Council plan to demolish Pavilion and sell North Quay offices

Weymouth and Portland Borough Council is considering demolishing the Pavilion and selling the council offices on North Quay in a bid to save money.

The council is also considering selling off other council assets including seafront hotels and reducing the number of councillors as it struggles will cuts which means it will be spending £3.9 million less each year by 2019/20.

And residents will be asked their views on far-reaching proposals by councillors in a bid to protect front line services and keep council tax down.

A spokesman said that over the past two years the amount of money the borough council receives from the Government has fallen by 28 per cent. Further large cuts are anticipated until 2019/20.

The proposals include demolishing the Pavilion and turning the site into a car park which could also be used for other activities similar to how thw present forecourt is used.

It is also planned to sell the Guildhall in St Edmudn Street and the main council offices on North Quay and relocate staff tio the council offices at the depot in Chickerell.

He said: “Like householders, the council has also seen many of its costs, such as fuel and energy, rise far ahead of inflation. Income and the value of its investments has also fallen.

“The borough council needs to take a longer term view and prepare for a future where it is spending far less each year says the report to the borough council’s Management Committee on 4 December.”

The Budget Working Group issued the following joint statement: “Facing an historically difficult time for local government funding, local councillors set aside political differences to establish a cross party Budget Working Group that has been undertaking detailed strategic planning work for several months.

“Whilst other councils are failing, this budget is the first of several that will secure the long term provision of essential and valued services to our Weymouth & Portland community.

“We committed ourselves to protect those services that make a real difference to the quality of life of our most vulnerable residents such as our homelessness prevention work and housing advice service, those services we all rely upon such as our current regular refuse collection and those services that perform a vital task in protecting local residents as with our environmental health work.

“We will protect essential services by: • Restructuring non essential discretionary services • Rationalising the property portfolio including the disposal of the Council Offices and Guildhall.

• Set aside sufficient funding to maintain council assets that are retained • Reducing the number of councillors and moving to a four yearly election cycle • Reducing management costs through further partnership work “Weymouth & Portland Borough Council has an excellent track record in protecting services. When other councils were already cutting back we stripped out waste from our core services and we led the country with a ground breaking partnership with West Dorset District Council reducing management costs and producing ongoing savings in excess of £2 million for the two councils.

“This budget paper seeks to reform how we deliver non essential services starting with alternate ways of providing for the performing arts and tourist information. We acknowledge that these reforms will not be universally welcomed and that they will lead to the loss of council jobs with the inevitable distress for the employees affected.

“However if we fail to tackle the problem we will condemn all services, including those most critical to the well being of our residents, to a slow, painful and protracted demise.”

Comments (88)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:02pm Mon 26 Nov 12

annotator1 says...

Hmm. Perhaps more "Luxury Flats" for those who can't afford it.
Hmm. Perhaps more "Luxury Flats" for those who can't afford it. annotator1

3:05pm Mon 26 Nov 12

cecilbdoomil says...

Everyone knows the executive flats thing has been in the brown envelopes draw for ages.
Everyone knows the executive flats thing has been in the brown envelopes draw for ages. cecilbdoomil

3:28pm Mon 26 Nov 12

stench says...

Luxury flats, with a beautiful view of the harbour. A view currently wasted on a bunch of jobsworth public workers...
Luxury flats, with a beautiful view of the harbour. A view currently wasted on a bunch of jobsworth public workers... stench

3:30pm Mon 26 Nov 12

stench says...

And there are many people in Weymouth that can afford such properties. Or maybe it would be good to attract people that could, from outside.

Rather than keep expanding council estates and inviting the big city rejects to come and live in our beautiful town...
And there are many people in Weymouth that can afford such properties. Or maybe it would be good to attract people that could, from outside. Rather than keep expanding council estates and inviting the big city rejects to come and live in our beautiful town... stench

3:48pm Mon 26 Nov 12

WeyDave says...

Nearly right WPBC. Try selling the Pavilion and demolishing the Council offices. Who votes for these muppets?
Nearly right WPBC. Try selling the Pavilion and demolishing the Council offices. Who votes for these muppets? WeyDave

4:43pm Mon 26 Nov 12

monkeydog says...

This has got ' missed opportunity' written all over it.
This has got ' missed opportunity' written all over it. monkeydog

5:02pm Mon 26 Nov 12

Laadeeda says...

Who'd have guessed it!!!!!

(He said sarcastically)
Who'd have guessed it!!!!! (He said sarcastically) Laadeeda

5:09pm Mon 26 Nov 12

ManOnTheSilverMountain says...

Anyone else feel like the Council really don't know what's going on?

I mean last week they were talking about closing a stretch of the seafront to traffic, and discouraging traffic in the town with the new park and ride.

This week, it's flatten the pavilion and turn it into a carpark....
Anyone else feel like the Council really don't know what's going on? I mean last week they were talking about closing a stretch of the seafront to traffic, and discouraging traffic in the town with the new park and ride. This week, it's flatten the pavilion and turn it into a carpark.... ManOnTheSilverMountain

5:56pm Mon 26 Nov 12

PossumGoose says...

I’d heard the plan was to demolish all of Weymouth and turn it into a park and ride for those posh people up in Dorchester’s Charles Street / Brewery Square extravaganza.
I’d heard the plan was to demolish all of Weymouth and turn it into a park and ride for those posh people up in Dorchester’s Charles Street / Brewery Square extravaganza. PossumGoose

6:07pm Mon 26 Nov 12

old-mo says...

Knock the pavillion down.... ???

Why... ?

Because of the incompetance of the council...
Knock the pavillion down.... ??? Why... ? Because of the incompetance of the council... old-mo

6:20pm Mon 26 Nov 12

windag says...

So all those on high pay such as the managers etc, move into new offices in Dorchester, the workers get the boot, less councillors, where will they meet then? no Guildhall no Pavillion, so this so called almagamation with West Dorset is what every body thought it was, a take over, any one who cares should see this is the end of Weymouth and Portland as it now stands with its own council, although there are a lot of negative comments at times about this council it will become as effective as a Parish Council, so be carefull what you wish for.
As for the Guildhall the loss of another historic building in the Borough, no wonder why the council are spending money on it, just like the pavillion let it run down then spend loads of money on it then the so called managers whinge about lack of funds, these bunch of clowns (C.E. and the higher paid executives) would not last five minutes in the real world.
So l presume this includes the Mayor or are they going to have a parlour at a refuse depot?
Why not use the Guildhall so at least we can keep some civic identity
So all those on high pay such as the managers etc, move into new offices in Dorchester, the workers get the boot, less councillors, where will they meet then? no Guildhall no Pavillion, so this so called almagamation with West Dorset is what every body thought it was, a take over, any one who cares should see this is the end of Weymouth and Portland as it now stands with its own council, although there are a lot of negative comments at times about this council it will become as effective as a Parish Council, so be carefull what you wish for. As for the Guildhall the loss of another historic building in the Borough, no wonder why the council are spending money on it, just like the pavillion let it run down then spend loads of money on it then the so called managers whinge about lack of funds, these bunch of clowns (C.E. and the higher paid executives) would not last five minutes in the real world. So l presume this includes the Mayor or are they going to have a parlour at a refuse depot? Why not use the Guildhall so at least we can keep some civic identity windag

6:24pm Mon 26 Nov 12

bedpans says...

Most of the councils senior officers seem to work at Dorchester now and have very little time for what goes on in Weymouth. Why not just do away with Weymouth all together and merge it with Dorchester.People said there would be a lasting legacy after the olympics and boy oh boy what a legacy.
Bring all the council officials into the town centre for public ridicule becuase they are clueless.
Most of the councils senior officers seem to work at Dorchester now and have very little time for what goes on in Weymouth. Why not just do away with Weymouth all together and merge it with Dorchester.People said there would be a lasting legacy after the olympics and boy oh boy what a legacy. Bring all the council officials into the town centre for public ridicule becuase they are clueless. bedpans

6:26pm Mon 26 Nov 12

spangler says...

A car park!
Now there's a surprise.
Lower Bond Street ring any bells?
LOL
A car park! Now there's a surprise. Lower Bond Street ring any bells? LOL spangler

6:34pm Mon 26 Nov 12

biggestoaf says...

Read the story people. The government has cut the amount of money it gives to local government by 28% over the last two years. If your household income fell by 28% you'd have to make some pretty big changes. If that wasn't enough funding will continue to fall by almost £4 million a year for the next few years. Weymouth + Portland is not alone in having to make big cuts. Many councils are likely to go bankrupt. The simple truth is that the Pavilion is going to close thanks to David Cameron and George Osborne.
Read the story people. The government has cut the amount of money it gives to local government by 28% over the last two years. If your household income fell by 28% you'd have to make some pretty big changes. If that wasn't enough funding will continue to fall by almost £4 million a year for the next few years. Weymouth + Portland is not alone in having to make big cuts. Many councils are likely to go bankrupt. The simple truth is that the Pavilion is going to close thanks to David Cameron and George Osborne. biggestoaf

6:41pm Mon 26 Nov 12

212 dorset says...

What a wonderful legacy Weymouth now has.......Just as Simon Williams promised us!! Send in the clowns.
What a wonderful legacy Weymouth now has.......Just as Simon Williams promised us!! Send in the clowns. 212 dorset

6:54pm Mon 26 Nov 12

Wazygoose says...

The more I hear from Councils the more I wonder where their brains are - in the toes of their boots I shouldn't wonder.
First we hear that Dorchesters WaDDoCs want to invest 2+ million on re arranging their plans for Charles street and build a nice new Car Park in Fairfield to enable the new clientelle of the Brewery development to park in the dry and put a further nail in the town centre development prospects.
Now Weymouths brainless Council want to pull down the Pavilion and create a Car Park, sell the Guidhall and Town Hall and move to Chickerell. I heard the rumour some months ago that the co-operation between the two Councils would be further extended from a bit of joint purchasing to both organisations moving into the new Ivory Tower in Charles Street, and making an even bigger mess of things. A good script writer could get some pretty good material for a new comedy series by following the antics of our elected representatives.
I remember many years ago a friend of mine saying when I suggested he stood for election that he didn't like the first requisite - "You need to have your brain removed first" I do not think he was far wrong.

With regards to the suggestions for the Pavillion, who are going to park on the end of the pier for eight months of the year? we have already seen a much under-used Park & Ride at our expense put at the other end of the town. Keep the Pavilion and put it out to private tender, if someone wants to comes into the town and make it work - try it, I would like to bet that it would be used far more if an entrepreneur was given the chance with a sensible lease to promote it properly and fill it more often.
A car park would soon become yet another block of flats, (sorry appartments) do we not have enough of those blighting the town already, and I see that someone else has suggested that is what will happen to the Town Hall, if it is to change it would make far more sense to be converted into a decent Hotel that the Town could be proud of. We might even see some of the lucrative conference trade move into this lovely part of the world.
The more I hear from Councils the more I wonder where their brains are - in the toes of their boots I shouldn't wonder. First we hear that Dorchesters WaDDoCs want to invest 2+ million on re arranging their plans for Charles street and build a nice new Car Park in Fairfield to enable the new clientelle of the Brewery development to park in the dry and put a further nail in the town centre development prospects. Now Weymouths brainless Council want to pull down the Pavilion and create a Car Park, sell the Guidhall and Town Hall and move to Chickerell. I heard the rumour some months ago that the co-operation between the two Councils would be further extended from a bit of joint purchasing to both organisations moving into the new Ivory Tower in Charles Street, and making an even bigger mess of things. A good script writer could get some pretty good material for a new comedy series by following the antics of our elected representatives. I remember many years ago a friend of mine saying when I suggested he stood for election that he didn't like the first requisite - "You need to have your brain removed first" I do not think he was far wrong. With regards to the suggestions for the Pavillion, who are going to park on the end of the pier for eight months of the year? we have already seen a much under-used Park & Ride at our expense put at the other end of the town. Keep the Pavilion and put it out to private tender, if someone wants to comes into the town and make it work - try it, I would like to bet that it would be used far more if an entrepreneur was given the chance with a sensible lease to promote it properly and fill it more often. A car park would soon become yet another block of flats, (sorry appartments) do we not have enough of those blighting the town already, and I see that someone else has suggested that is what will happen to the Town Hall, if it is to change it would make far more sense to be converted into a decent Hotel that the Town could be proud of. We might even see some of the lucrative conference trade move into this lovely part of the world. Wazygoose

6:54pm Mon 26 Nov 12

John New says...

Hopefully someone will come forward to run the Pavillion as a theatre trust and therefore without some of the millstone charges it currently gets lumbered with.

It is an unfortunate fact of running any asset in the public sector (theatre, harbour, car parks, crematoria, cemeteries etc) that they have to carry within their overheads costs that a public company running the same services do not. A significant one being the high cost of democracy.

