O/T We'll fight them on the prom

[Truth]

Peace, truth, respect & bullshit.

Phoenix I'm getting really tired of your personal abuse of those that dare not align with your opinion. It reminds me of the school yard and encounters with the schoolyard bully.

I can see that theres not going to be any yellow, red cards issued by site admin/moderators on such posters here. For the sake of truth thats a pity.

I don't consider myself clever enough to get into this discussion

Dont put yourself down Paul, join in. Dont let fear and the school yard bullies here put you off.

BTW Glens gives us this link:-
http://www.thevisitor.co.uk/morecambe-n ... 3674806.jp

so based on this evidence why did the masterplan only appear in last weeks Visitor and how come the headline is Midland 2 not 350-400 flats?

There is also this little gem of a post on the link from Digger Driver:-

DiggerDriver,Morecambe! 16/01/2008 18:49:56
So to translate this into English!
The council has sold prime public land to a private property developer and gave him planning permission!
Then tried to fob off the public by telling us its going to benifit us all because its called urban splash!
Open your eyes Morecambe!
Your being sold off for backhanders!
While these people make millions stealing your towns assets!

Truth though is the Council has given away prime public land or am I wrong?

As one of my heroes, Mahatma Gandhi stated:-

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you and then you win"

Peace, truth & respect

[Phoenix]

Phoenix I'm getting really tired of your personal abuse of those that dare not align with your opinion. It reminds me of the school yard and encounters with the schoolyard bully.

Not sure what personal abuse I have aimed at you, it would be quite arrogant of anyone to think a tag line was aimed at them specifically. Of course my humorous tag line has no comparison to your abuse and personal attacks.

I can see that theres not going to be any yellow, red cards issued by site admin/moderators on such posters here. For the sake of truth thats a pity.

It's a pity this discussion didn't start a month ago. I can guarantee you Truth, you wouldn't be anonymous by now.

We're still waiting for some answers, in the meantime, peace, respect truth & bullshit.

[Keith]

Peace, truth, respect & bullshit.

I can see that theres not going to be any yellow, red cards issued by site admin/moderators on such posters here. For the sake of truth thats a pity.

It's interesting that you should say that. If there were yellow cards being issued, you'd have had one by now, possibly a red too for your personal attacks on a professional who is not able to attack you back. Secondly, how do you know what moderating is or isn't done on here? Because I choose to (generally) do so privately, you don't know so really can't comment in an informed manner. Fortunately 'informed' comment is not a prerequisite of posting on this forum

I do agree with you that Paul need not put himself down, all contributions are welcome. It may be interesting for Paul to post whether he is swayed by your conspiracy theories and lack of alternative ideas for the development of the town or those who are broadly in favour of Morecambe being developed? As someone who was 'undecided' I wonder if this thread is turning him more one way than the other?

Finally, especially as you are not a Morecambe fan and therefore only likely to post in Off Topic (O/T) threads, it is worth pointing out that the message to the other forum moderators is to 'feel free to delete any content that they don't like the tone of'. Please bear this in mind and keep the discussion constructive & polite or you may find out how quickly the zap button works.

Please also be aware that I'm hovering very close to locking this thread. If you have nothing positive to contribute, it may be best to not post anything and consider that it has run it's course

[Paul Mac]

I don't consider myself clever enough to get into this discussion

Dont put yourself down Paul, join in. Dont let fear and the school yard bullies here put you off.

If your going to quote me be so kind as to use the whole sentence and not just the phrase you think you can score points from. I refer to myself quite clearly.

I don't consider myself clever enough to get into this discussion in any great depth but I would like to hear your alternatives as to what has been asked earlier.

[morecambe mick]

I'm really the school yard bullie.

am I wrong?


"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you and then you in"


ace, ruth & spect

If you want to quote people use their whole sentence otherwise things may be taken out of context, and therefore you are mis-representing them, like this!

[yozzer]

I've always had alarm bells ringing when people use the word 'truth' in any debate. It stems from my early youth when my mother used to suscribe to a magazine called 'The Plain Truth'. This publication was a right-wing christian fundamentalist diatribe that made Genghis Khan appear liberal leaning. I also recall Jonathan Aitken using his 'sword of truth' speech before being sent down for perjury.

[marky]

That's the problem. Truth is usually what you want to believe, and it seems to me that 'Truth' is cherry picking 'facts' to back up his/her already flimsy argument. Up here, my partner's parents and their neighbours objected to plans for a huge nursing home which would have both overlooked their gardens and blocked out a lot of sunlight. The proposals were knocked back twice before being approved on the third occasion after a compromise was reached. I suspect that is what will happen with this case, as Urban Splash don't strike me as a company who just give up at the first attempt. A flat no is not the way to go. Regeneration is essential for Morecambe and Urban Splash are the only ones to offer it.

[Stewie]

Having lived in Morecambe for over 30 years and seeing all the ups and downs of this little town, I would like to add my ten pence worth to the debate.

