Protesters demanding public consultation over Dorchester's Charles Street scheme

Dorset Echo: CONTROVERSIAL: Progress continues on the Charles Street development in Dorchester CONTROVERSIAL: Progress continues on the Charles Street development in Dorchester

PROTESTERS are demanding public consultation on the Charles Street scheme in Dorchester.

They gathered as council leaders met to defend a bid to support the development with up to £2million of taxpayers’ money.

Opponents want the public to have their say on the controversial scheme and have launched a petition calling for full consultation before a decision is made.

West Dorset District Council’s executive committee considered a report that claimed phase two of the scheme was not viable in the current economic climate.

Members were warned that if the council does not support developer Simons, anchor stores Waitrose and Marks & Spencer could withdraw.

Chief executive David Clarke said: “The danger is these anchor tenants might get frustrated and walk away.”

The committee backed an option to fund preparatory works to enable Simons to move forward as well as amending the original scheme to make it more viable.

The amendments include replacing some of the underground parking with a single-deck facility on the Fairfield market site and replacing the proposed hotel with 24 apartments.

The preparatory works include relocating the Dorchester Community Church from Acland Road to a new building provided by the council on Trinity Street.

They also involve securing pedestrian access and landing rights through the Tudor and Hardye Arcades, securing other access rights including traffic regulation orders and securing rights of light legal costs.

Mr Clarke said: “This will deliver the council’s top priority in terms of the redevelopment of an important site.

“Importantly, it will also create not only 120 jobs during the construction phase but will bring 600 permanent jobs in the retail use of the site.”

The council’s member champion for environmental protection and assets Councillor Richard Jungius warned that if the scheme did not move forward, the consequences for the county town could be dire.

He said: “The one thing I’m convinced of is that if we don’t do this scheme Dorchester as a shopping centre will die.”

Coun Stella Jones addressed the committee to say she and fellow Dorchester members were in favour of regenerating the town centre site, but wanted to see a proper consultation process before a decision is made.

She said: “We must have a real dialogue with the public, it’s public money which is being spent.”

Members agreed to an amendment to a recommendation to display the details of the proposals to the public by extending the period they are on show from five to 10 days.

The executive committee’s recommendations will now go forward for a final decision at the full council meeting on October 25.

Opponents Launch Petition

PROTESTERS made their opposition to the latest developments scheme clear ahead of the meeting of the executive committee.

Opponents gathered outside the district council’s offices at Stratton House to voice their discontent at the proposal to spend significant amounts of public money on the scheme without proper consultation.

John Grantham said: “Consultation needs to be the most thorough going – every person in Dorchester and in West Dorset needs to be consulted.

“This is the biggest investment the district council has made in its 38-year history.”

After the meeting, district councillor Andy Canning launched an online petition calling on the authority to conduct a full consultation.

He said: “This is important as it is yet another big spending of public money on what should be a private sector development.

“It will also affect the centre of Dorchester for decades.”

To sign the petition visit charlesstreetpetition.org.uk/.

Comments (29)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:27am Wed 10 Oct 12

max planck says...

I encourage everyone who has strong feelings about this to sign the petition. In order to get something done we need to estab;lish that a majority of the population of WDCC agree with the sentance in the petition. I reckon there are just under 100,000 people in West Dorset and so counting for those 20% who do not have internet access then that means we need 40,000 to log on and sign the petition. Don't be put off by the fact that this petition is being run by the Liberal-Democratic party - If you are not a supporter of the Lib-Dems (and to be honest after that debacle at the recent conference who is?) please go and sign the petition.
I encourage everyone who has strong feelings about this to sign the petition. In order to get something done we need to estab;lish that a majority of the population of WDCC agree with the sentance in the petition. I reckon there are just under 100,000 people in West Dorset and so counting for those 20% who do not have internet access then that means we need 40,000 to log on and sign the petition. Don't be put off by the fact that this petition is being run by the Liberal-Democratic party - If you are not a supporter of the Lib-Dems (and to be honest after that debacle at the recent conference who is?) please go and sign the petition. max planck
  • Score: 0

10:57am Wed 10 Oct 12

bnaty12 says...

What is really need is a full investigation by an outside party from scratch to see how and why the colossal balls-up happened, like so many other over budget or cocked up council fiasco's. Then sack or hold to account those responsible. Our civil service is full of either the back -handing one trouser leg brigade or the P.D inept. It needs an enema.
What is really need is a full investigation by an outside party from scratch to see how and why the colossal balls-up happened, like so many other over budget or cocked up council fiasco's. Then sack or hold to account those responsible. Our civil service is full of either the back -handing one trouser leg brigade or the P.D inept. It needs an enema. bnaty12
  • Score: 0

11:44am Wed 10 Oct 12

Pebbles-on-a-beach says...

