Two planning applications have been submitted for The Guildhall, Abingdon. The plans can be found on the Vale of White Horses planning portal: one is for listed building consent, the other is for full planning permission. A decision will be made mid May.
Various plans have been put forward since the Guildhall ownership transferred from the Vale of White Horse District Council to Abingdon Town Council six years ago. It is intended to make the 1960s Abbey hall more accessible – with multiple usage including a cinema. This final proposal includes the remodeling of the lower level space with the creation of a new glazed public entrance with a new cafe, and a patio area in front.
The plan will also remove the front and the rear concrete ramps.
I’m sure I am being a bit thick, but I have just had a quick look through the application and read the ‘design and access statement’. I can find not one single mention of a cinema. Has this project been de-scoped to nothing more than a tarted up village hall?
I am getting more baffled by the business case for this each time I read anything about it. Please would someone enlighten me? Am I missing something here? thanks Steve
The description below is from the application. It seems to be focus on making the building more accessible and adding a glass frontage.
‘The application seeks approval for full planning permission and listed building consent to provide a comprehensive upgrade to the 1960’s Abbey Hall by making it more accessible. The proposal includes remodeling of the lower level spaces with the formation of a new glazed public entrance with a cafe opening onto a new landscaped public piazza space, providing Abingdon with a new, vibrant and accessible venue. The scheme includes the removal of the front external escape stair and front and rear concrete ramps.’
Out of interest Steve; what kind of cinema were you hoping for?
You’re not missing anything Steve – when they say cinema what they mean is the ability to show films in the existing Abbey Hall. If you look at the Beacon in Wantage that would be comparable to their plans.
I recall reading somewhere (I think it was Mr Badcock that stated it), that it would be a screen and projector…which would be great for showing slides etc. at council meetings. Other local towns must be laughing their socks off at our “efforts”.
…and I bet those towns have shops that sell socks, too, just to rub it in!
When do we get our revamped carpark?
I’m not sure the paperwork even references a screen and projector. To be honest, I’m not really interested in some kind of lash up I could do in my front room, so maybe it’s for the best that we don’t aim for some amateur-ish solution.
Daniel – to answer your question, in terms of what I was looking for. I want some reasonable entertainment in our town centre to help re-energise it. Sandy Lovatt was spot on in last week’s Herald that we need to position ourselves as a leisure destination; better to do this in my option with someome who has a track record in delivering this like Picturehouse, Everyman. I am sure there are loads more out there. We’re a large, growing town with nearly full employment so why no leisure options in the town centre? It makes no sense to me.
I went into the town centre yesterday morning, the town was “open” ……..but the multi-storey car park wasn’t! What IS the point of Sandy Lovatt trying to promote us as a “leisure” town…albeit with no leisure facilities to back it up…when the main car park is shut on evenings and bank holidays?!!
That’s weird and clearly wouldn’t work, but I thought it was open evenings and bank holidays. If not, it should be.
Exactly the sort of thing the council turned down in our name Steve. Aparently the priority for the town is a ‘village hall’ with a cafe
No Steve, i think if you look at the signage, it closes at 7pm every night, and is closed on bank holidays. And the consultants are paid thousands to work out why footfall is down in the town..and why shops are being forced to close. It’s not rocket science, is it?
Spot on Steve. Could not agree more; except Sandy is about 4 years behind the curve; many have been pressing for such a leisure focus for a while. Still…good he is now on board.
What that really means of course, will depend on what the council officers decide, as it is they who have the town’s future in their grasp; not transitory councillors.
I know a few “mere residents’ who have been trying to get various leisure providers here themselves – contacting procurement departments of cinema operators etc; but if you know of other providers…give them a call or drop them an email….at least that way you’ll be reassured that they have in fact been asked…all power to your elbow.
But you are right; it makes no sense – especially with our imminent increase in housing. It would be nice to know who’s responsible for letting it get to this state. It becomes even more disheartening that in these times of struggle and recession and austerity in the past few years….other market towns have positively thrived…yet for some as yet unfathomable reason; Abingdon has been allowed to wallow in the doldrums. So I do not believe it comes down to cold hard cash. Abingdon certainly tries….but it doesn’t compare to what’s happened to our neighbours. It would be good to know how this came to pass….if nothing else to help us avoid it happening again (or continue).
These issues can’t surely only be obvious to you and me and various others; yet the best we’ve got….is a revamped carpark (and that’s not even a definite)!
I am very happy to acknowledge that some wonderful events happen in Abingdon, and they are done exceptionally well…but that in no way tempers my frustrations as to what we are NOT getting.
The good is great…but the bad is woeful.
Lots of good things happen in this town and I’m happy to live here. I’m very much a glass half full type of person and if it really is as grim as some people think, then we have lots of potential for growth…..which is good!
I suspect if one looked at this from a UK perspective, one would find a rather favourable picture! http://www.whatmortgage.co.uk/news/best-places-live-countryside/
I see that the plan is provide Abingdon with a new, vibrant and accessible venue.
