The second public meeting about the Guildhall’s future also had a strong turnout with well over 100 people including about 8 councillors. The meeting had moved from the Roysse Room to St Helen’s Church, and everybody did get admitted this time. As can be seen, not many young people were there.
The format was much the same as last week and similar points were raised. It was pointed out by one speaker that it made it difficult to have ‘a discussion’ when the Town Council would not answer any questions or respond to any points raised.
A library.
http://www.heraldseries.co.uk/news/15893090.Abbey_Hall_could_reopen_as_library_in_new___39_community_hub__39_/
In a “community hub”.
I find it ludecrous that publically elected councilors will not answer questions posed by council tax payers. I thought that they were answerable to the taxpayers.
I turned up to both meetings, but I couldn’t get into the first one. Personally, I thought the meeting was a shambles, there was no ability to ask questions and the meeting didn’t feel like a positive experience where things moved forward, irrespective of one’s personal position.
The mood was unfortunately set by the long and rambling speech at the beginning of the evening, which set the tone for the night. There was over-emphasis on the finances and accessibility. We’re not thick! Most people understand the need to make buildings accessible. Given that the age profile of the attendees, you would have thought that was a given. It seems the financial position set out by the Council was confused and mis-stated; they didn’t seem to understand the numbers, which is rather concerning. This matter needs clarification so that we can all participate in some reasoned debate.
I may have missed something, but I have no re-collection of the proposal to move the Library to the Abbey Hall. I know they talked about moving part of the Museum Archive to the Magistrates Court, but did I miss the bit about the Library? Why on earth would you expect people to turn up (twice) only to get part of the story, a confused picture on the finances and not be able to participate in an adult discussion? It was a very strange evening.
maybe next election we should vote for new councillors. Perhaps independents.
Perhaps our voters and politicians could get some inspiration from this:
https://www.ted.com/talks/g_t_bynum_a_republican_mayor_s_plan_to_replace_partisanship_with_policy
American I know, but to the point.
“Plans for a £1m refurbishment of the adjoining Guildhall were approved in June.” … blown on the part of the Guildhall the TC swan around in. Were the electorate consulted?
So a library is the exciting plan. Be still my heart.
Unfortunately, John, independents don’t have the infrastructure that political parties can bring to bear at election times and if you can unseat a politician his/her party has the ability to clone endless incompetents.
Hold on all you doubting Tommy’s, is there a bigger picture about to unfold? The library moves into the Abbey Halong along with other community services, thus leaving the present building in the library empty, opposite the othetr services have also been relocated, is there something we don’t know about planned for the charter complex?
I must admit Deedee, that crossed my mind, but very quickly I ruled it out. I can’t see our TC, the OCC, or even the Vale, having enough foresight, planning, and joined-up-thinking to come up with a plan like that? And anyway, it would benefit Abingdon….can’t have that!
Deedee, surely the obvious thing for the charter complex is yet more flats…
yes i know newcomer, but you have to start somewhere. Democracy is supposed to start from the bottom and perhaps there are not enough of us who care enough to try and change things (for the better).
Its very discouraging to see a place like Abingdon with such a rich history and prime location on the Thames to be in the state it is in.
Hold on, I’m just channeling my inner Nostradamus and yes it seems that some very expensive consultants will discover that the cost to bring the Guildhall floors up to the load bearing requirements for a library will mean there’s not enough money available to do it (especially after paying the consultants).
Of course, it came through in nonsense rhyming French but I’ve taken the liberty of translating and interpreting.
Reduction; if anyone can, the consultants will work out how best to balance the books!
DD your positivity and faith in “those in charge” is heartening, if a little deluded.
Lyle…you stole my words.
John, the very nubin…the very cause…the ingrowing hair within the septic pimple that is “the state we are in” is that those with the power remain blind to this very state. Until it is recognised through and through that there is “a state that we are in”….the status quo will never change.
The flowers will no doubt look wonderful this year, and for that we must be truly grateful. But for goodness sake…don’t dare expect any more than that. There’s a good chap
I am with Deedee, I smell a rat! Oxforshire County Council want to get rid of as many buildings and commitments as possible. They have already made plans to get rid of day centres for the elderly and have got rid of children’s centres. What better to move the library to the Abbey Hall and get rid of the present library building to developers.
From my perspective the issue surrounding the Abbey Hall is how council make best use of a publicly owned asset?
Surely the Town Council is perfectly correct in pursuing all options that firstly, best suits its budget and secondly, makes best use of that asset for the good of as many of its council tax payers as possible?
Council tax payers should not be funding private enterprise, I.e a commercial cinema operating in a subsidised public building?
Oops I almost forgot to mention this. Whilst enjoying a cup of my favourite brew in town this morning I overheard a couple of the towns shop owners (who are BID levy payers) discussing how they intend to ask some very awkward questions to Cllt Lovatt at tonight’s council
Meeting, apparently apart from not declaring his pecuniary interests in the BID they want to know why, when they asked the BID manageress how much an expensive looking glossy brochure cost they were told it didn’t cost a penny because her husband had a friend with a printing company who did it as a favour? Doubting that one of them took note of the printers name ( on the back of the brochure) searched it on companies house only to find the nanageress’s husband is a director of the company! Pressing this further apparently the manageress stated it cost the BiD payers £3000! Still not satisfied with that the shopkeeper dug deeper and apparently now has evedence of an invoice for over £10,000 paid by the BID levy payers to the manageress’s husbands company!
