focusing on the local community part 2 a reort i done reviwing the review RECOMENDATIONS REPORT BY EKOS LTD

The following is a report & review I done on 10 /12 /13 of

REVIEW OF RECOMENDATIONS REPORT BY EKOS LTD

In 2010 the steering group agreed to recommend to the council that the town house site be perused as the preferred way forward following a presentation by Ekos ltd, on cost benefit analyses .
the steering group also agreed that both sites be subject of further in-depth investigation.

http://www.ekos-consultants.co.uk/

In the cost benefit analysis report by Ekos ltd for Irvine Bay, presented in September 2010 Ekos make reference to the two  proposed sites the council is considering for a new build sports center, before laying out an agenda which fails to address the financial benefits of refurbishment & development of the existing Magnum leisure, sports & recreation center & surrounding site location as a viable development, investment site, stating;

(1.1 background)

"over a number of years the quality of the building has diminished,
& we understand  that some facilities have been closed. Due to these factors the center no longer has the wide geographical pull it one had."

It then goes on to list the facilities the new site hope to offer, failing to recognize that these facilities are comparable to existing facilities within the Magnum center, and that the Magnum in its original state offered many more sporting & cultural options and had the capacity to host a number of large national & international events including sporting & other competitions ie ballroom dance and ice-skating, boxing gymnastics & curling tournaments.

Restored & renovated to its former glory the Magnum has the capacity to offer a programme of events facilitating not only the local community needs, but that would serve as a sports recreation & cultural venue able to host and attract many revenue generating options within the locale, benefiting not only existing  businesses, but with the options for external development the  beach -park & science island offer for investment & development reflecting Irvine as a Scottish seaside town & tourist attracting  rich  in cultural & historical interest sites worth visiting.

These refurbishment & development options far outweigh any  assumption of benefits from the new smaller rebuild options at the Townhouse location site in regard of projected footfall spends within the town center area.

Additionally as the proposed Magnum 2 Townhouse rebuild has a 60% capacity reduction this indicates reduction in staffing requirements, as well as reduced revenue from prospective business & availability in terms of footfall within, & subsequently outwith the venue itself, as well as the fact that the new Magnum 2 , should it be built in the townhouse site reduces & limits all options for hosting large competitive sport & cultural events both  locally and internationally, which the Magnum has a proven track record in its history of doing, and could do again, were it to be refurbished to its original state.

It is fair to suggest that much of the decline in business & revenue issues that the Magnum has had to contend with in recent years are a result of poor management & maintenance, as well as effects from socio economic down turns within the wider area resulting from closures & reduced household incomes within the populous resulting from redundancies & unemployment impacts.

I will included later a separated summery of proposals for some of the options of suggestions for promotional packages, membership offers & deals that could be put in place at the Magnum that would increase revenue within the center & that could be developed with existing local businesses, that would reflect comparably,(better) as assumed revenue generators £ per £  than those quoted as projections resulting from projected footfall of the new proposed town center site.


The Ekos recommendation report statement says.

1. "we understand that..."

this suggest that thorough examination of the Magnum facilities and site have either not been done, or have been ruled out in favor of new build perspective of cost comparisons of refurbishment of Magnum that would be substantially cheaper than rebuild.

2. Due consideration of the benefits of full refurbishment of  Magnum facilities appear not to have been considered in respect of what refurbishment  to its original state would have in respect of;

a. geographic pull,

b. offering additional employment & training opportunities that the smaller new site proposal fail to equal .

c. Reflecting the harbor side as a prime growing development location for arts & cultural,  outdoor sport & environmental & wildlife training & learning location, not withstanding the opportunities for development & investment of the now derelict science park within the local.

d.Development & investment opportunities within the area of
existing retail & hospitality business.

All of which would encourage footfall with in the harbor side location throughout the year & greatly benefit the tourist & seasonal opportunists that Irvine, as a seaside town with a strong historical cultural heritage has to offer from a tourist & visitors perspective.

Not withstanding that Irvine is a TOWN not just a TOWN CENTER which the proposed regeneration proposals & strategy bases its projections around disproportionately favoring projections for economic growth & revenue influx potential as being centered around the town center as a retail complex which it unrealistic & uninspired as a potential strategy development that benefits all aspects of the town & community needs.

In retrospect the existing Magnum  can be shown to reflect a positive cost effective projection through job creation & footfall that would see the creation of an additional 75 -200+ full time, part time jobs in the area on completion of refurbishment & development, in addition to temporary employment opportunities during the refurbishment & development project. Which is considerably higher than those given in the report as figures related to town center projections.

