Congratulations to the Alfresco Restaurant which looks set to get permission to expand its seating by using part of the pedestrian area outside the restaurant for tables and chairs, according to a report in this week's St Ives Times & Echo.
District councillors are due to make a decision on Tuesday. County Highways have not objected but have suggested a solid barrier rather than the proposed rope barrier.
Last month St Ives Town Council objected (of course) fearing it would somehow make life more difficult for pedestrians along the Wharf and that a precedent would be set. But in a report, Penwith planners say that there would still be enough space for pedestrians since there would be just two tables with four chairs. Penwith also dismissed the precedent objection.
The report says,
"Given the variety of shop fronts, awnings and signage which characterise the Wharf, the proposal is not considered to be intrusive and an outdoor seating area is not out of keeping with this seaside town."
Exactly. Indeed, The St Ivean hopes a precedent has been set. Although, as the report points out, there are limited opportunities for such developments through lack of space in front of shops, more outside seating will add to the colour and vibrancy of the town.
Saturday, 19 April 2008
Friday, 18 April 2008
Diary of a St Ivean
This week I saw in Fore Street a man I encountered recently on the St Erth to St Ives train. He and two companions were travelling on a train from London which was running a few minutes late and which I had boarded at Truro. As we arrived at St Erth, the branch line train departed.
The branch line train cannot wait for late mainline trains because it is now a twice an hour service which is a tight timetable.
The man I saw in Fore Street (I suspect he is a second homer and a Londoner), began to berate the ticker collector on the branch line train when it arrived. His male companion - closely shaven head, outrageous shorts - joined in. Only their woman companion seemed embarrassed by the inability of this pair to understand why their demand that the branch line train could and should wait for any late mainline trains could not be satisfied.
They informed us all that although they were supporters of public transport, this support might well be withdrawn if they had to wait for trains in Cornwall. (I rather assumed that where they came from, trains were never late).
If the branch line train departs as the mainline train arrives, it is certainly irritating but not quite the end of the world. It means a twenty-five minute wait for the train to return. Of course, if it were to wait it would be late on its return which might mean passengers missing connections to London, Glasgow - anywhere up the line. And that really would be cause for complaint.
The branch line train cannot wait for late mainline trains because it is now a twice an hour service which is a tight timetable.
The man I saw in Fore Street (I suspect he is a second homer and a Londoner), began to berate the ticker collector on the branch line train when it arrived. His male companion - closely shaven head, outrageous shorts - joined in. Only their woman companion seemed embarrassed by the inability of this pair to understand why their demand that the branch line train could and should wait for any late mainline trains could not be satisfied.
They informed us all that although they were supporters of public transport, this support might well be withdrawn if they had to wait for trains in Cornwall. (I rather assumed that where they came from, trains were never late).
If the branch line train departs as the mainline train arrives, it is certainly irritating but not quite the end of the world. It means a twenty-five minute wait for the train to return. Of course, if it were to wait it would be late on its return which might mean passengers missing connections to London, Glasgow - anywhere up the line. And that really would be cause for complaint.
Thursday, 17 April 2008
UPDATE: Migrant workers and FoIA - Penwith's response
Penwith District Council has now responded to my Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) requests for information about the eviction of migrant workers and my separate request for information about the Council's record on responding to FoIA questions.
The Council's response:
The Council is in receipt of three FOI requests from you dated 12 April 2008, asking :-
1 - "Please provide me with all information in the Council's possession relating to the eviction of migrant workers from premises in Penzance on 9 November 2007 and of any other evictions of migrant workers that year"
2- "Over the last 24 months, how many properties have been recorded by the Council where there was a possibility of overcrowding and unsafe conditions within the properties?
What action did the Council take? Please give kind of action and numbers. (For example, 'In 6 cases, a Warning'.)
Where evictions took place, how many of those properties were occupied by migrant workers?"
3 - "How many complaints relating to noise nuisance and litter accumulations have been received by the Council over the past 24 months?
What action did the Council take?
Did any evictions result and, if so, how many of those involved migrant workers?"
The Council is also in receipt of a letter from you dated 12 April 2008, addressed to Mr B Turnbull which was further to Mr Turnbull's answer to your FOI request of 1 March 2008.
In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, in certain situations, the costs of answering more than one request can be added together or aggregated for the purposes of estimating whether the appropriate limit would be exceeded. It is the Council's opinion that your requests outlined above shall be treated as an aggregated request.
Under the freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004, the Council considers that the cost of complying with your FOI request would be in the region of £1425.00 (estimated at 37 hours to deal with noise nuisance and litter element of request and 20 hours to deal with housing element of request = 57 hours x £25.00 per hour = £1425.00) therefore exceeding the appropriate limit.
