Development Strategy

The council has started the second phase of consultation on its core strategy: the core strategy sets out the vision for how the county will develop over the next 20 years.

The first phase covered broad outlines of infrastructure and environmental issues at a county level. The second phase focuses on housing and employment issues at both a county and community level. It sets guidelines for the future of towns and villages.

The council needs a core strategy. Central Government’s National Planning framework encourages development: broadly, the assumption is that development is permitted unless planning authorities have reasons to say no. Officers and planning committees, like the one I’m on,  can decide to reject applications for good local reasons but if those haven’t been previously documented as policy there is a risk that the Planning Inspectorate, a remote and deliberately unemotional group, will overrule a decision on appeal. Many of the worst examples of development in the county arise from such decisions. The core strategy will give such reasons by setting a framework for development in the County. All that is a negative approach: the positive approach is that development in the right place at the right time is good, and a considered framework guides developers to do the “right thing”.

Northumberland, because of the aftermath of the removal of the districts, does not have a recently prepared policy framework and is at risk of developers and Inspectors therefore saying that it is not relevant. Hence the core strategy now being prepared.

It is important that as many people as possible read it and comment on it. It’s well laid out and relatively easy to comment on line although you can also respond in writing. The starting point of the document is here.   Some specific points about our area are here (Q39).

It’s also still possible to comment on the first consultation – especially if there’s a connection to this one. For example, I think the proposed number of houses in our area is not governed by the number of people living here, it’s also related to the number of holiday homes for letting. The policy on holiday lettings was discussed in the first exercise.

Responses should be in by 2 January; the plan is to publish a final draft of the whole strategy in Spring in the hope it can be adopted in 2014. As well as the strategy, the Council is consulting on the details of how it would be delivered – for example, the phasings of housing numbers.

There’s a danger of consultation overload. The AONB is also consulting on its management plan for the next five years. It’s policies will have to be consistent with the core strategy and are obviously important to the coastal economy. It has three themes: to conserve and enhance the landscape; to promote a thriving and living landscape and to encourage a place to celebrate and explore.

What does the core strategy say?

It wants to promote growth; it sees population growth, and housebuilding, as a key part of this. In rural areas, this is seen as a way of rebalancing the economy and the ageing population. In the Belford/Seahouses area, it suggests 500 new homes over 20 years: this is based on previous trends – which have actually been much higher – and the fact it’s an area where people want to come and live. It’s equal to 25 houses a year (as against 75 on average in the last five years) and assumes a population growth of about 4%.

It has considered constraints like landscape value and available land although I don't think it's thought about infrastructure enough. My main concern is that it doesn’t deal with the problem of most new homes being used for holiday lets: allowing 500 new homes could therefore continue with the unbalancing of our area.

I think we should comment:

- the previous experience of allowing houses without considering their end use has damaged the area*;

- the timing and scale of expansion is important: gradual development of 25 houses a year is more manageable than one development of 100.

- we need a better understanding of the balance of available land use for industry, caravans, second/holiday homes before being too explicit about housing numbers.

If you got to the end of this post: well done. And please comment..

* I certainly don’t think holiday homes are a bad thing: they help the economy. But as with most things it’s a question of balance and scale.

 

Wind

One of the biggest local issues is the proposed wind farms near Belford.

One application is already in – for 9 large turbines at Belford Burn. The site is so unsuitable that I find it hard to believe it is a serious proposal. But it is: a lot of work has gone into it; the application is over 1,000 pages long involving various consultants’ reports. The planning team is currently collating responses and comments.

All planning decisions involve the application of central Government policies. Where they are contentious there are three main parties who have to apply them: the planning officers at the Council, who will make a recommendation; the planning committee, who will make the decision; and potentially the planning inspectors if a rejected application is appealed. Any opposition (or support) needs to be focused on the decision points.

The Government has issued new guidance to clarify the importance of different factors, and in particular to emphasise the importance of landscape and environmental factors – very important in this case. It also notes the importance of local feeling and increases the size of the benefit which is given to the community.

When I stood for election there was a very strong feeling against the wind farms. It’s not clear yet whether the extra detail in the final applications and the size of the community benefit will make a difference to people’s view. I suspect they won’t. I hope there will be a public meeting to present the application and the decision making process and to assess the public’s opinion.

