tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15825621052654670702024-03-13T01:02:17.799+00:00Nigel Holdcroft – a view from Nelson StreetThis is the blog of Nigel Holdcroft former leader of Southend CouncilNigel Holdcrofthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01446597545038423081noreply@blogger.comBlogger342125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1582562105265467070.post-71761814181980115132021-03-10T10:22:00.002+00:002021-03-10T10:22:19.697+00:00Southend Council's Budget - "..something is rotten in the state of Denmark"!<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background: white; color: #202124; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">It is unfortunate that at such a
challenging time for our Town, businesses and residents the Council has been
controlled by a rag tail coalition of Labour, Liberal Democrats and
Independents who regrettably have failed to rise adequately to the challenge. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background: white; color: #202124; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">Their recent annual budget was
depressingly predictable in its lack of imagination and realism. Fortunately
following uproar from local businesses and residents supported by the
Conservative opposition the ridiculous proposal to raise seafront parking charges
to £24 per day was scaled back - however the increase still remains unacceptably
high as does the increase in council tax. These measures can only hit the Town
Centre, our businesses and residents when many are already reeling from the
financial effects of the pandemic and resulting lockdowns. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background: white; color: #202124; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">However of greater concern is the
underlying refusal to face economic reality, abandon political vanity projects
and lay a solid base for the future.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">As is often the case the most interesting
information is available in the papers prepared in support of the
Administration’s budget.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">I was particularly intrigued by the
comments on the Medium Term Financial Strategy. The MTFS currently shows a
projected budget gap for the Council of £20.7 million for the following four
financial years. This is a massive hole and is in the context of a budget for
next year which in addition to making the money grab on parking charges and
council tax referred to above also requires £2.5 million from Reserves in
2021/22 to balance the budget. The MTFS is also based on assumptions as to
levels of central government funding and future interest rates which if wrong would
signpost additional major problems.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Most interestingly the budget paper
comments:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Council may need to increase focus on the delivery of its services
in a more targeted way, concentrating on delivering services to those residents
who most need the Council’s support. The Council may also need to review and
change its approach to tailoring the delivery of its many statutory services.
To underpin these new arrangements the Council will continue to reposition its
role as one to work alongside the community, its residents and businesses, to
try to improve the many contributing factors that affect people’s lives.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">This “possibility” is in my view
a statement of the obvious. It was the underlying policy followed by the
Conservative administrations between 2007 and 2014 who grasped the need to
change the approach to make the Council more focussed and financially efficient
– an view that has clearly slipped in recent years. We believed that reserves
were to be protected as an important safety net, fees and council tax needed to
be kept competitive to support businesses and residents, and <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>spending needed to concentrate on core
services for those in need coupled with creative investment which would deliver
for the Town economically in future years.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">The question is why have the Administration
not followed this approach in the current budget rather than shying away from
difficult decisions and rolling the problem on to future years. In the meantime
increasing borrowing on projects such as the acquisition of the Victorias is
only destined to make the situation worse.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">I can’t help but bring to mind
the words of the Bard… “<span style="background: white; color: #202124; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">Something is not right, seriously amiss...If the authorities
knew about the problems and chose not to prevent them, then clearly something
is </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">rotten in the state of
Denmark</span><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">.</span>”<o:p></o:p></p>Nigel Holdcrofthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01446597545038423081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1582562105265467070.post-8328471692556564992020-11-07T10:59:00.007+00:002020-11-07T11:05:24.952+00:00The challenge of Covid for Southend High StreetHaving been invited by Oracle to submit an article I thought that I would further expand on my growing concerns about the High Street. For those who do not receive the Oracle this is what I said:<div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>“As we struggle to combat this horrendous pandemic there is little doubt that even before its outbreak Southend High Street was already “vulnerable” and that covid has made the situation worse with less footfall and increasing numbers of void properties. </i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>We all know many of the underlying problems to include the influence of internet buying, failing businesses and over large units with rents and business rates to match.
Southend has further and more specific challenges with an overlong High Street with shopping centres at both ends, high car parking charges and concerns about security.</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>The investment by Primark in the old BHS site is a beacon of positivity but with concerns as to its existing site, particularly with Debenhams still struggling. The plan to develop Seaway seems to be further stretching the length of the shopping. </i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>We now hear that the owners of the Victoria Shopping Centre are seeking to sell and there are rumours that Southend Council may be considering acquiring the site. I can only hope that these rumours are unfounded. The Victoria has been transformed over the years from the unwelcoming wind tunnel open to the elements and yet even with this investment it has clearly remained a struggle to attract tenants. Perhaps this is in part due to the factors I have already mentioned. </i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>I believe that it would be misguided for public money to be used to acquire the development for three main reasons. Firstly whilst council officers have many skills these are in the areas of the public sector. They do not have the experience or expertise to take on responsibility for a large and challenging commercial development, particularly in trying times such as these. They have more than enough to concentrate on improving and delivering council services in a reactive and cost effective manner. </i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>Secondly investments of this kind are driven by the correct analysis of risk. Private entrepreneurs are risking their own money and reputations. Council officers and members are risking the money of Southend residents and businesses and if it all goes horribly wrong most if not all of them will be long gone with the rest of us left to pick up the pieces and the bill. </i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>Finally the Council needs to get a grip on the problems facing the High Street. It would be very difficult if the Council had made a significant investment in a commercial centre at one end of the High Street to view future decision making on the High Street without factoring in this “special interest”. </i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>There are a number of actions which can be taken to support the High Street, some of which are reasonably short term, but these need to be in the context of a sensible overall plan. In my view the first challenge is the central section under the railway bridge which has an important role in connecting the two ends, but faces issues with empty units and a feeling of being unsafe, particularly at night.
