And in Other News…

POT HEADS
El Brute have just announced that a £35,000 ‘community road and pavement funding pot’ is now available for making minor street repairs in each of the ’14 village areas’ in the Borough (£490,000 in total). Obviously this poses a bit of a problem for Twickenham given that, despite having our own green complete with cricket pitch, it’s actually a town and not a village. But anyway, let’s hope we can still sneak under the wire when it comes to getting a share of the loot in the ‘pot hole pot’. All you have to do is nominate your favourite cracked paving slab or hole in the road for death by tarmac and the wise heads at the Council’s Department of Pot Hole Services will decide if there’s anything they can do about it.

The deadline for nominations is 1st March, so it’s time to get voting. Or, as @centricneil would have it on Twitter, it’s Pot Idol!

LINK:
* El Brute Pot Hole Nomination Info

15 Comments

Filed under Council, Local Issues & News

15 responses to “And in Other News…

  1. Simon H

    All of Richmond borough is in London. It is not a series of villages (much as I like to pretend my own Strawberry Hill is a quaint village in the Cotswolds). It is an area of a city.

  2. twickerman

    Gareth, Scott, twickerati, ElBrute,

    How does the ‘village people’ thing work for Twickenham which has 4 different wards (South, West, Riverside&East, North&StMags) each with 9-10,000 residents?

    Is Twickenham 4 different villages, one large town, or many different hamlets (StMags, Strawb Hill etc). Or all three?!!

    Regards
    twickerconfused.com

    • Gareth Roberts

      Well Scott’s very much your man for answering this one as he has a concern that the residents of East Twickenham are being poorly done by with this unofficial Boundary Change which the Tories have dreamt up. He raised the point at last weeks Overview and Scrutiny Committee and received little response, other than the skunk eye, from Pam Fleming who is the cabinet member responsible.

      At the same meeting we learned that the recent Residents’ survey collated results in ‘Villages’ rather than against specific wards. Where’s the harm there, you may ask. Well imagine that Twickenham ‘Village’ residents seemed to have an abnormally high problem with pavement fouling compared with the rest of the borough. You really need to be able to pinpoint that sort of problem so resources can be allocated. If the results had come in at Ward level it would have been more helpful.

      £24,000 that survey cost, by the way, and because it was poorly speced out it was given something of a roasted reception by scrutiny

    • Gareth Roberts

      Amusingly I notice that Scott’s email signature where he claims representative responsibility for seemingly every area with the exception of Watford Gap Services and Metebelis 3 he refers to the following
      “Councillor for Twickenham Riverside
      (Twickenham Town, Marble Hill, East Twickenham Village)”

      Twickenham Town, you’ll notice. I’ll alert the Witchfinder General; that the Anti-Village heresy has found a home within the Blue Baron’s citadel will be a matter for concern!

    • twickerman

      Scott’s right that the Riverside ward includes the Marble Hill tribe and East Twickerpeeps, but ‘Twickenham Town’ is a bit amibtious because the Riverside ward only contains a part of Twickenham town centre. The station, for example is in North Twickenham.

      Incidentally, whoever put the HILL into Marble, Strawberry or Hampton must’ve been from either Norfolk or Holland or the Maldives!

      Do the Council have a village map cos I’m getting very confused about what’s what. I suppose that’s mission accomplished for the ‘village people’ responsible for these silly denominations!

  3. Perhaps the Twickenham Town Business Association needs to change its name. The TTBA is dead, long live the TVBA!

  4. Charles

    I feel its important to recognize that we live in Suburban towns, and reflect what suburban is. Large parts of the borough were celebrated for being garden-cities in the 1920s and thirties the best of country & city combined – but this has gradually been lost with lots of infill development and the grass verges being covered in tarmac (unless you are the Leader of the Council of course).

  5. Gareth Roberts

    The villages nonsense is far worse for Richmond. The current administration insists on labelling a town bordered by a dual carriageway with a mainline rail staion, a tube station, a bus station, two cinemas, a theatre, numerous churches and lots of pubs a ‘Village’.

