Dizzy Posted June 14, 2010 Report Share Posted June 14, 2010 Notice on the front page news that our Deputy Leader Councillor Keith Bland has just been awarded an MBE by the queen are for services to the community in Warrington See you at 6pm tonight SHA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted June 14, 2010 Report Share Posted June 14, 2010 I'll be there... in my tank! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted June 14, 2010 Report Share Posted June 14, 2010 Interesting reading... seems Mr Farrall is still not telling the whole 'story' and only answering what he 'feels like' answering under the submitted FOI Request http://www.savewaltongardens.co.uk/?p=372 and also http://www.savewaltongardens.co.uk/?p=351 I hope the Executive Board are going to QUESTION him on these same points too tonight along with many more questions !!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maser Posted June 18, 2010 Report Share Posted June 18, 2010 Does anyone know if the Council agreed to enter into any binding agreement with Contessa Hotels at Monday nights meeting. I seem to be finding slightly conflicting reports on the www. Malcom sounds as if he is saying they did here? http://www.savewaltongardens.co.uk/?p=376 And then David's report sounds as if they didn't? http://www.warrington-worldwide.co.uk/articles/8242/1/200-demonstrate-over-Walton-Hall-plan/Page1.html Also I have emails from several Councillors on the Executive commitee who assured me that no decisions would be made at the meeting. Would be really grateful if someone could shed some light on this. Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted June 18, 2010 Report Share Posted June 18, 2010 Have no idea sorry as it's all really confusing All I know is that at Monday's meeting where 'the public were allowed to listen' the exec board approved : 1 To agree to the the draft master plan and the details of the potential 'PARTNERS? proposals for public consultation (The potential partnerS now being Contessa AND Myrescough College(spelling?)) A lot of emphasis was made by Cllr Marks and others on the fact that there were now TWO so called partners ??? WHY THE SUDDEN EMPHASIS as if it's not blindingly obvious 2 To approve the continued discussions with the potential partners who were not allowed to be named (everyone all know they are Contessa so big deal ) to ensure the Council obtains the desired regeneration outcomes as an important project within the wider Regeneration Framework. So all in all the outcome was for a full and proper public consultation Although in the bit that the public and press were excluded from they did also agree to 3 To talk to the existing tenant occupiers and take reasonable steps to secure alternative premises for them. REASON...for any scheme to go ahead to enable the regeneration of the site it is necessary to formally bring to an end each respective third party occupation (cant read my own writing sorry but you get the idea) 4 To approve the ?appropriation? (Section 237 of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act) of the remaining area of the estate still covered by the restrictive covenant. HOW DARE THEY !!!!! Saying that it may come back to haunt them if they go down that 'route' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted June 18, 2010 Report Share Posted June 18, 2010 Have no idea sorry as it's all really confusing All I know is that at Monday's meeting where 'the public were allowed to listen' the exec board approved : 1 To agree to the the draft master plan and the details of the potential 'PARTNERS? proposals for public consultation (The potential partnerS now being Contessa AND Myrescough College(spelling?)) A lot of emphasis was made by Cllr Marks and others on the fact that there were now TWO so called partners ??? WHY THE SUDDEN EMPHASIS as if it's not blindingly obvious 2 To approve the continued discussions with the potential partners who were not allowed to be named (everyone all knows they are Contessa so big deal ) to ensure the Council obtains the desired regeneration outcomes as an important project within the wider Regeneration Framework. So all in all the outcome was for a full and proper public consultation Although in the bit that the public and press were excluded from they did also agree to 3 To talk to the existing tenant occupiers and take reasonable steps to secure alternative premises for them. REASON...for any scheme to go ahead to enable the regeneration of the site it is necessary to formally bring to an end each respective third party occupation (cant read my own writing sorry but you get the idea) 4 To approve the ?appropriation? (Section 237 of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act) of the remaining area of the estate still covered by the restrictive covenant. HOW DARE THEY !!!!! Saying that it may come back to haunt them if they go down that 'route' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted June 18, 2010 Report Share Posted June 18, 2010 Allegedly, the decision re. Walton Hall was taken 2 or 3 years ago, according to a reliable source. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maser Posted June 19, 2010 Report Share Posted June 19, 2010 Cheers Dizzy So would it be correct do we think that this is all PR to eventually force through the Contessa deal? Why are they persisting with vacant possession on all the building, are they going to be telling the approx 60 members of the dwindling Golf Club (under WBC supervision - a sorry tale of loss of income) soon that there membership is no longer required? Clearly all Walton Park income streams are no longer required this year and our park will gradually become nothing more than a field this year - unbelievable. Based upon published figures and accounting for sound commercial stewardship of the park - one would hope, I estimate the income of the park this year would be in the region of ?1,383,066, YES approx ?1.4 Million pounds and the Council can afford to make this kind of loss this year? So the Council is loaded then? How will they be replacing this loss I wonder, are there any plans, is there any financial accountability over this cock up? Councillor training ( joke) should involve running a sweet M shop for 12 months to provide a modicum of commercial sense! Generally you couldn't make all this up could you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disgusted Posted June 19, 2010 Report Share Posted June 19, 2010 Why are they persisting with vacant possession on all the building, are they going to be telling the approx 60 members of the dwindling Golf Club (under WBC supervision - a sorry tale of loss of income) soon that there membership is no longer required?Membership is I believe now dropped as low as 50. We were talking about this the other day, and the way the golf club has been handled can only be deliberate, everything possible has been done to annoy the membership, taking the lease of the club house back, scheduling functions during playing hours, even the professional does everything possible to hinder the club. If there was an example of how to get rid of a mambership, this would make a great case study, the conclusion therefore is that it has to have been deliberate, and clearly the golf course will become a facility of the hotel, or sold of completely and seperately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sha Posted June 23, 2010 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 Allegedly, the decision re. Walton Hall was taken 2 or 3 years ago, according to a reliable source. Decisions have been taken re Walton Hall in the last couple of years, but any such decisions cannot be held as 'reliable' ...allegedly! And there are those who were aware that those decisions were being made, who it might have been expected would have brought this information fully into the public domain but who in this respect were 'unreliable' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sha Posted June 24, 2010 Author Report Share Posted June 24, 2010 [quote name="fatshaft ...........If there was an example of how to get rid of a membership' date=' this would make a great case study, the conclusion therefore is that it has to have been deliberate,............[/quote] The whole estate at present could be used as an example for how to deter trade and quickly degenerate to operating at a loss. It's not only the golf course fatshaft it seems to be the same all over the estate. The closure of the cafe must have made some people cut their visits. This also would have caused profit loss. The cost of weddings rose dramatically and not surprisingly resulted in reduction of bookings...more profit loss. Walton Hall has very quickly become a 'drain' on public resources. However I believe questions are being asked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted June 24, 2010 Report Share Posted June 24, 2010 Questions seem to be being 'asked' on a lot of council decisions at the moment Sha and strangely enough by other councillors. But will it make any difference by them 'asking'... I wont hold my breath just yet if that's ok Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted June 26, 2010 Report Share Posted June 26, 2010 Well it seems the public consultation is now 'on hold' as the decision has been called-in to the scrutinee committee. Depending on the committees decision in July 'depends' on what happens next. Shame in a way as there was supposed to be a stand at next weeks Disability Awareness Day (as recomended by one of the exec board members) detailing the proposals and raising public awareness. It would have been a great opportunity for all those users of the park and facilities from slighttly further afield WHO SO FAR MAY STILL KNOW NOTHING to at least become aware of what is proposed and for their views to be taken into account too. Have to wonder about the whole call in process though as the committee who will be dealing with it are the Overview & Scrutiny Committee for Environment and Housing... made up of 5 Lib Dems, 1 Conservative and 5 Labour. To that's 6 votes in favour to possibly 5 against from the outset You know what though... I'm starting to not to really care anymore as whatever they 'want' they 'get' eventually We can always go out for days elsewhere or better still stay in at home and avoid the pollen ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle Posted June 26, 2010 Report Share Posted June 26, 2010 You know what though... I'm starting to not to really care anymore I decided that on page three. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted June 27, 2010 Report Share Posted June 27, 2010 But you obviously couldn't resist the temptation to keep reading though otherwise you wouldn't have just posted on page 13 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sha Posted June 28, 2010 Author Report Share Posted June 28, 2010 You know what though... I'm starting to not to really care anymore as whatever they 'want' they 'get' eventually I decided that on page three. "They" get what "they" want eventually...............because others just sit back too defeatist or apathetic to stop them!!! After "them" having run roughshod over people's opinions for some years there are now very many people who are angry rather than apathetic and who will not sit back defeatist!!! 17,000+ (and increasing daily) is a hell of a good fighting force!