Perhaps that is the ideal location for the encouragement of café culture rather than at the northern end, improving footfall and creating the required bridge. </i><i>I would like to see the reintroduction of traffic at both ends of the High Street – even if only in the evenings - to address the “safety” issue. </i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>As others have said we need to encourage housing back into the High Street to take advantage of the current vacant units which are available above ground floor level. Who knows with more people living and shopping in the centre of town it might be possible to encourage a supermarket back to the High Street with all the benefits that would bring.</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>I would like to see a reversal of the apparent anti-car policy being pursued by the current Administration and demonstrated by elements of the Queensway plan and the reality remains that parking charges are too high and this also needs to be addressed. </i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>Whilst if we can increase those living in the Town Centre they may feel that a car is not necessary the reality remains that many of those millions of visitors who come to the Town come by car and that is not going to change anytime soon. </i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>We need to continue to encourage and support the seafront and our seafront traders which give us such an important advantage over many other Towns and cities of our size. </i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>Finally I would like to see the encouragement of an area for the provision of smaller and affordable units to encourage the return of small independent traders and the arts to build on another area of the Town’s strength. The challenge is there – let us hope that the Council is capable is standing up and delivering.”</i></div>Nigel Holdcrofthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01446597545038423081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1582562105265467070.post-1447456220175383622020-06-01T11:45:00.006+01:002020-06-01T11:45:46.777+01:00Council commercial investment concernsI see that the Government has expressed concern about the policy pursued by some local councils of investing council funds in the acquisition of commercial properties which, as a result of the effects of the virus, are not performing as originally anticipated.<br />
This comes as no great surprise. <br />
<br />
As long ago a blog item on this site posted on 27th January 2016 under the title “Speculation on Sea” I expressed my concern at the decision of the Rainbow Alliance to pursue a speculative policy of seeking to acquire commercial property to deliver income streams and capital appreciation and noted that the latest budget proposed the allocation of £6M over the next 3 years providing a pot for this purpose.<br />
<br />
This policy was being driven by the then Leader Independent Ron Woodley who in my time on the Council was never shy to advise us of his prowess in all things financial.- something which was rarely apparent from the policies he pursued!<br />
<br />
As I commented in January 2016 “If properties are in Southend they will be added to an existing range of properties owned by the Council in the Town and make the council’s finances increasingly dependent on the strength of the market in this specific areas. It is a policy based on putting all your eggs in one basket! If properties are sought outside the Town then they are in areas of which the Council, its members and officers have no specific knowledge and may be unaware of the resulting perils”<br />
<br />
“Effective property acquisition often requires quick and reactive decisions to be taken and is completely unsuited to the restraints imposed on a democratically accountable organisation like SBC”.<br />
<br />
“Council officers are generally very able and dedicated in the areas they are qualified in – however commercial property acquisition in circumstances requiring good returns on both an income and capital basis is generally not one of them.”<br />
<br />
“If the market slumps and the Council is sitting on the wrong investments the effect could be substantial – the problem is that by the time that happens those responsible for this decision will be long gone….”<br />
<br />
Well perhaps not this time with Ron the current Deputy Leader of the Council. I do not know the extent to which Ron’s policy was implemented and how Council investments have been hit, however this needs to be made clear to the public over the coming months as the situation develops and the Government’s current concern is clearly well founded.<br />
Nigel Holdcrofthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01446597545038423081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1582562105265467070.post-43182552217244487742020-05-28T10:52:00.002+01:002020-05-28T18:59:06.342+01:00The BBC and double standards!Am I alone in thinking that there is a whiff of hypocrisy in the air over some elements of the media’s coverage of the Dominic Cummings affair?<br />
<br />
BBC chiefs have acknowledged that the comments made by experienced presenter Emily Maitlis on Tuesday’s Newsnight were not acceptable and are quoted as saying “….the introduction we broadcast did not meet our standards of due impartiality”.<br />
<br />
Now I would have thought that an acknowledgement that the comments of a senior and respected presenter on one of the BBC’s flagship programmes breached the BBC’s standards of due impartiality would be regarded as important. Is not the reputation of the BBC and its public funding based on its reputation for impartiality? However I have seen no apology by Ms Maitlis or the production team for this serious error.<br />
<br />
Indeed the item on the BBC’s website seemed to support their presenter highlighting that she had not been removed from the following night’s programme but that she had asked “for the night off”. The programmes editor and deputy editor were both quoted making clear that Ms Maitlis had not been taken off air or replaced and Ms Maitlis was quoted via her twitter account referring to being “overwhelmed by all the kindness, messages – and support on here…”.<br />
<br />
Of course the subject matter of her comments were the Prime Minister’s continued support of Mr Cummings notwithstanding him allegedly breaking the rules. Is it just me that spots a certain irony – is it a case of do what we say and not what we do?<br />
<br />
Similarly I saw in the media pictures of the scrum of reporters outside Mr Cumming’s house all striving for a comment or photograph. There seemed to be a police officer in attendance but no obvious concern at the apparent failure of this media scrum to properly social distance.<br />
We have also had to endure the daily press conferences with reporters given the privilege of being allowed to question the Government representative and advisors but so often squandering that opportunity by repeating questions asked previously or asking a question when it was apparent to all that the answer was either obvious, or on some occasions unknown. No wonder the idea of questions from members of the public was introduced.<br />
<br />
There also seems to be the view running across all TV programmes that to achieve a good or effective interview there is a requirement for the questioner to be aggressive and to interrupt constantly rather than using guile and intellect to achieve an illuminating response.<br />
When all this is over and the relevant data is to hand reaction to the virus will need to be properly reviewed (hopefully avoiding an excess of hindsight!) but perhaps the BBC should also be prepared to critically assess the performance of its own team.<br />
Nigel Holdcrofthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01446597545038423081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1582562105265467070.post-28867427141855264442020-05-27T11:52:00.000+01:002020-05-27T11:54:31.013+01:00Tory opposition leads the way!Congratulations to Southend’s Conservative opposition group for looking past the current lockdown and drawing up a focussed 10 point plan as to their priorities to support the Town to recover and revitalise after the lockdown.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.rochfordsouthendeastconservatives.org.uk/news/10-point-plan-return-recover-and-revitalise"></a>I have yet to see any similar or alternative clear cut statement of priorities from the Coalition Administration running the Town but bearing in mind their lack of a common voice and failure to break from the more functional control of senior officers and look to the bigger picture this is perhaps not surprising.<br />
<br />
We all know that the economic effect of the lockdown on our businesses and many employees has been massive and that our local economy will need to be supported and encouraged over the coming months. With our excellent seafront we have an advantage over many other towns and cities of our size however the High Street was nearing collapse before Covid struck and the situation will now have further deteriorated.<br />
<br />
Now is the time for the Council to act urgently and in a clear and focussed manner, attempting to work with our Businesses to support their protection and development. It would be good to see the waiver of parking charges for a period to encourage people back and certainly not to become diverted by vanity projects which will take years to deliver.<br />
<br />
