Notag Fashions has recently closed. I read on the streetlife forum that the shop will be missed. It had some very loyal customers.
There is a license application in the window of the empty shop at the end of the precinct for sale of alcohol from midday to midnight.
The application is for a Wildwood Restaurant.
Not much has happened yet with the biggest unit in Bury Street – completed 2½ years ago. The perceived wisdom was that Abingdon needed bigger units to attract the National Chains.
It would be very helpful if someone from the Town Council or Vale could set out in plain english where we stand with the larger unit and what, if any, efforts are being made to lease it or is the matter solely a case for the leaseholder?. My understanding is that Co-Op is shutting due to a rent increase.
Its not clear why the Bury Street precinct Co-Op is closing, only rumours. Duplicate Co-Op in Abingdon. (managed by different branches of the store). Rumours from staff that costs have risen, not enough sales to cover costs. Getting ready for Phase 2??. build a supermarket?? ..
It would be very helpful if someone from the Town Council or Vale could set out in plain english where we stand with the larger unit and also phase 2 or is it dead in the water? Basic communication should be a given in the 21st century.
Please make enquiries with the TC or Vale Steve and post the reply here for us all.
It’s beyond me why it hasn’t occurred to someone that the largest Bury Street units would make an Ideal cinema?
Or is that too obvious?
Speaking of cinemas. I see in todays Oxford Mail Page 16. Meeting behind closed doors set to decide ‘fate’ of Guildhall. Residents will have to wait longer to find out..
Has it not occured to anyone at the Council that any responses to the application should go to Crowmarsh – surely not?!
Council should have followed the Mary Portas programmes a while ago – the retail guru. It was noted on her programme that large units are quite useless. Small units/independent retailers thrive better.
http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/13348968.Meeting_behind_closed_doors_set_to_decide_fate_of_Abingdon_Guildhall/
Link just appeared this afternoon.
Ah. “commercial confidentiality”. that old canard. I can userstand – just – the need for this when you are in a bidding process, but methinks the Abingdon Councils use it far too readily to control news and prevent public scrutiny and outcry.
I remember at the same time as the Old Gaol was being put to tender the Olympic Stadium was in the same process. The Gaol was kept under wraps, the stadium was open and public. It is absurd that the Gaol is still under wraps years later.
One can only hope that the guildhall does not go the same way; but i fear the instinct of the council tends to be to keep things under wraps.
Does this have to be so? All I can say is that i now live in another area and find the local government here in Luton far more transparent.
Houdini, you are of course correct, however we are lumbered with the decision makers we have; as you may appreciate, there’s no escape!
Not always, David, is confidentiality a smokescreen; when I met Iain Littlejohn after the elections for a quiet pint, I discovered that deals which had almost been sealed fell through at a late stage, which meant that long negotiations had to start again.
I think Iain was as frustrated by all this as anyone – not least because he could not always tell the whole story. Suffice it to say that commercial investors are likely to have far more experienced and expensive lawyers than the Council can afford to hire. The Council has to employ generalists; developers have their own specialists.
Perhaps Luton has more financial clout than Abingdon.Direct comparisons seldom work exactly. I still like living in Abingdon – even though I don’t agree with the political persuasions of the majority party on the Council or of the MP!
Hiding behind the old chestnut of ” commercial sensitivity” has had its day, if the people we elect to do the Jon aren’t up for it then they should resign, or at least ask for help? There is a veritable army of well proven business people in Abingdon who would be more than happy to give their opinion or use their skills to assist the lesser versed politicians make a decision on things business, but as per usual our chosen few take being elected as carte blanch to do as they please, even if through their nativity the town is brought to its knees.
Well over a year ago, when I was pressing the case for a cinema in Bury Street, Iain told us that no commercial cinema chain would find Abingdon an attractive proposition for a cinema..
Just before the election he tells us that FOUR commercial cinema operators are interested in the Guildhall!
Why the change? Had Iain lost his script, forgotten his lines?
A ‘happystance’ for him that his registration papers for the election were ‘lost’.
I’ve not written here for a while as I’d despaired of the make-weights on the councils — all the councils … including The Vale on whose behalf that nincompoop Nimmo-Smug gave the development on the Drayton Road ‘the nod’ one Saturday on the basis that the outside end of Ock Street would become (miraculously) traffic free with the addition of even more pedestrian street furniture. One hopes that the nincompoop got back to Henley that day in time for Pimms.
