Readers are left to place the protagonists in the context of news articles.

Enjoy!

[Satire]

North Yorks Enquirer Harbours correspondent has been examining fresh discrepancies emerging in Scarborough Borough Council’s application of Flood Risk Zone regulations in regard to the universally disliked West Pier ‘regeneration’ project.

~~~~~

How strange that there is an apparent difference in interpretation of the way building developments in areas of acknowledged flood zones are considered by the SBC Planning Department.

The Government web site provides a map to aid planners, showing a colour-coded key to identify the various risk of flooding in different areas:

• https://flood-map-for-planning.service.gov.uk/

In a recent planning application for the construction of a café and external paved seating-area, on a site known as ‘the bulge’ along North Bay Promenade (marked in red on the map), the area was described by SBC Planners thus:

“Planning officers said the proposed café is in an area that is known to be frequently affected by waves over–topping from surges and strong winds and has a high risk of flooding, and was therefore not suitable.”

[Scarborough News, 2^nd March 2022] 

However, a visit to the ‘Flood Risk Map’ reveals the proposed ‘bulge café’ to be completely within an area marked in Light Blue in the colour-code, and is thus designated ‘Low Risk’.

Four days later, in a different Planning Application, this time to build a first-floor extension to an existing café on East Pier (marked in red on the map), SBC Planners accepted that are, stating:

“There is no or very low risk of flooding in the area”.

[Scarborough News – 6th March 2023]

Strangely, a visit to the ‘Flood Risk Map’ shows the proposed extension on East Pier to be in an area marked Dark Blue, thus ‘High Risk’ – as is Vincent Pier and West Pier.

Let me say, at this point, that I have no axe to grind with either of these proposals, indeed I do occasionally use the popular, and locally owned Tea Pot Café on East Pier, and of course both proposals are from private individuals risking their own financial investment.

Fair play to them both.

I wonder, though, are the SBC Planners colour blind?

Or is it that they are expecting another planning application in the near future, that is also within the area considered to be ‘High Risk’, according to the ‘Flood Risk Map’?

I refer of course to the West Pier Regeneration Plan, which is not privately funded, but is funded to the tune of £11.5m, by the taxpayer.

A Flood Risk Assessment provided by the Environment Agency in consultation with SBC’s Coastal Team  (dated November 2021), confirms that:

“That West Pier  floods on a broadly annual basis and is currently managed with the use of warnings and sandbags.

That the pier walls do not provide an adequate level of tidal flood protection and that the pier already experiences frequent flooding.”

Not only is West Pier in a ‘High Risk’ area (which “floods on a broadly annual basis”), but the plans are to LOWER the ground level of the new buildings (marked in red on the map).

The site is located in an area which is within higher Flood Risk categories and the Council’s Coastal & Drainage Engineer has confirmed that the site has been inundated by the sea in the past. It is mainly within Flood Risk Zone 2, with a smallarea at the front being in the highest Flood Risk Zone 3b, as defined by the Council’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment.

As such, the development fails to comply with the requirements of Policy ENV 3 of the Scarborough Borough Local Plan, and poses a High Flood Risk – and is therefore unacceptable.

Paragraph 162 of the Framework states:

“Development should not be allocated or permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower risk of flooding.”

When one considers these images of flooding on West Pier and the surrounds of the harbour, then I suggest the Planners are wearing rose-tinted spectacles when considering the risks on West Pier.

Harbours correspondent ALLAN ROBERTS has identified another fatal flaw in Project Manager Helen JACKSON’s incoherent plan to ‘regenerate’ Scarborough’s West Pier.

SBC Harbours Portfolio Holder Councillor Janet JEFFERSON has been apprised of the information contained in this report.

~~~~~

The poor design of the proposed new warehousing on West Pier has already been covered in a previous article, “Carry On Regardless”. However, there is another aspect of the West Pier Regeneration Plan that has yet to be addressed.

That is the removal of pot storage areas, including the gated compound adjacent to the block of West Pier warehousing, scheduled to be demolished.

The compound was created around 2014, following a spate of vandalism, including arson attacks, on the gear stored on West Pier.

