The recent decision by my local Council to cease funding for Rhyl Sun Centre has provoked a great deal of criticism. How much of that is fair remains to be seen.
Seeking to defend their decision, the local Council cited the inability of the appointed (not for profit) management organisation to contend with a 2.8% reduction in it's subsidy. That amounted to £50,000 annually. It is open to conjecture how their proposed £10 million project for an Aquatic Centre now looks given the importance attached to £50,000.
Of course, the real reason for closure of the three sites in Rhyl and Prestatyn is perhaps as barn door obvious as it seems. The smoke screen speaks of ineffective management and infrastructure in need of repair and upgrade. Much has also been made of the "shelf life" of the sites in question. The latter tickles me because even a tent will last for decades if constructed and looked after properly. The former North Wales Hospital was built in 1848. Had it not been for a series of outrageous decisions since it's doors finally closed in 1995, I have no doubt it would be still be standing and ready for another century of public service. I was under the impression that building had progressed since the Victorian era but I stand corrected if that is not the case. Perhaps it is the decision making which has deteriorated since Victorian times rather than the actual construction?
Returning to the closures though, it is obvious that the real motive has been cost saving. For all the rubbish spun out regarding mismanagement and deterioration, closure of the three sites will immediately save the Council millions of pounds per annum when they are being asked to make savings - in common with just about every other council in the UK. To debate whether such cuts is right or wrong is fast becoming academic because they are clearly here to stay. What is not academic is to discuss the most appropriate areas for these cuts to take place. The management structure at my Local Council is mind boggling. When I worked in the Private Sector for the largest wholesale food supplier in the UK, the machine was meaner and infinitely leaner. Every penny spent had to be justified and accounted for and if cuts were made, they were invariably based on past performance. We had nowhere near the number of managers which the local Council employs. The same local Council has this week announced a £250,000 project aimed at attracting tourists to the town of Ruthin.
The same local Council also gave the thumbs up to Tesco a few years back and it's fair to say the effect on the local high street has been significant. So rather than pursuing the attentions of tourists who might only visit sporadically, would it not be more instructive to try and pursue the local residents who appear to have deserted their high street in droves? Or is this not the priority of the council? I can only comment on what I see in front of my eyes and the evidence to suggest that the local Council is serious about high street regeneration is currently a little thin on the ground.
In a mirror image of the situation unfolding in my County, the locals of Ruabon and Plas Madoc are fighting to try and overturn the decision to close Plas Madoc Leisure Centre. As in my home county, the story is depressingly familiar. Two perfectly adequate leisure facilities are being dropped in favour of a new centre. The rationale is doubtless the same - perceived cost savings. A good friend of mine has recently ascertained that the Council making that decision had been paying a staggering £40,000 per annum for the lease of a photocopying machine. That leisure site was being run by the Council - not an outside body. I'm no expert on photocopy machines, but I would suggest that I could buy a reasonably good one for a fraction of that amount!
When any of us seek to justify the money we are spending in our own lives, we usually have to think about the impact of those decisions on our families and loved ones. I would have thought the same principle would hold for the local council?
No comments:
Post a Comment