Additionally these projected  job creation figures do not include projections for the development of science park or beach park area development which with the right development & investment could see the creation of a further 100 -200+ permanent full & part time employed positions as well as training & volunteer opportunities. And could conceivably be created though private investment
incentives, or joint public & privately funded ventures. Further relieving expenditure of public funds.

 ( see my previous proposals for beech-park development ie Equestrian center, environmental & wild life sanctuary, cycle proficiency school, skate park development, bmx track ect.) 

The Ekos recommendations are made on a number of projected assumptions,

1.3 STUDY ASSUMPTION

The ongoing revenue cost & revenue income for the new build development proposals.

note from this point in their report & recommendations the renovation/ refurbishment of the existing Magnum site has more or less been disregarded & the recommendations are geared towards establishing solely positive recommendations relate to the options for the 2 new build proposed sites, without due consideration of consultation with the local community by the council on behalf or with Irvine Bay developers.

Bearing in mind this report was presented in 2010 & consultations began in 2009, this suggest that consideration of local resident & community groups input & had been done and dusted by 2010 despite the on going safe the Magnum campaign by local residents & community groups.

The recommendations address both the original proposed sites,which now 3 yrs on, we know the chosen site is the town center location & demolition work has already been done that over rode all objections from local residents regarding environmental & historical heritage issues related to the buildings that previously existed on this site.

This reflects total disregard of the feelings & input of local residents & the local community groups opposed to the project by NSA, and highlights the struggle & opposition to the Save the Magnum campaign by those with substantial influence & power from within the local council & political parties in Irvine who have all publicly backed the Irvine Bay
development project.
( despite the fact that they represent the community & work for the tax payers they are not working in the communities best interest but in the interest of the big corporate money, as opposed to small local business growth despite what they may say.)

I suggest that as the Townhouse site has now been demolished & cleared that the focus for the save the Magnum campaign is to prove to the NAC, Irvine Bay Developers & associates, that it is a more viable & economically sound proposition to save the existing Magnum , refurbish & develop the Magnum Beach park, and water front location in a way that is generates employment opportunities, generates revenue & increases footfall to in the whole Irvine area as well as addressing & improving vital health & social welfare  issues in accordance with the key policy points as determined on page 7, of the recommendations report under  heading
2.4 strategic fit & contribution

It is stated in the recommendations that the townhouse building & location would serve as a catalyst for development of office & retail use. ( impact reported separately) & that without the sports center development this will impact on adjacent buildings,( which is said are unlikely to be developed in next 5 yrs without the sport center build)

These assumptions are unfounded with no valid evidence to support them reflected, which I suggest shows this report stands to serve more as a promotional & propaganda exercise on behalf of Irvine Bay developers & NAC, than a factual report based on valid assessment of location or sociological or economic probabilities or forecasts.
 (much in the same way the chancellor of the exchequer does with his budget, it reads more like a political propaganda paper laying the councils agenda in a way that serves most favorably to sway public opinion.)

 There is no valid reason to assume the adjacent property could not be subject of private or indeed public development or sale for investment as it is within the main town center area, additionally having undergone extensive regeneration to date the town center should not be, & is not dependent on the building of the sports center, indeed the proposed town center site is more likely to have a negative effect on the town center in way of footfall resulting from various sociological , physiological & environmental issues.
( i shall address these issues under the heading Townhouse rebuild issues)

Nor does the recommendations account for the needs of the community in regard of the proposed  housing development projects, which are veered in favor of the private sector as opposed to social housing (rented accommodation)

Irvine is an area with high deprivation scores and high unemployment figures.
There are existing problems of inadequate social housing provisions in relation to the needs of the existing residents & community  additionally the  housing developments  proposals is geared towards the private sector & bought housing with a larger number of houses being allocated for sale than those allocated for social housing which does not comply with the needs, or financial resources of the existing community.

Although these proposal project bringing new "life" to the area this can be reflected to inflame existing problems in relation to job opportunists &  housing issues, and it would be fair to suggest that the needs of the existing community, who have in the past 20 year suffered from redundancies and closures of local industries and businesses, should be served and accommodated as a priority which would then serve as both a viable pitch towards future investment from outside the area as a location with thriving employment & economic viability to people wishing to take up residence in the area.

 Under the heading 2.4 Strategic fit & contribution, the Ekos report recommendations table 2.1 sets out the assessment of key benefits & dis-benfits of options stating they are unable to determine which option makes the greater contribution towards the objective & have thus attributed both options , referring to the 2 proposed new build sites as of  2010 .
 However the completely fail to give comparable assessment pertaining to the possible benefits or dis-benefits of the refurbishment & development prospects of the original Magnum sports center & out lying location of the beach-park area & surrounding Magnum site.