Let's hope sanity prevails before this asset to the town is flattened.
Hopefully someone will come forward to run the Pavillion as a theatre trust and therefore without some of the millstone charges it currently gets lumbered with. It is an unfortunate fact of running any asset in the public sector (theatre, harbour, car parks, crematoria, cemeteries etc) that they have to carry within their overheads costs that a public company running the same services do not. A significant one being the high cost of democracy. Let's hope sanity prevails before this asset to the town is flattened. John New

6:56pm Mon 26 Nov 12

satisfecho says...

annotator1 wrote:
Hmm. Perhaps more "Luxury Flats" for those who can't afford it.
Many.
[quote][p][bold]annotator1[/bold] wrote: Hmm. Perhaps more "Luxury Flats" for those who can't afford it.[/p][/quote]Many. satisfecho

6:59pm Mon 26 Nov 12

satisfecho says...

biggestoaf wrote:
Read the story people. The government has cut the amount of money it gives to local government by 28% over the last two years. If your household income fell by 28% you'd have to make some pretty big changes. If that wasn't enough funding will continue to fall by almost £4 million a year for the next few years. Weymouth + Portland is not alone in having to make big cuts. Many councils are likely to go bankrupt. The simple truth is that the Pavilion is going to close thanks to David Cameron and George Osborne.
I would put more of that thanks to the previous Labour regime.

Cameron/Osborne and co inherited a mess.
[quote][p][bold]biggestoaf[/bold] wrote: Read the story people. The government has cut the amount of money it gives to local government by 28% over the last two years. If your household income fell by 28% you'd have to make some pretty big changes. If that wasn't enough funding will continue to fall by almost £4 million a year for the next few years. Weymouth + Portland is not alone in having to make big cuts. Many councils are likely to go bankrupt. The simple truth is that the Pavilion is going to close thanks to David Cameron and George Osborne.[/p][/quote]I would put more of that thanks to the previous Labour regime. Cameron/Osborne and co inherited a mess. satisfecho

7:30pm Mon 26 Nov 12

mark@greenhill says...

As long as it's a multistory car park, yes, wonderful idea.

At least it might actually pay for itself, rather than the present white elephant.

Seriously, if all the people who cry about it closing, used it more than twice a year, it would still be viable. As it is, it isn't & never will be, & unless it pays for itself, it should close.
As long as it's a multistory car park, yes, wonderful idea. At least it might actually pay for itself, rather than the present white elephant. Seriously, if all the people who cry about it closing, used it more than twice a year, it would still be viable. As it is, it isn't & never will be, & unless it pays for itself, it should close. mark@greenhill

7:45pm Mon 26 Nov 12

Is it me or is everything rubbish? says...

mark@greenhill wrote:
As long as it's a multistory car park, yes, wonderful idea.

At least it might actually pay for itself, rather than the present white elephant.

Seriously, if all the people who cry about it closing, used it more than twice a year, it would still be viable. As it is, it isn't & never will be, & unless it pays for itself, it should close.
Agreed- lots of people make noise when you try and close a loss making service, yet if people ACTUALLY used it.

Ditto bus services, local post offices, the local shop, the local pub...

If you want to preserve something, then use it.

The council offices and old fire station area could be redeveloped along the same lines as what you find in a European resort- shops and restaurants with flats above. It could be really good- also, look to sell of the car parks near Debenhams and near Wilkinson for development- retain the freehold and the ground level for parking. The rest can be used for residential development.

Yes, many of the properties will be out of reach for "locals" but the developer has to make money. As long as a provision is made towards "affordable" housing, it could be a win win situation.
[quote][p][bold]mark@greenhill[/bold] wrote: As long as it's a multistory car park, yes, wonderful idea. At least it might actually pay for itself, rather than the present white elephant. Seriously, if all the people who cry about it closing, used it more than twice a year, it would still be viable. As it is, it isn't & never will be, & unless it pays for itself, it should close.[/p][/quote]Agreed- lots of people make noise when you try and close a loss making service, yet if people ACTUALLY used it. Ditto bus services, local post offices, the local shop, the local pub... If you want to preserve something, then use it. The council offices and old fire station area could be redeveloped along the same lines as what you find in a European resort- shops and restaurants with flats above. It could be really good- also, look to sell of the car parks near Debenhams and near Wilkinson for development- retain the freehold and the ground level for parking. The rest can be used for residential development. Yes, many of the properties will be out of reach for "locals" but the developer has to make money. As long as a provision is made towards "affordable" housing, it could be a win win situation. Is it me or is everything rubbish?

8:06pm Mon 26 Nov 12

JamesYoung says...

windag wrote:
So all those on high pay such as the managers etc, move into new offices in Dorchester, the workers get the boot, less councillors, where will they meet then? no Guildhall no Pavillion, so this so called almagamation with West Dorset is what every body thought it was, a take over, any one who cares should see this is the end of Weymouth and Portland as it now stands with its own council, although there are a lot of negative comments at times about this council it will become as effective as a Parish Council, so be carefull what you wish for.
As for the Guildhall the loss of another historic building in the Borough, no wonder why the council are spending money on it, just like the pavillion let it run down then spend loads of money on it then the so called managers whinge about lack of funds, these bunch of clowns (C.E. and the higher paid executives) would not last five minutes in the real world.
So l presume this includes the Mayor or are they going to have a parlour at a refuse depot?
Why not use the Guildhall so at least we can keep some civic identity
Why is this a bad thing? Do you really think one council running west dorset and Weymouth and Portland would be any worse than what we have now? The system would work much better if councillors were replaced with call centres and there was one council for the whole of Dorset. One set of councillors. One set of expenses. One payroll team. One it team. One finance team.
[quote][p][bold]windag[/bold] wrote: So all those on high pay such as the managers etc, move into new offices in Dorchester, the workers get the boot, less councillors, where will they meet then? no Guildhall no Pavillion, so this so called almagamation with West Dorset is what every body thought it was, a take over, any one who cares should see this is the end of Weymouth and Portland as it now stands with its own council, although there are a lot of negative comments at times about this council it will become as effective as a Parish Council, so be carefull what you wish for. As for the Guildhall the loss of another historic building in the Borough, no wonder why the council are spending money on it, just like the pavillion let it run down then spend loads of money on it then the so called managers whinge about lack of funds, these bunch of clowns (C.E. and the higher paid executives) would not last five minutes in the real world. So l presume this includes the Mayor or are they going to have a parlour at a refuse depot? Why not use the Guildhall so at least we can keep some civic identity[/p][/quote]Why is this a bad thing? Do you really think one council running west dorset and Weymouth and Portland would be any worse than what we have now? The system would work much better if councillors were replaced with call centres and there was one council for the whole of Dorset. One set of councillors. One set of expenses. One payroll team. One it team. One finance team. JamesYoung

8:38pm Mon 26 Nov 12

ksmain says...

JamesYoung wrote:
windag wrote:
So all those on high pay such as the managers etc, move into new offices in Dorchester, the workers get the boot, less councillors, where will they meet then? no Guildhall no Pavillion, so this so called almagamation with West Dorset is what every body thought it was, a take over, any one who cares should see this is the end of Weymouth and Portland as it now stands with its own council, although there are a lot of negative comments at times about this council it will become as effective as a Parish Council, so be carefull what you wish for.
As for the Guildhall the loss of another historic building in the Borough, no wonder why the council are spending money on it, just like the pavillion let it run down then spend loads of money on it then the so called managers whinge about lack of funds, these bunch of clowns (C.E. and the higher paid executives) would not last five minutes in the real world.
So l presume this includes the Mayor or are they going to have a parlour at a refuse depot?
Why not use the Guildhall so at least we can keep some civic identity
Why is this a bad thing? Do you really think one council running west dorset and Weymouth and Portland would be any worse than what we have now? The system would work much better if councillors were replaced with call centres and there was one council for the whole of Dorset. One set of councillors. One set of expenses. One payroll team. One it team. One finance team.
This is a good idea.

The only problem is that it rides down the road idea that public sector workers are of no value to the local economy, which is rubbish of course.

Lets face it, the local Weymouth economy is based on 2 things only - pubic service (council, land registry, NHS) and tourism. It doesnt really have the infrastructure to attract anything else. So we amalgamate the whole lot and get rid of one-third of the council jobs, whose wealth feeds into the local economy? So that is less people using local transport, less people using the local amenities and less people spending in the local shops. And so resulting in the shutting of more of these businesses. If you could have witnessed already the effect of these austerity measures, as I did on Friday night out for a drink in Weymouth. You could have fit all the people out in the town into one pub in the centre of Weymouth!!! Even Weatherspoons (The Swan) had about one-third of the people in it that it normally has at that time of night.

So I can only believe that The Pavillion is not earning its way.

But I reckon long term the council has to look at ways of cutting its basic bills, for example, moving offices to a cheaper location and using that site to build something on that will attract people to the area, instead of cutting jobs and moving yet more money out of the local economy. While I believe we should try to cut overspending long term, I believe the present government have got it very wrong, and are butchering the economy by going way too fast with it's measures.
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]windag[/bold] wrote: So all those on high pay such as the managers etc, move into new offices in Dorchester, the workers get the boot, less councillors, where will they meet then? no Guildhall no Pavillion, so this so called almagamation with West Dorset is what every body thought it was, a take over, any one who cares should see this is the end of Weymouth and Portland as it now stands with its own council, although there are a lot of negative comments at times about this council it will become as effective as a Parish Council, so be carefull what you wish for. As for the Guildhall the loss of another historic building in the Borough, no wonder why the council are spending money on it, just like the pavillion let it run down then spend loads of money on it then the so called managers whinge about lack of funds, these bunch of clowns (C.E. and the higher paid executives) would not last five minutes in the real world. So l presume this includes the Mayor or are they going to have a parlour at a refuse depot? Why not use the Guildhall so at least we can keep some civic identity[/p][/quote]Why is this a bad thing? Do you really think one council running west dorset and Weymouth and Portland would be any worse than what we have now? The system would work much better if councillors were replaced with call centres and there was one council for the whole of Dorset. One set of councillors. One set of expenses. One payroll team. One it team. One finance team.[/p][/quote]This is a good idea. The only problem is that it rides down the road idea that public sector workers are of no value to the local economy, which is rubbish of course. Lets face it, the local Weymouth economy is based on 2 things only - pubic service (council, land registry, NHS) and tourism. It doesnt really have the infrastructure to attract anything else. So we amalgamate the whole lot and get rid of one-third of the council jobs, whose wealth feeds into the local economy? So that is less people using local transport, less people using the local amenities and less people spending in the local shops. And so resulting in the shutting of more of these businesses. If you could have witnessed already the effect of these austerity measures, as I did on Friday night out for a drink in Weymouth. You could have fit all the people out in the town into one pub in the centre of Weymouth!!! Even Weatherspoons (The Swan) had about one-third of the people in it that it normally has at that time of night. So I can only believe that The Pavillion is not earning its way. But I reckon long term the council has to look at ways of cutting its basic bills, for example, moving offices to a cheaper location and using that site to build something on that will attract people to the area, instead of cutting jobs and moving yet more money out of the local economy. While I believe we should try to cut overspending long term, I believe the present government have got it very wrong, and are butchering the economy by going way too fast with it's measures. ksmain

8:42pm Mon 26 Nov 12

greenglasses says...

so if I need to take some paperwork to the council offices where will I have to go....
so if I need to take some paperwork to the council offices where will I have to go.... greenglasses

8:51pm Mon 26 Nov 12

Get a grip says...

bedpans wrote:
Most of the councils senior officers seem to work at Dorchester now and have very little time for what goes on in Weymouth. Why not just do away with Weymouth all together and merge it with Dorchester.People said there would be a lasting legacy after the olympics and boy oh boy what a legacy.
Bring all the council officials into the town centre for public ridicule becuase they are clueless.
A friend in the council tells me that some Weymouth Managers had to apply for their own jobs ,some failed.

They were simply incompetent.

Were they given the push?

No at least one was demoted but still paid as a Manager at £50,000 plus pension and 29 days holiday a year!

Makes my blood boil.
[quote][p][bold]bedpans[/bold] wrote: Most of the councils senior officers seem to work at Dorchester now and have very little time for what goes on in Weymouth. Why not just do away with Weymouth all together and merge it with Dorchester.People said there would be a lasting legacy after the olympics and boy oh boy what a legacy. Bring all the council officials into the town centre for public ridicule becuase they are clueless.[/p][/quote]A friend in the council tells me that some Weymouth Managers had to apply for their own jobs ,some failed. They were simply incompetent. Were they given the push? No at least one was demoted but still paid as a Manager at £50,000 plus pension and 29 days holiday a year! Makes my blood boil. Get a grip

8:57pm Mon 26 Nov 12

LB5 says...

The reality is that the Pavilion is an eyesore. I've lived in Weymouth all my life and can count on one hand the number of times I've actually been in there. The venue is dilapidated and does not attract the type of shows that people generally want to see, I go to the BIC far more than I go to the Pavilion. I'd far rather they demolish the place and have an income generating car park rather than spend my money to keep this sad shadow of the Pavilion going.

As for the Council Offices, they never should have been built there in the first place. How they got away with demolishing the oldest building in the town to construct that monstrosity is quite beyond me. Glad to see it go, whatever they replace it with has to be better than what we have at the moment.

