One of the areas that Cllr Woodley and his Independent colleagues have focussed on in recent years has been the level of council borrowing. This reached a head during the council budget debate last year when they were challenged to identify the specific projects which had been wholly or partly funded by borrowing which they would not have undertaken, or to propose variations to the draft budget to remove borrowing funded projects which they would abandon.
Perhaps unsurprisingly they failed to do either although Independent Party Leader Martin Terry came up with 3 schemes which had been primarily or solely externally funded.
With this backdrop it was always going to be interesting to see the new Administration’s proposals on capital which presumably would see no new projects funded by borrowing and proposals to reduce general borrowing levels.
Well it is always difficult to reach any definitive views on the initial cabinet papers but the draft programme which they are seeking to deliver suggests that for 2015-2018/19 they propose a capital programme of £156.9M of which only £57.8M is externally funded. It envisages borrowing of £56M over the period in addition to using £37.1M of reserves.
Particularly the use of reserves from general fund is not greatly different from borrowing as it reduces the size of the safety net available for unexpected expenditure and if it is going to be used could simply repay borrowing to reducing revenue expenditure.
In fact the level of borrowing envisaged for 15/16 in the proposals we pushed forward 12 months ago was £9.3M but with the many new items the current proposals now increase borrowing for capital for the current year to £24.3M. It remains unclear what the total borrowing figure will be by the end of the year but this will no doubt become clear as the debate continues.
So we have a raft of borrowing funded capital schemes and a significant increase in the anticipated new borrowing for the current year!
The final twist on this is that at yesterday’s Business Budget Consultation Cllr Woodley made a throwaway remark that the budget would reduce borrowing by £38M resulting in a revenue saving of £2M pa. I was so surprised by this comment that following the meeting I asked a couple of other attendees whether I had heard him correctly. Their understanding accorded with mine. Clearly this needs to be clarified. I cannot believe that Cllr Woodley would seek to mislead the meeting on the true effect of his proposals but cannot see how his figures tie in with the papers. If he is in reality not only failing to cut borrowing but increasing it then it is reasonable to accept a correction of his comment yesterday and an explanation as to why his position appears to have radically changed.
Wednesday, 21 January 2015
Tuesday, 20 January 2015
Council Budget (1) - car parking charges
I thought that I would accept the invitation sent to me as a local businessman to attend the council budget briefing this morning with leader Cllr Ron Woodley, Chief Executive Rob Tinlin and Head of Finance Joe Chesterton which took place at the Forum.
It was strange being on the other side of the fence as in previous years I chaired this meeting. It was noticeable that more of the presentation and questions were dealt with by Rob and Joe than usual but I suppose this reflects that Ron is new to the job and is no doubt still trying to get to grips with the peculiarities of local government finance.
Over the next few weeks I will be commenting on various aspects of a budget which was remarkably lack lustre. I had been so used to hearing Ron say that he could deliver massive savings by cutting red tape that his inability to do so was surprising – or perhaps not!
I wasn’t intending to ask anything but was surprised at how easy going the audience was in the face of some debatable proposals. Perhaps it reflects the limited number of currently active local businessmen who had the opportunity to attend.
We heard about the concerns the administration has with regard to supporting enterprise and economic growth (to include the town centre), which raised an obvious question on car parking charges. The Administration proposes a range of parking charge increases which is some cases are quite heavy. By way of example the cost of staying for 3 hours in the Town Centre, in a car park or in an on road bay, is likely to increase by about 20%! In circumstances where the High Street is clearly suffering, the % of voids and short leases is becoming very concerning, the traders are already forced to pay into the BID funding services that many would argue are really the responsibility of the council, and there is a perception that car parking charges are already too high, this proposal is a real kick in the teeth. It will raise a quite limited amount in the context of the overall savings and as with all rises risks reducing income by driving away users.