    On a more serious point each of these ‘villages’ gets exactly the same amount of the pothole money – £35,000 per ‘village’. So those which have very small populations of about 1000 residents, such as Hampton Wick, get exactly the same amount of money to spend on their roads as the mega villages such as Twickenham, Teddington and Richmond which have about 10,000 residents each – which is patently an inequitable allocation of resources.

    • Ex-Twickenham resident

      In reply to Gareth…Well, I think Twickenham and Richmond are too small to be towns. Village has a nice cosy feel, perhaps R&T just qualify – afterall you can walk the length and breadth of either in a few minutes. Would be interested to know what others think. One thing is for sure…none of the glorious borough’s constituent parts could be described as a Hamlet.

    • Gareth Roberts

      Hello Ex-Twickenham Resident

      I agree that the centres may be relatively compact but these false constructs cover quite sweeping areas. Hampton ‘Village’ for example, as defined by LBRUT would encompass the entire area from the furthest reaches of Hampton North Ward, down through the centre of Hampton, along the A308 as far as Hampton Court Palace and then further down the Kingston Road towards Kingston’. A few minutes walk that ain’t.

      And this is all before you get into the slight democratic disconnect which is entailed in areas such as Hampton which have an area traditionally known as ‘The Village’. Would those people who live in Tangley, for example, recognise any consultation branded as being about ‘Hampton Village’ as being directly relevent to them or would they be minded to ignore it?

    • Ex-Twickenham Village resident

      Yes…see your point regarding Hampton. Any suggestions on alternatives to the the quaint ‘village’ concept.

    • Gareth Roberts

      Well, ‘Wards’ may not have quite the ring of villages but at least with the ward system you know where you are.

      Wards also have the benefit of having clearly defined boundaries, something I don’t sense with this new system of ‘Villages’. Of course the Conservative rationale is that people don’t necessarily identify themselves as living in a ward, they live in an area and I can understand that. But, and it’s an important but, when it comes down to allocating funding, such as we see with this pot holes scheme, then you really do need to have a robust, tested system, such as wards to ensure that the money spent is allocated fairly among all residents otherwise we get anomalies such as the one I mentioned earlier regarding the £35K allocations.

    • jimbo

      Oh Gareth, thou dost protest too much! “Village” according to my Chambers Dictionary is “an assemblage of houses, shops etc smaller than a town..” This is suburbia, so do not expect a maypole surrounded by rosy cheeked yeomen wearing smocks and sucking straws.
      What is not to like about extra money to mend potholes? To quibble about how it is distributed is like a nursery squabble about who has more cherries on their slice of cake.
      Add to this a frozen council tax, that amounts to approx 10% cut in real terms. Every little helps

    • Gareth Roberts

      Good Heavens Jimbo, your dictionary is getting a lot of work these days. No mention, I notice, of the part of the definition in Chambers regarding villages ‘especially in or near the countryside.’. Oh well.

      As for the division of the money, I’m surprised that you don’t have any concerns regarding the apparent unfairness in the system. It would have been quite easy to devise a system which would have allowed a degree of weighting to be applied – smaller pots for smaller ‘villages’, larger pots for larger ‘villages’ and still spend the same amount of money. Unfortunately the idea was dreamt up as a way of selling the ‘village’ idea but no real thought was put into it.

      I’m not arguing against money for pot holes, just in the illogical way the money is allocated and the fact that some areas are missing out on much needed funds.

    • jimbo

      Yes, true. The first thing I was taught in my scientific career was that one must define one’s terms, otherwise people wouldn’t know what you are talking about. Please note the dots after my quote:
      “an assemblage of houses, shops etc smaller than a town..” ; the dots mean -there is more!
      If you really want the pot hole cash to be divied up according to need, then it is lengths and type of road, not numbers of people, that would be required, and surely that is a bit too complicated? But of course I know you like a situation where all constituencies are of approx equal numbers – how very fair.