The community benefit in particular can be falsely attractive. Although it is a lot of money – suggested at £100K per year – it would be spread widely. And if you think about it the amount is roughly the same as one five bed holiday home would bring into the community. It’s just not that big in the scheme of things. And given the risk to tourism from wind farms of excessive scale, that’s a very relevant comparison.

There is an organised group of objectors – the Middleton Burn Action Group. They held a demonstration last weekend. I went on it first to show support and second because I do believe this application is wrong; whatever the benefits of wind energy it cannot be right to build a wind farm in this location, in the heart of one of the most beautiful areas of the country. I expect this will be a first demonstration given the need to highlight the problems with the application especially as we get closer to the planning committee’s decision.

At the same time we protested, so did others, in Balcombe, against fracking.

The difference in attitudes concerning wind farms and fracking intrigues me.  It typifies the point that people in general are moved by emotion, not fact, and that whether they support or reject something largely depends the attitudes of others. If someone you don’t like takes one view, there’s a strong inclination to take the opposite view irrespective of the facts. Sad but true.

Wind farms: destructive of the environment; substantial carbon cost of construction; ineffective in generating substantial amounts of energy; dangerous for flying creatures; increase energy poverty. Yet generally supported by the green movement.

Fracking: light touch on the ground; easily decommissioned; transformed the US’s energy production and cost because of the volume available; reduces the cost of energy for consumers. Yet bitterly opposed by the green movement.

Fishing grounds

The perils of a litigous society coupled with bureaucracy are being highlighted to the inshore fishing industry at the moment.

 

A couple of environmental charities have claimed the Government wasn't doing enough to control certain types of inshore fishing which could damage some types of sea bed; whether fair or not, the Government has decided to create a blanket ban on some activities unless they are sure that the sea bed is of a type that wouldn't be affected. Being sure means having evidence based on a survey.

 

The trouble is that instead of doing it effectively, they are doing it quickly: the first stage has to be complete by Christmas. Not just the survey: the implementation of the rules. Given the time it takes to write and introduce by-laws which have been approved there are only a few weeks to carry out a proper survey of the sea bed. This increases the chance that much of the sea bed will not be surveyed and fishing will be prohibited where it need not be.

 

So: although there is no evidence of harm, the desire to avoid litigation and the length of time needed to prepare and deal with legislation (in this case by-laws) means there will be an unnecessary risk to fishing, an improtant part of the local economy. Could it have been done better? Yes, if the Government had gripped the issue earlier, there'd be less urgency. Yes, if there was more flexibility on by-law production. And yes, if environmental legislation balanced the overall management of the environment with protection. The danger is we look at the short term rather than the long term.

 

I have joined the board of NIFCA (Northumberland Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority) which has to juggle this.problem. They had a useful meeting - appropriately over-looking Seahouses harbour - with local fishermen to explain the position, to identify the commonly fished areas to identify the priority areas to be surveyed; it looks as though we'll get the necessary co-operation.

Maiden Speech

My first speech in the Council Chamber earlier this week. A bit nerve-racking, but it was on an important subject so I felt I should stand up and speak.

Glen Sanderson proposed a motion to ask the Council to gather evidence about the impact of wind farms on tourism. Belford is likely to face two applications for wind farms on the ridge above it just in front of St Oswald's and St Cuthbert's Way so the topic was very relevant. Almost a quarter of private sector employment in this division is related to tourism, and there can be few people in Northumberland who have not enjoyed Bamburgh, Lindisfarne, Budle Bay or the walks noted above.

I said we owed it to good planning decision making, to the visitirs and to our residents to find out the facts.

The motion was, after a couple of amendments, agreed and the job of doing the investigating passed to the Regeneration working group (on which I sit, which  is good).

It's good the motion was passed with relatively little party back-biting: but it's a bit sad it's necessary: it should have been a no-brainer for the Council to want to know this. The trouble is that over the last few years they seem to have been seduced by wind farms, hence the growing proliferation across the county.

