School Governors to Decide on Academy Conversion for Nettleham Infants School

This evening the Governing Body of Nettleham Infant School will meet to decide if converting to Academy Status is the right decision for the school.

Academy status means that a school becomes free of local authority control, receiving funding from the Department for Education. An Academy is a limited company with charitables states, an independent school, underpinned by statute, publically funded and operating outside of the local authority.

As a Foundation School, Nettleham Infant School seems well placed to take advantage and benefit from conversion to Academy Status. There have been a number of objections during the consultation period, most notably from Nettleham Parish Council, these, it is understood, have been few in number and some have even been resolved upon further explanation.

The Governor's at the School have given a clear undertaking that the terms and condidtions of employment would remain the same, that the term times would remain unchanged, and that they currently see no reason to re-brand the school's identity.

The local authority, Lincolnshire County Council, is eager to see all schools in the county convert to Academy status and recommended conversion at the start of the academic year, last September. Cllr. Mrs.  Patricia Bradwell, Conservative (Billinghay and Metheringham Division), speaking at the time, said:

"The council has children’s interests at the heart of this. Any decision about becoming an academy rests with the governing bodies but we want to provide some clear guidance to schools who may be unsure of what to do."

Over four hundred schools in England have become academies since September 2010 with the majority being secondary schools.

Nettleham Parish Councillor Giles McNeill, who is a Governor at the School, thinks it is important for the School to be at the forefront of changes in education. He said:

"The Governor's felt we would reap the benefits by moving quickly on this. We made our initial decision to consult independently of the local authority, we do not envisage being part of the CfBT grouping arrangements. 

"Becoming an academy will potentially give us more financial freedom to look at what we need and meet the needs of our pupils. It gives us the freedom to be in complete control of the future direction of the school so that if we, or parents or staff want changes, we can make them."

Police Authority Looking For Community's Views

Lincolnshire Police Authority is holding its next formal meeting at Police Headquarters, Deepdale Lane, Nettleham near Lincoln on Friday, 27th April 2012 starting at 10.30am in Conference Room D.

At each ordinary meeting of the Authority, members of the public may ask questions on any police authority business. Questions must be submitted in advance. Mr Barry Young, Chairman of the Police Authority, said:

"The Authority remains keen to ensure that members of the public have an opportunity to raise any matters relating to Police Authority business. Providing people with the facility to ask questions at Police Authority meetings is just one way of doing this. 

"We really are eager to take questions. However they must relate to Police Authority business, rather than operational matters which are the responsibility of the Chief Constable. Individuals can submit their question by writing to the Chief Executive or speaking to him over the telephone - it's as easy as that. We have set aside 20 minutes at each of our ordinary meetings to consider questions from the public and we hope to see a positive response".

Questions from the public must be submitted to the Chief Executive no later than 12 noon on Wednesday, 25th April 2012. The Chief Executive can be contacted by telephone on 01522 558022 or by e-mail: police.authority@lincs.pnn.police.uk.

Plans To Fell Trees Axed - For The Moment

Nettleham Parish Council has reversed its plans to fell two willow trees on the bank of the Beck, on Watermill Lane, in Nettleham, following a public outcry at the decision.

Work had been ordered to fell the trees, but strong opposition emerged late last night after residents became aware of the plans.

Cllr. Giles McNeill urged colleagues last night 'to hold off for a week and allow some discussion at Monday night's Property Committee Meeting.'

Meanwhile Cllr. John Hill, who takes the lead on trees within the village on behalf of the Parish Council, said, via e-mail:

"Tonight I have been contacted by residents in the Watermill Lane area and others about the proposed felling of these trees. As a result of those discussions and representations I have cancelled the work planned for this Saturday. 

"The Property Committee can review the original decision on Monday night. I expect some residents to be present and put their points of views. We can then decide the way ahead and how we wish to respond to their anxieties."

Residents will have an opportunity to put forward their views at the Parish Council's Property Committee Meeting on Monday 12 March 2012 at 7:30pm at the Pavilion at Mulsanne Park.

Giles McNeill's Statement on Lincoln Rugby Football Club’s Planning Application

Nettleham Parish Councillor, Giles McNeill, at a Parish Council Meeting convened to discuss the Lincoln Rugby Football Club's planning application at Nettleham Village Hall, has said:

"West Lindsey District Council, who we know are the planning authority, can only take into account relevant planning considerations. These include: Structure and local plan policies, government planning guidance, planning law and previous decisions, highways safety and traffic issues, noise, disturbance & smells, design, appearance & layout, conservation of historic buildings or trees, residential amenities and environmental impact.

"They can not take into consideration any matter covered by other laws (such as alcohol licensing), private property rights (such as boundary or access disputes), The applicant’s morals or motives, suspected future development, loss of view or effect on value of property, personal position of applicant or objector.

"Let me be clear, planning permission is granted or refused based on planning reasons. This provides the basis for my view.

"We know that a report will be prepared by the Planning Case Officer including all the relevant information and a recommendation to either grant or refuse planning permission.