The response was that they knew the High Street was in trouble but they would increase charges this year and would introduce some measures to provide support next year. Let’s hope they are not too late! There was also a reference to Brighton which is hardly a like for like comparison.
I also find it strange that their proposals mean that the charges to stay for up to an hour in Thorpe Bay (the favourite haunt of Ron and his ward colleague Martin Terry who has responsibility for overseeing these charges), and for up to 2 hours at the Civic Centre are frozen. Why? If they are suggesting that potentially damaging hikes are required why not apply them to all – or is a case of all car parks being equal but some more equal than others.
This is a bad proposal and a cheap shot at those fighting to defend and develop the Town Centre.
It was strange being on the other side of the fence as in previous years I chaired this meeting. It was noticeable that more of the presentation and questions were dealt with by Rob and Joe than usual but I suppose this reflects that Ron is new to the job and is no doubt still trying to get to grips with the peculiarities of local government finance.
Over the next few weeks I will be commenting on various aspects of a budget which was remarkably lack lustre. I had been so used to hearing Ron say that he could deliver massive savings by cutting red tape that his inability to do so was surprising – or perhaps not!
I wasn’t intending to ask anything but was surprised at how easy going the audience was in the face of some debatable proposals. Perhaps it reflects the limited number of currently active local businessmen who had the opportunity to attend.
We heard about the concerns the administration has with regard to supporting enterprise and economic growth (to include the town centre), which raised an obvious question on car parking charges. The Administration proposes a range of parking charge increases which is some cases are quite heavy. By way of example the cost of staying for 3 hours in the Town Centre, in a car park or in an on road bay, is likely to increase by about 20%! In circumstances where the High Street is clearly suffering, the % of voids and short leases is becoming very concerning, the traders are already forced to pay into the BID funding services that many would argue are really the responsibility of the council, and there is a perception that car parking charges are already too high, this proposal is a real kick in the teeth. It will raise a quite limited amount in the context of the overall savings and as with all rises risks reducing income by driving away users.
The response was that they knew the High Street was in trouble but they would increase charges this year and would introduce some measures to provide support next year. Let’s hope they are not too late! There was also a reference to Brighton which is hardly a like for like comparison.
I also find it strange that their proposals mean that the charges to stay for up to an hour in Thorpe Bay (the favourite haunt of Ron and his ward colleague Martin Terry who has responsibility for overseeing these charges), and for up to 2 hours at the Civic Centre are frozen. Why? If they are suggesting that potentially damaging hikes are required why not apply them to all – or is a case of all car parks being equal but some more equal than others.
This is a bad proposal and a cheap shot at those fighting to defend and develop the Town Centre.
Monday, 12 January 2015
Budget proposals
As we reach the release of the current Administration’s budget proposals it will be interesting to see their funding priorities and initiatives.
It was always an exciting but challenging time during my years as Leader. The release of the proposals followed months of hard work by senior officers and cabinet members and was accompanied by a rush of meetings with opposition leaders, unions, staff and the media before the scrutiny by other members and the public got fully under way.
What am I expecting this year? Well based on Leader Cllr Ron Woodley’s previous comments on borrowing and red tape/waste I assume that we will not be seeing any proposals to increase council borrowing and he will be delivering efficiencies in a way that does not affect front line services. I note that he has already been quoted confirming that the level of economies required is in line with earlier estimates so nobody has been taken by surprise.
I will be particularly keen to see if there is an attempt to reduce the level of council reserves which provide such an important safety net in challenging times like these. I also trust that the Administration will be taking advantage of the Government’s offer to avoid rises in council tax to residents and will also be doing their bit for the town centre by avoiding car parking fee increases.
In the meantime I have received my invitation to the budget consultation arranged for local business. This was a format introduced a couple of years ago and I am looking forward to hearing budget details straight “from the horse’s mouth” so to speak.