The Midland development is THE single biggest thing to happen to Morecambe in the last 20 years, whether or not US have done it for profit, for the good of Morecambe or simply for the hell of it ... who cares! It employed and continues to employ hundreds of local workmen, suppliers and staff.

The new development would be a major leap forward for Morecambe, but if we argue and simply say NO then US will walk away, The Midland will work well for 5 years (at best) then slip back to being a un-maintaned blot on the landsape.

Why can`t Evelyn Archer, Bill Maynard, Truth, Phoenix, whoever else, meet up and talk like sensible adults who all care about Morecambe.

Lets go ahead with the new developement, but insert some clause to get US to release some funding for the Winter Gardens , or a new fairground / play areas etc.

But lets not all just say YES or all say NO , lets have a public meeting where everyones thoughts / concerns and wishes are out forward. BTW the Arndale Centre on a Monday morning is NOT the time and place!!

[Phoenix]

Lets go ahead with the new developement, but insert some clause to get US to release some funding for the Winter Gardens , or a new fairground / play areas etc.

The plans aren't just for flats which seems to trigger most of the debates. They include various new areas and improvements to existing ones. They also include an entertainment venue.

I'm sorry but the Winter Gardens has already had a significant contribution from the council (ref Posh earlier in this thread) as well as private contributions and is still closed. I, for one, would like to see it re-open as a theatre.

[Stewie]

Lets all face it, The Friends of the Winter Gardens will NEVER raise the funds to restore it as a theatre with jumble sales and raffles!

They need the help of a large organisation whose had years of experience in funding, restoring, building and generally getting the job done, but I`ve no idea who could do this?

And if US are building more than just flats or houses lets have a meeting where we can view the plans up close and ask the questions to those who matter.

Lets face it a minority of the Morecambe people are making a knee jerk judgement based on either a) The local press b) A local councillor and her anti campaign c) A mess of on-line documents.

I`m all for the devleopment, but not 100% sure what the impact will be in the end.

[Phoenix]

Lets face it a minority of the Morecambe people are making a knee jerk judgement based on either a) The local press b) A local councillor and her anti campaign c) A mess of on-line documents.

I would say for once some of the majority that usually just let things happen are taking an interest in the development and at last, trying to let our council representatives know their feelings. I sincerely hope people that have been stirred by this debate have taken the opportunity to express their opinion to the council, either way.

If you think about it logically, no plans should ever be rejected if the lack of comment meant someone is in favour. Let's assume there's 129,000 residents in this city. 1,000 object to some plans therefore 128,000 are in favour. That's a problem with planning applications, we are given a host of reasons to object but there's only one generic I support option. Surely that's prompting people to find a reason to object - but that's another debate for another day.

Issues with councillors go beyond any anti campaigns to a point where I don't think they are representing the people that elected them.

[BHmfc]

I'm sorry TRUTH, but you really are starting to lose the plot. I've been following this post for what seems like weeks now, and even stated my own backing for US, (and still do) but your last 3 or 4 posts have taken an ugly twist. I remember your earlier posts when you had a little dig at out of town MFC supporters for daring to want change, you had a dig at US for not spending trillions of their own money and you even had a dig at MFC for a loan they have now repaid, however, it was all taken light heartedly, but now you are starting to post names and it is all turning quite ugly, so please chill and lets debate in a calm and friendly manner before the subject gets locked.
PS US have spent a vast amount of their own money, firstly buying the Midland and then using their staff, (who i presume get paid and work in offices) to put a package together to enable grants to be won for the purpose of the Midlands restoration. This involves many thousands of man hours which does not come cheaply and which US have had to pay for.
PPS The loan MFC received, and paid back, was one of the best loans LCC had ever granted. In terms of the feel good factor and positive publicity the area received throughout the country, it repaid itself many times over.

[Joel Ninety]

I'd like to call the cliche police on Truth, all this playing the ball not the man stuff is pretty tiresome.

Personal attacks are not on. I don't understand, what was the intention?

And yes I do apologise for mentioning that this was an intelligent debate, it all went downhill from there

[Moose]

Good on ya beaver!, talk about raising the sodding water level! Hope you have noticed the Frogs have abstained from this! They seem kind of happy with the change!
All they have to do is sit on the log and watch what happens! OK maybe a couple might jump off....

Ya Grebbit by now?

[Moose]

a couple on here...

[Truth]

Enjoy the multimedia sound and message in the lyrics:-

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=JdwFsaCiDas

The truth point of view!

Those looking for the truth must address the available evidence, those attacking the researchers and not focusing on evidence will fail to find the truth.

[Christies Child]

Dog and Bone come to mind.

[Phoenix]

those attacking the researchers

Researchers provide answers to questions, something you have failed to do consistently.

Researchers don't constantly ask questions (although they have mainly been answered for you in this thread).

Those making personal attacks on an individual will always be frowned upon on this forum. When you're typing your next reply even hinting I have attacked you, Truth, please ensure you attach any evidence of such claims.

Now, back to the Midland and promenade development.

[Keith]

Not easy to read because I've had to remove some of Truths quotes, as the board will only allow three embedded quotes and I've clearly missed closing one, but the gist is there.

