O/T We'll fight them on the prom

[North Stand Shrimp]

The independents did have concerns years ago when cabinet let urban splash take the prom site it was the independents who called the decision in. also Archer did not vote in planning for the midland to be redeveloped and Kerr was the only to abstain
expressed concern about `the bigger picture'. Cllr David Kerr said: "It will look absolutely fabulous and I love the proposal but there is no reference to the Morecambe Action Plan and the overall project, which concerns me because we need to think about the whole area."
However, not everyone was happy about the plans.
"It looks absolutely superb but we're not hearing anything about what will be developed on the site beside the hotel and what the total cost will be," said Coun David Kerr who abstained in the vote.

so, concerns were raised but the project went ahead after a democratic process was followed. Which means that the majority were happy to see the Midland get done up even though they were aware that there wasn't much info about the secondary development.

"This is probably the most expensive land in the area. The problem is if we grant permission today but refuse their future plans - will they just abandon the whole thing?"

Exactly. which reiterates my earlier point. No planning on the secondary development, no Midland done up. Simple.

[Truth]

Well done starting this thread Phoenix you've certainly opened up a can of worms.Its a great opportunity for local ratepayers to join up the dots and identify the truth, despite the disinfo, official confusion and playing the man not the ball tactics being applied by a minority.

Over 2,500 views on this thread so far. I suspect that those in the local press, at Urban Splash and at the Town Hall wish that you'd never created the opportunity of civilised debate of this subject.

Maggy brings up a key event on the timeline:-

The independents did have concerns years ago when cabinet let urban splash take the prom site it was the independents who called the decision in. also Archer did not vote in planning for the midland to be redeveloped and Kerr was the only to abstain
expressed concern about `the bigger picture'. Cllr David Kerr said: "It will look absolutely fabulous and I love the proposal but there is no reference to the Morecambe Action Plan and the overall project, which concerns me because we need to think about the whole area."
However, not everyone was happy about the plans.
"It looks absolutely superb but we're not hearing anything about what will be developed on the site beside the hotel and what the total cost will be," said Coun David Kerr who abstained in the vote.
"This is probably the most expensive land in the area. The problem is if we grant permission today but refuse their future plans - will they just abandon the whole thing?"

Four councillors (Archer, Wade, Keer and Eve Ashworth) in August 2003 called in the cabinet decision to rubber stamp the top ranking Council Officers recoomendation to accept the partnership Agreement with US.

What were their reasons for pulling in the cabinet decision?

Whats in the detail of the Partnership Agreement? Does it tie in the redevelopment of the Midland Hotel with the redevelopment of the Central Promenade area?

Lets keep it to an evidence based debate rather than use speculation and conjecture.

Peace & truth

[Phoenix]

As it stands today, US were given first refusal to develop on that land. Reverse that decision and it's bye-bye Morecambe.

You keep going back to it being an evidence based discussion yet you keep asking for evidence you don't have. We ain't going to give it to you, go ask someone at the town hall.

Read maggy's message carefully, Archer did not vote and Kerr abstained. At least get your own facts right

The civilised debate so far appears to be a majority in favour, something we can prove if you care to check the replies. The 496 pro-US facebook members also seem to be more than double Evelyn's 200 mass-produced objections.

And that's all fact.

Edit: Oops, sorry! I got a fact wrong, how naughty of me. 505 facebook users in favour of the development. My favourite wall comment has to be I wish that people would stop listening to these old duffers who refuse to let morecambe move with the times, old empty gardens and knackered old cafes arent going to bring people here are they...

[maggy]

Councillors E. Archer and D. Kerr expressed their concern that decisions had been made by
Cabinet without adequate information in the report, or a development plan, to allow the item
to be considered in its entirety

[Phoenix]

Sounds like they were both there then. In which case, what's the difference between did not vote and abstain? Not sure what development plan they expected for something only in the outline discussion stage.

Nor does it sound like anyone expressed concern over US making money out of the deal back then.

Problem I've got is a councillor who first, to my face, refused to put my opinion forward. Second, offered to put the majority view forward but has no evidence of a majority view either for or against. Third, is on record as being in favour of a bypass and votes against it. Fourth, I now find that something else she is on record as being in favour of, she didn't vote either way.