Since the creation of that compound, the shell-fishery has expanded dramatically and has outgrown the compound.

As a result, pots waiting for repair and maintenance can be seen in other areas, close to the warehouses.

A conservative estimate of the number of pots presently in use by Scarborough’s 35-strong potting fleet would, I suggest, be around 25-30,000 pots, collectively.

The smaller boat (left, in the following image), for instance, works 900 pots, while the larger vessel will work 2,000 or more.

The large amount of gear necessary to sustain the shell-fishery has to be brought ashore on a continual basis, for  repair and maintenance in  the warehouses. To do so requires an area of quayside space in the area adjacent to the warehouses, where pots can be placed, if only for a temporary period, as repairs are carried out. Pots are also subject to marine growth in the form of weed, barnacles, etc. This need to be regularly removed by power-washing from time to time, which again requires quayside space conveniently located close to the davits and water supply.

That same space also needs to be close to the landing davits, as modern pots now weigh around 25-35 kilos apiece, (3-4st).

Pots are worked in ‘strings’ (fleets) of between 20 to 40 in length. When a fleet is brought ashore for maintenance, it is impossible to store them all inside the warehouses and leave enough working space to undertake repairs. Consequently, the pots are stored within the compound or outside the warehouses.

The Council’s West Pier Regeneration Plan states clearly that:

“A 10% increase in the capacity of the operational and processing facilities of the fishing industry is expected on West Pier.”

Despite that conservative forecast, the ‘regeneration’ plan actually compresses the industry into less space than it has now.

The plan is not only to remove the compound, but to also reduce the size of the present quayside space, by moving the building line of the proposed new warehousing closer to the edge of the pier.

The West Pier Regeneration Plan claims that by doing so,

“Incumbent fishermen would now working in an upgraded environment and able to work at higher levels of productivity, due to the design of the pier.

Positioning the servicing zone behind the new bait shed, allows for much better visibility across the pier and accessibility to the businesses within the buildings.

Improving the fisherman’s facilities will attract more vessels to the Pier, creating a more competitive environment.”  

Those claims, I suggest, are utter nonsense.

Below are two comparable images of West Pier; one as it is now, and one downloaded from the West Pier Regeneration Plan on the website:

Comparing the present and proposed building lines, indications are that the building-line of the new warehousing will encroach upon the quayside space by around 5ft, thus narrowing the present width of around 23ft down to around 18ft.

In addition, that width is even further restricted in the area of the mooring bollards and the landing davit bases, which narrow parts of the quay by a further 3.5ft, thus reducing the present 23ft-wide access area to a width of a mere 14.5ft.

The West Pier quayside is the only place for the fleet to land their catch and, with the regular use of fork-lift trucks, refuelling tankers, etc, is already a hive of activity.

Here are recent images that illustrate how important the quayside space is to the fishing industry, and how narrow and congested it already is at the present time.

Self-evidently, reducing this working/manouevering width by over a third (37%) represents a significant risk to Health & Safety.

Despite this, the ‘regeneration’ plan intends to service all the buildings and premises on West Pier from the quayside of the pier, and to route all traffic, other than HGV’s along the quayside. For the avoidance of doubt, I use the term ‘quayside’ to designate the whole of that side of the West Pier facing into the Harbour, including where the landing davits are located.

It is clearly apparent that the West Pier Regeneration Team have neither understanding of, nor consideration for, the shore-side spacial requirements of the fishing industry.

Think again, Ms Jackson!

North Yorks Enquirer Harbours correspondent ALLAN ROBERTS reports on an apparent disregard of reality on the part of Scarborough Borough Council (which will cease to exist on 31st March 2023). The Council seems to be in denial of the fact that a combination of the Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) – which will transfer all of the Council’s assets and liabilities to the new unitary authority, North Yorkshire Council – and the formal Objection raised with External Auditors MAZARS LLP, which is preventing the ‘signing off’ of SBC’s accounts for another years. The Council’s accounts have not been ratified for 8 years.

