----Original message----
From : This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Date : 08/02/2019 - 16:45 (GMT)
Subject : RE: RE: Director of Environment reply to A&S Committee meeting Thursday, 24 January 2019 at 2.00 pm Council HQ

I was not trying to be rude. I was trying to be honest; albeit perhaps bluntly.

Other people, I suspect, just ignore your correspondence and I was trying to explain why.

I don’t see why I should try to trawl through reams of questions that are unnecessary and read insulting commentary on someone who was actually good at his job.

My suggestion was you should try to be more focused, as asking people to answer pointless questions just irritates people, as does needless insinuation.

In the end Councillors don’t have to answer you and most people value their time.

I hope you take that as a positive, so I may have been harsh, but I am still here and still in dialogue with you.

As you know I took issue with you being threatened by the Director of Education, I suspect no-one else was in your corner then either, which was likely related to reams of FOIs, again possibly needlessly.

I hope I have been less blunt and you will take this email in the spirit it was sent; i.e. trying to be helpful.

I hope you have a pleasant weekend.

Jim

----Original message----
Date : 08/02/2019 - 19:19 (GMT)
To : This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Subject : RE: RE: Director of Environment reply to A&S Committee meeting Thursday, 24 January 2019 at 2.00 pm Council HQ

Hi Jim

Pot, Kettle, Black ?

'I don’t see why I should try to trawl through reams of questions that are unnecessary and read insulting commentary on someone who was actually good at his job.'

It is my understanding that you accused the Director of Environment (a Council Employee who some may say was actually good at his job) of compiling a biased consultation - some may say this was insulting?

Pot, Kettle, Black ?

'reams of questions' -

(Posted on save Shawwood Greenspace Public Facebook page)

'Jim Swift
14 January at 06:37

Some questions I have for the director of the environment (DoE) at the Council at our next Audit and Scrutiny meeting. I have sent these to him. If you feel you can add to the beneath, I would as always welcome your thoughts.

1. In a consultation, my position would be there should be an equivalent weight given to each of the elements on offer. Does Mr Cahill agree with that statement or should one particular outcome, if it is preferred by staff be promoted within a consultation and if so, should it not be outlined as such?
Option 4 had the longest description in the consultation with a shopping list of benefits and no dis-benefits (unlike the others), emotive but actually meaningless phrases like “future-proof” were used and no costs like opportunity cost, loss of wildlife, loss of free greenspace amenity, access constraints and travel difficulties etc. were not explored. Photos showing large and expansive gym areas in option 4, unlike cramped photos in options 1 and 2. I could go on, but hopefully the DoE gets the point that I and others including an expert do not think the consultation was anything other than very substantially biased.

2. Why was the consultation held prior to the evaluation of sites by T&T? This would have enabled a fairer consultation, as people would have understood better what they were opining upon in relation to access in particular and a more concrete view of what would be lost.

Why was Eastwood Park not included in the sites made available for a proposed new leisure centre?
Why was the T&T report on the future of Eastwood Park not made available to Councillors and the public prior to the consultation?

3.Elderly people who will pay for the LC through Council Tax, but be very unlikely to care about extended LC facilities were excluded by the predominately on-line nature of the consultation. Why was the consultation not extensively promoted beyond the social media environment, given the enormous potential spend and that the Council has a duty to consider the opinions of older people?

4.It is not nimbyism to consider the impact of development on those who live closest to the site of development. Why was no special consideration given to the proposed sites’ nearby residents, so those who would potentially benefit most from the enhanced facilities and / or benefit the least by the loss of green space and all of the issues that are associated with that to enable more of a voice for those most advantaged / most disadvantaged, many of whom did not know about the consultation?

5. In the other T&T report that sought to identify potential sites for a leisure centre. There was no scoring mechanism proscribed for the sub-domains, so that all the sites would be treated equally and the actual analysis could be taken apart and fully understood, as to how and why the scores arrived at were arrived at?

6. Does the DoE agree that not being transparent with pertinent information, biasing a consultation, excluding key information from the initial report on that consultation and a black box methodology for the choice of sites gives room to the view that the outcome was predetermined and the Council has not acted in an even handed and open way?

7. It is my contention that this exercise has damaged the Council’s reputation for being an honest broker. Surely the best way to restore people’s faith in ERC would be an admission of the mistakes made and a plan to regain the trust of the public. What will the DofE do to try to restore the public’s trust in ERC?'


Pot, Kettle, Black?

This is not intended to be rude or blunt but positive, focused and hopefully an honest observation.

Again, as usual I do appreciate your time and effort in replying to me, and appreciate that you feel you were the only person to help me, ......but maybe you should practice what you preach.