AONB

It was a warm gentle afternoon in a busy Alnmouth. I eventually found a parking space, at the front overlooking the golf course, one of England's oldest links courses, with lovely - some might say outstanding - natural beauty. I walked appropriately in front of  the course, past the dunes and back up the street to my first meeting of the Northumberland Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Partnership Board...

 

 



...where they elected me chair. Nobody else wanted to do it, which was one reason; another was that previously the chair was one of the Councillors appointed to the partnership board; I'm one of four such councillors and the only one who lives in the area and wasn't already chair of something.

It's good thing to be involved in; it doesn't actually have any powers but it has influence.

Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty were formed after the Second World War, at the same time as National Parks, to ensure their preservation for the nation's benefit. As a generalisation, National Parks were more isolated and had more protections than AONBs but the primary purpose is still to conserve and enhance the natural beauty.

There are over 30 AONBs in England and Wales; the nearest one to ours is the N Penines. The Northumberland Coast AONB runs from Cocklawburn to Amble. The County Council has the legal authority over the AONB and has to provide support and staffing and has a legal duty to pursue the AONB's objectives.

The main area most people come across the AONB is on planning and access issues where it is one of the statutory consultees. The national planning framework gives the highest level of support to protecting the AONB from excessive development (that is hard to see from some of the developments that have taken place in the area in the last few years, but hopefully recent successes can strengthen the AONB's authority in this field).

But the AONB does more than this: it gives advice and assistance to the community to improve the management of the area and to assist the development of the local economy. It works through a partnership Board where a number of special interest groups and relevant bodies - eg farmers, parish councils, tourist businesses, Natural England - are repesented. An important function (mandated on the Council) is to prepare a Management Plan every five years setting out what makes the Area special and the action plan to conserve and improve it.

The next management plan is due to run from 2014 to 2019 so I've become involved at an interesting time. Whatever the plan says, however, the beauty of the area will remain.

 

One Region

We (all councillors) had a briefing about the creation of a North East Combined Authority, which was then approved by the seven councils involved* and announced this week.

In a region which overwhelmingly rejected regional government this must raise questions.

The answer is that the plan is not to create another tier of government but instead the seven councils are combining their economic and transport roles. The reason for doing this is to benefit from scale, to avoid teh adjacent councils wasting money and effort competing against each oother for resources and most importantly to benefit from the Government's intention to proviude funding at a regional level to promote growth. Other parts of the country have either formed such a Combined Authority - Manchester - or are planning to - Leeds and Sheffield.

The Authority will not (at least initially) have a central staff or process. It will be run by the Chief Executives and Leaders of the seven councils and they will focus on the detailed Independent Economic Review of the NE chaired by Lord Adonis, which contained some relevant and helpful ideas. The economic and transport agenda will work in partnership with the Local Enterprise Partnership, a group largely run by business.

This is one of those things that everyone thinks is A Good Thing: all parties supported it. Northumberland and Durham have an effective opt out from local transport issues - transport funding will continue to be largely detrimined by the County, but we will have input into strategic issues which should help given the importance of the Newcastle hub. But I think there are two problems with the structure:
- can you think of another sensible, small scale group set up by Governments to benefit from economies of scale? And yet which over the years developed its own infrastructure and grew beyond the ability of the individual entities to control it? Yes, the EU. It would be easy for this to develop into something beyond democratic control.
- and this risk is made by the fact that there's no ability to leave the authority without the whole thing being wound up. It's always a mistake to start soemthing without thinking about how it can be stopped.

So overall, I think in the short to medium term this will be a good thing that will improve economic growth, But I suspect in the long term we'll regret it.


* Northumberland, Durham, Newcastle, Gateshead, S Tyneside, N Tyneside and Sunderland

Contrasts

I went to the North Area committee last week.

The council has three area committees. They comprise all the councillors in each of the areas and meet monthly. They have no major decision making powers – although they look after the allocation of the small grant schemes such as the Community chest (link). But they provide a forum for the public and organisations like parish or town councils to raise things in public directly with councillors either by questions or through petitions. It’s one of the few places where this sort of interaction can take place and where the public can encourage, or embarrass councillors and the council into doing things.

