Planning board was “misled” by “inaccurate” report on BCCA, says campaign leader

Bournemouth Echo: FIGHTING ON: Linda Ni’Man, back left, and other campaigners FIGHTING ON: Linda Ni’Man, back left, and other campaigners

THE district auditor has been asked to intervene in the row over the imminent demolition of a Bournemouth art centre.

Campaigners fighting to save the Boscombe Centre for Community Arts (BCCA) have asked district auditor Simon Garlick to investigate the circumstances surrounding the planning decision to replace the BCCA with 11 family homes and a creative hub.

Demolition work is due to start imminently, although the council has not confirmed an exact start date.

Campaign leader Linda Ni’Man said they believed the planning board was “misled” by an “inaccurate” officer’s report. They claim the report cited 19 comparable facilities in Boscombe as evidence that there was no need to retain the entire BCCA building.

However, protesters say the facilities quoted were not ‘like for like’ facilities and should not have been compared against the BCCA.

Mrs Ni’Man said: “Full details of the background facts are being supplied.

“It is vital this centre be saved – not just for its heritage value – but also because it can bring much-needed tourist revenue and jobs into the most deprived area in the south.

“There is enormous community concern about this issue, which has largely been ignored by the council.”

Protesters previously applied for a judicial review of the decision but Judge Justice Sales ruled they were “hopelessly out of time” and had not provided good reasons for extending the time limit. He concluded the case was “totally without merit.”

Cllr John Beesley, leader of Bournemouth council, said: “The development of family housing and a creative hub will do a great deal to regenerate the local area.

“The development would give first time buyers the chance to own their own home at an affordable price and would offer additional facilities to benefit the whole community in Boscombe.”

Comments (24)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:18am Sun 14 Jul 13

djd says...

This group has already been told their case is "hopelessly without merit" yet still they persist in spending public money on a lost cause.
This group has already been told their case is "hopelessly without merit" yet still they persist in spending public money on a lost cause. djd

10:14am Sun 14 Jul 13

truthplatform says...

I went to the public forum meeting yesterday where this was discussed. I was astonished to hear one of the Councillors address the public triumphantly holding up a piece of paper and stating proudly that they had won their case against the community. This is more bad press for the Council for 2 reasons.
The first is that a representative of the BCCA group then countered the Councillor's statement and explained that they had been legally "out of time", not that the case had no legal merit on the evidence. The Councillor was asked if she would respond but she refused. So its clear she did not wish to have any further examination of her statement but was content to mislead the public.
The second thing is that the community should not have been placed in a situation where they were in a legal wrangle with the Council.
The same Councillor Kelly also confirmed that the Art Centre would be demolished in advance of their public consultation into facilities and seemed to find no irony in stating that the Council wished to work with the community!
It was indeed a shambolic performance on behalf of the Council all round. With the Council stating they have consulted the community in regard to the Art Centre whereas various teachers and social workers and other residents stating they have not been consulted and asking where the evidence was they had been consulted and the Council not offering any reasonable answer.
The Council were asked why the leader of the Council did not respond to a prominent architect's letter, which expressed concerns about the plan for houses on the site. The answer Councillor Bob Laughton gave was he could "confirm that Mr. Beesley did not reply" and that the matter was "done" "finished."
What came across mostly was the community want information, questions answered and to be included in decisions, but the Council have no intention of engagement. It was a shame it had not been filmed as I could have passed it on to companies I advise as a "All the things Company Leaders Should Not Do if they want to get the best out of their business"
The big message for many years has been 'collaboration' - this was like seeing a dinosaur attitude still at work. A mind blowingly poor attitude for a Council in this day and age.
I went to the public forum meeting yesterday where this was discussed. I was astonished to hear one of the Councillors address the public triumphantly holding up a piece of paper and stating proudly that they had won their case against the community. This is more bad press for the Council for 2 reasons. The first is that a representative of the BCCA group then countered the Councillor's statement and explained that they had been legally "out of time", not that the case had no legal merit on the evidence. The Councillor was asked if she would respond but she refused. So its clear she did not wish to have any further examination of her statement but was content to mislead the public. The second thing is that the community should not have been placed in a situation where they were in a legal wrangle with the Council. The same Councillor Kelly also confirmed that the Art Centre would be demolished in advance of their public consultation into facilities and seemed to find no irony in stating that the Council wished to work with the community! It was indeed a shambolic performance on behalf of the Council all round. With the Council stating they have consulted the community in regard to the Art Centre whereas various teachers and social workers and other residents stating they have not been consulted and asking where the evidence was they had been consulted and the Council not offering any reasonable answer. The Council were asked why the leader of the Council did not respond to a prominent architect's letter, which expressed concerns about the plan for houses on the site. The answer Councillor Bob Laughton gave was he could "confirm that Mr. Beesley did not reply" and that the matter was "done" "finished." What came across mostly was the community want information, questions answered and to be included in decisions, but the Council have no intention of engagement. It was a shame it had not been filmed as I could have passed it on to companies I advise as a "All the things Company Leaders Should Not Do if they want to get the best out of their business" The big message for many years has been 'collaboration' - this was like seeing a dinosaur attitude still at work. A mind blowingly poor attitude for a Council in this day and age. truthplatform

10:21am Sun 14 Jul 13

truthplatform says...

djd wrote:
This group has already been told their case is "hopelessly without merit" yet still they persist in spending public money on a lost cause.
I should add to my previous comment and in relation to yours, that had it not been for expensive investigations, we would not have had the "cash for questions" scandal exposed. Nor would the M.P's expenses been exposed. Nor would Parliament be scrutinising global company tax avoidance.
We should never prefer the avoidance of financial costs over justice and fairness expected from our politicians. To do so lends the way toward dictatorship ...............
[quote][p][bold]djd[/bold] wrote: This group has already been told their case is "hopelessly without merit" yet still they persist in spending public money on a lost cause.[/p][/quote]I should add to my previous comment and in relation to yours, that had it not been for expensive investigations, we would not have had the "cash for questions" scandal exposed. Nor would the M.P's expenses been exposed. Nor would Parliament be scrutinising global company tax avoidance. We should never prefer the avoidance of financial costs over justice and fairness expected from our politicians. To do so lends the way toward dictatorship ............... truthplatform

10:37am Sun 14 Jul 13

UrbanCrab says...

I think that is legal speak with regards to the judicial review that was ruled "without merit" (ie the appeal was lodged after the 3 month period) because it was out of time.

Didn't the planning board recently nearly get mislead over the Winter Gardens? During the planning meeting it was alleged that Mr Ramsden had tried to mislead civic planners over the scheme.Speaking in support of the scheme, Mr Ramsden told members he had just received a text message from Peter Tisdale, property director of THAT group, stating that the company no longer objected to the Winter Gardens plans.Cllr Smith told the daily Echo that he had contacted Mr Tisdale during the meeting and discovered that the text was "misleading" and the THAT group was not supportive of the Winter Gardens application.He told the Echo: "The information Mr Ramsden Geary presented at the meeting was false and I exposed him." It was only a concerted effort by local protestors that overturned this scheme, and alerted the members of the planning board.

When it comes to public owned land being handed over to developers, then the council must be seen to be doing everything entirely correctly and in the "public interest". If there are suggestions that the planning board were misled by its own officers (our public servants) then this needs to be investigated regardless of the groups judicial review. It is in the public interest to do so, especially in the light of several other recent dubious planning decisions. Such as the Studland Dene Hotel and Poole Road Medical Centre and the activities of 3 times bankrupt Tony Ramsden, ex councillor and Planning Consultant and ex-business associate of our council leader John Beesley.