Should be a lively meeting !!
Dee Dee, Cllr Lovatt was not asked awkward questions at tonight’s meeting and he did declare a non- pecuniary interest as he represents the Vale Council on the Management Board, he is not a Director or paid, so please get your facts right before making uninformed public statements.
Cllr Lovatt proposed a motion to Council tonight to look at the Regal option and get the Abbey Hall back into use that was passed unaminously. I spoke strongly in favour of doing so as I have been been doing at Council meetings in public for sometime.
Deedee, re your post 14, I have been following the Abbey Hall debate very closely and haven’t seen any suggestion in the current debates that the TC should “fund a private enterprise I.e a commercial cinema operating in a subsidised public building”. My understanding is that the current offer is for the cinema company to hire the Abbey Hall (at a rate to be negotiated), thereby generating income for the TC during a period when they had planned to leave it empty. The revenue from this hiring would help offset the fixed costs of the complex as a whole. As a bonus, the cinema company would also le the building be used for other community events.
The Council taxpayer is already paying out money for the Guildhall even if it is not used, rates, heating etc., to ensure it does not deteriorate.
If the cinema moves in then we can generate some money for the Town Council as well as bringing people into the town for entertainment and to the benefit of businesses such as pubs, cafes and the shops. Surely this is what we all want?
Well, I want a little more than another opportunity to be regarded as an economic unit. I want a sense of belonging to a community that measures its strength in the way it provides care for the needy, the helpless, the overlooked, the forgotten.
Of course this requires some finance but it also requires a vision of well-being; and that is not primarily a fiscal issue but a social one.
There is a new charity that I am involved with called Healthy Abingdon ‘Working together to improve health and wellbeing in Abingdon. It brings groups together in the town to improve people’s health and wellbeing’.
We have had a couple of public meetings and the word is spreading. We take up suggestions and are looking into the provision of more benches in the town for mobility impaired people to get out and about and making Abingdon a dementia friendly town.
Want to know more see http://www.healthyabingdon.org.uk
Oh dear, amazing what a few Chinese whispers can do! Still confused by all this though, if Cllrs Mr & Mrs Lovatt are so keen for the building to be a cinema then the question has to be asked “you’re both town councillors why have you waited this long to be so vocal about something that’s been festering in town while on your watch?”
I’m pleased that you have confirmed Cllr Lovat is a board member of the Abingdon BID, so why doesn’t he act with the towns businesses best interests? Why will nobody from that board answer the question about the £10000 brochure the cost of which had been hidden?
To move the topic back to the Abbey Hall.
I was unfortunately not able to attend yesterday’s Council meeting due to a school board meeting, but have received encouraging feedback from several different individuals who were there.
Their feedback was:
– as Monica said earlier, unanimous support to engage in discussions with the cinema operators
– a more conciliatory tone, in terms of responding to the feedback from the two public meetings
– a commitment to bring more of the GH reports into the public domain
– an affirmation, per the press statements, that there would be public engagement on the ‘community hub’ idea
Obviously, we will need to reserve judgement and see how this translates into action, but seems to be a welcome step from the council in the right direction.
The longer term ‘exciting plans’ for the Abbey Hall still seem very early days and nebulous, so I think we will need to watch this space. Personally I’m not ‘excited’ yet but look forward for the chance to engage. I found it interesting that a non-Abingdon county councillor launched the plans and told us how much Abingdon needs a community hub. I’d be interested to hear what the Abingdon County Councillors felt and their interpretation of the OCC’s objectives from the plan. I think most of us are still slightly sceptical of Non-Abingdon County Councillors motivations after our experience with former councillor Nimmo-Smith!
Iain: a career in the Diplomatic Service awaits you – “slightly sceptical” is very nicely judged!
In a non diplomatic way, when will all this waffle be turned into some action which will benefit the Town.
Dave, nice summary.
It’s so funny… apart from the addition of the cinema, you lot are talking the same old twaddle that you were talking about this time last year, and the year before, etc etc. Realise something.
Your town councillors, and any other elected folk… all talk utter nonsense
I have to agree with you unknown, trying to decipher Mrs Lovatt and Iain’s contribution here it’s apparent the town Council is at war within itself, on the one hand you have one element (aided and abetted by iain) determined at all cost to turn the hall into a cinema and on the other you have another element determined to retain the place for community based use, meanwhile, 3 years and a £100k later Abingdon still has a boarded up Abbey Hall! We are indeed being very poorly served by councillors more concerned with scoring points of one another instead of doing what they’ve been elected for !
