The final cut - perhaps

Dear Cllr. Ride,

In order to eliminate any degree of uncertainty over who I am and whom I represent, I will start with an introduction.

My name is Richard Brotherton and my address has been provided to Cllr. Whitehead on at least one previous occasion. I am a resident of the Borough of Chelmsford and I am writing on behalf of the Riverside Action Group.

At the outset, I need to re-iterate that neither I nor the other members of the group are against the proposals (such as we have seen) per se, for the redevelopment of the Riverside complex. We do however have concerns about the manner in which the Council is pursuing its objectives.

Therefore, in the hope of enlightenment, we have a few questions regarding the current status of the proposals, which we hope you will be able to answer in a manner timely enough for us to be in receipt of the details at least 48 hours before the October Cabinet meeting at which the subject of Riverside is scheduled to be discussed. While we appreciate that the timescale that I am requesting is less than the normal 10 day response time, we would hope that the answers to these queries would already be clear.

• Given the increasing downturn in the economic climate, are both the shortlisted developers maintaining their interest in the Riverside proposals?
  
  • If so, are they the only two parties that have been approached with the changed specification which included the addition of the diving boards, deep water and outdoor pool?
    
    • If so, what steps has the Council taken in order to ensure that they can satisfy ‘best value’ requirements without an ‘independent’ price for comparison?
      
  
  
  • If not, does the Council propose to carry on with a single developer?
    
    • If so, what steps has the Council taken in order to ensure that they can satisfy ‘best value’ requirements without an ‘independent’ price for comparison?
    
    
    • If not,
      
      • Is there a desire within Cabinet to restart the whole process (given that a great deal was made of the fact that it was a manifesto pledge)?
      
      
      • If there is no plan to start again, what proposals does the Council have to deal with the list of ‘neglect’ and ‘under spend’ espoused by the Council leader not that long ago?
      
      
      • Does any part of any plan involve:
        
        • The closure of the complex (as a whole or in part).
        
        
        • Refurbishment of the complex (as a whole or in part).
        
        


• What progress if any has been made towards the promised public consultation? Or is that conditional of the complete redevelopment going ahead?


• In the proposed plans for the redevelopment of the Riverside complex, was the flume included, or was that another ‘undecided’ element?

Yours sincerely
Richard Brotherton
(on behalf of the Riverside Action Group)

... and Part 2 begins

Well as the summer holidays come to a close, it is once again time to try and extract answers from those in public office. The baton (or is it the buck) has now been passed from Cllr. Whitehead to Cllr Ride (Cabinet Member for Leisure and Culture), who has demonstrated his adherence to the ‘party line’ by repeating the mantra that ‘no decisions have been made’, despite the evidence of decisions by exclusion.

The questions are coming...

...and so ends part 1...

It would appear from the statement below, that Cllr. Whitehead has withdrawn from the fray.

While this is very disappointing, particularly given that he has been 'championing' the Council's approach to these proposals; however there are still questions outstanding. I suspect that the Council officers behind the 'Riverside Development' address are now being left to provide the answers where they can (although given their statement about lack of detail, the answers will not be available any time soon).

Far from 'explaining' the Council's 'position', it appears that there are now more questions and doubts than when we started.

Received Friday, July 04, 2008

Dear Mr. Brotherton,

Thank you for your further email. I have explained our position and we now await the two submissions from developers which will then be reviewed.

Councillor Roy Whitehead

...and now we get a story...

Dear Cllr. Whitehead,

It is exactly the ‘dialogue of the deaf’ that we seek to avoid, but not by encouraging a culture of ‘mutes’.

While the analogy was quite unnecessary and by some may be seen as patronising, we are sure that you had some fun writing it. We are very pleased to see the list in the second part of your reply, as it does serve to clear up some points; but find some of the elements a little perplexing.

• There is no ‘Plan’ for Riverside.
  
