Reply to North Tynesides latest: 6 December, 2014 Customer Liaison Office, North Tyneside Council, Quadrant, The Silverlink North, Cobalt Business Park, North Tyneside, NE27 0BY Dear Sirs, Complaint Reference: 101038514 - The Boardwalk Café, Watts Slope, Whitley Bay Thank you for your letter dated 5 December, in response to mine of 15 November. I wish to make the following comments on behalf of ‘Save and Revamp the Boardwalk’. Your response to Point 1: An impartial examination of the facts Nobody has queried the fact that Pamela Hood was permitted to present the Petition on behalf of ‘Save and Revamp the Boardwalk’ to a full Council meeting on 23 October. We would, however, be interested to know exactly how detailed the ‘report in relation to the issues raised by the petition’ which was presented to all Council Members prior to the meeting actually was: which facts were emphasised, for instance, and which were only lightly touched upon or perhaps even ignored. (For one salient fact which we are fairly confident was ignored in this pre-debate report, see Point 2, below). You highlight the generosity of the Deputy Mayor in extending the length of the debate to 30 minutes. However, when no inter-active discussion of the points at issue takes place, time is not of the essence: a debate in which valid objections to Council decisions fail to be addressed by those effectively enjoying arbitrary power can continue for hours, or even days, without any satisfactory engagement between the opposing parties. What took place on 23 October was not a ‘full and frank discussion’. Discussion entails the acknowledgement and serious consideration of points made on each side of an argument. In our petition, we at ‘Save and Revamp the Boardwalk’ acknowledged points made by the council in favour of demolition, and answered them one by one, drawing on conversations with numerous people on the streets of our town. The Mayor and ruling party, on the other hand, have neither acknowledged nor answered the points raised by us, either in our Petition or as listed in my previous letter, dated 15 November. You then proceed to make a most extraordinary statement: “I do not consider your assertion that the Elected Mayor neglected to address certain issues during the course of the debate to be of particular significance in the context of the discussion of the petition at the Council meeting because the responsibility for formal decision making in relation to the issues contained in the petition does not lie with full Council. The reason the petition was submitted to the full Council meeting was because it exceeded 2,000 valid signatures, and in accordance with the Authority’s Petitions Scheme, any petitions exceeding such threshold must be submitted to a full Council meeting. The responsibility for decision making on this matter lies with the Executive.” Please correct me if I have misunderstood, but what you appear to be saying here is, “We had to let you present your Petition for appearances’ sake, but whether or not the Elected Mayor addressed certain issues raised by you during the debate is neither here nor there, because the full Council actually have no say in the matter, decisions being taken by the Executive behind closed doors.” If this is the case, is it honest to offer the carrot of a full Council meeting when you know full well that a pre-determined outcome is to be imposed by application of the Executive stick ? In your view, the “vote at the Council meeting … was undertaken in a transparent and democratic manner following a lengthy debate and … does not necessarily imply a lack of impartiality on behalf of the Members of the Council.” In our view, it appears to have been taken in strict accordance with a set agenda and top-down party policy, following a lot of talk which failed to engage with objections thrown up either in our petition or by opposition councillors. Your response to Point 2: Disinformation regarding the viability of the café Once more, you fail to acknowledge the disastrous effect upon a previously profitable and long-established business of recent upheavals on the seafront, beginning with the removal of the funfair and amusement arcades which were previously among our town’s major attractions, and continuing with long-term construction works and the re-siting of the main road (for greater detail, see my letter of 15 November). Nevertheless, a local entrepreneur, Julie Stimpson (now the proprietor of three businesses in Whitley Bay), drew up detailed plans for a refurbished café in the present sea-front location, including a holiday flat on the upper floor of the building, and special events linked to the business, and presented them to the Council together with the guarantee of a year’s rent in advance. This confident offer - precisely the kind of local initiative most likely to revive the town’s self-respect and inspire further grass-roots innovation - was summarily rejected by the Mayor. Ms Stimpson’s offer was mentioned during the debate not only by Pamela Hood, as part of our Petition, but by opposition councillors. The fact that neither the Mayor nor any member of the Executive saw fit to allude to it or