As the land is public owned but also contains listed buildings attached to the whole structure and within the curtilage of the site, and as all these buildings were gifted to the poor of the borough for the purposes of education of the poor by Percy Shelley, then the presence of a covenant and strong heritage links, suggests an even more thorough planning procedure should have been adhered to. This coupled with the complete lack of local consultation over this issue, and the presence of this highly misleading report that was key to the planning decision, and the lack of provision of a replacement centre for the community, (apart from the vastly reduced 'hub' that has been suggested) suggests that this whole issue should be re-looked at.

The council have had many opportunities to work with local groups, not just the friends of the BCCA , to achieve a better result for this site, yet they have chose not to and have just pressed ahead regardless.

They were obviously aware of the misleading report, as a new report was commissioned to look at community provision at the cost of £10,000, and it was revealed this s
Saturday at the Boscombe Forum meeting by Cllr Jane Kelly that the report would not be published until after the demolition takes place. This is highly suspect and questionable and "of concern" to the local community and public at large..
The report was commissioned by Bournemouth 2026, as was the planning permission applied for by them too. Now we are told that Bournemouth 2026 won't be demolishing this site and building these houses, now the work is being done by the council, so there are costs to the public purse even if they received a cheque from David Ramsden on behalf of the LEP, and when completed will be "handed over" to Bournemouth 2026. The links between Bournemouth 2026 'trust' and the council are very close and seem confusing. Surely if the land is to be demolished and the buildings placed on it are to be managed, then this management should be put to tender, not simply handed over to a "favoured" operator. (There are similar issues being raised about S&D leisure in Bournemouth and the council tendering process) Perhaps BCHA housing or the YMCA might like to tender to run the site. Perhaps the public purse could be renumerated by another operator. Bournemouth 2026 have no plans to build new 'affordable' housing after this Gladstone mews development is complete, perhaps another operator would use the money earned to set up other housing trusts in the area.

There is a lot of information about this "BCCA" issue about if you dig a little. It is not so simple and straightforward as commentators often suggest on this site. I for one would welcome an investigation, (into this and other recent questionable events). If there is nothing to hide then the council should not be worried, if there is something to hide, as evidence suggests then it is in the public interest that it is exposed and dealt with and this whole BCCA relooked at before it is irreversible and community relations and trust in the council is severly damaged.

UC
I think that is legal speak with regards to the judicial review that was ruled "without merit" (ie the appeal was lodged after the 3 month period) because it was out of time. Didn't the planning board recently nearly get mislead over the Winter Gardens? During the planning meeting it was alleged that Mr Ramsden had tried to mislead civic planners over the scheme.Speaking in support of the scheme, Mr Ramsden told members he had just received a text message from Peter Tisdale, property director of THAT group, stating that the company no longer objected to the Winter Gardens plans.Cllr Smith told the daily Echo that he had contacted Mr Tisdale during the meeting and discovered that the text was "misleading" and the THAT group was not supportive of the Winter Gardens application.He told the Echo: "The information Mr Ramsden Geary presented at the meeting was false and I exposed him." It was only a concerted effort by local protestors that overturned this scheme, and alerted the members of the planning board. When it comes to public owned land being handed over to developers, then the council must be seen to be doing everything entirely correctly and in the "public interest". If there are suggestions that the planning board were misled by its own officers (our public servants) then this needs to be investigated regardless of the groups judicial review. It is in the public interest to do so, especially in the light of several other recent dubious planning decisions. Such as the Studland Dene Hotel and Poole Road Medical Centre and the activities of 3 times bankrupt Tony Ramsden, ex councillor and Planning Consultant and ex-business associate of our council leader John Beesley. As the land is public owned but also contains listed buildings attached to the whole structure and within the curtilage of the site, and as all these buildings were gifted to the poor of the borough for the purposes of education of the poor by Percy Shelley, then the presence of a covenant and strong heritage links, suggests an even more thorough planning procedure should have been adhered to. This coupled with the complete lack of local consultation over this issue, and the presence of this highly misleading report that was key to the planning decision, and the lack of provision of a replacement centre for the community, (apart from the vastly reduced 'hub' that has been suggested) suggests that this whole issue should be re-looked at. The council have had many opportunities to work with local groups, not just the friends of the BCCA , to achieve a better result for this site, yet they have chose not to and have just pressed ahead regardless. They were obviously aware of the misleading report, as a new report was commissioned to look at community provision at the cost of £10,000, and it was revealed this s Saturday at the Boscombe Forum meeting by Cllr Jane Kelly that the report would not be published until after the demolition takes place. This is highly suspect and questionable and "of concern" to the local community and public at large.. The report was commissioned by Bournemouth 2026, as was the planning permission applied for by them too. Now we are told that Bournemouth 2026 won't be demolishing this site and building these houses, now the work is being done by the council, so there are costs to the public purse even if they received a cheque from David Ramsden on behalf of the LEP, and when completed will be "handed over" to Bournemouth 2026. The links between Bournemouth 2026 'trust' and the council are very close and seem confusing. Surely if the land is to be demolished and the buildings placed on it are to be managed, then this management should be put to tender, not simply handed over to a "favoured" operator. (There are similar issues being raised about S&D leisure in Bournemouth and the council tendering process) Perhaps BCHA housing or the YMCA might like to tender to run the site. Perhaps the public purse could be renumerated by another operator. Bournemouth 2026 have no plans to build new 'affordable' housing after this Gladstone mews development is complete, perhaps another operator would use the money earned to set up other housing trusts in the area. There is a lot of information about this "BCCA" issue about if you dig a little. It is not so simple and straightforward as commentators often suggest on this site. I for one would welcome an investigation, (into this and other recent questionable events). If there is nothing to hide then the council should not be worried, if there is something to hide, as evidence suggests then it is in the public interest that it is exposed and dealt with and this whole BCCA relooked at before it is irreversible and community relations and trust in the council is severly damaged. UC UrbanCrab

11:01am Sun 14 Jul 13

truthplatform says...

UrbanCrab wrote:
I think that is legal speak with regards to the judicial review that was ruled "without merit" (ie the appeal was lodged after the 3 month period) because it was out of time.

Didn't the planning board recently nearly get mislead over the Winter Gardens? During the planning meeting it was alleged that Mr Ramsden had tried to mislead civic planners over the scheme.Speaking in support of the scheme, Mr Ramsden told members he had just received a text message from Peter Tisdale, property director of THAT group, stating that the company no longer objected to the Winter Gardens plans.Cllr Smith told the daily Echo that he had contacted Mr Tisdale during the meeting and discovered that the text was "misleading" and the THAT group was not supportive of the Winter Gardens application.He told the Echo: "The information Mr Ramsden Geary presented at the meeting was false and I exposed him." It was only a concerted effort by local protestors that overturned this scheme, and alerted the members of the planning board.

When it comes to public owned land being handed over to developers, then the council must be seen to be doing everything entirely correctly and in the "public interest". If there are suggestions that the planning board were misled by its own officers (our public servants) then this needs to be investigated regardless of the groups judicial review. It is in the public interest to do so, especially in the light of several other recent dubious planning decisions. Such as the Studland Dene Hotel and Poole Road Medical Centre and the activities of 3 times bankrupt Tony Ramsden, ex councillor and Planning Consultant and ex-business associate of our council leader John Beesley.