North Yorks Enquirer Harbours correspondent ALLAN ROBERTS responds to mistaken criticism of an earlier article, providing full clarification of figures quoted.

~~~~~

Readers may recall a piece written by me and published on the North Yorks Enquirer on 14^th December 2022.

• http://nyenquirer.uk/dluhc-1m-deception/

The article covered what, in my view, was a deceptive data-set published by the Scarborough Town Deal Board (STDB) in their Business Plan for the West Pier ‘Regeneration’ Plan.

That Business Plan was submitted to the Department for Levelling Up, Homes & Communities (DLUHC), and was clearly intended to persuade the DLUHC to part with £5m on the grounds that the fishing industry was in [quote] “Gradual decline” – and to justify a ‘Case for Change’ at Scarborough Harbour:

1.3 Project Objectives and Case for Change

Scarborough’s fleet of 35 local and 23 visiting vessels landed 851.7 tonnes of product in 2020, which generated revenues of £2.8m from fishing and associated revenues of £300,000.  

The benefit of fishing to local economy is in excess of £3.1m a year. Scarborough’s standing as a key fishing port, and its legacy as a whitefish port have been in gradual decline with the reduction of its whitefish fleet.

I provided evidence to show that the Business Plan data, when compared to data published on the SBC website by the Borough Harbour Master, showed a discrepancy of £1.1m.

However, I have since been alerted to this comment on a social media platform regarding the data used in my article.

Ever mindful of the SBC’s policy of “openness and transparency”, I have revisited the Scarborough Borough Council website and downloaded the Harbour Masters returns for the Calendar Year of 1st January to 31st December 2020.

For convenience, I have highlighted the relevant columns in green:

Using the data published above, these are the total year-end figures for the Calendar Year of 2020.

• Total Weight = 509 tonnes
• Total Value = £2,330,561

I was surprised to find that this data, too, did not match the data published in the Scarborough Town Deal Board Business Plan as:

“Scarborough’s fleet of 35 local and 23 visiting vessels landed 851.7 tonnes of product in 2020, which generated revenues of £2.8m from fishing and associated revenues of £300,000. ” 

The Total Weight landed was 509 tonnes, not 851.7 tonnes… a discrepancy of 342.7 tonnes.

The Total Value of those landings was £2,330,561, not £2.8m… a discrepancy of  £469,439.

So, we have now two sets of data; one based on a ‘fiscal’ year favoured by the Borough Harbour Master (in accordance with standard Council practice), and the other based on the Calendar Year, neither of which is accurate.

It is apparent that whichever set of data one chooses to use, there is a discrepancy of either £1.1m or £469,439.

Not exactly petty cash.

It is apparent also, that none of the data matches the information provided to the Department for Levelling Up, Homes & Communities, by the Scarborough Town Deal Board (STDB) within its Business Plan.

My view is that I stand by my earlier criticism of the Scarborough Town Deal Board, which remains justified, in that:

• the data contained within the West Pier Business Plan is incorrect and misleading and therefore renders that Business Plan to be invalid;
• that the Scarborough Town Deal Board and its inaccurate Business Plan are not fit for purpose;
• that the bar graph below, covering the last 17 years, does not indicate a fishing industry in ‘gradual decline’, as the Scarborough Town Deal Board claims, and this despite the problems of COVID 19, and the recent and continuing shellfish die-off associated with the Teesside dredging pollution.

Harbours correspondent ALLAN ROBERTS seems to have identified a previously ovrerlooked source of funding to facilitate a full repair to the West Pier sheet-piling dilapidation. And set some cracks appearing in the administration’s (rocky) armour?

~~~~~

A recent announcement from DEFRA last week, dated 25^th November 2022, states:

“£65 million is being made available today for infrastructure projects as the latest round of funding opens for bidding.

The UK Seafood Fund is a landmark government investment supporting the long-term future and sustainability of the UK fishing and seafood industry, with the infrastructure strand of the Fund helping to pay for upgrades to ports, processing and aquaculture facilities so they can meet future demand whilst also boosting jobs and economic growth.”

Fisheries Minister Mark Spencer, welcomed the news. When commenting on this funding stream, he  said:

“Fishing communities are an important part of the UK’s heritage and they make a valuable contribution to our economy so we are backing them with funds to boost growth and opportunities across the industry.

