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)