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.
Monday, 1 June 2020
Thursday, 28 May 2020
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.
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.
Wednesday, 27 May 2020
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….
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….
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)