"Statistics available from the council tell us that the majority of applications – around 91% – are determined under ‘delegated powers’. This means that the Director of Resources has the authority to make a decision based on the information provided by the Planning Case Officer. The remaining 9% of applications are considered by the Planning Committee which meets monthly. Applications will go to committee if; they have received a significant number of objections – which I suspect to be the case in this instance; if the Officer’s recommendation is contrary to the issues raised by objectors; or at the request of a Ward Councillor. I would like to seek a guarantee from our district representatives Councillors Leaning and Frith to ensure that the decision is going to be put before the Planning Committee and not made by the Director of Resources as has happened at their direction in the past – to the frustration of some on this council.

"A lot of nonsense has been banded about in the press and in letters & e-mails. For instance I do not know where the rumour started about there being eleven flood-lit pitches but for those who have read the planning application this is patently untrue – two flood-lit pitch and one mobile secondary system.

"Those who say ‘no’ hold their beliefs every bit as strongly those who say ‘yes’. However, the ‘No’ camp would have us believe that their view prevails across the entire community – a petition collected at the public meeting held by Mr. Perkins at the start of November, indicated that those attending were 96% against and 4% in favour (on a sample of 104). This contrasts sharply with the poll conducted on my blog where figures at the close of the poll earlier today showed only 14% against and 85% in favour (on a larger sample of 171) – our community is divided on this issue.

"In the Nettleham Parish Plan 2007, adopted in May of that year, one of the key objectives identified was the acquisition of land for recreational purposes. The Parish Council had hoped to obtain use of the Police Field, but in a recent letter to the Parish Council from the Police Authority they have firmly rebuffed the idea. The plan made clear this was a preferred option but that alternative options may be considered. Residents who responded to the draft action plan broadly supported encouraging further development of sports fields in the community. 46% agreed with the statement, 36% expressed a neutral view whilst only 18% disagreed.

"I have looked at, in detail, the planning application documentation. I have visited the site. I have followed the coverage in the local press. I have received and responded to correspondence.

"Based on the criteria previously cited I believe that this application is in line with structure and local plan policies, government planning guidance together with planning law and previous decisions. I do not believe that the development would cause any undue disturbance or smells and has no impact on the conservation of historic buildings or trees. I believe that the development would represent a significant addition to residential amenities.

"I like many residents have my concerns about this proposal’s impact upon traffic, both within the village centre and at the junction onto the A158 at the top of Lodge Lane. I have looked at the Transport Statement by Turvey Consultancy Limited and I am sure many residents will be concerned that it forecasts a doubling of traffic on Lodge Lane heading towards the junction of the A158 at peak times. However, as the report makes clear the increase will still leave traffic flow levels at a rate below that which is considered to be capacity for the highway. The only failing of this report is the seeming omission of consideration of the impact of the use of the site by students from Lincoln University on Wednesday afternoons – when traditional inter-mural sport is played. However, I do not foresee that the traffic generated by this activity would be greater than at times of peak flow at the weekend.

"In my view any noise generated at the site will not significantly add to the noise currently generated by activities currently undertaken by Football, Tennis and Cricket at Mulsanne Park. With regard to the design, appearance & layout of the site it is my view that the use of redbrick and timber larch boarding is a good choice to maintain the character of a rural setting. I would prefer that the roofing be terracotta pan-tiles to tie in with local Lincolnshire architectural traditions. I have read with interest the comments made by Defend A Northern Green Environmental Rim (DANGER) who have been at the forefront of protecting this village from coalescing with Lincoln for many years. Whilst I understand their desire for a single story building, the fact remains there is at least one property contiguous with the land of the proposed development which has two stories. There is clear need to provide an adequate platform for spectators, minimise the footprint of the development and measures taken to reduce the visual impact of the site seem thoughtful and appear sufficient.

"I am concerned by one paragraph in the Ecological Survey and would like assurance that development of the site will either take place outside of the nesting season or a thorough search for active nests will be undertaken prior to development beginning . Assuming that this assurance is forthcoming I can see no reason why environmental impact would be a consideration – in fact as Cllr. Hill notes in his representation the development will substantially improve, in his view, the environmental situation.

"In conclusion, it is my belief that there are no planning reasons on which the Planning Authority would have grounds to refuse planning permission."

Exclusive: Local Couple In Favour of the Rugby Club's Development

Local Couple speaks out in favour of Rugby Club Development
A Nettleham couple,has sent http://gilesmcneill.blogspot.com their views regarding the Lincoln Rugby Football Club's proposed development.

They say:

"As Secondary School PE teachers, we believe that any development that encourages children to get involved in physical activity and gives them another focus is to be welcomed. In this instance children from four years old to eighteen years old will be actively involved, and the nature of rugby itself promotes self discipline and respect which are admirable qualities."

In their communication they point out their veiw that the 'green belt' will in effect be kept green, with only one building and a relatively, proportionally small tarmaced area for parking. Secondly that there is already an established sports ground abutting the proposed development - namely Mulsanne Park. Thirdly they believe the Rugby Club will make the effort to engage the community and become part of it, whilst not imposing themselves.