A lot of the issues raised seem to stem from frustration about a lack of communication, simply the fact that an email or a phone call isn’t answered which leads to uncertainty about whether a problem is being addressed or, if not, whether there’s a good reason for delay or no action.

About half the (relatively few) things that have been raised with me so far have been resolved quickly and easily; unfortunately the other half have taken time simply because people don’t respond without being chased. I understand the pressures front line staff are under but life for all concerned is so much easier when people respond quickly. This is a cultural issue senior management are well aware of; it’s up to us as councillors to continually press for a prompt reply. It’s only polite, and most people are happy to wait for a solution once they know someone is taking them seriously – or even to accept something can’t be done if they are told why.

The issues raised at the area committee were obviously important to those people. But they were an interesting contrast to the excellent induction presentation the previous week from the Children’s Services team. Youth unemployment, addictions, teenage pregnancy, under-performing schools are serious. The team seemed to be motivated and committed and has produced overall award winning standards of service across the county.

Lord Acton's quote *

When I used to occasionally visit County Hall I was always slightly offended by the reserved spaces for Councillors which were nearest to the entrance. What gave them the right to have better spaces than the Council tax payers? Now, as I sweep in and park, I feel it is no more than I am due. One month in and already the trappings of power insidiously corrupt…

Not of course that I’ve had that much power so far, and such that I have is reduced by the unfamiliarity of the role. But last week was the start of exercising influence if not power: I had three committee meetings (audit, licensing and N Area planning) and went on a planning application site visit.

The audit committee reviewed the internal audit programme, something that doesn’t sound that interesting but which is actually very important: it’s a critical part of the process of controlling how the Council works and how it manages its money. The internal audit function is shared with N Tyneside which means we both benefit from each other’s experiences. I thought the programme seemed good and importantly the Council is disciplined in following up issues raised by the function.

The planning committee more obviously impacted on people’s lives. We had five applications to consider; they only come to the committee because they are controversial in that there have been objections to officer’s recommendations. A lot of residents had come to watch one of the most controversial applications which had to balance the need for more affordable housing in the County, the pressure on local drainage infrastructure and the impact on the environment, and they were unhappy with the outcome. Generally I believe in planning decisions being made at as local a level as possible but they have to be in line with the County’s overall framework.

The number of issues people raise with me is slowly increasing, with a couple of particularly intractable ones last week that will require some careful working with relevant officials.

*  If there is any presumption it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority, still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it.

Interestingly, in the context of this Council, he is also the author of this phrase:

“The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections”.

The lessons start here

It’s all still a learning process; the main lesson this week was about the planning process.

Planning is tricky: if a matter comes to a planning committee then by definition it’s contentious and someone – often more than one – will be disappointed by the outcome.

For this reason, there are some tight rules to make sure that decisions are made fairly. Members of the planning committee can be lobbied, can take part in pre-decision discussions, but they must ensure their decision take place transparently. It must be clear that at the meeting they approach the decision with an open mind and considering all the facts. It is a quasi-judicial decision and has to be made in accordance with planning law and guidance – hence the need for specific training.

Planning officers make recommendations to accept or reject applications. Planning committees don’t have to follow that recommendation, but we need to have good reasons under planning law if we disagree. This is both to be fair to all parties and also because if we didn’t have reasonable planning grounds then on any appeal costs could be awarded against the Council.

The Government has set the framework for planning authorities. There’s a presumption in favour of growth, of “sustainable development”, whatever that is. Authorities must prepare a local plan which sets out the main priorities and objectives for the area and decisions would normally reflect the plan. At the moment Northumberland uses the plans prepared by the previous six District Councils but is currently drafting such a plan, which after consultation is due for completion next year. As the plan is still at an early draft stage the emerging policies can only be accorded limited weight in planning decisions although some weight can be given to the recent evidence base work supporting the emerging plan. As the draft plan progresses further towards formal adoption we will be able to give greater weight to the draft policies.

Other things that should be taken into account are the views of statutory consultees, like the Highways Authority, English Heritage and Parish Councils, and others eg local groups or residents. Issus like design, noise, safety are relevant; property values, prospects of better alternatives and restrictive covenants are not.

