Christchurch councillors refuse to list Druitt Hall

11:00am Thursday 17th January 2013 in News By Katie Clark

Supporters of Druitt Hall in Christchurch Supporters of Druitt Hall in Christchurch

COMMUNITY hall campaigners have lost out after a bid to nominate Druitt Hall as a community asset failed.

Supporters of the hall in Christchurch, who recently won a battle to save the facility from demolition, turned out in force once again to Christchurch Borough Council’s resources committee to hear the councillors’ decision.

It had been recommended by officers that the nomination to list the hall as an asset of community value be rejected as the council has no plans to dispose of the land by sale or lease.

Neil Farmer, strategic director at the Christchurch and East Dorset Partnership, told the meeting he did not think there was any benefit to listing the building and said the costs predicted for the hall to be brought up to standard could be between £60,000-£95,000.

This and his statement saying there was no running water in the hall, drew some outraged heckles from the campaigners disputing this.

Leader of the council Cllr Ray Nottage, who chairs the committee told the supporters to “keep quiet”, immediately calling for a break and reminding the members of the public this was a meeting of the resources committee.

Once the meeting was reconvened, Cllr Denise Jones said: “I would have thought that in the general view of things this is a value to the town centre and to the people of Christchurch as a whole.

Related links

“As champion for the elderly I do know how this has been used by the elderly and valued by them.

“I would hope our council worked for this group and make it a possibility that something is there for people to use.”

Independent Cllr Colin Bungey, said: “If as we are saying there is no benefit to either side and it does not hold the council to any conditions and it is just a paper exercise, I would have thought to encourage the community aspect and to help move things forward, I don’t see any problem with listing it.”

Despite Cllr Bungey’s suggestion, the committee rejected the proposal 9-1, with two abstentions.

Comments(21)

Niki1 says...
11:38am Thu 17 Jan 13

What is the matter with Christchurch Council. They have someone who is willing to take over the lease of this hall and pay to do a refurbishment on it. Why not just agree to this and have it taken off their hands. It is obvious that this hall means a lot to the community!!!!

Report this post »

Turtlebay says...
11:57am Thu 17 Jan 13

If they don't want to be councillors any more they can be sacked by their employers-us ( we pay Council Tax and thus employ them!)

Decide - are you going to do what the Council Tax payers want, or not!

Report this post »

twynham says...
12:02pm Thu 17 Jan 13

"Leader of the council Cllr Ray Nottage, who chairs the committee told the supporters to “keep quiet”
.
'Nuff said!

Report this post »

ekimnoslen says...
12:07pm Thu 17 Jan 13

I'll do a deal. Forget Druitt Hall and give me a Morrisons Supermarket.

Report this post »

EReardon says...
12:29pm Thu 17 Jan 13

ekimnoslen wrote:
I'll do a deal. Forget Druitt Hall and give me a Morrisons Supermarket.
"his statement saying there was no running water in the hall, drew some outraged heckles from the campaigners disputing this."

True though - there is no running water because the Council sent in workmen to remove the sinks and other items in a desperate attempt to render it unusable in its current form.

And they don't want private money to make it usable - as demanded by the community - either.

Surely there couldn't be a deal already arranged that would make a lot of money when the land is redeveloped could there?

No, that couldn't be it. I mean, that would be dishonest.

Forget democracy, it will be gone this time next year.

Report this post »

coster says...
12:35pm Thu 17 Jan 13

Yes it will be gone, but hopefully so will the Councillors at the next election.
It would be good if we could also rid ourselves of the CEO.

Report this post »

skydriver says...
2:27pm Thu 17 Jan 13

Who does councillor Nottage think he is? he is nothing more than a member of the public who has a mini part time job as a councillor, and not a very good one at that.I say to mr Nottage come election time YOUR time will be up, as I doubt if anyone,other than a very few, will vote for you again, you have messed up so many things within the area that the folk want. Maybe you should reconsider your position on the council before you upset more of your PAST voters

Report this post »

skydriver says...
2:30pm Thu 17 Jan 13

coster wrote:
Yes it will be gone, but hopefully so will the Councillors at the next election.
It would be good if we could also rid ourselves of the CEO.
Well said. Is it time we all got together and ousted this lot of useless councillors. Maybe we should get a petition together, via the medium of the local paper, and the Echo.

Report this post »

skydriver says...
2:31pm Thu 17 Jan 13

twynham wrote:
"Leader of the council Cllr Ray Nottage, who chairs the committee told the supporters to “keep quiet”
.
'Nuff said!
How dare he !!

Report this post »

skydriver says...
2:38pm Thu 17 Jan 13

Turtlebay wrote:
If they don't want to be councillors any more they can be sacked by their employers-us ( we pay Council Tax and thus employ them!)

Decide - are you going to do what the Council Tax payers want, or not!
Well said Turtlebay see my comments on getting rid of them ALL,

Report this post »

skydriver says...
2:45pm Thu 17 Jan 13

Niki1 wrote:
What is the matter with Christchurch Council. They have someone who is willing to take over the lease of this hall and pay to do a refurbishment on it. Why not just agree to this and have it taken off their hands. It is obvious that this hall means a lot to the community!!!!
All because Cllr Nottage doesn't want it. Is it his hall? No,as I thought so why does he not come down from his high horse and let the locals have what they want . THE DRUITT HALL.

Report this post »

EReardon says...
4:04pm Thu 17 Jan 13

I think this whole thing really serves as a lesson from the people of Christchurch to the people of Bournemouth. For years they moaned about the IMAX and wanted to get rid.

Well, folks of Bournemouth it's quite simple. Launch a campaign to ask council tax payers to "Buy a brick" to help keep the IMAX.

