O/T The Dome

[North Stand Shrimp]

As I read Neil G's original message, he was trying to get across that from someone trying to raise money promoting your sponsored run, your "Get Over It" remark in a serious discussion was quite flippant and may give people reason to consider whether to donate or not to someone who treats possible redundancy in such a manner.

(That's an interpretation, not my opinion)

Ok, before this gets rediculous like everything else on here and gets blown out of proportion I will retract my flippant remark.

in other threads I have said how much I also will miss the Dome as I have some great memories there, but lets face facts, it's closing.

If my posts on other topics are going to actually influence peoples decisions on wheather or not they may make a charitable donation then It leaves me with no other option than to not post anything else unless related to my fundraising as I would hate to think that a flippant remark could lose leonard Cheshire any funding.

Paul.

[Phoenix]

1. The Dome is far superior as a venue than The Platform.
This is partly what makes this whole issue look crazy. Yet the City Council won't close down The Platform because the Tourist Information Centre is located there. In my view pressure now needs putting on the council to improve The Platform.

Move the TIC to the bar behind the Dome and close the Platform? Some of the council paperwork linked to from the link way up top here seems to suggest £132K is to be spent on improving the Platform.

[Posh]

1. The Dome is far superior as a venue than The Platform.
This is partly what makes this whole issue look crazy. Yet the City Council won't close down The Platform because the Tourist Information Centre is located there. In my view pressure now needs putting on the council to improve The Platform.

Move the TIC to the bar behind the Dome and close the Platform? Some of the council paperwork linked to from the link way up top here seems to suggest £132K is to be spent on improving the Platform.

You know as well as I do that's not going to happen. It's hardly visible, barely accessible for disabilities and isn't bang opposite the Midland.

As for the £132K that should buy some decent sound proofing and close up the roof. It needs it. Sensible decision in my view.

[campdave]

As for the £132K that should buy some decent sound proofing and close up the roof. It needs it. Sensible decision in my view.

I saw John Bishop at the platform last summer - only about 70-80 people there, and because he starts at 7.30 it's still bright as day when he comes out. Bloody embarrassing - bet he won't be rushing back to Morecambe.

I tend to watch most comedians who play the platform, most make a comment about it when they come out, and I've only ever seen one comedian come back to the same venue in the five years I've been going there.

[Neil G]

As I read Neil G's original message, he was trying to get across that from someone trying to raise money promoting your sponsored run, your "Get Over It" remark in a serious discussion was quite flippant and may give people reason to consider whether to donate or not to someone who treats possible redundancy in such a manner.

(That's an interpretation, not my opinion)

That's exactly what I was trying to get across. Wish I was more articulate than angry

[Keith]

Wish I was more articulate than angry

Perhaps you'd be more articulate if you were less angry?

[bigreddog]

Along with "Trinity" I also attended the overview and scrutiny committee the other night. As usual with one of these local issues, nothing is quite as simple as we'd like it to be.

There was a good turnout by the public, by that I mean 27 people. I counted them. There were also a number of councillors who had turned up who felt strongly about the subject.

First up, let's be clear about this, the Dome is losing money hand over fist. It was also revealed that it doesn't brake even, even when it has big acts in. It's in all the reports, whether you want to believe them or not is up to you, but let's not forget this is public money - your money and the council have to act responsibly with it. The figure for the total cost to us is about (it's an estimate) £1.3m over the next 5 years or so. That could not be allowed to continue.

However, from being at the meeting it was pretty clear that council officers, the tory leader of the council and others had not done their homework prior to the decision being made and prior to the meeting the other night. This led to quite understandable exasperation by the public in my view. it was also pretty obvious that the council cabinet had not asked searching questions and had not looked at the budget (including the dome budget) in the round. A council frankly in chaos, or as the old saying goes: The fish stinks from the head down.

