Tony Winckless was a hardworking and popular Councillor in Milton Regis between 2011 and 2015. He only lost his seat in 2015 because the vote was on General Election day and Labour finished third in the constituency. Since then, Tony has continued to take up issues for people in Milton Regis, with many still beieving he is their Councillor. With support from other Labour Councillors he has had road maintenance work done, tackled parking problems, had makeover of village centre done, had yellow junction markings put in and protected a bus stop area from dangerous parking. Tony is very keen to get back to work, putting Milton Regis first.
Archive for Latest News
Labour Activists were out in force on Saturday to ask for signatures on the ‘Think Again’ petition. This is asking Tory-Led Swale Borough Council to think again about their decision to borrow £28 Million ( now increased to £60 Million) to fund the building of a Cinema, shops, restaurants and a Multi-Story Car Park (didn’t we used to have one of those?) that they are calling ‘regeneration’.
Now you can sign the petition online at http://services.swale.gov.uk/meetings/mgEPetitionListDisplay.aspx?bcr=1 . Please do and help us reach the target which will trigger a Council debate on this subject.
It’s still not here-but it can be if we pay for it
After several years of promise without delivery, the long running saga of Sittingbourne Regeneration has now entered dangerous waters. Most of last year we were led to understand that the developer group, Spirit of Sittingbourne, were searching for capital to build the leisure and retail parts of their development plan. October, we were told. Then as autumn began to turn to winter it emerged that Tory led Swale Borough Council were prepared to borrow up to £28 million to invest in those properties.
It was presented as an “opportunity” that only came to light in late summer. This was not exactly credible, given that the same Tory administration had given themselves the facility in March to borrow £30 million.
The defensive argument put forward for this face saving manoeuvre is that Tory Government austerity is so severe in dealing with local government that they must find ways of achieving investment income if they want to maintain services. Labour is profoundly sceptical. Trying to turn Councils into development investors is not the way to fund local government. However, if it has to be, then the investment proposed by Swale Council is fraught with risk and uncertainty. They are investing in a multi-screen cinema that major operators rejected as a going concern and for which the private sector developers could not secure funding, nearly two years after they had erected their self-ridiculing “It’s Here” signs.
A minor cinema operator has been signed up, knowing that they alone were prepared to give this dubious scheme a chance. There is no market research to prove that a multi-screen cinema is a viable long term investment. If it fails, the associated eating houses will fail and Swale will be left with a declining asset, a large debt and interest payments to meet. That won’t be good for services or the council taxpayer.
This investment has to be sustainable over several decades, through ups and downs in the economy and against a background of changes in leisure behaviour, especially when it comes to watching film.
Swale says other Councils have gone down the investment route. Some have and some are building up problems for themselves. Where it is working for local Councils, they have shrewdly invested in going commercial assets, not a highly problematic scheme that has struggled to start up.
Labour also contends that the Council has not adequately considered the risks involved, that it has been persuaded by others to rush into this dubious venture and that it has no mandate from the local taxpayers.
They claim that they fought the 2015 elections on a promise of regeneration, and so they did. However, there was no understanding at that time that it would be funded by Council borrowing with its attendant liability for local taxpayers. They have been notably coy about the £28 million borrowing in public. Tory Councillors put out leaflets, claiming progress on regeneration without any mention of the borrowing. When opposition parties called in the decision to go for borrowing, the public were crudely excluded from the scrutiny meeting.
It isn’t publicly credible that the motive for this foolish decision is purely for investment. It is blatantly obvious to all involved that the endless delay in regenerating Sittingbourne is a matter of great political embarrassment to the Tories. They are clearly prepared to advance down a treacherous road on a scheme of dubious value, using all of their capital provision on one scheme that the private sector has found to lack viability.