This funding will ensure seafood businesses throughout the supply chain are well-equipped to keep pace with increasing demand at home and abroad, boosting production and sustainability and building a resilient sector for the future.”

This has got be be good news, too, for SBC CEO and Harbours Supremo Mr Nick Edwards, in that it ticks all the boxes of his recent Proposal to spend £1.35 million merely to “patch up” the West Pier sheet -piling, in order to extend its life for a limited duration of 10 years (according to his Report), which also describes the work as “essential”.

I also understand that if the sheet-piling was to be totally replaced, then the cost would be in the region of £4 million.

The facts are:

• that SBC is eligible to bid for up £5 million, which would requirea match-funding contribution from SBC of 25% (i.e. £1.25 million);
• that the Council have already earmarked £1.35m for the “patch up” piling work;
• that if a bid for £4 million was successful, then it would cost the Council just £1 millionin match funding contributions, a saving to the Council Taxpayer of  £350,000!

So, for significantly less outlay than has already been budgeted bySBC, instead of extending the life of the sheet-piling by a mere 10 years, they could have, say, 50 years peace of mind.

And finally, although this funding opportunity will meet at least the 4 core “6 Critical Success Factors” identified within the West Pier Regeneration Business Case, it is clear that the sheet-piling renewal can, and must, go ahead as an independent ‘stand-alone project’, without interference from the Town Deal Board team. I quote:

Scarborough West Pier Regeneration Business Plan

3.7

The long list of options were assessed against 6 Critical Success Factors; 

• • Creates a desirable visitor destination through a transformational change
  • Supports a thriving fishing industry
  • Optimises public value
  • Is deliverable
  • Can be delivered within available funding streams
  • Contributes to carbon reduction and sustainability

 Applications must be submitted to  DEFRA before midday on 3rd February 2023.

Izzy whizzy, let’s get busy!

North Yorks Enquirer Harbours correspondent ALLAN ROBERTS has once again excavated some “lessons will be learned’ bullshine from the forgotten annals of SBC Harbours history – 70 years of neglect – forgotten, perhaps, because it presents a crucial impediment to the Leader’s West Pier ‘regeneration’ fantasy.

~~~~~

Scarborough Borough Council, as expected, has nodded through a Proposal based on a Report by the acting CEO, Nick Edwards, to patch up 122 metres of the West Pier to safeguard it for the next 10 years, at a cost of £1.35 million.

• http://nyenquirer.uk/bad-case-piles/

The Report, which forms the justification for the Proposal, states, under the heading ‘Health and Safety’:

“A do nothing approach, is not recommended and could lead to structural failure of the pier, therefore failure to undertake the strengthening work will significantly impact the ongoing use of the harbour.”

How disappointing, then, that the Council choose to ‘do nothing’ to the parts of  the Harbour that the Council has long been aware of as being at risk – namely the ‘Bullnose’ of West Pier and the Lighthouse Pier.

The last major work done to the Bullnose was carried out in 1952/53, following its collapse.

Here is a Yorkshire Post report, dated  15^th June 1952, which indicates that the collapse was not unexpected and that, just like today, the danger signs were ignored by the authority.

The condition of the Bullnose was described, 6 years ago, in the 2016 West Pier Asset Inspection, as:

‘Poor. Heavily corroded piles throughout. Cracking coping beams’

Directly opposite the Bullnose, of course, stands the Lighthouse Pier, which is also in poor condition.

I understand that the foundations of  the Lighthouse Pier, too, are not safe, and the Pier is partly fenced-off with safety fencing because of the danger of imminent collapse, and that it may take 3 to 4 years before it will be repaired.

The Bullnose, together with the Lighthouse Pier, form the Harbour mouth, providing the only access to the Harbour, both sides of which are acknowledged by the Council as being in poor repair and in need of attention.

If either the Bullnose or the Lighthouse Pier failed and the Harbour entrance was blocked, then ALL operations at the Harbour would cease immediately.

However, if the portion of West Pier specified in the Proposal failed, then the fishing industry would have a fail-safe reserve option – by using North Wharf as their operational base, and trade could continue.

I suggest safeguarding the Harbour entrance is of more importance, and rates higher in the priority of urgent attention, than does West Pier, and yet it is not mentioned anywhere in the Report supporting the Proposal that was blindly accepted by SBC Cabinet.

To return again to the Report/Proposal:

“A do nothing approach, is not recommended and could lead to structural failure of the pier, therefore failure to undertake the strengthening work will significantly impact the ongoing use of the harbour.”

In that respect, then, the Report is incomplete and inadequate, in that it does not mention – much less prioritise – ALL of the risks to the ongoing use of the Harbour.

It beggars belief that the Council, despite being well aware aware of the potentially disastrous risk to the Harbour and its users, intends to squander £6.4m of taxpayers’ monies, including the whole of the Harbour Reserve Fund, for no other reason than to meet the deadlines of the West Pier Regeneration Plan, when the most important part of the Harbour is in danger of falling down.

My hope is that when NYCC (soon to be NYC) considers this Proposal, they take into consideration the poor state of the Harbour Piers in a holistic manner, rather than the single-minded approach of SBC – and duly reject it.

North Yorks Enquirer Harbours correspondent ALLAN ROBERTS writes with an update to his article of last week – “A Bad Case of Piles?”  (which went down very well – but not in the CEO’s office!).