So Truth, in all your glory, every post that you've made on this forum... Read them all in one digest and see if Truth makes any suggestions anywhere about what else could be done apart from building a marina. Read them and see if Truth says anything positive. See if Truth answers any questions posed of them.

The reality is that Truth doesn't want anyone to make any money from development in the town and therefore will resist anything, because doing nothing is better than having an organisation being financially successful. So if the children of Morecambe are forced to move away from the town to find decent "well paid" opportunities, we'll know that people like Truth and Evelyn and Geraldine Smith, who resist any chance to develop, while not offering any credible alternatives, will be pleased that their attention seeking, paranoid or Luddite tendencies have been a success.

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.

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

Truth is as entitled to his opinion as much as anyone else!!!

Thanx for that Site Admin appreciate the level playing field here!

Unlike him, I don't think we should place restrictions upon people expressing an opinion

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

What I have stated is:-

1. the ratepayers of Lancaster/Morecambe comprse the electorate of what happens to that land.

2. opinion needs to be based on the full facts and truth.

Unlike him

??????

Theres alot of diatrite and disinfo on this thread which requires correction. I think the personal attack on a councillor guilty of informing the public of the content of the planning application is akin to shooting the messenger or playing the man not the ball. Its diabolical and hopefully is not supported by Morecambe FC.

So lets play the ball.

The reason Morecambe is on the up at last is because of the huge scale of investment of public money in the town.

Urban Splash run the Midland Hotel. They set up a hotel company within their organisation as they informed the public that they had been unable to find an operator interested in paying the monthly rent charges they were seeking.

How much cash has Urban Splash invested or splashed in Morecambe to date? Whats in the detail in the partnership agreement between the Council and US?

The Midland Hotel project received £9 million of public money. What was US's contribution?
US payed less than £0.5 million for the Midland. Did they know that public money for the Midlands restoration would be forthcoming before they put in their bid?

US commenced on site in June 2005 and the Midland became operational in June 2008 when the project had not been completed. Thats three years to complete the project. How long did it take to build the Hotel in the 1930s?

US has not impress me with their perforamnce in restoring the Midland and their schemes dont impress me at all. What does impress though is the huge profits they make and how they manage to acquire public land/assets so cheaply.

The dominant land use in US proposals in the planning applications is residential (high rise flats/apartments). Approaching 600 units. Do the maths, thats an approximate total selling value of £90 million.

Its a property developers dream and they have not paid a penny for the land. If the council were to put the central promenade site up for sale on the open market with planning permission for 600 residential units how much do you think the highest bidder would pay?

That land is a public asset and is owned by the ratepayers of Morecambe and Lancaster so isurely its the majority decision of this group that should decide on how the land is developed if US has not purchased it, not out of town Morecambe FC supporters.

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?

Best wishes to the Shrimps for a successful 2008-09 season.

Absolute bullshine: I'm just a Morecambe ratepayer who like many on this forum choose to use a pseudonym. I hope that you can respect that and refrain from the insults and flame tactics by sticking to civilised debate and playing the ball not the man.

As far as I am concerned I am not the opposition because we seem to have the same wish for Morecambe: for its regeneration to be successful.

Everyones entitled to their opinion but plse before you state it check out the evidence and get the truth and don’t try to get other folk on your side with disinfo.

My opinion of Lancaster City Council is that it is and still remains a badly performing authority which has a total disregard for public accountability. The Partnership Agreement signed with Urban Splash in 2003 remains a mystery. It does not appear on the Councils website yet the Partnership Agreement with Centros Miller in Lancaster does!

Without Councillor Archer’s presentation in the Arndale many folk would be still in the dark concerning US proposals for the central prom area. If people choose to object to these proposals then that’s their choice. She certainly did not force me to object. I checked out the info which proved to be correct. In my opinion these proposals are totally imbalanced mixed use proposals, biased towards a property developers interests in seeking to maximise profits. Also in my opinion they threaten the viability of the Midland Hotel operations.

Have any of you pro US people visited the Midland yet or even thoroughly examined the detail in the planning applications which are not accessible on the councils website?

If you have not yet visited the Midland go on the rooftop and take in those breathtaking sea views with the Lakeland hills in the background and if your lucky a sunset. The jewel in the crown as Wayne H correctly states. Stand on the gym/café terrace balcony and look over the central prom area then envisage what this proposed development would do to that view. Any owner of the Midland Hotel with its interests as a viable hotel operation at heart would never make such proposals. Do Urban Splash not intend to stay in Morecambe after the central prom is completed?

Also whilst you are there focus on the seafront to the right of the stone jetty which forms a smallish bay. What is that screaming out for? A top quality marina maybe!

Urban Splash need to get back to the drawing board if their proposals are going to receive the support of the majority of the ratepayers of Morecambe and Lancaster.

Peace & truth

And if a marina were to be built... atracting £1,000`s of pounds worth of watercraft - each mostly in excess of £30,000 most likely - where are the owners likely to shop - hitchins and woolworths? - I think not
That is where the new development comes in surely.
Upmarket shops,restaurants, hotels and entertainment venues to either attract or service existing well healed clientele.

