Castle Point Council - An Administration without opposition!

 

I commented a while back on how Castle Point Borough Council, an authority without any opposition presence, would be able to function in an open, democratic and accountable manner and thought that I would test the water by viewing the latest council meeting held on 9^th October 2024.

I was particularly interested to see how the Administration would deal with a claim for restitution against certain specific former staff who apparently made unlawful decisions relating to their own financial position resulting in potentially unlawful payments.

This issue has been dragging on from some time and was previously considered by the council in March of this year when it was decided to obtain further legal and professional advice.

At the meeting it was explained that the allegedly unlawful payments totalled over £1,100,000 and the question was whether to effectively write the money off or to pursue recovery through the courts or otherwise.

Clearly the legal advice received was confidential and this resulted, quite reasonably, in the meeting moving into private to discuss the detail of the advice before moving back into public to discuss the recommendations and to decide on the way forward.

On the resumption of the open meeting the Leader proposed pursuing recovery of £218,155 with a decision to write off the remainder. His comments then sought to criticise the previous administration (albeit that I am not aware that any elected member was in any way liable for the relevant decisions) but did not seek to in any way explain or justify a decision to write off nearly £900,000 of public funds excluding accrued interest. The Deputy Leader seconded the motion and 3 other councillors spoke briefly in support but concentrating on the deplorable loss of public funds rather than seeking to justify why the balance was being written off. The proposal was passed unanimously.

Now having undertaken civil litigation for over 40 years I know all about its cost implications and risks and we do not know what the specialist lawyers had advised, however as far as the public meeting was concerned there was no challenge to the decision or attempt to justify that the council was being driven by its duty to protect the public purse. All we know is that nearly £900,000 has been written off. The decision was in my view a very good example of why a lack of vibrant opposition is not in the interests of accountable democracy..

Southend Conservative Group - "Infamy, Infamy, they've all got it in for me!"

 

So the Conservative Group on Southend Council has decided to appoint a new leader, forcing out Cllr Tony Cox and installing Cllr James Courtenay. At the outset I should say that I have considerable respect for both gentlemen who have served the Town and Party well over a number of years. In fact whilst Council Leader I appointed them both to their first cabinet posts and found them effective, articulate and hardworking members of the Administration.

It is of course disappointing for Cllr Cox to be forced out against his wishes but I am surprised that he has chosen to leave the Conservative Group and sit as an Independent. I read his recent Facebook entry which could not be described as his version of mea culpa  but reminded me of Kenneth Williams in Carry on Cleo” – Infamy, Infamy, they’ve all got it in for me!

I hope that he will rethink his position once the dust has settled. No political leader is unchallengeable and if they lose the support of their group there is no realistic option other than to step down. He led the Group through some difficult challenges and was Leader of the Council for a year but perhaps now is the right time to try a different approach. This does not undermine or devalue the efforts and progress he made but I am not convinced that his current actions or comments will enhance that reputation. The Conservatives need to regain control of Southend Council and I wish Cllr Courtenay every success as he works towards the next local elections in 2026. That task would be easier with a supportive and motivated Cllr Cox but perhaps that is too much to ask for!

Hadleigh - a community under threat from over development.

As I mentioned in my last post I attended the only Hadleigh consultation meeting on the Castle Point Local Plan and have since submitted my response to the Issues and Options Consultation. I have to admit that the entire process is disheartening and I suspect that for many interested residents trying to complete the on line response will be challenging.

My biggest issue with the draft documentation issued to date is that it seems to ignore the situation as it currently is. Focussing on Hadleigh the reality is that even based on the current population the infrastructure (to include schools, GPs and dental surgeries) cannot cope, the character of the area is under threat as a result of over development, and the highway network is on the point of collapse.

 In particular any disruption on the very busy A13 (however minor) results in excessive rat running and gridlock across the alternative routes to include Church Road and Scrub Lane. Similar problems arise if the A127 is closed for any reason.

This situation cannot be significantly improved. There is no possibility of widening the A13 between West Leigh and Hadleigh Church and in any event traffic would then back up on the single carriageway road through Southend to the west and Benfleet to the east. There is no viable alternative east/west route to reduce the current traffic loads.