You should be advised that a modified request will be given due consideration provided the work involved does not, again exceed the appropriate limit.
Please do not hesitate to contact this office or Barry Turnbull direct if you require any further assistance on this matter or if you wish to discuss what information might be available within a time scale, which does not exceed the appropriate limit.
Please find attached a copy of the Council's FOI complaints procedure and details regarding charging.
Regards
Clare James
I post below the text of the letter sent to Mr Barry Turnbull on April 12.
Mr B Turnbull
Penwith District Council
St Clare
Penzance
Cornwall
TR18 3QW
Your Ref: btu
12 April 2008
Dear Mr Turnbull
Freedom of Information Act 2000 / Environmental Information Regulations 2004
Thank you for your letter dated March 7 2008 in response to my FoIA request of March 1 2008, emailed to me (outside the Act’s 20-business day requirement) on April 8 2008. Please note that the original letter has not been received here.
1) Please provide me with a copy of the authorisation for entry and of the 24 hours notice of intention to enter; if Sec 72, 95 or 233(3) of the Act applied, please supply details.
2) Please tell me the legal reasons why you have not disclosed the Fire Safety Authority’s Report to me. It is clearly in the public interest that such reports are published to help avoid future risk to life or injury relating to fire. Indeed, it would appear irresponsible not to disclose. You will also be aware of your duty under section 16 of the Act.
3) Was there actual overcrowding at the properties and if so by what legal/statutory criteria, if those criteria had been applied? How many occupants were there at each property and how many rooms did the properties have?
4) What were the circumstances of the person accommodated for one night and what happened to him/her subsequently?
5) Please give me the legal reasoning for your refusal to tell me the addresses raided. If it is a public interest reason, tell me the criteria used. The addresses are known to the occupants of the premises, witnesses, and support groups and to others in the community. In those circumstances, your claim that the addresses are confidential to the Council appears irrational. It is difficult for members of the public to exercise their right to scrutinise the actions of public officials when those officials keep essential information secret.
I am happy to receive the requested information in hard copy or electronic format and to inspect documents on site.
If my request is denied in whole or in part, I ask that you justify all deletions by reference to specific exemptions of the Act. I will also expect you to release all non-exempt material. I reserve the right to appeal your decision to withhold any information or to charge excessive fees.
I understand that it is your responsibility to provide the information I require and that I do not have to specify particular files or documents.
Please respond within the 20 business days as outlined in the Act.
The Council's response:
The Council is in receipt of three FOI requests from you dated 12 April 2008, asking :-
1 - "Please provide me with all information in the Council's possession relating to the eviction of migrant workers from premises in Penzance on 9 November 2007 and of any other evictions of migrant workers that year"
2- "Over the last 24 months, how many properties have been recorded by the Council where there was a possibility of overcrowding and unsafe conditions within the properties?
What action did the Council take? Please give kind of action and numbers. (For example, 'In 6 cases, a Warning'.)
Where evictions took place, how many of those properties were occupied by migrant workers?"
3 - "How many complaints relating to noise nuisance and litter accumulations have been received by the Council over the past 24 months?
What action did the Council take?
Did any evictions result and, if so, how many of those involved migrant workers?"
The Council is also in receipt of a letter from you dated 12 April 2008, addressed to Mr B Turnbull which was further to Mr Turnbull's answer to your FOI request of 1 March 2008.
In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, in certain situations, the costs of answering more than one request can be added together or aggregated for the purposes of estimating whether the appropriate limit would be exceeded. It is the Council's opinion that your requests outlined above shall be treated as an aggregated request.
Under the freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004, the Council considers that the cost of complying with your FOI request would be in the region of £1425.00 (estimated at 37 hours to deal with noise nuisance and litter element of request and 20 hours to deal with housing element of request = 57 hours x £25.00 per hour = £1425.00) therefore exceeding the appropriate limit.
You should be advised that a modified request will be given due consideration provided the work involved does not, again exceed the appropriate limit.
Please do not hesitate to contact this office or Barry Turnbull direct if you require any further assistance on this matter or if you wish to discuss what information might be available within a time scale, which does not exceed the appropriate limit.
Please find attached a copy of the Council's FOI complaints procedure and details regarding charging.
Regards
Clare James
I post below the text of the letter sent to Mr Barry Turnbull on April 12.
