What else is under threat? It would be a bit devious to create a smokescreen and say that this popular amenity is under threat, get everyones back up into forming petitions, and then give it a last minute reprieve, cancelling something else that is controversial but doesn't involve cuddly animals in its stead. I believe something similar happened on Yes Minister also involving an animal park and a employee car park.
Sadly all local authorities are in a similar position and having to make decisions of this nature. The cost of living crisis has had an unprecedented impact on local authority budgets and many have burnt through their reserves and are on the brink of bankruptcy.
There are statutory services which have to be provided and quite frankly local authorities cannot afford to deliver them.
Comments like "it only saves them £70k" are ridiculous. The situation is so bad that literally every penny counts.
Rest assured no one at Greenwich will want the Park to close and there will no doubt be a hope that the story leaking out will attract private funding or assistance.
so why the £85k Political Advisor spend then? Community and local benefit or reinforcing dogma and petty political bollocks.
You're not being entirely transparent there. There are two roles (1 full time, 1 x part time) and the money was for fixed term contracts of nearly 2 years. Yes, I'm sad enough to look it up. They'd hardly be highly paid advisors in Westminster circles on those salaries.
And it was in response to a LGA peer review, that recommended the political groups making up the administration and opposition needed some additional admin and research support.
I'll confess, I don't know whether or not having these roles makes the running of the authority more or less efficient. Nor how their role intercepts with the existing democratic services roles (I suspect they are able to give more partial advice though).
But if it means those taking decisions are better informed about central government policies, upcoming political threats, incoming laws, funding opportunities available, etc. I'd say there's a chance that money spent on ensuring a fully informed decision is not necessary a bad thing.
And these roles, or the diversity officers or the Pride liaison officers, that the right wing press has convinced so many members of the public councils are chockablock with, are most definitely not the reason local authorities are having to take decisions like this one on the park.
Lets keep it simple. These councils spaff the public's money on whatever takes their fancy. They are supposed to exist to provide the necessary services to the community that pays them. Instead of that they make themselves 'Rulers' - as if we don't have enough of them.
They force their ideology through all these various virtue signalling 'Officers' and who is paying for their wages, benefits and pensions? Basically they have lost the plot, forgotten their function and could not organise the proverbial 'p' up in a brewery. Oh yes, and what the hell is 'right wing', exactly?
I’m sure it’s very easy from where you’re sitting, but one of the councils in the biggest trouble is Kent County Council, which I doubt is because it’s long-time Tory leadership has been employing officers for the purpose of virtue signalling.
Thanet is nowhere near their situation but our spending is being driven up by demand led statutory obligations, principally around providing temporary accommodation for established residents at risk of homelessness. Some districts are spending half their annual revenue budget on this. Our council tax is about £270 a year for band D property - Kent decides and makes up most of the rest of the bill which we collect.
I have no idea what considerations Greenwich have around the animal park, but if it was a choice they wanted to make they would have done it years ago since the budgets have been cut since at least 2010, in part because the proportion of reduced government funding was deliberately moved away from areas with high levels of deprivation.
Do councils always get it right? Of course not, regardless of political control. Take a look at Woking and Thurrock. But they are not masters of their own destiny either.
The argument always comes down to some people think taxpayers money is wasted on rubbish, whilst others think the spending is justified. It all resonates with the old Oscar Wilde quote about knowing the cost of everything but the value of nothing
The Marion Wilson Animal Park has provided an inner city access to animals for generations. It is unfortunate that when granting the land, and then the animals, that a modest endowment was not also made for the upkeep of the animal park and that use of the land was granted to the council for whatever purpose they want.
I guess when the grant was made there was no thought of the current hollowing out of public services.
Sadly now, you'd need a fund if around £1.5m to produce income of £70k a year, if that is what is needed to keep the park going on a sustainable basis. I would imagine if you needed full time staff rather than it being a part of existing council
staff's responsibilities it would cost more just in wages.
One of the issues this country has, with the exception of a limited number of well endowed charities, former charities and the very well off is that so much of the provision of services is expected to come from current year income and so little from income off capital set aside to support free or subsidised initiatives.
In this case what would be helpful would be if the council, rather than to close the wildlife park, were to continue to fund it while an initiative to move the running of it onto a charitable body that was able to develop enough capital and donations to maintain the park in perpetuity, as intended by its original benefactors.
