Fareham Labour Party has condemned Tory controlled Fareham Borough Council for giving Fareham’s Chief Executive Officer (Peter Grimwood) a massive pay rise

Spokesperson Richard Ryan said “We know that Peter Grimwood is an excellent CEO and is really committed to Fareham but his above inflation pay rise comes at a very inappropriate time. We are told by a Conservative led government that times are hard and we all need to make sacrifices.  Conservative run Fareham tells us the same and needs to save £800,000. But here they are giving the chief officer a guaranteed inflation busting pay rise of around 3% a year for the next five years. A pay rise from £107,500 to £125,000.

Other Fareham Council staff of course are facing much lower and below inflation pay rises.  Plus they have the prospect of more redundancies in the near future due to the Tories need to save more money. A good example of the Tories’ ‘rule for one but not the other’ is the recent advert for an apprentice where they are only giving the very bare minimum pay.

An independent review recommended the pay rise and of course there has to be a ‘rate for the job’ but this means to us that everyone has the proper rate not just one person. As we’re in straightened times we would have thought that the council would have more sense than to give such a large pay rise at a time when both staff and residents of Fareham are finding making ends meet very difficult.”

Portchester Labour Party Opposes High Rise Building at Trafalgar Wharf

Portchester Branch Labour Party has objected to part of a plan to re-develop the Trafalgar Wharf site in Paulsgrove, Portsmouth.

In the objection to Portsmouth City Council, Portchester Branch said:

“Although we support the redevelopment of this site and agree with residential and retail provision we object to the inclusion of the proposed 10 storey building. We believe that even though the plan has been amended to reduce the 12 storey building to 10 stories it would still be too high and out of character with the surrounding area. There is no other structure of this proposed height in either Paulsgrove or Portchester. This building would not be in keeping with the current street scene.

We also object on the grounds that the proposed 10 storey building would destroy the view of Portchester Castle which is an ancient monument. This proposed 10 storey building would be higher than the Castle and dominate the skyline. It would have a detrimental effect on the surrounding historic site and residential area.

We would urge you to refuse this application on the above grounds. However we feel sure that this plan could be amended to allow the developer to construct enough homes and retail outlets without the need for this very large structure.”


Labour Calls for re-instatement of Bus Service in Portchester

Portchester Labour Party is deeply concerned about the lack of a bus service serving Dore Avenue. Since the removal of the service in the spring residents have found it even more difficult to get around. Added to this the cutting of a direct service through the north of Portchester to Fareham has meant many residents are stuck without decent public transport. The only way for people to travel to Fareham is to walk down to Linden Lea to catch a bus to Portchester precinct. Then travel on to Fareham. Of course on their return they are faced with a steep uphill walk which many find if not impossible then very difficult.

Labour calls on the County Council to make good the subsidy which Portsmouth City Council removed. This will allow an acceptable service to be reinstated.


Mythbuster – the truth about welfare reform

This Tory led government is trying to tell voters that their welfare reforms to benefits are fair and encouraging people to go and find a job.  Well here are just a few reasons to bust the myth:

Benefits are too generous

Could you live on £53 a week? Then think about having to hand back 14% of it because the government says you have a “spare room”. Could you find the money out of that to pay council tax and still afford to eat at the end of the week? Since the introduction of the ‘Bedroom Tax’ applications for emergency payments – Discretionary Housing Payments has soared from 5,700 to 25,000 in a month (April 2013).

Benefits are going up

Well they’re not. A 1% ‘increase is in effect a cut. Inflation is running at 2.5 – 3% . Food, fuel and transport cost are all up by at least that, in a lot cases far more. So your 1% increase is at least a 1.5% cut in your income.

Jobs are out there, if people are willing to find them

Unemployment is rising and is at around 2.5 million, with one million young people out of work. It is not unusual to have 1000s of applications for just one job.

The bedroom tax won’t hit service families or foster carers

It will. The tax will not apply to foster families who look after one child. If you foster siblings, then it will and these children are often the hardest to place. If your son or daughter is in barracks abroad, don’t relax as the government hasn’t said how this will affect their bedroom.

Social tenants find smaller houses

Only if they can find another council property. These of course are in short supply as after the sale of council houses virtually none have been built. So your’re stuck in a house you can’t move from and it’s ‘your fault’ so you loose benefit!

Housing benefit is the problem

No it’s the cost of rents.  Private rents shot up by an average of £300 last year.  Five million people are now on housing benefit.

Claimants are not telling the truth

Less than 1% of the welfare budget is lost to fraud.

Teenage single mums are the problem

Only 2% of single mums are teenagers. And most single mums (around 59%) work.

Welfare reforms are benefit only

No they’re not. The reforms are affecting a whole range of services, Privatising the NHS, reduced help for legal aid, closing SureStart centres and libraries.

All these myths go to make people cynical about what was called Social Security. None of us can predict if we’ll need help in the future and these ‘reforms’ will make sure that if we do need help it will be minimal and carry a stigma that is unfounded.

Road Improvements at Whiteley Urged on Hampshire County Council

WhiteleyLabour recognise that the impact of Whiteley traffic is a matter of much concern in Fareham Western Wards and for Sarisbury Ward residents in particular, with concerns further heightened due to the imminent opening of the new Whiteley Shopping centre.

Fareham Labour calls upon Hampshire County Council to fulfil their responsibility to find a long term solution to the Whiteley access issue, as the long overdue northern access road has not been constructed as originally envisaged.

We do support the trial opening of the Yew Tree Drive access, though this needs carefully monitoring, as this can alleviate the broader impact of some of the worst occasions when congestion of the primary access at Junction 9 spreads into Segensworth  and Park Gate. We are in favour of additional traffic calming measures in Yew Tree Drive, particularly around the school to both preserve safety and regulate the total volume of traffic that uses this access route.

Opposed to Plans for additional homes in Fareham Park Road


We object to the applications recently submitted to Fareham Borough Council for an additional 21 dwellings in Fareham Park Road. This proposal is outside the existing designated urban area. This proposal will therefore encroach onto the countryside, Fareham Borough Council should stop infill in this which is one of the the last remaining green spaces within Fareham.

It is also our view that this will be an over development in the area. It will create increased traffic movement in an area which already has a high volume of traffic. We also object as the SDA (7500 new homes) was approved to stop the need for this type of infill development