Your Views
This is your opportunity to have a say about local issues that concern you. You can start a new topic or respond to one already opened.
To contact us - see:
Contact Us
Please note
Views expressed on SedgefieldWeb are not necessarily those of the publisher. We strive to be impartial and independent. SedgefieldWeb will not publish material of unknown authorship. Name and contact details will be published or withheld in accordance with the wishes of the author.
WELL WORTH THE ENTRANCE FEE
What a pity Steve couldn’t bring himself to pay £10 to get his family into Sedgefield Show (see letter below). Our family, along with the hundreds of others, had a thoroughly enjoyable time being kept entertained for the whole day with such a lot going on for the kids; horse, pony and dog competitions, etc and numerous stalls and exhibitions.
All in all it was a great fun day out and given the chance, Steve’s own children would have thought so too.
From experience we know it’s almost impossible nowadays to go anywhere with a family for less than a tenner (e.g. the cinema). We'll certainly be back for next year’s show.
B. Scott
SEDGEFIELD SHOW PRICES
I had to comment on the shock of the prices for this years show.
I live in Thornaby and have attended the show for over 20 years.
This year, after building up the event and getting them excited I brought my children to Sedgefield. I couldn't believe the pricing of the event, at the gate I was asked for £10, £4 per adult and £2 for my eldest child (6).
Needless to say on principle of the outrageous cost we about turned and visited Ropner Park in Stockton instead. I understand that for events of this kind there is a cost associated to them but £4 per adult is extremely high, needless to say we will not be returning next year.
This is a real shame, like I mentioned above this has been an annual event for years.
Steve (name and address supplied)
A Reply to a Reply to...
TRAFFIC CALMING
Is it just me, or are those annoying traffic calmers (or as one reader called them, chicanes) still there. Its interesting he called them chicanes as that is a racing term and it seems you have to race through them to avoid the oncoming traffic.
I'm sure if Sedgefield people had been asked they would have come up with a better idea than those ruddy things.
It was a interesting suggestion about having speed bumps all over the village. Its quite clear this person has never lived near one or noticed they have been taken out as they cause so much noise in nearby houses.
To me a better idea would be a traffic calmer like the ones in Durham Road in Stockton where both lanes of traffic stay open over a long low bump with a pelican crossing in place for the children to cross.
Anyway, lets hope someone sensible is reading and listening to what the magority of people I have talked to want.
Bob Workman
NOTICE BOARD
I was most impressed with the splendid new village notice board recently erected outside the library.
However, passing it during another of our frequent spells of inclement weather, I was disappointed to have to stand on a sloping and muddy grassed surround in order to read the posted notices.
Has there been an oversight, did the money run out and should we have a whip round for the cost of a paving slab or two?
"Ships" and "ha'peth of tar" come to mind!
I think there is a bit more work required.
(Name and address supplied)
RIGHT TO REPLY
I was surprised to read the very personal response to my letter in the April edition, from the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the SCA.
In their letter I am accused of being mischievous and misleading, which I find totally bizarre, given that all of the facts stated can be substantiated, both by accessing the Town Council Web Site, and by request, as part of the Freedom of Information Act, 2000.
I feel I need to make my position quite clear on this matter; I did not say anything derogatory about the SCA, or question the value of the excellent work the volunteers have done over the last thirty years, which is why I found the response so unprecedented.
I too was around in the seventies when the SCA was set up, and know only too well it's history. I have always been an advocate of the Community and Voluntary Sector and have been involved with several organisations both within the village and around Sedgefield Borough for many years. Without the 'unpaid' volunteers of this village, the community infrastructure would indeed collapse; but SCA volunteers are only a small part of that network and not everyone is a member of the SCA.
The SCA has 17 projects or sections within it, according to their Charity Accounts, and they all make their contribution to the Charity so that it is able to fulfil its objectives which are,' ... To promote the benefit of the inhabitants of the beneficial area…', that being the 'Parish of Sedgefield and the Neighbourhood.'
Clearly this does not mean only users of Ceddesfeld Hall are beneficiaries, although most people would argue they are the main beneficiaries.