As the land is public owned but also contains listed buildings attached to the whole structure and within the curtilage of the site, and as all these buildings were gifted to the poor of the borough for the purposes of education of the poor by Percy Shelley, then the presence of a covenant and strong heritage links, suggests an even more thorough planning procedure should have been adhered to. This coupled with the complete lack of local consultation over this issue, and the presence of this highly misleading report that was key to the planning decision, and the lack of provision of a replacement centre for the community, (apart from the vastly reduced 'hub' that has been suggested) suggests that this whole issue should be re-looked at.

The council have had many opportunities to work with local groups, not just the friends of the BCCA , to achieve a better result for this site, yet they have chose not to and have just pressed ahead regardless.

They were obviously aware of the misleading report, as a new report was commissioned to look at community provision at the cost of £10,000, and it was revealed this s
Saturday at the Boscombe Forum meeting by Cllr Jane Kelly that the report would not be published until after the demolition takes place. This is highly suspect and questionable and "of concern" to the local community and public at large..
The report was commissioned by Bournemouth 2026, as was the planning permission applied for by them too. Now we are told that Bournemouth 2026 won't be demolishing this site and building these houses, now the work is being done by the council, so there are costs to the public purse even if they received a cheque from David Ramsden on behalf of the LEP, and when completed will be "handed over" to Bournemouth 2026. The links between Bournemouth 2026 'trust' and the council are very close and seem confusing. Surely if the land is to be demolished and the buildings placed on it are to be managed, then this management should be put to tender, not simply handed over to a "favoured" operator. (There are similar issues being raised about S&D leisure in Bournemouth and the council tendering process) Perhaps BCHA housing or the YMCA might like to tender to run the site. Perhaps the public purse could be renumerated by another operator. Bournemouth 2026 have no plans to build new 'affordable' housing after this Gladstone mews development is complete, perhaps another operator would use the money earned to set up other housing trusts in the area.

There is a lot of information about this "BCCA" issue about if you dig a little. It is not so simple and straightforward as commentators often suggest on this site. I for one would welcome an investigation, (into this and other recent questionable events). If there is nothing to hide then the council should not be worried, if there is something to hide, as evidence suggests then it is in the public interest that it is exposed and dealt with and this whole BCCA relooked at before it is irreversible and community relations and trust in the council is severly damaged.

UC
Well, as I suspected, there is a good deal more to the whole issue. As a business person, it didn't stack up to me that a Council would believe they could regenerate this deprived area by demolishing an Art Centre (particularly as it has a significant culture and heritage which could make significant differences to the financial outcomes for Boscombe) by building 11 houses.
It is also, clearly much loved by the community so the social benefits also outweigh benefits from 11 houses.
The community really must press this forward toward a thorough investigation.
[quote][p][bold]UrbanCrab[/bold] wrote: I think that is legal speak with regards to the judicial review that was ruled "without merit" (ie the appeal was lodged after the 3 month period) because it was out of time. Didn't the planning board recently nearly get mislead over the Winter Gardens? During the planning meeting it was alleged that Mr Ramsden had tried to mislead civic planners over the scheme.Speaking in support of the scheme, Mr Ramsden told members he had just received a text message from Peter Tisdale, property director of THAT group, stating that the company no longer objected to the Winter Gardens plans.Cllr Smith told the daily Echo that he had contacted Mr Tisdale during the meeting and discovered that the text was "misleading" and the THAT group was not supportive of the Winter Gardens application.He told the Echo: "The information Mr Ramsden Geary presented at the meeting was false and I exposed him." It was only a concerted effort by local protestors that overturned this scheme, and alerted the members of the planning board. When it comes to public owned land being handed over to developers, then the council must be seen to be doing everything entirely correctly and in the "public interest". If there are suggestions that the planning board were misled by its own officers (our public servants) then this needs to be investigated regardless of the groups judicial review. It is in the public interest to do so, especially in the light of several other recent dubious planning decisions. Such as the Studland Dene Hotel and Poole Road Medical Centre and the activities of 3 times bankrupt Tony Ramsden, ex councillor and Planning Consultant and ex-business associate of our council leader John Beesley. As the land is public owned but also contains listed buildings attached to the whole structure and within the curtilage of the site, and as all these buildings were gifted to the poor of the borough for the purposes of education of the poor by Percy Shelley, then the presence of a covenant and strong heritage links, suggests an even more thorough planning procedure should have been adhered to. This coupled with the complete lack of local consultation over this issue, and the presence of this highly misleading report that was key to the planning decision, and the lack of provision of a replacement centre for the community, (apart from the vastly reduced 'hub' that has been suggested) suggests that this whole issue should be re-looked at. The council have had many opportunities to work with local groups, not just the friends of the BCCA , to achieve a better result for this site, yet they have chose not to and have just pressed ahead regardless. They were obviously aware of the misleading report, as a new report was commissioned to look at community provision at the cost of £10,000, and it was revealed this s Saturday at the Boscombe Forum meeting by Cllr Jane Kelly that the report would not be published until after the demolition takes place. This is highly suspect and questionable and "of concern" to the local community and public at large.. The report was commissioned by Bournemouth 2026, as was the planning permission applied for by them too. Now we are told that Bournemouth 2026 won't be demolishing this site and building these houses, now the work is being done by the council, so there are costs to the public purse even if they received a cheque from David Ramsden on behalf of the LEP, and when completed will be "handed over" to Bournemouth 2026. The links between Bournemouth 2026 'trust' and the council are very close and seem confusing. Surely if the land is to be demolished and the buildings placed on it are to be managed, then this management should be put to tender, not simply handed over to a "favoured" operator. (There are similar issues being raised about S&D leisure in Bournemouth and the council tendering process) Perhaps BCHA housing or the YMCA might like to tender to run the site. Perhaps the public purse could be renumerated by another operator. Bournemouth 2026 have no plans to build new 'affordable' housing after this Gladstone mews development is complete, perhaps another operator would use the money earned to set up other housing trusts in the area. There is a lot of information about this "BCCA" issue about if you dig a little. It is not so simple and straightforward as commentators often suggest on this site. I for one would welcome an investigation, (into this and other recent questionable events). If there is nothing to hide then the council should not be worried, if there is something to hide, as evidence suggests then it is in the public interest that it is exposed and dealt with and this whole BCCA relooked at before it is irreversible and community relations and trust in the council is severly damaged. UC[/p][/quote]Well, as I suspected, there is a good deal more to the whole issue. As a business person, it didn't stack up to me that a Council would believe they could regenerate this deprived area by demolishing an Art Centre (particularly as it has a significant culture and heritage which could make significant differences to the financial outcomes for Boscombe) by building 11 houses. It is also, clearly much loved by the community so the social benefits also outweigh benefits from 11 houses. The community really must press this forward toward a thorough investigation. truthplatform

11:58am Sun 14 Jul 13

Bob49 says...

There does appear an unhealthy (even by our council's standards) desperation to hand this publicly owned land over to private concerns.

You have to wonder what their motivation is - more so when set against their usual lethargy.
There does appear an unhealthy (even by our council's standards) desperation to hand this publicly owned land over to private concerns. You have to wonder what their motivation is - more so when set against their usual lethargy. Bob49

12:14pm Sun 14 Jul 13

SFF says...

I was astonished by the behaviour of the councillors on Saturday. They were so rude and dismissive of residents views. Then they kept saying that it was important to engage with us?

I would just like to point out on here that as part of the development they are demolishing the caretakers lodge which had 2 large flats so there is only extra accommodation for 9 families.
I was astonished by the behaviour of the councillors on Saturday. They were so rude and dismissive of residents views. Then they kept saying that it was important to engage with us? I would just like to point out on here that as part of the development they are demolishing the caretakers lodge which had 2 large flats so there is only extra accommodation for 9 families. SFF

12:54pm Sun 14 Jul 13

jinglebell says...

