In denial

Why do the opposition groups struggle to come to terms with the fact that the council has made such giant strides over the last few years in service delivery and organisational performance? The facts speak for themselves! In all areas of the council we have seen improvements in the quality of services provided. Substantial parts of the organisation now perform at top quartile levels with continuing rises in both customer and staff satisfaction levels. A range of our teams have enjoyed national recognition to include those in Revenues and Benefits, Street Cleaning and cleanliness, museums and libraries, cycling, and housing. Our youth offending team is one of the best performing in the country and our family intervention project and work on autism have both received national recognition. The Care Quality Commissions assessment of our adult social care department demonstrates the transformation of this service over the last 4 years. These are only a few examples of cross organisational success which have been recognised by our short listing for the most improved council last year and our recent short listing for council of the year.
In addition we will have delivered capital projects with a value in excess of £100M to include the much complimented new swimming and diving pool at Garon Park, a modern and safe pay on exit town centre multi storey car park, and the four creating a better Southend schemes which notwithstanding the onerous time limits imposed by the previous government remain on time and on budget. Opposition councillors are good are "heartfelt" statements about council employees whose jobs are at risk but don't they understand that their constant nasty and inaccurate jibes about council performance are more damaging to staff morale than the cuts we are having to find. Come on - step up to your responsibilities as corporate employers and start giving our employees and the services they provide the credit they deserve.

Borrowing

Cllr Woodley and his independent group have now decided that the next great issue is the level of council borrowing. Notwithstanding his self proclaimed status as financial guru Cllr Woodley expresses sudden concern and surpise at council borrowing levels as though he has just discovered the situation following some detailed investigation. Infact every member of council receives 3 monthly treasury management reports, an annual treasury management statement and details of funding linked to the capital programme which means that anyone who bothers to read the paperwork must be fully aware of our treasury management policy. He has been on the council for four years - did he not understand this information or if he did why did he not raise his concerns before. What he fails to mention is that in calculating local government funding the government has always included an allowance for the funding of capital borrowing realising that capital investment is essential. Previously this was seperately identified but more recently has just been included in the general pot. A failure to use this funding would result in significant underinvestment which was the case before we got a proper hold of the capital programme a few years ago. The cost of borrowing is about 2% of the council's annual budget which is less than many other authorities and is"prudent, affordable and sustainable" to use the words of our Head of Finance (who is qualified and experienced in public funding). So Ron why is this only mentioned now and without giving the full story and which capital projects which we have funded over recent years do you oppose? And the really frightening thing is that the Independents think that members should be micro managing the councils overall buget of £500M rather than make the policy relying on the expertise of our professional officers.

Budget Debate

It was the budget debate last night and I continue to be perplexed by the attitude of our three opposition parties.Cllr Longley on behalf of the Lib Dems criticised the Labour Party for creating an economic situation where cuts of £15.5M were required and then criticised the Conservative Administration for making them, without giving any alternative suggestions or proposals of any kind. If he accepts that cuts have to be made and he doesn't have alternative suggestions it seems ridiculous to oppose our budget. Cllr Woodley on behalf of the Independents once again demonstrated (at considerable length) that he either doesn't understand public finance or chooses to mis interpret the information provided to him. Once again no amendments or alternatives but simply opposition to our budget without sensible reason. Finally Cllr Gilbert on behalf of the Labour Group, who is simply in denial that there is a national deficit or that it has anything to do with his party - once again no alternatives or amendments but just opposition. Tey even fail to acknowledge the progress the council has made in all areas of service provision over the last 4 years. So much for constructive opposition!

Airport latest

We now have confirmation that having had her application for Judicial Review thrown out at the first hurdle the legally aided SAEN supporter is now asking for a review of the decision at an oral hearing. I don't know whether this latest step is also legally aided but if so let's throw some more public money at this! Whatever may be suggested to the contrary anybody who loses an application for JR at the this point may apply for a review hearing without any leave or approval of the court so long as the application is lodged within 7 days. This next step does not indicate that anybody (other than SAEN and their supporter(s)) thinks the original decision was wrong. In the meantime the majority of residents, whichever side of the debate they are on, want to move to the debate on the lease variation so that the choice is clear - airport expansion with runway extension and enviromental controls or airport expansion with no extension or controls. The planning decision was taken following the specialist advice of council planning officers, was reviewed by the then Secretary of State and approved, and how now been ratified by a High Court judge on a very clear cut basis.

The joys of pavement politics

Was out last night delivering our latest In Touch to residents across part of the Highlands Estate. It is interesting delivering leaflets in the dark as it adds the perils of dark pathways (with hidden steps) and difficult to locate letter boxes to the usual challenge of dogs. It never fails to astound me how badly designed many letter boxes are, making the delivery of a leaflet tricky, never mind post or newspapers. You would think that when designing a letter box some thought would be given to how easy it is to post documents - that is after all the only purpose of it, but apparently no. It is also of concern that in increasing numbers of cases dogs leap aggressively at the letterbox whilst attempts are being made by the deliverer to beat the draft excluder and it astounds me that more injuries do not occur.I do wonder if owners are aware of their potential liability for the actions of their dog and whether any of their usual post is readable. And it isn't just because I am a politicial that they go for me because under the cover of darkness my identity is safe! Delivering leaflets is also a great way to keep a check on pavement and road conditions as well as any non working lights. I have sent my report in to council officers today and for residents of Braemar Crescent repairs to the road surface are due soon!!

Airport expansion & SAEN

I was asked yesterday to comment on BBC Radio Essex about the High Court decision and was followed by Denis Walker - local supported of SAEN and Friends of the Earth. 3 things struck me from his comments. It was interesting that he regarded a decision by a specialist High Court judge that the claims were not even arguable as an unsurprising first step and further pursual of the matter with the backing of legal aid as apparently inevitable. He made much of the SAEN "community contribution" as justifying the financial support the organisation is giving to the application. I would be interested to know hom much this is in the context of the costs incurred to date. Finally he continued to argue that the majority of residents of the town are opposed to airport expansion.That is not borne out by my experience canvassing door to door, speaking at public meetings or from my e mail inbox.

Airport decision

So after a delay of many months we have received the decision of a High Court judge on the legally aided application for a judicial review on the airport runway planning application. His view is that none of the the claimant (Laura Millard) grounds for a judicial review are arguable and the application has therefore been rejected.It is pleasing that the Judge has justified the process adopted by the Council although perhaps not surprising bearing in mind that great effort that was taken to ensure that the application was dealt with in a proper manner. The process was also reviewed and approved by the then Secretary of State. No doubt SAEN will press for a review of the decision and then there remains the issue of a possible appeal. My view remains that the sooner the Council moves forward to debate whether or not to agree to a variation to the lease to allow a runway extension to be built the better. The real decision is should the airport be allowed to expand as it wishes but with a strong package of enviromental controls or be forced to operate on its current runway without adequate enviromental controls. As a resident of Leigh I know which I would prefer. In the meantime the airport needs to be able to plan its future activities and generate employment whilst resident need the longstanding issue to be resolved once and for all.