The running costs of the Parish Hall have to be met by the local taxpayer and it's users, because it is in local authority ownership, making grants from Trusts more difficult to access. The Parish Hall relies heavily on rental income from its users, and because of it's legal status and the lack of investment in the fabric of the building, it's 'letting' potential is diminished therefore any financial support from elsewhere would be welcome.
In the case of the SCA, their Charitable Status allows access to a huge range of grant making Trusts and the freedoms to raise money and in turn support the up keep of Ceddesfeld Hall, but also to fulfil its objectives as a Charity. As the respondents so rightly pointed out, Ceddesfeld Hall is a valuable public asset. It is not good financial management to rent out such a huge building for a mere £50 per week in today's climate of Best Value. This is still a public asset and the community should expect a reasonable return on it, as we do with other public assets such as the Cemetery Lodge. It is also not in the public interest when a Charity is declaring a profit of around £10,000 per annum, ( See www.charitycommission.gov.uk/registeredcharities ) to expect the local taxpayer to subsidise the rent especially when others are being treated differently. It is also very naíve, and misleading, to suggest that there have been no financial subsidies to the organisation, as for example, Charitable Status allows Business Rates to be waived, in full, as part of Sedgefield Borough Council Policy of support to Charitable Organisations.
Perhaps, we should all take time to reflect on how best we can work together for the benefit of all of the people in this area, and not the few.
Oh, and by the way, my name is Mrs Gloria Wills, and in the context of the letter of response, the apostrophe comes after the 's'.
Gloria Wills
THE ISSUE OF TRAFFIC CALMING CONTINUES...
In reply to the rather amusing note from David, I sincerely hope that the Fire Engines obey the speed limits the next time that David's house is on fire. When he moves to the traffic restricted 'Winterton Park' it will take them even longer to get there, along with the ambulances and police that will be delayed by the traffic restrictions.
I would dispute the facts in David's note, as I doubt that the number of cars has increased three fold. I think that David is making it up. There is talk in Durham Highways of removing the pedestrian crossing as it isn't used enough, so don't even think of adding more delays and trouble.
How does David know that 10% of traffic on Durham Road is exceeding the speed limit? Does he have a radar gun?
I realise that some people like to have the inconvenience of restricted traffic flow, delays, noise, pollution and Community College children spitting out of their bus windows instead of nicely flowing traffic, but I don't.
There have been three opinions expressed recently against the traffic restrictions on Durham road, (including my own here, a letter in the Sedgefield News and Bob Workman), a simple 3 to 1 majority against them. Dreadful things.
Lets keep traffic flowing and calm in Sedgefield. (Also - send all your suspension repairs and back surgery bills to David !!)
Andy from Sedgefield
TRAFFIC CALMING REPLY
There have been a number of letters objecting to the traffic calming measures at Durham Road. All correspondents seem to have forgotten that the 'chicanes' were installed to protect the school crossing - both children and crossing keeper.
The complaints come because of the actions of the bullyboys: do the writers intend that the aggressive shall win? Your recent correspondent, a fireman, implies that all or most drivers fail to give way to a fire-tender. My experience is that most drivers are considerate - often, for example, waving vehicles out of Hardwick Road. On the other had there are those, at both ends of the calmed section, who sit in the 'Keep Clear' section and prevent righting turning traffic clearing the road.
As an aside, it would be well nigh impossible for ambulance or fire-tender to reach either of the schools on Hawthorn Road at the beginning and end of the junior school day.
Roy Smeeton
We feel that the references to Sedgefield Arts and Community Association (SCA) and Ceddesfeld Hall in Ms Wills letter in the last edition of Sedgefield News (and below) were both misleading and mischievous. We would, therefore, like to set the record straight.
In the very early 1970s Sedgefield Town Council (STC) purchased Ceddesfeld Hall (the old Rectory) from the Church Commissioners and the SCA was established in that building. A full repairing and maintenance lease was entered into. Initially rent levels covered much of the repayment of the mortgage that STC had taken out to purchase the building; this mortgage no longer exists. The rent agreement is reviewed every three years and may be increased only by agreement of both parties.
