Summary of Shanklin Town Council Public Meeting

Many thanks to Shanklin town councillor, Richard Priest, for sending through this report and way forward that was agreed at last week’s public meeting. He tells us that there’ll be a further public meeting planned for Monday 21st February 2011 at Shanklin Theatre. Ed

Context
Shanklin Town Council, at their first meeting in January 2011 and following the announcement of the budgetary pressures facing the IW Council, arranged a Public Discussion for Monday 24th January 2011, at Shanklin Theatre, to discuss the proposed cuts in service provision, provide residents with the opportunity to seek clarification on specific issues, and to debate possible ways forward or alternative solutions to the challenges.

Various areas of cuts dicussed
Although the headline issues were closure of Library and Tourist Information Centre, the loss of the Lifeguard (and Blue Flag) and at least one Public Toilet would have an impact on Shanklin as a Tourist Resort (as well as loss of Dotto Train).

Other issues were of concern, such as Fire Service, Youth Service consultation, support to vulnerable adults and older people, transport provision, support to the Theatre, and the overall regeneration of the Town and Bay as a Tourist Resort.

Comments and concerns
Over 200 residents expressed a range of concerns and raised queries that needed to be addressed in order for the Town Council to make an informed decision, or sustainable proposals, regarding proposing a way forward.

Significantly the meeting was the day before IWC publication of senior manager salaries and other expenditures, and highlighted considerable concern re Consultants Fees, Senior Officer Salaries being disproportionate to the Island pay structure, inefficient use of resources and other inequities.

Shanklin precept less than some senior salaries
It was noted that the total precept for Shanklin, £109,000, was less than the salaries of several senior IWC managers, and that much resources had been spent (such as the Fire Service consultation) which could have been used to maintain services.

Comments were also expressed (at the meeting or in other correspondence) re the costs of redundancies, pension provision, PFI interest, costs of School reorganisation, which would impact on other service provision: also participants were concerned about other potential rises in charges, such as parking, and the short amount of time available to come forward with plans, as well as the potential additional cuts in 2012.

Participants were concerned about ‘double rating’ and although people recognised that Newport was the County Town, and the situation of Newport Parish Council was unique, a comparison between the Towns, summarised below, highlighted the potential inequity of the current proposals:

Other public toilets already gone
Individuals also highlighted that Shanklin had lost other Public Toilets (Shanklin Theatre, Revetment at Lake/Shanklin, Osborne Steps, County Ground and Shanklin Cemetery) in recent years, and other amenities (Information/Help Centre) which other areas had retained.

The consequence appeared to have a 4 fold impact on residents:

• Shanklin residents paying a Council Tax to support extended hours in another town
• Shanklin residents needing to incur expense (bus/car) to access these services
• Shanklin residents needing to pay additional local precept (not required in other towns) to support continued service
• Shanklin residents needing to be volunteers to maintain that service

Concern was also expressed re an increase in Parish Precept when the local authority had decided over several years to keep the Island precept below inflation.

Fire service consultation
Questions were also asked about the cost of the Fire Service consultation, and whether all information requested last year (eg call out and response time) had been provided to help inform current/future decisions.

Concern was expressed that the existing service appeared to cost less resource and provide a value for money service, employing local residents in line with the ‘voluntary’ concept: the proposed service appears to incur increased costs and the value of the change/improvements (given the presentation last year) appears not to have been demonstrated.

(I think, to summarise, the question would be ‘If asked by IWC, we would prefer to maintain the current retained Fire Service provision in Sandown and Shanklin, not incurring extra costs, and use the saving to maintain Sandown and Shanklin Libraries).

Capping senior managers salaries
There was a proposal regarding capping IWC senior manager salaries at £100,000 per annum, and that ‘allegedly’ some managers were receiving expenses/reimbursement for things such as off Island air travel, lunches, accommodation: and these were areas for potential savings, which if achieved would support continued provision of services under threat.

Participants raised questions regarding health and safety if withdrawing beach lifeguards, potential increase in anti-social behaviour (fewer toilets, et al), and the need for risk/impact assessments (especially re local economy) for the proposals of IWC.

Concern on methodology
Concern was expressed re methodology of proposals, for example Public Toilets in Newport needed to be seen in context of County Town and alternative provision in Supermarkets, etc, whereas Shanklin is seasonal and the usage would be seasonal.

Concern was previously expressed regarding proposed Business Rate charges for voluntary organisations and how this may impact on the viability of these organisations and any decision to provide a service voluntarily if a future Business Rate to be applied, effectively subsidising alternative providers (SVYCC submitted concerns re this issues – RP/DW/JG interest).

Concerns over short time-scales
Participants also expressed concerns about the possibility, in the limited time available, to take forward ‘community led’ alternatives that needed to be co-ordinated Island wide, this included Community Asset Transfers, Insurances, CRB checks, and a range of other needs that would need co-ordination, and would have cost implications.

There was brief mention of possible income streams to support alternative ways forward, participants overwhelmingly indicated that they would welcome a further meeting with a clearer way forward, and around 50% of the audience considered a reasonable increase in the precept if it was clear what an increase would be used for.

Way Forward
Questions
More details/clarity would be required to inform decision making re:

1/ Commitment to Community Asset Transfer, for TIC, Library and Toilets, as well as other possible amenities (NB the delay in transfer of Theatre, and associated impact on fundraising) and delivering commitment to capital funding (as per Theatre experience).

2/ Business Rates for current and future voluntary provision, as well as application to Social Enterprises – Carnival and Regatta have experienced increased charges that compromise viability.

3/ Fire Service – the cost of consultation, the increase cost of proposed provision, and value for money considerations at current time.

4/ Understanding of the time to develop a community infra-structure to provide services that are sustainable, and fit for purpose, and recognising that ’employed’ staff contribute to the local economy at a time of rising unemployment.

5/ Additional value of current provision re local economy, eg on line job applications, IWC information (planning, etc).

Solutions?
A/ SVYCC (DW/JG/RP declared interest) previously outlined a ‘social enterprise’ model for revenue from Esplanade Golf Course to be used to employ local people (inc youth apprenticeships), fund lifeguard service and maintain toilet provision on esplanade).

B/ Earlier STC proposal, further to IWC consultation, re use of Hope Beach Car Park for revenue to Theatre and other projects (Car Park gifted re Southern Water development?).

C/ Consideration of STC, under recent legislation, being able to directly receive section 106 monies from planning/developments in Shanklin – reinvesting funds to maintain services/invest in developments.

D/ Further commitment from STC to proportionately increase contributions in partnership with IWC, such as the Theatre proposal.

E/ Further meeting to feedback on responses to above questions, and points for clarification, and to outline potential support Town Council can provide in the above areas (a co-ordinated way forward rather than piecemeal which may not be sustainable): this would inform the discussion re increasing Town Precept, and whether this is affordable to residents.

Image: © Google Streetview