Stamford Bridge Boundary Change Confirmed

Having instigated the Stamford Bridge Parish boundary change in 2017 I am delighted to announce that it has now been confirmed.

Photo That Inspired The Change

In 2017 I drove into Stamford Bridge to the view in the photo above. It was insane that in front of me was Stamford Bridge but not the part to the right of the A166 (Godwin Vale). This was my inspiration for the change.


  • February 2017 – Andy Strangeway (when the Independent ERYC Councillor) requested a meeting with ERYC to begin the process of the boundary change. I invited the Stamford Bridge Parish Council Chairman to join the meeting at County Hall, Beverley.
  • 2017 onwards – This was then passed over to Stamford Bridge Parish Council who put a lot of work into facilitating the change.
  • 18 May 2021 – ERYC Cabinet approved the final recommendations.
  • 28 July 2021 – ERYC Council rubber-stamped the reorganisation order.

The changes will be implemented with effect from 1 April 2023, in time for the May 2023 elections for the Parish Council and ERYC. The ERYC Ward boundary between Pocklington Provincial and Wolds Weighton will need to be considered by the Boundary Commission in light of the Parish boundary change.

I would like to welcome Godwin Vale residents fully into Stamford Bridge.

This is the first Parish boundary change in the history of the East Riding of Yorkshire Council.

Parish Council

I cannot praise the Stamford Bridge Parish Council enough for the hard work they have put into this over the last four years.

It is disappointing that the three ERYC Conservative Ward councillors remained publically silent for the past two years apart from a token statement from one of them a week before the decision was rubber-stamped. The Ward Councillors should have given the Parish Council and the Godwin Vale residents their full support.

Further Information

Posted in Stamford Bridge | Comments Off on Stamford Bridge Boundary Change Confirmed

Stamford Bridge Alcohol Ban – Expensive Farce

Many Stamford Bridge residents will be surprised to hear that the East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC) has attempted to impose an alcohol ban in the village. Yet true to form all they have achieved is an expensive farce that wastes Council Tax.

Red Indicates Areas Covered By Alcohol “Prohibition”

I have recently demonstrated my extensive knowledge of Public Space Protection Orders (PSPO) in Successfully Challenging National Government and highlighted the workings of Local Politics in Introduction To Local Government. I will now expose the utter incompetence of ERYC in its attempt to use a PSPO to ban the consumption of alcohol in Stamford Bridge.

The Stamford Bridge PSPO states that the consumption of alcohol in the area is prohibited by order yet signs state “The consumption of alcohol in this area is restricted by order”.

The PSPO MUST reflect the signage and the signage MUST reflect the PSPO. If this is not the case the PSPO is unenforceable.

Example PSPO Alcohol “Restricted” Signage

I raised this with Paul Abbott, ERYC Head of Public Protection, who believes that a restriction is a prohibition. What can I say? For such incompetence, Paul is paid over £95,000 a year plus a generous pension.

This farce will have wasted a lot of resources not just financial. Ironically the Stamford Bridge PSPO is not fit for purpose and as such also fails in its objective. Keep paying your Council Tax so that ERYC can continue to waste it!

Main Difference – Prohibited v Restricted

To assist Paul.

“Prohibited and Restricted are used in reference to limitations and prevention. However, they cannot be used interchangeably as there is a distinct difference between them. Prohibited is used when we are talking about an impossibility. Restricted is used when we are talking about something that has specific conditions. The main difference between prohibited and restricted is that prohibited means something is formally forbidden by law or authority whereas restricted means something is put under control or limits.” 

In simple terms, a face mask restricts the breath while strangulation prohibits breathing.

Fixed Penalty Notice

If you breach a PSPO you can be issued a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN).

Over the years, as a campaigner, I have lost count of how many times I have challenged numerous MPs, Local Authorities, and Police Forces to issue me a FPN.

Not one has. I wonder why?

Given my in-depth knowledge of FPN, this is a wise move as I am in no doubt I would make a successful challenge in a Court of Law!

Further Information

Posted in ERYC, PSPO | Comments Off on Stamford Bridge Alcohol Ban – Expensive Farce

Successfully Challenging National Government

The Introduction To Local Government gave a sound basis from which anyone can develop their understanding of how Government works, and their knowledge of relevant legislation, to hold not just Local Authorities (LA) but also the National Government to account.