New = revamped
vibrant = gobbledygook buzzword
accessible = removing ramps (and presumably replacing them)
Who writes this stuff?
Happy Easter, one and all!
My turn then ? Ian I’m quite happy for the guildhall to be nothing more than an overgrown village hall, isn’t that what this community building supposed to be? I would be even more please if they abandoned all plans to incorporate a cinema too, a pop up/pull down screen and projector will always be a compromise anyway,
It’s this sort of goings on that puzzles and frustrates me :-
Last week I read OCC are spending £50 mil on a new bypas for Bicester ! Meanwhile the second phase of Didcots Orchard centre has been announced along with plans for a new river bridge ! I’ve just driven along the Culham rd and see OCC resurfacing the pavement all the way from the old Culham turn to the science park! Then I look at infrastructure spending on Abingdon and can find nothing if any consequence since the disastrous Abits project? How come money can be found for the paving to Culham yet the footpath from Wootton to Abingdon is practically non existent ? (and this is the main route to school for many children) were told a diamond for lodge hill is £6/7 mill and funds are not available? but we can find almost £1 million on our multi story car park? What happened to the £3 mill plus from the Old Gaol sale? I see no evidence of its distribution?That money along with the car park money is over half the money needed for the diamond interchange?
What of the 106 money from 170 houses on Morland Green? And what plans for the 106 money from the proposed 600 homes to the north of town? Why is it that funding for major projects can be found for other districts but never ours?
The Cornerstone Centre in Didcot seems to be very successful. They have visiting artists and is a venue for interesting shows. It is also used by community groups. The Guildhall in Abingdon did provide a venue for the comedy club which I thought was very good. Groups found the Abingdon Guildhall venue too expensive and some moved to other venues which I thought was a shame. I hope some thought has gone into the use of the Guildhall which should aim to be a vibrant centre for the Abingdon community and visitors.
Those who have been following this saga for the last 5 years or so will know that there was an earlier proposal which was much more ambitious and exciting. It provided for a dedicated cinema, to be run by a professional operator, as well as a multi-purpose hall which could show films but also stage other events. This proposal was roundly savaged by many people, including several of the regular commentators on this blog, with accusations of extravagance, vanity projects, incompetence etc etc. After last year’s council elections it was abandoned in favour of this much more modest proposal.
A prime example of how you can never please everybody – and a reminder to those of us who have strong views but aren’t Councillors about what a thankless task it must be for those who are!
PS It may not be in the Planning Application, but the last version of the proposal I saw definitely included a proper screen, projection equipment etc – the analogy with the Beacon in Wantage is about right.
Depnds how you define the community.
Currently the facility is at less than 15% utilisation and requires a subsidy of of £15k per year. The user base is predominantly (with a few honourable exceptions) retired middle class people. There is nothing wrong with appealing tyo this group, but it is not by any means our whole community – it is a very small minority.
The plans will enhance the facility for existing users but from what I can see there is little there that will attract a different audience. My biggest objection is that we will be borrowing £1m in addition to spending over £1m from reserves to achieve very little new functionality.
The business case is unconvincing as Steve said earlier, which means the facility is likely to retain its existing subsidy and add the cost of the loan which adds £50k pa for the next forty years.
What this means is 20% of your community charge is going to finance the operation of this building which is (and will probably continue to be) used by a very small part of our community. You can already see this starting to impact the council’s finances as they whacked up the community charge by a whopping 4.5% this year (or ‘a cheeky fiver’ as one councillor described it to me).
Sorry – above should have said £150k – typo
Hester..what we were being offered was a small 100 seater cinema…and a 210(?) seat pop up cinema…for a population of over 33,000 people? IF this had materialised, which with spiralling costs and 100k being spent before anything was even decided or a brick moved, i have ny doubts it would ever have done…., then it would have been a kiss of death for Abingdon EVER getting a proper cinema/leisure centre. If we don’t have this excuse for one…one that promises to show films weeks after general release, then who knows….maybe one day, we will get a council in with vision and foresight to actually chase this and MAKE it happen!
The whole Cornerstone and cinema of Didcot could easily fit on the Charter site.
Now wouldn’t THAT be a benefit for the town centre? Why don’t/didn’t the powers that be say to scottish widows, “we will let you off of your obligated 50 million IF you build this”?? Or have Abingdons decision makers just rolled over again!!!
I think we’re all being blindsided. We are all arguing over our village hall…when, conveniently for some, we ignore the actual issues and opportunities that the town is presented with.
Yes, there’s a discussion to be had over the Guildhall…but it isn’t, it won’t be, and it never could be what the town needs, on the scale the town deserves. It has its place, and that’s what today’s discussion is about. But what Abingdon *needs* is proper development.
I agree with the above, why is no one bringing Scottish Widows (or whoever) to book over this (another) fiasco?
Back to the Guildhall….there has been free advice on here and elsewhere about how to run it properly, as a commercial venture, but that seems to be ignored. Properly run it would turn a profit – but it seems throwing money at it and running it just as badly is the preferred method.
