CAMPAIGNERS hoping to restore historic Shelley Manor theatre have demanded full settlement of the money awarded to them almost a decade ago.

Bournemouth residents involved in the long-running project are querying what right the South West Regional Development Agency had to retract the money granted to Boscombe in 2000.

In 2000, the development agency invested £1.45million in Boscombe via a Single Regeneration Budget scheme to run for six years. When the scheme ended, there was almost £240,000 unspent. This was transferred back to the development agency on the condition it would be spent on Shelley Manor as the project progressed.

Its letter to Bournemouth council said: “£238,159 will be transferred from single regeneration budget to the Dorset Area Team for use on the Shelley Manor project only and within the time period April 2007 to March 2010.”

Bournemouth East MP Tobias Ellwood, a patron of Shelley Manor, is hoping new Communities Secretary John Denham will intervene.

“I’m furious the development agency is denying Shelley Manor funding it was promised,” he said. “I’ve asked for an urgent meeting with the minister and the development agency chief executive. Only by having a face-to-face meeting can I express the sheer anger felt by the Friends of Shelley Manor and residents who have had their hopes raised.”

Pat Clark, chair of the Friends said she was hopeful the development agancy would “admit its error in misunderstanding the financial commitment made to the Friends.”

Committee member Harry Cutler said: “This is absolutely dishonest. I represented the council on the single regeneration budget board. We had an assurance the money was safe. Now they won’t give it to us.”

But Tony Bray, the development agency’s Dorset area director, said they could have withdrawn the offer of funding for Shelley Manor when the single regeneration budget scheme ended in March 2007, but decided to keep faith with the project. He added Bournemouth council accepted the strict conditions that were put on the offer, none of which have been met.

“In the circumstances of the agency’s significantly reduced budget and need to find savings, together with the limited economic impact of he project, our board could only conclude that this was a project we could not continue to support,” he said.