Sunday 25 March 2012
University Technical College - CBC in Urgent Funding Approval Request
A tight schedule to the opening of the University Technical College at the Kingsland site, Houghton Regis, in September this year, is forcing Central Bedfordshire Council to look to early agreement of £400,000 worth of expenditure to help make the site ready.
Reports to go before CBC Executive Committee on 27th March 2012 point out that the authority will lose £111,000 per annum rental income from Central Bedfordshire College, as their use of the site buidings at Kingsland reduces. This income will not be replaced by the UTC as the government require the lease/s to the UTC to be for 125 years at a ‘peppercorn’ level.
While that loss of income will raise one or two eyebrows, the UTC itself will complement the aspirations and duties of CBC in the areas of broadening choice, diversity and opportunity in education provision. And it is fair to say that UTC will play a part in developing the local and regional economy, and the future workforce. How big a part will not be measurable for some years to come, and it is understood that UTC students may come from a ten-mile radius. Hopefully, and I say this with unabashed bias, Houghton Regis young people will be the ones that gain the most.
As to the £400,000 worth of expenditure by CBC, which augments the £6.6million worth of PfS funding, the authority is pointing out that they have this money already from Section 106 funding for new school places.
So, what will the £400,000 go on? The aspiration is to use the space currently occupied by Central Bedfordshire College, which is in Blocks 2 and 3. There are a number of present users on the site that need to be relocated; reviews of rooming requirements need to be conducted; safety and internal boundary issues need resolving; work needs to be done on the 125-year lease. The documents do sound a bit woolly as to how this money is to be spent, and if I was a Central Bedfordshire Councillor I'd be really trying to drill down into those headings.
Finally, I like the commentary in the accompanying document that refers to the implications of not providing this finance: "Given the Council’s outline earlier agreement, not proceeding could have political and reputational ramifications."
Not half!
Notes
PfS: Partnership for Schools http://www.partnershipsforschools.org.uk/index.html
Reports to go before CBC Executive Committee on 27th March 2012 point out that the authority will lose £111,000 per annum rental income from Central Bedfordshire College, as their use of the site buidings at Kingsland reduces. This income will not be replaced by the UTC as the government require the lease/s to the UTC to be for 125 years at a ‘peppercorn’ level.
While that loss of income will raise one or two eyebrows, the UTC itself will complement the aspirations and duties of CBC in the areas of broadening choice, diversity and opportunity in education provision. And it is fair to say that UTC will play a part in developing the local and regional economy, and the future workforce. How big a part will not be measurable for some years to come, and it is understood that UTC students may come from a ten-mile radius. Hopefully, and I say this with unabashed bias, Houghton Regis young people will be the ones that gain the most.
As to the £400,000 worth of expenditure by CBC, which augments the £6.6million worth of PfS funding, the authority is pointing out that they have this money already from Section 106 funding for new school places.
So, what will the £400,000 go on? The aspiration is to use the space currently occupied by Central Bedfordshire College, which is in Blocks 2 and 3. There are a number of present users on the site that need to be relocated; reviews of rooming requirements need to be conducted; safety and internal boundary issues need resolving; work needs to be done on the 125-year lease. The documents do sound a bit woolly as to how this money is to be spent, and if I was a Central Bedfordshire Councillor I'd be really trying to drill down into those headings.
Finally, I like the commentary in the accompanying document that refers to the implications of not providing this finance: "Given the Council’s outline earlier agreement, not proceeding could have political and reputational ramifications."
Not half!
Notes
PfS: Partnership for Schools http://www.partnershipsforschools.org.uk/index.html
Thursday 15 March 2012
Those Political Boundary Lines - Dunstable and Houghton Regis
The latest threat to jeopardise the proposed constituency boundary changes – reducing the number of MPs from 650 to 600 – by the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, throws the problem for this area once again into sharp focus.
The proposed new boundary changes would separate Houghton Regis and Dunstable into two constituencies. Dunstable would no longer be a part of South West Bedfordshire. Caddington, Chaul End, Kensworth and East Hyde would become part of a redrawn Hemel Hempstead constituency. Nadine Dorries's present seat would be abolished.
