The new house on Wilsham Road has been going up during the winter, and the huge roof beam lifted into position.
At Abingdon School the concrete frame of the new science block is being filled in with breeze blocks and insulation slabs.
Mayott House is having the roof put on.
The site for 159 dwellings in a field off the Drayton Road are still having an archaeological survey.
What do you think of the rather bizarre black thing between the old police station and the building closer to the river? It is bold in its uncompromising refusal to fit in with the buildings that it joins. But…
Any news anyone on the Drayton Rd development. Decision by Vale was due end of Jan. Any news on the call for a judicial review over the crossings in Ock street & Marcham Rd?
you mean the glass walkway between the buildings ?
I’m guessing its just that, an enclosed walkway , to join the ‘apartments’ together ?
more to the point.. what’s happened to Broad Face ? It seems to have gone under yet again ? 🙁
{Hijacked}
I see in Oxford Mail yesterday, that the Guildhall will be closing for 1 year. Apparently very short notice given to ‘users groups’.
http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/archive/2015/02/11/11785604.Abingdon_Guildhall_will_close_for__at_least__a_year/
Well … I guess ‘blue sky thinking’ about a Guildhall cinema was, as I always thought, ‘pie in the sky thinking’.
Now do we get to know how much of our money has been needlessly frittered away on consultants and how much money has been wasted on running costs while the TC sat on its hands.
Anyone with an iota of common sense and real practical experience would have known that the Guildhall cinema project was doomed .
Now can the TC pull its finger out and attract a real cinema company, run by real business people, to Bury Street. That could be the saving of a town centre retail environment.
You think the guildhall cinema scheme is dead !!
Never fear, like a phoenix it will rise from the ashes…
Still please to see that Cllr Lovat now considers the guildhall to be a ‘white elephant’, I wonder why he didnt mention that before agreeing to take it on..
Anyway, all the big cinema companies have already invested in Oxford and Didcot, they aren’t coming to Abingdon, just like the big retail chains… 🙁
Hi Dunmore Resident. I think the Broad Face had to close temporarily due to noise complaints from neighbours. They are hoping to open up again shortly.
Be cautious of believing everything you read in the newspapers.
There is no change to the plans outlined for the Guildhall, which remain as previously communicated.
The only new information is that a firm closure date has now been set so that work can start on the redevelopment, plans for which still include a cinema.
There is a new reporter at the Herald.
As far as Newcomer’s comments on Bury Street are concerned, I would reiterate (yet again) that the Town Council don’t own or have any influence on Bury Street.
Iain, we know only too well that the councils have ‘privatized’ the town centre and can do little, if anything, to decide its fate. It’s a salutary lesson as to what will happen if politicians ever get round to privatizing the NHS …’you’re terminally ill … how terrible for you … but we’ve got no influence on your treatment nowadays’ ..Yes, politicians have no influence, so what’s the use of politicians?
Of course, if politicians had any influence, combined with an iota of business sense, they might be able to approach those who do control the town centre with commercial ideas which they, the politicians, would be will to help facilitate.
Meanwhile, despite promises, the majority of new units on Bury Street remain empty.
To repeat my point…
Whilst you may wish to vent about politicians in general, your comment above was about the town council.
The town council has never been the landlord of bury street – you should direct your criticisms to the Vale District Council, who own the freehold or to aberdeen asset management who are the leaseholders.
The town council has never had any responsibility for the NHS – you should direct your criticisms to the Department of Health or the Oxfordshire NHS Trust or you can contact your MP.
Ian, where are you coming from? What are you trying to achieve? Whatever it is you do your cause no good by consistently shooting yourself in the foot “the town council has never been landlord of the precinct” the old borough council, aka town council were the first owners of the precinct up until the 1972 local council act when the borough council was abolished and its assets including the old gaol were transferred to the Newley created district council ,
Answer this please Ian? Why is your opinion of what’s happening to the guildhall so different to the leader of the council who own it? This week Sandy Lovatt had been plastered all over the press stating the guildhall is closing and being mothballed yet you consistently differ fr this line blaming the media for inaccurate reporting !who do we believe? And why as chair of the complex won’t you reveal just howi much you’ve spent on consultants?