What does this mean for a Councillor who is on a planning committee? I’m on the North Area Committee, one of three area committees in the County; it hears anything in North Northumberland where there are is a dispute about the outcome and is not covered by the central committee. The central committee covers big stuff – things like major energy or infrastructure projects (eg wind farms), applications which have implications outside the area or applications made by the Council itself.

If the application is covered by the central committee then I can behave like any other councillor: listen, form a view and present that opinion (if desirable) at the committee. If it’s covered by the North Area I need to decide whether I should be part of the decision process or should step aside. I would normally prefer to be part of the decision process, unless I had some form of conflict of interest, and therefore would need to behave carefully beforehand. I would listen but not contribute to planning discussions at Parish Councils; any lobbying or fact finding would need to include one of the Council’s planning officials. This means I can show an open mind when it comes to the planning committee.

The planning authorities’ discretion to make decisions has recently been restricted by the Government. It thinks that planning processes have hurt economic growth and if it allows people to, for example, put up extensions or change planning uses on retail units then a thousand flowers will bloom and our economic problems will be reduced. I suspect this is overly optimistic and also forgets the fact that planning frameworks exist for a reason. For any one person who wants an extension, there sometimes will be neighbours who are badly impacted. Equally, a high street may not need a string of betting shops. We will see if this change is beneficial overall.

But despite this restriction, I hope and expect planning will be one of the most interesting parts of the role, even if also the most contentious.

 

Elsewhere, I had a discussion about parking problems in Bamburgh in particular as part of a general briefing about the AONB; this was prompted by a report in the local paper that I wanted to arrange a meeting to cover bank holiday and parking issues in the area. It covered the long term project to improve the highway design and management, focusing on de-cluttering, parking and traffic flow. The lessons from this apply to the other coastal villages.

And the sunshine continues. It brings parking problems but also money!

The Council Chamber ... and elsewhere

The Council Chamber is a bit like a theatre, not necessarily a theatre of dreams, and what takes place there can be a bit theatrical.

 

I was there for my first Council meeting on the 22nd: it was when the various posts, committee structures and allocations were decided and where formal reports were made. The meeting reflected the deal made by the 3 Independents to support the Labour group

 

The various party groups met beforehand to discuss the agenda and how they should vote; we in the Tory group had concerns that although the allocation of people to the various committees was (in most cases) sensible, the allocation of proposed Labour councillors to virtually all the chairs/vice chair posts ran against the Council's previous policy of splitting roles between management and scrutiny. Does this matter or is it just a technical politician's point? I think it does matter, a bit; Labour did not get enough votes or seats to be in a majority on their own and there is a very important benefit in having a separation of a scrutiny/review function from an executive function. However, with the independents' support (and because some LD councillors were absent) this approach was put through.

 

Our group leader asked for "named votes" on the proposals. This a procedure where the Chief Legal officer reads out all the names of the councillors (alphabetically) and we shout out yes, no, abstain, or whatever. This is really tricky because you have to remember the exact phrasing of the motion and therefore whether to say yes or no. Fortunately I got it right each time. Rather satisfyingly, I'm the last Councillor alphabetically so I will always get the last word on such votes. Less satisfyingly, I'm in the minority group so it'll usually be a pointless last word. The named votes process was a bit time consuming but was actually quite important: it identifies and puts on record how we all voted on the proposals to change the way the Council operates - particularly important for those not in the Labour group.

 

Anyway, all that was theatrical with eloquent speeches, barbed insults and so on. But I sensed - and I hope - that some at least was acting and that once it was out of the way people would get on with working together to deal with the County's problems. And opportunities.

 

Personally, I've been placed on some committees which should be an opportunity to help this area - the Northumberland Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority; the AONB; the North Area Planning Committee. And on some which I hope will let me help the County as a whole - the Audit Committee; the Licensing Committee and the Economic Regeneration working group.

 

Elsewhere, I had a useful chat with NEAT (I think it stands for Neighbourhood Environmental Action Team) about the issues in this area and I've picked up a couple of problems for people.

 

My main current concern is not knowing enough about who does what at the Council; the induction process starts next week with training on planning and then takes place through most of July.