Chicken and egg here. Exactly my point. Build the marina first then that creates the commercial viability for the shops, restaurants, hotel etc. Building the marina is investment in Morecambe but US dont appear to want to do that. Why not?

I've seen the views from the top, I've seen the online plans and I've even been to the planning office and Yes, I still want the development to go ahead

OK Phoenix (odd name that ) you've had your vote but what about the other 129,000 people/shareholders/ ratepayers in the area covered by the local authority of Lancaster City Council? I suspect that the majority of them are oblivious to US proposals due to a Council and local press which fails in its responsibilities to act in the public interests and ensure that we are fully and properly informed.

Looking at the Planning website entry the deadline for receipt of objections for the full application is 4th August and for the Outline application it is 7th August. Mine is on its way.

If you want to influence people to support US present proposals Phoenix why not get yourself to the Arndale, replicate the Councils display and start a petition with real names and addresses on it. I'd wager that you would not need many pages.

Does anyone know how many phases there are going to be and the timescale US are working to for completion of the development? Also I didnt spot a public loo on the US proposals.

BTW I've not used Councillor Archers blank page format, but got the correct address from it of where to send it. I've used my own.

The council have already turned what was a beautiful colourful landscaped promenade into a maintenance free revenue collecting car park, so are housing estates the next phase?

Respect

I don't see how the local press are failing, both papers have made it headline news in print and online

I suggest that you read this weeks letters page in the Visitor Phoenix, and before you make any further allegations on a public forum please make sure its true.

Look forward to meeting you in the Arndale with your petition and then you can substantiate your claim that US are investing in Morecambe, because in my opinion based on their present proposals, the amount they've splashed on the Midland, its a travesty of the truth.

BTW what protection is there of the £9 million of public money in the Midland? i.e if they decide to sell in future do they keep all the cash and do they own all the fixtures and furniture?

Peace, truth & respect

I suspect that headline was composed by the Visitor not Cllr Archer!

If there are any professionally qualified local Chartered Surveyors reading this who are local ratepayers and care about the area could they inform the community here what the approximate land valuation of the public asset (owned by us ratepayers) re: the Central Promenade area is with planning permission for 500 plus residential units?[/color]

Has anyone managed to successfully navigate the Councils Planning applications and digest the detail in the associated documents yet?

The two applications 07/01810/OUT and 07/01811/FUL were submitted to the Council on 21/12/07 so why at the eleventh hour is the detail only just appearing (and incorrectly) in the local press?

The deadline for receipt of objections is the 4th August.

The site area is 6.57 hectares.

Check out the drawings on page 4 & 5 to see the extent of the high rise and the application form on page 4 for the land use details. Theres very little detail on leisure and retail. Its basically a high rise high density promenade housing estate.

The six flat blocks with small retail units on the ground floor each get steadily higher as they approach the prom. All start at five storeys high. The three nearest the Midland reach a maximum of six storeys, the fourth a maximum of seven storeys and the fifth and sixth a maximum of eight storeys.

The complete outline application (i.e all phases completed) indicates the a total number of 533 units comprising:-

live/work units:- 22
1 bed flats/maisonettes:- 246
2 bed flats/maisonettes:- 91
bedsit/studios:- 174

In this weeks Visitor (page 6/7 it shows the masterplan but gives no information on the extent of the high rise development and states:- the entire dvelopment consists of 381 flats, 130 additional rooms in a possible Midland Hotel 2, 22 beach houses, 8 commercial units and 616 car park spaces 493 of which are private.

The Visitor also reports that US intend to start on site at the end of 2008 and finish in 2016.

Theres a bit of a discrepancy in the Visitors figures. Its disinfo, why?

On the site there is a lower floor (basement) to accomodate the car parking.

On page 4 of the application Urban splash have responded as follows to the following questions:-

Is the site within an area of known flooding? The response: "yes"

Will the proposal increase the flood risk elsewhere? The response: "unknown"

Proposal to connect to existing sewer? The response: "unknown"

If these proposals are what the majority of local ratepayers want for this publicly owned asset lets put th

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.

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

Truth is as entitled to his opinion as much as anyone else!!!

Thanx for that Site Admin appreciate the level playing field here!

Unlike him, I don't think we should place restrictions upon people expressing an opinion

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

What I have stated is:-

1. the ratepayers of Lancaster/Morecambe comprse the electorate of what happens to that land.

2. opinion needs to be based on the full facts and truth.

Unlike him

??????

Theres alot of diatrite and disinfo on this thread which requires correction. I think the personal attack on a councillor guilty of informing the public of the content of the planning application is akin to shooting the messenger or playing the man not the ball. Its diabolical and hopefully is not supported by Morecambe FC.

So lets play the ball.

The reason Morecambe is on the up at last is because of the huge scale of investment of public money in the town.

Urban Splash run the Midland Hotel. They set up a hotel company within their organisation as they informed the public that they had been unable to find an operator interested in paying the monthly rent charges they were seeking.