The scheme itself is not worthy of the risk. The Council decided in 2009, when the Spenhill-Tesco plans were being downgraded, to seek out a development partner and the Spirit of Sittingbourne emerged. Labour believes it was wrong to be so closely tied to and dependent on one group of developers to move forward on much needed regeneration. It was wrong to effectively delegate to the developers the design and planning of the town renewal. What they came up with is a retro plan, tried and exhausted by many other towns, with nothing distinctively local to Sittingbourne, based on a financial model that was inappropriate to Swale and one that ignores the need to regenerate many other parts of the town, not least the High Street and its extensions in West Street and East Street. Labour particularly opposes that part of the agreement that has allowed developers to appropriate long stay car parks to build town centre apartments. It is bizarre that the developers are going to retain this access to cheap land use without eventually funding the rest of the scheme. When the development agreement was being concluded, it was understood that in return for long stay car parks, the developers would fund the multi storey car park. In the end, it is Swale that is going to fund this at the same time as relinquishing their own car parks.
We say that there has been weak leadership that has allowed the private sector developers to dictate the progress of the scheme. Swale has never recruited the kind of staffing that could manage property development and we doubt whether they will in the future.
There are various views in the town. Some people are hostile to the Council because nothing has happened, not because the scheme is poor and the funding risky. What Labour wants to see is that people are properly aware of what is going on. The public must have a say before the Tory Council lands the future residents of Swale with a disaster.
Labour will be raising a petition so that people can have their say. We shall be talking to people in town centres. We will continue to ask all the necessary questions in Swale Council.
The relatively brief report going to the Scrutiny Panel next Wednesday ( 31 Aug ) gives Councillors a much more frank and realistic assessment of where we are with town centre regeneration than we have been used to. It shows us that progress has been made, though very slowly, but that there are continuing question marks about the ultimate viability of the project. The developers will have to go to the markets in the autumn to secure funding for the leisure and retail elements of the scheme and if that is not secured the scheme will begin to unfold. Without the leisure funding, the residential development on the car parks must not proceed and if that occurs, there is some doubt about the need for the multi storey car park. Elsewhere, it is clear how important it is to get a legal understanding with Network Rail over the road realignment and the station forecourt, and the former is running up against serious time constraints with the government grant running out at the end of this financial year.
Things may very well fall into place but it is refreshing now to get a more honest appraisal of where we are. It looks like a 50/50 chance of success. The central business rational for this project, that residential development would fund leisure investment, has always been open to question in the local housing market. This is a very long drawn out process and the phase 2 element seems a long way ahead. The Council also needs to give urgent thought to the many other land holdings in the town that need regenerating but are not part of the Spirit of Sittingbourne project.
Roger Truelove, Leader of Labour Group on Swale Borough Council
Two Labour County Councillors who represent the Swale area have expressed their anger, frustration and concern at the news that Lilac Sky Academy Trust is no longer responsible for nine schools in Kent and Sussex, including Richmond Street and Thistle Hill on the Isle of Sheppey. Roger Truelove ( Swale Central) is on the County Council’s Education Cabinet Committee and Angela Harrison represents the Sheerness constituency.
Roger Truelove says,
” I can scarcely contain my anger. Why oh why are we entrusting our publicly owned schools to these unknown and generally unaccountable organisations? It certainly isn’t because their teaching or their management is any better than local authority provision as this debacle shows. Our children’s schools should be open to local scrutiny and local democratic decision making.”
” Both of us find it exceptionally frustrating that when something like this occurs, we know nothing about it. We have consulted senior education officers at the County Council but they have no say. They are simply told by a remote bureaucrat called the Regional Schools Commission, who has responsibility for the South East and South London and is answerable to no-one apart from the Government Minister. He has indicated concerns about the Governance of the Trust, which of course could mean any thing,possibly financial management.”
” It is disturbing that the Local Education Authority is kept at arms length in this academy system but my immediate concern is for the children concerned. We are told that other Academy Trusts have been allocated by Mr Herrington (the RSC) but wouldn’t it be nice if these schools, paid for by the public, were returned to the County Council and to a level of democratic accountability.”