The couple attended the residents meeting organised by Mr. Steven Perkins and the following were raised at the recent meeting, they respond that: Regarding increased traffic. Whilst the Rugby Club claim they will direct the traffic on to the A146 (and we do believe they will, as it is in their best interests), the fact is some traffic will go through Nettleham. In their opinion this will not impact greatly on the village. The two busiest times for the Rugby Club are Saturday afternoon and Sunday morning, and should people decide to drive through Nettleham when there is a Church wedding or Service on then they will quickly realise there is already a bottleneck and the A158 would in fact be the easier option. Mention was also made of buses coming through the village – there already are school buses and others on a daily basis rather than once a week.

Secondly, regarding the potential for increased light and noise pollution. They believe that when put into context there seems little impact on the surrounds when taking into consideration the light and noise pollution that already exists from the traffic on the A158, the football pitches on Mulsanne Park and street lamps. Taking into account that the light pollution would only be there two nights a week.

Thirdly they mention that there were other complaints at the meeting which seemed rather frivolous, although we are sure no less important to the people involved, for example the impact on horseriding on the bridlepath and the effect the new development will have on those that overlook it; assuming they can see over the existing football pitches!.

"We do know that some residents of the village are concerned about the village ‘growing in size’ or becoming a ‘town’. Once the University decided to expand in Lincoln then expansion has become inevitable. The owner of the land in question is presumably willing/wanting to sell, therefore one must assume there will be a development of some sort in the future. Whether residents are willing or not, change may be on its way in the near future.

"...[W]e are wholeheartedly in support of the proposed development of Lincoln Rugby Club."

Exclusive: One Resident Against the Rugby Club's Development

Local Resident with Experience of Rugby Club Development Voices Her Concerns
A Nettleham resident, with experience of living near a szable rugby development, has sent http://gilesmcneill.blogspot.com her views regarding the Lincoln Rugby Football Club's proposed development.

She says:

"My views on the proposal reflect our years of experience of the Rugby Union development at Twickenham! Thank Goodness we have left all that behind and the chaos which ensued on match and pop concert days/evenings."

The points made can be summerized as an assumption that if development at Lodge Lane goes ahead, it will open the floodgates for evening events, helping to pay for the redevelopment (Subject to a licence being issued by the council for each performance - residents will not be consulted at all and many people will just have to put up with loud music whether they like it or not). Residents should not have to endure this inconvienience. The village that local residents are familiar with will change almost overnight.

Further she expresses concern over unsubstantiated rumours that the Rugby Club will not use all the land owned by the University; that a housing development is likely alongside the A158 following the Rugby Club development.

On match days when, visiting teams arrive, in coaches, with their supporters, it should not be forgotten that the fast food outlets will also pitch up in their vans. They will provide plenty of unwelcome aromas for hours from fish & chips, burgers, onions, hot dogs and so on and so forth. From her experience she states:

"I know that rugby players and supporters do not care for club housecatering and require a regular intake of fried food from mobile vans!"

A further disadvantage of mobile caterers is that they will produce, all be it indirectly, a serious litter problem; particularly in Lodge Lane and potentially beyond - no matter how many refuse bins are provided.

Noise and light pollution will carry for some distance.

Her final point is that traffic will increase drastically, she believes, throughout the village as not all cars will arrive from Lincoln via the A158. Some drivers from further afield will want to save petrol by using their Satnavs to access Lodge Lane via Scothern Road and Vicarage Lane, and also via Brookfield Avenue. They will return the same way as, even now, no-one now wants to queue to turn right for Lincoln from Lodge Lane. Lodge Lane she believes is an extremely dangerous T-junction and will require traffic lights, thus rendering delays to passengers driving towards the City from Sudbrooke, Wragby, Market Rasen and Skegness as well as villages east of Nettleham.

One suggestion that is made is:

"Why can't the Rugby pitches be built at the Showground? There's plenty of land there with few neighbours around to be disturbed!"

Parliament's reputation returns to pre-expenses level

In the wake of the Parliamentary Expenses Scandal, public approval ratings of parliament dropped to new lows; whilst political corruption and sleaze became a major issue for voters.

For the first time since the revelations on Parliamentarians’ expenses claims, parliament’s approval rating has returned to the level that it was prior to the scandal, while the importance attached to corruption as a national priority is fading.

The findings come from PoliticsHome.com - the only opinion research organisation to track public approval of the main public institutions every week of the year. Voters are asked to say whether they have a positive or negative impression of sixteen institutions. The negative scores are then subtracted from the positive scores to give a net approval rating.

Prior to the publication of parliamentarians’ expenses claims by the Daily Telegraph on 8th May 2009, the approval rating of parliament was -50%. Over the next six weeks, public opinion dropped, reaching a low of -64% before recovering over a ten week period. The latest available figures show the approval rating of parliament has reached -49%, the highest level since the expenses row broke.

PoliticsHome also tracks which issues the public sees as being the most important. Each week voters are asked to say which, from a list of 23 issues, they see as being the most important facing the country. The perceived importance of 'Political corruption and sleaze' increased during the expenses controversy, but has since fallen.

35% of voters thought it was an important issue facing the country before the Daily Telegraph started publishing details. This rose to 62% over the following three weeks, making it the second biggest issue facing the country. recent figures show 39% of the public see political corruption as an important issue.