I don’t write here to wind people up. I write here because I’m wound up. I’d like to think that the Councils aren’t too stupid not to know they’re stupid and I’d like to think that they’re not so emasculated that they haven’t got the balls to lay down the law on access to the Old Gaol site.
I’d like to think these things … but every ‘news update’ makes me think it’s a lost cause.
The odds on the architectural monstrosity that is the ’60’s/70’s part of the Guildhall being mothballed are shortening as I type. Too much of the ‘development silver’ has cross the palms of the soothsayers (consultants).
Just to slightly correct Paul’s post above (12)
I agree with the sentiment of the post, but it is not correct that a deal had been almost sealed and fell through.
What I was that because there was a new committee, there would be an inevitable slow down in the process while the committee which is coming fresh to the process gets itself up to speed in order to decide how it wishes to proceed.
Like everyone, i will be interested to hear what was decided last night when it becomes public.
Unlike some posters, I will view information being held in private as a good sign, as it will imply that commercial discussions are still taking place with one of the commercial bidders. Whilst I’m not permitted to share details there were offers on the table which i believe would represent excellent value to the council tax payer and the community overall.
David – I agree with you that Abingdon Town Council makes too much use of confidentiality and will be pushing for a more open approach.
However there are some good reasons for it, particularly when commercial bids are on the table.
Some key decisions about the Guildhall will go public later this morning after commercial bidders, staff and neighbouring residents have been told first.
To correct Bill’s post (14)
I disagree with pretty much everything he says but will not bore people with repeating myself from previous debates on this topic.
However he is (as normal) reguritating my statements out of context. To be clear on my view on the attractiveness lf Abingdon to commercial cinema operators:
There are a number of different models which commercial cinema operate:
1. A multiplex: abingdon would not be attractive to a multiplex operator. They look to be near a major population centre and about 40 minutes from another similar set up. Abingdon is approx 20 minutes from oxford and didcot where they already have multiplexes. in addition they also tend to look for subsidised rents where landlords wish to attract customers to a site with otherwise low footfall (as is the case with kazzam complex for example).
2. Smaller cinema (typically 2-4 screens): these would be attracted to abingdon as they need to be about 20 mins from other cinemas and seek to offer a more differentiated service to attract local audiences. These businesses are very cost sensitive so are unlikely to be attracted to a high rent location such as the precint, and they tend to look for character buildings (old cinemas, historic buildings, etc) so they can give a distinctive experience.
The reason the Guildhall is commercially attractive to an operator is because of the interesting nature of the building and the council is already making a heavy subsidy to the building, so even a low rent would represent a positive contribution to reducing the subsidy. At the risk of using jargon, it’s viability is driven by the level of sunk costs already absorbed by the Council.
As usual, Iain, you reimagineer the past.
I’ve got to say that I must have been missing out on the ‘cinematic experience’ enjoyed by others as the ‘interesting nature of the building’ in which I’m watching a film has never influenced my enjoyment of the film one jot.
As for the ‘interesting nature’ of the 1960’s part of the Guildhall building … I can only advise that there’s still (for now) a Specsavers in the precinct.
I think the latter part of your last paragraph is the most telling … that all Abingdon taxpayers will have to subsidize a cinema enterprise in the Guildhall …. you’re right, we’re all sunk.
Just be glad that happystance means that you won’t be holding the poison chalice when this one hits the buffers.
My understanding is that the Guildhall Cinema is a Tory Plan, so they’re never going to admit they were wrong.
I really wish that all local government decisions were so sensible that I didn’t feel driven to write here.
Wrong on pretty much every count but I cant be bothered with you and dont need to be politie about it now I’m not a councillor 🙂
Now you’re no longer a councilor, Iain, ********************** (moderated)
Iain…your statement “in addition they also tend to look for subsidised rents where landlords wish to attract customers to a site with otherwise low footfall”…..doesn’t this describe precisely the Charter fiasco? OR the empty units in the precinct?? Shouldn’t SOMEONE at the council get Aberdeen Angus/Anger Management…AKA Scottish Widows (or whatever they are calling themselves this week!) and the major cinema chains together and thrash out a proper cinema deal???
You also state that they would need to be “near a major population centre”….so what is the 30,000 plus population of Abingdon??? Botley is closer to Oxford, Didcot is not 40 minutes away from Oxford….so where does this not wanting to be near another multiplex fit in?? I smell something….is it cows….dogs…?? No…it is almost definitely Bulls!!!