How much cash has Urban Splash invested or splashed in Morecambe to date? Whats in the detail in the partnership agreement between the Council and US?

The Midland Hotel project received £9 million of public money. What was US's contribution?
US payed less than £0.5 million for the Midland. Did they know that public money for the Midlands restoration would be forthcoming before they put in their bid?

US commenced on site in June 2005 and the Midland became operational in June 2008 when the project had not been completed. Thats three years to complete the project. How long did it take to build the Hotel in the 1930s?

US has not impress me with their perforamnce in restoring the Midland and their schemes dont impress me at all. What does impress though is the huge profits they make and how they manage to acquire public land/assets so cheaply.

The dominant land use in US proposals in the planning applications is residential (high rise flats/apartments). Approaching 600 units. Do the maths, thats an approximate total selling value of £90 million.

Its a property developers dream and they have not paid a penny for the land. If the council were to put the central promenade site up for sale on the open market with planning permission for 600 residential units how much do you think the highest bidder would pay?

That land is a public asset and is owned by the ratepayers of Morecambe and Lancaster so isurely its the majority decision of this group that should decide on how the land is developed if US has not purchased it, not out of town Morecambe FC supporters.

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?

Best wishes to the Shrimps for a successful 2008-09 season.

Phoenix states...
Absolute bullshine: I'm just a Morecambe ratepayer who like many on this forum choose to use a pseudonym. I hope that you can respect that and refrain from the insults and flame tactics by sticking to civilised debate and playing the ball not the man.

As far as I am concerned I am not the opposition because we seem to have the same wish for Morecambe: for its regeneration to be successful.

Everyones entitled to their opinion but plse before you state it check out the evidence and get the truth and don’t try to get other folk on your side with disinfo.

My opinion of Lancaster City Council is that it is and still remains a badly performing authority which has a total disregard for public accountability. The Partnership Agreement signed with Urban Splash in 2003 remains a mystery. It does not appear on the Councils website yet the Partnership Agreement with Centros Miller in Lancaster does!

Without Councillor Archer’s presentation in the Arndale many folk would be still in the dark concerning US proposals for the central prom area. If people choose to object to these proposals then that’s their choice. She certainly did not force me to object. I checked out the info which proved to be correct. In my opinion these proposals are totally imbalanced mixed use proposals, biased towards a property developers interests in seeking to maximise profits. Also in my opinion they threaten the viability of the Midland Hotel operations.

Have any of you pro US people visited the Midland yet or even thoroughly examined the detail in the planning applications which are not accessible on the councils website?

If you have not yet visited the Midland go on the rooftop and take in those breathtaking sea views with the Lakeland hills in the background and if your lucky a sunset. The jewel in the crown as Wayne H correctly states. Stand on the gym/café terrace balcony and look over the central prom area then envisage what this proposed development would do to that view. Any owner of the Midland Hotel with its interests as a viable hotel operation at heart would never make such proposals. Do Urban Splash not intend to stay in Morecambe after the central prom is completed?

Also whilst you are there focus on the seafront to the right of the stone jetty which forms a smallish bay. What is that screaming out for? A top quality marina maybe!

Urban Splash need to get back to the drawing board if their proposals are going to receive the support of the majority of the ratepayers of Morecambe and Lancaster.

Peace & truth

And if a marina were to be built... atracting £1,000`s of pounds worth of watercraft - each mostly in excess of £30,000 most likely - where are the owners likely to shop - hitchins and woolworths? - I think not
That is where the new development comes in surely.
Upmarket shops,restaurants, hotels and entertainment venues to either attract or service existing well healed clientele.

Chicken and egg here. Exactly my point. Build the marina first then that creates the commercial viability for the shops, restaurants, hotel etc. Building the marina is investment in Morecambe but US dont appear to want to do that. Why not?

I've seen the views from the top, I've seen the online plans and I've even been to the planning office and Yes, I still want the development to go ahead

OK Phoenix (odd name that ) you've had your vote but what about the other 129,000 people/shareholders/ ratepayers in the area covered by the local authority of Lancaster City Council? I suspect that the majority of them are oblivious to US proposals due to a Council and local press which fails in its responsibilities to act in the public interests and ensure that we are fully and properly informed.

Looking at the Planning website entry the deadline for receipt of objections for the full application is 4th August and for the Outline application it is 7th August. Mine is on its way.

If you want to influence people to support US present proposals Phoenix why not get yourself to the Arndale, replicate the Councils display and start a petition with real names and addresses on it. I'd wager that you would not need many pages.

Does anyone know how many phases there are going to be and the timescale US are working to for completion of the development? Also I didnt spot a public loo on the US proposals.

BTW I've not used Councillor Archers blank page format, but got the correct address from it of where to send it. I've used my own.

The council have already turned what was a beautiful colourful landscaped promenade into a maintenance free revenue collecting car park, so are housing estates the next phase?

Respect

I don't see how the local press are failing, both papers have made it headline news in print and online

I suggest that you read this weeks letters page in the Visitor Phoenix, and before you make any further allegations on a public forum please make sure its true.