But the South West Beds constituency has exactly the right number of constituents at the moment. So, why does it need to change?
It's already fairly confusing for local people as the current area newspapers regularly report the activities of five Members of Parliament. The re-jig would reduce that count to four. But will people, especially those in Dunstable, remember the changes if they do go through, and remember to contact the correct MP? Implementing the proposals would be a recipe for chaos at a time when the country needs stability.
Political parties organised by Constituency boundaries face the upheaval of changing their structures and bank accounts to cope with the changes. Spending time on that instead of the real issues of the day is a detraction that we can certainly do without.
There is an overwhelming sense of being mere mortals in the face of these god-like proposals from the Boundary Commission for England.
Dunstable Town Council organised a petition protesting at Dunstable being shifted to a new constituency comprising eight Luton wards and the four Dunstable wards. The petition was supported by local Tory MP, Andrew Selous. The new threat from Nick Clegg may be a blessing for those protestors. Perhaps Andrew will support Mr Clegg?
The new boundaries are designed to even out the number of MPs in each seat, but given that population growth is likely to be strongest from current population centres, it won't be long before they have to look at these boundaries again.
A new poll by Lib Dem Voice, which represents grassroots activists, found that 48 per cent would prefer to be in alliance with the Labour Party in 2015 compared to just 19 per cent who want to carry on with the Tories.
Meanwhile, the reform of the House of Lords has effectively been dumped by the Tories. Perhaps now is not the time to be looking at this with the Eurozone in meltdown, but let's not forget that it does need addressing in the future. Inherited privileges to attend a major place in the UK to decide the laws on how we live our lives is just not democracy.
Estimates by Boundary Commission for England.for the new boundaries:
18 Hemel Hempstead CC 76,457
26 Luton North and Dunstable BC 78,957
27 Luton South BC 75,106
43 South West Bedfordshire CC 77,807
44 South West Hertfordshire CC 79,167
46 St Albans CC 78,920
The proposed new boundary changes would separate Houghton Regis and Dunstable into two constituencies. Dunstable would no longer be a part of South West Bedfordshire. Caddington, Chaul End, Kensworth and East Hyde would become part of a redrawn Hemel Hempstead constituency. Nadine Dorries's present seat would be abolished.
But the South West Beds constituency has exactly the right number of constituents at the moment. So, why does it need to change?
It's already fairly confusing for local people as the current area newspapers regularly report the activities of five Members of Parliament. The re-jig would reduce that count to four. But will people, especially those in Dunstable, remember the changes if they do go through, and remember to contact the correct MP? Implementing the proposals would be a recipe for chaos at a time when the country needs stability.
Political parties organised by Constituency boundaries face the upheaval of changing their structures and bank accounts to cope with the changes. Spending time on that instead of the real issues of the day is a detraction that we can certainly do without.
There is an overwhelming sense of being mere mortals in the face of these god-like proposals from the Boundary Commission for England.
Dunstable Town Council organised a petition protesting at Dunstable being shifted to a new constituency comprising eight Luton wards and the four Dunstable wards. The petition was supported by local Tory MP, Andrew Selous. The new threat from Nick Clegg may be a blessing for those protestors. Perhaps Andrew will support Mr Clegg?
The new boundaries are designed to even out the number of MPs in each seat, but given that population growth is likely to be strongest from current population centres, it won't be long before they have to look at these boundaries again.
A new poll by Lib Dem Voice, which represents grassroots activists, found that 48 per cent would prefer to be in alliance with the Labour Party in 2015 compared to just 19 per cent who want to carry on with the Tories.
Meanwhile, the reform of the House of Lords has effectively been dumped by the Tories. Perhaps now is not the time to be looking at this with the Eurozone in meltdown, but let's not forget that it does need addressing in the future. Inherited privileges to attend a major place in the UK to decide the laws on how we live our lives is just not democracy.
Estimates by Boundary Commission for England.for the new boundaries:
18 Hemel Hempstead CC 76,457
26 Luton North and Dunstable BC 78,957
27 Luton South BC 75,106
43 South West Bedfordshire CC 77,807
44 South West Hertfordshire CC 79,167
46 St Albans CC 78,920
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)