David Ottewell's Politics

What could be more fun than setting a virtual budget for Bury?
That’s right – nothing.
Which is where this simulator comes in. It give you the chance to play god (albeit a rather minor, bureaucratic god).
I, for example, decided to slash spending by 25 per cent in all policy areas, like so:

This had the rather pleasing effect of reducing council tax by 55 per cent:

A guaranteed votewinner, what with the global credit crunch and all. And yet, the budget calculator seemed to think I might be having doubts:

Far from it, I thought. I shall usher in an age of small government in Bury. The electorate will be too busy counting the money they have saved on council tax to notice their services have disappeared!

My colleague Yakub Qureshi has discovered that more than 400 people have used this wonderful tool.
Join them.

Piccadilly? Nope, Taiwan
North, south, east, west; it seems Manchester have to wait for world-class rail links to the rest of the country.
There are two key infrastructure projects being lobbied for “up north”. The first is a 187mph rail link to London. The second is a new trans-Pennine route to Leeds and Sheffield.
Both could have a huge impact on the Manchester economy. The London link could be worth £63bn in total over 30 years, according to a report. The trans-Pennine route is supported by, among others, the councils of Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, and the Northern Way pressure group. The IPPR think-tank has previously declared that current Manchester-Leeds routes are “not fit for purpose”. It is no co-incidence that supporters call it the “Crossrail of the North”. They are pointing up the fact the government is providing around £6bn for a east-west link in London (which already has the tube and overland services).
Two projects, then, and this week we had two parliamentary questions.
Tony Lloyd (Lab, Manchester Central) asked about the trans-Pennine link in the House of Commons. What assessment had transport minister Rosie Winterton made, he wondered, of the most viable option?
“The need for additional passenger capacity can best be met through the provision of longer carriages and faster journey times on the Manchester to Leeds via Huddersfield route,” she replied. “Should additional capacity be required across the Pennines at some future date, capacity enhancements on the three existing Victorian tunnels on the Woodhead route would be considered first.”
Translation: don’t hold your breath.
At the same time, Lord Bradley (former Labour Withington MP Keith Bradley) was asking in the Lords for government reaction to “the proposal to build a new high-speed train line from London to Manchester”.
Lord Bassam of Brighton responded: “Our immediate priority is increasing capacity on the rail network. In the period 2009-14, £10 billion will be invested in more trains and more capacity to meet passenger demand for rail travel. We are also beginning work with the rail industry to develop an understanding of some of the complex rail options we might need to consider in future, including the long-term case for new lines.”
Translation: don’t hold your breath.

The saga over the old Cine City building in Manchester’s Withington district rumbles on.
The council’s planning committee decided last month it was “minded to refuse” an application to turn the former cinema – only the third to open in Britain – into shops and flats.
That was contrary to the advice of planning officers.
Under planning laws, therefore, the officers had to go away and look at whether there were good legal grounds for making the refusal official.
Well, they have produced a fresh report ahead of a committee meeting on April 10 – and they are still of the opinion the development should go ahead.
Their report concludes: “The development would make the area more safe and attractive; would be of a high standard of design and make a positive contribution towards improving the character of the Withington Conservation Area; there would not be any significant impacts on the residential amenities of adjoining occupiers; would promote regeneration and an improved environment; would include secure cycling parking facilities; would be mixed use and contribute to the mix of accommodation in the area; would be accessible for people whose mobility is impaired; and generally the proposal would provide a high quality facility within the area to the benefit of the wider surrounding community allowing the continuing regeneration of the locality and there are no material considerations of sufficient weight to indicate otherwise.”
It does, however, offer the committee members a possible get-out if they insist on rejecting the plans: “If the committee is minded to refuse based on the concerns raised, the following reasons for refusal are suggested: The proposed development by virtue of its massing, scale and height would have an unacceptable impact on the setting of the adjacent Grade II Listed Building and upon the character of the Withington Conservation Area of which the site forms a part, contrary to Policies DC19.1 and DC18.1 of the Unitary Development Plan for Manchester and National Planning Policy Guidance Note 15: Planning and the Historic Environment.”