Look forward to meeting you in the Arndale with your petition and then you can substantiate your claim that US are investing in Morecambe, because in my opinion based on their present proposals, the amount they've splashed on the Midland, its a travesty of the truth.

BTW what protection is there of the £9 million of public money in the Midland? i.e if they decide to sell in future do they keep all the cash and do they own all the fixtures and furniture?

Peace, truth & respect

Well if they are not failing tell us whats the full content of the Partnership agreement between the Council and US. Ask your local councillor if they can reveal the content and come back and reveal its content particularly the extent of residential land use that it permits. As I have stated previously why is the Agreement not on the site?

I suspect that headline was composed by the Visitor not Cllr Archer!

If there are any professionally qualified local Chartered Surveyors reading this who are local ratepayers and care about the area could they inform the community here what the approximate land valuation of the public asset (owned by us ratepayers) re: the Central Promenade area is with planning permission for 500 plus residential units?

Has anyone managed to successfully navigate the Councils Planning applications and digest the detail in the associated documents yet?

The two applications 07/01810/OUT and 07/01811/FUL were submitted to the Council on 21/12/07 so why at the eleventh hour is the detail only just appearing (and incorrectly) in the local press?

The deadline for receipt of objections is the 4th August.

The site area is 6.57 hectares.

Check out the drawings on page 4 & 5 to see the extent of the high rise and the application form on page 4 for the land use details. Theres very little detail on leisure and retail. Its basically a high rise high density promenade housing estate.

The six flat blocks with small retail units on the ground floor each get steadily higher as they approach the prom. All start at five storeys high. The three nearest the Midland reach a maximum of six storeys, the fourth a maximum of seven storeys and the fifth and sixth a maximum of eight storeys.

The complete outline application (i.e all phases completed) indicates the a total number of 533 units comprising:-

live/work units:- 22
1 bed flats/maisonettes:- 246
2 bed flats/maisonettes:- 91
bedsit/studios:- 174

In this weeks Visitor (page 6/7 it shows the masterplan but gives no information on the extent of the high rise development and states:- the entire dvelopment consists of 381 flats, 130 additional rooms in a possible Midland Hotel 2, 22 beach houses, 8 commercial units and 616 car park spaces 493 of which are private.

The Visitor also reports that US intend to start on site at the end of 2008 and finish in 2016.

Theres a bit of a discrepancy in the Visitors figures. Its disinfo, why?

On the site there is a lower floor (basement) to accomodate the car parking.

On page 4 of the application Urban splash have responded as follows to the following questions:-

Is the site within an area of known flooding? The response: "yes"

Will the proposal increase the flood risk elsewhere? The response: "unknown"

Proposal to connect to existing sewer? The response: "unknown"

If these proposals are what the majority of local ratepayers want for this publicly owned asset lets put the land up for sale strictly for the proposed use accepted and invite all local and national propert developers to submit their highest bid. At least ratepayers would then get something back and maybe this would give us a relief from the consistent inflation busting council tax rises and service cuts from the Town Hall.

We )local ratepayers) have been conned.

Peace & truth

e land up for sale strictly for the proposed use accepted and invite all local and national propert developers to submit their highest bid. At least ratepayers would then get something back and maybe this would give us a relief from the consistent inflation busting council tax rises and service cuts from the Town Hall.

We )local ratepayers) have been conned.

Peace & truth

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?

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).

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?

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.

Over 3000 views now on this thread. (500 just for yesterday). I hope that the silent majority are truthseeking local ratepayers. I'm trying to keep the debate civilised, insult free,focused on identifying the truth and evidence based but its one hell of a challenge.

Forget the politics folks, its a dirty game of deception and lies. ,Truth is never respected and it it does not stand a chance. The system does not cater for honest politicians, Despite this the fact is you cannot subjugate an educated public.

If you want to see how the decision making process works at Lancaster City Council I would suggest that you read Mr Portmans (District auditors) report on Blobbygate. Its the truth. A process of a majority of irresponsible councillors just rubber stamping incompetent and huge error of judgement decisions made by top ranking council Officers recommendations.

Local rateapyers and the area need highly educated young people (not Common Purpose trained/mind conditioned) as Councillors.

IMO there is a huge conflict of interest concerning the regeneration of Morecambe and Councillor Archer. She would put the interests of her beloved Winter Gardens before the interests of local ratepayers. All Urban Splash need to do is offer her a few million/assistance to get the Winter Gardens operational and she'd forget representing the best interests of local ratepayers. I am still waiting to see a viable business plan for the Winter Gardens.

I am enjoying the intelligent discussion within this thread.

What is happening with the Beachcomber design that was put forward for a marina? Is that a viable option that is being considered or has it been relegated to merely an award-winning concept?

Would a London billionaire be interested in investing?

Mr Hughes's Mariuna design proposals were creative and very positive but were is the funding coming from?

The local press have publicised the cost of the redevelopment of the Central Prom area at £80 million.

Where did they get this info from?