But I am still here and still hope to be in dialogue with you in the future.


Thanks

----Original message----
Date : 12/02/2019 - 11:29 (GMT)
To : This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Subject : Re: RE: RE: State of Men's Gym Changing area in Eastwood Park gym

Hi Colm

You asked me a question and I replied.

You have not replied.

I don't think it unreasonable that the Convener for Community Services and Community Safety provides the following information -

- Please give details of what work is to be carried out(has been carried out).........(as at 10:30 this morning the changing area is still closed as the toilet has not been reconnected).


- Please give details of how ceiling grills.......above toilet, sink, showers and in main area will now be kept clean.

If you as Convener for Community Services and Community Safety are not concerned, then please give me a contact who is and can give the required details.

It seems absurd that Gym members/customers should be forced to resort to an FOI request to get this simple piece and easily obtainable information from the Convener for Community Services and Community Safety.

Thanks

----Original message----
From : This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Date : 12/02/2019 - 16:52 (GMT)
Subject : RE: RE: RE: State of Men's Gym Changing area in Eastwood Park gym

Chasing now for an answer to your query.

Best regards,
Colm Merrick (Cllr).


----Original message----
Date : 12/02/2019 - 17:20 (GMT)
To : This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Subject : Re: RE: RE: RE: State of Men's Gym Changing area in Eastwood Park gym

Hi Colm
Thanks

Hopefully this should not take too long.

----Original message----
From : This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Date : 19/02/2019 - 13:55 (GMT)
Subject : RE: RE: RE: RE: State of Men's Gym Changing area in Eastwood Park gym

The changing area works should by now be complete and the changing room was opened on Tuesday 12th February 2019.

While the flooring works / relaying and sealing of the floor coverings were completed earlier they needed time to dry and a plumber was needed to reconnect the toilet.

If there are any damaged tiles or that need replaced, there are some spares on site and staff should be seeing if they need replacing.

In the future, the ceiling will be looked at and it will be considered whether a better design solution can be realised efficiently and without too much further disruption to customers.

Best regards,
Colm Merrick (Cllr).


----Original message----
Date : 19/02/2019 - 14:12 (GMT)
To : This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Subject : Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: State of Men's Gym Changing area in Eastwood Park gym

Hi Colm

Thanks for this.

This part of the floor and the damaged skirting in the shower cubicle looks good and is much better and appears water tight.

But you didn't answer -

- Please give details of how ceiling grills.......above toilet, sink, showers and in main area will now be kept clean.

Would appreciate this information.

Thanks

Stirling Council On Line - Tuesday 20 January 2019

Work to repair the main PEAK swimming pool remains on track following the discovery of a problem with the base screed layer in November 2018.

Active Stirling and Stirling Council announced the temporary closure of the pool last year to allow works to be carried out and the project remains on schedule to be completed by the end of March, 2019.

During investigations into the main pool, an issue has also been identified with the training pool which requires urgent repairs.

Examination of this pool presented a greater technical challenge due to its movable floor, and a specialist diving company were brought in to allow an assessment to be made after concerns were raised.

We are in dialogue with the contractor to establish the exact nature of the problem and the confirmed length of this additional work. We remain hopeful of opening both pools on schedule.

You can read more here -

www.stirling.gov.uk/news/2019/january-20...swimming-pools-work/


Extract from Minute of Meeting held at 7.00pm in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Giffnock, on 19 December 2018.

STATEMENTS BY REPRESENTATIVES ON JOINT BOARDS/COMMITTEES

Councillor Merrick – Culture and Leisure Trust

Councillor Merrick began by recommending to the Council the latest Business Plan for the East Renfrewshire Culture and Leisure Trust which was the subject of a separate report later in the meeting.

He advised that as part of the business planning this year the Board had attended a Strategy Away Day on 23 October which involved a visit to The Peak, an indoor complex at the heart of the Stirling Sports Village and to the National Swimming Academy’s 50 metre pool at the University of Stirling’s Sports Centre.

Commenting that The Peak was the biggest single development for sport and leisure in Stirling for over 30 years with an investment of £27.3 million and was funded by Stirling Council and sportscotland, he stated that the Board was interested in learning about the pioneering development that was shaped by Stirling Council’s ambition and vision for sport and recreation for the community, and by modern design and environmental practice.

Furthermore, the Board was also given an understanding how the National Swimming Academy’s 50 metre pool could support the demand for recreational public swimming, lessons, club activity and events.

Councillor Merrick provided further details about other activities undertaken by the Board as part of the away day.

He indicated that the Business Plan had been discussed at the meeting of the Board on 4 December highlighting that it was wholeheartedly endorsed by the Board.