As for the Guildhall, it's in the wrong place to be anything but a public building. Unless it's converted to flats then I can't see anybody being interested in taking it on. The building must be listed so the cost of conversion would be prohibitive. Leave well alone on this count I think. Also, if the Guildhall is sold and the Council move to the Chickerell Waste Transfer Depot, does that mean that civil wedding ceremonies will be held there as well? People are going to love getting married in Chickerell at a Waste Transfer station.
The reality is that the Pavilion is an eyesore. I've lived in Weymouth all my life and can count on one hand the number of times I've actually been in there. The venue is dilapidated and does not attract the type of shows that people generally want to see, I go to the BIC far more than I go to the Pavilion. I'd far rather they demolish the place and have an income generating car park rather than spend my money to keep this sad shadow of the Pavilion going. As for the Council Offices, they never should have been built there in the first place. How they got away with demolishing the oldest building in the town to construct that monstrosity is quite beyond me. Glad to see it go, whatever they replace it with has to be better than what we have at the moment. As for the Guildhall, it's in the wrong place to be anything but a public building. Unless it's converted to flats then I can't see anybody being interested in taking it on. The building must be listed so the cost of conversion would be prohibitive. Leave well alone on this count I think. Also, if the Guildhall is sold and the Council move to the Chickerell Waste Transfer Depot, does that mean that civil wedding ceremonies will be held there as well? People are going to love getting married in Chickerell at a Waste Transfer station. LB5

9:08pm Mon 26 Nov 12

Dorset Guy says...

Why on earth did they not sell the seafront properties as soon as the Olympics were confirmed then thy would have got twice as much as they are now worth ("O" I remember they thought the tenants would make a packet ) Bit late now
Why on earth did they not sell the seafront properties as soon as the Olympics were confirmed then thy would have got twice as much as they are now worth ("O" I remember they thought the tenants would make a packet ) Bit late now Dorset Guy

9:17pm Mon 26 Nov 12

Get a grip says...

Anyone recall the mess they made of the beach kiosks?
Anyone recall the mess they made of the beach kiosks? Get a grip

10:01pm Mon 26 Nov 12

portland rebel says...

knock down pavillion and open a pleasure park, we survive on tourists so why not something for them and a good income for the town.
knock down pavillion and open a pleasure park, we survive on tourists so why not something for them and a good income for the town. portland rebel

10:49pm Mon 26 Nov 12

Top Gear says...

As long as my council tax doesnt go up the council can do what ever they want.
As long as my council tax doesnt go up the council can do what ever they want. Top Gear

7:21am Tue 27 Nov 12

weydor says...

Crazy:
Firstly Weren't they always going to sell North Quay and move to Dorchester.

Secondly why would you knock down a building to build additional car park spaces for that building as that is the main use of the car park.

Why not ask people for suggestions to redevelop the area around the pavilion rather than a scare story which will mean its passed to a large private developer in the end.
Crazy: Firstly Weren't they always going to sell North Quay and move to Dorchester. Secondly why would you knock down a building to build additional car park spaces for that building as that is the main use of the car park. Why not ask people for suggestions to redevelop the area around the pavilion rather than a scare story which will mean its passed to a large private developer in the end. weydor

7:23am Tue 27 Nov 12

DickDastardly says...

I really do think that the council are working for another district and driving the tourists there.

Brewers Quay turned into a building site, the town centre is becoming a mecca for charity shops, no ferry, (we will see if that ever gets completed), now get rid of the pavillion.

Not much left to attract the tourists other than a beach.

Amazing Incompetence and lack of foresight by the council over the years.

The more attractions the council kill off the less tourists arrive the next year and so the bigger the shortfall in funds again and more things have to close etc...
I really do think that the council are working for another district and driving the tourists there. Brewers Quay turned into a building site, the town centre is becoming a mecca for charity shops, no ferry, (we will see if that ever gets completed), now get rid of the pavillion. Not much left to attract the tourists other than a beach. Amazing Incompetence and lack of foresight by the council over the years. The more attractions the council kill off the less tourists arrive the next year and so the bigger the shortfall in funds again and more things have to close etc... DickDastardly

9:04am Tue 27 Nov 12

Hedgehogspring says...

JamesYoung wrote:
windag wrote:
So all those on high pay such as the managers etc, move into new offices in Dorchester, the workers get the boot, less councillors, where will they meet then? no Guildhall no Pavillion, so this so called almagamation with West Dorset is what every body thought it was, a take over, any one who cares should see this is the end of Weymouth and Portland as it now stands with its own council, although there are a lot of negative comments at times about this council it will become as effective as a Parish Council, so be carefull what you wish for.
As for the Guildhall the loss of another historic building in the Borough, no wonder why the council are spending money on it, just like the pavillion let it run down then spend loads of money on it then the so called managers whinge about lack of funds, these bunch of clowns (C.E. and the higher paid executives) would not last five minutes in the real world.
So l presume this includes the Mayor or are they going to have a parlour at a refuse depot?
Why not use the Guildhall so at least we can keep some civic identity
Why is this a bad thing? Do you really think one council running west dorset and Weymouth and Portland would be any worse than what we have now? The system would work much better if councillors were replaced with call centres and there was one council for the whole of Dorset. One set of councillors. One set of expenses. One payroll team. One it team. One finance team.
And this call centre will be based in India, right ?
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]windag[/bold] wrote: So all those on high pay such as the managers etc, move into new offices in Dorchester, the workers get the boot, less councillors, where will they meet then? no Guildhall no Pavillion, so this so called almagamation with West Dorset is what every body thought it was, a take over, any one who cares should see this is the end of Weymouth and Portland as it now stands with its own council, although there are a lot of negative comments at times about this council it will become as effective as a Parish Council, so be carefull what you wish for. As for the Guildhall the loss of another historic building in the Borough, no wonder why the council are spending money on it, just like the pavillion let it run down then spend loads of money on it then the so called managers whinge about lack of funds, these bunch of clowns (C.E. and the higher paid executives) would not last five minutes in the real world. So l presume this includes the Mayor or are they going to have a parlour at a refuse depot? Why not use the Guildhall so at least we can keep some civic identity[/p][/quote]Why is this a bad thing? Do you really think one council running west dorset and Weymouth and Portland would be any worse than what we have now? The system would work much better if councillors were replaced with call centres and there was one council for the whole of Dorset. One set of councillors. One set of expenses. One payroll team. One it team. One finance team.[/p][/quote]And this call centre will be based in India, right ? Hedgehogspring

9:05am Tue 27 Nov 12

Hedgehogspring says...

greenglasses wrote:
so if I need to take some paperwork to the council offices where will I have to go....
Dehli
[quote][p][bold]greenglasses[/bold] wrote: so if I need to take some paperwork to the council offices where will I have to go....[/p][/quote]Dehli Hedgehogspring

9:11am Tue 27 Nov 12

Hedgehogspring says...

portland rebel wrote:
knock down pavillion and open a pleasure park, we survive on tourists so why not something for them and a good income for the town.
Why not try investing in and building something which DOESN'T rely on tourists ? If Weymouth just relies on tourists and the tourists dont come, then what ?
[quote][p][bold]portland rebel[/bold] wrote: knock down pavillion and open a pleasure park, we survive on tourists so why not something for them and a good income for the town.[/p][/quote]Why not try investing in and building something which DOESN'T rely on tourists ? If Weymouth just relies on tourists and the tourists dont come, then what ? Hedgehogspring

9:15am Tue 27 Nov 12

shaun blondz says...

How many council officers does it take to carry a Jubilee Clock to Cash Converters? Fairly soon I think we'll find out...
How many council officers does it take to carry a Jubilee Clock to Cash Converters? Fairly soon I think we'll find out... shaun blondz

10:13am Tue 27 Nov 12

imthere says...

If all your aliases on these forums got together weymouthtilidye it wouldn't take much to carry it ! Plus you hum the tune midnight at the oasis while your doing it jobs done ,,...
If all your aliases on these forums got together weymouthtilidye it wouldn't take much to carry it ! Plus you hum the tune midnight at the oasis while your doing it jobs done ,,... imthere

10:24am Tue 27 Nov 12

212 dorset says...

shaun blondz wrote:
How many council officers does it take to carry a Jubilee Clock to Cash Converters? Fairly soon I think we'll find out...
The master of the alias.
[quote][p][bold]shaun blondz[/bold] wrote: How many council officers does it take to carry a Jubilee Clock to Cash Converters? Fairly soon I think we'll find out...[/p][/quote]The master of the alias. 212 dorset

10:38am Tue 27 Nov 12

railwaychickenboy6 says...

ManOnTheSilverMounta
in
wrote:
Anyone else feel like the Council really don't know what's going on?

I mean last week they were talking about closing a stretch of the seafront to traffic, and discouraging traffic in the town with the new park and ride.

This week, it's flatten the pavilion and turn it into a carpark....
As long as they keep the globe I don't mind
[quote][p][bold]ManOnTheSilverMounta in[/bold] wrote: Anyone else feel like the Council really don't know what's going on? I mean last week they were talking about closing a stretch of the seafront to traffic, and discouraging traffic in the town with the new park and ride. This week, it's flatten the pavilion and turn it into a carpark....[/p][/quote]As long as they keep the globe I don't mind railwaychickenboy6

10:42am Tue 27 Nov 12

Khazimodo says...

"Whilst other councils are failing" .....said spokes person Ray Charles..
"Whilst other councils are failing" .....said spokes person Ray Charles.. Khazimodo

11:17am Tue 27 Nov 12

Tactical says...

Sell the lot couldnt give a toss weymouth council are the biggest wasters in Europe, and now they will carry on there trend vote in UKIP or BNP or CLEAR and make a change ! next time you vote !
Sell the lot couldnt give a toss weymouth council are the biggest wasters in Europe, and now they will carry on there trend vote in UKIP or BNP or CLEAR and make a change ! next time you vote ! Tactical

11:24am Tue 27 Nov 12

banknote says...

Those who have the talent to be Councillors, have not the time....and we are left with the rest. The same applies to overpaid local government officials.

Weymouth missed a massive opportunity many years ago when the old theatre burnt down. Why didn't the Council build a conference centre/theatre? That would have brought lots of extra revenue to the - in the same way as other resorts. But no we have Weymouth Council...........
Those who have the talent to be Councillors, have not the time....and we are left with the rest. The same applies to overpaid local government officials. Weymouth missed a massive opportunity many years ago when the old theatre burnt down. Why didn't the Council build a conference centre/theatre? That would have brought lots of extra revenue to the - in the same way as other resorts. But no we have Weymouth Council........... banknote

11:26am Tue 27 Nov 12

banknote says...

"town" is missing from lastbut one line!!!
"town" is missing from lastbut one line!!! banknote

11:30am Tue 27 Nov 12

Simon 1965 says...

DickDastardly wrote:
I really do think that the council are working for another district and driving the tourists there. Brewers Quay turned into a building site, the town centre is becoming a mecca for charity shops, no ferry, (we will see if that ever gets completed), now get rid of the pavillion. Not much left to attract the tourists other than a beach. Amazing Incompetence and lack of foresight by the council over the years. The more attractions the council kill off the less tourists arrive the next year and so the bigger the shortfall in funds again and more things have to close etc...
You really can`t blaim the council for the Brewers Quay situation. Its a private sector project, and the consortium bought it at the wrong time. Its fallen victim to the same problems that have beset virtually every other devlelopment of its kind in the UK - namely, trying to find a finance house to fund the project at affordable rates, and trying to find sufficient tenants to occupy the finished building to make it viable once completed.
Things are starting to move however - I understand that the devlopments are about to submit revised plans - thankfully the museum still plays a major part in this.

Simon N.
[quote][p][bold]DickDastardly[/bold] wrote: I really do think that the council are working for another district and driving the tourists there. Brewers Quay turned into a building site, the town centre is becoming a mecca for charity shops, no ferry, (we will see if that ever gets completed), now get rid of the pavillion. Not much left to attract the tourists other than a beach. Amazing Incompetence and lack of foresight by the council over the years. The more attractions the council kill off the less tourists arrive the next year and so the bigger the shortfall in funds again and more things have to close etc...[/p][/quote]You really can`t blaim the council for the Brewers Quay situation. Its a private sector project, and the consortium bought it at the wrong time. Its fallen victim to the same problems that have beset virtually every other devlelopment of its kind in the UK - namely, trying to find a finance house to fund the project at affordable rates, and trying to find sufficient tenants to occupy the finished building to make it viable once completed. Things are starting to move however - I understand that the devlopments are about to submit revised plans - thankfully the museum still plays a major part in this. Simon N. Simon 1965

12:17pm Tue 27 Nov 12

Caption Sensible says...

DickDastardly wrote:
I really do think that the council are working for another district and driving the tourists there. Brewers Quay turned into a building site, the town centre is becoming a mecca for charity shops, no ferry, (we will see if that ever gets completed), now get rid of the pavillion. Not much left to attract the tourists other than a beach. Amazing Incompetence and lack of foresight by the council over the years. The more attractions the council kill off the less tourists arrive the next year and so the bigger the shortfall in funds again and more things have to close etc...
My thoughts as well.

Either gross incompetence or paid subversives - which is it?
[quote][p][bold]DickDastardly[/bold] wrote: I really do think that the council are working for another district and driving the tourists there. Brewers Quay turned into a building site, the town centre is becoming a mecca for charity shops, no ferry, (we will see if that ever gets completed), now get rid of the pavillion. Not much left to attract the tourists other than a beach. Amazing Incompetence and lack of foresight by the council over the years. The more attractions the council kill off the less tourists arrive the next year and so the bigger the shortfall in funds again and more things have to close etc...[/p][/quote]My thoughts as well. Either gross incompetence or paid subversives - which is it? Caption Sensible

12:23pm Tue 27 Nov 12

Caption Sensible says...

In any other town or city a prime waterfront site such as the Ferry Terminal / Pavilion area would be raking the money in, and would be the pride of the area.

And what do we have...