Before addressing the points related to what Ekos state as;

The  the key policy options on which the assessment have been made I draw your attention to the page 7, Heading 2.3, option 3 The existing Magnum in which the recommendation report states.

" Good practice guidance for project appraisal requires consideration of the counter factual, or do nothing /do minimal option. This section outlines the impact benefits
& dis benefits of maintaining the current Magnum center.

The Magnum center is located on the Riverfront, outwith the town center area.

The majority of users will travel by private transport with very few making a joint trip to the town center.

This option is  assumed to have limited positive impact in generating trips & spend, and will therefore

 not support the partners aspirations for the towns regeneration.


The benefits of this option is that it does not require a major capital investment.  in the development of a new sports center, but we understand that the existing Magnum is not fit for purpose & requires major investment. "

Thus the existing Magnum is ruled out of recommendations analysis and considerations in three short paragraphs, on what appear to be a set of assumptions & understanding that suggest no proper or thorough research or analysis of the facilities, existing architectural construction & structural assets or benefits related to refurbishment & maintaining the site from both  cost effective & projected revenue generation perspective , have been examined , analyzed and considered in relation to the recommendation report.

Furthermore the language used  ie ;" assumed"  "we understand", suggest that facts pertaining to the possible refurbishment of the Magnum have not been checked or researched and are based on these assumptions & understanding that it could be suggested reflect that the Ekos  report and recommendations are based on a a pre determined directive that supports the NSA , Irvine Bay & unnamed associates agenda aimed at promoting a strategy designed to increase footfall to the town center shopping areas predominantly occupied by established corporate chain businesses & franchises & to the detriment of smaller local business out with the town center location.

Additionally, these hear say assumptions and understandings shown no valid supporting evidence, factual or statistics to support the claims made & this could imply that these recommendations & the report are not only a reflection of unethical practice but could indicate mal or even corrupt business practice on the part of all interested parties, ie;
 NAC, Irvine Bay Development & associated companies including Ekos Ltd, but I suggest you seek proper legal advice and consultation on these points as I am not 100% sure if I am correct in these allegations they are my personal opinion.

I do find it particularly interesting that the recommendation report pertaining to the issues I have bullet pointed state

1. that it does not support the partners aspirations for the towns regeneration

 Irvine as a town does not exists, nor should it be, dependent wholly on footfall to the town center shopping area to generate economic revenue and employment this reflects a very limited aspiration & blinkered view of the towns vast wealth of historical , cultural & environment assets & indeed outlying business opportunities over a large and varied sector of  retail outlets, hospitality & events venues & office space accommodation,  that could be used to promote both revenue & job creation infinitives from small & larger business investment opportunities funded through private , public and joint initiatives.

2. In paragraph 3, option 3 the existing Magnum.
the report states in one sentence separated only by a comma  & 15 words that the Magnum ,
"does not need major capital investment in the development of a new sports center....
but is
"no longer fit for purpose & requires major investment"
(i'm not sure if this reflects a contraindication in terms, irony, or just really poor report writing skills & or, inaccurate & poor representation & interpretation of the facts!?)


My research and conversations with people in the community reflect that the biggest obstacle that affected footfall to the existing Magnum was the transport issue relating to public transport & this issue supports the physiological aspects I referred to earlier.
Additionally, points related to transport are reflected in the Ekos report.

Transport related issues are fundamental to many aspects of the regen & development projects for both town center and the Riverfront/Harbor side area.

This is shown in in the Ekos report as a bullet point (4) under the key policy points of the Irvine Town regeneration plan , 2.4 Strategic Fit & Contributions  which states;
connections - to improve connections between the waterfront, train station, town center and local communities;


From this point on I shall attempt to address individual points in relation to the town House, town center site as we now  know this the site that has been chosen for the proposed new sports center and I shall compare points and address issues with the existing Magnum & waterfront location since the recommendations as of page 10,  3  recommendations
 the existing Magnum has been discounted from this point in the report as reflected in paragraph 1 of these recommendations and it is these points that form the basis and purpose of the save the Magnum campaign.

I feel I should make it clear that from page 10 I found it a bit confusing and difficult to understand some of the points that were being made in the report,
additionally the projected figure & calculations were difficult to follow, and did not seem to reflect logical or realistic projections even under the pretext of being assumptions, additionally I admit that these types of numeric projections are not within my skills base nor indeed do I make claim that these types of calculations are one of my strong points, I can give projections with regard to job creations impact , however I do not, cannot make claim to being able to do the net or gross costing calculations, these types of numbers are not within my remit of skills.