The Council's attitude is derisory in the extreme; they cannot say they have consulted with the community when the community know this has not occurred. Why are the Council determined to ignore the electors?
What do the Council gain from demolishing the BCCA for only 11 houses?
The facilities cited in the Council's report such as bars, a night club, a disused toilet, a shopping arcade and restaurants are not "like for like"....are we going to attract tourists to a disused toilet because its just the same as the Art Centre?
The Council's attitude is derisory in the extreme; they cannot say they have consulted with the community when the community know this has not occurred. Why are the Council determined to ignore the electors? What do the Council gain from demolishing the BCCA for only 11 houses? The facilities cited in the Council's report such as bars, a night club, a disused toilet, a shopping arcade and restaurants are not "like for like"....are we going to attract tourists to a disused toilet because its just the same as the Art Centre? jinglebell

12:58pm Sun 14 Jul 13

SFF says...

It is more than not consulting. They have been absolutely hostile towards us.
It is more than not consulting. They have been absolutely hostile towards us. SFF

12:59pm Sun 14 Jul 13

muscliffman says...

Bob49 wrote:
There does appear an unhealthy (even by our council's standards) desperation to hand this publicly owned land over to private concerns.

You have to wonder what their motivation is - more so when set against their usual lethargy.
Indeed, there is something about this scheme that makes me uncomfortable and it is getting far worse. Three names as already mentioned in the above comments are certainly linked in past business ventures, so what are the poster's suggesting?

The reported arrogant behaviour of the Councillor at this latest meeting confirms it would now be in the public interest to require an urgent independent review of this plan and a halt to progress pending the outcome. Because indecent haste usually means just that.
[quote][p][bold]Bob49[/bold] wrote: There does appear an unhealthy (even by our council's standards) desperation to hand this publicly owned land over to private concerns. You have to wonder what their motivation is - more so when set against their usual lethargy.[/p][/quote]Indeed, there is something about this scheme that makes me uncomfortable and it is getting far worse. Three names as already mentioned in the above comments are certainly linked in past business ventures, so what are the poster's suggesting? The reported arrogant behaviour of the Councillor at this latest meeting confirms it would now be in the public interest to require an urgent independent review of this plan and a halt to progress pending the outcome. Because indecent haste usually means just that. muscliffman

1:07pm Sun 14 Jul 13

hrryseccombe says...

My question to the council employees and elected representatives at the Boscombe Forum, was, 'were they aware that leading regeneration architect John Burrell of Burrell, Foley and Fischer, in London, raised concerns over the current Gladstone Mews plans stating in a letter to Bournemouth 2026 and John Beesley that "There are also the concerns relating to the most beneficial use of the site in terms of the layout and the maximisation of its development potential that I mentioned. There are likely to be significant ongoing ‘in use’ management, sustainability security and safety issues that must be addressed and it’s very important that these are all discussed before commitments are made and options foreclosed on." I stated that John Burrell offered to come down and offer his services free to achieve a better usage of the site and despite an hour phone call to Debbie Clifton of Bournemouth 2026 his offer was not taken up and Cllr John Beesley didn't reply.'

Cllr Lawton's curt response to my question was a simple "I can confirm John Beesley did not respond to the letter."

So it seems that the council intends to go ahead with the plans to build this development ignoring the likelihood of significant practical and social problems that are likely to come into effect as a result, as was the fear of many of the adjoining residents and property owners, who sent individual letters of objection to the Planning Board last year.

It seems the council either has no will to, or great difficulty in, succesfully engaging with the community, and addressing the legitimate concerns of the local residents who will be affected directly by the new development or the wider community who are suffering at the loss of use of the facilities over the last 5years, not to mention the future generations of children and adults who will suffer as no replacement community and arts centre (of a similar capacity) is being put forward, as confirmed by Cllr Jane Kelly at the Boscombe Forum meeting.
My question to the council employees and elected representatives at the Boscombe Forum, was, 'were they aware that leading regeneration architect John Burrell of Burrell, Foley and Fischer, in London, raised concerns over the current Gladstone Mews plans stating in a letter to Bournemouth 2026 and John Beesley that "There are also the concerns relating to the most beneficial use of the site in terms of the layout and the maximisation of its development potential that I mentioned. There are likely to be significant ongoing ‘in use’ management, sustainability security and safety issues that must be addressed and it’s very important that these are all discussed before commitments are made and options foreclosed on." I stated that John Burrell offered to come down and offer his services free to achieve a better usage of the site and despite an hour phone call to Debbie Clifton of Bournemouth 2026 his offer was not taken up and Cllr John Beesley didn't reply.' Cllr Lawton's curt response to my question was a simple "I can confirm John Beesley did not respond to the letter." So it seems that the council intends to go ahead with the plans to build this development ignoring the likelihood of significant practical and social problems that are likely to come into effect as a result, as was the fear of many of the adjoining residents and property owners, who sent individual letters of objection to the Planning Board last year. It seems the council either has no will to, or great difficulty in, succesfully engaging with the community, and addressing the legitimate concerns of the local residents who will be affected directly by the new development or the wider community who are suffering at the loss of use of the facilities over the last 5years, not to mention the future generations of children and adults who will suffer as no replacement community and arts centre (of a similar capacity) is being put forward, as confirmed by Cllr Jane Kelly at the Boscombe Forum meeting. hrryseccombe

1:20pm Sun 14 Jul 13

hrryseccombe says...

Here is a letter from The Theatre's trust To the BCCA friends that confirms what we all know to be obvious, that the retention and use of this facility would be extremely beneficial to the regeneration efforts and would greatly help the community to become less fractured and work together better for the benefit of the area. A goal we can all agree is the right way forward.


"12 July 2013








The Theatres Trust have worked closely with the Friends of Boscombe Community Centre for the Arts throughout their campaign to save the BCCA from demolition, and fully supported their campaign to have it listed as an asset of community value.



In our view the BCCA is a significant heritage asset for Boscombe, and we fully support the Friends in their view that a building of this size has considerable potential. We agree that is very unlikely that a much smaller building would have the potential to make a significant difference.



The BCCA could form the hub for a range of creative activities – ranging from a creative industries hub to a visitor centre and a theatre/cinema space - which altogether could play an important part in the regeneration of Boscombe. In our experience, theatres and arts centres very often have an important role to play in regeneration schemes, and can be a real asset in the development of community cohesion.



The news that demolition notices have been posted around the site is of considerable concern, and we fully support the Friends as they continue to campaign.



Please do let us know if there is anything else that we can do to assist you.





With all best wishes







Rebecca Morland

Theatres Adviser

The Theatres Trust"
Here is a letter from The Theatre's trust To the BCCA friends that confirms what we all know to be obvious, that the retention and use of this facility would be extremely beneficial to the regeneration efforts and would greatly help the community to become less fractured and work together better for the benefit of the area. A goal we can all agree is the right way forward. "12 July 2013 The Theatres Trust have worked closely with the Friends of Boscombe Community Centre for the Arts throughout their campaign to save the BCCA from demolition, and fully supported their campaign to have it listed as an asset of community value. In our view the BCCA is a significant heritage asset for Boscombe, and we fully support the Friends in their view that a building of this size has considerable potential. We agree that is very unlikely that a much smaller building would have the potential to make a significant difference. The BCCA could form the hub for a range of creative activities – ranging from a creative industries hub to a visitor centre and a theatre/cinema space - which altogether could play an important part in the regeneration of Boscombe. In our experience, theatres and arts centres very often have an important role to play in regeneration schemes, and can be a real asset in the development of community cohesion. The news that demolition notices have been posted around the site is of considerable concern, and we fully support the Friends as they continue to campaign. Please do let us know if there is anything else that we can do to assist you. With all best wishes Rebecca Morland Theatres Adviser The Theatres Trust" hrryseccombe

3:24pm Sun 14 Jul 13

SFF says...