It takes real talent to f**k that area up and manage to lose money on such a massive scale.

And the best they can up with is... a car park!

Bl**dy morons!
In any other town or city a prime waterfront site such as the Ferry Terminal / Pavilion area would be raking the money in, and would be the pride of the area. And what do we have... It takes real talent to f**k that area up and manage to lose money on such a massive scale. And the best they can up with is... a car park! Bl**dy morons! Caption Sensible

12:27pm Tue 27 Nov 12

Throckape says...

monkeydog wrote:
This has got ' missed opportunity' written all over it.
Depends...

If you're in the market for flogging mobile homes you'll welcome more forecort space....

;)
[quote][p][bold]monkeydog[/bold] wrote: This has got ' missed opportunity' written all over it.[/p][/quote]Depends... If you're in the market for flogging mobile homes you'll welcome more forecort space.... ;) Throckape

12:53pm Tue 27 Nov 12

DucksQuack says...

The Dorset Echo in a state of shock? Shirley not.
The Dorset Echo in a state of shock? Shirley not. DucksQuack

1:04pm Tue 27 Nov 12

Caption Sensible says...

Is there a plan unfolding here?

Weymouth to become a dormitory town for Dorchester?

Dorchester becomes the centre for shopping, employment, entertainment, theatre, local governance, medical services, education...

One road in, two roads out. Says it all really!
Is there a plan unfolding here? Weymouth to become a dormitory town for Dorchester? Dorchester becomes the centre for shopping, employment, entertainment, theatre, local governance, medical services, education... One road in, two roads out. Says it all really! Caption Sensible

1:21pm Tue 27 Nov 12

tarka says...

Are we missing the bigger picture here?

While I agree the less fortunate of society should be given help and assistance to improve their living standards but is council tax the correct vehicle to fund it.

Is the council tax slowly evolving into a secondary social security tax.
The priority no longer appears to be providing services and amenities for the town and council tax payers but providing Social Services and amenities that should be funded by central government.

This seems to result in a pawn shop mentality of selling of the family silver when ever times get tight. Don’t worry about next week we might win the lottery
Are we missing the bigger picture here? While I agree the less fortunate of society should be given help and assistance to improve their living standards but is council tax the correct vehicle to fund it. Is the council tax slowly evolving into a secondary social security tax. The priority no longer appears to be providing services and amenities for the town and council tax payers but providing Social Services and amenities that should be funded by central government. This seems to result in a pawn shop mentality of selling of the family silver when ever times get tight. Don’t worry about next week we might win the lottery tarka

1:59pm Tue 27 Nov 12

chesilbeach says...

All these people that are calling for the Weymouth Pavilion to stay open,why have they not used this facility that has been in the town for decades.I am afraid you cannot keep a loss making complex open just so WOW has got somewhere to perform.If the Pavilion was owned by these people and it was making year after year massive losses to THEIR pockets would they still be so keen to keep it open,I dont think so.Over the years many managers have come and gone,none of them could make it pay,I know for a fact that often when there is no show,and nothing booked for the Ocean room the cleaners would clean the building,pull the curtains in the Ocean Room and that was how it stayed from week to week with the occasional old time dancing on a Wednesday evening.These people would come in and buy a fruit juice and sit all evening with it.So apart from having to pay for all the heating,lighting,bar staff etc,the Pavilion lost yet more money.If they must keep the Pavilion Complex,put it out to private tender and make the people that want to use the building pay the going rate and not expect the local people to subsidise them.
All these people that are calling for the Weymouth Pavilion to stay open,why have they not used this facility that has been in the town for decades.I am afraid you cannot keep a loss making complex open just so WOW has got somewhere to perform.If the Pavilion was owned by these people and it was making year after year massive losses to THEIR pockets would they still be so keen to keep it open,I dont think so.Over the years many managers have come and gone,none of them could make it pay,I know for a fact that often when there is no show,and nothing booked for the Ocean room the cleaners would clean the building,pull the curtains in the Ocean Room and that was how it stayed from week to week with the occasional old time dancing on a Wednesday evening.These people would come in and buy a fruit juice and sit all evening with it.So apart from having to pay for all the heating,lighting,bar staff etc,the Pavilion lost yet more money.If they must keep the Pavilion Complex,put it out to private tender and make the people that want to use the building pay the going rate and not expect the local people to subsidise them. chesilbeach

2:19pm Tue 27 Nov 12

siratb says...

The Pavilion is an eyesore and I won't be sorry to see it knocked down. But in its place I'd like to see some other "tourist attraction" that can generate revenue for the town.
.
Norway as an example is not known for its beaches but in Trondheim in Norway they have a big glass building housing numerous swimming pools and "beaches" along with bars, food places etc. This is down by the water so one can go down there on a cold miserable day and lay on the "beach" looking out to sea. You buy your ticket and can stay there as long as you want. I suspect you can get membership tickets or season tickets too.
.
The Pavilion spot is ideal for an indoor, all glass water park, with associated fitness club, gym, "beaches", bars, cafe's, etc etc. Make it all glass so people can enjoy the wonderful views, on any day of the year, whatever the weather. Would be a great tourist attraction and also a big attraction for locals year round.
.
This would take investment from a private developer though, but I think if it were done correctly then it would generate a lot of money. Perhaps the council can "give" the land away to a developer and then take income from the project. This would then stop any financial burden on the local council tax payer and improve the town considerably.
The Pavilion is an eyesore and I won't be sorry to see it knocked down. But in its place I'd like to see some other "tourist attraction" that can generate revenue for the town. . Norway as an example is not known for its beaches but in Trondheim in Norway they have a big glass building housing numerous swimming pools and "beaches" along with bars, food places etc. This is down by the water so one can go down there on a cold miserable day and lay on the "beach" looking out to sea. You buy your ticket and can stay there as long as you want. I suspect you can get membership tickets or season tickets too. . The Pavilion spot is ideal for an indoor, all glass water park, with associated fitness club, gym, "beaches", bars, cafe's, etc etc. Make it all glass so people can enjoy the wonderful views, on any day of the year, whatever the weather. Would be a great tourist attraction and also a big attraction for locals year round. . This would take investment from a private developer though, but I think if it were done correctly then it would generate a lot of money. Perhaps the council can "give" the land away to a developer and then take income from the project. This would then stop any financial burden on the local council tax payer and improve the town considerably. siratb

2:48pm Tue 27 Nov 12

portlandresident says...

If the Pavilion were to stay open, then it must be given to a commercial company to do something with it, and manage it better, at little cost to the council, but still being able to please the 'people'.
-
Or, have the commercial company tear it down, and be obliged to use the site for similar activities, perhaps with a less capacity theatre, but with clear direction and dedication to providing the best services at little expense to the council. After all, it'd be what they do and specialise in!
-
There could even be a clause to ensure that specific services are maintained / offered. That'd prevent the loss of certain services which many people rely on - i.e TIC.
-
Take a look at the offer the council had earlier in the year -
-
http://www.dorsetech
o.co.uk/news/localne
ws/9508477.Property_
expert_keen_to_redev
elop_Weymouth_Pavili
on_site/
-
Looking at their portfolio, they're taking on projects across the land, and transforming them into commercial successes.
If the Pavilion were to stay open, then it must be given to a commercial company to do something with it, and manage it better, at little cost to the council, but still being able to please the 'people'. - Or, have the commercial company tear it down, and be obliged to use the site for similar activities, perhaps with a less capacity theatre, but with clear direction and dedication to providing the best services at little expense to the council. After all, it'd be what they do and specialise in! - There could even be a clause to ensure that specific services are maintained / offered. That'd prevent the loss of certain services which many people rely on - i.e TIC. - Take a look at the offer the council had earlier in the year - - http://www.dorsetech o.co.uk/news/localne ws/9508477.Property_ expert_keen_to_redev elop_Weymouth_Pavili on_site/ - Looking at their portfolio, they're taking on projects across the land, and transforming them into commercial successes. portlandresident

3:42pm Tue 27 Nov 12

radiator says...

I said many years ago that the council missed the boat on building a multi complex building on the old gasworks site which could have had the swimming pool theatre, etc all under one roof. No what did they do build a dole office and court rooms on a prime site, the same for the council offices, what a waste of prime building land.
I said many years ago that the council missed the boat on building a multi complex building on the old gasworks site which could have had the swimming pool theatre, etc all under one roof. No what did they do build a dole office and court rooms on a prime site, the same for the council offices, what a waste of prime building land. radiator

4:40pm Tue 27 Nov 12

westendcat says...

Weymouth Council should also sell 47a The Esplanade, a four bedroom seafront residential property that has been vacant for at least 3 years - yes, during the Olympics as well!!. They've lost thousands on this property alone and the Council's Brief-holder does'nt even know about it. Property management - what a joke!
Come on Harry Hogger, get on the case.
Weymouth Council should also sell 47a The Esplanade, a four bedroom seafront residential property that has been vacant for at least 3 years - yes, during the Olympics as well!!. They've lost thousands on this property alone and the Council's Brief-holder does'nt even know about it. Property management - what a joke! Come on Harry Hogger, get on the case. westendcat

4:40pm Tue 27 Nov 12

westendcat says...

Weymouth Council should also sell 47a The Esplanade, a four bedroom seafront residential property that has been vacant for at least 3 years - yes, during the Olympics as well!!. They've lost thousands on this property alone and the Council's Brief-holder does'nt even know about it. Property management - what a joke!
Come on Harry Hogger, get on the case.
Weymouth Council should also sell 47a The Esplanade, a four bedroom seafront residential property that has been vacant for at least 3 years - yes, during the Olympics as well!!. They've lost thousands on this property alone and the Council's Brief-holder does'nt even know about it. Property management - what a joke! Come on Harry Hogger, get on the case. westendcat

4:49pm Tue 27 Nov 12

old-mo says...

Top Gear wrote:
As long as my council tax doesnt go up the council can do what ever they want.
Dont worry they will do what they want....

Weymouth council has never had the good folk of Weymouth at heart..

Only lining their own pockets...

Now they find they have a hole in their pockets, and there not feeling so "Cocky"...
[quote][p][bold]Top Gear[/bold] wrote: As long as my council tax doesnt go up the council can do what ever they want.[/p][/quote]Dont worry they will do what they want.... Weymouth council has never had the good folk of Weymouth at heart.. Only lining their own pockets... Now they find they have a hole in their pockets, and there not feeling so "Cocky"... old-mo

4:52pm Tue 27 Nov 12

Khazimodo says...

Weymouth council are a national joke. Can't even manage their pavilion. Feel ashamed,feel very ashamed.
Weymouth council are a national joke. Can't even manage their pavilion. Feel ashamed,feel very ashamed. Khazimodo

8:10pm Tue 27 Nov 12

Get a grip says...

westendcat wrote:
Weymouth Council should also sell 47a The Esplanade, a four bedroom seafront residential property that has been vacant for at least 3 years - yes, during the Olympics as well!!. They've lost thousands on this property alone and the Council's Brief-holder does'nt even know about it. Property management - what a joke!
Come on Harry Hogger, get on the case.
Presumably the Weymouth Property Team have a very good reason for leaving a property empty?

But it would be interesting to know what the reason is.
[quote][p][bold]westendcat[/bold] wrote: Weymouth Council should also sell 47a The Esplanade, a four bedroom seafront residential property that has been vacant for at least 3 years - yes, during the Olympics as well!!. They've lost thousands on this property alone and the Council's Brief-holder does'nt even know about it. Property management - what a joke! Come on Harry Hogger, get on the case.[/p][/quote]Presumably the Weymouth Property Team have a very good reason for leaving a property empty? But it would be interesting to know what the reason is. Get a grip

8:28pm Tue 27 Nov 12

Yellowcave says...

Why does the online echo have two versions of the same story? I put my comment on the least read one first, but it is valid for this one as well.

I must be getting cynical in my old age.
As soon as I heard about the merging of WPBC and WDDC under the guise of Westwey and the appointment of the WDDC CEO as a joint WPBC WDDC CEO, which I still cant remember the public being consulted about, I assumed that WPBC would disappear as a standalone entity in the near future. I dont understand the new Westwey setup at all but the fact that WDDC have reportedly forked out millions on new, unnecessary. over budget offices in Dorchester, which has to be funded from somewhere, probably means that Westwey admin functions will follow the CEO and the money gained from selling the North Quay Municipal Offices can go towards the WPBC contribution to Westwey's new flagship office complex in Dorchester.
The way local government works, the council officers make plans and proposals, which they then present to the elected councilors for approval. If the councilors propose something themselves which does not gel with the officers there are ways and means of ensuring that nothing actually happens. So, allowing for the fact that the majority of council officers will work under the WDDC CEO , it is unlikely that the WPBC council will have much control soon, so why not minimise the costs as well as accountability. We have already seen what irreparable damage can be done in 4 year periods nationally.

