Colchester Council to set up trading board (From Essex County Standard)

Yes whilst we let billionaires avoid their share of tax, l suppose in the present fiscal climate handouts from george and friends will be assuredly meagre. However l'm not sure what the council mean by a trading board.then there is the example of spend, this being the one visual example of council tax spend. That is if you discount the cost of employing the men that oversee the men that oversee the men that do the work.not forgeting the pension fund.

This will not end well. Maybe they should try getting better value for money on existing spending. Paying £2m-plus for a big bus shelter was not exactly prudent. The millions squandered on firsts*ite and the insatiable desire to chuck good money after bad year after year on vanity projects is testament to Colchester Council's financial incompetence.

The Bus Station is not controlled by Colchester Council, it is paid for by Essex County Council, but don't let the facts get in the way of a good moan.

You need to take a good trawl through the CBC spending data http://www.colcheste
r.gov.uk/opendata

Have a look for Bus Station enhancements!

By the way Gazette Cubs, there is a great entry in the December 2012 file.

£1.66m spent on Professional & Advisory Services for the Arts. The company it went to - 'Redacted - Personal Data'...???

There's another £75k in Grants, donations and sponsorship to Firsts*ite in there as well.

Oh and another £1280 to Firsts*ite Limited for 'Personal & Members Expenses'?

Plus £1170 spent on Professional & Advisory services from someone called Kate Hawkins. Hmm, that name seems familiar....

No offence, Gazette cubs, but the CBC spending data file is a treasure trove for a journalist with any sort of investigative flair....we can but hope that someone finds the stories behind the figures eventually.

CBC spent less than £1300 with Newsquest Media Group in December 2012. Hardly seems enough to ensure an easy ride...

They gave more to the Creative Co-Op. £1875 in December 2012 for 'miscellaneous and other expenses'. Well, Xmas is a time for giving after all...

Bert really needs to use facts rather than fiction if he wants his points to mean anything. About 90 per cent of the money to pay for our wonderful new bus facility and innovative arts centre came from bodies other than Colchester Council who paid hardly any of it. So now carry on Bert ........

You miss the point old timer. My point is that Colchester Council has a track record of wasting money (whatever the source of funding for a project). The idea of the Council setting up a trading board is laughable.

The 'wonderful' new bus facility is probably the most expensive smoking shelter in the UK.

The 'innovative' golden shed is an unmitigated financial disaster run by firsts*ite public sector leeches.

Look forward to your response at 15:30 when Countdown has finished and you've had your Rachel Riley fix for the day!

OK then Bert why do you and your fellow moaners not stand as independent's at the next local elections on the premise that you are going to change Colchester and its council for the better, removing the needless and wasteful spending, reinstating the bus station, letting the VAF fend for itself etc etc etc?

We live in a democratic country when anyone can stand for office. You are more likely to success at local level if you fight for those areas that you perceive and believe others perceive to be wrong.

Or is it the case it is too easy to come on here and moan about the current administration without having the responsibility or will to try and change it?!

Bert_Stimpson wrote:
You need to take a good trawl through the CBC spending data http://www.colcheste

r.gov.uk/opendata

Have a look for Bus Station enhancements!

By the way Gazette Cubs, there is a great entry in the December 2012 file.

£1.66m spent on Professional & Advisory Services for the Arts. The company it went to - 'Redacted - Personal Data'...???

There's another £75k in Grants, donations and sponsorship to Firsts*ite in there as well.

Oh and another £1280 to Firsts*ite Limited for 'Personal & Members Expenses'?

Yes but the bus station enhancements are under £10000.

A bargain.

Most of the cash was from Essex. The toilets will be Colchester's plus possibly the electronic signage.

Incompetence ineptitude self delusion should disqualify the incumbents from standing for another term of office.willing is not enough.a modicom of intelligence is a necessity.

TheCaptain wrote:

Bert_Stimpson wrote:
You need to take a good trawl through the CBC spending data http://www.colcheste


r.gov.uk/opendata

Have a look for Bus Station enhancements!

By the way Gazette Cubs, there is a great entry in the December 2012 file.

£1.66m spent on Professional & Advisory Services for the Arts. The company it went to - 'Redacted - Personal Data'...???

There's another £75k in Grants, donations and sponsorship to Firsts*ite in there as well.

Oh and another £1280 to Firsts*ite Limited for 'Personal & Members Expenses'?

Yes but the bus station enhancements are under £10000.

A bargain.

Most of the cash was from Essex. The toilets will be Colchester's plus possibly the electronic signage.

Thanks Captain.

So what's the £1.66m for. Is that really the firsts*ite grant. Why on earth is the recipient redacted for personal reasons?

TheCaptain wrote:

Bert_Stimpson wrote:
You need to take a good trawl through the CBC spending data http://www.colcheste


r.gov.uk/opendata

Have a look for Bus Station enhancements!