~~~~~

For those readers who are interested in my recent article regarding the Scarborough West Pier Regeneration plan, here is a little update . . .

Since the publication of that article, I am now reliably informed that, at a meeting of the Harbour Users’ Group on 9^th November 2022, it was disclosed that to renew the sheet piling, rather than patch it, would have cost only a measly £15k more.

How disappointing, then, to find that the Application/Report to which Harbours Supremo Nick Edwards (our new CEO) puts his name, does not offer, or even mention, that option.

His report does state that the costings include a contingency and inflation allowance of £320k (circa 30%) of which, I suggest, a relatively small portion could better be utilised by renewing the piling, rather than patching.

The Report states that patch repairs have previously been carried out and, I suggest, that that will be the ongoing strategy for dealing with the problem – rather like continually inflating a slow puncture in a car tyre, rather than replacing that tyre as a more permanent solution, probably cheaper in the long term.

If this latest proposal is pushed through, then the  Council taxpayer will be saddled with a bill of £1.35m to fund this work, in addition to the already committed sum of £6.4m, simply because to make a funding application to the government department (MMO), may take up to 6 months (i.e. too long).

I understand that the proposal will also have to achieve s.24 approval from NYCC – a process described by Cllr Jefferson as ‘unfortunate’ – which indicates that this Application/Report may well be nodded through, at least as far as SBC are concerned.

I do hope that someone at NYCC will wake up to the fact that this proposal is being bulldozed through by the acting CEO of Scarborough Council, Nick Edwards, for no other reason than to meet the deadline for the highly unpopular West Pier Regeneration Plan.

I understand that Cllr Derek Bastiman is to be offered the Portfolio for Harbours in the forthcoming North Yorksire Council. Perhaps it is time for him to step up and make his views known, too.

The first is from one of Scarborough’s leading proponents of the fishing industry, Mr Fred Normandale.

The second is from Mr Paul Fishburn, a smaller operator singing from the same hymnal.

Readers may also wish to review earlier correspondence on a similar theme:

• http://nyenquirer.uk/letters-from-the-front/

Sir Robert has been Scarborough & Whitby MP since 2005. In March 2019, Sir Robert was appointed Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries & Food and should, therefore, have an adequate understanding of the importance of the West Pier to the fishing industry.

Mr Normandale’s Letter

Sir Robert Goodwill MP
Albermarle Crescent
Scarborough

Dear Sir Robert

I’m writing to add my name to the many respected Scarborians opposed to the unwanted alterations to the West Pier.

Contrary to what you may have been informed, there has been no consultation between the fishing industry and SBC relating to the fishing industry requirements, only multiple information meetings to small, select gatherings, informing these groups the intended plans for the pier. The suggestion of consultation is a complete nonsense. We don’t need fishermen shunting to the end of pier to make way for more unwanted stalls, shops and cafes.