To understand how the role of a LA has changed over the years, I highly recommend residents to read:

Challenging Local Authorities and National Government

There is never a Dixon of Dock Green “it is a fair cop” moment when a LA is made aware of their failings. Unless a LA is put “firmly against the wall”, it will never admit to being wrong. This is due to ego, incompetence and common purpose. This is why there are cases like Rotherham, where child abuse ran unfettered.

Within the article Are councils becoming too much like the police, I refer to page 12:

“Meanwhile, 5,491 FPNs were issued for violating PSPOs in 2020. The highest 26 issuers of fines were Brent (659 penalties, mainly for public drinking), North East Lincolnshire (461 penalties, for cycling through Grimsby town centre and for dogs on the prohibited area of Cleethorpes beach), and Greenwich (440 penalties, mainly for street drinking)…”

The top three run thus:

  1. Brent – 659
  2. NE Lincolnshire – 461
  3. Greenwich – 440

The comparison between the number of FPNs issued in 2018 through 2020 shows a massive plummeting overall from 9,930 down to 5,491 FPNs. Some may claim that this is due to Lockdown – until the fact emerges that none of the top three from 2018 appear in the top three for 2020 is considered. For reasons unknown, the report omits mention of this fact.

  1. Peterborough – 2,430 down to 66
  2. Bedford – 1,489 down to 431
  3. Waltham Forest – 966 down to 41

The massive drop by Peterborough is breathtaking.

Strangeway Involvement Timeline

The reduction for Peterborough and Bedford combined accounted for 3,422 of the total 4,439. To understand what is behind this reduction, we need to consider how Strangeway was involved:

  • 19 April 2019– BBC produce 2018 Data
  • 2 May 2019– Strangeway loses ERYC election by 14 votes to three Conservatives
  • 27 June 2019– Strangeway begins challenge against Peterborough
  • 27 June 2019– Strangeway begins challenge against Bedford

Reasons For My Challenge

The PSPO banning cycling in Peterborough and Bedford was unlawful as:

  1. It breaches the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 – 65 – 1 which states “A public spaces protection order may not restrict the public right of way over a highway.”
  2. The signage for the PSPO is in breach of the  Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 as the signage is not permitted. This is supported by the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 – 64 – 1 which states: “In this Act “traffic sign” means any object or device (whether fixed or portable) for conveying, to traffic on roads or any specified class of traffic, warnings, information, requirements, restrictions or prohibitions of any description
  3. It is in breach of the Traffic Signs Manual – Chapter 1 – 3.1.“The erection of an unauthorised sign in the highway is an obstruction and the possible consequences of erecting or permitting the erection of obstructions can be severe. Those responsible could lay themselves open to a claim for damages, for example, if an obstruction is the cause of an accident or an injury in a collision.”
  4. It breaches the Traffic Signs Manual – Chapter 1 – 4.1.” Traffic signs in use on the highway must either be prescribed by TSRGD as amended, or be specially authorised by the national authority. Signs that are neither prescribed nor authorised are obstructions on the highway and must be removed.”

Local Authorities, including Peterborough City Council, became over-exuberant in their use of PSPOs. They regularly failed to remember the intention of Parliament when they passed the legislation that permitted the introduction of PSPOs.

The Next Tide

Word clearly went out from Central Government to all LAs to desist from using PSPOs on Highways – all because an uneducated house painter lost a LA election by 14 votes.

It is rather ironic that less than two months after losing in a LA election to three Conservatives, I started a campaign that would expose the failure of the National Conservative Government.

You never know what the next tide will bring in…

Further Information

Posted in Bedford, Peterborough, PSPO | Comments Off on Successfully Challenging National Government

Introduction To Local Government

The services that affect residents daily lives – like Highways, Children Services, Adult Services, etc. – are all the responsibility of the Local Authority (LA). In addition, the setting of the major part of the Council Tax is also the responsibility of the LA.

I appreciate many do not have my extensive knowledge of the role of a Parish Council and a LA or, more importantly, how they operate.

In the case of Stamford Bridge, this is the Stamford Bridge Parish Council (SBPC) and East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC). Across the East Riding there are 168 Parish/Town Councils. ERYC is divided into 26 Wards. For each Ward, there are between one and three ERYC Ward Councillors. Stamford Bridge is in the Pocklington Provincial Ward and has three Ward Councillors to represent the electorate.