Rent rises normally take account of increased costs e.g. salaries, energy (heating and lighting), insurance, repairs and maintenance. This would account for the increase in rents to e.g. users of the Parish Hall.
However, for the past 30 plus years, the SCA has paid, in full, the cost of all of the above (£24,000 in 2005). This money has been raised by the efforts of members of the SCA both past and present.
Ceddesfeld Hall has also been carefully looked after and maintained, such that it is now a much more valuable asset to the people of Sedgefield. It provides facilities for over twenty groups catering for all age groups.
In addition over the years members of SCA have been responsible for setting up and running regular items in the village calendar. The Mediaeval Fayre in May, which has been running for over 30 years, is still organised entirely by SCA members but benefits many other community groups and businesses in the area; Proms in the Park was started in 2002 as a 'one-off' to celebrate the Golden Jubilee and has continued by popular demand; this July sees the 13th Ceddesfeld Beer Festival, attended by real ale drinkers from all over the County. Groups also hold their own events for the benefit of all members of the community.
For over thirty years the many members of SCA have been and still are net financial and social contributors to the village. All the money raised and all the organisation is done by volunteers, our only employees are the cleaners. So far we have not required any financial subsidy from local taxpayers. Our members already pay for any increases in costs and should be congratulated for being self sufficient.
Peter Hinde Chairman of SCA
Wendy Gill Vice-Chairman of SCA
PS We always need and welcome volunteers to help run our events and help out in the bar.
Re: Home of the Ballgame, At what cost?
In reply to the letter from the gentleman from Winterton Avenue regarding the ballgames and asking for suggestions (see below). I agree that children should be able to play outside in the fresh air. I also agree to children being involved in outdoor sporting activity in the company of their friends.
However at what cost?
I do recall finding out that I had somewhere to report my problems a great help. I did not receive any unwanted or poisonous letters. I think the Gentleman ommited to say that the notice did say due to neighbours having gardens damaged, cars and windows hit by balls if anyone wanted to report any incidents to contact the Neighbourhood Watch and telephone numbers were given.
Since then I have contacted the Neighbourhood Watch and found them most helpful, and the only advice I can give to the Gentleman who wrote the letter is to attend the Neighbourhood Watch meetings and he may find that the residents from Winterton Avenue and other Winterton Park residents that have been affected and had property damaged from ballgames were most grateful.
I hope to see the Neighbour Hood Watch continue their good work in the area.
E.B Winterton Avenue
A reply by E-mail to that from Bob Workman (below).
TRAFFIC CALMING ON DURHAM ROAD
Regarding the criticism of the traffic calming measures on Durham Road. I'm a big supporter of all traffic calming measures. Remember the number of cars in the village has increased three fold in the last thirty years with little or no increase in the amount of traffic restrictions: we still have only one pedestrian crossing in the village in spite of the increase in the number of vehicles in the village.
With the new housing development close to the Community Hospital the number of vehicles using this road will increase. Also it can be reasonably stated that 10% of the vehicles using Durham Road are exceeding the speed limit. Personally I would like to see humps every hundred yards on Durham Road. People can avoid the possibility of accidents by driving sensibly.
I would also point out that more traffic calming measures are wanted by some people in the village and certainly not less. Also it would appear to be County Council policy to increase traffic calming measures on new estates: Winterton estate is fully calmed. Let's have this extended to the rest of the village.
David G Mitchell
What a 'kerfuffle'!!!!
It was good to see a response from the Town Council to my concerns about the cost to the taxpayer of the Ceddesfeld Saga. It is such a pity that we have to hear it from the Town Clerk and not from our elected representatives, nevertheless it was good to see so many of them at the AGM.
Clearly 2005-06 was a difficult year for our Town Council; they only had just over £20,000 increase in their budget(11.6%) although according to the Annual Report 2005 the increase was presented as 7.8%, which sounded more reasonable.
