Ventnor councillor votes against proposal to save Coastal Centre for town

coastal-centre-420

At last night’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee, members discussed the upcoming report going to Cabinet next week regarding the Coastal Centre in Salisbury Gardens (embedded below for your convenience).

The property and land is owned by the Isle of Wight council and under the previous administration was due to be sold on the open market.

Innovative plans for an Enterprise Hub
As documented here at length, the Ventnor town council are keen to enter into a long-term lease with the Isle of Wight council, so they can continue to occupy the building and set up a new Enterprise Hub, offering low cost office space for fledgling businesses set up by Ventnor residents.

After debating the issue, the majority of the Committee voted in favour of supporting the proposal to treat Ventnor Town Council (VTC) as a ‘Special Purchaser’, recognising the community benefits of doing so.

However, two councillors appeared adamantly against the proposal.

Proposal not supported by Ventnor ward councillor
One of the two members who did not support the proposal was, rather surprisingly, the councillor for Ventnor East, Graham Perks.

He asked,

“Does the Ventnor Town Council need the whole building for one office. I know they’ve got plans to do other things with it, but there’s nothing in here to say what they’re going to do and confirmation of who’s going to occupy the office, etc, etc. Is the building itself capable of taking all the businesses that they are proposing to support?”

He went onto say,

“Is it going to cost Ventnor ratepayers any more money because they (the VTC) have put the precept up quite a lot since they’ve been there.”

Cllr Perks was the only member of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee who voted against the proposal.

Questioning sea views
The other member who did not support the proposal was Cllr Richard Hollis, who made what was later referred to by deputy leader of the council, Steve Stubbings as a facile comment,

“If we’re so strapped for cash, why aren’t we looking at disposing of something at an advantageous price and does the council, council officers really need to be overlooking the sea if are there other premises elsewhere that could be put to good use and therefore using the building for perhaps someone who will actually pay some money for it?”

When the time came for the vote, Cllr Hollis neither raised his hand in favour, against or abstaining, but sat with his arms firmly by his side (perhaps he thought he was wearing his invisibility cloak).

“Facile” comments “embarrassing to your committee”
Cllr Steve Stubbings, who was observing the meeting, was given an opportunity to speak by the chair, Geoff Lumley.

He started by declaring an interest in the issue. As Mayor of Ventnor Town Council, Cllr Stubbings has been heavily involved with the plans since the ‘get-go’.

He went on to express his alarm by the lack of information some of the panel members had turned up with adding,

“And the facile comment that Cllr Hollis made with regard to the potential disposal of Salisbury Gardens being, and I paraphrase somewhat, ‘some kind of glorified office’ for Ventnor Town Council to overlook the sea. It’s embarrassing to your committee.”

He went on to say add,

“The preparation the Ventnor Town Council has put into the potential bid and discussions they would like to have with Isle of Wight council for the disposal of Salisbury Gardens has been extremely lengthy, incredibly detailed and has enormous benefits to the town and it’s embarrassing for me to sit here and listen to your panel described it thusly.”

Cllr Lumley replied, “I hear what you’re saying Cllr Stubbings.”

The vote
Cllrs Downer, Howe, Hutchinson, Warlow and Whittle voted in favour of the proposal, Cllr Perks against and Cllr Hollis did not vote nor asked to be recognised as abstaining.

Cllr Stewart was absent from the meeting and Cllr Fuller had left the meeting by the time of the vote.

The report will be heard next by the Cabinet on Tuesday 17th September.



Image: B Mills under CC BY 2.0

Advertisement
Subscribe
Email updates?
25 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Geoff Lumley
13, September 2013 2:48 pm

I also voted in favour ! I’m not one of these Committee Chairs that sits on their hands……….

steve s
13, September 2013 3:11 pm

It might be worth mentioning that Cllr Perks had every opportunity to find out more about what VTC has in mind for Salisbury Gardens. He receives a personal invitation (with agenda) to every Ventnor Town Council meeting. He also receives a regular invitation, from the Town Clerk, for informal discussion with the clerk and the Deputy Mayor, about the activities of VTC and how they might affect… Read more »

mat
Reply to  steve s
13, September 2013 4:52 pm

Selling off of Public Assets under these austerity conditions requires a principled and not a pragmatic approach. The selling off of assets and land grab has to be opposed. The government foisted the crisis onto councils by cutting the subsidy. Councils scratch around for budgets and have been forced to look at buildings. This not the solution. Councils have been trying to secure services at low cost… Read more »

Better Red than Bled
Reply to  steve s
13, September 2013 8:20 pm

I fear that as more becomes known of UKIP councillors voting habits, from the issues they oppose without providing any alternatives the negative soul of their party will become apparent. UKIP. a wasted vote.

steephilljack
Reply to  steve s
14, September 2013 8:23 am

Graham Perks represents UKIP, not Ventnor.

sam salt
Reply to  steephilljack
14, September 2013 11:54 am

Yes you are right steephill but the people of Ventnor voted him in to represent them not UKIP. Steve makes some valid points in his comments above. How is Cllr Perks going to represent those in Ventnor if he does not go to Town Council meetings, does not meet with others representing the town and appears to have little interest as to what is going on in… Read more »

Ventnorian
Reply to  steve s
14, September 2013 8:04 pm

Have the town council ever stopped to think that maybe the vast majority of council tax and precept payers in Ventnor do not want to be handcuffed to Salisbury Gardens.No doubt by taking over this money pit of a building will result in yet another hike in the local precept ala when the town owned the Winter Gardens.We already pay one of the highest local precepts on… Read more »