Incidentally, I thought that the Thatcher and Blair years showed the futility of floggng off the assets to hide the holes in funding for a couple of more years.
You still end up in difficulties, but now you have nothing.
Why does the online echo have two versions of the same story? I put my comment on the least read one first, but it is valid for this one as well. I must be getting cynical in my old age. As soon as I heard about the merging of WPBC and WDDC under the guise of Westwey and the appointment of the WDDC CEO as a joint WPBC WDDC CEO, which I still cant remember the public being consulted about, I assumed that WPBC would disappear as a standalone entity in the near future. I dont understand the new Westwey setup at all but the fact that WDDC have reportedly forked out millions on new, unnecessary. over budget offices in Dorchester, which has to be funded from somewhere, probably means that Westwey admin functions will follow the CEO and the money gained from selling the North Quay Municipal Offices can go towards the WPBC contribution to Westwey's new flagship office complex in Dorchester. The way local government works, the council officers make plans and proposals, which they then present to the elected councilors for approval. If the councilors propose something themselves which does not gel with the officers there are ways and means of ensuring that nothing actually happens. So, allowing for the fact that the majority of council officers will work under the WDDC CEO , it is unlikely that the WPBC council will have much control soon, so why not minimise the costs as well as accountability. We have already seen what irreparable damage can be done in 4 year periods nationally. Incidentally, I thought that the Thatcher and Blair years showed the futility of floggng off the assets to hide the holes in funding for a couple of more years. You still end up in difficulties, but now you have nothing. Yellowcave

8:37am Wed 28 Nov 12

brutus says...

biggestoaf wrote:
Read the story people. The government has cut the amount of money it gives to local government by 28% over the last two years. If your household income fell by 28% you'd have to make some pretty big changes. If that wasn't enough funding will continue to fall by almost £4 million a year for the next few years. Weymouth + Portland is not alone in having to make big cuts. Many councils are likely to go bankrupt. The simple truth is that the Pavilion is going to close thanks to David Cameron and George Osborne.
Don't forget Gordan Brown and his bunch that bankrupted this country
[quote][p][bold]biggestoaf[/bold] wrote: Read the story people. The government has cut the amount of money it gives to local government by 28% over the last two years. If your household income fell by 28% you'd have to make some pretty big changes. If that wasn't enough funding will continue to fall by almost £4 million a year for the next few years. Weymouth + Portland is not alone in having to make big cuts. Many councils are likely to go bankrupt. The simple truth is that the Pavilion is going to close thanks to David Cameron and George Osborne.[/p][/quote]Don't forget Gordan Brown and his bunch that bankrupted this country brutus

8:53am Wed 28 Nov 12

brutus says...

When this goes to Full Council vote lets make sure we all know the way each Councillor votes
When this goes to Full Council vote lets make sure we all know the way each Councillor votes brutus

9:30am Wed 28 Nov 12

guesthouseownerweymouth says...

I thought that the Weymouth Monopoly was just a game, seems that the council are now trying to re-enact it!
I thought that the Weymouth Monopoly was just a game, seems that the council are now trying to re-enact it! guesthouseownerweymouth

10:46am Wed 28 Nov 12

mark@greenhill says...

How many years does this argument have to keep coming up, before the reality of the situation hits home, and the pavilion is demolished.

Then we can all ask, why we didn't do it much, much sooner.

To all those wishing to see it stay open, please feel free to put your hands in your own pockets, and fund it yourselves. the majority of us, never use it, never visit it, & have had enough of paying for your extremely expensive hobby.
How many years does this argument have to keep coming up, before the reality of the situation hits home, and the pavilion is demolished. Then we can all ask, why we didn't do it much, much sooner. To all those wishing to see it stay open, please feel free to put your hands in your own pockets, and fund it yourselves. the majority of us, never use it, never visit it, & have had enough of paying for your extremely expensive hobby. mark@greenhill

11:18am Wed 28 Nov 12

Caption Sensible says...

A resort without a theatre for the performing arts is a very dull place...

Why not let a commercial organisation run it? Or even build a new facility somewhere else in the borough?

A car park on a prime waterfront location is just unthinkable.
A resort without a theatre for the performing arts is a very dull place... Why not let a commercial organisation run it? Or even build a new facility somewhere else in the borough? A car park on a prime waterfront location is just unthinkable. Caption Sensible

11:54am Wed 28 Nov 12

mark@greenhill says...

Caption Sensible wrote:
A resort without a theatre for the performing arts is a very dull place...

Why not let a commercial organisation run it? Or even build a new facility somewhere else in the borough?

A car park on a prime waterfront location is just unthinkable.
Agreed, but as has been proved, theatre going minority, have absolutely no intention of financially supporting the Pavilion, and in these tough times, it seems very wrong, for the majority to have to finance, a minority interest hobby.

The Pavilion is an outdated relic that has never paid it's way, and along with the vast majority of residents of this town, fail to see why we should have to pay for it.

If the few that want it saved, would like to pay for it, then fine, but we already know, they can't or wont be able to do this.

At least a car park with pay it's way, and leave the land available for the time that property prices increase, when it can then be sold to a developer at the best price.

The upkeep of a car park, will be a fraction of the upkeep of the present building.

Eventually, a property developer will want some prime building land, and yes, I'm more than happy to see luxury flats, with restaurants or shops beneath them.
[quote][p][bold]Caption Sensible[/bold] wrote: A resort without a theatre for the performing arts is a very dull place... Why not let a commercial organisation run it? Or even build a new facility somewhere else in the borough? A car park on a prime waterfront location is just unthinkable.[/p][/quote]Agreed, but as has been proved, theatre going minority, have absolutely no intention of financially supporting the Pavilion, and in these tough times, it seems very wrong, for the majority to have to finance, a minority interest hobby. The Pavilion is an outdated relic that has never paid it's way, and along with the vast majority of residents of this town, fail to see why we should have to pay for it. If the few that want it saved, would like to pay for it, then fine, but we already know, they can't or wont be able to do this. At least a car park with pay it's way, and leave the land available for the time that property prices increase, when it can then be sold to a developer at the best price. The upkeep of a car park, will be a fraction of the upkeep of the present building. Eventually, a property developer will want some prime building land, and yes, I'm more than happy to see luxury flats, with restaurants or shops beneath them. mark@greenhill

12:48pm Wed 28 Nov 12

portlandresident says...

Give it to another company, who can run and manage it better, and still give the people what they want, at less expense to the tax payer! That has to be a viable option.
Give it to another company, who can run and manage it better, and still give the people what they want, at less expense to the tax payer! That has to be a viable option. portlandresident

1:05pm Wed 28 Nov 12

Hedgehogspring says...

Tactical wrote:
Sell the lot couldnt give a toss weymouth council are the biggest wasters in Europe, and now they will carry on there trend vote in UKIP or BNP or CLEAR and make a change ! next time you vote !
You tell us to vote for UKIP (Hahaha), BNP (Racist morons) or CLEAR (Cannabis fans) and then you have the nerve to call the council the biggest wasters in Europe ??
How come you missed the EDL off your little list of fantastic alternatives ?
[quote][p][bold]Tactical[/bold] wrote: Sell the lot couldnt give a toss weymouth council are the biggest wasters in Europe, and now they will carry on there trend vote in UKIP or BNP or CLEAR and make a change ! next time you vote ![/p][/quote]You tell us to vote for UKIP (Hahaha), BNP (Racist morons) or CLEAR (Cannabis fans) and then you have the nerve to call the council the biggest wasters in Europe ?? How come you missed the EDL off your little list of fantastic alternatives ? Hedgehogspring

1:41pm Wed 28 Nov 12

mark@greenhill says...

portlandresident wrote:
Give it to another company, who can run and manage it better, and still give the people what they want, at less expense to the tax payer! That has to be a viable option.
Unfortunately, as it stand, the Pavilion loses money. It would be a difficult job of offloading this building in relatively good times, why on earth would someone want to take it on today.

To get anyone interested, would require yet more investment from the taxpayers, & even then the new company would almost certainly require a commitment from the council to underwright the venture.

The simple fact is, there are not enough people going to the theatre, who would be able to pay the going rate to support this building, nor is there any likelyhood that there ever will be.
[quote][p][bold]portlandresident[/bold] wrote: Give it to another company, who can run and manage it better, and still give the people what they want, at less expense to the tax payer! That has to be a viable option.[/p][/quote]Unfortunately, as it stand, the Pavilion loses money. It would be a difficult job of offloading this building in relatively good times, why on earth would someone want to take it on today. To get anyone interested, would require yet more investment from the taxpayers, & even then the new company would almost certainly require a commitment from the council to underwright the venture. The simple fact is, there are not enough people going to the theatre, who would be able to pay the going rate to support this building, nor is there any likelyhood that there ever will be. mark@greenhill

5:02pm Wed 28 Nov 12

portlandresident says...

mark@greenhill wrote:
portlandresident wrote:
Give it to another company, who can run and manage it better, and still give the people what they want, at less expense to the tax payer! That has to be a viable option.
Unfortunately, as it stand, the Pavilion loses money. It would be a difficult job of offloading this building in relatively good times, why on earth would someone want to take it on today.

To get anyone interested, would require yet more investment from the taxpayers, & even then the new company would almost certainly require a commitment from the council to underwright the venture.

The simple fact is, there are not enough people going to the theatre, who would be able to pay the going rate to support this building, nor is there any likelyhood that there ever will be.
You say it would be difficult to offload it? Then why only this very year was the council offered a chance to hand it over? Here's the story of White Knight offering to take it off their hands - http://www.dorsetech
o.co.uk/news/localne
ws/9508477.Property_
expert_keen_to_redev
elop_Weymouth_Pavili
on_site/
[quote][p][bold]mark@greenhill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]portlandresident[/bold] wrote: Give it to another company, who can run and manage it better, and still give the people what they want, at less expense to the tax payer! That has to be a viable option.[/p][/quote]Unfortunately, as it stand, the Pavilion loses money. It would be a difficult job of offloading this building in relatively good times, why on earth would someone want to take it on today. To get anyone interested, would require yet more investment from the taxpayers, & even then the new company would almost certainly require a commitment from the council to underwright the venture. The simple fact is, there are not enough people going to the theatre, who would be able to pay the going rate to support this building, nor is there any likelyhood that there ever will be.[/p][/quote]You say it would be difficult to offload it? Then why only this very year was the council offered a chance to hand it over? Here's the story of White Knight offering to take it off their hands - http://www.dorsetech o.co.uk/news/localne ws/9508477.Property_ expert_keen_to_redev elop_Weymouth_Pavili on_site/ portlandresident

5:03pm Wed 28 Nov 12

monkeydog says...

mark@greenhill wrote:
Caption Sensible wrote:
A resort without a theatre for the performing arts is a very dull place...

Why not let a commercial organisation run it? Or even build a new facility somewhere else in the borough?

A car park on a prime waterfront location is just unthinkable.
Agreed, but as has been proved, theatre going minority, have absolutely no intention of financially supporting the Pavilion, and in these tough times, it seems very wrong, for the majority to have to finance, a minority interest hobby.

The Pavilion is an outdated relic that has never paid it's way, and along with the vast majority of residents of this town, fail to see why we should have to pay for it.

If the few that want it saved, would like to pay for it, then fine, but we already know, they can't or wont be able to do this.

At least a car park with pay it's way, and leave the land available for the time that property prices increase, when it can then be sold to a developer at the best price.

The upkeep of a car park, will be a fraction of the upkeep of the present building.

Eventually, a property developer will want some prime building land, and yes, I'm more than happy to see luxury flats, with restaurants or shops beneath them.
What an extraordinary comment. Theatre going is a minority interest? This is the sort of Little England thinking that will get Weymouth absolutely nowhere. People will go to the theatre ( or concert) if there's something worth seeing. Many people in and around Weymouth regularly travel to Poole and Bournemouth to see productions and bands. To more or less suggest that there are few people in this town who want the chance to see quality shows in this town is really quite stupid. Unless of course you don't get out much. People don't go to see anything at the Pavilion mainly because most of the offerings are rubbish.
[quote][p][bold]mark@greenhill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Caption Sensible[/bold] wrote: A resort without a theatre for the performing arts is a very dull place... Why not let a commercial organisation run it? Or even build a new facility somewhere else in the borough? A car park on a prime waterfront location is just unthinkable.[/p][/quote]Agreed, but as has been proved, theatre going minority, have absolutely no intention of financially supporting the Pavilion, and in these tough times, it seems very wrong, for the majority to have to finance, a minority interest hobby. The Pavilion is an outdated relic that has never paid it's way, and along with the vast majority of residents of this town, fail to see why we should have to pay for it. If the few that want it saved, would like to pay for it, then fine, but we already know, they can't or wont be able to do this. At least a car park with pay it's way, and leave the land available for the time that property prices increase, when it can then be sold to a developer at the best price. The upkeep of a car park, will be a fraction of the upkeep of the present building. Eventually, a property developer will want some prime building land, and yes, I'm more than happy to see luxury flats, with restaurants or shops beneath them.[/p][/quote]What an extraordinary comment. Theatre going is a minority interest? This is the sort of Little England thinking that will get Weymouth absolutely nowhere. People will go to the theatre ( or concert) if there's something worth seeing. Many people in and around Weymouth regularly travel to Poole and Bournemouth to see productions and bands. To more or less suggest that there are few people in this town who want the chance to see quality shows in this town is really quite stupid. Unless of course you don't get out much. People don't go to see anything at the Pavilion mainly because most of the offerings are rubbish. monkeydog

5:25pm Wed 28 Nov 12

chesilbeach says...

mark@greenhill wrote:
How many years does this argument have to keep coming up, before the reality of the situation hits home, and the pavilion is demolished.

Then we can all ask, why we didn't do it much, much sooner.