That which ERYC undertakes MUST reflect National Legislation, “Local Laws” and ERYC Policies. Due to ego, incompetence and Common Purpose, this does not always happen. In such circumstances, Ward Councillors should hold ERYC to account. That is a primary duty.

Sadly, if a situation arises whereby the majority of Councillors are of one party, as is the case at ERYC (Conservative), a dictatorship has been put in power via the ballot box. In these circumstances, those of the incumbent party support the Senior Officers and, in turn, the Senior Officers support the incumbent party. All very cosy.

A Conservative Councillor commits to putting the Conservative Party first before they are nominated to stand. Once elected, a party Whip will ensure compliance. Those who “disagree” will be excluded from the party, as was the case for the late Cllr Paul Lisseter, earlier this year.

There ends democracy. Often, a Ward elects three Conservatives, as is the case in Pocklington Provincial and many other Wards. Many residents have experienced this when they contact their Ward Councillor and receive no reply. Please be aware that many of the replies are written for your Councillor by those further up the chain – the Senior Officers and other Councillors.

Further Information

The link below exposes many current unaddressed failings of ERYC.

Posted in ERYC, Stamford Bridge | Comments Off on Introduction To Local Government

Siddons – Judicial Review Or Public Apology

Many will be aware that there will be a new North Yorkshire Unitary Authority. It will cover the area currently administered by North Yorkshire County Council and the seven Districts/Boroughs will be abolished.

Leader of SBC, Cllr Steve Siddons, aka Major

One of these Boroughs is Scarborough Borough Council (SBC). In an interview with the BBC on Thursday evening, the Leader of SBC Councillor Steve Siddons (Labour), when asked about the Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) babbled:

“It’s … it’s not really done in …in with the way the Government asked it to be done”.

If you have evidence to support this, Steve, you MUST take a Judicial Review against the Secretary of State, as your comments imply that the legal process has not been followed.

But if you do not pursue a Judicial Review I would suggest that you MUST publish a public apology to residents and the Minister for your false statement.

Which is it to be, our Steve?

BBC Interview

Posted in Scarborough | Comments Off on Siddons – Judicial Review Or Public Apology

Stamford Bridge – Potential Highway Improvements

In May 2020 I was given three documents in relation to the Stamford Bridge “crossing” from various sources, including ERYC Senior Officers.

I am astounded to read on the Stamford Bridge Community Page that residents are wanting to see the Report as they have not had access to it over 14 months later.

In the public interest I publish all three documents including the Report:

Stamford Bridge Community Page Censorship

Unfortunately, I am unable to share this link onto the Stamford Bridge Community Page as Janet Bullock the Administrator will not allow any links on the page from this site. I wonder why?

It would appear that certain folk in Stamford Bridge believe in censorship. I do not and never will.

I support freedom of speech and encourage us to do likewise.

Enjoy the read.

Posted in ERYC, Stamford Bridge | Comments Off on Stamford Bridge – Potential Highway Improvements

ERYC Failings Places SEN Children In Danger

Having failed to provide full-time education for a SEN child, with Autism and learning difficulties, since February 2020 East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC) has compounded the breach of their Statutory Duty by additional Data and Safeguarding breaches.

On Thursday 3 June 2021 Phoebe register a complaint against ERYC stating:

“My son (REDACTED) has not been in full-time education since February 2020 despite having an EHCP

Over a month later on Thursday 8 July ERYC then attempted to secure a Consent Form in breach of legislation. Why was a complaint about such a fundamental and damaging failure ignored for over a month?

Interesting Timeline

Is it just me!

Email Evidence

The Court of Public Opinion (CPO) can clearly see that ERYC is attempting to avoid admitting that the proposed external investigating officer, “Tim” is not an ERYC employee and thus he must:

  • Be a registered Data Controller
  • Have a Data Retention Policy
  • Have a Service Level Agreement with ERYC

The CPO can observe that based on the evasive nature of ERYC, Tim fails on all three counts. In such situations, ERYC also fails when they then unlawfully pass Data to Tim.

NB: ERYC must always be mindful that ICO state

“…people must be able to refuse consent without detriment”

There is clearly a detriment to Phoebe and her son. No one should ever be “misled” into having their Data processed unlawfully.