I fully support the Charles Street Development. The County Town of Dorset deserves the best possible facilities, a large, quality supermarket and new M&S. This development will create more jobs and accomodation for young people like myself.
I fully support the Charles Street Development. The County Town of Dorset deserves the best possible facilities, a large, quality supermarket and new M&S. This development will create more jobs and accomodation for young people like myself. Pebbles-on-a-beach
  • Score: 0

12:34pm Wed 10 Oct 12

mr commonsense says...

Pebbles-on-the beach does not understand what the people are angry about.
The real issue is building a new Council Office on prime town centre land when the Council could have been re-housed in far cheaper offices elsewhere in the town.
Charles Street is prime building land which when developed could have provided a huge increase to WDDC's revenue by way of business rates, rents, tourism etc etc etc.
The real question that doesn't get asked is who is driving this? Simons clearly are the tail that is wagging the dog and the very fact that Mr Gould will not meet with anybody over this when most people in favour of something would be only too happy to extoll the virtues of this project.
His silence only reinforces the view of the majority of Dorchester residents that the council has no interest in doing what is best foir the taxpayer.
Pebbles-on-the beach does not understand what the people are angry about. The real issue is building a new Council Office on prime town centre land when the Council could have been re-housed in far cheaper offices elsewhere in the town. Charles Street is prime building land which when developed could have provided a huge increase to WDDC's revenue by way of business rates, rents, tourism etc etc etc. The real question that doesn't get asked is who is driving this? Simons clearly are the tail that is wagging the dog and the very fact that Mr Gould will not meet with anybody over this when most people in favour of something would be only too happy to extoll the virtues of this project. His silence only reinforces the view of the majority of Dorchester residents that the council has no interest in doing what is best foir the taxpayer. mr commonsense
  • Score: 0

12:36pm Wed 10 Oct 12

banknote says...

Pebbles-on-a-beach is right, the Charles Street Development is needed.

But WDDC, for the past 30 years, have handled the project absolutely appallingly. Some developers have been little more than crooks with their "fees". Schemes have come and gone in far better economic tiimes than now...and still WDDC have waited, discussed and discussed and virtually nothing has happened.

In the real commercial world this would not have happened, but WDDC have our money - whether they deserve it or not.. that is the difference.

No, there should be a full Public Enquiry into this fiasco and it should be soon... and why was Councillor Gould "unavailable for comment" for TV interviews on the subject yesterday?
Pebbles-on-a-beach is right, the Charles Street Development is needed. But WDDC, for the past 30 years, have handled the project absolutely appallingly. Some developers have been little more than crooks with their "fees". Schemes have come and gone in far better economic tiimes than now...and still WDDC have waited, discussed and discussed and virtually nothing has happened. In the real commercial world this would not have happened, but WDDC have our money - whether they deserve it or not.. that is the difference. No, there should be a full Public Enquiry into this fiasco and it should be soon... and why was Councillor Gould "unavailable for comment" for TV interviews on the subject yesterday? banknote
  • Score: 0

12:40pm Wed 10 Oct 12

woodsedge says...

Pebbles-on-a-beach wrote:
I fully support the Charles Street Development. The County Town of Dorset deserves the best possible facilities, a large, quality supermarket and new M&S. This development will create more jobs and accomodation for young people like myself.
I agree, same old nimbys, quick to complain when it affects them but equally quick to criticize fellow citizens of Dorset when they have the audacity to take to the streets of Dorchester trying to protect their jobs and livelihoods.
[quote][p][bold]Pebbles-on-a-beach[/bold] wrote: I fully support the Charles Street Development. The County Town of Dorset deserves the best possible facilities, a large, quality supermarket and new M&S. This development will create more jobs and accomodation for young people like myself.[/p][/quote]I agree, same old nimbys, quick to complain when it affects them but equally quick to criticize fellow citizens of Dorset when they have the audacity to take to the streets of Dorchester trying to protect their jobs and livelihoods. woodsedge
  • Score: 0

1:19pm Wed 10 Oct 12

Micke12 says...

When this project started I said it would not get to phase 2 without hic-cup because of the current economci climate. I was proved right yet again, and the WDDC have been proved what they always were, liars and cheats with back-handers all the way. I support the county town and believe it should be the best in Dorset, but not at the expense of the local taxpayers without due process and accountability. All through this development, there has been no true consultation, and when Gould has been called to task, he refuses to comment. Public enquiry needed right now by independent investigator, both in to this development and why it has been such a balls-up, and into why Gould was never willing to comment. There is corruption in WDDC and we need to root it out now.
When this project started I said it would not get to phase 2 without hic-cup because of the current economci climate. I was proved right yet again, and the WDDC have been proved what they always were, liars and cheats with back-handers all the way. I support the county town and believe it should be the best in Dorset, but not at the expense of the local taxpayers without due process and accountability. All through this development, there has been no true consultation, and when Gould has been called to task, he refuses to comment. Public enquiry needed right now by independent investigator, both in to this development and why it has been such a balls-up, and into why Gould was never willing to comment. There is corruption in WDDC and we need to root it out now. Micke12
  • Score: 0