Fifth, but not finally (I could go to about 99th). THE COUNCIL gave planning permission for the Midland. THE COUNCIL gave first refusal to US to develop around the Midland. Anyone who is now against that development is blocking my town's regeneration.

They might not like what's going on but this is do or die time.

Of everything I've read so far, Jim Catterall's put the situation across quite well in his letter in this week's Visitor. Yes but maybe some compromises. That's the message some people should be putting out if they've got problems with it, not "I Object".

If all this thread brings is everyone round the table to discuss a way forward, and not put up a stop sign, then that's good enough for me.

[maggy]

I am not against all of the development it is the scale of the housing issue. There should be more leisure not everybody wants to sit in pubs and cafes all day and night. What about families with children.

[Truth]

I am not against all of the development it is the scale of the housing issue. There should be more leisure not everybody wants to sit in pubs and cafes all day and night. What about families with children.

That exactly reflects my opinion and feeling Maggy. So come on US get the balance of proposed mixed use right and please consult the owners of the land and check out what they want and give us some respect.

I've yet to see any evidence of US putting anything back into the Town (our town, not my town) or local community. They did not even pay for a feature in the local press for the opening up. Any property developer would have loved to have been given £9 million of public money to redevelop the Midland.(for a 3 year construction period thats a monthly cheque of £250,000)

Please ratepayers for the sake of our kids and future generations do some thorough research and truthseeking of your own and you'll come to the same conclusion as I have. It stinks of a jobs for the boys set up.

[maggy]

the development brief for the bubbles site was in 2002 cllr archer was not on the council then

On being put to the vote, the Review Board unanimously agreed to recommend adoption of
the Brief subject to the above amendments and the inclusion of a paragraph on funding
opportunities.
Resolved:
(1) That the Bubbles Development Brief be approved subject to the following amendments to
paragraph 30 and the inclusion of a further paragraph on funding opportunities.
(i) That the third bullet point which reads ‘hotel, self catering, time share holiday
accommodation’ be deleted.
(ii) That the words “that can also provide amenities all year round for local people,
preferably to include a water based facility” be added to “a visitor attraction”.
(iii) That the words “including a marina” be added to “outdoor recreational uses”.
(2) That the above recommendation be referred to the Monitoring Officer in accordance with
Review Board Procedure Rule 12.
.

[Phoenix]

It stinks of a jobs for the boys set up

And that's your "stick to the facts" attitude, is it?

What are US putting back into our town? Shall we start with the residents of the hotel and the money they're spending? Argue against that and you're saying it's such a shit-hole that they don't want to spend their money in our town.

Throw in a few teenagers I know that work there, they're getting well paid and spending the money in our town.

Not forgetting tourists, those coming to the town at weekends to see the wonders US have worked on the Midland and others bringing back memories of their days at the hotel.

Then there's the publicity the town's got entirely due to the Midland. No money on this planet could buy the good reviews we're getting.

Thanks truth for letting me get those points across. Now if you'd stick to your facts & evidence we can carry on.

[Keith]

...you've certainly opened up a can of worms.Its a great opportunity for local ratepayers to join up the dots and identify the truth, despite the disinfo, official confusion and playing the man not the ball tactics being applied by a minority.

Please Truth, you keep using this 'disinfo' comment without actually saying where the 'disinfo' lies. You also appear to simply 'move on' if questions are asked of you regarding alternatives. For example, you suggest that a marina rather than the US development would regenerate Morecambe. Yet when I questioned the validity of this statement and suggested that it was not a 'chicken & egg' as you suggested, but in fact is a process, where raising the area's housing stock and 'desirability' would lead to better shops and service industry, then in turn, a marina may become viable, you didn't mention a marina again. You've posted five times since without mentioning it, so either it was 'smoke & mirrors' to begin with or I've convinced you with the power of my argument?

The Truth (oops sorry...) The truth is that this is a fantastic opportunity to bring investment to the town, raise its profile, make it desirable to live in and bring further investment on the back of it. If that slightly restricts the view from a derelict theatre that has been 'getting done up' for decades, then so be it. If the decision is to abandon this development in exchange for the views from the derelict theatre, what alternatives are you suggesting?

