Following the announcement that Tenbury Town Council had been awarded an initial £58,200 to fund the post of Regal Heritage Development Officer, the successful candidate is to be announced next week (in a private meeting to which the press & public are to be excluded).
Hopefully, whoever is appointed will embrace public inclusion which is often lacking from their employer.
The Regal Cinema: HG-08-15553 CWM 2009 (2) 13DECISION: AWARD FIRST ROUND PASS OF £675,100 INCLUDING DEVELOPMENT GRANT OF £58,200 (84%)Tenbury Town Council sought a first round pass with development funding to restore and conserve the Regal Cinema in Tenbury. This Grade II listed Super Cinema, opened in 1937, was designed by specialist cinema architect Ernest Robert working for Clifton Cinemas. Three sides of the auditorium were decorated with a ‘trompe l’oeil’ by George Legge. The Cinema had been extensively used by the local community since the 1980s when a dedicated community centre was built to the rear of the building. The primary aim of the project was to keep the Cinema and community centre in use and secure their long term future.The Committee awarded a first round pass of £675,100 including a development grant of £58,200(84% of eligible costs).
Posts
11 comments:
There is a clear divergence of objectives between the wording of the 'First Pass Award' from the Heritage Lottery people and the stated aim of 'Phase 1'which describes how Neville Topping (the Town council's consultant) and the Town council themselves see a similar process. The official lottery decision (see above) states that the primary aim of the project is to 'Keep the Cinema and Community Centre in use and secure their long term future'. This suggests not only refurbishment of the buildings but the provision of improved and up to date equipment that will benefit all the Regal's user groups.
The job description for the soon to be appointed Heritage Access Officer is to prepare a lottery bid to enable the renovation of the Cinema building(only)and to 'Promote its greater use and accessibilty, to the building and its history'. Neville Topping and the Town Council have specifically excluded the provision of new equipment from the equation so we face the prospect of a beautifully restored Art Deco cinema and theatre with equiupment that is so antiquated that the building cannot compete with its better equipped rivals.If it wants Tenbury people to embrace the public consultation necessary to make this Heritage Lottery bid successful, the Town council is going to have to be better informed and a lot more open.Why for instance wasn't the success of the first round decision from the Lottery (to say that the substance our bid was being accepted)announced publicly by the Town Council? This decision was made back in June, 4 months ago.
Fancy them saying "The Cinema had been extensively used by the local community since the 1980s".
The Cinema has, of course, been extensively used by the local community since it was built, which was a long time before the 1980s!
When the Town Council exclude public and press from their meetings to discuss matters in secret they do so by invoking section 100(1) of the 1972 Local Government Act which deals with 'Exempt Information'. To invoke legislation that legitimises keeping their deliberations hidden from public view you would hope that they get their facts right. Sorry to be pedantic but the legislation they refer to is in fact section 1001(1)schedule 12a of the 1972 Local Government Act and the categories of information that can legitimately be exempt are described in detail.
In the last year or so it would seem that this exemption clause might have been invoked in situations where the matters under discussion might be seen as potentially embarrassing rather than there being a strictly legal reason for secrecy. As section 12A itself states 'Information is exempt if and so long ,as in all circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information '.Perish the thought that citizens of Tenbury might hear things that they weren't supposed to.
I am amazed by the number of secret meetings they hold. When I was a Councillor in another place I don't remember ever meeting in secret.
I agree that there appear to be too many matters dealt with under Section 100 of the LGA 1972 - though, to be honest, most do come within the ambit of the Schedule. I just wish that there was a clearer explanation of WHY the Section was invoked - that would remove a lot of the suspicions. On the whole, I'm in favour of much more openness.
I agree that some matters must be heard under section 100. For instance Councillors may wish to discuss who to select for co-option, and information such as the person is unsuitable because they are a blogger, may need to be shared, but why the names of the people offering themselves for co-option, how many votes they got and who was selected should be kept secret I do not understand. We don't know if 10 people applied and two were selected, or only two applied so were automatically appointed. We don't know why the Council decided to install electric heating and not gas at the Regal. Next week, we probably won't know if 1 person applied for the Regal job or 100. We won't know if 2 were short listed and interviewed in Tenbury, or were selected by Consultants in Birmingham. Last week we didn't know if Tenbury Events had been given permission to use the Burgage (only that they had requested to)
WR15 readers might be interested to know that since February 2008, the Town Council has held 15 Extrordinary Meetings (that's 9 this year so far)almost all of which have excluded press and public. We have no real way of knowing whether legitimately'Exempt Information'was going to be discussed at these closed meetings nor necessarily the subject under discussion or any conclusions reached. Ah! democracy is a wonderful thing.
If people apply to be Councillors in the normal way, with an election, then everyone knows who they are. So why should their details be secret if people are being co-opted?
A lot of the 'secrecy' makes like or no sense to outsiders. It may make sense to those in the know, or they may not apply any thought to it and wrap up all the business in a closed meeting, when perhaps only five minutes of the business would fall strictly within the remit.
I think Phil makes a very good point indeed! Secrecy (in that instance) is completely unnecessary.
Presumably any local resident could ask for an explanation of why a specific matter was "confidential" - people would be entitled to an answer under the Freedom of Information Act.
When deciding if something needs to be "confidential", the starting point is:
"The initial position should always be in favour of disclosure of as much information as possible about the decisions the Council takes, and only in limited circumstances should information be withheld, where there is a justification, in law, for doing so."
Post a Comment