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle Posted June 28, 2010 Report Share Posted June 28, 2010 Only slightly off topic, I was bowling at the Stag in Walton and was charged ?3.05 for a pint of Fosters. The next time I go anywhere near Walton again you have my permission to have me sectioned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sha Posted June 28, 2010 Author Report Share Posted June 28, 2010 Well if Walton Hall and Gardens ends up in the hands of a commercial enterprise we'll probably be expected to pay that much for a cup of coffee!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted June 28, 2010 Report Share Posted June 28, 2010 You know what though... I'm starting to not to really care anymore as whatever they 'want' they 'get' eventually I decided that on page three. "They" get what "they" want eventually...............because others just sit back too defeatist or apathetic to stop them!!! After "them" having run roughshod over people's opinions for some years there are now very many people who are angry rather than apathetic and who will not sit back defeatist!!! 17,000+ (and increasing daily) is a hell of a good fighting force!!! Problem is that they keep getting voted back in, so they think they are doing the right thing. We'll be alright soon. Neighbourhood management is going to be the voice of the people. oops that should read voice of the parish councils. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sha Posted June 29, 2010 Author Report Share Posted June 29, 2010 [quote name="Peter T Problem is that they keep getting voted back in' date=' so they think they are doing the right thing. We'll be alright soon. Neighbourhood management is going to be the voice of the people. oops that should read voice of the parish councils.[/quote] The main players have been getting voted back in because they they live in Lymm.........and because they tend to leave Lymm alone. Elsewhere in the town where they've been imposing their 'great visionary ideas' they took a good thrashing in the last elections and will no doubt take a worst one in the next. As for Neighbourhood management Peter........'the people' have no real 'voice' in these teams. They appear to be set up merely as an aid to phoney 'public' consultations. Whatever, it's an historical fact that politicians and all their sad little schemes of social control can crumble like dust when the masses rise! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted June 29, 2010 Report Share Posted June 29, 2010 The masses have to be hungry to get them to rebel. Not many hungry starving people in the UK!!!!!! As for Neighbourhood management, to make it work it has to involve residents, who just aren't interested in anything outside of their little bubble, therefore the Parish cllrs tend to have the most sway. Not aware of any issues that could be seen as phoney consultations of any description. A thrashing in the elections in my book would be at least a 50% swing in wards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted June 29, 2010 Report Share Posted June 29, 2010 Are you losing your memory Peter or has it been wiped for you Check out today's blog page on the Save WG web site of you like seeing people 'thrashed'. Not suprising though as PK's comments in his newsletter shocked and angered me too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
byrdy Posted June 29, 2010 Report Share Posted June 29, 2010 Hmmm,strange how once councilors get elected,they disappear from this forum...........Paul & Geoff spring to mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted June 29, 2010 Report Share Posted June 29, 2010 Are you losing your memory Peter or has it been wiped for you Check out today's blog page on the Save WG web site of you like seeing people 'thrashed'. Not suprising though as PK's comments in his newsletter shocked and angered me too Confused!!!!. I haven't seen the blog page never mind commented on it. Can you cut and paste it? I thought that the only comment I have made was about the alleged consulting methods that the council favours. There are several people in Warrington with my name. In fact, I was visiting Intensive Care a couple of years back. and stood between two beds, with a namesake on either side of me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted June 30, 2010 Report Share Posted June 30, 2010 Peter calm down I never said YOU had written anything on their blog page nor did I say anyone else called Peter who could have been mistaken as being you had written anything either Your response was soooo funny and made me giggle I could just visualise you sat there getting all irate with me The blog page is written by 'Malcolm' and rather than cut and paste the reply to PK and other blog info here's a direct link http://www.savewaltongardens.co.uk/?page_id=19 PS the coment I made about you losing your memory or having it wiped was in response to your comments of residents not being interested in anything outside of their little bubble [b[and you [/b]Not being aware of any issues that could be seen as phoney consultations of any description. Walton Gardens (6701 online petition signatures, plus 1000's more from pubs etc etc plus over 18000 facebook members) Bewsey Old Hall (over 1000 local petition signatures) Stockton Heath Primary (5145 petition signatures - 86% of which were from Warrington people) plus backing from Victorian society etc etc Woolston High School (over 1000 petition signatures) Longbard Primary School (unknown) .....to name just a few where consultation came too late to change the plans that had ALREADY been made and all were approved regardless of public opinion Here's hoping Walton Gardens does not follow the usual method but considering what's been spent so far I doubt it will go back to stage one for a rethink Can I get back to doing my work now, no wonder I am 3 days behind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.