After yesterday in particular I strongly feel that the Community of Central Boscombe has no faith in the Boscombe Regeneration Group. There is never any money for central Boscombe and they eye up any asset with greedy eyes.

In my opinion they will pack as many folk as they can into Boscombe just to get council tax which they can spend on the area south of Owls Road. Funny that the Councillor who is on Bournemouth 2026, The Boscombe Regeneration Group, The Forum, BCIC - Jane Kelly lives south of Owls Road. How can one person have so much influence in taking our council tax to spruce up her own backyard? Surely this is a massive conflict of interest?

Surely there is a standards committee who should be looking into where funds are coming from and where they are going.
After yesterday in particular I strongly feel that the Community of Central Boscombe has no faith in the Boscombe Regeneration Group. There is never any money for central Boscombe and they eye up any asset with greedy eyes. In my opinion they will pack as many folk as they can into Boscombe just to get council tax which they can spend on the area south of Owls Road. Funny that the Councillor who is on Bournemouth 2026, The Boscombe Regeneration Group, The Forum, BCIC - Jane Kelly lives south of Owls Road. How can one person have so much influence in taking our council tax to spruce up her own backyard? Surely this is a massive conflict of interest? Surely there is a standards committee who should be looking into where funds are coming from and where they are going. SFF

4:26pm Sun 14 Jul 13

Roger West Ate My Hamster says...

Then vote Jane Kelly out at the next local election.I didn' rate her anyway.And while we're at it take Wakefield and Stanley Watts too.
Then vote Jane Kelly out at the next local election.I didn' rate her anyway.And while we're at it take Wakefield and Stanley Watts too. Roger West Ate My Hamster

8:01pm Sun 14 Jul 13

SFF says...

Roger West Ate My Hamster wrote:
Then vote Jane Kelly out at the next local election.I didn' rate her anyway.And while we're at it take Wakefield and Stanley Watts too.
I think the community needs to make a real effort to attract and vote in a candidate who will actually represent our interests. I think they have got a bit complacent that locals will vote for a particular party rather than on issues.

The election is probably only a year away now and we need to ensure that the whole Bournemouth electorate, but especially Boscombe is aware of the names of those who treat their constituents this shamefully.
[quote][p][bold]Roger West Ate My Hamster[/bold] wrote: Then vote Jane Kelly out at the next local election.I didn' rate her anyway.And while we're at it take Wakefield and Stanley Watts too.[/p][/quote]I think the community needs to make a real effort to attract and vote in a candidate who will actually represent our interests. I think they have got a bit complacent that locals will vote for a particular party rather than on issues. The election is probably only a year away now and we need to ensure that the whole Bournemouth electorate, but especially Boscombe is aware of the names of those who treat their constituents this shamefully. SFF

12:02pm Mon 15 Jul 13

MIKIEDEE says...

its quite simple....the building was for the whole off boscombe why not approach the shelley family and put it back in their name as it is not going to be used for the purpose of the community??? covenent broke take back...
its quite simple....the building was for the whole off boscombe why not approach the shelley family and put it back in their name as it is not going to be used for the purpose of the community??? covenent broke take back... MIKIEDEE

8:40am Tue 16 Jul 13

Alwyn_Ladell says...

Cllr John Beesley is right that: “The development of family housing and a creative hub do a great deal to regenerate the local area" and that “the development would give first time buyers the chance to own their own home at an affordable price and would offer additional facilities to benefit the whole community in Boscombe.” ... BUT why does it have to be at the cost of this community facility which is clearly highly valued? The strength of the campaign surely demonstrates that the price is too high for benefits that are too small: a few families would benefit, but many people would lose a facility they cherish.

I have happy memories of attending the drama centre forty years ago and a certain nostalgia for the site - though, as an argument, that would be "hopelessly without merit" if there were not better justifications. The business case that the BCCA has put forward (with named participants signed up) is credible because they made it work before. It may not make the short term pot of gold that redevelopment would provide but, in terms of investment in Boscombe, it does offer value for money and proven support.

The historic Shelley school buildings (which are an important part of Boscombe's early history and MUST be protected), are not directly threatened by the Council's plan, but the removal of the ancillary buildings would make their future (especially as an educational facility) much more difficult (like living in a house without a kitchen, loo and bathroom!). Moreover, the demolition of the caretaker's lodgings DOES damage the street scene as it is unequivocally part of the original pattern of semi-detached houses (knocking them down and replacing them with smaller boxes is not an improvement).

As with many challenges to Council plans, this campaign has attracted a certain "hippy" element which may not endear it to everyone, and may even be counter-productive. The BCCA plans are not for a haven of counter-culture, drugs, and unwashed subversive elements! The workshops, skill-teaching and self-help clinics are an imaginative mix of traditional and 21st century schemes that meet the Shelley vision in a sustainable and viable manner which complements the way the site has evolved and yet remained rooted in the community. I do hope the District Auditor takes the appeal seriously as it does have merit: there are and must be other sites for affordable housing but there is only one Shelley legacy educational establishment and Boscombe has had too much of it's character and identity damaged already. The BCCA does have a case.
Cllr John Beesley is right that: “The development of family housing and a creative hub [would] do a great deal to regenerate the local area" and that “the development would give first time buyers the chance to own their own home at an affordable price and would offer additional facilities to benefit the whole community in Boscombe.” ... BUT why does it have to be at the cost of this community facility which is clearly highly valued? The strength of the campaign surely demonstrates that the price is too high for benefits that are too small: a few families would benefit, but many people would lose a facility they cherish. I have happy memories of attending the drama centre forty years ago and a certain nostalgia for the site - though, as an argument, that would be "hopelessly without merit" if there were not better justifications. The business case that the BCCA has put forward (with named participants signed up) is credible because they made it work before. It may not make the short term pot of gold that redevelopment would provide but, in terms of investment in Boscombe, it does offer value for money and proven support. The historic Shelley school buildings (which are an important part of Boscombe's early history and MUST be protected), are not directly threatened by the Council's plan, but the removal of the ancillary buildings would make their future (especially as an educational facility) much more difficult (like living in a house without a kitchen, loo and bathroom!). Moreover, the demolition of the caretaker's lodgings DOES damage the street scene as it is unequivocally part of the original pattern of semi-detached houses (knocking them down and replacing them with smaller boxes is not an improvement). As with many challenges to Council plans, this campaign has attracted a certain "hippy" element which may not endear it to everyone, and may even be counter-productive. The BCCA plans are not for a haven of counter-culture, drugs, and unwashed subversive elements! The workshops, skill-teaching and self-help clinics are an imaginative mix of traditional and 21st century schemes that meet the Shelley vision in a sustainable and viable manner which complements the way the site has evolved and yet remained rooted in the community. I do hope the District Auditor takes the appeal seriously as it does have merit: there are and must be other sites for affordable housing but there is only one Shelley legacy educational establishment and Boscombe has had too much of it's character and identity damaged already. The BCCA does have a case. Alwyn_Ladell

12:21pm Tue 16 Jul 13

greybeard1 says...