Week two

(I will try to think of a more original heading for future posts)

 

Week two was a quieter week: as far as involvement with the Council is concerned, I'm waiting for the first meeting of the Council next Wednesday when the committee and management structure will be decided and I'll learn what if any committees I'll be involved in. The Labour group has said it has come to an arrangment with the three independents which could have implications for rural Northumberland. The training/induction/introduction to services and staff mostly takes place in June so at the moment I'm not sure which levers to pull if anything needs doing.

 

I have been to four of the parish councils: they all have different styles, I won't comment on which is more effective - not least because one meeting isn't enough to judge - but one common factor seems to be a frustration in getting a response from the County Council on issues. Some of this will be a question of a mismatch of priorities. I'll be interested over the next few months to see if there's another reason and to see if that can be improved. I got some feedback and help from one of the County's teams regarding bank hoilday rubbish collection, which was good, and the County has allocated someone senior to deal with one of the main problems in Belford. So it's not all bad.

 

Lastly, I've completed my election expenses - for the record, apart from the £6.50 cost of this website, everything else (about £400) was an allocation of printing and other costs from Berwick Conservatives for all those leaflets that I know people admired.

Week one

The election result for the County was inconclusive politically although satisfying for the 67 of us who got elected. Labour is the largest party with 32, reclaiming seats they lost in 2008, the Conservatives are next with 21, a net gain of 4, the LibDems lost 15 seats to end up with 11 and there are 3 Independents. 34 is the magic number to get voting control.
 

Until  how the groups will work together is decided the make up of the Council executive and then the make up of the various committees and how they will operate remains unknown. The critical date is May 22nd, the AGM of the Council and the date when the various posts get approved. And when people like me find out what formal roles we'll get in running or scrutinising the Council. The allocation will be made through a combination of party size, individual skills and interests and probably some unknown factors as well. I've indicated to the powers that be some areas I'm interested in: I'll report back in due course.

 

 

I've been to County Hall twice in the last week - first, a party group meeting to congratulate ourselves on bucking the national trend by winning a net four seats and to elect Peter Jackson as leader and Glen Sanderson as deputy.

 

 

Then a second visit, on Wednesday, an induction day. This was actually the day I legally became a councillor by signing the acceptance form. It was very much like you'd imagine the first day at school to be (although my first day was so long ago I've forgotten whether it was like I imagine it to be). First years wandering around slightly lost and wondering where the loos are; lots of forms to be filled out; old returning pupils being slightly superior and using incomprehensible jargon.

 

 

Another reminder of school (at least my school): there is a Members’ Room for Councillors. When I heard this, I had visions of wood panelling, leather armchairs, retainers with trays of spirits, paintings of long deceased aldermen and so on. Actually, its (70s) modern, some basic chairs and tables, a coffee machine and some photos of the county. It is so like my old 6^th form common room.

 

 

We had our photos taken; we will be given passes, County email addresses and so on. Even a laptop – because security issues prevent us from using our own for County business, which is a pain. And we were given some presentations on the Council, its functions – which are many - and then introduced to the induction training. There’s a lot to learn: the Council has a number of important statutory functions as well as providing the services we know – and those we don’t, and the necessary courses will take up much of June.

The presentation made a couple of points worth repeating:

Local Government is the politics of rationing and the management of expectations; the big three issues facing the Council over the next four years is the reduction in the budget, bringing improved broadband access to the County, particularly the rural parts, and dealing with the consequences of welfare reform. The discussion also raised the issue of how to get greater voter involvement, both in terms of the turnout at elections and also engaging with them between elections.

What else? I went to my first two parish council meetings – I’ll write more about that next week, after going to two more, followed up a couple of live issues with Council officers and went to the exhibition about one of the wind farms being proposed behind Belford. Wind Farms, I had been told, tend to divide communities. But this proposal seems to have united most people – in opposition.

So far when I’ve been stopped in the street people have congratulated me on winning rather than complained about potholes. It’ll be interesting to see how long that lasts. While it does, the first week’s experience suggests the role should be fascinating if time consuming.

 

The result, polling day and the count



My vote. My thanks to the other 812 people who voted for me.



John Holwell LD, 463; Nicola Morrison L 154, John Woodman C, 813.