Then, sure as eggs is eggs, they'll keep the money and knock it down for you, just as you wanted.

Report this post »

jinglebell says...
4:26pm Thu 17 Jan 13

I think the Friends of the Druitt Hall should get some legal advice on this....seems very odd....and look also in the Echo - no surprise of course - but Christchurch Council's friends in Bmth Council have also refused to list a building!!!
The Localism Act is supposed to be a Conservative policy to help local people protect something they see as an asset for the community; so it looks like Cameron can say what he likes, but at local Council ground level Conservatives can happily ignore their own Party's policies, Acts of Parliament along the residents.

Report this post »

The Witch says...
4:47pm Thu 17 Jan 13

Really folks you should feel very sorry for Cllr Nottage and his fellow collegues who rejected the proposal.
It appears that they must all be in their dotage and suffering from memory loss as they are unable to recall those promises they made when seeking our votes, namely that if elected they would do their utmost to uphold the wishes of the electorate!
Give little men/women a bit of power and it goes to their heads.

Report this post »

WOC says...
4:48pm Thu 17 Jan 13

This is becoming ALMOST as laughable as the Kelly's Kitchen debacle. The building is an eyesore at best and I for one would prefer to see it knocked down, and yes I am a Christchurch resident who doesn't support the Save Druitt Hall brigade. To list this building would be ridiculous.

Report this post »

skydriver says...
5:15pm Thu 17 Jan 13

jinglebell wrote:
I think the Friends of the Druitt Hall should get some legal advice on this....seems very odd....and look also in the Echo - no surprise of course - but Christchurch Council's friends in Bmth Council have also refused to list a building!!!
The Localism Act is supposed to be a Conservative policy to help local people protect something they see as an asset for the community; so it looks like Cameron can say what he likes, but at local Council ground level Conservatives can happily ignore their own Party's policies, Acts of Parliament along the residents.
Well written good comments, well done. Still come election time they will be out in force with all the usual promises trash, only this time I suspect they will wasting their time.

Report this post »

skydriver says...
5:17pm Thu 17 Jan 13

The Witch wrote:
Really folks you should feel very sorry for Cllr Nottage and his fellow collegues who rejected the proposal.
It appears that they must all be in their dotage and suffering from memory loss as they are unable to recall those promises they made when seeking our votes, namely that if elected they would do their utmost to uphold the wishes of the electorate!
Give little men/women a bit of power and it goes to their heads.
You are quite right a little power, but that is all they have. They no longer have the views of the electorate in their sights, unless they want your vote........NO CHANCE!

Report this post »

ajj-dorset says...
7:08pm Thu 17 Jan 13

Listing Druitt hall is a little excessive, it has no architectural qualities to justify listing, but i suspect this is simply a tactic to prevent the hall being demolished.

I am of the view that the hall is a bit of a mess, but it should remain a community resource and only get knocked down when a replacement has been agreed and guaranteed funding put in place.

Report this post »

hrryseccombe says...
8:47pm Thu 17 Jan 13

it seems the localism Bill really has lost its teeth in the process of becoming law. It makes David Cameron's "Big Society" concept look ridiculous. Just as in Boscombe we see one arm of the council deciding whether to list under localism whilst another arm have an agenda not to see this happen. This makes a serious conflict of interest, the decision should rest with an independant body in such cases and not with the council. These 2 decisions fly in the face of the spirit of tyhe localism bill which in part was set up to prevent the increasing loss of public facilities to commercial and development interests. For conservative councils to interpret the guidance notes in such an obviously biased manner is shameful, would it really hurt that much to allow local people the democratic right to have a 6 month moratorium in order to put together a business plan to run the centre for themselves, especially as central government has funds available for such things. It is the democratic right given to us the people by LAW, and after all there is no law that says the council have to accept the Bids after the 6 month process is complete. What is obvious is that they fear the publicity this process will bring and that they would have a hard time continuing with their agenda's in the face of a robust community-led business plan with firm community support, better to nip it in the bud and refuse the listing in the first place. if you think this is untrue, ring localism up at central government and ask them if there was a massive rush to dispose of community assets in advance of the Bill becoming law, you will find out that this cynical move has taken place time and again across the country last year and now with the law in place this tactic of not listing obvious community assets is taking place in many councils across the uk.

Report this post »

Justin Black says...
10:36am Fri 18 Jan 13

And you Cllr Nottage, thought I was the only person in Christchurch who disagreed with the way things are going in the Borough.

Reading the comments above, it sounds as though I am not the only one sir.

Report this post »

mytown1 says...
6:05pm Sun 20 Jan 13

A lot of the comments seem to think the permission was for listing the building and not as requested to have it marked as a Community Asset. A Community Assett accepts that it is for the benefit of the Community which of course Druitt Hall is. It offers access to a community building (at moderate costs) in the centre of town with disabled access. The fact that the council chooses to ignore this fact is nothing short of disgraceful. If it where not for the generousity of many residents in the town's history would Stanpit Village Hall exist (where Mudeford and Friar's Cliff councillors hold there monthly meetings) St John's Missionary Church at Purwell (where Purwell and Stanpit Cllrs hold their monthly meetings), All Saints, Mudeford etc. Older esidents who have lived here all their lives will tell you of other places/buildings and gifts of land left to the community - the list goes on. Druitt Gardens plays an important part in the history of Christchurch and the hall is part of this. How many Christchurch families today could/would leave such a lasting legacy for the residents to enjoy.These assets (both to the town and the local people) that these kind and generous people saw fit to leave to the people of Christchurch should be treated in the spirit in which they were left, i.e. for the enjoyment and benefit of ALL.The Christchurch residents do have a say in how these assets should be viewed and not simply "hijacked" by the council.

Report this post »

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