I think that the polarised opinions can be easily summed up by those who believe people should be attracted to visit the town and those who believe people should be attracted to live in the town. I firmly believe that the former are looking back to a bygone era which will never return in the numbers needed to regenerate the area. The later will, in my opinion, make the whole town a much nicer one, in turn (ironically perhaps) making it a better place to visit.

[North Stand Shrimp]

Problem I've got is a councillor who first, to my face, refused to put my opinion forward. Second, offered to put the majority view forward but has no evidence of a majority view either for or against. Third, is on record as being in favour of a bypass and votes against it. Fourth, I now find that something else she is on record as being in favour of, she didn't vote either way.

I agree Phoenix, it's one thing to say that YOU are against something and want to run a campaign on your own back, It's entirely something else to say that you are campaining on behalf of everyone without first asking EVERYONE! as for being in favour of a Bypass and then voting against it, a definite case of , we need a bypass but I don't want to upset anyone that might vote for me that lives near to where the bypass route goes.

Fifth, but not finally (I could go to about 99th). THE COUNCIL gave planning permission for the Midland. THE COUNCIL gave first refusal to US to develop around the Midland. Anyone who is now against that development is blocking my town's regeneration.

They might not like what's going on but this is do or die time.

Of everything I've read so far, Jim Catterall's put the situation across quite well in his letter in this week's Visitor. Yes but maybe some compromises. That's the message some people should be putting out if they've got problems with it, not "I Object".

I Totally agree, an "I Object" or straight forward NO is just not the right way for a person in charge of the regeneration of this Town to be going. She should be working as closely as possible with a company that is wanting to spend so much money in a time of economic fragility, not isolating herself by making them her enemy.

Just to add. Whatever happened in the past, is just that, past. You cannot go back on the democraticly made agreement to give US the first refusal on the site, doing so would undermind any future redevelopment companies interest in Morecambe.

Just by saying Concerns were raised by a few people doesn't mean squat when they then decide not to take part in the vote!?!? whats done is done.

[Phoenix]

as for being in favour of a Bypass and then voting against it, a definite case of , we need a bypass but I don't want to upset anyone that might vote for me that lives near to where the bypass route goes.

According to one article I read, a bypass was first mentioned in 1949. So that means anyone who has bought property in the area since 1949 have only themselves, or their solicitors, to blame for not being aware of it. I bought the house next to the old post office in torrisholme around 1980 and my solicitor told me about it.

[Truth]

the development brief for the bubbles site was in 2002 cllr archer was not on the council then

On being put to the vote, the Review Board unanimously agreed to recommend adoption of
the Brief subject to the above amendments and the inclusion of a paragraph on funding
opportunities.
Resolved:
(1) That the Bubbles Development Brief be approved subject to the following amendments to
paragraph 30 and the inclusion of a further paragraph on funding opportunities.
(i) That the third bullet point which reads ‘hotel, self catering, time share holiday
accommodation’ be deleted.
(ii) That the words “that can also provide amenities all year round for local people,
preferably to include a water based facility” be added to “a visitor attraction”.
(iii) That the words “including a marina” be added to “outdoor recreational uses”.
(2) That the above recommendation be referred to the Monitoring Officer in accordance with
Review Board Procedure Rule 12.

Now we are getting evidence based. Well done Maggy thanx for that little golden nugget of truth.

Can you shed any light on the content of the Partnership Agreement or where I could read a copy?

[Truth]

Quote:
as for being in favour of a Bypass and then voting against it, a definite case of , we need a bypass but I don't want to upset anyone that might vote for me that lives near to where the bypass route goes.


According to one article I read, a bypass was first mentioned in 1949. So that means anyone who has bought property in the area since 1949 have only themselves, or their solicitors, to blame for not being aware of it. I bought the house next to the old post office in torrisholme around 1980 and my solicitor told me about it.