to give reasons for its rejection speaks volumes. You go on to admit that “the overriding reason for the proposed demolition of the Café is to facilitate the regeneration of Whitley Bay Seafront by opening up access to Northern Promenade and creating a new gateway to this significant leisure resource. It will also improve the appearance of the area and enhance views up the coastline towards St Mary’s Lighthouse”. But the public has yet to be consulted as to whether or not they wish their seafront to be regenerated in accordance with an expensive, and as-yet-unseen, masterplan which requires a sweeping new ‘gateway’ to the North Promenade (see Point 3, below)! As for enhancing “views up the coastline to St Mary’s Lighthouse”, I refer you once more to Councillor O’Shea, who - along with hundreds of people we spoke to while petitioning - disagreed with the Mayor by declaring this to be “tosh”. Your response to Point 3: Tactical avoidance of public consultation You say that, “Many of the existing and future projects to develop the assets at Whitley Bay Seafront and the wider Coast have been subject to significant community engagement.” We would be glad to see details of all public consultations in relation to the North Promenade. How many people were aware of a consultation taking place, for instance ? Were individuals widely consulted, or only ‘stakeholders’ and groups ? It would be interesting to assess what foundations the Council’s present plans have in popular consent. Failing further proof of proper consultation, we can only go by what people on the streets of Whitley Bay have told us, speaking of their sense of betrayal as well-loved amenities are unaccountably disposed of one after the other, and of a Council which demolishes first and thinks later. You are absolutely right to say that “the overwhelming message received at public engagement events held over the years in relation to the regeneration of Whitley Bay Seafront has been the strong desire of the local community to see work progress more quickly.” However, what people are referring to is not some yearning for the speedier imposition of root-and-branch changes, but their irritation at North Tyneside’s penchant for notching up the costs and the inconvenience by launching over-hastily into a project and then leaving it in a prolonged state of abandonment. As we passed the Dome, for instance, month after month, in recent years, my husband would calculate the charges for all that scaffolding rusting into apparent permanence without a workman in view, and work out the tidy sum it was adding each week to Council expenses, while doing its unsightly bit to encourage visitors (and, of course, potential customers for the Boardwalk) to take their patronage elsewhere. The overwhelming message we received while petitioning was that people wanted Whitley Bay to be kept clean and in good repair, and for the Council to adopt a more realistic approach to rents and rates for businesses, so that local entrepreneurs could get on with the job of regenerating our town in accordance with their own preferences from the bottom up. There seemed to be little, if any, demand for expensive top-down plans involving corporate money and non-indigenous chains on the sea front. You refer to “ … improvements to Whitley Bay Seafront that the Borough’s residents are expecting to be delivered by the Authority”: but how can residents be ‘expecting’ improvements whose exact nature has not yet been ‘shared’ with them ? Until voters have approved the scheme devised by a team of unelected and perhaps non-resident ‘masterplanners’, there are no grounds for destroying the Boardwalk, which might happily be left in place should that scheme be adjusted in line with popular opinion or, indeed, rejected outright by the public in mid-December. By employing the tactic of premature demolition, then, the Council is preempting any demand that the Boardwalk be incorporated into plans for the North Promenade. Precisely why it should be felt indispensable to remove the café prior to public consultation in mid-December is a matter of conjecture. It may be significant that no announcement of demolition was made until one week after applications were invited for units in the Dome. One might be forgiven, therefore, for assuming that some potential investor may have stipulated the elimination of competition, particularly in respect of functions (one of the Boardwalk’s outstanding successes), before signing up to a deal. This, at any rate, was the widespread conclusion among those signing our Petition. Having read this far, it will be clear to you that we wish our Complaint to proceed to Stage 3. Since the extended Christmas holidays are rapidly approaching, we ask you to reply within 10 working days of receipt of this letter, which will be delivered to Council offices by hand on Monday 8 December, 2014: that is to say, we expect a reply no later than 19 December. In the meantime, we trust that you will refrain from demolishing the building under dispute. Yours sincerely, Gillian Swanson ‘Save and Revamp the Boardwalk’
Posted on: Sat, 06 Dec 2014 18:09:00 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015