Mr B Turnbull
Penwith District Council
St Clare
Penzance
Cornwall
TR18 3QW
Your Ref: btu
12 April 2008
Dear Mr Turnbull
Freedom of Information Act 2000 / Environmental Information Regulations 2004
Thank you for your letter dated March 7 2008 in response to my FoIA request of March 1 2008, emailed to me (outside the Act’s 20-business day requirement) on April 8 2008. Please note that the original letter has not been received here.
1) Please provide me with a copy of the authorisation for entry and of the 24 hours notice of intention to enter; if Sec 72, 95 or 233(3) of the Act applied, please supply details.
2) Please tell me the legal reasons why you have not disclosed the Fire Safety Authority’s Report to me. It is clearly in the public interest that such reports are published to help avoid future risk to life or injury relating to fire. Indeed, it would appear irresponsible not to disclose. You will also be aware of your duty under section 16 of the Act.
3) Was there actual overcrowding at the properties and if so by what legal/statutory criteria, if those criteria had been applied? How many occupants were there at each property and how many rooms did the properties have?
4) What were the circumstances of the person accommodated for one night and what happened to him/her subsequently?
5) Please give me the legal reasoning for your refusal to tell me the addresses raided. If it is a public interest reason, tell me the criteria used. The addresses are known to the occupants of the premises, witnesses, and support groups and to others in the community. In those circumstances, your claim that the addresses are confidential to the Council appears irrational. It is difficult for members of the public to exercise their right to scrutinise the actions of public officials when those officials keep essential information secret.
I am happy to receive the requested information in hard copy or electronic format and to inspect documents on site.
If my request is denied in whole or in part, I ask that you justify all deletions by reference to specific exemptions of the Act. I will also expect you to release all non-exempt material. I reserve the right to appeal your decision to withhold any information or to charge excessive fees.
I understand that it is your responsibility to provide the information I require and that I do not have to specify particular files or documents.
Please respond within the 20 business days as outlined in the Act.
Wednesday, 16 April 2008
Sorry, but no new Tory dawn for St Ives after all (2)
Earlier this week, The St Ivean posted the blog's first report (see below) on the misfortunes of St Ives Conservatives with the story of how 'a new Dawn for St Ives' Mrs Dawn Parry failed to be selected as Conservative candidate for three parliamentary seats, one of which was St Ives. Instead, at the selection meeting last October, the St Ives Association selected Derek Thomas as its candidate.
So far, so good - and the party's website invited visitors to return to the site for regular updates on Derek's activities in the Constituency.
Not so good, since, according to the site, Derek seems to have done absolutely nothing at all since his victory over Mrs Parry six months ago.
Another failed new dawn for St Ives Conservatives?
So far, so good - and the party's website invited visitors to return to the site for regular updates on Derek's activities in the Constituency.
Not so good, since, according to the site, Derek seems to have done absolutely nothing at all since his victory over Mrs Parry six months ago.
Another failed new dawn for St Ives Conservatives?
Tuesday, 15 April 2008
Gangmaster licence loophole 'must close'
A loophole which allows gangmasters to break their licences but escape effective punishment must be closed immediately, Westcountry politicians have demanded... more>
Migrant workers evicted by Penwith Council were told, 'Sorry, the Housing Department is closed this afternoon'
Twenty-two Polish migrants evicted from premises in Penzance in January in 'Operation Westport,' were told by Penwith's Housing Department that the department was closed on Wednesday afternoons and that there was no help available, sources have told The St Ivean. The source added that on other occasions assistance offered by Penwith was just a list of unaffordable accommodation addresses.
The source, who has close connections with the migrant community in Cornwall, said that some of the properties closed down by Penwith in the past needed to be closed. But the source was shocked at the way in which the operation was carried out.
It is understood that in the past Penwith has suggested that temporary hostel accommodation might be provided for such situations, but so far nothing has come of the idea.
The St Ivean has learned that at a soon to be held meeting of groups charged with the welfare of migrant workers, it will be strongly argued that the methods of any future 'Operation Westports' need to change.
The St Ivean believes that the Council is wrong in its belief that it has no duty in law to house homeless migrant workers from the A8 accession states which include Poland.
The source, who has close connections with the migrant community in Cornwall, said that some of the properties closed down by Penwith in the past needed to be closed. But the source was shocked at the way in which the operation was carried out.
It is understood that in the past Penwith has suggested that temporary hostel accommodation might be provided for such situations, but so far nothing has come of the idea.
The St Ivean has learned that at a soon to be held meeting of groups charged with the welfare of migrant workers, it will be strongly argued that the methods of any future 'Operation Westports' need to change.
The St Ivean believes that the Council is wrong in its belief that it has no duty in law to house homeless migrant workers from the A8 accession states which include Poland.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