Running a wildlife park is not a part of the core business of a council and it would be better for all if a solution that did not depend upon the vagaries of council funding were found.
Used to live in Flamsteed Road and cut through the park when venturing down to Charlton on a Saturday afternoon. Would have preferred to drive and leave the car around my mums, but some inconsiderate git and his duck sounding son used to park across my drive
See they are advertising for an interpreter at £25 per hour.
would it be too much to ask to learn English, or pay for your own interpreter? This is how it works in Spain after having to deal with mother in laws death. Saddens me that we can have diversity, race, equality, inclusion bollocks, but something your average Joe enjoys, no fuck that can go.
Agree.
’We are covering as many as 102 languages spoken in the borough.’
This is ludicrous.
I can understand the council paying towards English lessons for those who need them.
Interpretors only prevent learning. It’s a short term fix.
Interpretors are for business / visitors not residents. It’s an expensive short term solution. Residents must learn the language and if they refuse and have problems then tough shit. I’m all for helping people but only for those who show willingness to learn.
Greenwich Borough employed interpreters visit my wife and daughter’s nursery in Blackfen on a regular basis speaking on behalf of non English speaking parents looking for a place for their child.
I got chatting to one of them who explained it’s a cushy job, they get paid for traveling the same rate as when they are working so she got the bus everywhere as it took longer to get around.
I would imagine there are hundreds of nursery’s across the borough so if you just add up the nursery visit bills it must be costing a fortune
Greenwich Borough employed interpreters visit my wife and daughter’s nursery in Blackfen on a regular basis speaking on behalf of non English speaking parents looking for a place for their child.
I got chatting to one of them who explained it’s a cushy job, they get paid for traveling the same rate as when they are working so she got the bus everywhere as it took longer to get around.
I would imagine there are hundreds of nursery’s across the borough so if you just add up the nursery visit bills it must be costing a fortune
Is there a way of finding out the exact annual costs?
Used to live in Flamsteed Road and cut through the park when venturing down to Charlton on a Saturday afternoon. Would have preferred to drive and leave the car around my mums, but some inconsiderate git and his duck sounding son used to park across my drive
See they are advertising for an interpreter at £25 per hour.
would it be too much to ask to learn English, or pay for your own interpreter? This is how it works in Spain after having to deal with mother in laws death. Saddens me that we can have diversity, race, equality, inclusion bollocks, but something your average Joe enjoys, no fuck that can go.
Agree.
’We are covering as many as 102 languages spoken in the borough.’
This is ludicrous.
I can understand the council paying towards English lessons for those who need them.
Interpretors only prevent learning. It’s a short term fix.
Interpretors are for business / visitors not residents. It’s an expensive short term solution. Residents must learn the language and if they refuse and have problems then tough shit. I’m all for helping people but only for those who show willingness to learn.
If only the funding for ESOL hadn't been drastically cut over the last 15 years, eh!
Greenwich Borough employed interpreters visit my wife and daughter’s nursery in Blackfen on a regular basis speaking on behalf of non English speaking parents looking for a place for their child.
I got chatting to one of them who explained it’s a cushy job, they get paid for traveling the same rate as when they are working so she got the bus everywhere as it took longer to get around.
I would imagine there are hundreds of nursery’s across the borough so if you just add up the nursery visit bills it must be costing a fortune
Is there a way of finding out the exact annual costs?
No idea, our nursery doesn’t have access to figures.
The above is just stage one, if the child or children get accepted into the nursery it generally follows a pattern that if the parents need an interpreter they will also be claiming funding for the child to attend.
My wife showed me the accounts and she gets paid approximately £70,000 every 4 months by Greenwich council (£210,000) PA for funded children. So once again multiply that by all the nursery’s in the borough and the amount is staggering
So many childhood memories of MW park. Lived on Kinveachy Gardens ( my parents still there) from 1985. I get it that councils are having to make tough financial decisions but closing the animal section of this park is just wrong. Petition signed
Sadly all local authorities are in a similar position and having to make decisions of this nature. The cost of living crisis has had an unprecedented impact on local authority budgets and many have burnt through their reserves and are on the brink of bankruptcy.
There are statutory services which have to be provided and quite frankly local authorities cannot afford to deliver them.
Comments like "it only saves them £70k" are ridiculous. The situation is so bad that literally every penny counts.