1:21pm Wed 10 Oct 12

marabout says...

mr commonsense wrote:
Pebbles-on-the beach does not understand what the people are angry about. The real issue is building a new Council Office on prime town centre land when the Council could have been re-housed in far cheaper offices elsewhere in the town. Charles Street is prime building land which when developed could have provided a huge increase to WDDC's revenue by way of business rates, rents, tourism etc etc etc. The real question that doesn't get asked is who is driving this? Simons clearly are the tail that is wagging the dog and the very fact that Mr Gould will not meet with anybody over this when most people in favour of something would be only too happy to extoll the virtues of this project. His silence only reinforces the view of the majority of Dorchester residents that the council has no interest in doing what is best foir the taxpayer.
No. Why would you want to build your council offices on cheap land elsewhere? The council offices need to be in the middle of our community serviing us, working for us - smack bang in the middle of us. That is why this developement works for us.

Pebbles-on-the beach has got this spot on.
[quote][p][bold]mr commonsense[/bold] wrote: Pebbles-on-the beach does not understand what the people are angry about. The real issue is building a new Council Office on prime town centre land when the Council could have been re-housed in far cheaper offices elsewhere in the town. Charles Street is prime building land which when developed could have provided a huge increase to WDDC's revenue by way of business rates, rents, tourism etc etc etc. The real question that doesn't get asked is who is driving this? Simons clearly are the tail that is wagging the dog and the very fact that Mr Gould will not meet with anybody over this when most people in favour of something would be only too happy to extoll the virtues of this project. His silence only reinforces the view of the majority of Dorchester residents that the council has no interest in doing what is best foir the taxpayer.[/p][/quote]No. Why would you want to build your council offices on cheap land elsewhere? The council offices need to be in the middle of our community serviing us, working for us - smack bang in the middle of us. That is why this developement works for us. Pebbles-on-the beach has got this spot on. marabout
  • Score: 0

1:29pm Wed 10 Oct 12

lostnfound says...

marabout
The council does not need to be in the middle of the town except to allow employees to shop during lunch time. A small office would allow for the public to make enquiries, check the electoral register, etc.
marabout The council does not need to be in the middle of the town except to allow employees to shop during lunch time. A small office would allow for the public to make enquiries, check the electoral register, etc. lostnfound
  • Score: 0

1:36pm Wed 10 Oct 12

satisfecho says...

lostnfound wrote:
marabout
The council does not need to be in the middle of the town except to allow employees to shop during lunch time. A small office would allow for the public to make enquiries, check the electoral register, etc.
If they are shopping in their lunch breaks then surely that it good for the town centre businesses.
[quote][p][bold]lostnfound[/bold] wrote: marabout The council does not need to be in the middle of the town except to allow employees to shop during lunch time. A small office would allow for the public to make enquiries, check the electoral register, etc.[/p][/quote]If they are shopping in their lunch breaks then surely that it good for the town centre businesses. satisfecho
  • Score: 0

1:42pm Wed 10 Oct 12

snowleopard says...

South Somerset District Council Offices are on the edge of town in Yeovil.
South Somerset District Council Offices are on the edge of town in Yeovil. snowleopard
  • Score: 0

1:50pm Wed 10 Oct 12

max planck says...

Exactly - so it makes sound commercial sense for the council offices to be in the centre of town. The new building will stand as a flagship for our town.

But this thread is not about the new council offices - they are almost complete and looking very majestic - great work and a compliment to the designers, planners and builders - well done to you all.

This thread is about phase 2 of this development which concerns the introduction of new businesses and trade in the centre of town. I think that we should fully encourage the introduction of new businesses into the town. These new buidings will generate trade, employment and abve all they will bring a feel good feeling to the town. So, if the WDCC need extra money to help pay for these services then lets do it.
Exactly - so it makes sound commercial sense for the council offices to be in the centre of town. The new building will stand as a flagship for our town. But this thread is not about the new council offices - they are almost complete and looking very majestic - great work and a compliment to the designers, planners and builders - well done to you all. This thread is about phase 2 of this development which concerns the introduction of new businesses and trade in the centre of town. I think that we should fully encourage the introduction of new businesses into the town. These new buidings will generate trade, employment and abve all they will bring a feel good feeling to the town. So, if the WDCC need extra money to help pay for these services then lets do it. max planck
  • Score: 0

2:46pm Wed 10 Oct 12

cj07589 says...

