Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gayle
The study by Knight, Kavanagh and Page (KKP) will look at the quality, distribution and use of the spaces.
It will also identify any places where there are too many....the results of the audit will be used to devlop a strategy for managing and devloping green spaces.
|
I know a bit about this. The Friends of Groups got together to form a Green Spaces Forum [1 rep per group] to pool general info. Subsequently Britciffe and Co decided they wanted to devolve parks to these 'Supa Dupa' Friends of Groups, and the Green Spaces Forum is has been targeted as the messenger to the managers/friends in waiting. The cabinet decided to delegate the consulatncy of this audit to the Green Spaces Forum as part of the local consutation process on this audit. The Council has mulititudes of sites that it is supposedly having trouble managing.
The Green Spaces Forum has been delegated [by Cabinet] to work in an advisory capacity with KPP, who were appointed by the Council. The cost of this consulatancy is based on the site visits [fee per visit] and some other work. I did know the cost but have forgotten [senior moment!]. KPP were chosen ahead of 2 other tenders I think [need to confirm].
There's a site up Ossy that causes problems, Owd Bobs??? [it was one that was 4th or 5th on the list to become a Local Nature Reserve] that has long been the wish of the Ossy Councillors [all Tories] to dispose of and is used as an example of why we need this audit.
This consulatncy work is designed to review all open spaces, open land, parks etc.. in Council ownership and produce a cost/benefit audit.
My opinion is it is an off loading exercise to carry on cutting costs so we can manage to pay off the huge debts [1999/£10m 2005/£27m=+£16m] Cllr Britcliffe has racked up and which has eroded all Council budgets like a bad credit card debt. It may be beneficial to dispose of some land of course but the question remains should this not have been part of an ongoing inhouse management service?
The unchecked debts were the main reason for the £1.8m black hole of projected overspending in 2003/2004; Auditors had reported since 2000 'poor financial controls' at the Council. There was no debt management, so the colosal increase in debts, with 'poor financial management' and the Council rolling the same budgets [with increases] year on year things produced the large 'unknown' overspend. In previous years a different methodolgy of accounting balanced books and as Dan Sherry described it in The Observer, the new method was overprescibed or words to that effect. When the Council looked at the books more carefully, they were staggered to find that ther was a projected overspend of £1.8m. The overspend was compounded by some poor and also neccessary costly spending decisions due to the wage bill exceeding available income.