The other two things that came over pretty clearly too were these. Evelyn Archer and the MBI party and their supporters did not have a viable, thought out alternative proposal to save the dome, or proposals for service cuts to keep the dome open. The other was that in the absence of such an alternative, that their default position was back to the conspiracy theory rubbish that they normaly come out with that lancaster is evil and morecambe is good.

Ultimately, to be honest, I was not impressed with the leader of the council or it's senior civil servants or by the MBI party who balked away from the idea of morecambe parish council taking on the dome (presumably because they know it's a dead duck financially)

Some members of the public spoke very well, and very clearly about their fears for the future. they are real fears that need addressing. However, the market trader who claimed that we couldn't possibly use the Festival Market (the clue's in the name) because it takes them two days to dismantle their stalls needs to get some tips from all the other market traders in the universe. also I'm not sure that the traders, trying to make a living in difficult times, understand that the funding for the market was subject to it being used for events from time to time. what happens when the lottery come asking for their money back and we have to close something else just because the market traders dont want to abide by their lease?

Anyway. I've had some good nights at the dome, as many have. I think the point of agreement I may have with Cllr Archer et al ( and you know how I hate that) is that the council is being poorly run, other assets are not being proactively managed and external funding not sought anywhere to the extent we should.

[Neil G]

Wish I was more articulate than angry

Perhaps you'd be more articulate if you were less angry?

Perhaps one day you'll leave me alone ?

[Posh]

Evelyn Archer and the MBI party and their supporters did not have a viable, thought out alternative proposal to save the dome, or proposals for service cuts to keep the dome open. The other was that in the absence of such an alternative, that their default position was back to the conspiracy theory rubbish that they normaly come out with that lancaster is evil and morecambe is good.

Hasn't that been the case for ever. I'm really pleased that they're (Archer and the MBIs) passionate about Morecambe and want to see it revived but they don't have funded ideas about to deliver it. So when it comes to elections its 'backing Morecambe', 'we're from Morecambe you know', 'nasty Lancaster' and err ... no manifesto that can ever be implemented.

If the MBI really want to do something for Morecambe they can't just say no, they have to come up with real costed and feasible alternatives. It's why the Winter Gardens is a shell.

[skyecat]

As for the Dome not breaking even and being unprofitable, I posted earlier in this thread about the cost of hiring it being very similar to the Platform yet nearly twice the capacity - it doesn`t stack up - and this comes from someone who books an artist nationwide.The Dome was too cheap to hire.
The Platform has bars run by the Station pub and not themselves, so the council don`t make any money from them - and the gigs there are many and varied which is great to see, but when the likes of Jackie McShee`s Pentangle come - there`s 6 of them and the sound guy etc and there are only 60 people in the audience.
Dick Gaughan
Billy Mitchell and Bob Fox
again about 50-60 people in the audience - The Platform can`t possibly be making money.
As for keeping the Dome, I can only think that in 2 or 3 years time when Urban Splash have an agreed planned proposal for that site anywhway, it would get pulled down eventually anyway - so maybe it doesn`t really matter that much - or maybe, if it was run well and efectively from the start, it would be such a thriving venue that it wouldn`t even be considered to be pulled down?
Also - council run venue - in need of upgrades to the tune of in excess of £1M? - Bubbles ring any bells?

The Platform is quirky and quite a few of the artists I`ve seen there and worked with there actually quite like it and come back - one or 2 of them have commented on how nice it is to see the Moon and stars etc from the stage - although one artist got a bit of a shock as a huge great seagull flew really close to the roof and shocked them mid song!

[Trinity]

Lancaster/Morecambe Guardian 9-1-09

Last ditch bid to save Dome fails – Fears that closure will put theatre at risk

By Rob Davey

A bid to save Morecambe Dome has failed – sparking concerns the venue’s closure could jeopardise plans to restore the Winter Gardens.

Coun Evelyn Archer fears a decision by Lancaster City Council this week to press ahead with the Domes closure on June 1 would send the wrong signal at a time when cash is needed to re-open the theatre.