Pebbles-on-a-beach wrote:
I fully support the Charles Street Development. The County Town of Dorset deserves the best possible facilities, a large, quality supermarket and new M&S. This development will create more jobs and accomodation for young people like myself.
There is no question that ‘Fit for purpose’ facilities are required but it is paramount that the new facilities were built in the right location maximising the commercial a benefits at the same time. It’s called coherent joined up thinking, the sheer stupidity of putting a non-income stream facility on prime high value brown field site is madness. Based on the last update, it was my understanding that M&S & Waitrose were considering exercising an exit clause in the lease therefore the key anchor stores underpinning the scheme and arrival of smaller retailers would be forfeited. Obviously if this is the case it would put job generation in jeopardy. For me the damage is already done, the loss of convenient parking means Dorchester is no longer a destination for shopping I would rather travel to Yeovil or Bridport now.
So in the cold hard light of the day, the council have done an excellent good job of sorting themselves out to the detriment of a potential new income stream notwithstanding an inferior urban planning strategy that dissects the high street retail area from the standalong Brewery development. Being cynical from experience no doubt the council will sweep any criticism under the carpet and customers simply won’t be inclined to shop in Dorchester so these promised jobs wont materialise. What can be guaranteed is that the mis-appropriation of local taxes, fiscal unaccountability, lack of directorship responsibility will continue to go on unaddressed until something is done about it.
A vote of no confidence in the leadership of this council is appropriate; it wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if they gave themselves another inflation busting pay rises to celebrate this historic disaster in the making.
[quote][p][bold]Pebbles-on-a-beach[/bold] wrote: I fully support the Charles Street Development. The County Town of Dorset deserves the best possible facilities, a large, quality supermarket and new M&S. This development will create more jobs and accomodation for young people like myself.[/p][/quote]There is no question that ‘Fit for purpose’ facilities are required but it is paramount that the new facilities were built in the right location maximising the commercial a benefits at the same time. It’s called coherent joined up thinking, the sheer stupidity of putting a non-income stream facility on prime high value brown field site is madness. Based on the last update, it was my understanding that M&S & Waitrose were considering exercising an exit clause in the lease therefore the key anchor stores underpinning the scheme and arrival of smaller retailers would be forfeited. Obviously if this is the case it would put job generation in jeopardy. For me the damage is already done, the loss of convenient parking means Dorchester is no longer a destination for shopping I would rather travel to Yeovil or Bridport now. So in the cold hard light of the day, the council have done an excellent good job of sorting themselves out to the detriment of a potential new income stream notwithstanding an inferior urban planning strategy that dissects the high street retail area from the standalong Brewery development. Being cynical from experience no doubt the council will sweep any criticism under the carpet and customers simply won’t be inclined to shop in Dorchester so these promised jobs wont materialise. What can be guaranteed is that the mis-appropriation of local taxes, fiscal unaccountability, lack of directorship responsibility will continue to go on unaddressed until something is done about it. A vote of no confidence in the leadership of this council is appropriate; it wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if they gave themselves another inflation busting pay rises to celebrate this historic disaster in the making. cj07589
  • Score: 0

2:57pm Wed 10 Oct 12

cj07589 says...

max planck wrote:
Exactly - so it makes sound commercial sense for the council offices to be in the centre of town. The new building will stand as a flagship for our town. But this thread is not about the new council offices - they are almost complete and looking very majestic - great work and a compliment to the designers, planners and builders - well done to you all. This thread is about phase 2 of this development which concerns the introduction of new businesses and trade in the centre of town. I think that we should fully encourage the introduction of new businesses into the town. These new buidings will generate trade, employment and abve all they will bring a feel good feeling to the town. So, if the WDCC need extra money to help pay for these services then lets do it.
Yeah sure...as majestic as an ivory tower!! Here is a news flash for you......Councils like central government buildings dont produce an income. Why cant people understand basic simple ecomomics, where do you think all the money is going to come from?? I'm afraid its too late and the writing is on the wall, how is plenty of unoccupied shops going to make you feel?
[quote][p][bold]max planck[/bold] wrote: Exactly - so it makes sound commercial sense for the council offices to be in the centre of town. The new building will stand as a flagship for our town. But this thread is not about the new council offices - they are almost complete and looking very majestic - great work and a compliment to the designers, planners and builders - well done to you all. This thread is about phase 2 of this development which concerns the introduction of new businesses and trade in the centre of town. I think that we should fully encourage the introduction of new businesses into the town. These new buidings will generate trade, employment and abve all they will bring a feel good feeling to the town. So, if the WDCC need extra money to help pay for these services then lets do it.[/p][/quote]Yeah sure...as majestic as an ivory tower!! Here is a news flash for you......Councils like central government buildings dont produce an income. Why cant people understand basic simple ecomomics, where do you think all the money is going to come from?? I'm afraid its too late and the writing is on the wall, how is plenty of unoccupied shops going to make you feel? cj07589
  • Score: 0

3:25pm Wed 10 Oct 12

DucksQuack says...