Of course if in doubt they could always embrace the Tories’ plan…. <br />
<br />
Nigel Holdcrofthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01446597545038423081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1582562105265467070.post-91277068509666779682020-05-25T09:49:00.000+01:002020-05-25T09:53:14.926+01:00A cogent message to visitors!One of my favourite TV moments is the famous extract from Sky’s Soccer Saturday when Chris Kamara is the match analyser at the Portsmouth v Blackburn match and the cameras switch to him at the ground to ask for an update on a recent red card. Unfortunately he has completely missed it and is left trying to make sense of events unfolding behind him. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McdjBaChdBA">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McdjBaChdBA</a><br />
<br />
My thoughts went back to this clip a few days ago watching Southend Independent Councillor and Cabinet member Martin Terry commenting on potential visitors to Southend seafront following the initial relaxation of lockdown rules.<br />
<br />
As Martin faced the camera bouncing enthusiastically on his toes he failed to communicate any clear or joined up policy on visitors to the sea front and seemed unaware of the numbers already building behind him. In the circumstances it was perhaps not surprising that the message was confused and Southend subsequently made the national media as a result of the high number of visitors, many of whom through choice or necessity did not appear to get the social distancing message.<br />
<br />
It raises obvious concerns as to whether Cllr Terry and his Labour/Independent/Liberal Democrat colleagues are working on a cogent media message supported by practical policies to encourage visitors back to Southend. Our retailers and sea front traders will need practical and effective support from the local authority to ensure that potential visitors know that over the coming summer months they are welcome back to the Town the seafront. As some potential foreign destinations are starting to increase their efforts to entice back tourists over the summer Southend needs to ensure that we are ready and able to take advantage of a possible rise in Staycations when faced with increased competition from both abroad and other UK destinations.<br />
Nigel Holdcrofthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01446597545038423081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1582562105265467070.post-19869007600899877542020-05-23T13:18:00.002+01:002020-05-23T13:18:23.835+01:00Lockdown:Belfairs Golf Course - what is the priority?I am fortunate to live close to Belfairs woods and golf course and this has been a godsend with the introduction of lockdown as it has been a great location for daily exercise. I have not been alone with many hundreds of others also taking advantage of the space to socially distance.<br />
<br />
The shutting of the course made this even easier with the wide fairways being available to walk and in more recent time for household groups to sit or play. Many families have taken advantage of this, mixing in these wide open spaces with dog walkers, joggers, cyclists and the occasional horse rider with only a very few idiots deliberately cycling across the greens. The bunkers seem to have served many young children as an alternative sand pit!<br />
<br />
I can imagine the frustration of golfers anxious to resume their favourite sport and on this Friday the course reopened. Inevitably this has caused problems. With the course being used by what at least today seemed like a limited number of golfers the many other walkers and visitors have been confined to the paths and tracks through the woods causing challenges to ensure adequate distancing. Inevitably some walkers were still venturing on to the fairways and the risk of dispute with golf course users or injury from flying golf balls seems high.<br />
<br />
It does provide an interesting question – should a publically owned course like Belfairs remain closed for the time being until current rules on social distancing are relaxed to allow the greater space to be used by local residents for exercise or should the golfers take precedence?<br />
<br />
I suppose that if it continues to be over busy on the walkways we will need to look elsewhere – perhaps the beach except that is not a great idea with the current level of users escalating!<br />
Nigel Holdcrofthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01446597545038423081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1582562105265467070.post-72687471778141896892020-05-22T08:40:00.005+01:002020-05-22T10:29:23.352+01:00Lockdown & winebox depression!My wife and I have never been great lovers of wine boxes. We tend to prefer the wider choice given by individual bottles and feel it is more satisfying pouring from a bottle then draining from a box – it is rather similar to the greater pleasure to be derived from reading an actual book rather than a kindle notwithstanding the greater convenience of the latter.<br />
<br />
However one of the effects of lockdown and the initial rationing of shop purchases was that boxes suddenly became a more attractive proposition. Since then we have become converts enjoying the flexibility and convenience with no adverse effect on wine quality and a significant reduction on the amount of glass and resulting weight to the small benefit t of our refuse collection team. Indeed it could potentially appear from our recycling that one of the effects of lockdown has been to reduce our wine consumption if judged on glass waste alone!<br />
<br />
So all was well until I happened to notice that the wine box included the proud boast that once opened the wine would stay fresh for six weeks. Six weeks!! Good grief we have not been able to make a box last more than 24 hours. How could anybody stretch it to six weeks – only drinking on family birthdays or perhaps storing the opened box in inaccessible location?<br />
<br />
So now we face depression at the rate of our wine consumption during lockdown – the only solution is obviously to open another box!<br />
Nigel Holdcrofthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01446597545038423081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1582562105265467070.post-72769271013771819222019-10-16T14:35:00.000+01:002019-10-16T14:35:26.787+01:00Seaway - is it still the right way for the Town?The latest edition of Oracle recently dropped through my letter box and included an article by Independent Party councillor and current cabinet member Martin Terry. To be honest I usually avoid any written comments by Martin which tend to view factual issues through his own distortedl prism however as he was commenting on “The Seaway Saga” I decided to persevere.<br />
<br />
As readers of this blog will know I was involved in this proposed redevelopment at the outset as the then Leader of the Council and in a couple of blog items last December set out some of the relevant background.<br />
<br />
As I mentioned at that time the original decision, which was seen as a way of building and enhancing on the success of the Seafront and better linking with the High Street, was subject to certain conditions, as are confirmed in the Council minute at that time, namely:<br />
<br />
1. The proposed deal was subject to external certification for compliance with S123 Local Government Act 1972 which provides, amongst other things: <i>Except with the consent of the Secretary of State, a council shall not dispose of land under this section, otherwise than by way of a short tenancy, for a consideration less than the best that can reasonably be obtained</i>;<br />
2. There should be a fixed timescale for delivery;<br />
3. The leisure development would be delivered ahead of the occupancy of the residential accommodation;<br />
4. The Council’s then revenue return from the site would be retained and improved with a share of the long-term income from the development.<br />
5. Any change to the Heads of Terms would be considered in consultation with all Group Leaders.<br />
<br />
Before the deal was finally signed the Conservatives had lost control and Martin’s Independent Party colleague Ron Woodley was the new Leader with Martin a member of his cabinet.<br />
<br />
Ron chose to sign the deal, presumably satisfied that the pre-conditions had, or would be met. Following the Conservatives regaining control the scheme appeared to progress although with no actual implementation and we now have a rainbow alliance once again headed by Labour councillor Ian Gilbert but with both Ron and Martin back in the cabinet.<br />
<br />
In his article Martin comments that “I did like and support the scheme in its original design concept but I now have serious questions which need to be answered”. He further says that “There does seem to be a driving determination and obsession to get this scheme through at almost any cost”.<br />
<br />
Martin is of course right to have concerns. In particular fundamental changes to the proposal, a failure to deliver within the timescale originally envisaged, and the fact that the High Street is now in a significantly worse condition than when the proposal was originally discussed are all obvious. As a result there must be a strong concern that the amended proposal which is now being pursued risks further harming the High Street and damaging the Seafront which remains the jewel which gives our Town Centre such an important advantage over many other town centres of a similar size.<br />
<br />