  We hope that this is a simplification of the truth – if there is no plan, how do you know what to ask for or when you want it by (remember, the date of 2011 has already been aired)



• We have not discounted any option. To use that hackneyed politician’s phrase “Nothing has been ruled out, nothing has been ruled in”
  
  We are pleased to read this. This is a welcome change from the rather dogmatic declarations that you made from the Council chamber floor.



• When we have refined the options we will explain them to Councillors.
  
  Given that the list of developers has already been narrowed down, will councillors be faced with a ‘Hobson’s choice’ or is the field being re-opened in light of a revised ‘wish-list’?

With regard to the rest of the list, there never was any argument that the Council was strapped for cash; after all, the situation is well evidenced by the sale of Council owned land in a variety of locations (even the old chapel of rest at Chelmsford cemetery). It has to be said though, that the huge budgetary increase for the Oaklands extension is not helping; and given that that was approved because it ‘wouldn’t cost as much as other schemes’, does give some basis for the overall cynicism of the populous towards financial pleas.

The fact that the Council is using the services of consultants was clear, what was not obvious, was the nature of the consultancy that was consuming the £600k+ that had been allocated (although the proportions are still not evident).

While the Council’s allegorical mother, who is in a wheelchair, cannot get up the front steps; we must reiterate that we are in no way against the Council re-developing the Riverside complex. It is however our concern, that once she is able to wheel herself in, the facilities available are those that are best suited to her needs, and not just those that the builder picked because they were cheap.

Finally, you say that you are ‘...sorry to disappoint the conspiracy theorists...’, we don’t believe that there is necessarily anything underhand occurring, but a bullish wall of either silence or bluster does little to prevent the rise of such theories.

“Secrecy, being an instrument of conspiracy, ought never to be the system of a regular government.”
- Jeremy Bentham 1768

We might like to ‘Enjoy the sunshine’, but we all have day jobs to do as well as navigating the depths of local interests in our spare time.

Regards

Riverside Action Group

Ps. We are still looking forward to the answers to the questions posed in our last missive.

----- Original Message -----
From: Whitehead, Cllr. R.
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 12:02 PM


Dear Mr. Brotherton,

It seems we can have such exchanges ad infinitum but we need to avoid a ‘dialogue of the deaf’.

You might prefer an analogy.

You and your partner own an old house which you inherited from your parents who were once well off but fell on hard times & need to modernise it. It has no central heating, no double glazing, it needs re-wiring, there are not enough bedrooms for your three children and most of your income comes from state benefits. However it is right in the centre of town, has a big garden and you love living there. There is even an old swimming pool in the garden but you cannot afford to heat it and keep it clean. You have few savings.

Do you.

1. Agree to knock it down and rebuild it?


2. Go and get quotes to modernise it?


3. Move out of town to a cheaper area?


4. Stay in town but buy a cheaper house?


5. Get a huge mortgage?


6. Sell off part of your garden to raise capital?


7. Stay as you are and hope you win the lottery?

What to do first? Obviously look at the various options and weigh them up.

Do you get quotes for refurbishing your property? Yes, as you need to know what the cost is.

Is it worth going to the bank and getting a quote for a £250,000 mortgage when your income is £15000 p.a?

Hardly, so you discount this option at an early stage.

Do you look at cheaper properties in town? A possible option although they will probably be smaller and your problem is that you need more space.

Do you look at cheaper properties out of town? Yes of course you do.

This is where your family say “ You have made your mind up to move – it is obvious as you have got lots of property details from estate agents.” Not true of course, simply exploring your options.

Do you look at a sale of your very valuable garden? Of course you do, given land prices in the town centre and there is a demand for high quality apartments in your area with its river views.

Again your family says “You are selling our garden which we love and getting rid of the outdoor pool which we use two or three times a year.” Not true but it is essential to get a valuation.

Finally you can always make do and mend, even though you know the roof is worn out and the wiring dangerous and your mother, who is in a wheelchair, cannot get up the front steps.