Can we stick and focus on the subject matter of the thread started by Phoenix rather than use diversionary tactics. I'm happy to discuss the By pass (Northern) on another thread. The By pass that according to Morecambes MP Geraldine Smiths consultation exercise an overwhelming majority of local ratepayers did not want because it would not reduce the traffic congestion problem in the district (thats fact not disinfo and our MP has the evidence).

[maggy]

look on the ouncils web page for
morecambe action plan 2002
regeneration committee 2002
cabinet 2002
cabinet 21 dec 04
.
MORECAMBE CENTRAL PROMENADE DEVELOPMENT BRIEF REPORT OF CONSULTATION - CABINET MEMBER WITH SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITY COUNCILLOR ABBOTT BRYNING PDF 47 KB
A copy of the Appendices, pages 100 to 132, have been made available to Cabinet Members only. Copies are available from Administration Services on request.
Additional documents:
Appendix 2, item113. PDF 463 KB
Minutes:

[Phoenix]

Can we stick and focus on the subject matter of the thread started by Phoenix rather than use diversionary tactics.

What an excellent idea. Do as I say, not as I do, hey Truth

BTW has Morecambe FC paid back that ten year £200k interest free loan given by Lancaster City Council ratepayers for Christie Park ground improvements yet?

It's not the 1st time the bypass has been drawn into this thread, it's yet another example of our council's inability to help regenerate this town. While it needs a thread of it's own, it's also relevant in the development plans - we need a decent road for people to get to their apartments.

[North Stand Shrimp]

Quote:
as for being in favour of a Bypass and then voting against it, a definite case of , we need a bypass but I don't want to upset anyone that might vote for me that lives near to where the bypass route goes.


According to one article I read, a bypass was first mentioned in 1949. So that means anyone who has bought property in the area since 1949 have only themselves, or their solicitors, to blame for not being aware of it. I bought the house next to the old post office in torrisholme around 1980 and my solicitor told me about it.

Can we stick and focus on the subject matter of the thread started by Phoenix rather than use diversionary tactics. I'm happy to discuss the By pass (Northern) on another thread. The By pass that according to Morecambes MP Geraldine Smiths consultation exercise an overwhelming majority of local ratepayers did not want because it would not reduce the traffic congestion problem in the district (thats fact not disinfo and our MP has the evidence).

Hang on a minute mate.

who made you the thread police? this is an open debate and we can bloody well bring up whatver we want. the M6 link thing was actually mentioned in the reply to the original post as another regenerative project that Evelyn had opposed, therefore very relevent.

Can you please stop using the word DISINFO! your bloody obsessed with it. It would be great if you ever actually answered a direct question too. Keith is still looking for a reply. Or are you only here to make statements?

[Phoenix]

Of course truth isn't the thread police, as they say .....

I've placed no restrictions and stated anything otherwise unless you can produce evidence to show otherwise.

[North Stand Shrimp]

according to Morecambes MP Geraldine Smiths consultation exercise an overwhelming majority of local ratepayers did not want because it would not reduce the traffic congestion problem in the district (thats fact not disinfo and our MP has the evidence).

Consultation Excercise? I wasn't asked my opinion! how many others weren't? what was the exact number of people serveyed? unless you have a referendum I can't see what evidence Geraldine Smith could have to base that on.

Unless of course, she means the Overwhelming majority of the people that she chose to speak to who happened to be against the road did not want it.

[Truth]

Bump:-

Well done starting this thread Phoenix you've certainly opened up a can of worms.Its a great opportunity for local ratepayers to join up the dots and identify the truth, despite the disinfo, official confusion and playing the man not the ball tactics being applied by a minority.

Thanx for the info Maggy I'll do some reserach into that but no mention there of Partnership Agreement. Looks like another Blobbygate is coming to light.

BTW Why did the Council Director of Regeneration, John Donnellon resign from his position and leave in December 2007. The New Director of Regeneration, Heather McManus was only recently appointed. So who in the interim was taking on the responsibilities of the position?

[Keith]

Can we stick and focus on the subject matter of the thread started by Phoenix rather than use diversionary tactics.