The problem is that Martin seems to forget that he is not an opposition councillor but a member of the Administration both at the time the deal was signed off and once again now. It is easy to snipe from the sidelines but if there are issues which cause him concern why is he not acting as a senior member of the Administration to do something about it rather than seeking to make representations as part of the planning process which is concerned with compliance with planning guidelines and not the more underlying principle of what is in the best interests of our Town.<br />
<br />
I believe that this development as currently proposed is not in the best interests of the Town, particularly taking into account the particular challenges faced in 2019, and the Administration should be acting accordingly.<br />
<br />
When Martin refers to “..a driving determination and obsession....” I assume he must be talking about either his own Administration or Council officers. Either way he cannot have it both ways. Either support the policies of the Administration of which you are part or acknowledge that times have changed and do something about it. I am hoping for the later but expecting the former!<br />
Nigel Holdcrofthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01446597545038423081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1582562105265467070.post-82490420929736055062019-06-05T10:02:00.000+01:002019-06-05T10:02:04.574+01:00The residents of Thorpe Bay, West Leigh & Eastwood deliver a Labour led Council!It is ironic that with the recent removal of the Conservative Council Leader and appointment of his Labour successor the vote was effectively swung by the votes of the “Independent” councillors representing Thorpe and the Liberal Democrats recently elected to represent West Leigh and Eastwood.<br />
<br />
I would question whether the residents of these wards would approve of their elected representatives supporting a left wing Labour administration - certainly the support for Labour candidates in these wards would not suggest that this was their wish.<br />
<br />
The reality is that the election results were not a vote against the Conservative run council. As all who knocked on doors in the campaign know the vote was driven by Brexit and frustration at the inability of Westminster to resolve matters. This led to some councillors being elected on this national issue rather than local concerns.<br />
<br />
Following his election Conservative Tony Cox issued a clear and sensible 10 point plan for immediate implementation including: extra Community Special Constables, the reintroduction of the 1 hour town centre parking band, the removal of parking charges in the roads around the High Street for a 2 hour visit, the removal of unnecessary yellow lines to increase parking provision, the improvement of parking provision in the vicinity of the seafront, access for all the Town’s children to good or outstanding schools, the introduction of measures to enhance the ability of backbench councillors to put forward policy, action to improve enforcement on dog fouling and an investigation into reducing carbon emissions from the council vehicle fleet.<br />
<br />
These ideas were popular and deliverable.<br />
<br />
On his election Cllr Ian Gilbert has announced his priorities which include (according to the Echo) more social housing, the introduction of registration of private landlords, improved street lighting, more 20mph schemes, a parking review and the provision of further multi storey car parks, improving recycling, promoting ethical employment practices and more apprenticeships, improving children centres, providing extra care beds and health centres, and supporting the retention of Southend Hospital.<br />
<br />
Much of this is not particularly controversial however the problem is that they are either simply restating policies which already exist (e.g apprenticeships, Southend Hospital and recycling), are potentially controversial and will take years to deliver (e.g landlord registration, parking reviews, multi storey carparks and 20 mph schemes), are extremely expensive (e.g social housing, children’s centres and health centres) with no indication on how they will be funded, or are in the control of others (e.g employment practices and Southend Hospital)<br />
.<br />
With apologies to the late Harold Macmillan for slightly misquoting him this new Administration can best be described as being driven by a mixture of deliverable and original ideas – the problem is that none of the deliverable ideas are original and none of the original ideas are deliverable. <br />
Nigel Holdcrofthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01446597545038423081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1582562105265467070.post-35397469869099344352019-06-05T10:00:00.002+01:002019-06-05T10:00:27.899+01:00Southend Council - a situation comedy in the makingHaving been involved in local politics in Southend for over 40 years it has often occurred to me that it would provide excellent material for a “Croft & Perry” type situation comedy, but if so recent events at Southend Borough Council would make an excellent pilot episode.<br />
The plot line would read along the following lines:<br />
<br />
1. After local elections Council left with no overall control but with Conservatives as the main party;<br />
<br />
2. The non Conservative groups are unable to agree on a new Leader and following the elimination of the “Independent” candidate in the Leadership vote his colleagues refuse to support the Labour candidate, abstaining in the vote and allowing the Conservative leader to be elected;<br />
<br />
3. The Conservative leader appoints his cabinet and all other committee roles are filled and a preliminary action plan is issued which is well received by residents and businesses alike;<br />
<br />
4. The unsuccessful “Independent” candidate publishes a letter in the local press blaming Labour and the Liberals for the situation and emphasising that the “Independent’s” stance was dictated by the need to be “free from the control of any political party” as a result of which they were only prepared to work “..under a politically neutral leader”;<br />
<br />
5. Within days, and in a remarkable volte-face a number of “independents”, including their unsuccessful leadership candidate, lodge what is in effect a vote of no confidence in the Conservative Council Leader notwithstanding the fact that there have been no meetings or formal decisions;<br />
<br />
6. With “Independent” support the Conservative Leader is deposed and a new Labour leader elected. The unsuccessful “Independent” candidate accepts a post in cabinet together with 2 of his colleagues;<br />
<br />
7. The new Labour leader and his party colleagues herald the election of a radical Labour led administration – not exactly “politically neutral”;<br />
<br />
8. The change of Leader means that almost the first month of this Council year have been wasted and new committee appointments are made.<br />
<br />
I’m not sure that it is not too ridiculous to make a good programme.<br />
<br />
What would follow the pilot – perhaps a power struggle in cabinet between the “radical left wing leadership” and the ineffective Independents, or perhaps a further “flip flop” by the Independents and another vote of no confidence.<br />
<br />
The problem is that with a Town Centre in need of urgent action along the lines proposed by the now deposed Conservative Leader this political game playing by a number of the “Independents” is not funny!!<br />
Nigel Holdcrofthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01446597545038423081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1582562105265467070.post-58512443802336085032019-05-18T16:04:00.002+01:002019-05-18T16:11:57.492+01:00Less a Vote of Confidence and more an Incompetent VoteWith the ongoing saga of Brexit I suppose it was always beyond any reasonable doubt that the Conservatives would lose overall control of Southend Council on 2nd May and did well to maintain their position as the largest party group.<br />
<br />
Inevitably negotiations then ensued as the parties investigated the possibility of formal coalitions or confidence and supply agreements. In my view quite correctly new Conservative Leader Tony Cox made clear that whilst he would not form a coalition he would negotiate an agreement with one of the smaller groups to accept certain policies and non-administration appointments in exchange for support on any confidence votes and the budget. This was the type of agreement I negotiated with the then Independent Party Leader Ron Woodley in 2012 which enabled the Conservatives to form and operate a successful minority administration for 2 years.<br />
<br />
However this time it was clear that Ron, notwithstanding his position as a member of only the 3rd largest party group, wished the leadership for himself and in negotiations no agreement was reached.<br />
<br />
Accordingly at Mayor Making on 9th May there was a 3 way vote with Tony Cox as Leader of the largest Group against Labour Leader Ian Gilbert and Ron Woodley. The voting went along party lines and with the smallest vote Ron dropped out. Then bizarrely he and his Independent colleagues decided not to vote for either candidate in what was an unbelievable dereliction of their duty to residents on one of the most important votes of the year. This must have been an agreed ploy as the outcome of the vote was not in doubt and allowed Tony Cox to win the subsequent vote by 2 votes. I will leave to another time any comment on the usual bloc voting of the Independent Party which once again reiterates that they are a party group and not a group of true Independents!<br />
