On 16 Mar 2013 at 10:42am Nevillman wrote:
It seems to me that there is a lot of space there that could be sold for housing to raise money for the council that could be used for some other purpose (other spending or rates cut depending on your persuasion). All we need is a nice community centre. The current one is uninspiring and boring. Why not make it part of the deal that a new one must be built. I don't see why the council should be providing the club/bar at the back. The pubs I chose to go to aren't subsidised by council tax so why should that be as it effectively is by its existence on council land that could be used for something else.
On 16 Mar 2013 at 11:35am Archimedes wrote:
Eureka! agreed let's see what could be before we decry an investigation.
On 16 Mar 2013 at 1:06pm queequeg wrote:
Nevillman you are obviously unfamiliar with the layout at St Mary's if you think there are under used areas.
St Mary's caters for a Nursery group, a hall which acts as polling station, function room, theatre, sports hall and anything else you can imagine.
Then there are the club rooms which have served the community well for several generations. The current buildings have been improved and modified by the club as tenants at huge expense. They currently pay a very reasonable rent as well as all relevant taxes and are responsible for their own maintenance.
If the site were to house all of this and maintain the current car parking then it could only happen if the club and other facilities occupied the ground floor of a very large residential block. Issues to do with fire regulations and sound proofing would complicate matters.
The site is only worth millions if the council can fly in the face of the wishes of thousands of voters who have signed the petition. If so then why stop here:-
There is a prime development site at Castle Precincts only used by a few old boys throwing wooden balls about. The All Saints centre occupies a similar area with similar social use, Nutty Wizard must be worth more as a development site. Let's do away with all social amenities, cut the budgets and raise millions!
What a pathetic town and society we would be.
On 16 Mar 2013 at 1:58pm SHS wrote:
That does sound a good idea QQG, can you confirm what stage the castle bowling green redevelopment plans have reached? I think the plans should include a large museum celebrating local history.
On 16 Mar 2013 at 2:44pm Dunk wrote:
When was the last time you went to Anne of Cleaves house? Knock it down, put in 3/4 town houses and take 1,000,000+ profit. Part of the plans could include building a memorial to Royal divorce in, lets say, Newick.
I like St Marys.
On 16 Mar 2013 at 2:51pm 123 wrote:
I agree with some of what Nevillman says, and also disagree with some other points. It is always worth looking at improving public facilities, in a open way.The advantage of discussing something publicly, rather than secretively like Cllr James Page and Jenny Rowlands think is best , is that you can identify non-starters, or find surprise support straight away without wasting time and tax payers money. Of course these two conspirators committed the ultimate anti-democratic sin which is to start making decisions without telling anyone and base those decisions on inaccurate presumptions about what other people think. It does take a certain sort of ego to behave like this.The leaked documents reveal a contempt for residents in presuming that they would not support change. People do support good change, but at the same time protect what they already like. This nasty policy of patronising the Tax Payer, Councillors, and the Electorate by presuming what they might think, simply had the effect of rallying a large number of people into voicing , quite rightly, their disagreement. This nasty ineptitude has created a misleading impression that there are no other views and created unnecessary conflict . Sadly Page and Rowlands have created the very controversy they secretly predicted, but are clueless about the fact that their actions created that controversy, whilst open discussion could easily have avoided. it There would have been no leaked documents, little reason for mistrust, no basis for conspiracy theories, just people with differing opinions explaining their positions.
Presumably that is all too sensible and democratic, and for Cllr Page and Ms Rowlands who seem to forget that that they are dispensable.
On 16 Mar 2013 at 3:17pm Yojo wrote:
Queequeg, your obvious personal attempt to harpoon and kill any idea of improvement or opportunity for the benefit of the people are as tragic and doomed as the fate of the Pequod. Further more your understating of the opportunity and situation are what one would expect of a savage cannibal out of his time and unfamiliar with modern day needs and demands of today's society and municipal obligations. Skip forward, listen and try and become a modern person. I know it will be hard for you so far out of your comfort zone but not everybody is Ahab, that said, you do seem a bit single minded and revengeful. Apart from all of that, I think you are a Moby Dick!
On 16 Mar 2013 at 3:31pm Utalks hit wrote:
123, you argument is as lazy as your tag. No decision has been made you sad sad waster. No consultation could be had, nothing is known. I'm sure when there is an opetunity to discuss it will be put to the people. But it's definitly not for a few unelected self serving ostriches to decide. I take it you are one of the lying trustees?
On 16 Mar 2013 at 3:42pm Utalks hit wrote:
Sory that was sitting trustees, got my expressions confused.
On 16 Mar 2013 at 3:45pm J Mcliary wrote:
What ever you do don't work together
On 17 Mar 2013 at 11:05am batian wrote:
Utalks, I suspect you are the agitating troll who also posts under a number of names both insulting other posters and trying to (rather lamely) belittle their( far more detialed knowlege) of the subjects they refer to; whilst at the same time tending no care to your spelling (rather than typo errors). You will be ignored, as discussed in earlier thread on trolling.
On 18 Mar 2013 at 12:10am mungoandmidge wrote:
It is a fact that Page and Rowland were having secret discussions about St Mary's because they were concerned people would be completely against development. They made an assumption, with no evidence, and then got caught in a tangle of ambiguous answers to residents who already knew what had been going on in secret. It is very obvious that Cllr Page was trying to be clever, but didn't know his paperwork had been leaked. It has made him seem extremely unreliable.
What he should have done was simply agreed that it was something that should be discussed in principal to see what people wanted, or might be interested in. How would that be controversial, or arouse mistrust?. he would have nothing to lose, unless of course, for some reason he is very keen to do exactly what some people are afraid of. it is all politically inept. Very low calibre local politics, which is why he is being laughed at by Private Eye, and many of us (after we have had a little sigh of despair that someone this inept is running a council)
Clearly people who do not like the fact that Page and Rowlands got caught doing this are posting bizarre comments in support of Page and Rowlands cock up, and it is quite amusing to see how many there are, and wonder what one earth motivates them.
123 doesn't even say he/she is against a discussion or development. I suspect the logic of the comment is very frustrating for someone who cannot even find an inoffensive pseudonym. it shows a level of contempt to the sensitivities of others, that Cllr page also shares.