Deedee
Until recently there were three groups: Town Councillors who couldn’t see a way forward for the Abbey Hall so wanted to hand it over to other public bodies to use in some way for the benefit of the community; others who were actively proposing plans for community use – with various ideas in mind; and people who were just crying “foul” but without any clear proposals.
Now it seems that the second group have managed to persuade the first to reconsider and look for ways forward –
how can this not be good news?
There are two separate issues here – the longer term future of the building which we have now been promised will be subject to full public consultation and what happens in the meantime. For the latter there are three choices, leave it boarded up, subject to rates and maintenance costs but with no income, re-open as before but with more pro-active management and marketing, or accept the offer from the cinema operators for a TEMPORARY leasing arrangement, providing entertainment to the town, at no net expense to the public purse, and still allowing other community use.
A slightly different scenario from that you describe?
Hi Hester, I don’t know it’s all beyond me! And why all the secrecy? I’ve just had a coffee in Costa in the Old Gaol and the buzz word there is a prominent town and district councillor was spotted in the Upper Reaches site, so what’s all that about then?
Flats Deedee, its all about flats…
Now if the town council had any real vision, they would be proposing the Abbey Hall was forming the terminus of the new Monorail that will serve the soon to be sprawling metropolis of North Abingdon and Lodgehill.
happy days 🙂
Lyle
Looking at the posts above don’t really understand the need for the four tier system of Government, County, District and Town that seems to make decision making difficult and unclear to outsiders. The frequent reference to “Council” suggests the actual authority is not known.
That’s a different subject, however shouldn’t whoever is responsible as democratically elected representatives be supported by full time experts, employed by the relevant authority, or even shared, thereby negating the need for the regular requirement of expensive consultants. Our MPs don’t suddenly become experts in Transport, Defence, Healthcare etc. They have expert support and advice on which to make their judgement.
Ah, GRJ, there by lays the problem, historically councillors didn’t need to be experts in anything, they relied on a mostly impartial army of officers who would present them with honest appraisals and options from which they could make measured decisions that would be for the good of all
Not so now, most councillors are more concerned with satisfying their own egos and self perpetuation than the good they can do for the community who elected them,
Example- in yesterday’s ox mail they reported how Banbury district council have just bought back the shopping centre there from Aberdeen Asset in order to have control of the town etc, by contrast today’s nail features the VWHDC who have just clinched a deal to sell their shopping precinct in Botley, how can two district councils in the same county have such opposite agendas?
Deedee – How can they have such opposite agendas… because none of them have a bloody clue other than how to burn money!
I have suggested numerous times..that our council/Vale should look at the contract that they have with Aberdeen asset as they have failed to meet their promises re the Charter area…by now that should have been knocked down and rebuilt…but instead we got a half-hearted facelift to the precinct! They must be laughing all the way to the bank at us!!
Given that councillors attract so much criticism and abuse, it’s an odd path for someone who is “concerned with satisfying their own egos and self perpetuation than the good they can do for the community who elected them”.
I imagine that some may let their responsibilities to make decisions satisfy an inner urge for position and prestige. I suspect that others will feel helpless in the face of all the conflicting opinion and comment which they encounter.
It is a thankless but necessary task – and (as a practitioner of the political game once wrote): “All political lives, unless they are cut off in midstream at a happy juncture, end in failure, because that is the nature of politics and of human affairs.”
Private Eye’s ‘Rotten Boroughs’ never seems to lack for new editorial material so it’s safe to assume that there are plenty of local politicians whose main mission is to feather their own nests. Then there’s no shortage of worrying rumours that are never proven … one way, or the other …
All this must be very distressing for scrupulously honest local politicians who give generously of their time and patience to the benefit of their local communities. I think these latter are in the majority, but there are always the rotten apples and they are the people who make particular effort to manoeuvre themselves into official positions from which they can extract the most personal benefit.
These latter and the incompetent, are the cause of the general bad odour in which politicians are held.
The internet has done much to amplify general distrust of our political system and the Brexit vote (though there are other examples) illustrate how out-of-touch politicians have become.
So, is our version of democracy broken?
Not necessarily, but it will require politicians breaking some bad habits, one of the worst being their whinging about ‘commercial confidentiality’
The electorate are the customer and politicians are our representatives so they have no business hiding the details of commercial deals from us. We’re not interested in the minutiae of the general commercial secrets of a third party’s business, but we have every right to know the details of deals specific to this town. And, deals shouldn’t be tucked-away from sight until they are revealed to the electorate as a faux accomplli.
Secrecy results in suspicion.
What is it about ‘commercial confidentiality’ that politicians find so addictive? Might we find the details a tad ‘whiffy? … or might the truth reveal the politicians’ incompetence, or lack to reason for their decisions … lack of rationale.
If our political system is to be rescued it’s in the hand’s of the politicians. They’ve got to act in the full light of scrutiny. Those who can’t tolerate the scrutiny should stand down before they’re found out.
DD… I’ve been to Banbury; the flowers are rubbish.
Spot on newcomer.
Chinese whispers? Would that be posts 14 & 29?
Apologies …checking posts 15 & 29 are Chinese whispers, or maybe gossip . Whatever – Must be true.