It was nevertheless alarming, in the same report, to be told that the interest on a loan in regard of re-development of the Parish Hall facility, had been taken into account when setting the precept for 2005-06, when in reality the application for the loan sanction had been withdrawn by the Council in November 2003, two years before this report.
At this year's AGM, when I questioned how the precept increase had been spent, and had it all been spent on funding the Ceddesfeld Hall application, there was clearly some confusion between the Town Clerk and the Leader, Cllr John Robinson as to the response. It was suggested, the bulk had been spent on Cemetery paths, although other pressures were sighted.
I found this difficult to accept as I had just read the Annual Accounts 2004-05, which stated the expenditure on the Cemetery had already been accounted for in the 2004-05 accounts, following an insurance claim (see p2 Annual Accounts 2004-05). Clearly misleading and somewhat confusing yet again???
But I expect we will see the £20,000 accounted for in this years Annual Accounts 2005-06. Oh, I forgot about the £40,000 already committed for the Ceddesfeld Hall Saga. Those bills will need to be paid in this financial year, unless we have already done so, not to mention the £10,492, (£55,000 by 6 annual payments +2% above base rate), for the Advice and Information Centre, and general administration and personnel expenditure which last year stood at over £100,000 (2004-05 Annual Accounts).
But we are doing better this year with a budget increase of only £7307?
My question on the apparent inequity and unfairness of the council's decision not to raise the rent on Ceddesfeld Hall for the third year running, when all other rental assets and lettings had been increased quite substantially generated a clear response. The review of the rent was not due until this year, possibly August. However the Annual Report clearly states that the rent review was delayed for a very different reason and was actually due last December (p14 of the Annual Report 2005). This is very misleading and quite serious given the conflict of interest of several members of the Council in the decision making process.
It is all quite a 'kerfuffle'.
Gloria Wills
Sedgefield - Home of the Ball Game or Home of the Mad?
Is it not enough that adults these days have to increasingly work their way through the myriad of intolerable 'nanny state' rules and regulations, 'don't eat this, don't say that, don't go there and the like', the residents of Winterton Park now find themselves subject to the dictats and ramblings of an over-zealous and sinisterly anonymous self-proclaimed 'official' for children's enjoyment.
Yes, anonymous notices and letters through letterboxes now proclaim small children playing in groups and ballgames in green areas should be reported to the neighbourhood wardens for Sedgefield. PATHETIC - to suggest it is the children who are behaviourally or socially delinquent to want to be in the fresh air, involved in an outdoor sporting activity and in the company of their friends.
Do any of your readers have any suggestions how one may go about putting a stop to unwanted and poisonous mail or have any information about who is behind it? Or better, to suggest steps how the person issuing these paranoid notices concerning an otherwise peaceful, crime-free and child-friendly area could get his or her life back.
Russell James
By E-mail
An email re: Traffic calmers on Durham Road
Is it just me or has anyone else realised the potential danger of these eyesores? Until recently I was a leading fireman at Sedgefield Fire Station and if we received a fire call at school starting and finishing times the road outside the fire station becomes a nightmare to get out from.
The industrial estate has a chemical company as well as a plastics factory and as we all know, seconds mean lives. I was lead to beleive these traffic calmers were only temporary. Could the relevant people please take another look at these obstacles and think about getting rid of them. After all, as the saying goes, its no good shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.
Bob Workman
Letter received by email from Gloria Wills
13th January 2006
I was amazed to see that the Town Council have withdrawn their planning application for the proposed extension to Ceddesfeld Hall, which was scheduled to be considered on 6 January 2006.
It seems to me rather bizarre to withdraw at such a late stage. It is also quite surprising that the consultants would advise their clients to withdraw the application because of additional information which had not at that time been completed re; the bat survey and archaeological report, ( ref: Sedgefield Town Council P&R Report 9 January 2006) both of which would add very little to counter the arguments put forward in the report to the Development Committee.
Surely through considerable discourse with the Borough Council Planning Officers the issues upon which the recommendation for refusal was made, had been considered at every stage.