There is so much vital, necessary, remedial work, desperately needed due to years of neglect, and a requirement for upgrading the port to bring our harbour up to modern, acceptable standards. Significant investment in a ship lift would bring a huge amount of new industry and visiting vessels to the port and help the harbour to thrive. This is not a new idea, as has been alluded. In certain quarters. The requirement for a ship-lift in Scarborough has been mentioned by the fishing industry to SBC for several years now.

Our harbour has seen many centuries of change. In late Summer, annually, herring fishing dominated the port from the middle ages onwards, this leading to the widening of the West Pier and construction of the North Wharf. Steam trawlers evolved to make the port a thriving industry year round, but two world wars not only reduced the herring trade but also destroyed Scarborough’s trawer fleet. This allowed Scarborough Corporation to ‘temporarily’ take over the port!! The modern post war boom in trawling has now ended, but we have a huge shellfish industry which is worthy of supporting.

The next chapter for Scarborough Harbour could and should be as a service industry for the offshore wind vessels ,while having the machinery in place to take care of our own boat’s needs.

As Scarborough’s MP I really think you should reconsider your support for the current planned scheme and instead give your support for major repairs and upgrading of our well loved historic harbour.

Yours Sincerely

Fred Normandale

Mr Fishburn’s Letter

Sir Goodwill

I am a 3rd generation Scarborough fisherman.

My son and myself both have licensed vessels landing to the fishing pier.

We have not been consulted on the plans. The council are trying to land grab the pier for rents and must be stopped.

My cousin Kevin Fishburn is also a a vessel owner and also has a bait shed on fishing pier. He has been told he has to vacate and then bid for new unit not knowing how much it will be and what security he will have. He doesn’t know what to bid and even if he should have to having been in there for decades.

All the fishermen I have spoke to have not been consulted only the ones who have in its on the pier. They are all scared that if they speak out in any way they will not get a new unit or they might put the landing dues up for revenge.

The harbour is dangerous. Thankfully the health and safety haven’t noticed because we can’t even board our vessels safely. The mmo and mca will not use the ladders or the inspection grid because they are not fit for use. This is why we must have a boat lift that we have been asking for for more than 10 years.

Vincent pier that the lighthouse stands has piles falling off and has cavities inside. It is fenced off above because of the danger.

The harbour staff do a good job where they can but all have to follow orders from above from people who don’t know about fishing and maritime needs.

As our MP please stop them telling lies and save our fishing industry instead of turning the fishing pier into a theme park.