<br />
Following the vote Tony formed a cabinet, issued a positive, and in my view excellent, list of his administration’s immediate priorities which was very well received by local residents and businesses and started to work with officers.<br />
<br />
In this scenario it simply beggars belief that the Independents are now apparently seeking to propose a vote of no confidence to try to engineer a removal of the current Administration. As Tony has pointed out this is before there have been any formal meetings or decisions and whilst it is therefore a statement of the obvious there has been nothing which the current Administration has yet done which could lead to a loss of confidence!<br />
<br />
The decision on leadership was within the control of the Independent Party on 9th May but they collectively bottled it. To now waste time and money on this latest stunt can only further undermine the reputation of politicians with the public and demonstrates beyond doubt that notwithstanding their repeated claims that they are above party politics and are only interested in the best interests of the Town the Independent Party are the prime examples of those elements of the current system which they are so quick to criticise – unless of course they would like to explain what has changed so dramatically between 9th May and now.<br />
Nigel Holdcrofthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01446597545038423081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1582562105265467070.post-62686621274062755802019-02-08T14:25:00.001+00:002019-02-08T14:25:03.061+00:00Two hours free Town Centre parking and the elephant in the room!The latest edition of Oracle dropped through my letter box this week and I see that the magazine is encouraging readers to download a petition form calling for Southend Council to make the first 2 hours parking in Town Centre car parks free to help stimulate town centre business.<br />
<br />
This was one of the recommendations of an informative initiative facilitated by Philip Miller before Christmas to help save the Town Centre which included other excellent suggestions such as the reintroduction of vehicles to parts of the High Street and an increased emphasis on residential use.<br />
<br />
It is difficult to argue against the claim that to introduce free parking would assist the retailers in the Town Centre however the problem with current calls is that no one is addressing the obvious elephant in the room namely what would fill the resulting and significant hole in the Council’s income.<br />
<br />
In my time as Leader of the Council I asked officers to cost an initial period of free parking, but other than for a very limited introduction at Xmas, it was simply financially undeliverable. Instead we had to fall back on freezing the charges for 6 of the relevant 7 years and introducing other user friendly policies such as “pay on exit” – whatever happened to that!<br />
<br />
For this to be deliverable there has to be a clear indication of how the hole in the Council’s finances would be filled – funding which would have to be income not capital and be sustainable moving forward.<br />
<br />
There are other issues such as:<br />
1. users would still need to take a ticket to check when the “free” period had expired;<br />
2. what charge would apply after 2 hours? If at present levels the hit for staying slightly more than 2 hours would be dramatic and discourage stayers and to reduce would further erode income;<br />
3. if the concession is limited to the Town Centre how would this affect parking on the seafront and preventing the Town Centre car parks filling with visitors not seeking to support retailers?<br />
<br />
It is easy to say that the Council wastes money and it would be a brave man to deny that some waste existed however not at this level, particularly in circumstances where central government funding continues to decrease and demands for council services increase.<br />
<br />
One option would be to increase council tax but this would be likely to require a local referendum and my experience of campaigning in local elections in the Town for the last 40 years is that it is highly unlikely that residents would support a council tax increase for this reason. Similarly money strapped businesses are unlikely to be able (or enthusiastic) about subsidising the scheme.<br />
<br />
So a great idea but there needs to be a sensible debate on funding. In the meantime “pay on exit”, the return of 1 and 3 hour bands and machines that take cash would all help make council car parks more user friendly rather than downright hostile as they sometimes seem at present!<br />
Nigel Holdcrofthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01446597545038423081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1582562105265467070.post-63542009282833844282019-01-02T14:47:00.001+00:002019-01-03T20:34:51.010+00:00Is cash no longer legal tender in Southend?I have commented before on the efforts Southend Council appear to be making to dissuade visitors from using the Town's car parks by making payment as difficult as possible.<br />
<br />
This came home to me again last week when my wife and I decided to go to the Odeon to see the latest Mary Poppins film. Perhaps I am showing my age but my mobile telephone is not permanently attached to my body and knowing that it would not be needed in the cinema I left it at home.<br />
<br />
We were delighted to find a space in the small car park to the north of London Road close to Pizza Express and indeed were surprised to note the number of spaces available. Having got out of my car to find the payment machine the problem then dawned - the only available payment option was by phone or via the app and with no phone I was completely stymied. So there were spaces and I was happy and willing to pay but was unable to do so because of the absence of a payment machine which accepted cash or credit card.<br />
<br />
There was someone else also trying to park who did not want to download the app and was trying to follow the directions to pay be text message but her attempts were being rejected.<br />
<br />
So in the end we both left and parked further down London Road opposite Nazareth House avoiding any payment. Ok so this parking fee would not have underpinned the social care budget for the coming year but how often is this happening and how many visitors, like my fellow unsuccessful parker, are threatening not to return!Nigel Holdcrofthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01446597545038423081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1582562105265467070.post-74014562033511371692018-12-07T14:18:00.000+00:002018-12-07T14:18:03.272+00:00Seaway carpark development - part 2In my last post I commented on the controversy currently raging with regard to the proposed development of the Seaway car park. I thought it might be helpful in better facilitating a proper debate for me to comment on my previous involvement.<br />
I would make clear that I will not disclose any information which was or remains confidential but will refer to the council minutes which are publically available on its website.<br />
<br />
The motivation behind the scheme was a recognition as to the ongoing plight of the High Street, the strength of the seafront as a draw to the town to include not only the beach but a number of highly effective seafront businesses, the strength of the wider cultural appeal across the Town and the over dependence of the Council on car park revenue.<br />
<br />
I have previously been critical of the recent changes to car park charges and I stand by those criticisms however what has to be recognised by those who claim that charges should be significantly reduced or abandoned is that for historical reason these charges make an important contribution to the council’s income and with reducing central government support and increasing demand on council services such as social care the money has to come from somewhere. Accordingly what was needed was to try to generate alternative income sources with as little risk as possible to make the car park income less significant and allow substantial reductions in charges to be made.<br />
<br />
Seaway was identified as an important link between the seafront and town centre and whilst full on certain days there were also times when this important strategic site was underused. Accordingly this scheme was developed as a possible option with a new independent cinema operator providing a more focussed selection of films and supported with a new multi storey carpark, residential, some business use and improved access to the seafront. This was intended to work to the potential benefit of both the High Street as it attempts to modify its offer and layout and the seafront traders and strengthen the all year offer with benefit to the Town as a whole.<br />
<br />
As is confirmed in the recorded minutes:<br />
1. The proposed deal was subject to external certification for compliance with S123 Local Government Act 1972 which provides, amongst other things: <i>Except with the consent of the Secretary of State, a council shall not dispose of land under this section, otherwise than by way of a short tenancy, for a consideration less than the best that can reasonably be obtained</i>;<br />
2. There should be a fixed timescale for delivery;<br />