The consultants would be well aware of the issues which could prevent the application from being successful.
Isn't that why someone employs a planning consultant in the first place?
I am concerned as a local tax payer that this has become a very costly exercise and one which can only leave us wondering how much the total bill will be.
Gloria Wills
These are my own personal views and not that of any other organisation
Further information relating to this planning application can be found on the Ceddesfeld Hall page.
The topic raised some time back by Norma Neal seems to be coming to a head and raising widespread concern....
Norma Neal, Chairman of Sedgefield Players -
There is great concern in the village about this planning application. Residents of Sedgefield have not been adequately informed or consulted about a proposal which could adversely affect village life in the years ahead.
Residents living close to Ceddesfeld Hall fear that increased usage will add to the noise pollution they suffer already and that parking spaces will be inadequate.
Villagers also feel that the visual appeal of the building will be spoiled. The beautiful parkland setting will also suffer, as several mature trees will have to be felled to make way for the extension.
Regular users of the existing Parish Hall include award winning local drama group, Sedgefield Players and accomplished choral society the Lyric Singers. Both are concerned that the planned extension does not include a stage and therefore would not allow performances of any kind to take place. Other users include the WI, Country Markets, a monthly craft fair and a childrens' dance group. The Parish Hall is also used for weddings and other celebrations though its use has been somewhat curtailed in recent years because of soundproofing problems.
A petition against the planning application is now circulating the village and will be presented to Sedgefield Borough Council at the beginning of October. If you wish to add your name to the list, look out for the petition in local establishments or contact me on 620091 or Becky Rowe on 629068.
Now see more information about the Parish Hall.
Former Mayor of Sedgefield, Derrick Lofthouse writes…
I wish to add my support to the concern of many residents who are worried about the consequences of the closure of the Parish Hall and the current plans to relocate the facilities to Ceddesfeld Hall.
I visited the Borough Council offices to see the proposals for myself and, judging from the volume of documents, reports and drawings, much has already been done (though at what cost I shudder to guess). Some of the reasoning behind the exercise appears to make financial sense, but I submit that a number of very important factors have been either overlooked or quietly disregarded. Chief among these factors is the completely inadequate provision for concerts, plays, and large public meetings or catering functions.
The actual seating capacity would in fact be less than the Parish Hall if a permanent and workable stage were included and this is absolutely necessary if the hall is to be used by the Players, Lyric Singers and the WI, or others for dances etc. It has been suggested that the Community College could accommodate these activities, but given its restrictions and its distance from the centre of the village this is not realistic.
I am also concerned that noise transmission will become as much a problem here in the future as it is now in the present hall. 28 years ago I was involved in the alteration and refurbishment of the Parish Hall. It is interesting to re-read a paragraph from the re-opening concert programme:
'A long-standing need in Sedgefield has been a large hall - a need highlighted even more in recent years by the village growth and community development. We needed a hall capable of satisfying this need - a hall where large scale social functions could be held, ranging from dinner dances, concerts and public meetings...'
That work partly fulfilled the need, but after almost 30 years our population has increased even more than we anticipated and if we are to look to future years we should be planning for more than a 'tack-on' job of limited size.
In conclusion I would ask that information on other options is made available and a public meeting arranged so everyone is aware of the alternatives.
The Future of Community Facilities
The recent Sedgefield Players` pantomime Cinderella was yet another resounding success for the group, playing to packed houses for every show and bringing live theatre to the village at the festive season. People in the audience, many of whom came from places other than Sedgefield, expressed their delight at the production and their appreciation of the hall where we perform. Despite all its faults, the Parish Hall is frequently admired by visitors, including those who belong to drama groups based in other towns. The size, facilities and location of the Parish Hall make it hard to beat as a local centre for community events. As we all know, the only fly in the ointment is the noise issue.