Where is the £80 million coming from. Urban Splash or public monies. If its a public/private partnership whats the split?

With the exception of ????? we know the truth of the split on the Midland Hotel:-
£0.5 million Urban Splash for purchase of the Midland
£9 million public monies to fund the construction costs
£??? million Urban Splash to fund the construction costs
Fit out/furniture costs funded by?

Anyone had any joy yet with revealing the content of the Partnership Agreement between our Council and US. Councillor Archer informed me it was on the Councils website which clearly was disinfo/misinfo!

A final thought/key question for readers to ponder. Did US have to provide a viable business plan for the Midland before getting £9 million of public money?

Please could the honorable Mr Shrimper or one of his associates address the misinfo/disinfo in this weeks Visitor.

It states 381 flats when in truth the application totals 533 residential units.

BTW Mr Shrimper no pms lets keep this debate in the public domain and at last on a level playing field.

Peace, truth and respect Mr Shrimper

From the North stand.................."Oh its all gone quiet, all gone quiet, all gone quiet over there!"

Come on Mr Shrimper (aka Mr Glen Cooper Editor of the Towns newspaper The Visitor) lets play the ball instead of playing the man and address the issue raised regarding professional independent journalism:-

Sorry if that caused confusion North Stand Shrimp. That particular post was an addendum to the earlier one; i.e:- ...

I hope that clarifies the situation and that Mr Shrimper will be able to play ball on that particular question.of professional independent journalism. Acting in the public interest and keeping them fully and properly informed its referred to as by the Press Complaints Commission.

Thanx for that clarification and for playing the ball Mr Visitor Editor. Can you inform us which document the Visitor was using when it compiled its report.

My take/opinion = deception.

Key question for local ratepayers, (Dooh sorry Council tax payers) excluding Mr Shrimpers associates..................... Whats your take on Glen Coopers clarification?

BTW Glen could you also clarify which of the blocks shown on the outline plan is the Midland 2
which you refer to and why you failed to bring the proposals to our attention when the date both the outline application for the whole site and phase 1 was submitted to the Council in December 2007.

Peace truth & respect

I post this:-

Thanx for that clarification and for playing the ball Mr Visitor Editor. Can you inform us which document the Visitor was using when it compiled its report.

My take/opinion = deception.

Key question for local ratepayers, (Dooh sorry Council tax payers) excluding Mr Shrimpers associates..................... Whats your take on Glen Coopers clarification?

BTW Glen could you also clarify which of the blocks shown on the outline plan is the Midland 2
which you refer to and why you failed to bring the proposals to our attention when the date both the outline application for the whole site and phase 1 was submitted to the Council in December 2007.

Peace truth & respect

and get this response from Glen...

North Stand Shrimp and Paul Mac also take their bats home. Thats their choice but imo actions speak louder than words.

...Its a truth hunt, honestly. Those who deal in spin or attemt to cover up the truth imo have to account for their actions.

Editors of newspaper have tremendous power and influence over joe public and are major players in society.

All I am trying to say is let local council tax payerswho own the land make a democratic decision that is based on truth. Give us the information (not disinfo, misinfo or spin) to make an educated decision and maybe this time we'll be able to get it right!

Peace, truth & respect.

Phoenix I'm getting really tired of your personal abuse of those that dare not align with your opinion. It reminds me of the school yard and encounters with the schoolyard bully.

I can see that theres not going to be any yellow, red cards issued by site admin/moderators on such posters here. For the sake of truth thats a pity.


Dont put yourself down Paul, join in. Dont let fear and the school yard bullies here put you off.

BTW Glens gives us this link:-
http://www.thevisitor.co.uk/morecambe-n ... 3674806.jp

so based on this evidence why did the masterplan only appear in last weeks Visitor and how come the headline is Midland 2 not 350-400 flats?

There is also this little gem of a post on the link from Digger Driver:-

DiggerDriver,Morecambe! 16/01/2008 18:49:56
So to translate this into English!
The council has sold prime public land to a private property developer and gave him planning permission!
Then tried to fob off the public by telling us its going to benifit us all because its called urban splash!
Open your eyes Morecambe!
Your being sold off for backhanders!
While these people make millions stealing your towns assets!

Truth though is the Council has given away prime public land or am I wrong?

As one of my heroes, Mahatma Gandhi stated:-

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you and then you win"

Peace, truth & respect

Enjoy the multimedia sound and message in the lyrics:-

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=JdwFsaCiDas

The truth point of view!

Those looking for the truth must address the available evidence, those attacking the researchers and not focusing on evidence will fail to find the truth.

If you got this far, well done. Did you learn anything of substance?

[Phoenix]

Reminds me of a Friends episode, "Did I?".
"18 pages, front and back. No wonder I fell asleep"
"I don't have trouble sleeping, I still have your letter"

In answer to the question, I have found nothing of any substance.

If Truth posts any more questions, may I politely ask that Truth includes her real name.