The Winter Gardens Preservation Trust is preparing bids for £4 million in government Sea Change funding and £4.5 million from the Heritage Lottery Fund.

Trust chairman Coun Archer said “What sort of message will that send? The Heritage Lottery might say “I’m sorry you’ve just closed a venue down so you obviously do not need this”

Coun Archer also raised concerns after consultant Peter Middleton, who is putting together a business plan to support the funding bids , reported an “almost complete lack of advocacy for the project” from within the council.

He said a meeting with cultural services officers had failed to move the plan forward.

The Dome had been due to close in around three years as part of the promenade redevelopment.

But cabinet – which must find cuts of £1.8 million for 2009/10 – voted for an early closure.

The decision was reconsidered by councillors on Monday.

Coun Roger Plumb called for the issue to be discussed by full council with a view to budgeting for the venue to remain open for another three years.

His motion criticised “grossly inaccurate” information about the cost of repairs on the basis that they seemed to envisage a full refurbishment of the building.

But it was defeated on a 6-2 vote.. Council chief executive Mark Cullinan stressed the council had agreed to be the “accountable body” for £300,000 of development funding for the Winter Gardens project and had also previously provided management support.

[Phoenix]

And?

If the truth be known, I'm getting that déjà vue feeling.

[Trinity]

From the council minutes:-

Members then voted on the original proposition as set out above. 2 Members voted in favour of the proposition, 6 Members against with 1 abstention

Refering to the minutes and the local press reports Phoenix and others who wish to engage their brain cells can you tell us the names of the councillors who voted:-

1. in favour

2.. against

3. and who abstained and collect their payment from the public for doing so. Money for nothing I think its known as. Come the elections should we be voting for councillors who act in this cowardly way?

[Phoenix]

That implies i have asked who voted or i am interested in who voted. If you can quote where i asked that question i will play along with your game. Rather than drag it out waiting for press reports, why doesn't someone who was there simply tell us the answer to their own question?

[Mark S]

Is anyone else bored of this?

I know we go off topic on many subjects but this is meant to be a Morecambe FC fans site.

Trinity, you havent posted a single thing about Morecambe FC except to ask about who chooses MOTM (and that was in your previous guise as 'Truth').

I would ask you to either join in with the majority and use the site to discuss Morecambe FC or find somewhere else to stir up trouble please.

I doubt many political sites would put up with anyone discussing football only.

I get very nervous when this type of discussion takes place as I have previously felt the might of the Council's Legal Department and have no wish to go down that route again.

Keith - If you want to leave this open, its up to you but I wish to publicly disassociate myself with it.

[Trinity]

Phoenix wrote:

That implies i have asked who voted or i am interested in who voted. If you can quote where i asked that question i will play along with your game. Rather than drag it out waiting for press reports, why doesn't someone who was there simply tell us the answer to their own question?

My point is you cannot answer the question because the important democratic information is not there.(in the council minutes or the local press).

If thats consistently the case how can you expect potential voters ever to identify and vote in a majority of responsible councillors so that a state of public accountability is created. Perhaps you can now understand why it took the District Auditor Clive Portman so long to compile his Blobbygate report (the records were sadly lacking)

Sorry I cant fully answer my question which you are redirecting at me because I am not able to put a name to the backs of the Councillors I saw raise their hand clearly.

The councillors on the committee had their backs to the public gallery where I was sat. I only noticed six councillors vote.

The two who voted to save the Dome were Coun Plumb and Greenall.

The other four I dont know, although I could deduce one was Coun Susan Bray as she was the proposer and spokeperson for those against saving the Dome on the committee and incredibly a Morecambe councillor.

Could we please keep the debate respectful Phoenix as it might just lead to giving the Lancaster & Morecambe district something I've never seen since being a ratepayer in the area - public accountability and an administration to be proud of.

[Aspers]

Locked by Aspers.