|
On the last version of the media page, we indicated our
concern about the council response to our further particulars.
For your interest, we
present our response to DRS on this matter.
We write to express our serious disappointment
at the ‘conditions’ that have been laid down in Mr Frank Sheridan’s email of
10th September, 2005. There are a number of reasons for this and
they are:
- no indication was given at the initial call
for ‘ further particulars’ by DRS that the timescale would be six months
for the delivery of a final package.
Nor was it indicated that this timeframe would include full
financial backing, business plan and feasibility study. In fact we were
clearly given an indication that the chosen bidders would be given a
further six months to develop further their proposals.
- given the inordinate delay in arriving at a
position where prospective bidders would be called for (we were
initially told by Mr. Sheridan that this process would be completed by
February 2005), we are seriously concerned that a voluntary community
group should first of all be given a mere three weeks over the summer
holiday period to deliver further particulars about a project and now a
mere six months to have all funding and reports in place regarding the
development of the complex. Our partner organisation, Govanhill Housing
Association and Govanhill Development Trust have made it clear that this
is a most unrealistic timeframe.
- our concerns should be seen against a
background in which this Trust was forced to call upon the good offices
of MP Mohammed Sarwar, who on our behalf, brokered a meeting with local MSP and
Councillors in order to persuade DRS to grant our architects access to
the complex. Notwithstanding this, the Trust was refused any further
access after this initial visit.
- given the complexity of the proposed project
and in particular where a community feasibility study has to be
undertaken, it is both unrealistic and we believe insulting to the local
community and this Board to expect such a deadline to be reached. It
should be noted that in its Constitution the Trust lays out its total
commitment to the community in respect of the proposed regeneration.
- we are concerned that a timescale of six
months is purely arbitrary and we wondered how DRS arrived at such a
conclusion. Indeed we further wondered whether it would be possible for
DRS itself or any other large corporation to deliver such a package in
six months.
- In the current climate where the development
of the Community Planning Partnerships and Community Health Partnerships
have not yet been finalised it is unrealistic to expect anything more
than a verbal commitment from such organisations.
- We believe, as do our partners, that if the
Council is seriously determined to uphold a commitment to delivering
real community participation then it would be actively demonstrating a
determination to provide opportunities that would assist the community
and this Trust’s creative, innovative regeneration scheme. Instead, we believe
the deadline suggests otherwise.
- quite clearly DRS and the Council have placed
us in direct competition with a UK-wide building group with established
working and business links and partnership work with Glasgow Alliance,
which in its turn is funded by Glasgow City Council. We also note that
John Gallagher of Crudens , as reported on the Glasgow Alliance website,
is its Finance and Personnel Director.
In consequence we are of the view that this ‘competition’ is not
cast on a level playing field. Not least because of our relative and
different scale of resources but also because Crudens is a profit making
organisation with funding readily available and we are by formal charity
status, ‘not for profit’.
- Crudens Estates is intent on demolishing the
building. This desire quite clearly contradicts:
1.
the clear
wishes of the community as represented by the all the local Community
Councils;
2.
all the
previous user groups of the closed Govanhill Baths;
3.
our own
partners as listed in the document submitted to DRS, including constituency
MP Mohammed Sarwar;
4.
Historic Scotland,
Architectural Heritage Trust, Glasgow Building Preservation Trust amongst
others have made it clear that they believe the building must remain in its
original use as a functioning Baths;
5.
the
recommendations of the GCC commissioned Park & Page/Edaw report (2002)
and the separately community commissioned Archie Fairley report (2003);
6.
the preference
of at least 82 local businesses (that we ourselves identified in August 2005
in a preliminary marketing study)
7.
a very
considerable and recent community petition drawing on some 4,000-community
signatures.
8.
support from
various public bodies, Glasgow
councillors and MSP’s together with a letter, from the office of the Minister
for Communities, commending the project and our determination to see the
baths reopened as a Healthy Living Centre.
9.
The clear
policy imperative of the Scottish Executive in relation to healthy living,
particularly in the context of urban and deprived areas. More so is this the
case in Govanhill set in Shettleston where national statistics continue to
show major health inequalities compared to other more affluent areas.
Thus,
in the light of the foregoing, we would formally request that there is a
major extension to the timescale outlined in Mr. Sheridan’s letter. We
believe that this timescale should be both justified and consistent with what
we have been advised would be reasonable to achieve by a voluntary community
based initiative.
Alternatively,
we believe that there should be a negotiated discussion between the council,
our Board and our professional partners with regard to what can be
realistically achieved in six months.
We are confident
that you will be disposed to give this matter your most urgent attention.
Community Partnership Planning Meeting
At a
Community Partnership Conference in the Hidden Gardens
on 15th September the new leader of the council, Steven
Purcell, addressed a large gathering of people who were reviewing the
East Pollokshields Community Planning project funded by Rowntree. Lord
Richard Best Director of the Rowntree Foundation introduced and chaired
the conference.
In his
address and subsequent discussion Steven Purcell made clear that;
- he was totally committed to the concept of
community partnership and had ensured that he would chair the council
group in this area.
- that the council would continue to make
decisions it thought best because it was democratically elected to do
so
- there would be a need to change of culture in the
council in respect of how decisions were made and he was "well
up for the debate about how decisions were made".
- social renewal and regeneration were at the
heart of the agenda and there was a need for there to be more focus on
people.
- the Council's role along with Community
Partnerships was to tackle problems identified by people and show
that people can make a difference.
- The council's role was to offer strategic
direction for the city in respect of the central issues (e.g. health,
education, housing, culture and leisure services etc.)
Some 80 community members were present and an
overriding feeling was expressed that the expectations of local people were
not being met and that this was a challenge to the local authority.
|