Industrial Scale Data Breach

As ERYC admit that Tim took up his role with it in 2012 the alarm bells should be ringing loudly across East Riding:

  1. How many documents have ERYC unlawful given to Tim?
  2. How many documents have ERYC unlawfully passed to other “external investigating officers”?
  3. What danger have children, especially those who are SEN or SEND, being put in by ERYC unlawfully passing documents to Tim and other “external investigating officers”?


Complaint Closed

The reason why the complaint by Phoebe was unaddressed for over a month is that it was closed on June 7!

How many other complaints have ERYC unlawfully closed?

This is shocking.


In Conclusion 

ERYC must:

  1. Fulfill their duty and ensure that not just Phoebe’s son but all East Riding children are in full-time education.
  2. Investigate the complaint made by Phoebe without further delay.
Posted in ERYC | Comments Off on ERYC Failings Places SEN Children In Danger

ERYC Waste Sites Policy Ignores Guidance

It is disappointing to learn that the East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC) Waste Sites Policy highlighted in East Riding And Hull – Environmental Profligacy  ignores the Household Waste Recycling Centre (HWRC) Guidance 2018 (page 88).

I fully support the Guidance regards cross-border use as I firmly believe that in the interests of the Environment, residents should be encouraged to use their nearest site.

I am at a loss why ERYC are discouraging this and indeed two councillors have made public statements supporting the ERYC Policy:

  • ERYC Opposition Leader Liberal Democrat Councillor David Nolan has stated: “It is only fair that the service should be restricted to those who pay for it”
  • While one of the three Conservatives for Pocklington Provincial, Councillor Paul West has confirmed: “I personally don’t have a problem with the idea”

If neighbouring authorities are out of step with the Household Waste Recycling Centre (HWRC) Guidance 2018 they must also revisit their policy.

As Hull Council is Labour-controlled and ERYC is Conservative-controlled their policies suggest more focus on politics than the Environment.

The purpose of declaring a Climate Emergency should never be about political point-scoring it requires action.

I have emailed ERYC Councillors a copy of the Household Waste Recycling Centre (HWRC) Guidance 2018 with a link to this post and requested that they review their policy to reflect Guidance and support the Environment.

Common sense must prevail.

Further Information

Posted in ERYC | Comments Off on ERYC Waste Sites Policy Ignores Guidance

East Riding And Hull – Environmental Profligacy

East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC) has given their Declaration of Climate Emergency a slap in the face by needlessly issuing a Resident’s Pass for their Household Waste Recycling Site. Spot the irony.

The reasoning for this appears to be to deal with Hull residents crossing the boundary to use ERYC waste sites and to curb queues.

Residents would be forgiven for believing this to be an episode from the sitcom Yes Minster which highlighted and ridiculed the need to necessitate their continued existence.

The idea that checking passes will curb queues is devoid of rational thinking. The process will obviously add to queues as Covid Passports are currently doing at UK Borders. This will require extra staff to administer. Talking of which how many employees and Councillors failed to identify how the Resident’s Pass is a white elephant? Is that collective stupidity?

Climate Emergency Declaration

How can ERYC declare a Climate Emergency then issue an estimated 150,000 Resident’s Passes on cardboard when there was no need?

There is the left hand…and there is the right hand…now give yourself a good shake…

“…an extensive examination into how its policies and practices impact on climate change and the environment”

A fundamental starting point MUST always be to not use resources in the first instance if they are not required.

ERYC has failed this most basic test.

Driving License

Putting aside that there is no issue to resolve let us consider how we can deal with the issue that does not exist!

The purpose of the pass is to access the site in a car. For those who access a site in a car, a Driving License is required.

On the “rules” listed below it states:

“If you misplace your pass you can show an up-to-date driving license or utility bill with an East Riding address instead”

And there is your answer. Forgot the Resident’s Pass residents can use their driving license instead. It really is that simple.

What a great idea Strangeway. That will save us from wasting resources and demonstrate that we are not all talk about our declaration of a  Climate Emergency.

Whoops, too late we have already been printed the Resident’s Pass. Take two, next episode of Yes Minister!


With an estimated 150,000 passes it is reasonable to suggest that the whole debacle has cost Council Tax payers £150,000. Between 2017 and 2019 I was the only ERYC Councillor who voted against the above-inflation Council Tax increases for three years. My reason for this was the waste of resources as the Resident’s Pass highlight is still an issue.

