If you saw the recent CP article (25/03/11) about the Waterside Pool you might have been a little surprised to read the headline stating that talks on takeover of the pool had stalled.
As VB readers will remember, the Waterside Action Group were chosen as preferred bidders back in February, so the idea that talks had stalled at such an early stage in negotiations came as a surprise.
What VB found confusing was parts of the article appearing to conflict. In the second paragaph, “… the authority now says it cannot accept the group’s proposal.” With the seventh containing a quote from Cllr Brown saying, “If the group can meet all the obligations, we would be only too pleased to complete an agreement as quickly as possible.”
VentnorBlog has just received the following from the Waterside Action Group, which we understand has also been sent to the CP with a request to print in response to the article published last week.
I write in response to the article by Emily Pearce in last Friday’s edition of the County Press entitled ‘Talks on takeover of Pool Stalled’
WAG is still in talks with the IW Council following being chosen as the preferred bidder. Our Bid included a bid produced by staff members at Waterside Pool. If this process is heading into stalled situation I suggest these could be the reasons
- The IW Council now requires on top of the original bid a further 3 pages of conditions to satisfy the process further. This is in addition to the original heads of terms.
- IW Council intend to run Waterside Pool for a further six months using an additional £100,000 to manage the transfer of that facility. This money could have been used by WAG to help us in a transitional period.
- We have had numerous suggestions of how the management could be on a joint venture process with council officers but nothing has been forth coming.
- Throughout this process we have taken a lead from council officers every step of the way. So any delays or stalling has been aided by the process they are leading.
Other agendas
It is normal business practice for an accepted Bid to be used for the basis of subsequent negotiations to finalise a deal.It is becoming clear that whatever good intent management in Leisure & Tourism Services may have in moving this asset across to WAG, that there appears to be other agendas going on behind the scenes
Big Society?
Perhaps it is time for the council member to decide whether he stands for or against his party’s national leader’s Big Society agenda. Perhaps he should make his position clear publiclyIt is obvious that a fledging community group could not afford to carry the costs of the labour force employed at Waterside Pool together with the costs of their pensions etc. We covered that point clearly in our Bid. For this council to sit on its hands and expect a community group to be able to move this forward, without adequate funding defies belief.
Asset transfer for Shanklin Theatre
It is interesting that the acquisition of Shanklin Theatre by the Friends of Shanklin Theatre, were only required to put a very short letter of expression in to Council to transfer the asset which has now nearly complete. Maybe assets in a ward under the head of council have a different process?WAG welcomes the support from councillor Whittle who has suggested that IW Council should support and encourage initiatives from community groups rather than make such groups jump through ever higher hoops.
I am hoping that my next communication can be of a more positive nature?
Ian Jenkins
Chairperson Waterside Action Group