3. The leisure development would be delivered ahead of the occupancy of the residential accommodation;<br />
4. The Council’s then revenue return from the site would be retained and improved with a share of the long-term income from the development.<br />
5. Any change to the Heads of Terms would be considered in consultation with all Group Leaders.<br />
<br />
I cannot comment on the capital aspect for the reasons I have mentioned however the key triggers for the scheme were the improvement of the Council’s revenue return and the enhancement of leisure facilities within the Town, building on the seafront and creating a better link with the High Street. It was also acknowledged in debate that alternative car parking provision in the vicinity of the seafront would be needed.<br />
<br />
That was where things stood when the Conservatives lost control and I stepped down from the Council. I do not know what happened subsequently other than I understand that out preferred cinema operator withdrew with obvious ramifications and the scheme has still to be delivered.<br />
<br />
I await with interest confirmation from Cllr Ron Woodley, who as the next leader signed off the deal in November 2014, and the current administration as to where we are now as it is quite possible that the economic and practical challenges and opportunities which existed in January 2015 no longer apply.<br />
<br />
Nigel Holdcrofthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01446597545038423081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1582562105265467070.post-41325334074951296632018-12-07T14:16:00.001+00:002018-12-07T14:16:40.623+00:00Seaway Car Park development - part 1The Leigh edition of the Oracle dropped through my letterbox recently and I note that it included an article by Paul Thompson criticising the Council on its plan to redevelop the Seaway Carpark. The objection was based on the loss of car parking spaces and the assertion that, in effect, the Council had failed to strike an appropriate financial deal.<br />
<br />
This article followed various comments and tweets by a number of other local businessmen and residents along similar lines. At present I have still to see a response by the current Administration justifying their approach to the scheme. I fully appreciate that this is in part because aspects of the deal are financially and commercially sensitive and therefore confidential however I would still encourage the relevant portfolio holders to reassure residents as to their stance in general terms on both the economics of the scheme and its current status bearing in mind the obvious delays.<br />
<br />
It would also be interesting to hear Cllr Ron Woodley’s’ justification of his previous actions bearing in mind that the scheme was signed off by him. The deal was originally developed during my leadership of the council and in my next blog I will set out why in my view the decision was the right one to take at that time.<br />
<br />
However in the meantime I am intrigued by Mr Thompson’s comment that “In November 2014 the new then leader of the council, Cllr Ron Woodley was advised by senior council officers to sign this agreement”.<br />
<br />
I hope that Ron is not trying to evade responsibility for his part in this process. By November 2018 Ron had been Leader of the Council for 5 months, more than adequate to consider the merits of the scheme before authorising it to proceed. Equally significant when the Draft Heads of Agreement were approved by Cabinet on 6th January 2015 the item was then called in for detailed scrutiny by the relevant Scrutiny Committee the Chairman of which was Ron. The item was called in for further review at the following full council meeting at which he was also present and accordingly by November 2014 he was fully aware of the scheme and its pros and cons.<br />
<br />
It is also the case that Ron regularly regaled other council members with confirmation as to his business and financial expertise and in such circumstances it is a little strange that he appears to be giving the impression that he was being led by council officers. Either he thought the deal was a good one which is why he signed it or he thought it was a bad one in which case why didn’t he block it. I cannot believe that he is suggesting for one minute that he did not understand what was being proposed or felt unable to stop it. So I would be interested to hear what he has to say on the matter and do hope that he will not attempt to hide behind officers which would hardly be consistent with the principle of “Ministerial responsibility” in so far as that applies to local government. <br />
Nigel Holdcrofthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01446597545038423081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1582562105265467070.post-77445322150446646732018-09-21T08:56:00.001+01:002018-09-21T08:56:47.537+01:00A new "bypass" - what goes around comes around!I was delighted to see Cllr James Courtenay’s recent announcement (reported in the Echo) that as part of the Council’s 50 year strategy they are likely to include a new road linking from the A130 to ease access to the Town Centre and east of the Town.<br />
I fully support this aspiration although it may be more accurate to describe this as being half way through a 100 year strategy rather than the beginning of a 50 year one.<br />
<br />
Talk of a new access road has been on the table for some years, the theory being that if there was a new link road to the town centre and eastern areas the A127 could give concentrate on the west of the town leaving the A13 as a local feeder.<br />
<br />
Back in I think the late 70s or 80s the then senior council officer Peter Longden had a plan for a scheme along these lines and when I was Chairman of the Highways Committee of the then lower tier Southend Council in the early 90s there were discussions on the plan with Essex County Council as the then Highway Authority.<br />
<br />
In my years as leader whilst funding was obtained for improvements to the junctions of the A127 it was always made clear to the funding agencies that this was a short term fix but the long term solution could only be provided by a new northern access road.<br />
<br />
Indeed there was a third party group who were attempting to formulate a more limited scheme which as far as I am aware has not progressed.<br />
Unfortunately the progress over the last 40/50 years has been limited for two main reasons. Firstly to construct the road would cost a very significant sum and would the commercial and economic return justify this. Secondly it would involve large areas of land across Rayleigh and Rochford in particular not owned by Southend Council or falling within the Council’s geographical area.<br />
<br />
There is nothing wrong with rebooting an aspiration of this kind and I wish it every success however an answer still needs to be found on the issues of the economics and land acquisition.<br />
Nigel Holdcrofthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01446597545038423081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1582562105265467070.post-12646268050330597032018-09-19T12:22:00.002+01:002018-09-19T12:22:44.693+01:00Southend Town Centre - a good intiative and some possible solutionsFirstly congratulation to Cllr James Courtenay for announcing a High Street Summit on 24th September.This has the look of a member driven initiative and is to be welcomed.<br />
<br />
My only reservations are that it is important that he included the commercial property owners or their representatives in the invitee list; unless this has been a long time in the planning has he allowed sufficient time to ensure he gets who he needs at the meeting; he needs to ensure that discussions do not get bogged down in standard “local government” nonsense; and as the Council’s press team are already indicating that they will be sharing the outcomes on 25th September I hope that the results will be properly considered and that this is not simply a PR exercise.<br />
<br />
For what it is worth I believe that the action points should include some of the following:<br />
<br />
1. Agreement as to the future identity of the High Street. The days of lengthy high streets with large national retailers appears to be at an end. These national chains previously killed off the independence and originality of many High Streets across the country and are now being put to the sword by the internet. I would hope that the vision is based on building on the Town’s strong Culture/Tourism offer, supplemented by a return to smaller and independent niche traders and artists, with an increase in residential development in the High Street above street level with perhaps a supermarket and specialist food stores to serve a growing central population. Perhaps the increasingly vacant central section of the High Street could form a centre for these grocery shops to include a new more central Town Centre;<br />
2. To achieve the above the larger units need to be subdivided in to manageable units with residential above and with affordable rents and Business Rates;<br />
3. The issues with safety and the perception of safety need to be addressed. I believe we need to return traffic to the north and south ends of the High Street (at least in the evenings and for buses and taxis) which linked to greater residential use would increase footfall and safety. The rough sleeper issue needs to be dealt with. Not only is this bad for those forced to sleep on the streets but their presence can be threatening to other users;<br />
4. There needs improved police presence in the High Street ;<br />