I attended the Saturday meeting and was horrified by the bullying and failure to respect others views. These actions came from the BCCA group, who seem to be far more interested in self promotion than regeneration and improving and building a community. We were treated to almost 2 hours of people competing with each other to create the best hysterical outburst and applauding each other for their dramatic abilities. Unfortunately not one of them had anything concrete to suggest, and it was impossible to spot a question amongst the hysteria. Much work has been done and is being done to improve the area we live in. Can we please stop wasting time and tax payers money on fanciful schemes, get real and get on with it.
I attended the Saturday meeting and was horrified by the bullying and failure to respect others views. These actions came from the BCCA group, who seem to be far more interested in self promotion than regeneration and improving and building a community. We were treated to almost 2 hours of people competing with each other to create the best hysterical outburst and applauding each other for their dramatic abilities. Unfortunately not one of them had anything concrete to suggest, and it was impossible to spot a question amongst the hysteria. Much work has been done and is being done to improve the area we live in. Can we please stop wasting time and tax payers money on fanciful schemes, get real and get on with it. greybeard1

12:31pm Tue 16 Jul 13

jinglebell says...

Alwyn_Ladell wrote:
Cllr John Beesley is right that: “The development of family housing and a creative hub do a great deal to regenerate the local area" and that “the development would give first time buyers the chance to own their own home at an affordable price and would offer additional facilities to benefit the whole community in Boscombe.” ... BUT why does it have to be at the cost of this community facility which is clearly highly valued? The strength of the campaign surely demonstrates that the price is too high for benefits that are too small: a few families would benefit, but many people would lose a facility they cherish.

I have happy memories of attending the drama centre forty years ago and a certain nostalgia for the site - though, as an argument, that would be "hopelessly without merit" if there were not better justifications. The business case that the BCCA has put forward (with named participants signed up) is credible because they made it work before. It may not make the short term pot of gold that redevelopment would provide but, in terms of investment in Boscombe, it does offer value for money and proven support.

The historic Shelley school buildings (which are an important part of Boscombe's early history and MUST be protected), are not directly threatened by the Council's plan, but the removal of the ancillary buildings would make their future (especially as an educational facility) much more difficult (like living in a house without a kitchen, loo and bathroom!). Moreover, the demolition of the caretaker's lodgings DOES damage the street scene as it is unequivocally part of the original pattern of semi-detached houses (knocking them down and replacing them with smaller boxes is not an improvement).

As with many challenges to Council plans, this campaign has attracted a certain "hippy" element which may not endear it to everyone, and may even be counter-productive. The BCCA plans are not for a haven of counter-culture, drugs, and unwashed subversive elements! The workshops, skill-teaching and self-help clinics are an imaginative mix of traditional and 21st century schemes that meet the Shelley vision in a sustainable and viable manner which complements the way the site has evolved and yet remained rooted in the community. I do hope the District Auditor takes the appeal seriously as it does have merit: there are and must be other sites for affordable housing but there is only one Shelley legacy educational establishment and Boscombe has had too much of it's character and identity damaged already. The BCCA does have a case.
If Joanna Lumley or Glenda Jackson or even American actors like Kevin Spacey knew about this they would be horrified, indeed most actors, directors or writers and playwrights would probably lend their support, which personally at this stage is what is needed.
I cannot imagine just how disgusted Prince Charles would be especially as he is so passionate about saving heritage and using it to regenerate deprived areas. No doubt, Dame Sybil Thorndike, who was a patron of the BCCA is turning in her grave alongside the eminent Percy Bysshe Shelley and Mary Shelley.
Especially when you consider Mary Shelley's deep veneration of her mother Mary Wollstonecraft, the 18th century advocate of women's rights, and writer, no doubt they are shouting a call to arms right now!
Perhaps new ghostly tales will tell of the fate of those who are shameless in their dishonour of Sir Percy's honourable promise to the community.
[quote][p][bold]Alwyn_Ladell[/bold] wrote: Cllr John Beesley is right that: “The development of family housing and a creative hub [would] do a great deal to regenerate the local area" and that “the development would give first time buyers the chance to own their own home at an affordable price and would offer additional facilities to benefit the whole community in Boscombe.” ... BUT why does it have to be at the cost of this community facility which is clearly highly valued? The strength of the campaign surely demonstrates that the price is too high for benefits that are too small: a few families would benefit, but many people would lose a facility they cherish. I have happy memories of attending the drama centre forty years ago and a certain nostalgia for the site - though, as an argument, that would be "hopelessly without merit" if there were not better justifications. The business case that the BCCA has put forward (with named participants signed up) is credible because they made it work before. It may not make the short term pot of gold that redevelopment would provide but, in terms of investment in Boscombe, it does offer value for money and proven support. The historic Shelley school buildings (which are an important part of Boscombe's early history and MUST be protected), are not directly threatened by the Council's plan, but the removal of the ancillary buildings would make their future (especially as an educational facility) much more difficult (like living in a house without a kitchen, loo and bathroom!). Moreover, the demolition of the caretaker's lodgings DOES damage the street scene as it is unequivocally part of the original pattern of semi-detached houses (knocking them down and replacing them with smaller boxes is not an improvement). As with many challenges to Council plans, this campaign has attracted a certain "hippy" element which may not endear it to everyone, and may even be counter-productive. The BCCA plans are not for a haven of counter-culture, drugs, and unwashed subversive elements! The workshops, skill-teaching and self-help clinics are an imaginative mix of traditional and 21st century schemes that meet the Shelley vision in a sustainable and viable manner which complements the way the site has evolved and yet remained rooted in the community. I do hope the District Auditor takes the appeal seriously as it does have merit: there are and must be other sites for affordable housing but there is only one Shelley legacy educational establishment and Boscombe has had too much of it's character and identity damaged already. The BCCA does have a case.[/p][/quote]If Joanna Lumley or Glenda Jackson or even American actors like Kevin Spacey knew about this they would be horrified, indeed most actors, directors or writers and playwrights would probably lend their support, which personally at this stage is what is needed. I cannot imagine just how disgusted Prince Charles would be especially as he is so passionate about saving heritage and using it to regenerate deprived areas. No doubt, Dame Sybil Thorndike, who was a patron of the BCCA is turning in her grave alongside the eminent Percy Bysshe Shelley and Mary Shelley. Especially when you consider Mary Shelley's deep veneration of her mother Mary Wollstonecraft, the 18th century advocate of women's rights, and writer, no doubt they are shouting a call to arms right now! Perhaps new ghostly tales will tell of the fate of those who are shameless in their dishonour of Sir Percy's honourable promise to the community. jinglebell

12:46pm Tue 16 Jul 13

jinglebell says...

