Conway busy at the end of financial year shock!

[BrandNewGuy]

As much a sign of spring as the flowering of the Melbourne Grove cherry trees, the council's 'preferred' contractor Conway has been busy spending its unspent budget in the last few days of the financial year. Yesterday, without warning, they started digging up the pavement on Trossachs Road and replacing it with an inch or two of tarmac. It's unfinished, so anyone with a wheelchair or access problems would have been stranded. Much as it's nice to have a new pavement, in this era of austerity I'd have happily foregone a new pavement for a few years yet. But then again, Conway are clearly more powerful than, say, youth services when it comes to grabbing the cash.

[Sue]

To be fair, and much as I dislike Conway, anything left in the budget and not spent by the end of the financial year is lost for ever.

So it won't just be Conway desperately finding things to spend it on.

Lack of forward planning I agree, but it was always thus :)

[BrandNewGuy]

But if it happens every year, their budget is too large. And yes indeed, it's always bloomin' happened.

[James Barber]

Hi Guys,

I don't believe budget allocations for Southwark COuncil highways renewals would be lost if it rolled over into a new financial year.

Money from TfL sometimes comes with that threat but not highway renewals.

[Rolo Tomasi]

Common myth.

[Sue]

Rolo Tomasi Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Common myth.

Really?

When I used to work for a public sector employer, many moons ago when I actually had a budget, I had to use it by the end of the financial year or it was lost.

And so did others.

Not only that, but as BNG implies above, if you did not use all your budget it was assumed that you had too much and it was cut back in the following year.

Have things changed, then?

[Leviathan]

Conway very liekly to go bankrupt in 2017

[apbremer]

Always unlimited funds available for daft unwanted roadway projects. Madness.What austerity?

[DadOf4]

I tend to agree with BNG -

The fact that there was zero notice of this work and that the pavements were OK by ED standards leaves me to believe that this was a rush job for some reason

[Rolo Tomasi]

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Rolo Tomasi Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Common myth.

>

> Really?

>

> When I used to work for a public sector employer,

> many moons ago when I actually had a budget, I

> had to use it by the end of the financial year or

> it was lost.

>

> And so did others.

>

> Not only that, but as BNG implies above, if you

> did not use all your budget it was assumed that

> you had too much and it was cut back in the

> following year.

>

> Have things changed, then?

Yes. I work for southwark and this is not the case. Years ago it was but not now.

[Sue]

Rolo Tomasi Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sue Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Rolo Tomasi Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > Common myth.

> >

> > Really?

> >

> > When I used to work for a public sector

> employer,

> > many moons ago when I actually had a budget, I

> > had to use it by the end of the financial year

> or

> > it was lost.

> >

> > And so did others.

> >

> > Not only that, but as BNG implies above, if you

> > did not use all your budget it was assumed that

> > you had too much and it was cut back in the

> > following year.

> >

> > Have things changed, then?

>

> Yes. I work for southwark and this is not the

> case. Years ago it was but not now.

Ah, OK.

I'm talking circa 1990 :))

[Curmudgeon]

They should use it to correct that ridiculously dangerous townley road / east dulwich grove junction they created

[jim_the_chin]

Curmudgeon Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> They should use it to correct that ridiculously

> dangerous townley road / east dulwich grove

> junction they created

This with huge bells on!

[picmicnic]

Does this explain why Dunstans Road previously had 3 speed bumps between Underhill road and Peckham Rye but in the last month now has 6. Really don't see why we needed another 3 - seemed like someone looking for something to do.

[Burbage]

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't believe budget allocations for Southwark

> COuncil highways renewals would be lost if it

> rolled over into a new financial year.

I don't think was the question. The question was whether Conway is working to a budget, and whether underspends to that would result in cuts to their budget. It's a subtle difference, but while we're not allowed to know exactly how our money is spent, it's an important one. Not least because it allows for the possiblity of contractors being able to uplift their profits without a suitably scrutinized civic justification.

Obviously, commercial confidentiality is important (though nobody has yet been able to explain why) and thus it's entirely reasonable to expect not to be able to know what the exact terms of Conways contract are. However, it is reasonable to know what the basis of the contract is, including whether it's cost, cost-plus, fixed budget or related to one or more variables, at least in the most general form. And whether that would mean they'd have an incentive to scuttle about inventing speed humps (or persuading their contacts to invent them) toward the end of the financial year.

I mention this simply because we live in a world where council tax can be frozen, yet council tax bills still go up. The use of a precept to pay for what we were already paying for, as not-quite made clear in the touching Urbi et Orbi from Peter Johns that slithered onto our mats, bundled up with the bill, is a well-worn wheeze, but still a wheeze. Its only purpose, for all the flannel about protecting bits of budgets, is to make something look like it's something that it isn't.

And, with all due respect, if that's what our councillors are spending their time on, then it's easy for them to find themselves serving the council's needs, rather than those of residents, and so might easily be persuaded to overlook the very subtle difference between, say, a council's budget and that of a contractor.

[neilson99]

Well let's use it wisely and get some more speed bumps and narrow those roads! With a bit of luck we can get people out of those cars once and for all! London is a village after all so everyone should be walking!

Surely someone at Southwark Council or TFL has "good relationships" (ahem) with Conway and can get them to help us spend this money!