5. The Town Centre market is positive and should continue;<br />
6. The Council needs to deal with the parking issues. Make the use of council car parks simple and reasonable (not only to those prepared to download an app!) and reduce charges in the Town Centre in recognition of the fact that at present the offer is not sufficient to merit the levels being sought.<br />
<br />
In summary concentrate on developing Southend as a safe and fun place to go for leisure and niche shopping with a strong residential presence and let us positively market the strengths which I identified in my last post.<br />
<br />
Nigel Holdcrofthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01446597545038423081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1582562105265467070.post-68501106519790327782018-09-14T15:01:00.003+01:002018-09-14T15:01:50.325+01:00Southend Town Centre - the challenges, strengths and possible solutions (part 1)With hardly a day passing without more negative news on the Country’s High Streets whether a s a result of the financial problems or closure of another famous chain or the continued rise of the internet it is unsurprising that concerns as to the future of Southend High Street continue to grow.<br />
<br />
I suppose the easiest part of the debate is to identify the challenges the High Street faces. For me the main issues include:<br />
<br />
1. The national decline of High Street shopping due to the challenge of the internet;<br />
2. Southend’s geographical location literally “at the end of the line” which means that its shopping catchment does not extend significantly to all directions but mostly to the west where other competition lurks;<br />
3. The linked issues with accessibility by car from outside the Borough boundaries;<br />
4. The elongated length of the High Street itself with anchors by way of the shopping centres at both ends making any consolidation difficult;<br />
5. The limited sideways growth caused in part by the length of the High Street itself;<br />
6. The large size of many of the units on the High Street;<br />
7. The high commercial rents and Business Rates;<br />
8. The high cost of parking and the recent changes which have made the Council owned carparks and on street parking less user friendly;<br />
9. The dependence of Southend Council’s budget on car park income;<br />
10. The pedestrian layout of the High Street and poor finish of much of the work previously carried out, and the ramifications on the perception of safety – particularly at night; <br />
11. The limited nature of the retail offer available – particularly in areas covering electrical goods, furniture, houseware etc. etc.<br />
12. The large number of students in the High Street which some older shoppers can find intimidating.<br />
<br />
I would stress that this is not intended to be an exhaustive list but provides a range of challenges which it is difficult to overcome.<br />
By the same token the Town has obvious strengths:<br />
<br />
1. Its seaside location;<br />
2. Its strong leisure offer which tempts £6/7M visitors to the Town each year;<br />
3. Its vastly improved range of hotels and other overnight accommodation;<br />
4. Its wide and inviting range of restaurants; bars and clubs;<br />
5. Its location at the “end of the line” giving it a potential catchment who face the same challenges getting out of the Town as visitors face getting in!<br />
6. The University and College in the Town centre with the resulting footfall generated;<br />
7. Its non-road transport infrastructure including 7 main line stations within the Borough on 2 lines and a growing airport;<br />
8. The continuing presence of a significant number of potential entrepreneurs who are such a feature of South Essex life.<br />
<br />
It is interesting that some factors have a potentially positive and negative effect.<br />
<br />
Once again this is not intended to be an exclusive list. However it demonstrates why Southend has more reasons to feel positive than many other Town centres across the country.<br />
<br />
So given a magic wand and influence over the Council, local commercial property owners, local entrepreneurs and Southend residents Well the Holdcroft masterplan will follow next week…..<br />
<br />
Nigel Holdcrofthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01446597545038423081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1582562105265467070.post-40660949062120305642018-07-28T14:08:00.000+01:002018-07-28T14:08:10.133+01:00Divorce law and the need for changeIt does appear that the recent furore over a wife who has been unable to obtain a divorce from her husband because his alleged “unreasonable behaviour” was insufficient to justify an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, is going to persuade the Government to try once again to tackle the challenge of changing our divorce law.<br />
<br />
As a solicitor undertaking family work for over 36 years I support the view that reform is long overdue although whether our law makers are capable of arriving at a compromise acceptable both to those who demand modernisation and those seeking to protect the sanctity of marriage is more debateable.<br />
<br />
Under the current law dating back to 1968 to obtain a divorce you must satisfy the court that the marriage has irretrievably broken down, and you can only do that by proving 1 of 5 grounds namely the other party’s adultery, the other party’s unreasonable behaviour, 2 years separation with the consent of the other party, 5 years separation, or 2 years desertion. <br />
So assuming that the marriage has died but the parties are still living in the same property and no third part is involved the only option is an allegation of unreasonable behaviour (whether by agreement or not).<br />
<br />
Unreasonable behaviour allegations must by definition give a very black and white view of a relationship when in reality the situation is rarely so one sided and more a varying shade of grey.<br />
<br />
The reformers argue that if one spouse has finally concluded that the marriage is at an end then it has irretrievably broken down and this is certainly the case where both parties are agreed. They say if 2 adults can enter in to a marriage why should the state prevent them from exiting in a quick and non-confrontational manner if they wish. Others will argue that to make divorce too easy will undermine the institution taking away the incentive to work through difficulties and others will say that marriage is intended as a lifelong commitment.<br />
<br />
I have seen it suggested that the easiest solution would be to reduce the separation periods mentioned above from 2 and 5 years to perhaps 6 months and a year. This may work in some cases but in the majority of cases I have handled over the years the parties could not afford to live separately until the entire financial package had been agreed and potentially the family home sold. The financial order is not made until an advanced stage of the divorce and so if the divorce can only be started post separation there is an obvious chicken and egg quandary.<br />
<br />
The options are numerous but my preference would be to have 3 potential grounds:<br />
<br />
1. Mutual consent – this would involve reliance being placed on a certificate of consent by the other spouse signed in the presence of a family lawyer to avoid the risk of duress;<br />
2. The other party’s adultery;<br />
3. Where the parties were not agreed and provable adultery had not taken place then a spouse should be entitled to lodge a certificate of intent with the court and say 6 months later could commence divorce proceedings. This would allow a spouse who is convinced that an irretrievable breakdown has taken place to commence action without the need for a lengthy separation or allegations against the spouse, but also building in a cooling off/reflection period.<br />
<br />
I will be watching developments with interest!Nigel Holdcrofthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01446597545038423081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1582562105265467070.post-89688060367603963882018-07-28T11:42:00.001+01:002018-07-28T11:42:38.902+01:00Lib Dems - Why bother!The recent conduct of Lib Dem Leader Vince Cable is quite bizarre. For the leader of a party whose only message to the public appears to be that they want to stay in the EU notwithstanding the referendum result, it now transpires that he missed an important Brexit vote because he was attending a meeting to discuss the possible formation of a new anti-Brexit party sitting in the middle of the political spectrum. <br />
<br />
Well I must be missing something but I thought the Lib Dems regarded themselves as an anti-Brexit party sitting in the middle of the political spectrum so why would their leader contemplate participating in such a meeting even if more conveniently scheduled?<br />
<br />
Perhaps he believes that the image of the Lib Dems is so damaged in the eyes of the electorate that the only solution is to morph it into a new party.<br />
<br />
It seems that it is not only Mr Cable who is suffering this identity crisis. As someone who has been involved in local politics for years I am fully aware of the Lib Dems stock electioneering campaign tactic of moving from a left wing party to a right wing party and back depending on the character of the seat they are chasing.<br />
<br />