It was always an exciting but challenging time during my years as Leader. The release of the proposals followed months of hard work by senior officers and cabinet members and was accompanied by a rush of meetings with opposition leaders, unions, staff and the media before the scrutiny by other members and the public got fully under way.
What am I expecting this year? Well based on Leader Cllr Ron Woodley’s previous comments on borrowing and red tape/waste I assume that we will not be seeing any proposals to increase council borrowing and he will be delivering efficiencies in a way that does not affect front line services. I note that he has already been quoted confirming that the level of economies required is in line with earlier estimates so nobody has been taken by surprise.
I will be particularly keen to see if there is an attempt to reduce the level of council reserves which provide such an important safety net in challenging times like these. I also trust that the Administration will be taking advantage of the Government’s offer to avoid rises in council tax to residents and will also be doing their bit for the town centre by avoiding car parking fee increases.
In the meantime I have received my invitation to the budget consultation arranged for local business. This was a format introduced a couple of years ago and I am looking forward to hearing budget details straight “from the horse’s mouth” so to speak.
Saturday, 10 January 2015
Oh come on Julian!
I have to admit to enjoying the blog of Labour councillor Julian Ware Lane.Whilst we may disagree on quite a lot I find many of his views interesting even though would appreciate a little less of the Labour Party rhetoric.
One item which caught my eye was his piece on 30th December heralding the achievements of Labour as part of the Town's joint administration.
I thought I would look at some of his claims.
Taking action on Victoria Avenue after "...years of neglect under the Conservatives." The reality is that we had worked for years to pressurise land owners to redevelop, included the area as a plank of the City Deal bid and eventually in desperation committed funds to purchase or cpo sites in a budget which Julian voted against!
Looking to invest in community facilities including references to Hamstel Children's Centre and libraries. The campaign on Hamstel was cross party and well embedded prior to this Administration. For all the talk of libraries the much heralded review did not reverse any of the economies or save any fte jobs but simply moved the chairs to claim a move away from the previous proposals agreed by a cross party group.
Addressing the housing crisis and investing in community facilities. Well let's see what they actually deliver particularly with the looming budget proposals. I would rather judge on results than claims!
Shoebury sea wall plans. Well I would refer to my last blog item and in any event surely Julian voted in favour of the scheme which he now seems to castigate.
The reality is that local government is like a large oil tanker. It takes a long time to change course or implement new initiatives. In so far as we are currently seeing the Administration claiming credit for good service delivery this reflects the achievements of the last Administration. It is too early to judge the current team but the first major test will be their budget proposals. The major challenge is producing a balanced budget whilst protecting core services and in my view the Rainbow Alliance have a hard act to follow.
Friday, 9 January 2015
Shoebury sea defences (again!)
I have to be honest and say that I did not rush to watch the cabinet meeting earlier this week so do not know what final decisions were made but on the assumption that the majority of the recommendations made in reports were accepted I could not avoid a smile at the contortions the administration are being forced in to on the Shoebury flood defence issue.
I have commented on this previously and wonder how long it will be before they realise that it is impossible to be all things to all men and occasionally you have to have the strength of character to take a decision which is in the best interests of the community even if it makes you personally unpopular.
The report prepared following the instruction of new consultants includes some interesting snippets to include:
The original proposal was confirmed to be satisfactory on cost, technical and environmental grounds, but discounted on grounds of public non-acceptability. The other projects in the review received a range of gradings, but with no outright recommendation.
In recognition that no proposal is likely to be completely satisfactory to all the stakeholders, [the] suggested way forward is to continue consultation with the various groups in a workshop format to attempt to arrive at a consensus view on the outline design.
Any increased costs would therefore have to be found from increased Council or other community contributions. In addition to this, the EA have advised that having fully funded the Project Appraisal Report (and process) through which the original scheme was developed, they are unlikely to fund a second document, since the change of scheme has been the Council’s choice. The outline estimate for this work is £100k, which will have to be funded by the Council.
Obviously this is a very selective extract and the full report is available on the Council’s website.
