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….
Wednesday, 27 May 2020
Monday, 25 May 2020
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.
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.
Saturday, 23 May 2020
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!
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!
Friday, 22 May 2020
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!
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!
Wednesday, 16 October 2019
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!
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!
Wednesday, 5 June 2019
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.
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!!
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!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)