Whilst “the best” our Councils can come up with is a revamped car park….I’ll continue not to thank them for it.
advice being free doesnt make it good or informed daniel
Julian – many cinemas operate very successfully on the scale that was proposed. For the record the operators all said they would have prefered two smaller screens rather than the 100 seat which they felt could have been fitted in the same space so if the plan had gone ahead there would have been a slight adjustment to the configuration originally proposed.
I don’t think it the responsibility of any local authority to provide such as cinema’s or bowling alley etc, surely that’s for business to supply according to demand? And perhaps that will be fulfilled once we have the extra housing? Either way I would strongly object to part of my council tax payments to subsidise a cinema !
It wouldnt be subsidising a cinema – the cinema would be subsidising the council.
As i’ve stated previously the deal they turned down would have improved the council’s net financial position by approximately £125k pa and provide a professional conema/theatre as opposed to the choice they’ve taken which worsens the council’s financial position by £50k pa
I thoroughly agree Iain; but it just might be…and hasn’t cost anything. Conversely, just because huge amounts of money is spent on consultants it doesn’t make that advice any good – yet we plough on regardless, with it costing a fortune with no comeback if the advice is flawed. This is often the case as is our experience as mere rate payers.
If I was responsible for spending other people’s money…I know whose advice I’d be exploring in the first instance.
“Consultants” have a lot to answer for….
I’d suggest that the new-look Guildhall should incorporate a neon frieze on the outside displaying the names of all town councilors involved in any budgetary decisions since the Vale palmed the building off on the TC. Thus, in future years, as the council taxpayers’ money disappears down the plug-hole of incompetence, those to blame will stay in our memories.
A while back I’d suggested that the intended ‘cinema’ should be called ‘The Littlejohn’, in memory of Robin Hood’s old friend, to commemorate how the rich taxpayers were robbed and the proceeds given to the poor and deserving consultants.
Abingdon need not rely on tired and boring history .. we should be creating ‘instant legends’ now … The Pillaging of The Old Gaol, The Re-Cobbling of the Market Place, The Re-routing of The Old Stagecoach Route to Bath (a time-travel story involving coach passengers being trapped in the limbo a a coach going nowhere), …
Newcomer – I’m not sure that is really adding anything, but maybe you have gained some satisfaction from your post.
It’s seems to me that the latest proposals are going to cost me (as a local taxpayer) money, but deliver frankly bugger all, which feels like a pretty poor return on investment. I’d rather take the risk on something more expensive which might actually deliver some benefit and be commercially viable.
The latest proposals look poorly thought through, don’t provide any kind of differentiation from other alternatives in the town. In fact, it seems incomprehensible why we would want to create a stand alone cafe, when it is bloody obvious that there are multiple options already available and at least three more (Stroll in, Old Gaol and the Boat House) which are on the way and all going to be in better locations.
Do these local politicians actually engage with the public on these matters? I would have thought it obvious to use this board to engage with local townsfolk. The fact that they don’t makes me think they can’t substantiate their arguments.
Politicians at all levels and in all the main parties (not just on our Town Council) tend to think that being elected once every 4 or 5 years means that they know best on all topics – regardless of whether or not the issue was one on which they campaigned. In particular they believe that being elected means that they are empowered to decide how public (our) money should be spent.
This is why I (and others) have frequently bored readers of this blog with pleas for people to at least contact Councillors directly (not just via blogs) with their views, and better still, stand for the Council, or, in the case of business people, become involved in one of the business groups.
Do the councillors have any sway though?
Which councillor wants to spend £800k to revamp a carpark? Or is it a council officers idea?
Which councillor accepted the flawed consultation about AbITs and pressed on regardless? Or was that a council officer decision?
Which councillor is allowing Aberdeen Asset Mgmt to renege in the redevelopment of the Charter? Or is it a council officer decision?
Which councillor allowed the flawed traffic consultation for the moved Ock St/Marcham Rd crossings? Or was that a council officer decision?
I have written directly to council officers and also to councillors for info and insight on the above (and others). The officer could not locate the information I was after…and the councillor told me to get an FOI if I want the info.
Steve; in answer to your last question….no, they don’t. I have been to some meetings and some ‘exhibitions’…but the best we get is a showing about “this is what we’re going to do”. But that’s it.
I know you are new here Steve, and I know you are an optimist…I look forward to your thoughts in 5 yrs time; if you stick it out….
Reference 30 unfortunately Hester doesn’t seem to realise that our democracy is run on elected people who make decisions on behalf of the electorate. This happens at all levels of government with perhaps a question mark over the House Of Lords.
Hester seems to know a lot about most things going on in Abingdon perhaps she should put her money where her mouth is and stand for election.
Unfortunately, Melissa, our democracy is run by party political place people who’ve proven they are loyal to party interests by toeing the line when the party cracks the whip. You’ve got to sell your soul to get on in politics and vote on behalf of the party, not the electorate..
It’s very difficult for an independently minded person to make headway against (in)vested establishment interests so the best recourse is to alternative, free media such as this Blog.