No, we don't do it that way, we let discussions head off in all kinds of directions on here, trusting the intellect of the reader to be able to keep up with multiple arguments and conversations or to be able to sift through for the bits they find interesting. Besides, you've already brought up the marina which it appears was a diversionary tactic as you've not mentioned it since! Also, the bypass is (or should be) an integration of the whole, we're talking about the development of the town generally... aren't we?

Occasionally, we even talk about such surreal subjects as lower league football...

I'm happy to discuss the By pass (Northern) on another thread.

I think we'd rather you stick to just the one thread or we'll be jousting for room on the soap box all over the place!

The By pass that according to Morecambes MP Geraldine Smiths consultation exercise an overwhelming majority of local ratepayers did not want because it would not reduce the traffic congestion problem in the district (thats fact not disinfo and our MP has the evidence).

That was "disinfo" of the highest order! Surely the only people taken in by that were the people who were, like Geraldine (I don't answer e-mails) Smith, tilting at windmills and who were more concerned about saving their political skin than doing something positive for the town! Had the questionnaire been "would you like a northern bypass or no bypass?" would she have the same 'evidence'? That was the only achievable scenario, either north or nothing! Ask people "would you like a 25% pay rise or a 4% pay rise?" the majority of people will say they want 25% thank you. But if the whole story is, if the pay rise is more than 4% the company will go bust and you'll get nothing, then the question becomes, "do you want a 4% pay rise or nothing" and the majority vote is likely to be for the ACHIEVABLE & REALISTIC 4% rather than the non-existent choice that went before. For the local MP to resort to such a pathetic attempt to spike the one chance of any improvement to the town, in exchange for currying favour among the MBI's was a pathetic dereliction of duty. As a life long leftie, I look forward to seeing Miss Smith out on her ear at the next election.

Anyway, about this marina that will bring millions in to the town...

[marky]

Just to take this O/T for a minute... Truth, disinformation is categorised as deliberate spreading of false information. That's a pretty big accusation to file against your local paper. The word you're looking for is misinformation. Secondly, rates don't exist and nor do ratepayers. It's council tax and council tax payers. Sorry to seem pedantic but it's been bugging the hell out of me throughout this discussion.

Morecambe NEEDS to attract the kind of young professionals who will spend money in the town. Building apartments, especially in a premuim place such as the prom, is just the way to do this. Coupled with the soon to be constructed bypass and the town will quickly regenerate and become a much better place to live. I'm not sure who it was, but someone said Morecambe should look to seaside places such as Brighton for inspiration. To give you a local flavour from up here, Tynemouth is an example of a great place to live that also attracts many, many visitors as a result of the improvements this brings.

As for the MBIs... Isn't it that lot who are championing the totally pointless Morecambe council?

[North Stand Shrimp]

I know!

Lets tell Urban Splash to bugger off because we like what they've done with the Midland but we want to get loads of money for the land next to it from someone who doesn't want to build a economically viable venture on it!

And while we are at it, lets tell the business comunity that we really want them to come and invest in Morecambe but hope they enjoy spending lots of time stuck in our traffic jams!

Oh and one more thing, if something is voted for by elected officials who are acting on our behalf, lets say they got it all wrong and that we have proof, (not "disinfo") although we may have to only ask certain people and make sure they can only answer in one way.

Oh and just to make certain we really bugger the town up, lets get the council tax payers to fund a totally pointless Morecambe Town council!

MBI rocks!

[Phoenix]

Diversionary tactic alert

BTW Why did the Council Director of Regeneration, John Donnellon resign from his position and leave in December 2007. The New Director of Regeneration, Heather McManus was only recently appointed. So who in the interim was taking on the responsibilities of the position?

Where's the truth police when you need them

[Truth]

Marky from the "Toon" states

Morecambe NEEDS to attract the kind of young professionals who will spend money in the town.

Young professionals reside in places were there is top quality and well paid employment.To find that in Lancaster & Morecambe most workers do that by commuting to Preston and Manchester. There are very few such opportunities in the district like that (unlike Manchester, Liverpool and the Toon). Check out the advertised jobs in the local press for proof.

Creating 533 residential box units will not create top quality and well paid employment to entice young professionals to come to Morecambe.

The market for these properties is going to be as a second home, retirement flat or an investment.