Steve
I was 5 in 1972 when the borough council ceased to exist. The district authority (not the town council) took over these responsibilities. I fail to see why what i could have done to prevent this but I will send a letter to my primary school teacher to share your disappointment that she didn’t make me more aware of the terrible injustices that were being reaked on this town that i must have been responsible for.
If you are interested I fully agree that the 1974 local government reform act was appalling and I am a strong supported of a unitary oxfordshire authority which would help reverse some of those decisions.
In regard to the Guildhall, I commented fully in your questions the last time you brought this up and the only thing that has changed since then is that we now have a firm closure date so that we can give some certainty to the groups booking the hall who will meed to find alternative venues whilst we undertake the work.
I have read the article and I’m afraid it is rather misleading, I presume as a journalist new to the area there was some misunderstanding on where we are on the project, unfortunatley the journalist concerned did not approach me so I was not able to clarify any confusion before she wrote the article. You’ll be pleased to know she has agreed to come and visit the building in the near future so we can explain the plans more clearly
Our expenditure on the project remains at a little below £100k. It is reported each quarter to the guildhall meeting and minuted. Both of these are public. Similarly there was a public question asked on this at a recent meeting a full breakdown was minuted in resopnse to this. I would also point out that this is the total expenditure. You are using an emotive term of consultant – the overwhelming majority of this is to do with architecture, structural surveys, quantity surveying, light reports, accoustic reports, etc. there is a small amount that has been spent on a market analysis and support for our tender process which might be termed business consultancy – maybe £15k in total – i’d have to check the exact figure. I believe I have stated these numbers previously so think your criticism is unfounded, but I’m sure that wont stop you levelling again.
Ian that really is the most arogant of replies, even by your standards! For over half a century the people of Abingdon and our neighbours have enjoyed the use of the Guildhall, yet it is under your governance that we are supposed to accept its closure simply because you can’t balance the books! You didn’t have to take it over fr the vale ( who’s budget was large enough to cover the annual running costs) you knew full well the cost of running the place yet you went blindly on with a half baked plan ( which only 300 supporters) that’s almost bankrupt the town council and you have the nerve to try to discredit all who dare question you !
To repeat myself for a third time and my apologies to bored readers – the article is misleading.
The guildhall is not closing because it is costing too much to run – so dont perpetuate inaccuracies. The books are happily balanced.
It is closing because we want to redevelop it and suspect that people will not want to meet in a building site.
I am not seeking to discredit you Steve – you are simply wrong
Iain – thanks for your explanations. Can you explain what you mean by: ‘The books are happily balanced’. I thought the Guildhall was continuing to run at a large loss?
trevor – to the best of my knowledge the Vale is still considering whether to proceed with a Judicial review of the decision by the County Council to approve the crossing move. I hope they are able to go ahead with it as it was an appalling decision.
Overall budget is balanced Neil and there would be no problem if we decided to continue to run the Guildhall on the current basis, which, as you quite rightly say is heavily subsidised (£150k pa).
The point of misunderstanding is that the press article said we were closing the Guildhall because we cant afford to keep it open and that is not the case.
Our intention is that the redeveloped facility when reopened will operate at a significantly reduced subsidy and hopefully at a surplus.
Iain, note that I wrote ‘… the councils have …’ as I’m aware that The Vale has responsibility for Bury Street, but I’m afraid that The Vale and TC are so politically intermingled that they’re more or less guilty on a Joint Enterprise basis for all the cock-ups in the town.
As for the rest of your points … I put it down to you just being obtuse for effect and not that you just don’t get it.
Thanks Iain.
Ian, re comment 11 above your statements do seem markedly different from those reported as by sandy lovatt.
I know the herald has in the past worded vague ideas as direct quotes, but it would be interesting to know whether clllr lovatt actually said, “Only 12 per cent of the Guildhall is currently utilised and it costs us £150,000 every year to operate and we only make £30,000. It’s proving a very expensive white elephant.”
You must have spoken to clllr lovatt since the article was published. Did the reporter make up the quote?