Just a minor point, and ignoring the wider issue. There is already a new hotel going in at the Brewery development. I don't really see the need for 2 new hotels in Dorchester right now.

I also think that the Brewery development is going to 'pull' visitors to that end of town. It's important that the Charles Street development works to draw the customers into South Street and High West street, preventing these areas from losing trade.
Just a minor point, and ignoring the wider issue. There is already a new hotel going in at the Brewery development. I don't really see the need for 2 new hotels in Dorchester right now. I also think that the Brewery development is going to 'pull' visitors to that end of town. It's important that the Charles Street development works to draw the customers into South Street and High West street, preventing these areas from losing trade. DucksQuack
  • Score: 0

3:30pm Wed 10 Oct 12

DucksQuack says...

oh and to Pebbles. I feel your pain, I had to move away from Dorchester for years before I could afford to live in my home town. But prime land in the centre of town isn't the place for affordable housing. Nor is it the place for a council office.
oh and to Pebbles. I feel your pain, I had to move away from Dorchester for years before I could afford to live in my home town. But prime land in the centre of town isn't the place for affordable housing. Nor is it the place for a council office. DucksQuack
  • Score: 0

4:23pm Wed 10 Oct 12

JamesYoung says...

Just sent the Echo a letter on this but as they miss the importance...the council should be considering whether it wants to continue making a significant financial commitment to Simons Group, who posted a 43% reduction in turnover (ie, sales, not profits) in Dec 2011 according to Construction News. If they go under how much taxpayer cash goes with them?
Just sent the Echo a letter on this but as they miss the importance...the council should be considering whether it wants to continue making a significant financial commitment to Simons Group, who posted a 43% reduction in turnover (ie, sales, not profits) in Dec 2011 according to Construction News. If they go under how much taxpayer cash goes with them? JamesYoung
  • Score: 0

4:55pm Wed 10 Oct 12

JamesYoung says...

- 43% reduction in turnover (not profit) from £174.5 to £99.9m in 2011
- Operating loss up from £1.5m to £3m in 2011
- Cash reserves down from £28m to £16m

Given their cash burn rate last year and the reasonable assumption that this has worsened since March 2011, does this sound like a company in a healthy financial position? Or is this a major factor in their proposal to change the design of the scheme while simultaneously inferring that anchor stores are about to pull out?

http://www.cnplus.co
.uk/news/simons-grou
p-posts-43-per-cent-
turnover-dip/8624319
.article
- 43% reduction in turnover (not profit) from £174.5 to £99.9m in 2011 - Operating loss up from £1.5m to £3m in 2011 - Cash reserves down from £28m to £16m Given their cash burn rate last year and the reasonable assumption that this has worsened since March 2011, does this sound like a company in a healthy financial position? Or is this a major factor in their proposal to change the design of the scheme while simultaneously inferring that anchor stores are about to pull out? http://www.cnplus.co .uk/news/simons-grou p-posts-43-per-cent- turnover-dip/8624319 .article JamesYoung
  • Score: 0

5:27pm Wed 10 Oct 12

cj07589 says...

A very good point raised there James! just like the Iceland depoist debarcle, I'm sure they have got this one covered.....cough...
..cough
A very good point raised there James! just like the Iceland depoist debarcle, I'm sure they have got this one covered.....cough... ..cough cj07589
  • Score: 0

6:20pm Wed 10 Oct 12

michael-giant says...

more shops, some housing, less carparking, and we pay for it.
does not quite sound right to me.
more shops, some housing, less carparking, and we pay for it. does not quite sound right to me. michael-giant
  • Score: 0

8:51pm Wed 10 Oct 12

bootedsw says...

I have to agree with some that I think it is in the wrong place, maybe they should have taken over the market area and built a complex linking the two stations and the brewery square complex. All the retail would be in the same area.
Whilst we are redesigning Dorchester how about having one railway station south of the split.
I have to agree with some that I think it is in the wrong place, maybe they should have taken over the market area and built a complex linking the two stations and the brewery square complex. All the retail would be in the same area. Whilst we are redesigning Dorchester how about having one railway station south of the split. bootedsw
  • Score: 0

6:52am Thu 11 Oct 12

donearunner says...

Can I quote for the demolition?
Can I quote for the demolition? donearunner
  • Score: 0

9:21am Thu 11 Oct 12

westendcat says...

