'Sustainable Communities' Anyone?

A new law was passed last year that should empower us, as residents and citizens, to ask for help from government to promote sustainable communities and fight back against the problems that we encounter locally. The government are then required by law to co-operate and to try to reach an agreement.

The Sustainable Communities Act has been put in place as an aid to combat community decline and by enabling 'bottom-up' decision making for the first time this Act could give our community more power over local issues. This Act defines promoting the sustainability of local communities as, "encouraging the economic, social or environmental wellbeing of an area" and social wellbeing is defined to include, "participation in political activity".

Local Works, who spear-headed the campaign to introduce the Bill 5 years ago, together with Unlock Democracy say:

"this is NOT the usual consultation everyone is so fed up with - government cannot just say 'no' to all the good proposals and ideas that local people have. This is new wording and precedent in law."

However, High Peak Borough Council must 'opt-in' to the Sustainable Communities Act when the government invite them to do so for it to be of any use to us. What's more, we have to ask them to opt-in or they might just choose to ignore their invite. If we would like our local community to be involved in this decision making process we must:

1. Write to our local council or councillors and ask them to opt-in to the process when they receive their government invites this September/October.

2. Get involved in the local panels the council will set up if it agrees to opt in either by taking part in the local panel or lobbying them.

If our council refuses to accept a government and community invite we will publicly challenge them and MAKE THEM ANSWERABLE LOCALLY.

One of the most pertinent subjects highlighted by Local Works/Unlock Democracy has been the threat of Post Office closures and the restriction of postal services but there are also many other wide ranging matters that are covered by this Act and to which Local Authorities must have regard.

Some examples of these are: local jobs, the provision of local services, measures to reduce levels of road traffic (including provisions of public transport), energy conservation, production and use of sustainable sources, the use of local waste materials for benefit of the community, planning policies (including affordable housing provision), product miles and using local goods and services, access to all for nutritional foods, and increases in social inclusion (which also includes an increase in involvement in local democracy).

In practical terms we can use these measures to address worries such as the closure of local shops, pubs, doctors, dentists and hospitals; reducing pollution and climate change; quiet streets being wrecked by traffic; older peoples needs; alleviation of poverty; devolution and the promotion of proportional representation.

If you have an idea for something you'd like to see change then use the links below to see how the Act could help you take action. In what Local Democracy call the '4 limbs of sustainability'- economic, social, environmental and participation- there is plenty of scope for suggestions.

Hadfield and Tintwistle seem, to me, to be suffering a myriad of problems caused by myopic councillors and government at large many of which can be addressed by government listening to and putting in place suggestions made by local people. After all, we know better than them what our communities need.

We have practically exhausted all the usual avenues for change dictated to us from the top and things are getting worse not better. I don't know whether this Act will enable a different style of decision making and my cynical head remains fixed firmly on. However to let this opportunity pass us by could prove to be a grave error of judgement.

For more ideas on how the Act could help our local community see the rather excellent information sheet produced by the Campaign For Sustainable Communities here or visit their websites here and here .

HADFIELD SORTING OFFICE CLOSURE THREAT - Official Response From Royal Mail

CLICK ON IMAGES BELOW TO INCREASE TO READABLE SIZE

Many Hadfield residents have by now received official replies from Royal Mail (RM) who attempt to address concerns regarding the proposed closure of the Sorting Office. Our thanks to readers of this blog who forwarded copies of the said item which can be read above.

The matter hinges (according to the RM spokesperson) around the question of suitability of the Station Road premises which they state are "no longer fit for purpose" under Health and Safety guidelines.

The building was assessed by council H&S officer Mark Carlisle but during a meeting of residents last month, a Health and Safety Officer from the Communication Workers Union who represent postal workers stated that Hadfield is one of the safest Sorting Offices in the country.

So, what is the problem? If it is down to "lack of space" then surely, it will have always been so, the building hasn't suddenly decreased in size.

Does Hadfield post office need the latest design in sorting frames? Or, would we prefer to have our local posties happy in their jobs without the extra inconvenience of daily travel into Hyde and back out again twice a day?

If RM do, as the letter says, "consider the well-being of our staff to be of paramount importance" why did our local postal delivery workers feel that they had no option but to strike over these issues?

Whilst RM may well 'intend' to continue to offer the option for customers to collect mail from the Hadfield office we have absolutely no guarantee that this will happen or for how long. Indeed, the letter goes on to give a not-so-subtle get-out clause with the words, "however...a post office can close for any number of reasons" and, "we cannot guarantee that any post office will remain open indefinitely".

It should be heartening to be told that the sub-postmistress will continue to be paid for allowing customers to collect parcels from the post office but the reality is that renumeration for this will not be anything like what she receives for the Sorting Office side of the business. There is no doubt that the business will struggle to pay it's way without the substantial annual income derived from this aspect of the business.

Contrary to the claims in the letter, I suggest, Post Office Ltd., that you do have some control over whether the sub postmistress resigns/retires or not!

On a wider issue, what worries me is the unrelenting continuation of the trend to centralise everything at huge costs to jobs, the environment and people's lives when what we, as customers, residents, neighbours, and workers really need is for these services to WORK for US in our community.