Indeed local Lib Deb leader Carole Mulroney is happy to herald her party political credentials when fighting her Leigh seat in Southend Borough elections, taking advantage of the long links parts of Leigh have had with the historic Liberal party, but when seeking election to Leigh Town Council she implies to voters that she is an independent as that is in keeping with the public perception of a Town Council.<br />
<br />
So perhaps Carole and her party leader have quite a bit in common - both apparently prepared to consider avoiding their connections to this damaged party if they think it can work to their advantage.Nigel Holdcrofthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01446597545038423081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1582562105265467070.post-70030932203787090342018-07-01T12:15:00.001+01:002018-07-01T12:15:20.241+01:00Sally Carr is alive and kicking!How very unfortunate. In a small item the Leigh Times intended to mark the unfortunate death of ex mayor and Thorpe Bay councillor Daphne White but for some bizarre reason suggested that it was that other ex mayor and Southend Councillor Sally Carr who had passed away.<br />
<br />
Fortunately Sally remains alive and well. I suppose that it does give her the opportunity to use that famous Mark Twain quote "The report of my death was an exaggeration"!Nigel Holdcrofthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01446597545038423081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1582562105265467070.post-31069026750037019402018-06-28T11:53:00.003+01:002018-06-28T11:53:54.480+01:00Leigh Town Council - The farce continuesI was not a supporter of the formation of Leigh Town Council and nothing that has happened in subsequent years has changed my view. It was formed at a time when our long campaign to escape the clutches of Essex County Council and to return Southend to the status of a unitary authority was reaching fruition.<br />
<br />
So at a time when we were cutting the levels of local government reducing operating costs and increasing accountability Leigh Town Council was formed to undermine that progress. I accept that since Southend Council agreed that LTC should take over the running of Leigh Community Centre they appear to have done so effectively however they represent a very expensive basis for a community centre operating committee.<br />
<br />
One of their supposed strengths was the absence of party political affiliations. The result of this is that the process has not had the support of the party machines which, like or not, does help improve communication with the public, and has meant that most voters have absolutely no idea what their potential candidates stand for or wish to prioritise. This has resulted in poor voter turnout (even by local government standards) and often a chronic lack of candidates. In addition we have the farce of Lib Dem SBC councillor Carole Mulroney purporting to serve on LTC as an "independent".<br />
<br />
My scepticism was fuelled by a recent edition of the Leigh Times which reported that following 2 recent councillor vacancies and a complete absence of any call for by elections 2 new councillors had been co-opted albeit by a meeting where only 5 of the 14 remaining councillors attended! So much for democracy.<br />
<br />
In addition the LTC clerk was quoted as suggesting that an attendance of 77 residents at the Council's Annual Meeting was credible and reflected the interest in the affairs of the Town Council. Far be it for me to add a touch of realism but this pathetic attendance linked with the reluctance of electors to call for by elections to select the councillors to represent them or to vote unless in the polling station already for another more significant vote, in fact demonstrates that the majority of the community are either opposed to the cost and insignificance of LTC or are simply apathetic - not particularly caring one way or the other.<br />
<br />
The time has come for the electorate to be given the opportunity to vote on the future of LTC but this time there should be a threshold of at least 50% of those voting and 40% of the total electorate before this costs group is allowed to continue.Nigel Holdcrofthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01446597545038423081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1582562105265467070.post-23028097714884387122018-06-19T12:18:00.001+01:002018-06-19T12:18:21.107+01:00Wexham's Airport AmnesiaUnderstandably for the significant number of residents living under or near to the flight path the news of Ryanair’s imminent arrival at Southend Airport linked with the greater awareness of flights in the summer when windows are open and gardens more used, has caused concern.<br />
<br />
Such a situation obviously gives the perfect opportunity for some politicians to try to take advantage of the situation, linked with a convenient mistelling of history, to try to curry electoral support.<br />
<br />
Accordingly it was no great surprise to read Lib Dem Councillor Peter Wexham’s latest comments in the Leigh Times.<br />
Peter comments: “There is not much than can be done about it now because Southend’s Tory controlled council, at the time, made the lease very easy and flexible for Stobarts…I for one voted against the extension…and then during the negotiations we put forward a motion that there should be no night flights unless it was an emergency..but that was rejected by the Tory council. The airport company are free to do as they like because they are allowed so many night flights a month”.<br />
<br />
What Peter does not mention is:<br />
1. The existing airport lease contained almost no effective restrictions, particularly on flight numbers, night flights, noise levels or flight direction;<br />
2. The current operators acquired the lease of the airport without discussion or agreement with the Council as landlord. If we had not negotiated a new lease with more effective restrictions they would have worked the airport within the current restrictions, no doubt to include more freight and significantly higher numbers of night flights;<br />
3. This was not a new airport. It has existed for years and the runway was in place when most if not all of the affected homes were bought by their current owners. When I was young in the 70s the noise levels were far greater than now and permissible under the previous lease;<br />
4. Whilst some of us representing wards to the west of the Town were concerned the reality was that the majority of councillors across ALL parties were strongly supportive of airport expansion because of the economic benefits. The grant of a new lease was inevitable and the option was either to stick our head in the sand and vote against any realistic compromise as it salved our personal conscience (like Peter Wexham) or to work with the situation as it was and concentrate on negotiating the best restrictions we could get which was the approach of me and my colleagues.<br />
<br />
The Lib Dems therefore proposed no night flights cynically knowing that the airport would never accept this because of the obligations to the successful repair companies on site.<br />
<br />
On the other hand we negotiated a stringent set of controls relating to noise levels, flight numbers, limited night flights, passenger numbers and uniquely directing that at least 50% of all flights took off and arrived from the north. This was enshrined in both the terms of the lease but also the planning conditions on the runway extension.<br />
<br />
We also created a Monitoring Committee to check the airport played by the rules. Rather than bleating perhaps Cllr Wexham should be ensuring that Committee meets as soon as possible and that the restrictions are enforced. In the meantime he might care to point out to residents that the situation would have been far worse if left to him rather than the efforts of the then Conservative Administration!<br />
Nigel Holdcrofthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01446597545038423081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1582562105265467070.post-42425281820120701022018-06-08T08:31:00.000+01:002018-06-08T08:31:30.606+01:00More parking issues!I have already moaned about Southend Council's current car parking policy but here we go again!<br />
<br />
Mrs H made one of her regular trips to the hairdresser yesterday which meant using the Shorefield Road car park.<br />
<br />
She needed 3 hours which of course meant paying for 4 at a cost of £4.50 So not a good start.<br />
<br />
She is an intelligent woman but did not appreciate from the instructions, which are far from clear, that she needed to enter the required parking period before paying her money.<br />
<br />
She inserted £4.50 In cash but then had to go back to the beginning to enter her car reg and period required. There was no apparent option to return her cash or to reject the coins. The machine having apparently swallowed her money then required further payment before the ticket was issued. <br />
<br />
So £9 for a 3 hour stay. <br />
<br />
Her complaint email went to SBC yesterday and she has received an acknowledgement so we now wait for what happens next.<br />
<br />
Whilst not wanting to labour the point again, car parking charges are an important element of the Council's budget and to maximise their potential they need to be reasonably and fairly priced and payment machines easy and logical to use so as to encourage rather than discourage potential users.<br />
<br />
On the experience of me and my wife to date this challenge is not currently being met.Nigel Holdcrofthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01446597545038423081noreply@blogger.com0