So here we have it. The scheme which was previously approved was satisfactory on cost, technical and environmental grounds but simply fails because of public opposition. Having said that the public are not agreed on any other alternative! This comes as no surprise to me bearing in mind my earlier contact with those most anti the scheme, and it does remain the case that there are those who oppose any significant flood defence work in this area and feel that there is no need to do anything.
Rather than simply making a decision Cllr Terry, the relevant portfolio holder, and his colleagues are going to delay things even further for workshops and yet more consultation. I wonder whether there has ever been an issue where there has been such extended consultation – particularly where external funding was on the table and there was a risk to homes and businesses. In reality you can talk for as long as you like but if residents are diametrically opposed you cannot please them all.
In the meantime the commencement of the work is pushed back yet again and at a time when the council faces further significant savings there are substantial costs being incurred which will fall on council tax payers and the added problem that any funding from the Environment Agency is unlikely to increase from that previously on offer even though the cost of the scheme will inevitably increase.
Sometimes you just have to take a decision. The Administration have to bite the bullet and either proceed with the original scheme, opt for an alternative scheme (even if it is costly and unpopular), or simply abandon the scheme altogether and be judged on the decision. This dithering because they cannot take a decision is government at its worst and in the meantime the risk for residents in parts of Shoebury is as real and urgent as ever.
If they are not prepared to take difficult decisions perhaps they should step aside for those that are.
I have commented on this previously and wonder how long it will be before they realise that it is impossible to be all things to all men and occasionally you have to have the strength of character to take a decision which is in the best interests of the community even if it makes you personally unpopular.
The report prepared following the instruction of new consultants includes some interesting snippets to include:
The original proposal was confirmed to be satisfactory on cost, technical and environmental grounds, but discounted on grounds of public non-acceptability. The other projects in the review received a range of gradings, but with no outright recommendation.
In recognition that no proposal is likely to be completely satisfactory to all the stakeholders, [the] suggested way forward is to continue consultation with the various groups in a workshop format to attempt to arrive at a consensus view on the outline design.
Any increased costs would therefore have to be found from increased Council or other community contributions. In addition to this, the EA have advised that having fully funded the Project Appraisal Report (and process) through which the original scheme was developed, they are unlikely to fund a second document, since the change of scheme has been the Council’s choice. The outline estimate for this work is £100k, which will have to be funded by the Council.
Obviously this is a very selective extract and the full report is available on the Council’s website.
So here we have it. The scheme which was previously approved was satisfactory on cost, technical and environmental grounds but simply fails because of public opposition. Having said that the public are not agreed on any other alternative! This comes as no surprise to me bearing in mind my earlier contact with those most anti the scheme, and it does remain the case that there are those who oppose any significant flood defence work in this area and feel that there is no need to do anything.
Rather than simply making a decision Cllr Terry, the relevant portfolio holder, and his colleagues are going to delay things even further for workshops and yet more consultation. I wonder whether there has ever been an issue where there has been such extended consultation – particularly where external funding was on the table and there was a risk to homes and businesses. In reality you can talk for as long as you like but if residents are diametrically opposed you cannot please them all.
In the meantime the commencement of the work is pushed back yet again and at a time when the council faces further significant savings there are substantial costs being incurred which will fall on council tax payers and the added problem that any funding from the Environment Agency is unlikely to increase from that previously on offer even though the cost of the scheme will inevitably increase.
Sometimes you just have to take a decision. The Administration have to bite the bullet and either proceed with the original scheme, opt for an alternative scheme (even if it is costly and unpopular), or simply abandon the scheme altogether and be judged on the decision. This dithering because they cannot take a decision is government at its worst and in the meantime the risk for residents in parts of Shoebury is as real and urgent as ever.
If they are not prepared to take difficult decisions perhaps they should step aside for those that are.