David Bartlett
Reply to  Ventnorian
14, September 2013 8:28 pm

Yes we did consider your opening question! So earlier this year we delivered a 4-page newsletter setting out the Town Council’s proposals for the building and included a reply paid card for responses. Just over 25% of the town’s electorate signed up to support those plans. And the funding we’ve applied for to refurbish and reconfigure the building is only available for projects that lead to job… Read more »

woodworker
Reply to  David Bartlett
14, September 2013 10:34 pm

just to make it clear, how many of the electorate signed up to oppose VTCs plans? How many said it wasnt a good idea? I assume there was an option to oppose on the reply card, not just an option to support?

steephilljack
Reply to  woodworker
15, September 2013 7:52 am

It was open to any response: “Please use the form below to share your views with us.”
The situation was clearly set out in the VTC consultation document at http://www.ventnortowncouncil.org.uk/userfiles/newsletter.pdf

woodworker
Reply to  woodworker
15, September 2013 10:55 am

Im sure it was open to anyone to respond. David Bartlett has told us that just over 25% of the towns electorate signed up to support those plans. I would like to know how many people OPPOSED the plans, and how many responded in total, to put that 25% in perspective. If 25% supported the plans, but 24% opposed the plans, that would present some questions. I’m… Read more »

lardi
Reply to  woodworker
15, September 2013 4:09 pm

The document I have from the council says that the VTC is “committed” to retaining the Coastal Centre as a community hub. As for Graham Perks and his unexpected voting. That’s democracy I’m afraid. I voted for Blair and see what I got – massive debts and 10 years of war in some Godforsaken hellholes. In the May 2013 local election which gave Perks his surprise win,… Read more »

woodworker
Reply to  woodworker
15, September 2013 4:54 pm

maybe so – but theres only one person who can tell us how many responses he actually received, and how many were positive or negative. So far, he has only told us how many were positive.

steve s
Reply to  woodworker
15, September 2013 6:13 pm

I might be able to help here, Woodworker.
I’m pretty sure I saw most, if not all, of the negative responses. (some were VERY negative and also anonymous) They didn’t number more than twenty. David will confirm this in due course.

woodworker
Reply to  woodworker
15, September 2013 6:17 pm

fair enough.
it always seems like theres something being hidden when only the positive results are talked about in any situation. Now we know that only 20 negative results were received, its clear that most of the responders were positive, and that most of the electorate were apathetic.

steve s
Reply to  woodworker
15, September 2013 6:46 pm

Apathy?! Surely not! ;-)

Having gone out on a limb here, I really hope the clerks didn’t actually receive hundreds of negative responses and elected not to share them with me out of kindness.

Ventnorian
Reply to  David Bartlett
15, September 2013 8:29 pm

Interesting that my musings have sparked a debate on the pro’s and cons of taking on Salisbury Gardens.In my book although 25% is not a poor figure in local politics,no way does it give carte blanche to the council to plough on with what could become an expensive white elephant.It would be interesting to know how many of that 25% are precept payers?

woodworker
Reply to  Ventnorian
16, September 2013 6:11 pm

Urm… David Bartlett is talking about 25% of the towns electorate – so ALL of them will be precept payers. Steve has told us that only 20 people bothered to respond to the questionnaire with negative comments. I would suggest that DOES give VTC the right to go ahead with this. A lot of people support it, hardly any oppose it, and apparently the rest dont care… Read more »

mat
13, September 2013 9:43 pm

Selling off of Public Assets under these austerity conditions requires a principled and not a pragmatic approach. The selling off of assets and land grab has to be opposed. The government foisted the crisis onto councils by cutting the subsidy. Councils scratch around for budgets and have been forced to look at buildings. This not the solution. Councils have been trying to secure services at low cost… Read more »

steephilljack
Reply to  mat
16, September 2013 10:33 am

Well said Mat. All this fuss about what % might not have wanted Salisbury Gardens when we were never even consulted about the sale of our public toilets !
It’s also a welcome change to have the man at the helm, Mayor Stubbings, contributing here and explaining his position.
It would be good to hear from Cllr. Perks on this topic as it concerns him !

tiki
13, September 2013 10:26 pm

Dear Cllr Hollis, you are not paid to sit on your hands. Perhaps it’s time you retired. Remind me again how much WE pay you?

woodworker
13, September 2013 10:52 pm

“If we’re so strapped for cash, why aren’t we looking at disposing of something at an advantageous price and does the council, council officers really need to be overlooking the sea if are there other premises elsewhere that could be put to good use and therefore using the building for perhaps someone who will actually pay some money for it?” Perhaps it could be sold to a… Read more »

bayboy
13, September 2013 11:49 pm

tiki, according to todays CP three Indie Cabinet members, including Steve Stubbings, ‘Sat on their hands’ on the vote about High Speed Broadband. They are all ‘paid’ much more that Cllr Hollis, do you suggest they also retire??

steephilljack
Reply to  bayboy
14, September 2013 8:32 am

Correction: the three Indie Cabinet members abstained on the broadband vote. Cllr. Hollis did not even bother to do that on this vote.

woodworker
Reply to  steephilljack
14, September 2013 1:11 pm

isnt it great when our elected representatives cant even be bothered to raise their hand and say that they abstain.

I wonder if Hollis thinks that by not responding to the vote, he can somehow invalidate it?

reCaptcha Error: grecaptcha is not defined