Donearunner - jest not! Rumour has it that the ground floor of the new library is under water and the floor and electrics will have to be lifted!!
Who's been overseeing the job - DCC you need to get your inspectors in there quickly. Photo's available.
Donearunner - jest not! Rumour has it that the ground floor of the new library is under water and the floor and electrics will have to be lifted!! Who's been overseeing the job - DCC you need to get your inspectors in there quickly. Photo's available. westendcat
  • Score: 0

3:04pm Fri 12 Oct 12

marabout says...

cj07589 wrote:
max planck wrote:
Exactly - so it makes sound commercial sense for the council offices to be in the centre of town. The new building will stand as a flagship for our town. But this thread is not about the new council offices - they are almost complete and looking very majestic - great work and a compliment to the designers, planners and builders - well done to you all. This thread is about phase 2 of this development which concerns the introduction of new businesses and trade in the centre of town. I think that we should fully encourage the introduction of new businesses into the town. These new buidings will generate trade, employment and abve all they will bring a feel good feeling to the town. So, if the WDCC need extra money to help pay for these services then lets do it.
Yeah sure...as majestic as an ivory tower!! Here is a news flash for you......Councils like central government buildings dont produce an income. Why cant people understand basic simple ecomomics, where do you think all the money is going to come from?? I'm afraid its too late and the writing is on the wall, how is plenty of unoccupied shops going to make you feel?
Sadly Cj - it is you who needs to read the post again. max Plank has got it spot on. He did not discuss economics he merely stated that this proposal made good commercial sense. You need to understand the difference between commerce and economics
[quote][p][bold]cj07589[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]max planck[/bold] wrote: Exactly - so it makes sound commercial sense for the council offices to be in the centre of town. The new building will stand as a flagship for our town. But this thread is not about the new council offices - they are almost complete and looking very majestic - great work and a compliment to the designers, planners and builders - well done to you all. This thread is about phase 2 of this development which concerns the introduction of new businesses and trade in the centre of town. I think that we should fully encourage the introduction of new businesses into the town. These new buidings will generate trade, employment and abve all they will bring a feel good feeling to the town. So, if the WDCC need extra money to help pay for these services then lets do it.[/p][/quote]Yeah sure...as majestic as an ivory tower!! Here is a news flash for you......Councils like central government buildings dont produce an income. Why cant people understand basic simple ecomomics, where do you think all the money is going to come from?? I'm afraid its too late and the writing is on the wall, how is plenty of unoccupied shops going to make you feel?[/p][/quote]Sadly Cj - it is you who needs to read the post again. max Plank has got it spot on. He did not discuss economics he merely stated that this proposal made good commercial sense. You need to understand the difference between commerce and economics marabout
  • Score: 0

8:34pm Fri 12 Oct 12

Get a grip says...

westendcat wrote:
Donearunner - jest not! Rumour has it that the ground floor of the new library is under water and the floor and electrics will have to be lifted!! Who's been overseeing the job - DCC you need to get your inspectors in there quickly. Photo's available.
Funny I heard the same thing
[quote][p][bold]westendcat[/bold] wrote: Donearunner - jest not! Rumour has it that the ground floor of the new library is under water and the floor and electrics will have to be lifted!! Who's been overseeing the job - DCC you need to get your inspectors in there quickly. Photo's available.[/p][/quote]Funny I heard the same thing Get a grip
  • Score: 0

10:19am Sat 13 Oct 12

JamesYoung says...