By the way Gazette Cubs, there is a great entry in the December 2012 file.

£1.66m spent on Professional & Advisory Services for the Arts. The company it went to - 'Redacted - Personal Data'...???

There's another £75k in Grants, donations and sponsorship to Firsts*ite in there as well.

Oh and another £1280 to Firsts*ite Limited for 'Personal & Members Expenses'?

Yes but the bus station enhancements are under £10000.

A bargain.

Most of the cash was from Essex. The toilets will be Colchester's plus possibly the electronic signage.

"...will be Colchester's plus possibly the electronic signage."


An excellent example of incompetence, the 64 goes to Layers de la Haye (sic), the 68 to Stanway, the 70 & 71 go to Bus Station no mention that it is Chelmsford, the list of errors in endless.

It doubt its CBC in charge of those signs it will be the bus companies, or potentially ECC from the traffic management site in County Hall.

Back to the story.. presumably a trading board is CBC hawking its wares to other councils and small businesses, could be fruitful, HR, IT, legal etc. Shared services is popular right now.

Councils knew years ago that government funding would be reduced year after year under the coalition government's deficit reduction program. Unfortunately lack of growth means the deficit is still growing. So can expect the funding to councils to be cut even faster.
.
Unfortunately Colchester Council still follows their ambitious historic development plans. Anyone can see the depressing result in the ever increasing abandoned areas of the so called cultural quarter.
.
Colchester Council destroyed prospects of selling Tymperleys by deliberately concealing relevant information. Even now they refuse to admit the extensive and expensive repairs required.
.
It seems Colchester Council has offended every interest group over their wacky ideas except perhaps the Firstsite parasites. Who is likely to help this increasingly ineffective municipal authority?

Bert_Stimpson wrote:

TheCaptain wrote:

Bert_Stimpson wrote:
You need to take a good trawl through the CBC spending data http://www.colcheste



r.gov.uk/opendata

Have a look for Bus Station enhancements!

By the way Gazette Cubs, there is a great entry in the December 2012 file.

£1.66m spent on Professional & Advisory Services for the Arts. The company it went to - 'Redacted - Personal Data'...???

There's another £75k in Grants, donations and sponsorship to Firsts*ite in there as well.

Oh and another £1280 to Firsts*ite Limited for 'Personal & Members Expenses'?

Yes but the bus station enhancements are under £10000.

A bargain.

Most of the cash was from Essex. The toilets will be Colchester's plus possibly the electronic signage.

Thanks Captain.

So what's the £1.66m for. Is that really the firsts*ite grant. Why on earth is the recipient redacted for personal reasons?

Perhaps we don't need to know who it was paid to but I'd like to know what the £1.66M was for.

TheCaptain wrote:

Bert_Stimpson wrote:

TheCaptain wrote:

Bert_Stimpson wrote:
You need to take a good trawl through the CBC spending data http://www.colcheste




r.gov.uk/opendata

Have a look for Bus Station enhancements!

By the way Gazette Cubs, there is a great entry in the December 2012 file.

£1.66m spent on Professional & Advisory Services for the Arts. The company it went to - 'Redacted - Personal Data'...???

There's another £75k in Grants, donations and sponsorship to Firsts*ite in there as well.

Oh and another £1280 to Firsts*ite Limited for 'Personal & Members Expenses'?

Yes but the bus station enhancements are under £10000.

A bargain.

Most of the cash was from Essex. The toilets will be Colchester's plus possibly the electronic signage.

Thanks Captain.

So what's the £1.66m for. Is that really the firsts*ite grant. Why on earth is the recipient redacted for personal reasons?

Perhaps we don't need to know who it was paid to but I'd like to know what the £1.66M was for.

Me too! The irony is that it is on a site called opengov, but it is the single biggest item on that file, and is 25% of the complete list. It is all very well listing every item worth a tenner, but it does rather go against the idea of opengov to then hide the recipient.

Bert_Stimpson wrote:
This will not end well. Maybe they should try getting better value for money on existing spending. Paying £2m-plus for a big bus shelter was not exactly prudent. The millions squandered on firsts*ite and the insatiable desire to chuck good money after bad year after year on vanity projects is testament to Colchester Council's financial incompetence.