Rest assured no one at Greenwich will want the Park to close and there will no doubt be a hope that the story leaking out will attract private funding or assistance.
so why the £85k Political Advisor spend then? Community and local benefit or reinforcing dogma and petty political bollocks.
You're not being entirely transparent there. There are two roles (1 full time, 1 x part time) and the money was for fixed term contracts of nearly 2 years. Yes, I'm sad enough to look it up. They'd hardly be highly paid advisors in Westminster circles on those salaries.
And it was in response to a LGA peer review, that recommended the political groups making up the administration and opposition needed some additional admin and research support.
I'll confess, I don't know whether or not having these roles makes the running of the authority more or less efficient. Nor how their role intercepts with the existing democratic services roles (I suspect they are able to give more partial advice though).
But if it means those taking decisions are better informed about central government policies, upcoming political threats, incoming laws, funding opportunities available, etc. I'd say there's a chance that money spent on ensuring a fully informed decision is not necessary a bad thing.
And these roles, or the diversity officers or the Pride liaison officers, that the right wing press has convinced so many members of the public councils are chockablock with, are most definitely not the reason local authorities are having to take decisions like this one on the park.
Lets keep it simple. These councils spaff the public's money on whatever takes their fancy. They are supposed to exist to provide the necessary services to the community that pays them. Instead of that they make themselves 'Rulers' - as if we don't have enough of them.
They force their ideology through all these various virtue signalling 'Officers' and who is paying for their wages, benefits and pensions? Basically they have lost the plot, forgotten their function and could not organise the proverbial 'p' up in a brewery. Oh yes, and what the hell is 'right wing', exactly?
I wonder how many of the people denouncing this actually visited the park more than once, ever.
I’ve never been, didn’t even know it existed. But I signed the petition because I worry about the animals and because children should have access to inner city farms imho (having worked on a voluntary basis at both Mudchute and Vauxhall).
Sadly all local authorities are in a similar position and having to make decisions of this nature. The cost of living crisis has had an unprecedented impact on local authority budgets and many have burnt through their reserves and are on the brink of bankruptcy.
There are statutory services which have to be provided and quite frankly local authorities cannot afford to deliver them.
Comments like "it only saves them £70k" are ridiculous. The situation is so bad that literally every penny counts.
Rest assured no one at Greenwich will want the Park to close and there will no doubt be a hope that the story leaking out will attract private funding or assistance.
so why the £85k Political Advisor spend then? Community and local benefit or reinforcing dogma and petty political bollocks.
You're not being entirely transparent there. There are two roles (1 full time, 1 x part time) and the money was for fixed term contracts of nearly 2 years. Yes, I'm sad enough to look it up. They'd hardly be highly paid advisors in Westminster circles on those salaries.
And it was in response to a LGA peer review, that recommended the political groups making up the administration and opposition needed some additional admin and research support.
I'll confess, I don't know whether or not having these roles makes the running of the authority more or less efficient. Nor how their role intercepts with the existing democratic services roles (I suspect they are able to give more partial advice though).
But if it means those taking decisions are better informed about central government policies, upcoming political threats, incoming laws, funding opportunities available, etc. I'd say there's a chance that money spent on ensuring a fully informed decision is not necessary a bad thing.
And these roles, or the diversity officers or the Pride liaison officers, that the right wing press has convinced so many members of the public councils are chockablock with, are most definitely not the reason local authorities are having to take decisions like this one on the park.
Lets keep it simple. These councils spaff the public's money on whatever takes their fancy. They are supposed to exist to provide the necessary services to the community that pays them. Instead of that they make themselves 'Rulers' - as if we don't have enough of them.
They force their ideology through all these various virtue signalling 'Officers' and who is paying for their wages, benefits and pensions? Basically they have lost the plot, forgotten their function and could not organise the proverbial 'p' up in a brewery. Oh yes, and what the hell is 'right wing', exactly?
I’m sure it’s very easy from where you’re sitting, but one of the councils in the biggest trouble is Kent County Council, which I doubt is because it’s long-time Tory leadership has been employing officers for the purpose of virtue signalling.
Thanet is nowhere near their situation but our spending is being driven up by demand led statutory obligations, principally around providing temporary accommodation for established residents at risk of homelessness. Some districts are spending half their annual revenue budget on this. Our council tax is about £270 a year for band D property - Kent decides and makes up most of the rest of the bill which we collect.