marabout wrote:
cj07589 wrote:
max planck wrote:
Exactly - so it makes sound commercial sense for the council offices to be in the centre of town. The new building will stand as a flagship for our town. But this thread is not about the new council offices - they are almost complete and looking very majestic - great work and a compliment to the designers, planners and builders - well done to you all. This thread is about phase 2 of this development which concerns the introduction of new businesses and trade in the centre of town. I think that we should fully encourage the introduction of new businesses into the town. These new buidings will generate trade, employment and abve all they will bring a feel good feeling to the town. So, if the WDCC need extra money to help pay for these services then lets do it.
Yeah sure...as majestic as an ivory tower!! Here is a news flash for you......Councils like central government buildings dont produce an income. Why cant people understand basic simple ecomomics, where do you think all the money is going to come from?? I'm afraid its too late and the writing is on the wall, how is plenty of unoccupied shops going to make you feel?
Sadly Cj - it is you who needs to read the post again. max Plank has got it spot on. He did not discuss economics he merely stated that this proposal made good commercial sense. You need to understand the difference between commerce and economics
Capitulating to Simons demands because they are clearly in financial trouble makes no commercial sense.
The argument that M&S and Waitrose might pull out makes no commercial sense.
Giving the most productive land in the town over to a wealth consumer makes no commercial sense.
What would make commercial sense is waiting until the economic situation improves.
To put it another way, in ten years time, when the economy is back on its feet, would Dorchester have been better off had the whole development being put on hold.
The only answer to that question is yes. The land occupied by Goulds Folly would have been generating lots of tax revenue and attracting shoppers to the town. There would have been places to park.
If you had any grasp of the economic arguments you'd understand that you don't give wealth producing land to wealth consumers.
[quote][p][bold]marabout[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cj07589[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]max planck[/bold] wrote: Exactly - so it makes sound commercial sense for the council offices to be in the centre of town. The new building will stand as a flagship for our town. But this thread is not about the new council offices - they are almost complete and looking very majestic - great work and a compliment to the designers, planners and builders - well done to you all. This thread is about phase 2 of this development which concerns the introduction of new businesses and trade in the centre of town. I think that we should fully encourage the introduction of new businesses into the town. These new buidings will generate trade, employment and abve all they will bring a feel good feeling to the town. So, if the WDCC need extra money to help pay for these services then lets do it.[/p][/quote]Yeah sure...as majestic as an ivory tower!! Here is a news flash for you......Councils like central government buildings dont produce an income. Why cant people understand basic simple ecomomics, where do you think all the money is going to come from?? I'm afraid its too late and the writing is on the wall, how is plenty of unoccupied shops going to make you feel?[/p][/quote]Sadly Cj - it is you who needs to read the post again. max Plank has got it spot on. He did not discuss economics he merely stated that this proposal made good commercial sense. You need to understand the difference between commerce and economics[/p][/quote]Capitulating to Simons demands because they are clearly in financial trouble makes no commercial sense. The argument that M&S and Waitrose might pull out makes no commercial sense. Giving the most productive land in the town over to a wealth consumer makes no commercial sense. What would make commercial sense is waiting until the economic situation improves. To put it another way, in ten years time, when the economy is back on its feet, would Dorchester have been better off had the whole development being put on hold. The only answer to that question is yes. The land occupied by Goulds Folly would have been generating lots of tax revenue and attracting shoppers to the town. There would have been places to park. If you had any grasp of the economic arguments you'd understand that you don't give wealth producing land to wealth consumers. JamesYoung
  • Score: 0

11:30am Sat 13 Oct 12

marabout says...

JamesYoung wrote:
marabout wrote:
cj07589 wrote:
max planck wrote:
Exactly - so it makes sound commercial sense for the council offices to be in the centre of town. The new building will stand as a flagship for our town. But this thread is not about the new council offices - they are almost complete and looking very majestic - great work and a compliment to the designers, planners and builders - well done to you all. This thread is about phase 2 of this development which concerns the introduction of new businesses and trade in the centre of town. I think that we should fully encourage the introduction of new businesses into the town. These new buidings will generate trade, employment and abve all they will bring a feel good feeling to the town. So, if the WDCC need extra money to help pay for these services then lets do it.
Yeah sure...as majestic as an ivory tower!! Here is a news flash for you......Councils like central government buildings dont produce an income. Why cant people understand basic simple ecomomics, where do you think all the money is going to come from?? I'm afraid its too late and the writing is on the wall, how is plenty of unoccupied shops going to make you feel?
Sadly Cj - it is you who needs to read the post again. max Plank has got it spot on. He did not discuss economics he merely stated that this proposal made good commercial sense. You need to understand the difference between commerce and economics
Capitulating to Simons demands because they are clearly in financial trouble makes no commercial sense.
The argument that M&S and Waitrose might pull out makes no commercial sense.
Giving the most productive land in the town over to a wealth consumer makes no commercial sense.
What would make commercial sense is waiting until the economic situation improves.
To put it another way, in ten years time, when the economy is back on its feet, would Dorchester have been better off had the whole development being put on hold.
The only answer to that question is yes. The land occupied by Goulds Folly would have been generating lots of tax revenue and attracting shoppers to the town. There would have been places to park.
If you had any grasp of the economic arguments you'd understand that you don't give wealth producing land to wealth consumers.
What a ridiculous notion.

What 10 years? Are you mad?

Who would benefit from waiting ten years (apart from 10 year olds).