One of the possibilities mentioned in the consultation is a large residential development on the Salvation Army land fronting the A13. This is completely ridiculous. This land provides an essential green lung between Southend (one of the densest populated areas outside London) and Castle Point. To lose any part would be detrimental to the character of the area and the mental health of local residents.

Of equal concern is that any construction works would create traffic chaos for months if not years and when occupied the new residences would place impossible burdens on the A13, surrounding roads and our other infrastructure.

One would hope that Essex County Council as the Highways Authority would be pointing these realities out however the County Council appears to be continuing with its efforts to develop the former school playing field site on Scrub Lane. A suggestion of up to 100 residences has been mentioned with access on to Scrub Lane which cannot cope with the current demands at rush hours – particularly if there is disruption elsewhere in the area.

I know that our MP Rebecca Harris and Castle Point Conservatives are working to oppose this over development but with a Council who will make final decisions on the Plan comprising solely members of the Peoples Independent Party and the Canvey Independent Group only time will tell if the Council will heed these concerns in an effective manner. In the meantime the Labour Government is threatening to impose ever greater housing targets on local authorities, whether or not they can be achieved in a way which protects the best interests of local communities.

It is essential that as many residents as possible complete the online consultation and monitor the draft plan which subsequently materialises so that we can forcefully oppose this nonsense! 

Castle Point Local Plan - an interesting consultation!

 

On Thursday night I attended one of the consultation meetings on The Castle Point Local Plan. In my next post I will comment on the plan more specifically but I was not over impressed by the meeting.

Whilst various meetings are being held across Castle Point this was the only meeting in Hadleigh. Bearing in mind that possible proposals include the development of part of the Salvation Army farm it is perhaps not surprising that many residents are concerned. Notwithstanding the meeting being scheduled in the school summer holidays and not, in my view, being well advertised, the organisers were clearly caught out by the level of attendance.

The original venue of Hadleigh Baptist Church Hall was swiftly abandoned when it became clear that it was too small and even after a transfer to the church itself there was soon standing room only.

The Council officer who made the presentation was very competent however the process included use of a smart phone to enter feedback which was beyond a significant number of the residents sitting around me who either did not have a smart phone or couldn’t follow the process.

Much of the information provided was inevitably detailed but what was unavoidable was the level of anger felt by many residents at the amount of redevelopment being proposed due to the adequacy of our current infrastructure, and the discussion on use of our precious greenbelt. Having subsequently completed a response to the Issues and Options document it is not straightforward and the reality is that a substantial number of residents will feel unable to do so. I hope that the strength of their feelings is still reflected in the draft Plan.

One attendee asked if our local councillors were present. This seemed a reasonable question bearing in mind the importance of the plan and the opportunity to hear the views of residents first hand. It is also the case that the Peoples Independent Party swept to power on the basis of their anti-green belt development position, and that as the presenting officer made clear, the final decisions on the Plan will be made by elected council members. The response was that the officer thought that they might be there but if so they were standing outside!

I am not sure if they were present or not as I don’t know what they look like but if they were there I fail to see why they did not make themselves known so that residents could be reassured that they were being heard, and if they were not the question is obviously why not!

 It is also unfortunate that a representative from Essex Council was not present as they are of course our Highway Authority and so much of any potential housing development is practically impossible due to the inadequacy of our road network to cope with current demands. Having said that with Essex County Council’s wish to put a ridiculous number of new residential units on the old school playing field site in Scrub Lane perhaps it was a good thing that they weren’t.

As I have mentioned I will comment on the plan itself more specifically in my next post.

Does a lack of legitimate opposition undermine local government?

 

I find myself in the interesting position that my house straddles the boundary between 2 parliamentary constituencies, Southend West & Leigh and Castle Point, and as a result I feel part of both communities and take an interest in local issues affecting both councils.

The current status of Castle Point Council is particularly interesting. Before last May the Council was run by a coalition between the Canvey Island Independent Party representing various wards on the Island and The People’s Independent Party representing various wards across the rest of the Council area. There was also a group of Conservative councillors who formed the opposition to this administration.