I have no idea what considerations Greenwich have around the animal park, but if it was a choice they wanted to make they would have done it years ago since the budgets have been cut since at least 2010, in part because the proportion of reduced government funding was deliberately moved away from areas with high levels of deprivation.
Do councils always get it right? Of course not, regardless of political control. Take a look at Woking and Thurrock. But they are not masters of their own destiny either.
Not sure you can include Thurrock into that bracket their main issues stem from 1 idiot being taken in by a con man and chucking their money into bad solar investments
Sadly all local authorities are in a similar position and having to make decisions of this nature. The cost of living crisis has had an unprecedented impact on local authority budgets and many have burnt through their reserves and are on the brink of bankruptcy.
There are statutory services which have to be provided and quite frankly local authorities cannot afford to deliver them.
Comments like "it only saves them £70k" are ridiculous. The situation is so bad that literally every penny counts.
Rest assured no one at Greenwich will want the Park to close and there will no doubt be a hope that the story leaking out will attract private funding or assistance.
so why the £85k Political Advisor spend then? Community and local benefit or reinforcing dogma and petty political bollocks.
You're not being entirely transparent there. There are two roles (1 full time, 1 x part time) and the money was for fixed term contracts of nearly 2 years. Yes, I'm sad enough to look it up. They'd hardly be highly paid advisors in Westminster circles on those salaries.
And it was in response to a LGA peer review, that recommended the political groups making up the administration and opposition needed some additional admin and research support.
I'll confess, I don't know whether or not having these roles makes the running of the authority more or less efficient. Nor how their role intercepts with the existing democratic services roles (I suspect they are able to give more partial advice though).
But if it means those taking decisions are better informed about central government policies, upcoming political threats, incoming laws, funding opportunities available, etc. I'd say there's a chance that money spent on ensuring a fully informed decision is not necessary a bad thing.
And these roles, or the diversity officers or the Pride liaison officers, that the right wing press has convinced so many members of the public councils are chockablock with, are most definitely not the reason local authorities are having to take decisions like this one on the park.
Lets keep it simple. These councils spaff the public's money on whatever takes their fancy. They are supposed to exist to provide the necessary services to the community that pays them. Instead of that they make themselves 'Rulers' - as if we don't have enough of them.
They force their ideology through all these various virtue signalling 'Officers' and who is paying for their wages, benefits and pensions? Basically they have lost the plot, forgotten their function and could not organise the proverbial 'p' up in a brewery. Oh yes, and what the hell is 'right wing', exactly?
I’m sure it’s very easy from where you’re sitting, but one of the councils in the biggest trouble is Kent County Council, which I doubt is because it’s long-time Tory leadership has been employing officers for the purpose of virtue signalling.
Thanet is nowhere near their situation but our spending is being driven up by demand led statutory obligations, principally around providing temporary accommodation for established residents at risk of homelessness. Some districts are spending half their annual revenue budget on this. Our council tax is about £270 a year for band D property - Kent decides and makes up most of the rest of the bill which we collect.
I have no idea what considerations Greenwich have around the animal park, but if it was a choice they wanted to make they would have done it years ago since the budgets have been cut since at least 2010, in part because the proportion of reduced government funding was deliberately moved away from areas with high levels of deprivation.
Do councils always get it right? Of course not, regardless of political control. Take a look at Woking and Thurrock. But they are not masters of their own destiny either.
Not sure you can include Thurrock into that bracket their main issues stem from 1 idiot being taken in by a con man and chucking their money into bad solar investments
There are plenty of safeguards against councils making bad investments. It only happens when the people in charge turn a blind eye to them. That’s never just one man.
I’ll add Northampton, who allowed the football club owners to make off with a grant to build their stand, and were abolished as a consequence.
So... is the conclusion here that the (good old British values) animal park is being closed due to immigration?
Worrying how this mindset has really taken hold.
I truly value this insight into the mindset though. It's good to be aware of it (again, I think)
No I didn’t read it that way.
I think the observation was that if it only saves £70k per year there might be other expenditure that could be cut to mitigate - an example possibly being expense of multiple languages support.
But you'd like to think there are other things that could also be identified.
I’d have suggested cutting back on cycle lane schemes but believe that may be all or part funded by TFL. Which in itself is another example of bureaucratic and complex financial control where we lose sight of total spend and relative priorities.
Seems a (not the only) root cause might be temp accommodation costs which come from existing residents if i understood correctly. I don’t know what drives that mostly - possibly private landlord rent rises?