To all those wishing to see it stay open, please feel free to put your hands in your own pockets, and fund it yourselves. the majority of us, never use it, never visit it, & have had enough of paying for your extremely expensive hobby.
I could not agree more...
[quote][p][bold]mark@greenhill[/bold] wrote: How many years does this argument have to keep coming up, before the reality of the situation hits home, and the pavilion is demolished. Then we can all ask, why we didn't do it much, much sooner. To all those wishing to see it stay open, please feel free to put your hands in your own pockets, and fund it yourselves. the majority of us, never use it, never visit it, & have had enough of paying for your extremely expensive hobby.[/p][/quote]I could not agree more... chesilbeach

5:50pm Wed 28 Nov 12

biggestoaf says...

brutus wrote:
biggestoaf wrote: Read the story people. The government has cut the amount of money it gives to local government by 28% over the last two years. If your household income fell by 28% you'd have to make some pretty big changes. If that wasn't enough funding will continue to fall by almost £4 million a year for the next few years. Weymouth + Portland is not alone in having to make big cuts. Many councils are likely to go bankrupt. The simple truth is that the Pavilion is going to close thanks to David Cameron and George Osborne.
Don't forget Gordan Brown and his bunch that bankrupted this country
It wasn't the banks who caused a global financial crisis then? Gordan (sic) Brown and his bunch were to blame for Greece, Portugal, Ireland etc etc ? There weren't years and years of steady growth under Labour, or did I just dream that? You can try to justify Cameron and Osborne's tactics if you want to, but it's simplistic and inaccurate to suggest that the financial problems are all Gordon Brown's fault.
[quote][p][bold]brutus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]biggestoaf[/bold] wrote: Read the story people. The government has cut the amount of money it gives to local government by 28% over the last two years. If your household income fell by 28% you'd have to make some pretty big changes. If that wasn't enough funding will continue to fall by almost £4 million a year for the next few years. Weymouth + Portland is not alone in having to make big cuts. Many councils are likely to go bankrupt. The simple truth is that the Pavilion is going to close thanks to David Cameron and George Osborne.[/p][/quote]Don't forget Gordan Brown and his bunch that bankrupted this country[/p][/quote]It wasn't the banks who caused a global financial crisis then? Gordan (sic) Brown and his bunch were to blame for Greece, Portugal, Ireland etc etc ? There weren't years and years of steady growth under Labour, or did I just dream that? You can try to justify Cameron and Osborne's tactics if you want to, but it's simplistic and inaccurate to suggest that the financial problems are all Gordon Brown's fault. biggestoaf

8:22pm Wed 28 Nov 12

bootedsw says...

Can we all just stop this blame game. Fact there is not enough money around and the council have to do something.
Can we all just stop this blame game. Fact there is not enough money around and the council have to do something. bootedsw

8:44am Thu 29 Nov 12

brutus says...

biggestoaf wrote:
brutus wrote:
biggestoaf wrote: Read the story people. The government has cut the amount of money it gives to local government by 28% over the last two years. If your household income fell by 28% you'd have to make some pretty big changes. If that wasn't enough funding will continue to fall by almost £4 million a year for the next few years. Weymouth + Portland is not alone in having to make big cuts. Many councils are likely to go bankrupt. The simple truth is that the Pavilion is going to close thanks to David Cameron and George Osborne.
Don't forget Gordan Brown and his bunch that bankrupted this country
It wasn't the banks who caused a global financial crisis then? Gordan (sic) Brown and his bunch were to blame for Greece, Portugal, Ireland etc etc ? There weren't years and years of steady growth under Labour, or did I just dream that? You can try to justify Cameron and Osborne's tactics if you want to, but it's simplistic and inaccurate to suggest that the financial problems are all Gordon Brown's fault.
I wouldnt dream of suggesting it was Brown alone, no more than you should make such a sweeping statement about Cameron/Osborne, but the only way there was years of steady growth then was simply their spend spend spend with money they did not have and that government turning a blind eye to the mess the banks were making, as well as global problems,W&P Council have acted in much the same way taking monies out and not putting in for basic maintenance: ie Pavilion and harbour wall. I think you are being simplistic and inaccurate to suggest the financial problems are all Cameron and Osbornes fault
[quote][p][bold]biggestoaf[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brutus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]biggestoaf[/bold] wrote: Read the story people. The government has cut the amount of money it gives to local government by 28% over the last two years. If your household income fell by 28% you'd have to make some pretty big changes. If that wasn't enough funding will continue to fall by almost £4 million a year for the next few years. Weymouth + Portland is not alone in having to make big cuts. Many councils are likely to go bankrupt. The simple truth is that the Pavilion is going to close thanks to David Cameron and George Osborne.[/p][/quote]Don't forget Gordan Brown and his bunch that bankrupted this country[/p][/quote]It wasn't the banks who caused a global financial crisis then? Gordan (sic) Brown and his bunch were to blame for Greece, Portugal, Ireland etc etc ? There weren't years and years of steady growth under Labour, or did I just dream that? You can try to justify Cameron and Osborne's tactics if you want to, but it's simplistic and inaccurate to suggest that the financial problems are all Gordon Brown's fault.[/p][/quote]I wouldnt dream of suggesting it was Brown alone, no more than you should make such a sweeping statement about Cameron/Osborne, but the only way there was years of steady growth then was simply their spend spend spend with money they did not have and that government turning a blind eye to the mess the banks were making, as well as global problems,W&P Council have acted in much the same way taking monies out and not putting in for basic maintenance: ie Pavilion and harbour wall. I think you are being simplistic and inaccurate to suggest the financial problems are all Cameron and Osbornes fault brutus

2:14pm Thu 29 Nov 12

biggestoaf says...

I don't believe I'm being either simplistic or inaccurate (but then I would say that, wouldn't I?) Whatever the rights and wrongs of the way the Tory led council has used its money, it is still true to say that the Pavilion could (not necessarily should) have been kept open if it were not for the big cuts in funding for local government from Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne.
I don't believe I'm being either simplistic or inaccurate (but then I would say that, wouldn't I?) Whatever the rights and wrongs of the way the Tory led council has used its money, it is still true to say that the Pavilion could (not necessarily should) have been kept open if it were not for the big cuts in funding for local government from Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne. biggestoaf

2:48pm Thu 29 Nov 12

mark@greenhill says...

biggestoaf wrote:
I don't believe I'm being either simplistic or inaccurate (but then I would say that, wouldn't I?) Whatever the rights and wrongs of the way the Tory led council has used its money, it is still true to say that the Pavilion could (not necessarily should) have been kept open if it were not for the big cuts in funding for local government from Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne.
Which brings us back to the same issue.

If the Pavilion paid it's way, it wouldn't matter what the council or the Govt did with the money.

Unless it is financially self supporting, it should close & be redeveloped into something that does pay it's way, or at least isn't a massive drain on the finances.

Only the loony left could possibly imagine that pouring yet more cash into a building that has always lost money, could ever be a good idea.
[quote][p][bold]biggestoaf[/bold] wrote: I don't believe I'm being either simplistic or inaccurate (but then I would say that, wouldn't I?) Whatever the rights and wrongs of the way the Tory led council has used its money, it is still true to say that the Pavilion could (not necessarily should) have been kept open if it were not for the big cuts in funding for local government from Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne.[/p][/quote]Which brings us back to the same issue. If the Pavilion paid it's way, it wouldn't matter what the council or the Govt did with the money. Unless it is financially self supporting, it should close & be redeveloped into something that does pay it's way, or at least isn't a massive drain on the finances. Only the loony left could possibly imagine that pouring yet more cash into a building that has always lost money, could ever be a good idea. mark@greenhill

3:13pm Thu 29 Nov 12

Isosceles says...

Cathy Page-Nash from the Friends of the Pavilion said it was essential that Weymouth had a theatre and welcomed the suggestion for a new venue.
Dictionary definitions of essential include indispensable, vitally important and vital to the resolution of a crisis.
I would suggest that, except to a limited number of people, those definitions do not apply to the provision of a theatre in Weymouth however desirable a theatre might be to some people.
These people should put their hands in their own pockets or set up an organisation to raise the money to either take total financial responsibility in perpetuity for the current Pavilion or buy some land somewhere and erect a new theatre and run that.
Cathy Page-Nash from the Friends of the Pavilion said it was essential that Weymouth had a theatre and welcomed the suggestion for a new venue. Dictionary definitions of essential include indispensable, vitally important and vital to the resolution of a crisis. I would suggest that, except to a limited number of people, those definitions do not apply to the provision of a theatre in Weymouth however desirable a theatre might be to some people. These people should put their hands in their own pockets or set up an organisation to raise the money to either take total financial responsibility in perpetuity for the current Pavilion or buy some land somewhere and erect a new theatre and run that. Isosceles

4:06pm Thu 29 Nov 12

chesilbeach says...

Isosceles wrote:
Cathy Page-Nash from the Friends of the Pavilion said it was essential that Weymouth had a theatre and welcomed the suggestion for a new venue.
Dictionary definitions of essential include indispensable, vitally important and vital to the resolution of a crisis.
I would suggest that, except to a limited number of people, those definitions do not apply to the provision of a theatre in Weymouth however desirable a theatre might be to some people.
These people should put their hands in their own pockets or set up an organisation to raise the money to either take total financial responsibility in perpetuity for the current Pavilion or buy some land somewhere and erect a new theatre and run that.
Well I have read all the stories here and heard from a minority of people who want to keep the Pavilion open,so lets now hear from the majority of the local population who want this HIGH loss making facility closed once and for all.I do not want to see a vacant site where the Pavilion is but something that can benefit the locals and visitors alike all year round.Weymouth missed the chance to make anything of the town centre redevelopment in the past with NO indoor shopping centre.If any local person goes to Poole,Bournemouth,So
uthampton shopping at a weekend you see more Weymouth people there than in Weymouth.Does this not say something about our town.It seems to me ALL of our Councillors are sleep walking into the past.I can remember when Poole had just the 1 High street,look at it now,lovely indoor shopping centre,Take a look at Hope Square with Brewers Quay,this time of year as well as all the summer months it would be heaving with people and what are we left with now,NOTHING.I think we need to get rid of all the hangers on we have in the Council,all claiming their expences and employ a buisiness manager for the town,pay him a decent wage and on top of that pay a performance bonus.To try and bring this town into the 21st century,instead of letting it drift into a town full of betting shops,charity shops and the likes that discourage any bigger store from ever wanting to locate here.
[quote][p][bold]Isosceles[/bold] wrote: Cathy Page-Nash from the Friends of the Pavilion said it was essential that Weymouth had a theatre and welcomed the suggestion for a new venue. Dictionary definitions of essential include indispensable, vitally important and vital to the resolution of a crisis. I would suggest that, except to a limited number of people, those definitions do not apply to the provision of a theatre in Weymouth however desirable a theatre might be to some people. These people should put their hands in their own pockets or set up an organisation to raise the money to either take total financial responsibility in perpetuity for the current Pavilion or buy some land somewhere and erect a new theatre and run that.[/p][/quote]Well I have read all the stories here and heard from a minority of people who want to keep the Pavilion open,so lets now hear from the majority of the local population who want this HIGH loss making facility closed once and for all.I do not want to see a vacant site where the Pavilion is but something that can benefit the locals and visitors alike all year round.Weymouth missed the chance to make anything of the town centre redevelopment in the past with NO indoor shopping centre.If any local person goes to Poole,Bournemouth,So uthampton shopping at a weekend you see more Weymouth people there than in Weymouth.Does this not say something about our town.It seems to me ALL of our Councillors are sleep walking into the past.I can remember when Poole had just the 1 High street,look at it now,lovely indoor shopping centre,Take a look at Hope Square with Brewers Quay,this time of year as well as all the summer months it would be heaving with people and what are we left with now,NOTHING.I think we need to get rid of all the hangers on we have in the Council,all claiming their expences and employ a buisiness manager for the town,pay him a decent wage and on top of that pay a performance bonus.To try and bring this town into the 21st century,instead of letting it drift into a town full of betting shops,charity shops and the likes that discourage any bigger store from ever wanting to locate here. chesilbeach

5:16pm Thu 29 Nov 12

Mrs Grumps says...

mark@greenhill wrote:
As long as it's a multistory car park, yes, wonderful idea.

At least it might actually pay for itself, rather than the present white elephant.

Seriously, if all the people who cry about it closing, used it more than twice a year, it would still be viable. As it is, it isn't & never will be, & unless it pays for itself, it should close.
The problem with the Pavilion is that it is too small for the really big stars and too big for small theatre groups that require a cosy atmosphere.

Falling between the two, it never gets the shows and performances that will draw in best audiences.

Lots of smaller concert groups use various churches because they can't afford the Pavilion. There are few places in Weymouth for artistic performances and the Pavilion would do better if money could be found to update it and develop it for modern needs.

A grotty car park that gives you wet feet every time it rains, or is a potentially lethal ice rink in the winter, doesn't help. Sitting with soaking feet through a 2 hour performance isn't pleasant! I'd use it more, but in the winter I think twice.