Thank you

Paul Fishburn

Scarborough

• – an “In My View” article by NIGEL WARD, drawing readers’ attention to some very telling bits of information, hidden in plain sight.

~~~~~

Two of the most highly contentious issues facing Scarborough Borough Council, as it winds its way into the history books, sprang to my attention in recent days:

1. The unnecessary and unwanted ‘stealth’ tax on businesses known as the Yorkshire Coast BID;

2. The equally unnecessary and unwanted plan for the ‘regeneration’ (read ‘re-purposing’) of Scarborough’s West Pier.

Outside of the world of tourism-related businesses, many readers will know of the Yorkshire Coast BID (‘the BID’) only from the pages of the North Yorks Enquirer, which has featured dozens of reports highlighting any number of system failures that have contributed to a universal mistrust of the BID, resulting in a well-organised and duly diligent scrutiny of its purpose and value.

The Yorkshire Coast BID is one of many ‘Business Improvement Districts’ up and down the country, many of which were proposed to local authorities by an outfit called the Mosaic Partnership, headed up by one Mo ASWAT, who has successfuly foisted BIDs on dozens of local authorities.

The Mosaic Partnership’s MO ASWAT

Looking at the Mosaic Partnership’s website over the weekend, I was shocked to find the answer to the question as to the real purpose of BIDs answered in plain sight (see above).

“We assist Councils to force BIDS (Business Improvement Districts) into towns in order to raise more revenue out of businesses.“

Ah! So not about benefitting businesses at all, then?

Rather, about squeezing more revenue out of hard-pressed, post-pandemic, ‘Bounce Back Loan’ repaying, struggling businesses to line the Council’s coffers – no doubt in preparation (tongue in cheek) for settling certain redundancy packages, pensions and ‘golden handshakes’ on the soon-to-be unemployed or unemployable Officers (or balancing the Whitby and Scarborough Harbour Undertaking Accounts). A blueprint for extortion, more like.

Here, once more, in the words of Mosaic:

“We assist Councils to force BIDS (Business Improvement Districts) into towns in order to raise more revenue out of businesses.“

No wonder that right-thinking Councillors are pressing for a Vote of NO CONFIDENCE in the Yorkshire Coast BID. It will be interesting to see which members oppose such a motion. Business proprietors will want to know their names, addresses and contact details.

It is salutory to remember that, whilst leading the Opposition, the present Leader, Councillor Steve SIDDON [Lab.], pressed the then-Leader (Councillor Derek BASTIMAN [Con.]) to ensure that the Council’s commitment to progressing the BID should return to Full Council – and Councillor BASTIMAN duly gave that assurance. He was, however, unable to fulfil his promise because he lost the Leadership to Councillor SIDDONS in the Tory collapse at the May 2019 elections. That should have ensured that Full Council evaluated the scheme. But Councillor SIDDONS – in one of his many U-turns – has since taken no steps to further his declared desire for the BID issue to come before Full Council.

It is difficult to see how the Leader (or any of his cohorts) can oppose the following Motion – revised by Councillors CHATT, PEARSON, ABBOTT, SMITH and POPPLE in order to accommodate CEO Mike GREENE’s desire to specify a clear outcome. To do so would throw tourism-related businesses in the Borough of Scarborough and the County of East Yorkshire to the wolves.

To call upon members to address the following sole Motion:

MOTION

In light of extraordinary, unforeseeable and unpredicted hardships to businesses throughout the pandemic and these early days of its aftermath, will this Council, in consideration of the many unprecedented challenges facing BID Levy-payers now additionally burdened by repayments under the Coronavirus Bounce Back Loan Scheme (BBLS), now examine and debate the past and present performance of the Yorkshire Coast BID, its future operation and fitness for purpose, and pass a Vote of NO CONFIDENCE in Yorkshire Coast BID Ltd?

[The revision is highlighted in bold type]

On Wednesday 22nd June 2022, East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC) will also consider an almost identical cross-party motion – though there, the outcome is less significant; it is SBC that is the so-called ‘Lead Authority’. ERYC just tagged along, perhaps because only the coastal wards are affected.

The use of the word “force” is significant; do not lose sight of the fact that SBC, in its Final Demand Notices to recalcitrant Levy-payers, has threatened non-payers with the propect of imprisonment – no way to endear Councillors to their electors.

[The section highlighted in bold type is so highlighted by SBC – not by me].

Of course, SBC Councillors will not be seeking re-election (the Council will cease to exist next April), but ERYC has its full-term elections in May 2023.

Few ERYC Councillors will wish to go on record in favour of squeezing businesses into oblivion with threat of imprisonment. Several ERYC Councillors have already expressed their distaste at the notion that SBC’s support for the BID has also burdened East Yorkshire businesses, who have no voice in what goes on in Scarborough.

The second glaring anomaly came to my attention on Facebook, where there has been a well-supported campaign in opposition to the West Pier ‘regeneration’ proposal, where 100+ car-parking spaces stand to be lost in favour of SIDDONS’ ‘continental plaza’ madness that nobody who lives or works in or near the Harbour wants.

The illuminating part of the following screenshot appears at bottom left, where Councillor Janet JEFFERSON [Ind.] – Leader of the Independent Group (which has supported the SIDDONS administration wholeheartedly in its desire to ‘gentrify’ the West Pier) – has clicked ‘Like’ in response to the following appeal to retain the West Pier’s parking facilities. Her name appears immediately below my own.

My, my! Politics really does make for strange bedfellows. In this case, one of those bedfellows is in and out of bed according to political expediency.

So whose side are you on, Janet? Pro-parking or pro-plaza? Or are you one of those career politicians who seeks to be all things to all men, without firm commitment to anyone – except, of course, yourself?