Easy to identify issues hard to find the least painful compromises. It’s a sorry sacrifice to have to make because if it goes it likely would never return even with a different political party in Greenwich.
So... is the conclusion here that the (good old British values) animal park is being closed due to immigration?
Worrying how this mindset has really taken hold.
I truly value this insight into the mindset though. It's good to be aware of it (again, I think)
No I didn’t read it that way.
I think the observation was that if it only saves £70k per year there might be other expenditure that could be cut to mitigate - an example possibly being expense of multiple languages support.
But you'd like to think there are other things that could also be identified.
I’d have suggested cutting back on cycle lane schemes but believe that may be all or part funded by TFL. Which in itself is another example of bureaucratic and complex financial control where we lose sight of total spend and relative priorities.
Seems a (not the only) root cause might be temp accommodation costs which come from existing residents if i understood correctly. I don’t know what drives that mostly - possibly private landlord rent rises?
Easy to identify issues hard to find the least painful compromises. It’s a sorry sacrifice to have to make because if it goes it likely would never return even with a different political party in Greenwich.
As a unitary authority Greenwich will have issues funding social care and SEND (special educational needs), which is a big part of Kent’s problems. They will also have a temporary accommodation/ homelessness problem but it’s a smaller share of their much larger budget than it is for a district council (which doesn’t do social care or SEND).
The key thing is that all the above are statutory services and Greenwich has a legal duty to provide them on an equal access basis, so for example they have to provide interpreters if needed. They can’t choose not to do so. Providing an animal park is discretionary, however good a thing it is to do.
Cycle lanes are unlikely to require much by the way of annual revenue expenditure. They are a one-off capital cost and can be funded, for example, from on-street parking fees. An animal park cannot be, by law.
So... is the conclusion here that the (good old British values) animal park is being closed due to immigration?
Worrying how this mindset has really taken hold.
I truly value this insight into the mindset though. It's good to be aware of it (again, I think)
No I didn’t read it that way.
I think the observation was that if it only saves £70k per year there might be other expenditure that could be cut to mitigate - an example possibly being expense of multiple languages support.
But you'd like to think there are other things that could also be identified.
I’d have suggested cutting back on cycle lane schemes but believe that may be all or part funded by TFL. Which in itself is another example of bureaucratic and complex financial control where we lose sight of total spend and relative priorities.
Seems a (not the only) root cause might be temp accommodation costs which come from existing residents if i understood correctly. I don’t know what drives that mostly - possibly private landlord rent rises?
Easy to identify issues hard to find the least painful compromises. It’s a sorry sacrifice to have to make because if it goes it likely would never return even with a different political party in Greenwich.
As a unitary authority Greenwich will have issues funding social care and SEND (special educational needs), which is a big part of Kent’s problems. They will also have a temporary accommodation/ homelessness problem but it’s a smaller share of their much larger budget than it is for a district council (which doesn’t do social care or SEND).
The key thing is that all the above are statutory services and Greenwich has a legal duty to provide them on an equal access basis, so for example they have to provide interpreters if needed. They can’t choose not to do so. Providing an animal park is discretionary, however good a thing it is to do.
Cycle lanes are unlikely to require much by the way of annual revenue expenditure. They are a one-off capital cost and can be funded, for example, from on-street parking fees. An animal park cannot be, by law.
Understood.
I guess the surprise of the example of languages might be the number of languages supported and if all are statutory ?
Also highlights how some mandatory / statutory things evolve over time beyond what was potentially envisaged when first legislated for.
But there will be other discretionary items you’d like to think even if absolutely the £70k must be found.
But as I say the compromise will hurt someone - 80/20 rule and all that.
So... is the conclusion here that the (good old British values) animal park is being closed due to immigration?
Worrying how this mindset has really taken hold.
I truly value this insight into the mindset though. It's good to be aware of it (again, I think)
No I didn’t read it that way.
I think the observation was that if it only saves £70k per year there might be other expenditure that could be cut to mitigate - an example possibly being expense of multiple languages support.
But you'd like to think there are other things that could also be identified.
I’d have suggested cutting back on cycle lane schemes but believe that may be all or part funded by TFL. Which in itself is another example of bureaucratic and complex financial control where we lose sight of total spend and relative priorities.