I've just seen this on the BCCA's Facebook page....Boscombe Arts and I think it just about sums up how people feel...
"Lets play the imagination game with this site.... Can you imagine a museum dedicated to the Shelley's and the Bournemouth writers circle and to the first childrens theatre in the country? Can you imagine an arts cinema and a community theatre space, working in conjunction with the grand Boscombe Shelley Theatre, can you imagine poetry workshops and expressive dance, can you imagine a community Victorian themed cafe with play area and creche while you shop at the largest indoor shopping precinct in Bournemouth, can you imagine thriving social enterprises, can you imagine tourists flocking to Boscombe to investigate its historic links to the Shelley family, can you imagine this Centre serving the needs of a much wider community being so close to the Boscombe bus station, can you imagine social cohesion and children laughing and playing and learning, can you imagine close links to the arts university and increased retention and reversal of our arts 'brain-drain', can you imagine people wanting to live near a thriving social centre of excellence, can you imagine families moving in and buying property in the area, can you imagine the Centre being a catalyst to social regeneration, can you imagine increased trade for struggling Boscombe businesses, can you imagine a place for advice and support of vulnerable local people, can you imagine arts and craft fairs and jumble sales and meet and greets and community forums and carboot sales happening here, can you imagine children and adults learning new skills and socialising in the real world rather than on social media, can you imagine pottery and photography, film making and dressmaking, can you imagine gardening and design, can you imagine IT and digital technologies? Can you imagine this and so much more potential, or do you see 3 small rooms and 11 small 2 bedroom houses?
I've just seen this on the BCCA's Facebook page....Boscombe Arts and I think it just about sums up how people feel... "Lets play the imagination game with this site.... Can you imagine a museum dedicated to the Shelley's and the Bournemouth writers circle and to the first childrens theatre in the country? Can you imagine an arts cinema and a community theatre space, working in conjunction with the grand Boscombe Shelley Theatre, can you imagine poetry workshops and expressive dance, can you imagine a community Victorian themed cafe with play area and creche while you shop at the largest indoor shopping precinct in Bournemouth, can you imagine thriving social enterprises, can you imagine tourists flocking to Boscombe to investigate its historic links to the Shelley family, can you imagine this Centre serving the needs of a much wider community being so close to the Boscombe bus station, can you imagine social cohesion and children laughing and playing and learning, can you imagine close links to the arts university and increased retention and reversal of our arts 'brain-drain', can you imagine people wanting to live near a thriving social centre of excellence, can you imagine families moving in and buying property in the area, can you imagine the Centre being a catalyst to social regeneration, can you imagine increased trade for struggling Boscombe businesses, can you imagine a place for advice and support of vulnerable local people, can you imagine arts and craft fairs and jumble sales and meet and greets and community forums and carboot sales happening here, can you imagine children and adults learning new skills and socialising in the real world rather than on social media, can you imagine pottery and photography, film making and dressmaking, can you imagine gardening and design, can you imagine IT and digital technologies? Can you imagine this and so much more potential, or do you see 3 small rooms and 11 small 2 bedroom houses? jinglebell

2:28pm Tue 16 Jul 13

jinglebell says...

greybeard1 wrote:
I attended the Saturday meeting and was horrified by the bullying and failure to respect others views. These actions came from the BCCA group, who seem to be far more interested in self promotion than regeneration and improving and building a community. We were treated to almost 2 hours of people competing with each other to create the best hysterical outburst and applauding each other for their dramatic abilities. Unfortunately not one of them had anything concrete to suggest, and it was impossible to spot a question amongst the hysteria. Much work has been done and is being done to improve the area we live in. Can we please stop wasting time and tax payers money on fanciful schemes, get real and get on with it.
I also attended the meeting. There was no bullying from the BCCA group. What I saw was a community outraged but controlled and asking intelligent, reasonable questions about their home, the future of their businesses and their children's futures. There were questions from residents, several teachers and a woman from social services, shop keepers and business owners and from young people.
As a woman representing a residents group from the East Cliff (as we all know, a wealthy area nearby) said, they are sick of the Council bulldozing their decisions through without consulting communities. She said that we are not little pockets here and there which the Council like to keep separate but one community and that what happens in the centre of Boscombe effects what happens on the East Cliff too and that it all spills over, so the sooner all the groups get together and the Council see just how many of us are fed up with them not listening, the better.
It is ludicrous to try and pretend to us that 3 rooms and 11 houses will improve Boscombe when we all know that far better plans for regeneration were widely spread to the community by BCCA Friends - AND BCCA Friends' plan was what the community said was needed, because they really did go and consult with the community AND they have groups signed up wanting to go in.
Also, at one of these forum meetings the Business connector, Ms. Logan said she has about 100 groups or individuals ready signed up to go into an enterprise centre ....but when I asked one of the group members the other day was it still happening, they said they can't find anywhere to go and it was a shame the BCCA is going to be demolished as it would be perfect....so here we are set to see even more entrepreneurs sent off to another town....more opportunities lost to Boscombe!
As for saying that "much work has been done and is being done to improve the area we live in.." what work exactly? You cannot pull the wool over people's eyes when they live and work in Boscombe and see for themselves the Council's determination to let Boscombe get even worse!
Lots of questions were asked and suggestions put forward but the answers from the Council were either obscure or showed their arrogance and disinterest.
The worst had to be when someone asked if the Council were considering putting another community centre back in place of the BCCA. The response from a Councillor was that they would consider what the results were from the community consultation. She was then asked if the Council would wait until the consultation was examined before demolishing the BCCA. She said they would not. She was then asked again if the Council were going to examine the report before demolishing and she repeated that they would demolish first, then look at the report!!!
[quote][p][bold]greybeard1[/bold] wrote: I attended the Saturday meeting and was horrified by the bullying and failure to respect others views. These actions came from the BCCA group, who seem to be far more interested in self promotion than regeneration and improving and building a community. We were treated to almost 2 hours of people competing with each other to create the best hysterical outburst and applauding each other for their dramatic abilities. Unfortunately not one of them had anything concrete to suggest, and it was impossible to spot a question amongst the hysteria. Much work has been done and is being done to improve the area we live in. Can we please stop wasting time and tax payers money on fanciful schemes, get real and get on with it.[/p][/quote]I also attended the meeting. There was no bullying from the BCCA group. What I saw was a community outraged but controlled and asking intelligent, reasonable questions about their home, the future of their businesses and their children's futures. There were questions from residents, several teachers and a woman from social services, shop keepers and business owners and from young people. As a woman representing a residents group from the East Cliff (as we all know, a wealthy area nearby) said, they are sick of the Council bulldozing their decisions through without consulting communities. She said that we are not little pockets here and there which the Council like to keep separate but one community and that what happens in the centre of Boscombe effects what happens on the East Cliff too and that it all spills over, so the sooner all the groups get together and the Council see just how many of us are fed up with them not listening, the better. It is ludicrous to try and pretend to us that 3 rooms and 11 houses will improve Boscombe when we all know that far better plans for regeneration were widely spread to the community by BCCA Friends - AND BCCA Friends' plan was what the community said was needed, because they really did go and consult with the community AND they have groups signed up wanting to go in. Also, at one of these forum meetings the Business connector, Ms. Logan said she has about 100 groups or individuals ready signed up to go into an enterprise centre ....but when I asked one of the group members the other day was it still happening, they said they can't find anywhere to go and it was a shame the BCCA is going to be demolished as it would be perfect....so here we are set to see even more entrepreneurs sent off to another town....more opportunities lost to Boscombe! As for saying that "much work has been done and is being done to improve the area we live in.." what work exactly? You cannot pull the wool over people's eyes when they live and work in Boscombe and see for themselves the Council's determination to let Boscombe get even worse! Lots of questions were asked and suggestions put forward but the answers from the Council were either obscure or showed their arrogance and disinterest. The worst had to be when someone asked if the Council were considering putting another community centre back in place of the BCCA. The response from a Councillor was that they would consider what the results were from the community consultation. She was then asked if the Council would wait until the consultation was examined before demolishing the BCCA. She said they would not. She was then asked again if the Council were going to examine the report before demolishing and she repeated that they would demolish first, then look at the report!!! jinglebell

12:02pm Wed 17 Jul 13

greybeard1 says...