My point is that you have to discount some options at an early stage and look at those that remain in greater detail. None of the choices is best for everyone but that’s life. You refine them and sit down together to weight them up.

The parallels are clear but let me spell this out for you.

• The Borough Council has no funds available to build a replacement facility at a cost of £40M


• There is no ‘Plan’ for Riverside.


• All that has been done so far is to consider what the options are.


• The Borough Council has been using consultants to obtain expert advice on the options.


• It is important that Borough Councillors take independent advice – we are not experts on the leisure industry


• We have not discounted any option. To use that hackneyed politician’s phrase “Nothing has been ruled out, nothing has been ruled in”


• When we have refined the options we will explain them to Councillors.

I am sorry to disappoint the conspiracy theorists but there are no secret meetings, just lots of hard work trying to find an affordable and sustainable way forward for all of our residents.


Enjoy the sunshine,


Councillor Roy Whitehead

...Reply and Riposte...

Dear Cllr. Whitehead,

There is no contradiction in the comments, but rather the potential for a re-enforcement of the view that while the Council has by exclusion, made decisions, the fact that so little information appears to be available to the officers who responded to our queries, means that the plan has a very shaky foundation, driven more by political than altruistic motives.

It is quite possible that your second visit to the two remaining developers includes elements of the scheme that were previously excluded, but that just indicates that the Council changed its mind.

The matter of public exclusion from either the Working Group or Cabinet process is not an issue of contention (we happily accept that there will be stages that have confidential elements), the issue with the change is simply that it raises the public suspicion that there is 'something to hide'; after all why hide the decision process behind politically closed doors if there is nothing to hide? As an aside, what is the 'lifespan' of 'blue paper' material, before it enters the public domain?

You state that 'We do not name specific officers in such responses', however, historically specific officers have answered questions on issues related to riverside; so I see little to permit the current difference in attitude. For all we know, the author of the reply may not be an officer of the Council, in the same way that you appeared to be concerned that you may not have been dealing with a Borough resident when faced with the group e-mail address. If it makes you any happier, once known, the officer will not be identified on the blog, in that same way that I suppressed my address.

On the topic of a calm and ordered consultation process, you may find that a bit of advanced notice and a plentiful supply of factual information will ensure that this is can be achieved; springing the process on the public will not endear the Council, the process or the plan to anyone.

Lastly, on the Audit Commission report, we would like to be counted among the first to offer their congratulations on the outcome, but would also highlight the stated area for improvement of 'Ensuring the targets it[the Council] sets are measurable and focused on results that will benefit local people'

Regards

Richard Brotherton
(On behalf of the members of the Riverside Action Group)

----- Original Message -----

Dear Mr. Brotherton,

Thank you for your email. I detect something of a contradiction in your blog comments. On the one hand you have said ‘The Council has already made up its mind’ and on the other you are saying

‘Opinion - Detail is the one thing that this response seems to be very light on. It may just be that we are not worth a full answer, but I fear that the truth is more likely to be that there has been so little preparation, that the detail simply is not available -"...with the information that we have available to date on this project." - a bit scary really.

As I have said many times, the Council has not made up its mind – it is considering all the options. These will then be put out for further consultation. Until we know the cost of all the options we cannot consult. Until potential developers come back to us with their proposals we cannot rule them in or out.

The previous Working Group was not open to members of the public so the change to a Cabinet Working Group has not affected consultation at all.

Perhaps I can direct you and your readers to the report by the Audit Commission published this week in which Chelmsford has been assessed as an ‘Excellent Council’

http://www.chelmsford.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=15676

Although this is good news it does not make us complacent – there is still much to do. Nonetheless, to get an independent assessment – and one led by a senior Liberal Democrat Councillor – is encouraging.

My major concern is that the public consultation process takes place in a calm and ordered way. The response from the ‘riverside development’ team is a response from the Borough Council. We do not name specific officers in such responses.

I am delighted that the public are becoming more involved with local issues. These are much more complex than the media would suggest and at a time of financial pressure I believe that when the financial details are looked at the public as a whole – not just Riverside users – will understand that their Councillors are working very hard to ensure that value for money is obtained for all the residents of Chelmsford.


Roy Whitehead
Leader
Chelmsford Borough Council

...and in reply

Dear Riverside Development,

Thank you for the answers that you have provided. The content of your reply has been posted to our blog http://riversideaction.blogspot.com where it has been divided to match the questions, but is otherwise unaltered.

It seems surprising that so much is still to be decided, particularly given the publicly stated completion date of 2011. We were disappointed that there was no detail on areas such as the population assessment (hardly a confidential document); surely these exist? Given the lack of detail and the statement "...the information that we have available to date on this project." it seems that the question must be asked, who exactly is driving this project - the Council or the developer?

While we appreciate that the Council has finite funding, surely it should put those funds into services that the public want, rather than what the Council thinks the public wants. As we have pointed out previously, we are not against changes to the Riverside complex. We are however very much against any attempt to 'railroad' the process.

It is pleasing to see a reiteration of the undertaking to hold a proper round of public consultation. This, it must be said, is in stark contrast to the repeated assertion by Cllr. Whitehead, delivered in the Council chamber, that the public had already had their say, so further consultation was unnecessary.

On a final note, it is a shame, that after the refusal to answer our questions because messages were not originating from a single identifiable individual, the reply has come from a 'faceless' address rather than an identifiable Council officer - surely we have the right to know with whom we are dealing - yet more double standards perhaps.


Yours faithfully

R Brotherton
(On behalf of the Riverside Action Group)

cc Cllr. Whitehead

Some Answers (not many though)

Note:The text in blue italics has been added by me in an attempt to relate the text of the response to the appropriate questions. The text of the response has not been altered.


Received: Wed. 18^th June 2008

Dear Mr Brotherton,

Thank you for your email on 04 June 2008 in relation to the Riverside Redevelopment Project. Councillor Whitehead has requested that we respond to you with a full and detailed response and I will therefore provide answers to each of your questions in turn.

1. 
   Now that the Council has agreed to a full consultation with regard to the proposals for Riverside, please provide details of the format of the process:
   
   • 
     What meetings are planned and what say will interested parties have at the meeting(s)?
   
   
   • What material will be made available to the public prior to any meeting(s)?
   
   
   • What notice will be provided to the public of the schedule of meetings and how will this notice be provided?
   
   
   
   Chelmsford Borough Council is committed to engaging with customers and the wider community in due course with matters relating specifically to the redevelopment of Riverside. However, in order to plan comprehensive and meaningful consultation the Council must be confident that it is able to provide clear and detailed information at that point in time to key stakeholders, local residents and Riverside users to allow them to provide useful feedback.
   
   As previously mentioned by Councillor Whitehead, we have a number of commercial companies who are currently in the process of bidding for this project, and at present the Council is still undergoing an assessment of the proposals submitted. These will be subject to further negotiations over the next few months, and due to the financial and commercial nature of their proposals, we must respect their confidentiality and abide by the legal requirements which are part of this formal process. The current economic climate has also meant that project timetables for many development projects of this nature and on this scale have had to be shifted to accommodate the realities of more complex and significant financial risks for all those involved.
   
   It will not be until this assessment stage has been completed that the Council will know whether the scheme is in fact affordable and deliverable. When the final proposals are submitted they may actually indicate that in order to make the project viable, Chelmsford Borough Council will be required to carefully consider a range of options. Each of these may have different implications on resources, funding (both capital and ongoing revenue) and an impact on the configurations of both the new leisure centre and enabling development. The content of these options will in turn will influence the type of consultation (e.g. surveys, exhibitions and public meetings), how it is undertaken (e.g. face to face, by phone, online or by post), as well as the frequency, duration and range of participants involved. Therefore, until we are at the appropriate stage in this project where we are able to make these decisions, I cannot provide you with any specific consultation dates. However, as and when these dates are agreed, the Council will be issuing information to local residents and customers of the centre via a number of means such as the website, notice boards, press releases and the Borough’s Life publication.
   
   I am not sure whether you are aware that the Council has in fact already received a significant amount of input from its staff, customers and local residents over the past few years, through major surveys, focus / user groups and its comment system, which have helped us to identify the priorities to future facilities. For more information on the research undertaken, please visit the Responses to Questions “Customer Involvement” page on the website www.chelmsford.gov.uk/riversideredevelopment
   


2. With regard to the basis for the Councils assessment criteria for the level of service that Riverside makes to the overall leisure provision in the borough:
   
   • Please can you provide the detailed results of the Council’s RS14 assessment activity, along with those of the other projections for population growth that the Council are using as the basis for the projected leisure provision of which the Riverside complex provides a substantial part.
   
   
   • Have these projections been compared with similar regional projections for services such as health (e.g. APHO population projection).
   
   Given that these assessments covers a time spans to at least 2021:
   
   • What is the expected lifespan of the proposed development?
   
   
   • What element of forward projection outside the bounds of the population assessments have been designed into the proposals for Riverside, for the element of the expected lifespan that falls beyond 2021 or the projection time spans?
   
   
   
   The aim of this exciting project is to replace the existing dated and inefficient facility with a brand new multi-purpose leisure facility that is fit for the 21st Century and will meet the needs of the growing local community. It is Chelmsford Borough Council’s intention to secure the highest quality of design and construction to ensure that the new Riverside is not only a top class destination but is a highly functional, efficient and sustainable building for the future benefit of the community as a whole. It is anticipated that the lifespan of a development of this nature will be at least 40 years.
   
   This redevelopment will provide the Council with the opportunity to ensure that the configuration of facilities is both customer-friendly as well as operationally viable. Over the years, Chelmsford Borough Council has worked with a range of independent sporting national, regional and local governing bodies, and leisure specialists to aid strategic demand modelling and analysis of national trends. A number of officers involved in this project have also visited a number of successful leisure facilities elsewhere in communities of similar size and location to Chelmsford to establish best practice principles. The size of any new proposed leisure facility is influenced a number of variables other than just the status of Chelmsford as the County town. The size and facility mix of any new leisure centre needs to reflect both current and future predicted demand levels, as well take into consideration how our facilities’ catchment populations are impacted by the supply of existing and future planned neighbouring local authority and community centres. In addition, the Council needs to ensure that the new Riverside is a sustainable leisure centre that is both cost effective to build and maintain.
   


3. Based on the fact that a substantial part of this development comprises housing provision:
   
   • What type of tenure is planned for the housing element of the development?
   
   
   • What other tenure combinations have been considered, and why were they rejected?
   
   
   • In light of the current decline in the housing market, who carries the element of risk if the properties remain vacant?
   
   In relation to your questions on how housing will be incorporated into the development, as yet no specific tenure combinations have been considered as the project has not yet proceeded to an appropriate point to do so. It will be the developer who will carry the risk if the properties remain vacant.
   


4. The Council has made public the fact that they have allocated in excess of £600,000 (£250,000 reclaimable on progression of the project) to funding a variety of consultants; has any of this funding been allocated to sports development consultancy, if so, to whom and what approximate percentage?
   
   A leading national leisure consultancy firm was engaged by Chelmsford Borough Council in the early stages of this project to review and update findings from a previous indoor sport and recreation facilities assessment. As a result their findings, a facility mix for the new leisure centre was used as the basis for the leisure client brief issued to developers. The consultants established the projected demand for a number of leisure ‘facilities’ based on both projected housing demand for this area and Sport England’s ‘Game Plan’ aspirations. The results included indications of a significant deficit in the number of health and fitness stations in the Borough and an oversupply of swimming pool water. This provided, for example, the rationale for proposal to include a tripling of the current health & fitness provision but did not justify an increase in swimming pool water. However, once we have established whether this project is financially viable, we will be taking further professional advice to ensure any final proposal is based on the latest demand and supply information available.
   
   Over the years, Chelmsford Borough Council has built up a well deserved reputation as a result of continued investment its four sports centres and the sports development unit. However I am sure you can appreciate that it is not always possible for a local authority, such as Chelmsford, to support all of the vast range of sporting activities available to everyone. By assessing the impact and interest level that certain sports have on the local community, we can ensure that our resources are allocated in an efficient and effective manner to maximise their benefits for everyone.
   


5. Once the complex development has been completed:
   
   • Who will manage the facility?
   
   
   • If managed by an external provider, which providers are being considered and how long will they manage the facility for? What will happen at the end of their tenure?
   
   
   • What provision is planned for ‘included’ maintenance for the complex, how long will this provision last, and what exclusions are likely to be made?
   
   
   In terms of a maintenance budget, the Council will ensure that an appropriate level of funding is allocated to the centre’s annual revenue budgets over its expected lifespan. It is the Council’s intention to retain the ownership and continue its management of the new leisure centre, with any additional enabling development on the site remaining within the responsibility of the appointed developer.
   


6. In this time of increased environmental awareness:
   
   • What will the eco-credentials of the proposed development be?
   
   
   • How will it compare to the recent facility created in Leeds, which is recognized as one of the most eco-friendly leisure developments in the country?
   
   
   • How well does the proposed development meet the environmental policies to which the Council is already committed?
   
   
   Chelmsford Borough Council is committed to helping to reduce energy use and is therefore seeking advice on how to make this a more efficient and eco-friendly development. Newly adopted Council Policies require residential premises to attain a minimum Level 3 under the Code for Sustainable Homes and non-residential properties to attain a minimum of ‘Very Good’ under the BREEAM assessment scheme. Typical leisure centres consume large amounts of energy, so the actual building fabric, lighting, heating and ventilation systems need careful consideration. As the scheme design for the new leisure centre is not yet known, we are unable to provide details on how the Council will incorporate environmentally friendly technologies into the new centre at this present time. However the building will be required to meet the minimum standards as stated above.

If any of the above have not yet been decided, when will the decision be made?

At appropriate stages in this project, the Council will be keeping the public and customers updated on progress as well as informing them on any possible impacts of the existing centre’s operations. We are monitoring all questions and comments relating to the redevelopment of Riverside and have registered your concerns. I hope this satisfactorily answers the points you have raised, with the information that we have available to date on this project.

Regards,

Riverside Redevelopment Team,
Chelmsford Borough Council

Website: www.chelmsford.gov.uk/riversideredevelopment

Email: riversideredevelopment@chelmsford.gov.uk

Address: Riverside Redevelopment Project, Leisure & Cultural Services, Chelmsford Borough Council, Civic Centre, Duke Street, Chelmsford, Essex, CM1 1JE


[Opinion - Detail is the one thing that this response seems to be very light on. It may just be that we are not worth a full answer, but I fear that the truth is more likely to be that there has been so little preparation, that the detail simply is not available -"...with the information that we have available to date on this project." - a bit scary really.

A reply will be dispatched soon.]

A little more response...

Received 8 June 2008

Dear Mr. Brotherton,

Thank you for the information. As you say, much of the detail is currently being looked at by members of the Cabinet and this is because it is of a financial and commercial nature and cannot be disclosed to members of the public for obvious reasons. We have commercial companies bidding and we have to respect the confidential nature of such bids. There is nothing unusual or secret in this – it happens in all public authorities for any commercial contract. How else would we secure best value?

Borough Life is certainly not political. It is issued by the Borough Council not the Conservative Group. Officers have to ensure that political statements are not made. Clearly the Liberal Democrat Group have made this a political issue, as shown in their publicity, and I very much regret this. It is an important and vital project and I had invited a member of the Liberal Democrats to join the working group so that politics did not feature in our discussions. However I have agreed to keep them up to date, in confidence, with significant developments as and when they occur.

Reverting to you original email I will ask our officers to provide further detail, particularly on planning policy.

On the question of public meetings we are some way from looking at detail as there are, at this moment, no final schemes or options to present. I have repeatedly said that we will present fully costed and sustainable options to the whole of the residents of the Borough and clearly this is a much wider consultation than a simple public meeting. We are already aware of what some users of the swimming and diving pools would like but Riverside comprises far more than that. As such I cannot give you much more detail. It will be some weeks before the companies put forward their final proposals and in the current financial situation enabling development has become more difficult.

Other options have then to be fully assessed and compared with the proposals put forward. However we have to be realistic in the current economic climate so any decision may be some time away. Your questions on who will run it, costing etc are therefore somewhat premature but will be looked at in due course as part of the overall package. This is a very large and important project and any decisions will be taken by the whole Council at a meeting of the Council which is open to the public. I would hope, at that stage, that both political parties will have agreed the way forward so that we can get work underway for the benefit of all of our residents.

Roy Whitehead
Leader
Chelmsford Borough Council

[ This is just an opinion, but given that the timeline for the redevelopment was put at 2011 (less than 4 years) it seems that very little detail has been considered if our questions are 'premature'. As this development is not just housing, the credentials of the developers in developing leisure facilities (or those of their partners in the leisure industry) should be paramount. ]

Initial response to submitted questions

The initial response from Cllr. Whitehead was:

Thank you for your email.

I regret that I am unable to answer questions from unidentified sources so please provide details of your name and address so that I can deal with this matter.

Councillor Roy Whitehead

To which the following reply was sent:

Cllr. Whitehead,

The address - riversideaction@charbro.co.uk is
simply a distribution group, set up to save me the effort of forwarding on your
reply to the evergrowing group of people who have expressed an interest in this
issue.

I am quite happy for you to reply directly to me at this
address at which point I will forward your replies onto those members of
the distribution group.

Regards

Richard Brotherton

This explaination was obvoiously not enough:

Dear Mr. Brotherton,

Thank you for your further email. If you refer to my earlier note I did request your address, not your email address. At all public question times at the Borough we always ask for this so that we can ensure that we are dealing with questions from our residents, rather than interest groups, for example, as we have to commit officer time to answering technical queries. This can be expensive and we have a duty to ensure that funds are spent on council tax payers within the borough.

I trust that this will not be a problem. All residents should just have received
a copy of Borough Life which has an article on page 4 explaining the current
situation on Riverside

However much information is already in the public domain and I would refer you to our
website.

http://www.chelmsford.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=11266

As to the technical question you have asked, I would refer you to our
website http://www.chelmsford.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=9942

Both of these have extensive technical details.

On the other points raised in your email I await the further details from you mentioned above.

Councillor Roy Whitehead
Leader
Chelmsford Borough
Council

To which the reply:

Dear Cllr. Whitehead,

For the record, my address is:
[..Address removed..]

Thank you for the information links that you included. I am not sure how relevant some of the material on your web site will be in relation to the questions, as for instance, in the evidence base info for the AAP, the section on housing (PPG3), which may have been pertinent is marked as 'Cancelled'. There is also no mention of the RS14 nor any obvious information on similar projections.

I would prefer direct answers containing relevant information relating to the questions asked, rather than general 'look at this section of the website' type answers. If the information does exist on the site, then a link directly to the element that is pertinent to the enquiry would suffice.

As regards the article in the Borough Life, and the item in the SWF newsletter, I feel that both have more of a political than informative purpose. I personally, and the people to whom I will forward the answers received are not concerned with the
politics, but rather in ensuring that the decisions made 'in our name' are open
to scrutiny and based on fact rather that whimsy.

As the whole process has now been moved into cabinet and away from the public gaze, it is only by asking questions directly, that the process can be observed.

Thank you

Richard Brotherton

I await further correspondence.

The image below is a scan of the SWF News article

Questions - Round One

The questions below were sent to Cllr. Whitehead (Council leader) today

1. Now that the Council has agreed to a full consultation with regard to the proposals for Riverside, please provide details of the format of the process:
   
   • What meetings are planned and what say will interested parties have at the meeting(s)?
   
   
   • What material will be made available to the public prior to any meeting(s)?
   
   
   • What notice will be provided to the public of the schedule of meetings and how will this notice be provided?


2. With regard to the basis for the Councils assessment criteria for the level of service that Riverside makes to the overall leisure provision in the borough:
   
   • Please can you provide the detailed results of the Council’s RS14 assessment activity, along with those of the other projections for population growth that the Council are using as the basis for the projected leisure provision of which the Riverside complex provides a substantial part.
   
   
   • Have these projections been compared with similar regional projections for services such as health (e.g. APHO population projection).
   
   
   • Given that these assessments covers a time spans to at least 2021:
     
     • What is the expected lifespan of the proposed development?
     
     
     • What element of forward projection outside the bounds of the population assessments have been designed into the proposals for Riverside, for the element of the expected lifespan that falls beyond 2021 or the projection time spans?


3. Based on the fact that a substantial part of this development comprises housing provision:
   
   • What type of tenure is planned for the housing element of the development?
   
   
   • What other tenure combinations have been considered, and why were they rejected?
   
   
   • In light of the current decline in the housing market, who carries the element of risk if the properties remain vacant?


4. The Council has made public the fact that they have allocated in excess of £600,000 (£250,000 reclaimable on progression of the project) to funding a variety of consultants:
   
   • Has any of this funding been allocated to sports development consultancy, if so, to whom and what approximate percentage?


5. Once the complex development has been completed: Who will manage the facility?
   • If managed by an external provider, which providers are being considered and how long will they manage the facility for?
   
   
   • What will happen at the end of their tenure?
   
   
   • What provision is planned for ‘included’ maintenance for the complex, how long will this provision last, and what exclusions are likely to be made?


6. In this time of increased environmental awareness:
   
   • What will the eco-credentials of the proposed development be?
   
   
   • How will it compare to the recent facility created in Leeds, which is recognized as one of the most eco-friendly leisure developments in the country?
   
   
   • How well does the proposed development meet the environmental policies to which the Council is already committed?

If any of the above have not yet been decided, when will the decision be made?

As soon as a reply is received, the answers will be posted here verbatim.

What's it all about

At the outset, let me say that we have no political axe to grind. we are only interested in getting the facts about the proposed riverside development in Chelmsford available to the public. If we upset some political sensitivites on the way - well tough.

Chelmsford Borough Council is planning to replace the current facilities at Riverside Ice and Leisure.

Although subject to a ‘final decision’, the initial plan was to have a centre that lacked the current diving, deep water, outdoor swimming and squash facilities. The proposal includes a shorter, wider indoor pool, a larger gym and changes to the ice rink to make it suitable for use as a 4500 seat concert venue.

Their initial consultation process included a questionnaire which had just fewer than 250 responses and a telephone poll of 600 borough residents that had not used the facilities.There has also been a claim that all the relevant user groups have been contacted for their views - this claim is currently being verified, as there is some doubt of the veracity of this claim.

The leader of the Council has recently made the decision to disband the cross party working group that was dealing with this issue, and chosen instead to make it a private ‘Cabinet’ issue, which means that there is no scope for the public to influence the decisions, simply because the all the discussions will take place in private.

A request for greater detail was sent to the Council today (available below), in the hope that the full truth of the process can be determined and made public for the people of Chelmsford.

In the interests of fairness, the material that has currently been made public by the Council can be found on their website at: http://www.chelmsford.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=11266