I don't think visitors going up the new tower would be very impressed with a view of a multi-storey car park. Improving the area would be good if someone can come up with a really attractive and affordable idea.
[quote][p][bold]mark@greenhill[/bold] wrote: As long as it's a multistory car park, yes, wonderful idea. At least it might actually pay for itself, rather than the present white elephant. Seriously, if all the people who cry about it closing, used it more than twice a year, it would still be viable. As it is, it isn't & never will be, & unless it pays for itself, it should close.[/p][/quote]The problem with the Pavilion is that it is too small for the really big stars and too big for small theatre groups that require a cosy atmosphere. Falling between the two, it never gets the shows and performances that will draw in best audiences. Lots of smaller concert groups use various churches because they can't afford the Pavilion. There are few places in Weymouth for artistic performances and the Pavilion would do better if money could be found to update it and develop it for modern needs. A grotty car park that gives you wet feet every time it rains, or is a potentially lethal ice rink in the winter, doesn't help. Sitting with soaking feet through a 2 hour performance isn't pleasant! I'd use it more, but in the winter I think twice. I don't think visitors going up the new tower would be very impressed with a view of a multi-storey car park. Improving the area would be good if someone can come up with a really attractive and affordable idea. Mrs Grumps

8:46pm Thu 29 Nov 12

Yellowcave says...

The Pav used to be very well attended.
I have seen The Nice, Floyd, Moody Blues amongst others. If I remember correctly the SDTC students union booked big stars in an attempt to lose some of their surplus money but still made profits.
Back in those days, the downstairs was alcohol free with the packed bars upstairs.
Saturday nights, the Council used to put on a couple of bands and the place was packed, but then they decided to let in 14 yr old girls to try and fill the events earlier. Despite complaints they continued the policy and so the older patrons, who actually spent the money, moved on causing the saturday night pavilion scene to die quickly.
I also used to attend an annual event, which sold out the year before, until the Pav management decided to play tough and demand higher additional fees, so the event moved.
So unfortunately it would appear that the demise of the Pav is down to inept management and guidance through the ages.
The problem with the theatre is probably down to the fact that the facilities are not up to scratch for people who have to visit and for it to be continuously well used it would have to pull in from a large catchment area.
The Pav used to be very well attended. I have seen The Nice, Floyd, Moody Blues amongst others. If I remember correctly the SDTC students union booked big stars in an attempt to lose some of their surplus money but still made profits. Back in those days, the downstairs was alcohol free with the packed bars upstairs. Saturday nights, the Council used to put on a couple of bands and the place was packed, but then they decided to let in 14 yr old girls to try and fill the events earlier. Despite complaints they continued the policy and so the older patrons, who actually spent the money, moved on causing the saturday night pavilion scene to die quickly. I also used to attend an annual event, which sold out the year before, until the Pav management decided to play tough and demand higher additional fees, so the event moved. So unfortunately it would appear that the demise of the Pav is down to inept management and guidance through the ages. The problem with the theatre is probably down to the fact that the facilities are not up to scratch for people who have to visit and for it to be continuously well used it would have to pull in from a large catchment area. Yellowcave

2:55pm Sat 1 Dec 12

Douglas Mc says...

Yellowcave wrote:
Why does the online echo have two versions of the same story? I put my comment on the least read one first, but it is valid for this one as well.

I must be getting cynical in my old age.
As soon as I heard about the merging of WPBC and WDDC under the guise of Westwey and the appointment of the WDDC CEO as a joint WPBC WDDC CEO, which I still cant remember the public being consulted about, I assumed that WPBC would disappear as a standalone entity in the near future. I dont understand the new Westwey setup at all but the fact that WDDC have reportedly forked out millions on new, unnecessary. over budget offices in Dorchester, which has to be funded from somewhere, probably means that Westwey admin functions will follow the CEO and the money gained from selling the North Quay Municipal Offices can go towards the WPBC contribution to Westwey's new flagship office complex in Dorchester.
The way local government works, the council officers make plans and proposals, which they then present to the elected councilors for approval. If the councilors propose something themselves which does not gel with the officers there are ways and means of ensuring that nothing actually happens. So, allowing for the fact that the majority of council officers will work under the WDDC CEO , it is unlikely that the WPBC council will have much control soon, so why not minimise the costs as well as accountability. We have already seen what irreparable damage can be done in 4 year periods nationally.

Incidentally, I thought that the Thatcher and Blair years showed the futility of floggng off the assets to hide the holes in funding for a couple of more years.
You still end up in difficulties, but now you have nothing.
It is always a shame to let facts interfere with a good story.

WDDC are saving money by building their new Offices. Less staff are needed, expensive repairs to old offices no longer required, lower electricity costs etc. And the new building will cost some £1M less than Budget.

Proof is that WDDC Council tax is cheaper than Weymouth’s. WDDC is not in debt, WDDC is not cutting services. WDDC has one of the lowest Council Tax Rates in the UK and is a top rated performing Council. W&PBC in comparison is pathetic – partly because it has not been under one party control recently – so it is led by Officers.

For WDDC to take over W&P a decision would have to be made by Central Government. The most likely option is to do away with the County Council, the 6 DCs (inc WD & W&P) and set up either one or two Unitary Authorities.

The Public would not be consulted. No point electing Councillors, MPs etc if they cannot take decisions on behalf of Joe Public.

And Tourism is not good for Councils –it adds to costs, fireworks, Pavilion, tourist centres but the Council gets few if any return to its coffers.

More importantly, tourism creates only seasonal and low paid jobs. We should have knocked down the hotels build offices on the front and sought to attract good jobs into the area for our Children. As it is when educated they have to leave the area to get well paid jobs.

So never vote for a Councillor who has a tourism interest?
[quote][p][bold]Yellowcave[/bold] wrote: Why does the online echo have two versions of the same story? I put my comment on the least read one first, but it is valid for this one as well. I must be getting cynical in my old age. As soon as I heard about the merging of WPBC and WDDC under the guise of Westwey and the appointment of the WDDC CEO as a joint WPBC WDDC CEO, which I still cant remember the public being consulted about, I assumed that WPBC would disappear as a standalone entity in the near future. I dont understand the new Westwey setup at all but the fact that WDDC have reportedly forked out millions on new, unnecessary. over budget offices in Dorchester, which has to be funded from somewhere, probably means that Westwey admin functions will follow the CEO and the money gained from selling the North Quay Municipal Offices can go towards the WPBC contribution to Westwey's new flagship office complex in Dorchester. The way local government works, the council officers make plans and proposals, which they then present to the elected councilors for approval. If the councilors propose something themselves which does not gel with the officers there are ways and means of ensuring that nothing actually happens. So, allowing for the fact that the majority of council officers will work under the WDDC CEO , it is unlikely that the WPBC council will have much control soon, so why not minimise the costs as well as accountability. We have already seen what irreparable damage can be done in 4 year periods nationally. Incidentally, I thought that the Thatcher and Blair years showed the futility of floggng off the assets to hide the holes in funding for a couple of more years. You still end up in difficulties, but now you have nothing.[/p][/quote]It is always a shame to let facts interfere with a good story. WDDC are saving money by building their new Offices. Less staff are needed, expensive repairs to old offices no longer required, lower electricity costs etc. And the new building will cost some £1M less than Budget. Proof is that WDDC Council tax is cheaper than Weymouth’s. WDDC is not in debt, WDDC is not cutting services. WDDC has one of the lowest Council Tax Rates in the UK and is a top rated performing Council. W&PBC in comparison is pathetic – partly because it has not been under one party control recently – so it is led by Officers. For WDDC to take over W&P a decision would have to be made by Central Government. The most likely option is to do away with the County Council, the 6 DCs (inc WD & W&P) and set up either one or two Unitary Authorities. The Public would not be consulted. No point electing Councillors, MPs etc if they cannot take decisions on behalf of Joe Public. And Tourism is not good for Councils –it adds to costs, fireworks, Pavilion, tourist centres but the Council gets few if any return to its coffers. More importantly, tourism creates only seasonal and low paid jobs. We should have knocked down the hotels build offices on the front and sought to attract good jobs into the area for our Children. As it is when educated they have to leave the area to get well paid jobs. So never vote for a Councillor who has a tourism interest? Douglas Mc

8:25am Sun 2 Dec 12

brutus says...

mark@greenhill wrote:
biggestoaf wrote: I don't believe I'm being either simplistic or inaccurate (but then I would say that, wouldn't I?) Whatever the rights and wrongs of the way the Tory led council has used its money, it is still true to say that the Pavilion could (not necessarily should) have been kept open if it were not for the big cuts in funding for local government from Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne.
Which brings us back to the same issue. If the Pavilion paid it's way, it wouldn't matter what the council or the Govt did with the money. Unless it is financially self supporting, it should close & be redeveloped into something that does pay it's way, or at least isn't a massive drain on the finances. Only the loony left could possibly imagine that pouring yet more cash into a building that has always lost money, could ever be a good idea.
What an extremely selfish point of view this and several other negative comments about minority Pavilion users. I believe that the swimming pool is subsidised by up to £300,000 per year by us all.I do not use it, I do not have children, friends or family that use it, why should I pay council tax to keep a loss making facility that loses money year after year open, why not make minority swimmers put their hands in their pockets/swimming trunks to keep it going etc etc! because that is what towns have to do to provide a mixture of all kinds of leisure/entertainmen
t facilities that are used some more than others. I am not from the "looney left" but believe you cannot close/shut everything in town.Look at Brewers Quay, which is a disaster, closed, empty sites are killing this town
[quote][p][bold]mark@greenhill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]biggestoaf[/bold] wrote: I don't believe I'm being either simplistic or inaccurate (but then I would say that, wouldn't I?) Whatever the rights and wrongs of the way the Tory led council has used its money, it is still true to say that the Pavilion could (not necessarily should) have been kept open if it were not for the big cuts in funding for local government from Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne.[/p][/quote]Which brings us back to the same issue. If the Pavilion paid it's way, it wouldn't matter what the council or the Govt did with the money. Unless it is financially self supporting, it should close & be redeveloped into something that does pay it's way, or at least isn't a massive drain on the finances. Only the loony left could possibly imagine that pouring yet more cash into a building that has always lost money, could ever be a good idea.[/p][/quote]What an extremely selfish point of view this and several other negative comments about minority Pavilion users. I believe that the swimming pool is subsidised by up to £300,000 per year by us all.I do not use it, I do not have children, friends or family that use it, why should I pay council tax to keep a loss making facility that loses money year after year open, why not make minority swimmers put their hands in their pockets/swimming trunks to keep it going etc etc! because that is what towns have to do to provide a mixture of all kinds of leisure/entertainmen t facilities that are used some more than others. I am not from the "looney left" but believe you cannot close/shut everything in town.Look at Brewers Quay, which is a disaster, closed, empty sites are killing this town brutus

8:46am Sun 2 Dec 12

brutus says...

An interesting letter on the Saturday letter page comments on the mad maths involved. £755,000 to knock the Pavilion down £435,000 redundacies thats over a third thats needed over the next 10 years! infact 3 million over 10 years is a drop in the ocean in the bigger picture, as I commented re the swimming pool. Selling off the council offices is long overdue, apart from the capital gained the huge running costs saved with the majority moving to Dorchester offices (saves overheads and cut unneccesary jobs)retaining a couple of offices in the Law court buildings for locals. The comment about 47a The Esplanade earlier, this is not a 4 bedroom property, but was a 12 bed council leasehold guest house that has been empty for approx 5 years. Regularly maintained by the council scaffolding/roof repairs, loss of council tax/business rates, Why?? There will be many other loss of money examples like this, but our council, which is led by the council offices, who have their own agenda, go for their pet hates like the Pavilion
An interesting letter on the Saturday letter page comments on the mad maths involved. £755,000 to knock the Pavilion down £435,000 redundacies thats over a third thats needed over the next 10 years! infact 3 million over 10 years is a drop in the ocean in the bigger picture, as I commented re the swimming pool. Selling off the council offices is long overdue, apart from the capital gained the huge running costs saved with the majority moving to Dorchester offices (saves overheads and cut unneccesary jobs)retaining a couple of offices in the Law court buildings for locals. The comment about 47a The Esplanade earlier, this is not a 4 bedroom property, but was a 12 bed council leasehold guest house that has been empty for approx 5 years. Regularly maintained by the council scaffolding/roof repairs, loss of council tax/business rates, Why?? There will be many other loss of money examples like this, but our council, which is led by the council offices, who have their own agenda, go for their pet hates like the Pavilion brutus

11:43am Sun 2 Dec 12

Yellowcave says...

Douglas Mc wrote:
Yellowcave wrote:
Why does the online echo have two versions of the same story? I put my comment on the least read one first, but it is valid for this one as well.

I must be getting cynical in my old age.
As soon as I heard about the merging of WPBC and WDDC under the guise of Westwey and the appointment of the WDDC CEO as a joint WPBC WDDC CEO, which I still cant remember the public being consulted about, I assumed that WPBC would disappear as a standalone entity in the near future. I dont understand the new Westwey setup at all but the fact that WDDC have reportedly forked out millions on new, unnecessary. over budget offices in Dorchester, which has to be funded from somewhere, probably means that Westwey admin functions will follow the CEO and the money gained from selling the North Quay Municipal Offices can go towards the WPBC contribution to Westwey's new flagship office complex in Dorchester.
The way local government works, the council officers make plans and proposals, which they then present to the elected councilors for approval. If the councilors propose something themselves which does not gel with the officers there are ways and means of ensuring that nothing actually happens. So, allowing for the fact that the majority of council officers will work under the WDDC CEO , it is unlikely that the WPBC council will have much control soon, so why not minimise the costs as well as accountability. We have already seen what irreparable damage can be done in 4 year periods nationally.