Jinglebell- If you attended previous meetings of the forum, a local homewatch meeting or other local forums where you live, assuming it's in Boscombe, you would have the opportunity to see what is being done and speak directly to those doing it; councilors, police chief, local police officers, council officers, local wardens and members of the community. However, you and your group chose to impose your self interest view on the majority of a two hour meeting. If you had allowed those present to speak you would have discovered the work being done. For example: youth club, surestart center, youth project, serious and effective work to remove street prostitution, closure of properties where drug dealing is commonplace, restriction of areas used for drug dealing to mention just a few. All of these have been done in discussion with the local community and all are making a big difference.
I note with interest that your expectation is that the community will pay the cost of your group, at least that's what it says in your letter. Maybe you should make this clear first, then produce a proper business plan; show who will run your center and how they will run it; show how any funds generated will be distributed and how those who seek to run it will be elected, since I have presumed this is a community lead idea. At the meeting, nothing was said about this and no one was given the opportunity to ask. Incidentally, if you look around the town you will see that there are no end of opportunities for entrepreneurs already.
As for the lady who referred to 'little pockets' I would refer you and her to what has already been achieved by consultation. She should check the map and see how far the East Cliff extends. With regard to consultation, who did the BCCA consult with? I live in the community and I'm still waiting to be asked, as are many others in my road.
Jinglebell- If you attended previous meetings of the forum, a local homewatch meeting or other local forums where you live, assuming it's in Boscombe, you would have the opportunity to see what is being done and speak directly to those doing it; councilors, police chief, local police officers, council officers, local wardens and members of the community. However, you and your group chose to impose your self interest view on the majority of a two hour meeting. If you had allowed those present to speak you would have discovered the work being done. For example: youth club, surestart center, youth project, serious and effective work to remove street prostitution, closure of properties where drug dealing is commonplace, restriction of areas used for drug dealing to mention just a few. All of these have been done in discussion with the local community and all are making a big difference. I note with interest that your expectation is that the community will pay the cost of your group, at least that's what it says in your letter. Maybe you should make this clear first, then produce a proper business plan; show who will run your center and how they will run it; show how any funds generated will be distributed and how those who seek to run it will be elected, since I have presumed this is a community lead idea. At the meeting, nothing was said about this and no one was given the opportunity to ask. Incidentally, if you look around the town you will see that there are no end of opportunities for entrepreneurs already. As for the lady who referred to 'little pockets' I would refer you and her to what has already been achieved by consultation. She should check the map and see how far the East Cliff extends. With regard to consultation, who did the BCCA consult with? I live in the community and I'm still waiting to be asked, as are many others in my road. greybeard1

6:52pm Fri 19 Jul 13

hrryseccombe says...

I was at the meeting and only saw two people from Friends of Bcca group, and only one spoke that was ms Edgar, and she asked 2 questions, the rest of the questions came from local residents with serious concerns. The forum meeting was well managed as always, this time chaired by Brie Logan the business connector for prince Charles's business in the community charity, instead of John Browne who was unavailable. Everybody had an equal chance to speak.
I for one, am not a member of the Bcca, but am highly concerned at a community heritage asset being demolished for poorly designed 'affordable housing' when we are trying to regenerate the area. Housing is important and affordable homes should be found but there are other sites than a 23 room much loved, community space held in trust by the council. I am also highly alarmed at the way a deceptive and misleading report was used to get this scheme through planning, and also the highly misleading way Jane Kelly used the judgement regarding the judicial review which concerned the case was deemed out of time, and chose an out of context quote from the ruling to make it appear that the evidence in the case was without merit, I have read the judgement and it does not even look at the merits of the evidence against the council, it was only a permission stage of the hearing.

I can understand the outrage felt by the community because at no stage of this scheme, have the community been consulted, apart from a highly questionable planning meeting that saw 938 written objections from the community as well as a 700 strong petition against. Two councillors are on record stating they felt misled, this is highly alarming. This is not the actions of the friends of the Bcca, this is the voice of the community united against an extremely unpopular development and loss of facilities and heritage and resources, in a deprived area, forced through with no public consultation. Is this really democracy in action, and if it is there is something very wrong here.
I was at the meeting and only saw two people from Friends of Bcca group, and only one spoke that was ms Edgar, and she asked 2 questions, the rest of the questions came from local residents with serious concerns. The forum meeting was well managed as always, this time chaired by Brie Logan the business connector for prince Charles's business in the community charity, instead of John Browne who was unavailable. Everybody had an equal chance to speak. I for one, am not a member of the Bcca, but am highly concerned at a community heritage asset being demolished for poorly designed 'affordable housing' when we are trying to regenerate the area. Housing is important and affordable homes should be found but there are other sites than a 23 room much loved, community space held in trust by the council. I am also highly alarmed at the way a deceptive and misleading report was used to get this scheme through planning, and also the highly misleading way Jane Kelly used the judgement regarding the judicial review which concerned the case was deemed out of time, and chose an out of context quote from the ruling to make it appear that the evidence in the case was without merit, I have read the judgement and it does not even look at the merits of the evidence against the council, it was only a permission stage of the hearing. I can understand the outrage felt by the community because at no stage of this scheme, have the community been consulted, apart from a highly questionable planning meeting that saw 938 written objections from the community as well as a 700 strong petition against. Two councillors are on record stating they felt misled, this is highly alarming. This is not the actions of the friends of the Bcca, this is the voice of the community united against an extremely unpopular development and loss of facilities and heritage and resources, in a deprived area, forced through with no public consultation. Is this really democracy in action, and if it is there is something very wrong here. hrryseccombe

8:22pm Tue 23 Jul 13

SFF says...

I found out about the plight of the BCCA because Katherine of the Friends of the BCCA was in the Sovereign Centre talking to people about it and . There have been 2 information days in the Cellar Bar that were very well attended. Many people also went in to see the centre when it was being Occupied.

If the community is so in favour of the affordable housing scheme why were there 938 objections and only 2 in favour of the planning application?

There seems to always be smears that the people who want the BCCA to remain open have something to gain from it. Well I can confess that I do. I want proper regeneration in Central Boscombe, not our assets given away.

A lady spoke most eloquently about the particular need for community centres in a multi cultural area. Last week we were driving through Boscombe and my son heard the most vile abuse being hurled at a young moslem lady just trying to do some shopping in Aldi. Where else can we have integration other than in a proper non religious community centre. They haven't found anything to replace the BCCA, they have no firm promise of it. The only firm plan the council has is the demolition of the best asset in Central Boscombe. The Council listed a GP surgery, a disused toilet and several bars as like for like with the BCCA. They are spending all that money mapping the area for community provision and are demolishing the centre before it is published. That is because the report will say what we all know - for the density of the population we are woefully underserved with community facilities and activities for our children.
I found out about the plight of the BCCA because Katherine of the Friends of the BCCA was in the Sovereign Centre talking to people about it and . There have been 2 information days in the Cellar Bar that were very well attended. Many people also went in to see the centre when it was being Occupied. If the community is so in favour of the affordable housing scheme why were there 938 objections and only 2 in favour of the planning application? There seems to always be smears that the people who want the BCCA to remain open have something to gain from it. Well I can confess that I do. I want proper regeneration in Central Boscombe, not our assets given away. A lady spoke most eloquently about the particular need for community centres in a multi cultural area. Last week we were driving through Boscombe and my son heard the most vile abuse being hurled at a young moslem lady just trying to do some shopping in Aldi. Where else can we have integration other than in a proper non religious community centre. They haven't found anything to replace the BCCA, they have no firm promise of it. The only firm plan the council has is the demolition of the best asset in Central Boscombe. The Council listed a GP surgery, a disused toilet and several bars as like for like with the BCCA. They are spending all that money mapping the area for community provision and are demolishing the centre before it is published. That is because the report will say what we all know - for the density of the population we are woefully underserved with community facilities and activities for our children. SFF

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