Well looks like the ney sayers have got there way – see the press release on the council’s website.
An appalling decision i’m afraid and a real lost opportunity for the town.
http://abingdon.gov.uk/system/files/sites/default/files/towncouncil/Town%20Council%20press%20release%20250615.pdf
Iain….it was the only sensible decision. Just a shame that over £100k has been wasted coming to it! At the risk of repeating myself…Abingdon NEEDS and DESERVES a PROPER cinema!
You wont get a ‘proper’ cinema now Julian – you’ll now get a pop up cinema and that’ll be it.
Don’t know what you think is wasted about the £100k – vast majority of it would have been required anyway for them to implement what they are now proposing. People on this site keep labelling it as consultancy but nearly all of it is architecture and disbursements (eg structural survey, accoustic reports etc).
Architecture is only bit where there might be a bit of rework and that should be fairly minimal as we negotiated a fixed price contract.
Any cinema in the Guildhall is a ‘spoiler’ for a commercial operation considering Bury Street. A commercial company would hold back in case the Guildhall might skim-off revenue which would have flowed straight through to their bottom-line.
A Guildhall cinema was a dumb idea in the first place and would never have been more than a ‘pop-up’. Lack of thought and overblown ideas on the TC’s part might have deprived the town of having the chance of a proper cinema.
What incompetence.
Surely the larger unit in Bury St could be ‘hired out’ for various functions, especially as the Guildhall will be closing. This could be used for Craft Fairs, Memorabilia events, the retro fair that runs every now and then at the Guildhall.
Even if it opens for these things at weekends, it’s better than just being closed full stop.
There’s a need to think outside the box!
Perhaps we should consider having a few thousand spent on a “real”, bonafide consultant or expert who understands and knows how to turn towns around?
Then, to make real use of that money, they could be listened to.
Does anyone know who at The Veil is responsible for ensuring the terms of the lease to Scottish Windows is fulfilled, and what recourse we might take if those obligations are not being met?
Matt barber holds the economic development and property portfolio personally, but i would be very surprised if scottish widows were not fulfilling the terms of their lease.
You are assuming that their economic interests are best served by the properties being filled at any rent. They are a pension company and the value of their asset is driven by the rent levels achieved in the development overall so filling their building with any old store which we’d happen to like is not necessarily in their interest.
Just because we dont like the result does not mean they are acting irationally.
Yes, you are correct Iain. Scottish Widows only need to have the precinct “70% let” in order to meet their targets etc.
I think, what I am asking, is, is Matty B a property law guru, or even an ex pert, or even just knowledgeable on the matter.
I guess I am suggesting that whilst money is spent, in the eyes of some, somewhat willy nilly on various consultants that then get mothballed, or ignored, or are of seeming no benefit to us – traffic surveys for Abits, cinemas, old gaols etc…how’s about a few hours at £250 ish an hour on some actual proper, real expert who knows The Law to check, see, confirm, reassure us, that “fings are being done proper”.
And, if it seems that Scottish Windows are meeting their obligations, get the clever lawyer to demonstrate that they aren’t.
Get the violins out for Scottish Widows. Having screwed-up our town centre they deserve all our sympathy, poor traduced lambs.
Matt Barber … the man who’s given Abingdon a haircut and then some. And the man’s qualifications for looting the town are?
Are the primary responsibilities of this town’s taxpayers to meet the needs and egos of Scottish Widows and Mat Barber?
Recalibrate your focus, Iain … it’s supposed to be a democracy.
…..just like I’d want the same planning legal expert to confirm for us that The Veils whole planning process is fit for purpose. I for one have my doubts that it is, based on past experience.
If the town continues down this disharmonised path we will soon be seeking a tough regeneration programme. More consultancy with local groups is required in the decision making processes that architecturally and socially affect the town. The guidelines of sustainable development directly affecting these two aspects are not being met in Abingdon, and this is where the Vale sadly needs to re-read the NPPF and focus it’s objectives on Abingdon.
“Err, Hello!? Hello, McFly…?”
Matthew…..thank bloomin’ goodness! A”tough regeneration programme” is exactly what the town has been crying out for, for a couple of decades!!!!
Consultation with ‘the end users’, ie the people of Abingdon is ALSO what has been needed for decades.
WE have realised this for years….and have been banging on about it for an equally long time.
The fact that The Veil HASNT been focusing its objectives on Abingdon is wholly worrying! Does it come as a surprise to them….all this!?
WELCOME TO THE PARTY!