I notice the quote about Firstsite and the money to fund it:
Does anyone have any clear transparency on actually how much the local ratepayer has actually contributed to the Art Venue?
I am not a supporter of the Site but it appears to be an issue.
As for the Bus Station it is appreciated that the location and type of unit was a compromise.
It does appear expensive on the cost stated.
This is a sign of the times, prices appear to be similar across the board, for this type of work.
John Vencato.+

The direct funding to Firstsite from Colchester Council and ECC is made public. What is kept secret is the handouts that are charged to other account codes plus the council staff time used but not charged to Firstsite.
.
On Tuesday I watched a misuse of the VAF facilities paid for by the public and funded by the public. Birkitt and Long were holding an investment seminar for the rich and naturally the ordinary public were excluded from the areas they used including the restaurant. Illegal as totally against the Firstsite charitable objects and the VAD lease terms in that every thing must be related to the arts.
.
The misuse of the VAF happens repeatedly and even the art elite must be disgusted that rich supporters can abuse a publicly funded institution. Yet no one dares to object.

So Firstsite is making money - and saving the taxpayer money - by hiring out the building to someone paying a fee.And Andy doesn't like it. I thought he didn't like the cost to the public purse of running it. Make your mind up mate.

Hamiltonandy wrote:
The direct funding to Firstsite from Colchester Council and ECC is made public. What is kept secret is the handouts that are charged to other account codes plus the council staff time used but not charged to Firstsite.
.
On Tuesday I watched a misuse of the VAF facilities paid for by the public and funded by the public. Birkitt and Long were holding an investment seminar for the rich and naturally the ordinary public were excluded from the areas they used including the restaurant. Illegal as totally against the Firstsite charitable objects and the VAD lease terms in that every thing must be related to the arts.
.
The misuse of the VAF happens repeatedly and even the art elite must be disgusted that rich supporters can abuse a publicly funded institution. Yet no one dares to object.

And I'm sure that the company paid for it's use therefore reducing the amount of subside required.

So your thoughts then on when events in the Castle Park during normal opening times have an admission charge?

There is no excuse for Birkitt and Long to ignore the legal requirements of the VAF lease and Firstsites charitable objects. Quite unethical behaviour and soon to result in complaints to the legal authorities. The blatant misuse of public facilities happened last year and they were warned it was unacceptable. Shame on this firm for its arrogant behaviour.
.
Regarding Castle Park, there seems no similar restrictions on charged events. Also previous events have been for public benefit and not to a select group of wealthy individuals.

I did not set the rules. It was the Arts Council and Colchester Council. If the VAF is going to become an exhibition area for anyone who can pay then it is up to the authorities to change the legal requirements. However the question would then be why so much public money was wasted providing an impractical and unviable facility for commercial business to operate. We were told we would have an internationally recognised prestigious art gallery. In reality it is a financial failure and a hideous monument to council status seeking.

So, does anyone know what the Council £1.66m payment was for and who it went to in December 2012? Does anyone at the Gazette know?

How can they possibly justify redacting the name of the recipient. I'm in shock from seeing that.

Hamiltonandy wrote:
I did not set the rules. It was the Arts Council and Colchester Council. If the VAF is going to become an exhibition area for anyone who can pay then it is up to the authorities to change the legal requirements. However the question would then be why so much public money was wasted providing an impractical and unviable facility for commercial business to operate. We were told we would have an internationally recognised prestigious art gallery. In reality it is a financial failure and a hideous monument to council status seeking.

True, and we should continue to look into the whole history of the project. However, nobody gains anything if it continues to be a financial failure, so it might be best that there are alternative sources of money - eg having the place hired out for conferences, gigs, meetings etc. If these things happen, it might lead to a reduction in the level of public subsidy.

It seems evident that art alone is not going to bring in the number of visitors expected / promised / dreamed about.

The money has already been spent, we will not get that back. I want the place to work, because it has cost all of us our hard-earned money. If there has been fraud and crime in the project, as barside1 has recently suggested, I also want to know about that. If they are hiring the place out, I applaud that, because it means somebody in marketing is finally doing things right.

Hamiltonandy wrote:
There is no excuse for Birkitt and Long to ignore the legal requirements of the VAF lease and Firstsites charitable objects. Quite unethical behaviour and soon to result in complaints to the legal authorities. The blatant misuse of public facilities happened last year and they were warned it was unacceptable. Shame on this firm for its arrogant behaviour.
.
Regarding Castle Park, there seems no similar restrictions on charged events. Also previous events have been for public benefit and not to a select group of wealthy individuals.

Perhaps there are rules for one and not the other. However the principal is the same.

You can't complain about restricted access for one public space and not another.

Bert_Stimpson wrote:
So, does anyone know what the Council £1.66m payment was for and who it went to in December 2012? Does anyone at the Gazette know?

How can they possibly justify redacting the name of the recipient. I'm in shock from seeing that.

none of us anyawy

I forgot to mention it was an Art council requirement that no charge could be made on entrance to the art gallery. Other Art council conditions control what sort of art displays are allowed. Essentially the Art council requirements ensured the VAF would always be a financial disaster depending almost completely on public subsidies.
.
I have a VAF lease copy extracted despite Colchester council initial refusals and that shows Colchester Council has no control over Firstsite. They can do as little as they like and the money will still roll in.
.
I want to see the Mercury Theatre and the Colchester Arts Centre survive the unending recession. It is shameful that the delusions of our status seeking elected dictatorship still props up the failed "cultural quarter" fantasy whilst cutting funding to popular performing art institutions.

Hamiltonandy wrote:
I forgot to mention it was an Art council requirement that no charge could be made on entrance to the art gallery. Other Art council conditions control what sort of art displays are allowed. Essentially the Art council requirements ensured the VAF would always be a financial disaster depending almost completely on public subsidies.
.
I have a VAF lease copy extracted despite Colchester council initial refusals and that shows Colchester Council has no control over Firstsite. They can do as little as they like and the money will still roll in.
.
I want to see the Mercury Theatre and the Colchester Arts Centre survive the unending recession. It is shameful that the delusions of our status seeking elected dictatorship still props up the failed "cultural quarter" fantasy whilst cutting funding to popular performing art institutions.

Does the art council requirement specify opening times? I doubt it.

So the art gallery is free when it's open to the public.

At times when it is not open to the public the building can be hired out for private use. Where is the problem here?

This is only cause you hate Firstsite and CBC.

The Birkitt and Long seminar for the rich was on Tuesday starting at 10am - the same time as it was supposed to be open to the public.
.
I hate the complete misuse of public money by Colchester Council on a structurally deficient unviable hideous carbuncle called the Visual Arts Facility. If Colchester Council behave like an elected dictatorship then they will go on being humiliated until they act in the public interest.
.
I realise the VAF is here but financial reality means it cannot go on being a financial black hole. So far Colchester Council has never welcomed any suggestions to make it viable. At any council meeting there was ample opportunity for councillors to ask what I would do. Unfortunately Colchester Council believes the Art Council grants will flow at an ever increasing rate despite the poor national financial outlook.
.
If anyone doubts the unacceptable behaviour of Colchester Council - just look at the failed sale of Tymperleys. Every party involved and even the local Art cafe were misled and misinformed. I wanted to see Tymperleys used for charitable purposes and funds were available two years ago. Colchester Council ensured I could not bid by keeping the gate locked on an inspection visit. Myself, a representative of the Civic society and the selling estate agent were kept out despite the appointment being agreed in advance. No apology was given or alternative dates offered despite protests to the responsible councillor and at three council meetings. Shame on this arrogant petty morally deficient organisation.

Hamiltonandy wrote:
The Birkitt and Long seminar for the rich was on Tuesday starting at 10am - the same time as it was supposed to be open to the public.
.
I hate the complete misuse of public money by Colchester Council on a structurally deficient unviable hideous carbuncle called the Visual Arts Facility. If Colchester Council behave like an elected dictatorship then they will go on being humiliated until they act in the public interest.
.
I realise the VAF is here but financial reality means it cannot go on being a financial black hole. So far Colchester Council has never welcomed any suggestions to make it viable. At any council meeting there was ample opportunity for councillors to ask what I would do. Unfortunately Colchester Council believes the Art Council grants will flow at an ever increasing rate despite the poor national financial outlook.
.
If anyone doubts the unacceptable behaviour of Colchester Council - just look at the failed sale of Tymperleys. Every party involved and even the local Art cafe were misled and misinformed. I wanted to see Tymperleys used for charitable purposes and funds were available two years ago. Colchester Council ensured I could not bid by keeping the gate locked on an inspection visit. Myself, a representative of the Civic society and the selling estate agent were kept out despite the appointment being agreed in advance. No apology was given or alternative dates offered despite protests to the responsible councillor and at three council meetings. Shame on this arrogant petty morally deficient organisation.

The problem is Andy you bang on about the VAF costing us money and still complain when they make money. All a very mixed message.

Also just because you don't like the look of the building doesn't mean that lots of people like it. The design is a matter opinion not fact.

Reading all the squabbles etc still leaves me puzzled as to what the trading board is going to trade.surely not competence and forward planning skills.

wellnow wrote:
Reading all the squabbles etc still leaves me puzzled as to what the trading board is going to trade.surely not competence and forward planning skills.

I believe the idea is to make money with commercial like ventures.

Trying to make Leisure World profitable etc

TheCaptain wrote:

wellnow wrote:
Reading all the squabbles etc still leaves me puzzled as to what the trading board is going to trade.surely not competence and forward planning skills.

I believe the idea is to make money with commercial like ventures.

Trying to make Leisure World profitable etc

I'm still puzzled who got £1.66m for Professional and Advisory Services for the Arts from Colchester Council in December 2012.

That's a quarter of the monthly spend. And they redacted the name of the recipient.

That's crazy. What possible reason is there for redacting the name on a payment of that size.