OLD ROOMS
Currently the historic rooms of the Guildhall are not available for hire. By 2018, to allow better use of the ground floor and old magistrates court the following has already been given planning permission, and will go ahead:
* Accessible ground floor toilets
* Muniment room for archives
* Add platform lift to give access to the old magistrates court – previously used by the music centre
* Repaving of Roysse Court
The council also intends to open the rest of the building in 2018, but at present there is no disabled access to the Bear Room, Council Chamber or Abbey Room. The council’s proposed way of doing this would involve altering a historic staircase to install a lift. The council have already published a report saying that this staircase has been altered extensively in the past and so can be altered again to allow accessibility. The report also rejects the idea of an external lift. But they have agreed to seek an independent expert who can re-assess their findings.
NEW ROOM
The council is currently in discussion with other public-sector partners as to how the Abbey Hall can be used but are not at liberty to divulge these ideas as yet. The council would like to share these exciting ideas as soon as all affected parties have been properly consulted.
What is a “public sector partner”? Aren’t “we” an affected party?
Answers to Daniel’s questions:
1. Not us.
2. Apparently not.
There you go 🙂
Here we go again….another £100k on consultants.
Basically what is being said is that if you have money to put into the project you can steer how it is going. Inevitably this will mean it being shaped into a money making venture.
That in itself is not a bad thing. However, we as the tax payers how paid for its creation….and past mismanagement….should have a clear voice heard on how it moves forward and what this(these) revenue generating activities should be.
What is clear to me is that the activities should benefit the population of Abingdon directly or provide a needed service not already in existence for same population.
I have no problem spending 100k on consultancy fees if we end up with something of lasting benefit to the town. The council seemed to get cold feet on the previous cinema idea without having any idea about the alternative options. This seems like a very off way to behave.
My sense is the original proposal was well reasonably thought through and would probably have been of significant benefit to the town centre. Yes, it would have required someone to take some risk and make some difficult decisions, but you rarely achieve anything unless you accept some risk. I haven’t done the maths, but I suspect the concerns around council tax increases and borrowing are a complete red herring given long term rates and the fact the town is growing at such a rate. It’s growing in terms of population, but the town centre is being managed down because it is so much easier for the decision makers not to accept and own the risk. We need someone who will take some brave decisions. It will be a massive own goal if we end up with little more that another cafe and function room.
My experience of the heritage sector tells me that if money changes hands there is no such thing as an ‘independent expert’,
The Council’s use of the phrase “alterations to a historic staircase in order to install a lift” sounds very innocuous – who could object to that, when as they say, there have already been alterations to the original staircase? However the”alterations” they now propose involve taking the staircase out altogether and building a narrower replica, with a lift going up through the middle of it. Even if they do manage to copy the lovely 18th century mouldings which adorn the present one, they won’t be visible because of the lift!
Historic England guidance for local authorities trying to balance the conflicting needs of inclusivity and heritage preservation strongly encourages them to take advice from professionals with expertise in this area aboout how best to do this: the TC are unlikely to get planning permission for their proposals unless they can show that they have done this and considered all possible alternatives.
So the alterations are not alterations but a replacement. In which case, why not have the courage to bespeak a custom made new staircase?
I would have thought that if keeping the current staircase were not an option, the worst possible course would be to build a fake 18th century job.
Surely one independent expert won’t be enough. We’ll need a whole panel.
Small question: who is paying for this?
ppjs – the Vale gave the TC a £1.2m “dowry” when they handed over the Guildhall complex (old and new) in 2011. £200k has been spent on the two proposals put forward (and dropped) since then – and they have now decided to spend the remainder on the upgrade to the old part and hope to find someone else to take on the new part.
Thanks, Hester. Facts are always appreciated.
However, I note that one sixth of the money has been spent without any tangible result. The official policy now appears to include a substantial “hope” factor, which begs the question: “What happens if (when) hope is disappointed?”
Nationally, we are seeing what happens when policy proceeds on misplaced hope without a serious Plan B. Whatever we think about Brexit; it is not going as promised or as hoped by those who advocated it.
Hoping for the best is all very well, but it is not a policy. A policy means having a plan for the worst.
I wonder what advice officials are giving our elected councillors.
ppjs – why not ask your local Councillor? They still think that there is only a small group of people who are interested and that some of those are “pursuing their own agendas” so it is good if people who do care contact them direct.
9 posts on this subject.
When this topic 1st came up there were no end of interested comments…and people getting very vocal about the waste of money/white elephants and what was happening with OUR taxpayers money. I think the population of Abingdon (or at least the majority) have finally reached total apathy status with our councillors (Vale and Town and District), knowing full well that whatever the general unwashed oiks have to say, it will be totally ignored, and hidden agendas will be followed to the detriment of the town! This has been proven time and time again..with the people’s wishes being totally over-ruled/ignored.
What IS the point of commenting/speaking to your councillor/going to council meetings (only to be barred from anything slightly controversial!), when you know full well from experience that (bad) decisions have probably already been made behind closed doors!
“They still think that there is only a small group of people who are interested and that some of those are “pursuing their own agendas” just about sums up the contempt that the powers that be have for the people they are supposed to be serving!
Spot on, Julian. I might have written similar myself were I not currently submerged in a wave of apathy. Perhaps we should set up an Apathy Party?
Well said Julian, right in every particular, except perhaps the unwashed. Great maybe, unwashed no.
Steve, well said; however when we are forever told ” it’s not the winning, but the taking part that counts” then what difference does [another] own goal make?
I’m eager to be reminded of the last time, for Abingdon, that a ‘group’ or a ‘protest’, or a ‘letter to my councillor’ resulted in a better situation for our community rather than a profit for a developer, or a fee paid to a consultant for dire advice.
Moorland Gardens epitomises the state we are in and crystallised the apathy for many that Julian so rightly points to. Every man, his dog, his councillor and even his MP couldn’t stop 160 piddly houses being built… This for me was the sea change.
But hey…we managed to get a bus stopped removed….