood music I am hearing tells me the issue may well return to Council in May with the message ‘must do better’, in order to achieve that aim!

On Tuesday evening I attended the first meeting of the Flytipping and Waste Policy Task & Finish Group. Unfortunately press deadline prevents me from providing a report on the meeting. The Task & Finish group is cross party with representatives from all shades of political views. I am hopeful that the group will be able to agree a consensus on how we can address the deluge of detritus that is dumped on our city streets and rural lanes. A deluge so great Peterborough has now gained the unfortunate accolade of having the highest number of flytipping incidents per capita in the whole region.

The City Council valiantly struggles to keep on top of the problem on public land, streets and highways, but farmers and rural landowners must take the costs on the chin when the detritus is dumped on their land. For the farming community who we rely on to produce the food we need, to have to redirect their time and finances to clear away rubbish which includes everything from old tyres, asbestos, furniture and fridges, as well as cannabis production waste is an issue that must be addressed.

For farmers to be victim of this crime and then have the burden of clear up costs is clearly unequitable.

Without further delay all authorities must come together with a joined-up action plan to deal with the perpetrators. Those involved need to include the council, law enforcement and environment protection agencies – without this cooperation and shared intelligence, those involved whether organised crime, rogue landlords or opportunistic individual householders will continue to run rings around those of us who comply, and frankly care about our environment.

Changes in planning law are likely to see the removal of many restrictions on development in rural areas, as Angela Rayner’s new reforms will stop councillors from intervening in all but the biggest developments.

The changes proposed would heavily impact villages, significantly reducing the ability of residents to block piecemeal additions to their neighbourhoods and taking away sensible measures to prevent unrestricted sprawl.

Most will agree the new category of “greybelt” land – such as disused car parks and wasteland, that councils will have to release for new housing, is a sensible move. Indeed whist the Government pledged to put “builders not blockers first” in a move to deliver more affordable homes for young people currently priced out of the housing market, it’s important that residents, via their local councillors and planning committees, continue to have some control over the amount of development in their neighbourhoods – and in particular the maintenance of local character in our towns, villages and rural communities.

However, any retention of influence by planning committees must not be used as mechanism to block development; the infamous Nimby mentality which often sees one area escaping scot-free whilst others are burdened with the bulk of any development. That practice only lays councillors open to the charge of social engineering.