Additionally I felt that from from page 10 there was reference to information that is not included in the report ( which I note is client confidential ) and again I get the feeling that the report is constructed around the issues I mentioned earlier in relation to favorable reflections that may reflect unethical , & or corrupt practice in relation to the various entities within the alliance of NAC, Irvine Bay Development & other unnamed associates which does reflects practice that is not necessarily strategically focused on what's best for the people & Irvine community but more focused on profit margins and financial benefits to the NAC, Irvine Bay Development & other unnamed associates involved in the business alliance.

This feeling would seem to be corroborated by what appears to show that the recommendation have gone with the most expensive option on assumptions related to quantitative benefits & issues related to potential as a catalyst for the redevelopment of the town house building & projected quantifiable benefits generated by the town house within the high street option & information given to Ekos by NSA & Irvine Bay Development.


I shall now try explain & address what I determine as the key  positive  points for the renovation & refurbishment of the existing Magnum

& the positive benefits of building residential accommodating as opposed to the sports center within the town house town center site, where the demolition of existing buildings has been carried out
and demonstrate;

misrepresentations made or issues ignored by the recommendations of the Ekos report.

Risk assessment in relation to health & safety & socio & environmental critical assessment.

People seldom plan a shopping trip before or after a planned visit to a sport sports center, whither it be by public or private transport as in relation to the following points.

They may be carrying sporting equipment or clothing , ie towels swimsuits, rackets, dance shows etc.

If they are using public transport they have to lug it round the shops with them, so they are unlike to make major purchase before going to the sports center because then there is the additional storage costs during their time spent at sports center, additionally storage depository space is small and does not accommodate shopping bags often offering limited space for clothing & shoes & equipment bags space.
Thre is a small risk of theft from lockers while partaking in the sport. Basically its inconvenient.

If the same sinareo regarding public transport is considered as a post sports center participation is applied it is generally found that people again don't want to carry sports requirement or clothing , possible wet swimwear or towels round the shops, additionally after vigorous exersise people seldom feel like shopping & this could be in relation to appearance, ( particularly in relation to the fair sex) Or tiredness or even that I feel chilled  , de-stressed after  work out don't want the stress of "busy" shops center etc.

Psychologically  the shopping center experience is associated with an ambiance of busyness & lots of ppl, whither this is reflected in actual numbers of bodies or not, it is therefore not generally a activity that ppl plan around visits to sports centers.
 So even allowing for the minimum footfall possibilities the numbers projected do not reflect an accurate or statistically viable representation in relation to people using public transport.

if we now consider the same sinareo using private transport we have similar and additional negative reflections.

If shopping is partaken before visiting the sports center there may be a risk to perishable goods let in car. Additionally if its non perishable shopping that has been partaken with a view to leaving it in the car there is risk of opportunist theft, its recognize that the MO of opportunist thieves is often reflect as an observation of an opportunity, ie they see someone putting the bags or parcels in the car, they watch their movements when they leave the car, where their going, ie into other shops or cinema , or whatever in this case a sports center, and seize the opportunity to have it away with the items left in car. this reflects risk of insurance claim for damage to car, loss of purchases, inconvenience and additional expense.

These point may seem trivial, however as part of any economic & social development  appraisals, risk assessment and & critical analysands of social and environmental issues are, or should be fundamental to assessment & recommendations of reports made. Ekos have failed to address these issues or consider these factors in appraisal  recommendations report & they are valid points of reference in the Townhouse site location, bearing in mind Irvine is a town with high deprivation and unemployment & it would be negligent to pretend that there is not an existing problem of anti social behaviors related to car theft & robberies within the town center and other areas that will in effect impact on people shopping habits in relation to visiting a sports center or shopping trips from a physiological perspective.

The exsisting Magnum has non of these problems,& offers many aditional positive aspects for users who may wish to use other harbor side venues.
ie.
The Magnum has ample parking space & there is exstensive areas to expand parking facilities.
The Magnum has ample room offering locker space which could also be extended allowing uses to deposit changes of  clothing for use of external attractions, ie going jogging along beach or for cycling, aditionally with the correct programmes in place there could be facilities for theraputic sauna & massage , beauty therapies etc & with the refurbishment of the magnum theater & cinema patrons could have a whole day of events including day sports & health thearapies & then shower change & enjoy evening entertainment inside the venue or at other venues offering hospitality & entertainment on the harborside.

The biggest issue at the exsisting Magnum is the bus service and this I suggest is easily addressed and again would benefit all harborside beachpark & seaside locations.

to be continues...