The challenge of being a local councillor
Over recent years many councillors representing the traditional parties have lost their seats on the back of the anti-Westminster and anti-politics feeling that had swept the country. In Southend this has been demonstrated by the rise of the Independent Party and UKIP with candidates often offering little by way of policy other than “not being one of them” but still sweeping to success.
In local government this has often resulted in longstanding and hardworking councillors, who have always put the best interests of the community ahead of party, losing their seats and being replaced by large numbers of new councillors who have no particular knowledge or experience of local government and who do not have the benefit of the support and guidance offered within an established party group. I am not suggesting that anybody should have a seat for life and feel that regular doses on new blood is both healthy and essential but it does mean that some of our new councillors may not realise quite what an onerous role and responsibility they are taking on. It is easy to believe the criticisms of our elected representatives without realising the emotional input, time and effort many of our recently unseated councillors have put in for years.
This was brought home to me shortly before Xmas when I was picked up by a taxi on my way to a work social event. The cab driver was a recently elected UKIP councillor and we had a pleasant and constructive discussion about the town. However I was more than a little surprised when he mentioned that he had received a text from a party colleague earlier in the evening asking where he was as he had forgotten that the last full council meeting of the year had started at 6.30 pm. I asked why he had not gone and he seemed surprised that it was acceptable to arrive late.
The poor attendance record of some new councillors has been highlighted by others. I have no idea how much time they are spending on other council related activities but I would hope that having experienced the life of a councillor they have a better understanding of how difficult and demanding the role can be and that at times difficult decisions have to be made which even if unpopular are for the best interests of the community.
In local government this has often resulted in longstanding and hardworking councillors, who have always put the best interests of the community ahead of party, losing their seats and being replaced by large numbers of new councillors who have no particular knowledge or experience of local government and who do not have the benefit of the support and guidance offered within an established party group. I am not suggesting that anybody should have a seat for life and feel that regular doses on new blood is both healthy and essential but it does mean that some of our new councillors may not realise quite what an onerous role and responsibility they are taking on. It is easy to believe the criticisms of our elected representatives without realising the emotional input, time and effort many of our recently unseated councillors have put in for years.
This was brought home to me shortly before Xmas when I was picked up by a taxi on my way to a work social event. The cab driver was a recently elected UKIP councillor and we had a pleasant and constructive discussion about the town. However I was more than a little surprised when he mentioned that he had received a text from a party colleague earlier in the evening asking where he was as he had forgotten that the last full council meeting of the year had started at 6.30 pm. I asked why he had not gone and he seemed surprised that it was acceptable to arrive late.
The poor attendance record of some new councillors has been highlighted by others. I have no idea how much time they are spending on other council related activities but I would hope that having experienced the life of a councillor they have a better understanding of how difficult and demanding the role can be and that at times difficult decisions have to be made which even if unpopular are for the best interests of the community.
Saturday, 3 January 2015
David Amess
I was delighted to see that our MP David Amess has been given a knighthood in the New Years honours list. It is excellent to see a hard working and effective MP like David, who has been prepared to concentrate on representing his constituents rather than try to climb the greasy pole of government responsibility, being acknowledged and rewarded.
In our previous MP Paul Channon we were lucky to have an effective and charismatic representative at Westminster who rose to various important roles in cabinet, however when Pàul stepped down there was a desire to find a new type of candidate who would live in the constituency and have a more obvious and regular presence in the town. David has more than delivered, being a constant attendee at all important town events and forging relationships with numerous residents.
As well as being effective at helping residents with problems referred to him he has also proved to be a persistent and able representative of the interests of the town both in the Commons chamber itself but more importantly in the ears of government ministers and their civil servants. This is not something that is obvious to residents but in my years as council leader the value of his presence and the availability of his support could not be over exaggerated.
Whilst his political opponents may dislike some of his Conservative principles it is only those who are blind to the performance of an effective worker who will criticise his record as a great constituency MP who richly deserves this latest accolade.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)