Sedgefield people may be wondering what is happening with regard to the future of the Parish Hall, in view of the lack of information coming from the recently reformed committee, now known as the Community Hall Development Group. As a coopted member of that group, which consists largely of members of the Town Council and SCA, I was dismayed to discover recently that current plans, based on an extension to Ceddesfeld Hall, make no provision for a stage. This seems to me to contradict all the original intentions of the Parish Hall Development Group, which stated that we would not end up with something worse than we already have. Several sections of Sedgefield society, including the Players, rely on the availability of a stage and, indeed, the Players would find it impossible to function without one. The suggestion of using facilities at the Community College is a non-starter, for reasons of access, size and cost.
Both the SCA and the Town Council are very keen to quote the success of the Players when the need arises, for example, when applying for grants or entering competitions such as the recent Calor Gas Best Village. Both groups might consider giving us a little more support and consideration or at least keep us informed when plans are afoot which may threaten our very existence.
The young people of Sedgefield are entitled to provision for live theatre, music and dance not only as an integral part of their young lives but onwards into their adulthood and the lives of generations yet to come. We have a valuable opportunity here to provide high-class facilities which will take us into the 21st century in style, rather than simply replicating what we already have, i.e. a hall for wedding receptions and dances.
In my view, plans which wipe out the possibility of live theatre should not even be under consideration, but as they are, surely the people of Sedgefield should be informed. There seems to me little point, or indeed honesty, in waiting until we have a fait accompli to ask the people what they think. It will be too late to object when the Parish Hall is a pile of rubble.
In writing this letter, I represent the views not only of a performing group which brings a great deal of pleasure and kudos to Sedgefield, but also my own feelings as an individual with an adult lifetime of commitment to the village and the activities which go on here. I am certain that I speak for many in voicing these concerns and hope that we can look forward to hearing details of its plans from the Community Hall Development Group in the very near future. Maybe the time is now ripe to call upon the people of Sedgefield once again, as in February 2002, when the possibility of closure of the Parish Hall was first mooted. The response at that time gave a clear indication that the people have a very strong attachment to the Parish Hall and that no moves should be made to do away with it without their clear agreement.
Norma Neal (Chairman of Sedgefield Players)
Should the junction be closed?
Following several accidents, including fatalities, at the Stockton Road - A689 junction pressure is growing for a change which will reduce the danger.
In the January edition of Sedgefield News there will be news of a consultation excercise regarding the problem.
If you have strong feeling over this issue, put fingers to your keyboard and let us dispay your opinions here.
A new topic from John
I have just received my letter from Sedgefield Primary Care Trust about the out-of-hours health care service changes, with some concern. To my mind, we have taken a giant step - backwards - in service.
Over 50 years ago when the Health Service was set up (and before that) you were able to call your doctor if someone was taken ill during the night and a doctor would visit you at home. No longer. Now we have to telephone a receptionist who may connect you to a health care professional for advice or arrange an appointment for you at Bishop Auckland General Hospital.
If you are ill enough to seek help during the night, do you want to have to find a taxi and travel to Bishop Auckland? Do you know where the hospital is (I don't). It seems to me to be a very retrograde step. If our GPs are abrogating their responsibilities then the least the PCT can do is arrange for a locum service to make home visits.
Incidentally, why Bishop Auckland and not North Tees which seems to be the daytime hospital of choice?
John Fitzpatrick
Your opinions about the proposed wind farm.
Information about the wind farm proposal and links to further information, a map and aerial photograph are on this page.
Wind Farms
In response to J H Fitzpatrick's letter 'the curse of wind farms' (see below) I would like to put forward the opposing side to the proposal of 8 new turbines being built near Castle Eden Walkway. In the first instance the problem of cost comes into focus. Although wind farms may be expensive, the cost of the alternative nuclear power stations needs to include the massive outlay for research and development, waste disposal and accident liability, all paid for by the tax payer.
Next there is the issue of global warming itself. Mr Fitzpatrick mentions that global warming is a natural phenomenon, which it is to a certain extent, but due to the damage that we have done to the atmosphere by releasing billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide into it we have accelerated that rate of change immensely. The data collected by numerous scientists around the world has shown a definite correlation between the rate of increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) levels and average rise in temperature, which is what has focused the world into looking at other ways of producing energy.