Money will continue to be wasted until ERYC abort this insane scheme. Not only will there be an ongoing cost to administer the scheme but there will be another major cost as the passes expire on 31 December 2022. Why has an expiry date been included? Are we now on episode 3 of Yes Minster?

What Happens If I Move?

“If you move within the East Riding please take your pass with you and continue to use it. If you leave the East Riding please leave the pass at your old residence for the new occupier to use.”

Did anyone actually read this? What episode are we now on Minister?

Stamford Bridge/ Sutton Upon Derwent Residents

Those living in Stamford Bridge and Sutton Upon Derwent account for over 1% of the East Riding population. They are nearer to the site in York than the Pocklington site.

Under the system currently being introduced are ERYC expecting these residents to make longer journies? Many of those who live in these villages have children at schools in York, shop in York, work in York and socialise in York. Using the site in York is environmentally the right thing to do for these residents.

How is the ERYC  Climate Emergency declaration looking?

Conservative – Labour – Liberal Democrat

I am informed that the Labour-controlled Hull Council has already introduced similar passes.

Thus the position is supported by the Conservative-controlled ERYC, the Labour-controlled Hull Council, and the ERYC Opposition Leader Liberal Democrat Councillor David Nolan who states:

“It is only fair that the service should be restricted to those who pay for it”

Regardless of the colour of their shirt they are all just talking when it comes to declaring a Climate Emergency. They MUST all revisit their positions.

“Cross Border” Being Discussed

Yesterday I was astounded to be informed by an ERYC Councillor:

“I believe that the matter of ‘cross-border’ household waste recycling is being discussed with nearby authorities, for just the reasons that you state – that it makes better sense for the planet for residents to recycle as locally as possible and I will watch for a sensible outcome.”

So why issue Residents Passes?

Perhaps Sir Humphrey Appleby is real, alive, and living in Beverley.

Further Information

Posted in ERYC | Comments Off on East Riding And Hull – Environmental Profligacy

Encouraging Fly Tipping – Punishing Refuse Collectors

In a letter sent to East Riding residents, ERYC has confirmed that they are encouraging fly-tipping while at the same time punishing Refuse Collectors.

Punishing Refuse Collectors

The letter above clearly confirms that the first part of my statement in FOI Confirms ERYC Endanger Refuse Collectors published over a week prior to the letter sent by ERYC is correct:

“ERYC in July plans to increase the workload of Refuse Collectors without undertaking appropriate risk assessments.”

Given that the first part is already confirmed I am sure residents will appreciate that the information I received from one of my sources on the top floor of County Hall is also on the money regards the second part.

NB: I will return to the second part in detail at a later date.

Encouraging Fly Tipping 

I refer to the Court of Public Opinion the statement in the letter above:

“…new resident’s pass for the Councils Household Waste Recycling Sites”

This is because those who live just over the Council’s border are responsibly depositing waste at the ERYC recycling sites. But shock horror this is not their Council area.

When will those on the top floors of Council buildings celebrate those who are not fly-tipping and encourage responsible waste disposable however this occurs?

It is good, and indeed should be encouraged, for the environment that residents travel to their nearest recycling site regardless of which council area they live in and where the respective site is based. Anyone for a dose of common sense?

This clearly demonstrates that those in their Ivory Towers of Local Authorities are incapable of getting their heads together to make the required financial adjustments if one exists. Can someone please pass that sledgehammer to open this little nut?

I am aware of many farmers who lived near the Burnby Lane tip outside of Pocklington who had to deal with fly-tipping on their land when the tip used to close. This issue was addressed by not closing the tip. Simple!

Sadly ERYC has now gone full circle by closing the sites to those who want to responsibly use them.

Will ERYC extend the policy to litter bins and other services?

I highly recommend that Senior Officers and Councillors acquaint themselves with their Statutory Duty as per the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

Would anyone like to remind me of the ERYC Environmental Policy? Would Bridlington Councillor Andy Walker, Yorkshire Party, like to advise his residents who received the letter?

Talk is very cheap!

Posted in ERYC, Litter, Yorkshire Party | Comments Off on Encouraging Fly Tipping – Punishing Refuse Collectors