Parklife

Parklife demands Council leader answers ‘£3.5m Priory Crescent question,’ as local costs soar.

Local residents campaign group Parklife is today calling for Council leader Nigel Holdcroft to answer key questions relating to the provision of funding by the local authority for the controversial Priory Crescent road widening.

The group obtained copies of sensitive Southend Borough Council (SBC) documents via a Freedom of Information request made to the Department for Transport (DfT) last year, showing that an initial assessment has been undertaken by the Council to establish the cost of evicting Camp Bling.

Figures for the eviction were not provided by the Government office, and as of yet a supplementary request for this information made via the DfT has been ignored by the Council (1). It has been estimated by campaigners that £1.5m may be required for this purpose alone (2).

In addition to the unresolved matter of security, the revised £11.5m plan announced by both Holdcroft and Executive Councillor Anna Waite in June 2007, must now also be part funded by the local authority, with a contribution of up to 25% to be made towards construction costs, should Government funding be forthcoming (3).

Parklife campaigner Patsy Link said, ‘The true cost to local taxpayers for building this road is being withheld. We have established that the total bill could be as much as £3.5m, and demand that the Conservative leader explains exactly how such a sum of money will be procured from Council funds for this purpose.’ (4)

The group will submit a further Freedom of Information request to the authority today in order to obtain the figures involved.
NOTES:

(1) Original Freedom of Information request made to both the DfT (via GO-East) and SBC. Supplementary request made to DfT on 18/10/07 as the Government department provided copies of sensitive Council documents not supplied by SBC.

(2) See Dalkeith Country Park eviction for comparison (estimated cost of £100,000 per day). Campaigners estimate cost for evicting Camp Bling could reach £1.5m.
Time estimate:
http://www.lbp.police.uk/freedom-of-information/publications/annual_report/page_3_east/breaking_new.htm
http://www.lbp.police.uk/ccnewsletter/2006/february.pdf
Cost estimate:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4617344.stm
http://www.dioceseofedinburgh.org.uk/Edge_February_2006.pdf

(3) DfT currently await revised business case from SBC before making a decision.
Scheme could be categorised as ‘new’ where a 10% contribution would be required from the local authority, or ‘transitional’ where a 25% contribution would be necessary for any cost increase over the originally agreed figure.
DfT Major Projects and Economics department advised Parklife by telephone on Friday 28th March, that the scheme could be categorised as transitional.
See ‘Guidance for Local Authorities’ section 1.6 Transitional Arrangements (bullet point 4):
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/regional/ltp/major/majorschemeguide/majorguidemain

(4) Total estimated cost of £3.5m to local authority based upon £1.5m for eviction plus 25%/£2m contribution for cost increases to scheme since December 2000 (£25% of the £8m subsequent cost increase since then would equate to £2m).