The fact is, that our current supply of coal oil and gas is finite, and when it does run out we need to have alternative methods of producing the unimaginable amount of energy that we demand. Nuclear power may that solution, but this also comes with its problems, such as the disposal of hazardous radioactive waste.
Mr Fitzpatrick says of nuclear power: 'This surely is a much more effective (and non-CO2 producing) alternative to coal oil and gas.' It has been shown in a study by the Institute of Applied Ecology in Berlin that a nuclear power station indirectly emits between 376 billion and 1300 billion tonnes of CO2, therefore releasing 4 to 5 times more CO2 per unit of energy produced as renewable energy sources (New Scientist, 18/09/04). This therefore cannot compete with supplies such as wind farms that have no CO2 emissions associated with them directly, or indirectly.
The renewable energy production of the UK currently stands at less then 1% and in accordance with the Kyoto Protocol we need to have reduced our CO2 emissions by 8% by 2010. But how is the government supposed to achieve this target when proposals to develop the renewable energy supply and reduce carbon dioxide are being protested against?
Although people may not find the wind farms aesthetically pleasing (Mr Fitzpatrick calls them 'monstrosities') surely they should be preferred when compared with the destruction of animal's environments, the rising of sea levels and major changes in the worlds oceans. Or maybe we should just build a nuclear power station at Castle Eden Walkway, which would of course be much easier on the eye, and keep every one happy.
Rachel Bell
r.a.bell@lancaster.ac.uk
Windmills Are A Good Thing
Following John Fitzpatrick's comments (see below) I wonder if I might respond (taken from my blog today)
One of the surprisingly naive things that John neglects to mention is the fact that nuclear power generates not only electricity, but also nuclear waste. Now perhaps John might like to store the nuclear waste generated by his proposals in the shed at the bottom of his garden, (provided that he can meet Health and Safety standards), but I feel certain that there would be some objections from John's neighbours, and perhaps from other members of the village's community. Greenpeace have plenty to say on the subject of waste, as do the Observer, which said in June 2002 -
'Almost 90 per cent of Britain's hazardous nuclear waste stockpile is so badly stored it could explode or leak with devastating results at any time'.
I have no proof of the accuracy of the statement from the Observer, but it certainly is a huge worry.
I would take issue with the reliability of a botanist and other unnamed academics being given as some sort of proof that global warming is not taking place. Received wisdom today, from all the major scientific communities, is that global warming is taking place. To state otherwise is also incredibly shortsighted, and very irresponsible. You stick your head in the sand, John. The rest of us have a duty to do what we can to stamp out ignorance and self-interest in regard to the future of out planet. I have children.
Lastly, I must also take issue with John's description of these turbines as 'monstrosities' and 'blots on the local landscape', as the view of the three existing turbines from the walkway is quite magnificent, and a further eight much closer ones would only enhance our local landscape. I was always excited as a child to see a windmill, and find nothing objectionable about the prospect of some closer ones. I have seen nuclear power stations in the UK and in France, and I would not welcome the building of one near Sedgefield, even if John's garden shed were made of lead.
Perhaps we should lobby for a larger cut of the profits to the area, rather than take this entirely negative approach that Mr. Fitzpatrick wishes.
Andy From Sedgefield
The curse of wind farms
I was appalled recently to receive a glossy communication through my door entitled 'Walkway Wind Farm'. This proposes the building of another eight 130m high turbines on a site near to the Castle Eden Walkway. We already have 3 of these monstrosities, sited near to Elwick, which are very visible from the walkway. Another eight would be a visual disaster.
Dr David Bellamy is totally opposed to the epidemic of wind turbines, as are a number of other academics who have realised that global warming is, largely, a natural phenomenon which is little affected by man's activities. Wind farms area very expensive way of generating electricity, the cost being at least 4 times that of conventional methods.
France has quietly led the way in green electricity generation; it has many nuclear stations which not only satisfy its own needs but supply a large part of Italy as well as exporting to this country. This, surely, is a much more effective (and non-carbon dioxide producing) alternative to coal, oil and gas.