Incidentally, I thought that the Thatcher and Blair years showed the futility of floggng off the assets to hide the holes in funding for a couple of more years.
You still end up in difficulties, but now you have nothing.
It is always a shame to let facts interfere with a good story.

WDDC are saving money by building their new Offices. Less staff are needed, expensive repairs to old offices no longer required, lower electricity costs etc. And the new building will cost some £1M less than Budget.

Proof is that WDDC Council tax is cheaper than Weymouth’s. WDDC is not in debt, WDDC is not cutting services. WDDC has one of the lowest Council Tax Rates in the UK and is a top rated performing Council. W&PBC in comparison is pathetic – partly because it has not been under one party control recently – so it is led by Officers.

For WDDC to take over W&P a decision would have to be made by Central Government. The most likely option is to do away with the County Council, the 6 DCs (inc WD & W&P) and set up either one or two Unitary Authorities.

The Public would not be consulted. No point electing Councillors, MPs etc if they cannot take decisions on behalf of Joe Public.

And Tourism is not good for Councils –it adds to costs, fireworks, Pavilion, tourist centres but the Council gets few if any return to its coffers.

More importantly, tourism creates only seasonal and low paid jobs. We should have knocked down the hotels build offices on the front and sought to attract good jobs into the area for our Children. As it is when educated they have to leave the area to get well paid jobs.

So never vote for a Councillor who has a tourism interest?
Douglas Mc : Couple of good points about politics, but if I remember correctly part of the costing of the new building was met by the sale of the existing offices. Those figures were done by someone wearing rose tinted specs as they were never achievable. I have not followed the WDDC saga in detail but still got the impression that the now existing plan for the building is somewhat short of the original spec which probably accounts for the lower budget requirement.
Meanwhile, there are perfectly good, purpose built offices already existing within the WDDC WPBC boundaries, which would have been a much cheaper option. Who in their right mind nowadays builds a block of offices in the centre of a town, notwithstanding the fact that it wipes out existing parking.
Allowing for this merge of services which will save money, there were always the WPBC offices as a possibility for example.

One other amendment could be that the children have to leave to get jobs at all due to the dearth of real jobs in the area. I do not include anything less than 35 hours a week as a real job unlike the political statisticians.
[quote][p][bold]Douglas Mc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Yellowcave[/bold] wrote: Why does the online echo have two versions of the same story? I put my comment on the least read one first, but it is valid for this one as well. I must be getting cynical in my old age. As soon as I heard about the merging of WPBC and WDDC under the guise of Westwey and the appointment of the WDDC CEO as a joint WPBC WDDC CEO, which I still cant remember the public being consulted about, I assumed that WPBC would disappear as a standalone entity in the near future. I dont understand the new Westwey setup at all but the fact that WDDC have reportedly forked out millions on new, unnecessary. over budget offices in Dorchester, which has to be funded from somewhere, probably means that Westwey admin functions will follow the CEO and the money gained from selling the North Quay Municipal Offices can go towards the WPBC contribution to Westwey's new flagship office complex in Dorchester. The way local government works, the council officers make plans and proposals, which they then present to the elected councilors for approval. If the councilors propose something themselves which does not gel with the officers there are ways and means of ensuring that nothing actually happens. So, allowing for the fact that the majority of council officers will work under the WDDC CEO , it is unlikely that the WPBC council will have much control soon, so why not minimise the costs as well as accountability. We have already seen what irreparable damage can be done in 4 year periods nationally. Incidentally, I thought that the Thatcher and Blair years showed the futility of floggng off the assets to hide the holes in funding for a couple of more years. You still end up in difficulties, but now you have nothing.[/p][/quote]It is always a shame to let facts interfere with a good story. WDDC are saving money by building their new Offices. Less staff are needed, expensive repairs to old offices no longer required, lower electricity costs etc. And the new building will cost some £1M less than Budget. Proof is that WDDC Council tax is cheaper than Weymouth’s. WDDC is not in debt, WDDC is not cutting services. WDDC has one of the lowest Council Tax Rates in the UK and is a top rated performing Council. W&PBC in comparison is pathetic – partly because it has not been under one party control recently – so it is led by Officers. For WDDC to take over W&P a decision would have to be made by Central Government. The most likely option is to do away with the County Council, the 6 DCs (inc WD & W&P) and set up either one or two Unitary Authorities. The Public would not be consulted. No point electing Councillors, MPs etc if they cannot take decisions on behalf of Joe Public. And Tourism is not good for Councils –it adds to costs, fireworks, Pavilion, tourist centres but the Council gets few if any return to its coffers. More importantly, tourism creates only seasonal and low paid jobs. We should have knocked down the hotels build offices on the front and sought to attract good jobs into the area for our Children. As it is when educated they have to leave the area to get well paid jobs. So never vote for a Councillor who has a tourism interest?[/p][/quote]Douglas Mc : Couple of good points about politics, but if I remember correctly part of the costing of the new building was met by the sale of the existing offices. Those figures were done by someone wearing rose tinted specs as they were never achievable. I have not followed the WDDC saga in detail but still got the impression that the now existing plan for the building is somewhat short of the original spec which probably accounts for the lower budget requirement. Meanwhile, there are perfectly good, purpose built offices already existing within the WDDC WPBC boundaries, which would have been a much cheaper option. Who in their right mind nowadays builds a block of offices in the centre of a town, notwithstanding the fact that it wipes out existing parking. Allowing for this merge of services which will save money, there were always the WPBC offices as a possibility for example. One other amendment could be that the children have to leave to get jobs at all due to the dearth of real jobs in the area. I do not include anything less than 35 hours a week as a real job unlike the political statisticians. Yellowcave

8:20am Mon 3 Dec 12

JamesYoung says...

Douglas Mc wrote:
Yellowcave wrote:
Why does the online echo have two versions of the same story? I put my comment on the least read one first, but it is valid for this one as well.

I must be getting cynical in my old age.
As soon as I heard about the merging of WPBC and WDDC under the guise of Westwey and the appointment of the WDDC CEO as a joint WPBC WDDC CEO, which I still cant remember the public being consulted about, I assumed that WPBC would disappear as a standalone entity in the near future. I dont understand the new Westwey setup at all but the fact that WDDC have reportedly forked out millions on new, unnecessary. over budget offices in Dorchester, which has to be funded from somewhere, probably means that Westwey admin functions will follow the CEO and the money gained from selling the North Quay Municipal Offices can go towards the WPBC contribution to Westwey's new flagship office complex in Dorchester.
The way local government works, the council officers make plans and proposals, which they then present to the elected councilors for approval. If the councilors propose something themselves which does not gel with the officers there are ways and means of ensuring that nothing actually happens. So, allowing for the fact that the majority of council officers will work under the WDDC CEO , it is unlikely that the WPBC council will have much control soon, so why not minimise the costs as well as accountability. We have already seen what irreparable damage can be done in 4 year periods nationally.

Incidentally, I thought that the Thatcher and Blair years showed the futility of floggng off the assets to hide the holes in funding for a couple of more years.
You still end up in difficulties, but now you have nothing.
It is always a shame to let facts interfere with a good story.

WDDC are saving money by building their new Offices. Less staff are needed, expensive repairs to old offices no longer required, lower electricity costs etc. And the new building will cost some £1M less than Budget.

Proof is that WDDC Council tax is cheaper than Weymouth’s. WDDC is not in debt, WDDC is not cutting services. WDDC has one of the lowest Council Tax Rates in the UK and is a top rated performing Council. W&PBC in comparison is pathetic – partly because it has not been under one party control recently – so it is led by Officers.

For WDDC to take over W&P a decision would have to be made by Central Government. The most likely option is to do away with the County Council, the 6 DCs (inc WD & W&P) and set up either one or two Unitary Authorities.

The Public would not be consulted. No point electing Councillors, MPs etc if they cannot take decisions on behalf of Joe Public.

And Tourism is not good for Councils –it adds to costs, fireworks, Pavilion, tourist centres but the Council gets few if any return to its coffers.

More importantly, tourism creates only seasonal and low paid jobs. We should have knocked down the hotels build offices on the front and sought to attract good jobs into the area for our Children. As it is when educated they have to leave the area to get well paid jobs.

So never vote for a Councillor who has a tourism interest?
I would question WDDCs numbers. The new building may have cost £1m less, but they are having to spend £2m on underwriting the development and thus far, have not sold Stratton House for the £3m they said they would get for it and are now seeking lottery funding. Additionally, they have cost the taxpayer (locally or nationally) all that parking revenue, plus VAT generated on sales from the stores that now won't be built, corporation tax, business rate, PAYE and, as another poster has already said, probably cost jobs meaning local young people will have to travel to work. This is surely a good example of why unitary authorities are urgently needed - so that we can stop the waste made by local councillors. When the main three parties tell us who we can vote for, we don't really live in a democracy anyway, so why waste money.
[quote][p][bold]Douglas Mc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Yellowcave[/bold] wrote: Why does the online echo have two versions of the same story? I put my comment on the least read one first, but it is valid for this one as well. I must be getting cynical in my old age. As soon as I heard about the merging of WPBC and WDDC under the guise of Westwey and the appointment of the WDDC CEO as a joint WPBC WDDC CEO, which I still cant remember the public being consulted about, I assumed that WPBC would disappear as a standalone entity in the near future. I dont understand the new Westwey setup at all but the fact that WDDC have reportedly forked out millions on new, unnecessary. over budget offices in Dorchester, which has to be funded from somewhere, probably means that Westwey admin functions will follow the CEO and the money gained from selling the North Quay Municipal Offices can go towards the WPBC contribution to Westwey's new flagship office complex in Dorchester. The way local government works, the council officers make plans and proposals, which they then present to the elected councilors for approval. If the councilors propose something themselves which does not gel with the officers there are ways and means of ensuring that nothing actually happens. So, allowing for the fact that the majority of council officers will work under the WDDC CEO , it is unlikely that the WPBC council will have much control soon, so why not minimise the costs as well as accountability. We have already seen what irreparable damage can be done in 4 year periods nationally. Incidentally, I thought that the Thatcher and Blair years showed the futility of floggng off the assets to hide the holes in funding for a couple of more years. You still end up in difficulties, but now you have nothing.[/p][/quote]It is always a shame to let facts interfere with a good story. WDDC are saving money by building their new Offices. Less staff are needed, expensive repairs to old offices no longer required, lower electricity costs etc. And the new building will cost some £1M less than Budget. Proof is that WDDC Council tax is cheaper than Weymouth’s. WDDC is not in debt, WDDC is not cutting services. WDDC has one of the lowest Council Tax Rates in the UK and is a top rated performing Council. W&PBC in comparison is pathetic – partly because it has not been under one party control recently – so it is led by Officers. For WDDC to take over W&P a decision would have to be made by Central Government. The most likely option is to do away with the County Council, the 6 DCs (inc WD & W&P) and set up either one or two Unitary Authorities. The Public would not be consulted. No point electing Councillors, MPs etc if they cannot take decisions on behalf of Joe Public. And Tourism is not good for Councils –it adds to costs, fireworks, Pavilion, tourist centres but the Council gets few if any return to its coffers. More importantly, tourism creates only seasonal and low paid jobs. We should have knocked down the hotels build offices on the front and sought to attract good jobs into the area for our Children. As it is when educated they have to leave the area to get well paid jobs. So never vote for a Councillor who has a tourism interest?[/p][/quote]I would question WDDCs numbers. The new building may have cost £1m less, but they are having to spend £2m on underwriting the development and thus far, have not sold Stratton House for the £3m they said they would get for it and are now seeking lottery funding. Additionally, they have cost the taxpayer (locally or nationally) all that parking revenue, plus VAT generated on sales from the stores that now won't be built, corporation tax, business rate, PAYE and, as another poster has already said, probably cost jobs meaning local young people will have to travel to work. This is surely a good example of why unitary authorities are urgently needed - so that we can stop the waste made by local councillors. When the main three parties tell us who we can vote for, we don't really live in a democracy anyway, so why waste money. JamesYoung

1:55pm Mon 3 Dec 12

weypaul says...

The answer to the Pavilion scenario is very simple: Hand it over to the private sector to run, at a sensible rent. As a moderately successful small businessmen, I can guarantee that it could be run at a profit. All the interested groups could then still have use of their facilities, albeit at a commercial rate.
I and a group of colleagues did make tentative enquiries about this last year, but at that time the political difficulties were too great. If the council now marketed it openly, they would be inundated.
The answer to the Pavilion scenario is very simple: Hand it over to the private sector to run, at a sensible rent. As a moderately successful small businessmen, I can guarantee that it could be run at a profit. All the interested groups could then still have use of their facilities, albeit at a commercial rate. I and a group of colleagues did make tentative enquiries about this last year, but at that time the political difficulties were too great. If the council now marketed it openly, they would be inundated. weypaul

12:54am Thu 6 Dec 12

nystrom86 says...

I'm pretty sure that there are quite a few councillors out there who are only doing it for the allowances- albeit that there are some who are publicly spirited. Why can't we just pay expenses ? -which are open to inspection under the freedom of information act. We don't need half the councillors we've got and I reckon we could save £150,000 a year in expenses
I'm pretty sure that there are quite a few councillors out there who are only doing it for the allowances- albeit that there are some who are publicly spirited. Why can't we just pay expenses ? -which are open to inspection under the freedom of information act. We don't need half the councillors we've got and I reckon we could save £150,000 a year in expenses nystrom86

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree