How would you spend £623,875?

A kiosk or a pavilion? Truly a folly.
When I asked how much the Warrior Square Garden Kiosk cost to be built I did not have expected an answer that would leave me shocked at its size. Six hundred and twenty-three thousand eight hundred and seventy-five pounds; which now gives me two examples of fiscal incontinence that have cost the taxpayer almost one and a half million quid. Bloody hell!

Of course, all sorts of accountancy tricks are employed to make some of this spend appear as if it comes from the Magic Money Tree. Ultimately, though, it is money taken from the pockets of British taxpayers.

What possessed the ruling administration to embark on this doomed project – doomed because the damned kiosk has been barely open in its two-year existence? £623,875 would be bad enough if spent on something that was in use, it is profligate insanity to waste it on a facility that has seen the ‘closed’ sign adorn it for the majority of its miserable existence. It is an insult that this spending is set against closures to libraries and children’s centres, threats to residential care homes, and an air show once deemed economically necessary and now viewed as expendable.

Rather than opt for a basic but serviceable design our council chose to go for a folly that never lived up to the planning. Described as the Warrior Square Gardens Pavilion the silly roof never got off the ground. This flower would be blooming ridiculous if it were not so blooming expensive.

I am so angry I could cry. I can think of no better testament to the lop-sided set of priorities the Conservative administration seem to have. Our town is in need of regeneration, and needs to adopt a more business friendly face. Building a kiosk that is not on a main thoroughfare, and sees much better competition in the High Street, just goes to show how out of touch the Tories in Southend are. That they have to waste a fortune building it puts me in mind of Oliver Cromwell’s words: You have sat too long for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you.

The next set of elections cannot come too soon.

In the meantime, the kiosk (or pavilion) is up for rent – I cannot imagine that the taxpayer is going to get much of their money back. The council may even have to induce someone to take it over.

When it was explained to me that the money came from central Government (an alternate route for wasting taxpayers’ money) this little gem was included: The project was developed by Renaissance Southend and the Council took over the delivery and also contributed to the overall landscape improvements to the square.

Landscape improvements! Do they really think that what we have today is an improvement on the tranquil Victorian gardens we had before? Good grief …..

Planning applications, a heptad of interest in Milton this week

APPLN. NO: 13/00440/FUL

Officer: Louise Cook Date Valid. 3 May 2013

CHANGE OF USE OF FIRST FLOORS AT 346-354 LONDON ROAD AND 190-194 HAMLET COURT ROAD FROM CLASS A2 TO CLASS C3 TO FORM 4 SELF CONTAINED FLATS

346 LONDON ROAD WESTCLIFF-ON-SEA ESSEX

APPLN. NO: 13/00468/OUT

Officer: Darragh McAdam Date Valid. 8 May 2013

CHANGE OF USE FROM DOCTORS SURGERY (D1) WITH WAITING AND CONSULTING ROOMS TO HOUSE IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION (SUI GENERIS) WITH POSSIBLE SELF CONTAINED STUDIO APARTMENT ON THE THIRD FLOOR

20 VALKYRIE ROAD WESTCLIFF-ON-SEA ESSEX

APPLN. NO: 13/00482/FUL

Officer: Sophie Glendinning Date Valid. 10 April 2013

REMOVE EXISTING TEMPORARY BUILDING AND ERECT THREE STOREY EXTENSION TO MILTON ROAD ELEVATION, FORM TEN PARKING SPACES AND ONE DISABLED PARKING BAY

ST BERNARDS HIGH SCHOOL MILTON ROAD WESTCLIFF-ON-SEA

APPLN. NO: 13/00485/FUL

Officer: Sophie Glendinning Date Valid. 12 April 2013

ERECT TWO STOREY DETACHED DWELLINGHOUSE AND LAYOUT HARDSTANDING (AMENDED PROPOSAL) (RETROSPECTIVE)

66 AVENUE ROAD WESTCLIFF-ON-SEA ESSEX

APPLN. NO: 13/00484/FUL

Officer: Charlotte Galforg Date Valid. 29 April 2013

ERECT THIRD FLOOR ROOF EXTENSION AND FORM 16NO SELF CONTAINED FLATS ON FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD FLOORS

FRANKIE AND BENNYS 18 – 20 SOUTHCHURCH ROAD SOUTHEND-ON-SEA

APPLN. NO: 13/00498/FUL

Officer: Louise Cook Date Valid. 18 April 2013

USE RETAIL UNIT (CLASS A1) AS MIXED USE (SUI GENERIS)

2 QUEENS ROAD SOUTHEND-ON-SEA ESSEX

APPLN. NO: 13/00509/FUL

Officer: Sophie Glendinning Date Valid. 15 April 2013

DEMOLISH EXISTING GARAGES AND ERECT DWELLINGHOUSE WITH INTEGRAL GARAGE

CAR PARK REAR OF 41 PARK STREET WESTCLIFF-ON-SEA

A duo of planning applications

This week’s planning applications of interest in Milton ward, Southend-on-Sea.

APPLN. NO: 13/00417/FUL

Officer: Sophie Glendinning

USE HOUSE OF MULTIPLE OCCUPATION (SUI GENERIS) AS FIVE SELF-CONTAINED FLATS

57 YORK ROAD SOUTHEND-ON-SEA ESSEX

APPLN. NO: 13/00438/FULM

Officer: Charlotte Galforg

CONVERT FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD FLOORS INTO NINE SELF CONTAINED FLATS, ERECT FOUR STOREY REAR EXTENSION AND ROOF EXTENSION CONTAINING NINE FURTHER FLATS AND GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL UNIT (TOTAL 18 FLATS), LAYOUT CYCLE STORAGE AND WASTE STORAGE AT GROUND FLOOR, LAYOUT ROOF TERRACES AND BALCONIES

BRITISH HEART FOUNDATION 3 – 5 HIGH STREET SOUTHEND-ON-SEA

My take on last night’s public meeting regarding the Shoebury Common flood risk management scheme

It indicates just how poor the presentation and arguments made were that they could not convince residents that protecting their properties was an attractive option. You see, it should be quite simple.  Point out the science behind climate change, highlight that sea levels are expected to rise dramatically in the coming years, demonstrate just how close they live to sea level, and then show what could be done to help prevent the likely flooding that is coming their way. Add in that the cost is being borne by everyone and it should be an easy sell.

So, how did it all go wrong? I offer a few thoughts.

  • The Black & Veatch duo did not come across well. This engineering consultancy may be highly professional at what they do, but this clearly does not include public presentations. There was also a hint of self-interest as well. It seemed like (and I admit to no insider knowledge) that they were beneficiaries from this scheme. If true, then this colours every word they utter, and the audience would have been right to be sceptical.
  • Ensure that any slides are readable – many used small fonts and had unclear pictures.  Hand-outs and slideshows should be an asset to a presentation, not a hindrance.
  • When you make a list of options include the ‘do nothing’ choice. Doing nothing might be madness, but it was obvious that that is what a sizeable chunk of the audience preferred, and it should be considered. If you have a good argument you will beat it down.
  • If beach huts are going to be sacrificed come the once in a hundred years tidal surge then admit it. No hut owner will enjoy hearing it, but at least it is honest. Of course, they would also lose their huts in any case if nothing is done anyway.
  • If there is development predicated on approval on improved flood defences do not try to disguise this. There is a need for housing, and this is invariably met with objections.
  • The audience are not the enemy, they are concerned residents. They may voice opinions you do not like, and interrupt you, but I suggest that tetchiness is not the way to deal with it.

I went to the public meeting last night at Shoebury High School to observe. I have no axe to grind or prejudices beyond my general view that sea defences must be improved to mitigate the side effects of climate change. It was not all bad either; I thought those council officers that took part acquitted themselves pretty well. I also thought it very positive that so many members of the public, for the second week running, sought to get involved. This is how politics should be conducted – out in the open and with those who elect us.

There was no revolution last night, no lynching, and no riot. But, it was clear that those who came to listen, and question, were in the main largely opposed to the schemes proposed. There were alternative proposals made, and I would be inclined to at least consider these.

The issue of timing came up, and what has brought this scheme forward in the plans is the availability of the spoil from the Cliffs Slippage remedial work at Westcliff. There is a lot of soil that needs to be disposed of and these schemes present an opportunity to do just that.

Milton’s planning dyad for this week

Here are two noteworthy planning applications for Milton ward this week:-

APPLN. NO: 13/00182/FUL

Officer: Sophie Glendinning Date Valid. 28 March

ERECT SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION AND ERECT BALCONY AND STAIRCASE TO REAR AND SIDE ELEVATIONS

51A WARRIOR SQUARE SOUTHEND-ON-SEA ESSEX

 

APPLN. NO: 13/00300/FUL

Officer: Darragh McAdam Date Valid. 8 March 2013

ADD TWO ADDITIONAL ROOMS TO AN EXISTING HMO.

84 YORK ROAD SOUTHEND-ON-SEA SS1 2BY

A planning duet

Two of interest in Milton this week:

APPLN. NO: 13/00231/FUL

Officer: Darragh McAdam
Date Valid. 22 February 2013

TO PUT A CROSS OVER AT 19 PARK ROAD AND USE A SMALL AREA OF THE FRONT GARDEN TO BE ABLE TO PUT A CAR ON THE DRIVE WAY.

19 PARK ROAD WESTCLIFF-ON-SEA ESSEX

APPLN. NO: 13/00324/FUL

Officer: Louise Cook
Date Valid. 13 March 2013

CONVERT GARAGE INTO HABITABLE ACCOMMODATION

36 ST JOHN’S ROAD WESTCLIFF-ON-SEA ESSEX

Weekly List Of Planning Applications 15.3.13

Here are this week’s threesome for Milton ward:

APPLN. NO: 12/01428/FUL

Officer: Louise Cook

Date Valid. 5 March 2013

USE BED AND BREAKFAST (CLASS C1) AS HOSTEL (CLASS SUI- GENERIS)

60 YORK ROAD SOUTHEND-ON-SEA SS1 2BY

APPLN. NO: 12/01603/FUL

Officer: Matthew Leigh

Date Valid. 14 March 2013

ERECT THREE DWELLINGHOUSES, LAYOUT PARKING AND AMENITY SPACE

LAND REAR OF 36 TO 46 MILTON ROAD WESTCLIFF-ON-SEA

APPLN. NO: 13/00252/FUL

Officer: Louise Cook

Date Valid. 12 March 2013

ERECT TWO STOREY DETACHED DWELLINGHOUSE ON LAND AT REAR, LAYOUT REFUSE AND CYCLE STORE AND AMENITY AREA

42A HAMLET COURT ROAD WESTCLIFF-ON-SEA ESSEX

Milton – noteworthy development application registered the week ending 8 March 2013

APPLN. NO: 13/00186/FUL

Officer: Louise Cook
Date Valid. 14 February 2013

DEMOLISH EXISTING WORKSHOP AND ERECT ONE 2 STOREY DWELLINGHOUSE WITH PARKING AND ASSOCIATED AMENITY SPACE AND FORM VEHICULAR ACCESS ONTO ST HELEN’S ROAD REAR OF 35 – 47 MILTON ROAD

FORMER 35 – 47 MILTON ROAD WESTCLIFF-ON-SEA

Offices to be converted into flats – proposed change to planning rules

The following will be of interest to those who, like me, follow development issues.

There are proposals by the Department for Communities and Local Government to introduce a new permitted development right to allow offices to be converted into flats without the need for planning permission. It will come into force in the spring of 2013 initially for a three-year period at which point the legislation will be reviewed. It was announced on 24th January 2013 in a letter to Chief Planning Officers. The key features of the new permitted development right are as follows:

• It will allow conversions of offices within use class B1(a) to residential dwellings in use class C3.
• It will be in place for a temporary period of three years before review.
• Prior approval will be required in relation to transport, highways, flooding and land contamination.
• All associated external physical development will still require planning permission, for example, altering windows and creating balconies.
• Certain areas will be exempt, but only where the Local Authority can demonstrate that it would have ‘substantial adverse economic consequences”.

Cinema attendance

Sometimes you find the facts contradict expectations, well I do anyway. I was expecting cinema viewing figures to show a downturn, and this was one of the arguments I was going to deploy in my case against the development of the Seaway Car Park.

As this chart shows the viewing figures are all over the place, but clearly do not back up an argument of falling cinema attendance.
totalcinemaattendance

It is proposed that multi-screen cinema be built on the Seaway Car Park (mostly in Milton ward, although a part is in Kursaal too). This proposal will, in my view, lead to further development in the area. There are a number of reason why this is a bad idea. Whether we need two multi-screen cinemas in the town is a mute point, and the figures neither back this argument up nor refute it.

(Figures courtesy of the Film Distributors’ Association.)

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,961 other followers