I would request your readers to formally object to the building of this wind farm which will be a blot on the local landscape with minimal benefit to Sedgefield residents.
J H Fitzpatrick
johnfitzpatrick@melgrove.freeserve.co.uk
John, Andy and Rachel have given their opinions on this issue - what do you think?
Another hot topic (actually a host of topics) from Andy
Despite my best efforts, I was obliged to watch about 20 minutes of that terrible TV show Big Brother the other night. In the Sedgefield News (July 2004), the publication of the Sedgefield Development Trust for the village, a resident has complained about drunken yobs destroying her prize Rock Rose plant late one night.
'I have lived in Sedgefield all my life, and it makes me wonder how these people are being brought up' she writes.
They are brought up to be contestants on Big Brother unfortunately.
On another subject entirely, I was walking past our local Sainsburys the other day, (That's Bells to us ordinary folk, Sainsburys bought it a couple of months ago) and I noticed with some disgust the amount of chewing gum on the pavement outside. Now I have written to the Prime Minister about this (though he never replied for some reason) and suggested that he might get his junior colleague Lord Sainsbury to do something about it. This is not limited to the pavement outside Bells, but is endemic all over the village, and the country. The people who leave their chewing gum to be picked up on my shoes start very young, as children, following the examples of their parents. Another example of the yob culture referred to earlier. I expect to see them all on Big Brother sooner or later.
Has the problem of chewing gum got anything to do with the recent display of St. George's flags on cars all around the village in the recent past. I have written about it elsewhere and I have realised that it is very very likely that the people who had these flags, probably spit out their chewing gum. Chewing gum sales are illigal in the Phillipines - I believe that we should make it illegal in Sedgefield.
As I am ranting, I suppose I should get another thing off my chest, something I have also written to the Prime Minister about, though why he won't reply is quite a mystery. I am talking at this point to the dog owners of the village, those smug people who can afford to keep a dog, yet expect us to put up with the foulness they generate everywhere. So, just in case I get complaints from village dog owners who clear up after the mess they make, just think of the reaction you would have if I decided to relieve myself on the pavement outside YOUR house.
From Andy
('Our Man in Sedgefield' aka 'A Sedgefield View')
Well well well, Sedgefield Development Trust have launched a website for the village, and about time too.
I particularly like the way our webmeister has introduced a parochial look and feel to the site, no modern clean uncluttered appearance here, oh no, just good mid 90's graphics and design, reflecting the parochial look and feel of the village. Nice.
So, what else is to be found here on the village's new pages.
Advertising, that's what. Exclusive advertising mind, limited to those establishments trading in the village only, and free too for one insertion. If a business wants more, talk to the management, something will be arranged. There is a calendar, (not one of those things you use for straining the locally grown cabbage, silly) to tell you what is going on locally with all the local societies and groups. I am hoping to supply the details of the "Learning Latvian" group in the very near future, together with details of our meeting times and places. Don't miss out people, get your group or organisation interwebnetworked now.
On that subject I was checking out the groups already registered, and found some very interesting ones, which I will watch for developments. Firstly, I want to point out the various gardening associations listed, together with the produce shows. Perhaps here is the place to confess that a number of years ago, before one of the village shows, I drove another villager to a farmers field some miles away, from where the eventual winner in a home grown cabbage competition was lifted.
Perhaps the most interesting group, which currently has no contact details, is the "meet a mum" group. I personally have seen some of the mums in the village, and as soon as the contact details have been posted, I will be joining. Or have I got the wrong end of the stick here?
I am also desperate to contact somebody from the "Sedgefield in Bloom" group to clear something up. I was reminded of this when I was sitting in the daily traffic jam on Durham road the other afternoon. I really want to tell them to move those silly raised flower beds from the middle of the road. The Council have had to spend loads of money on street signs and white paint, and they cause no end of traffic delays. If they want to get some extra votes in the Britain In Bloom awards, they really ought to put those flower beds on the green somewhere. This would help with traffic flow too.
You've seen Andy's comments, now what do you think?