Seems a (not the only) root cause might be temp accommodation costs which come from existing residents if i understood correctly. I don’t know what drives that mostly - possibly private landlord rent rises?
Easy to identify issues hard to find the least painful compromises. It’s a sorry sacrifice to have to make because if it goes it likely would never return even with a different political party in Greenwich.
As a unitary authority Greenwich will have issues funding social care and SEND (special educational needs), which is a big part of Kent’s problems. They will also have a temporary accommodation/ homelessness problem but it’s a smaller share of their much larger budget than it is for a district council (which doesn’t do social care or SEND).
The key thing is that all the above are statutory services and Greenwich has a legal duty to provide them on an equal access basis, so for example they have to provide interpreters if needed. They can’t choose not to do so. Providing an animal park is discretionary, however good a thing it is to do.
Cycle lanes are unlikely to require much by the way of annual revenue expenditure. They are a one-off capital cost and can be funded, for example, from on-street parking fees. An animal park cannot be, by law.
Understood.
I guess the surprise of the example of languages might be the number of languages supported and if all are statutory ?
Also highlights how some mandatory / statutory things evolve over time beyond what was potentially envisaged when first legislated for.
But there will be other discretionary items you’d like to think even if absolutely the £70k must be found.
But as I say the compromise will hurt someone - 80/20 rule and all that.
It’s not a particular language - what you have to do ensure that the individual is able to access the service. Nobody disagrees that people should learn to speak English if they live in England, but that’s irrelevant at the point of need. Public authorities have to deal with the circumstances they are confronted with.
This is all a bit of a red herring. Most discretionary services have been squeezed out of existence already and statutory services like street cleaning are often run at the most basic level. I agree it isn’t a lot of money in the context of Greenwich’s overall budget, but it is an unusual thing to be providing.
So... is the conclusion here that the (good old British values) animal park is being closed due to immigration?
Worrying how this mindset has really taken hold.
I truly value this insight into the mindset though. It's good to be aware of it (again, I think)
No I didn’t read it that way.
I think the observation was that if it only saves £70k per year there might be other expenditure that could be cut to mitigate - an example possibly being expense of multiple languages support.
But you'd like to think there are other things that could also be identified.
I’d have suggested cutting back on cycle lane schemes but believe that may be all or part funded by TFL. Which in itself is another example of bureaucratic and complex financial control where we lose sight of total spend and relative priorities.
Seems a (not the only) root cause might be temp accommodation costs which come from existing residents if i understood correctly. I don’t know what drives that mostly - possibly private landlord rent rises?
Easy to identify issues hard to find the least painful compromises. It’s a sorry sacrifice to have to make because if it goes it likely would never return even with a different political party in Greenwich.
Why?
Given that there are millions of private, single car occupancy journeys made each year of less than two miles, gumming up the roads for people who NEED to drive (eg: tradesmen, delivery drivers), when we're at a crisis point with obesity rates, in a city that already has by far the best public transport network in the country, when every survey that's asked quotes 'fear' as the greatest barrier to people cycling more, and that cycle lanes are largely capex rather than opex?
So... is the conclusion here that the (good old British values) animal park is being closed due to immigration?
Worrying how this mindset has really taken hold.
I truly value this insight into the mindset though. It's good to be aware of it (again, I think)
No I didn’t read it that way.
I think the observation was that if it only saves £70k per year there might be other expenditure that could be cut to mitigate - an example possibly being expense of multiple languages support.
But you'd like to think there are other things that could also be identified.
I’d have suggested cutting back on cycle lane schemes but believe that may be all or part funded by TFL. Which in itself is another example of bureaucratic and complex financial control where we lose sight of total spend and relative priorities.
Seems a (not the only) root cause might be temp accommodation costs which come from existing residents if i understood correctly. I don’t know what drives that mostly - possibly private landlord rent rises?
Easy to identify issues hard to find the least painful compromises. It’s a sorry sacrifice to have to make because if it goes it likely would never return even with a different political party in Greenwich.
As a unitary authority Greenwich will have issues funding social care and SEND (special educational needs), which is a big part of Kent’s problems. They will also have a temporary accommodation/ homelessness problem but it’s a smaller share of their much larger budget than it is for a district council (which doesn’t do social care or SEND).
The key thing is that all the above are statutory services and Greenwich has a legal duty to provide them on an equal access basis, so for example they have to provide interpreters if needed. They can’t choose not to do so. Providing an animal park is discretionary, however good a thing it is to do.