[Posh]

I once wrote a letter to The Visitor in response to one from a bloke slagging off then council leader Ian Barker. Now Ian isn't perfect (nobody is) but basically he's an honourable and decent person with good intentions and a burning desire to improve the community in which he lives. The person who wrote the letter made largely personal and unjustifiable attacks on him, which I found grossly offensive. I rarely write letters to the paper but I thought I'd stand up for Ian on a purely personal and non-political level.

Two days after publication Rachel got two phone calls, which the person hung up on. Then I answered one and the person on the end went, "first they lie to you, then they attack you and then destroy you" (or something similar). More calls followed after he'd managed to track me down, scare the missus and verabally abuse me over the phone. This person still writes to the paper occassionally.

Reading The Truth's post (and what an offensive name that is) there is something strangely reminiscent in the tone, personal stuff and an over-arching belief in their self-righteousness. I'm not saying it is them - far from it - just seems like the kind of thing I've had to deal with when trying to progress anything in Morecambe. Part of the reason I don't bother too much these days.

[Truth]

I am beginning to come to the conclusion that its probably not going to be possible to have a civilised debate here on the subject matter of the thread “We’ll fight them on the prom” as it appears to be far from a level playing field.

I would like to deal with the schoolyard bully Phoenix, who complains that I don’t provide any evidence of the disinfo/misinfo on this thread.

Phoenix states

Keith, when someone claims I have posted "disinfo" I would appreciate being told what disinfo I or anyone else has posted. Truth hasn't backed up the claim so far and that's what I was referring to.

Phoenix states:

OK, I've read 4 letters on the visitor web site and they give a balanced opinion of the development, for & against. I agree with the editor's reply to one of them that implied they were biased towards an in-favour vote. The Visitor appear to be staying neutral, not sure about the Citizen

Well folks here is the evidence, the relevant letters copied from the Visitor edition 16 July. You be judge!

[edit-Keith] Four letters copied verbatim from the Visitor, all opposed to the development. Please refer to the date and summarise rather than quote in full.

It's high time we looked to future

My analysis of that is there are five letters. Its 1 for, 4 against. the US proposals..
Keith (site admin) is Phoenixs action in this case compliant with the rules of fair play here?

[edit-Keith] Personal attack, questioning professionalism removed.

Its a dirty game so far on this thread Any chance of fair play from now on Keith?

BTW Keith

I would have spiked Truth

. Can you explain what that means it sounds painfully threatening to me.

[Moose]

You're boring me now.....

Please go away, your best defence (withouth any answers, is attack!)

Answer (many) questions posed, then the interest 'may' just smack me in the face and say (to me) 'yeah'... 'you are still interested in this thread!'

[marky]

I think we can totally discount the points Mrs Nicholson made! There'll be uninterupted views available from Hest Bank to the proposed development so anyone wishing to see it would only have to walk a few yards. Plus, the seaward side of the development will remain part of the promenade (how else would people access the Stone Jetty?) As for Alan Dean, one wonders if he has actually bothered to look at the terms of the grant US received. They wouldn't be allowed to turn it into apartments even if they wanted to. A marina in a town which only has coastal waters a couple of times each day would be utterly pointless and besides, it would only be used at most 5 months each year. I very much doubt it would bring any money into the coffers, either.

I'm sorry but for me the US proposals are both logical and correct. Yes, there's no harm in negotiation. I don't know of any major development that has just been rubber stamped at the first attempt. The designs are bound to change.

[Phoenix]

I would like to deal with the schoolyard bully Phoenix, who complains that I don’t provide any evidence of the disinfo/misinfo on this thread.

I have been very patient Truth and asked you for answers to questions many times, not once receiving a direct answer. You come across as arrogant and patronising. You seem to enjoy putting people down and have a very definite very personal grudge against Glen Cooper while continuing to hide behind an alias. Madam, you are a bully and a coward.

First, You pick on the insignificant items in the hope of trying to score points from them yet constantly choose to ignore the important stuff. I didn't actually say there were 4 letters in the visitor, you should read my messages more carefully, I read 4.

Second, you pick the wrong f'ing paper Now that's DISINFO!!! I said this week's Visitor, that was on Wednesday July 23, not the 16th. I also named someone who had written, you didn't even check that letter was in your reply before you tried scoring points off me. If you can't afford to buy a Visitor, let me know and we'll all chip in for a subscription.

And third, Keith (site admin) is Phoenixs action in this case compliant with the rules of fair play here? We all abide by Keiths rules on here, fair or not. Having got your mass of evidence completely wrong from the wrong newspaper, "fair rules" would usually mean an apology but I don't see that coming.

Your very first message on this thread claimed "disinfo" and I have been asking you to prove that ever since. You have finally managed to find something you claim is disinfo, something which anyone and everyone is able to check for themselves and make their own mind up. I bet that took some doing, didn't it? And how pathetic is your final evidence.

What's amazing are the comments from Posh which you have chosen to ignore. Bit too close to the Truth are they? A staight denial it was you would have been quick & easy to type.

In the other thread (question) the beavers built their dam without planning permission and the rest of the pond life re-adjusted their lives and got on with it. If only life was so simple.