In the run up to the elections in May 2024 a decision was taken to hold “all up elections” rather than having staggered elections over three years. There is obviously a question of the democratic accountability of an “all up” election as it can mean that the result is swung by the national mood and results in no opportunity for the local electorate to make change for four years.

In this case the Canvey Independents won all available seats on the Island and the People’s Independent Party won all seats across the rest of the area with a wipe out of the Conservatives and no success for any of the other national parties.

This meant that the People’s Independent Party had an overall majority and could have been expected to take over the Council with the Canvey Independents forming the opposition.  However these two groups decided to continue their joint arrangement sharing out cabinet posts between the 2 groups and with a Canvey Councillor becoming the Council Leader.

The bizarre outcome of this decision is that there is no opposition and this will continue for the next four years! It was the Council of Europe’s Forum for the Future of Democracy which previously commented that “Opposition is an important part of democracy..”. It ensures that the policies and actions of the Administration are subject to robust scrutiny and challenge from elected councillors and the current arrangement in Castle Point must be perceived as undemocratic and extremely concerning.

Whilst I have previously commented on the unsatisfactory nature of “Independent” candidates in local government it is surely the case that the People’s Independent Party should honour the mandate they have been given and assume sole control of the Council allowing the remaining councillors to become a robust and conscientious opposition.

Southend Council's Budget - "..something is rotten in the state of Denmark"!

 

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.

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.

However of greater concern is the underlying refusal to face economic reality, abandon political vanity projects and lay a solid base for the future.

As is often the case the most interesting information is available in the papers prepared in support of the Administration’s budget.

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.

Most interestingly the budget paper comments:

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.

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  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.

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.

I can’t help but bring to mind the words of the Bard… “Something is not right, seriously amiss...If the authorities knew about the problems and chose not to prevent them, then clearly something is rotten in the state of Denmark.”

The challenge of Covid for Southend High Street

Having 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:

“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. 

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.

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. 

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 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. 

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. 

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”. 

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 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. 

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 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. 

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. 

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. 

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.”

Council commercial investment concerns

I 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.
This comes as no great surprise.

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.

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!

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”

“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”.

“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.”

“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….”

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.

The 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?

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”.

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.

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…”.

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?

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.
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.

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.
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.

Tory 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.

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.

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.

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.

Of course if in doubt they could always embrace the Tories’ plan….

A 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. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McdjBaChdBA

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.

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.

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.

Lockdown: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.

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!

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.

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?

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!

Lockdown & 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.

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!

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?

So now we face depression at the rate of our wine consumption during lockdown – the only solution is obviously to open another box!

Seaway - 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.

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.

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:

1. The proposed deal was subject to external certification for compliance with S123 Local Government Act 1972 which provides, amongst other things: 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;
2. There should be a fixed timescale for delivery;
3. The leisure development would be delivered ahead of the occupancy of the residential accommodation;
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.
5. Any change to the Heads of Terms would be considered in consultation with all Group Leaders.

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.

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.

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”.

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.

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.

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.

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!

The 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.

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.

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.

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.

These ideas were popular and deliverable.

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.

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)
.
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.

Southend Council - a situation comedy in the making

Having 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.
The plot line would read along the following lines:

1. After local elections Council left with no overall control but with Conservatives as the main party;

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;

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;

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”;

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;

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;

7. The new Labour leader and his party colleagues herald the election of a radical Labour led administration – not exactly “politically neutral”;

8. The change of Leader means that almost the first month of this Council year have been wasted and new committee appointments are made.

I’m not sure that it is not too ridiculous to make a good programme.

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.

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!!

Less a Vote of Confidence and more an Incompetent Vote

With 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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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!

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.

Two 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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

There are other issues such as:
1. users would still need to take a ticket to check when the “free” period had expired;
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;
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?

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.

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.

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!

Is 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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

Seaway carpark development - part 2

In 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.
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.

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.

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.

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.

As is confirmed in the recorded minutes:
1. The proposed deal was subject to external certification for compliance with S123 Local Government Act 1972 which provides, amongst other things: 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;
2. There should be a fixed timescale for delivery;
3. The leisure development would be delivered ahead of the occupancy of the residential accommodation;
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.
5. Any change to the Heads of Terms would be considered in consultation with all Group Leaders.

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.

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.

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.