Cycle lanes are unlikely to require much by the way of annual revenue expenditure. They are a one-off capital cost and can be funded, for example, from on-street parking fees. An animal park cannot be, by law.
Understood.
I guess the surprise of the example of languages might be the number of languages supported and if all are statutory ?
Also highlights how some mandatory / statutory things evolve over time beyond what was potentially envisaged when first legislated for.
But there will be other discretionary items you’d like to think even if absolutely the £70k must be found.
But as I say the compromise will hurt someone - 80/20 rule and all that.
It’s not a particular language - what you have to do ensure that the individual is able to access the service. Nobody disagrees that people should learn to speak English if they live in England, but that’s irrelevant at the point of need. Public authorities have to deal with the circumstances they are confronted with.
This is all a bit of a red herring. Most discretionary services have been squeezed out of existence already and statutory services like street cleaning are often run at the most basic level. I agree it isn’t a lot of money in the context of Greenwich’s overall budget, but it is an unusual thing to be providing.
A great shame in that case if genuinely no wriggle room.
As I say possible that the letter of law is mandating some spend on a number of things beyond which may have first been anticipated for some services - I’m not trying to fixate on the language example.
Not sure how these conundrums resolve without more central government funding in future.
So... is the conclusion here that the (good old British values) animal park is being closed due to immigration?
Worrying how this mindset has really taken hold.
I truly value this insight into the mindset though. It's good to be aware of it (again, I think)
No I didn’t read it that way.
I think the observation was that if it only saves £70k per year there might be other expenditure that could be cut to mitigate - an example possibly being expense of multiple languages support.
But you'd like to think there are other things that could also be identified.
I’d have suggested cutting back on cycle lane schemes but believe that may be all or part funded by TFL. Which in itself is another example of bureaucratic and complex financial control where we lose sight of total spend and relative priorities.
Seems a (not the only) root cause might be temp accommodation costs which come from existing residents if i understood correctly. I don’t know what drives that mostly - possibly private landlord rent rises?
Easy to identify issues hard to find the least painful compromises. It’s a sorry sacrifice to have to make because if it goes it likely would never return even with a different political party in Greenwich.
Why?
Given that there are millions of private, single car occupancy journeys made each year of less than two miles, gumming up the roads for people who NEED to drive (eg: tradesmen, delivery drivers), when we're at a crisis point with obesity rates, in a city that already has by far the best public transport network in the country, when every survey that's asked quotes 'fear' as the greatest barrier to people cycling more, and that cycle lanes are largely capex rather than opex?
As an example of something I assume likely to cost more than £70k when we need to make compromises.
To stress we can’t have a win win we need to cut back on something.
I’d suggest Greenwich May already have benefited from some schemes to date and deferring more like I thought I read is planned near Woolwich Arsenal could be a compromise. BUT likely the wrong budget pot as I said.
Also when I consider the wasted money on Shooters Hill Road of installing and then removing the barriers / poles to differentiate the cycle lane you can see where some funds are wasted.
So... is the conclusion here that the (good old British values) animal park is being closed due to immigration?
Worrying how this mindset has really taken hold.
I truly value this insight into the mindset though. It's good to be aware of it (again, I think)
No I didn’t read it that way.
I think the observation was that if it only saves £70k per year there might be other expenditure that could be cut to mitigate - an example possibly being expense of multiple languages support.
But you'd like to think there are other things that could also be identified.
I’d have suggested cutting back on cycle lane schemes but believe that may be all or part funded by TFL. Which in itself is another example of bureaucratic and complex financial control where we lose sight of total spend and relative priorities.
Seems a (not the only) root cause might be temp accommodation costs which come from existing residents if i understood correctly. I don’t know what drives that mostly - possibly private landlord rent rises?
Easy to identify issues hard to find the least painful compromises. It’s a sorry sacrifice to have to make because if it goes it likely would never return even with a different political party in Greenwich.
Why?
Given that there are millions of private, single car occupancy journeys made each year of less than two miles, gumming up the roads for people who NEED to drive (eg: tradesmen, delivery drivers), when we're at a crisis point with obesity rates, in a city that already has by far the best public transport network in the country, when every survey that's asked quotes 'fear' as the greatest barrier to people cycling more, and that cycle lanes are largely capex rather than opex?