So that's a win then. To show how in touch I was with what was going on, when I finished on polling day I had worked out that I couldn't possibly win. So I'm as surprised as anyone.

Polling day is a strange day if you're a candidate. Apart from voting, there's a not a lot you can do yet you sort of feel obliged to do stuff. I voted; I was first there at Beadnell and thanks to a couple of proxy votes took an early commanding lead of three. I visited the other polling stations a couple of times during the day, and noted a low count. We had "tellers" at Seahouses and Belford recording who had voted, the idea being that we could then chase potential supporters who hadn't voted. In Seahouses in particular this process sometimes turned the voting into a village event with people catching up with each other. Democracy has a purpose. Towards the end of the day we took stock, phoned a few people and sat back and wondered what had happened; as I said eralier I looked at the information and assumed it wasn't possible.

So the next day I had rehearsed my gracious losers speech by the time I got to the count, in the Willowburn sports centre in Alnwick. People told me I had won: before they count they open the boxes and check the numbers of votes actually tally, and when they do that you get a good idea of who is doing well or whether its close. And when they actually counted (in batches of 25, but unlike in 2008 they didn't use coloured pegs to indicate the party to collate the 25s, they just used paperclips) it was obvious I had won as the batches of 25 piled up. We had a quick discussion about the few spoilt ballot papers (a couple of blanks, a couple of Wot! no UKIP! ones) and then the announcement. I sensed some surprise at my victory - Bamburgh having been traditionally Lib Demn for so many years. A couple of journalists asked for a quote: I thanked the people who had voted for me, I thanked Pat Scott for looking after the Division for many years and wished her a good retirement and lastly I dedicated my victory to one of the world's good guys, Vin Clerkin, whose funeral I also went to on polling day.

And that was that. Except there was some excitement: there was one vote between two of the candidates in one of the Divisons, and that vote was a ballot paper where the voter had written a  comment and a mark by one of the candidates, rather than just a cross. This caused dissent and a number of recounts.

Please vote .... for me..

What can I say?

My thoughts on many issues have been expressed on this blog, and a link to the reasons I'm standing is to the right of this post. I write here about the "one thing" I would like to achieve if elected.

I think I could contribute to the area if elected; in the words of my final leaflet:
We need:
Value for money from our County Council - I'm an accountant so i know how the sums should add up;
A proper focus on this area and its residents.
I've helped local organisations adapt to the future. I can do the same for the Council.

It's election day tomorrow! Don't forget to vote!

The end game

At last the end game approaches.

It’s the part where I’ve no control over what happens – it’s where the voters take over. Hopefully they will vote - and make the right choice. Someone sent me a copy of the Times front page cartoon: Tory HQ, “Voter apathy is our only hope”. I replied that at least that was a strategy. But it’s not one we’re employing here; I hope there is a decent turnout despite the general air of fed-up-ness seen on the doorstep.

And of course although I’m fixated on Thursday 2 May, and have been for some time, to most people it’s just a date. I spoke to a couple of people at the harbour today who hadn’t realised polling day was on Thursday. But they are the ones with a life, not me.

So what am I doing in the lead up to polling day? Delivering my second leaflet to the few streets I haven’t been to yet and admiring my posters that have been put up in various strategic places.

Feedback from the last couple of days of door knocking has been mixed.

Having identified the key signal for a holiday let in Beadnell (a model boat in the window), I realise that in Seahouses it signifies people who were involved in the fishing industry. That is useful to know. Someone in Bamburgh spotted (the first one) that my photo on the front of the leaflet was taken more than a year ago (although to be fair it wasn’t too far ago). That wasn’t very helpful. More seriously, I heard a strong plea against the reduction in housing subsidy (I said that although there may be individual problems as a long term decision it had to be right). I heard concerns about over development in Seahouses and about potholes. And I heard a couple of complaints that there had been too many leaflets in this campaign: “you lot only visit at election time” said someone before saying they weren’t going to vote. Well, yes, I didn’t say: you’d hardly want us visiting at other times. Would you?

I don’t know if I’ll win or not. If I do I’d somehow like to address that disengagement by working out how to communicate better, how to keep an involvement going for the next four years rather than just at the end of it.