Financial benefit = None
Commercial benefit = None
Environmental benefit = None

No sense at all in waiting.
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]marabout[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cj07589[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]max planck[/bold] wrote: Exactly - so it makes sound commercial sense for the council offices to be in the centre of town. The new building will stand as a flagship for our town. But this thread is not about the new council offices - they are almost complete and looking very majestic - great work and a compliment to the designers, planners and builders - well done to you all. This thread is about phase 2 of this development which concerns the introduction of new businesses and trade in the centre of town. I think that we should fully encourage the introduction of new businesses into the town. These new buidings will generate trade, employment and abve all they will bring a feel good feeling to the town. So, if the WDCC need extra money to help pay for these services then lets do it.[/p][/quote]Yeah sure...as majestic as an ivory tower!! Here is a news flash for you......Councils like central government buildings dont produce an income. Why cant people understand basic simple ecomomics, where do you think all the money is going to come from?? I'm afraid its too late and the writing is on the wall, how is plenty of unoccupied shops going to make you feel?[/p][/quote]Sadly Cj - it is you who needs to read the post again. max Plank has got it spot on. He did not discuss economics he merely stated that this proposal made good commercial sense. You need to understand the difference between commerce and economics[/p][/quote]Capitulating to Simons demands because they are clearly in financial trouble makes no commercial sense. The argument that M&S and Waitrose might pull out makes no commercial sense. Giving the most productive land in the town over to a wealth consumer makes no commercial sense. What would make commercial sense is waiting until the economic situation improves. To put it another way, in ten years time, when the economy is back on its feet, would Dorchester have been better off had the whole development being put on hold. The only answer to that question is yes. The land occupied by Goulds Folly would have been generating lots of tax revenue and attracting shoppers to the town. There would have been places to park. If you had any grasp of the economic arguments you'd understand that you don't give wealth producing land to wealth consumers.[/p][/quote]What a ridiculous notion. What 10 years? Are you mad? Who would benefit from waiting ten years (apart from 10 year olds). Financial benefit = None Commercial benefit = None Environmental benefit = None No sense at all in waiting. marabout
  • Score: 0

12:39am Sun 14 Oct 12

JamesYoung says...

Sadly I don't think you grasp what is at stake.

That land - ALL of that land - had a value to Dorchester. The original proposal, which most of us backed, had a large shopping area and a hotel as well as some affordable housing. There was to be lots of parking.

Had the development gone ahead as planned, we would have had thousands of square feet of retail space. This would have created jobs. It would have created tax revenues - VAT, corporation tax, paye on those jobs. And it would have generated parking revenues.

In ten years time, the development would probably have been thriving.

Instead, the council has relocated its offices to half of the site. No new jobs. Lost parking revenue. No business rates. No extra VAT on sales. No extra corporation tax. In perpetuity.

Now, the council wants to modify the scheme because they fear the two anchor stores pulling out because of the recession. This doesn't stand even a simple test of logic. You only have to walk around town (Starbucks, Stead and Simpson) to see that in a recession companies avoid taking on new leases and ditch old ones. So the modified scheme goes ahead, the recession deepens, and the two anchors pull out with the council being left with the bill.

Waiting a few years will protect parking revenues and will hopefully ensure that modifications to the scheme are not necessary. The economy will pick up and the anchor stores will be willing to sign for bigger footprint than they would today. The town will be no worse off than it has been for the last thirty years, apart from the loss of parking.

You ask who will benefit from waiting. A better question might be who will benefit from going ahead. I would suggest that the answer to that is Simons Group and I think that is why strings are being pulled. I also think Simons are in trouble - their accounts show declining turnover (43%) and an unsustainable cash burn. They have cut their staff by 20% since December. I fear that we are going to end up with a half built development.
Sadly I don't think you grasp what is at stake. That land - ALL of that land - had a value to Dorchester. The original proposal, which most of us backed, had a large shopping area and a hotel as well as some affordable housing. There was to be lots of parking. Had the development gone ahead as planned, we would have had thousands of square feet of retail space. This would have created jobs. It would have created tax revenues - VAT, corporation tax, paye on those jobs. And it would have generated parking revenues. In ten years time, the development would probably have been thriving. Instead, the council has relocated its offices to half of the site. No new jobs. Lost parking revenue. No business rates. No extra VAT on sales. No extra corporation tax. In perpetuity. Now, the council wants to modify the scheme because they fear the two anchor stores pulling out because of the recession. This doesn't stand even a simple test of logic. You only have to walk around town (Starbucks, Stead and Simpson) to see that in a recession companies avoid taking on new leases and ditch old ones. So the modified scheme goes ahead, the recession deepens, and the two anchors pull out with the council being left with the bill. Waiting a few years will protect parking revenues and will hopefully ensure that modifications to the scheme are not necessary. The economy will pick up and the anchor stores will be willing to sign for bigger footprint than they would today. The town will be no worse off than it has been for the last thirty years, apart from the loss of parking. You ask who will benefit from waiting. A better question might be who will benefit from going ahead. I would suggest that the answer to that is Simons Group and I think that is why strings are being pulled. I also think Simons are in trouble - their accounts show declining turnover (43%) and an unsustainable cash burn. They have cut their staff by 20% since December. I fear that we are going to end up with a half built development. JamesYoung
  • Score: 0

9:47pm Mon 15 Oct 12

banknote says...

Totally agree James.

I'm thinking about taking bets as to when Simons goes under......and how many "development companies" have we had over the last three decades?

Councillor Gould is a total disgrace to his - and my - party.
Totally agree James. I'm thinking about taking bets as to when Simons goes under......and how many "development companies" have we had over the last three decades? Councillor Gould is a total disgrace to his - and my - party. banknote
  • Score: 0

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