As an example of something I assume likely to cost more than £70k when we need to make compromises.
To stress we can’t have a win win we need to cut back on something.
I’d suggest Greenwich May already have benefited from some schemes to date and deferring more like I thought I read is planned near Woolwich Arsenal could be a compromise. BUT likely the wrong budget pot as I said.
Also when I consider the wasted money on Shooters Hill Road of installing and then removing the barriers / poles to differentiate the cycle lane you can see where some funds are wasted.
Merely an example of an alternate compromise.
Fair enough - but in the absence of people paying more tax, if you're funding things in the face of absolute necessity first, then secondary services, surely you fund something that confers the greatest benefit on society as a whole as opposed to a niche service used by far fewer people?
It's a poxy decision to have to make (without wishing to make it political) - but cutting bike lanes in favour of this would be a poor choice.
Comments
I have no idea what considerations Greenwich have around the animal park, but if it was a choice they wanted to make they would have done it years ago since the budgets have been cut since at least 2010, in part because the proportion of reduced government funding was deliberately moved away from areas with high levels of deprivation.
It all resonates with the old Oscar Wilde quote about knowing the cost of everything but the value of nothing
I guess when the grant was made there was no thought of the current hollowing out of public services.
One of the issues this country has, with the exception of a limited number of well endowed charities, former charities and the very well off is that so much of the provision of services is expected to come from current year income and so little from income off capital set aside to support free or subsidised initiatives.
In this case what would be helpful would be if the council, rather than to close the wildlife park, were to continue to fund it while an initiative to move the running of it onto a charitable body that was able to develop enough capital and donations to maintain the park in perpetuity, as intended by its original benefactors.
’We are covering as many as 102 languages spoken in the borough.’
This is ludicrous.
I can understand the council paying towards English lessons for those who need them.
Interpretors only prevent learning. It’s a short term fix.
Interpretors are for business / visitors not residents. It’s an expensive short term solution. Residents must learn the language and if they refuse and have problems then tough shit. I’m all for helping people but only for those who show willingness to learn.
The above is just stage one, if the child or children get accepted into the nursery it generally follows a pattern that if the parents need an interpreter they will also be claiming funding for the child to attend.
My wife showed me the accounts and she gets paid approximately £70,000 every 4 months by Greenwich council (£210,000) PA for funded children. So once again multiply that by all the nursery’s in the borough and the amount is staggering
Worrying how this mindset has really taken hold.
I truly value this insight into the mindset though. It's good to be aware of it (again, I think)
You sound like a bit of a snowflake?
/thread
But I signed the petition because I worry about the animals and because children should have access to inner city farms imho (having worked on a voluntary basis at both Mudchute and Vauxhall).
I’ll add Northampton, who allowed the football club owners to make off with a grant to build their stand, and were abolished as a consequence.
Easy to identify issues hard to find the least painful compromises. It’s a sorry sacrifice to have to make because if it goes it likely would never return even with a different political party in Greenwich.
The key thing is that all the above are statutory services and Greenwich has a legal duty to provide them on an equal access basis, so for example they have to provide interpreters if needed. They can’t choose not to do so. Providing an animal park is discretionary, however good a thing it is to do.
Cycle lanes are unlikely to require much by the way of annual revenue expenditure. They are a one-off capital cost and can be funded, for example, from on-street parking fees. An animal park cannot be, by law.
I guess the surprise of the example of languages might be the number of languages supported and if all are statutory ?
Also highlights how some mandatory / statutory things evolve over time beyond what was potentially envisaged when first legislated for.
But there will be other discretionary items you’d like to think even if absolutely the £70k must be found.
This is all a bit of a red herring. Most discretionary services have been squeezed out of existence already and statutory services like street cleaning are often run at the most basic level. I agree it isn’t a lot of money in the context of Greenwich’s overall budget, but it is an unusual thing to be providing.
Given that there are millions of private, single car occupancy journeys made each year of less than two miles, gumming up the roads for people who NEED to drive (eg: tradesmen, delivery drivers), when we're at a crisis point with obesity rates, in a city that already has by far the best public transport network in the country, when every survey that's asked quotes 'fear' as the greatest barrier to people cycling more, and that cycle lanes are largely capex rather than opex?
To stress we can’t have a win win we need to cut back on something.
It's a poxy decision to have to make (without wishing to make it political) - but cutting bike lanes in favour of this would be a poor choice.