...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 Whitehead has withdrawn from the fray.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