Question Double standards?

[onceknownasrab]

http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/loc...en_screen_cinema_planned_for_Southend/?ref=ec

My whole point. The council bending over and taking it between the cheeks because they clearly want it so much. This scheme must have an impact on other areas of southend but I see no mention of the wedge being paid to the council by the developers.
I do see a major issue of car parking being glossed over as 'just detail'.

Said it before and I am just as convinced that this bloody council is more a thorn in the side of our stadium plans than it is a supporter.

I would like to see the council do an article about the stadium like this one in the Echo and make it all seem a matter of when not if and show they want it. It appears they are hellbent on pushing the cinema plan through regardless.

 

[davewebbsbrain]

Wouldnt that take away business from the Cinema in the high street. Definitely two faced

 

[OldBlueLady]

Seaway carpark? :stunned: Isn't parking near the front difficult enough? Don't see that this is the place for it.

 

[southchurch]

Before they build any thing on the sea front the council needs to sort out that Gas works building.
It's been half demolished and left for years now. It's a total eyesore. Put the cinema there.
It has got a lovely picture of a fantasy hotel hanging up outside to be fair.

 

[onceknownasrab]

Regardless of whether the project is right or wrong, the rhetoric used suggests a council full square behind the project and fully intent on seeing it happen. why can they not make our own project so cut and dried?

 

[OldBlueLady]

Before they build any thing on the sea front the council needs to sort out that Gas works building.
It's been half demolished and left for years now. It's a total eyesore. Put the cinema there.
It has got a lovely picture of a fantasy hotel hanging up outside to be fair.

That's not the Gas Works, that's Esplanade House, once part of card services for (I think) Lloyds, RBS and Nat West some years ago.

Regardless of whether the project is right or wrong, the rhetoric used suggests a council full square behind the project and fully intent on seeing it happen. why can they not make our own project so cut and dried?

I think we probably can guess at the reason! :winking:

 

[Cricko]

Regardless of whether the project is right or wrong, the rhetoric used suggests a council full square behind the project and fully intent on seeing it happen. why can they not make our own project so cut and dried?

It's hardly the Council who change the goalposts every few months, so I can't see how you can blame them.

 

[onceknownasrab]

It's hardly the Council who change the goalposts every few months, so I can't see how you can blame them.

It is not about blaming them. It is about the fact I can never recall, over decades, the council using the same rhetoric over the blues proposed move to a new stadium.

The way it reads you would believe the developer only needs to sign on the line and its job done.

 

[Cricko]

It is not about blaming them. It is about the fact I can never recall, over decades, the council using the same rhetoric over the blues proposed move to a new stadium.

The way it reads you would believe the developer only needs to sign on the line and its job done.

I guess that is because the council own the seaway carpark, so it is their ball.

 

[onceknownasrab]

I guess that is because the council own the seaway carpark, so it is their ball.

Their ball or not, this shows the kind of attitude a council can adopt with regard to a project. Lamb makes it sound like a foregone conclusion. If they are not supportive of FF come out and say it. If they do not support RM come out and say it. The council are answerable to the people of the town.

If a project has impact on the town and the council are prepared to accept it as long as six million quid comes their way will they be charging the developer of their project a similar sum or anything for impact?

 

[Cockle43]

That's not the Gas Works, that's Esplanade House, once part of card services for (I think) Lloyds, RBS and Nat West some years ago.

It was originally the headquarters of North Thames Gas before the banks took it over when NTG moved to Progress Road, there was a building in the car park which was the Gaslight Club which used to run a couple? of teams in the local football leagues. The old Gas Board offices, long demolished stood slightly to the East of the site on the seafront and after NTG moved into Estuary House became the HQ of the council's Pier and Foreshore Dept.

Ironically the Gas Works were originally sited there because Southend Borough Council refused them planning permission for the jetty with overhead gantry that ran across the seafront to get the coking coal from the barges into the gas works. The Gas Company cocked a snook at the council and built their jetty in Southchurch, which wasn't part of the Borough at the time, right up against the Southend/Southchurch boundary.

 

[OldBlueLady]

It was originally the headquarters of North Thames Gas before the banks took it over when NTG moved to Progress Road, there was a building in the car park which was the Gaslight Club which used to run a couple? of teams in the local football leagues. The old Gas Board offices, long demolished stood slightly to the East of the site on the seafront and after NTG moved into Estuary House became the HQ of the council's Pier and Foreshore Dept.

Ironically the Gas Works were originally sited there because Southend Borough Council refused them planning permission for the jetty with overhead gantry that ran across the seafront to get the coking coal from the barges into the gas works. The Gas Company cocked a snook at the council and built their jetty in Southchurch, which wasn't part of the Borough at the time, right up against the Southend/Southchurch boundary.

I stand corrected! I only remember the Gas Works building that was demolished!

 

[Firestorm]

Their ball or not, this shows the kind of attitude a council can adopt with regard to a project. Lamb makes it sound like a foregone conclusion. If they are not supportive of FF come out and say it. If they do not support RM come out and say it. The council are answerable to the people of the town.

If a project has impact on the town and the council are prepared to accept it as long as six million quid comes their way will they be charging the developer of their project a similar sum or anything for impact?

This development is in town and is felt will enhance the town centre (the chap from the Royals supports it) Our development is considered an out of town development, so much so that the original application was called in by the secretary of state.

 

[Jam_Man]

Their ball or not, this shows the kind of attitude a council can adopt with regard to a project. Lamb makes it sound like a foregone conclusion. If they are not supportive of FF come out and say it. If they do not support RM come out and say it. The council are answerable to the people of the town.

If a project has impact on the town and the council are prepared to accept it as long as six million quid comes their way will they be charging the developer of their project a similar sum or anything for impact?

The council unanimously agreed the stadium and have been behind it all the way.

Its our fault it isnt progressing as we cant afford to build it and we have been taking the **** with all parties with the way we have managed it.

If we didnt keep changing the plan and just built it then it would be built already.

 

[onceknownasrab]

The council unanimously agreed the stadium and have been behind it all the way.

Its our fault it isnt progressing as we cant afford to build it and we have been taking the **** with all parties with the way we have managed it.

If we didnt keep changing the plan and just built it then it would be built already.

I have never heard so much twaddle in my life. Decades of non assistance. We might be changing plans now, not our fault, just the way the times have worked against us. Jam Man I am not going to bother posting on this particular thread again because its like banging my head against a brick wall.

If the majority of people on this site want to believe that SBC have always been helpful and supportive then I know they are deluded. If you think SBC has done enough to get a new stadium, particularly with the benefits to SBC in mind, then I suggest you seek prescription medication for the neck up.

 

[Jam_Man]

I have never heard so much twaddle in my life. Decades of non assistance. We might be changing plans now, not our fault, just the way the times have worked against us. Jam Man I am not going to bother posting on this particular thread again because its like banging my head against a brick wall.

If the majority of people on this site want to believe that SBC have always been helpful and supportive then I know they are deluded. If you think SBC has done enough to get a new stadium, particularly with the benefits to SBC in mind, then I suggest you seek prescription medication for the neck up.

Decades of non assistance? Really ? Are you talking about the Jobson years, if so what relevance has that to today.

The council agreed the plans for the stadium 7 or 8 years ago. How is that them stopping the ground ?

How is it the councils fault that we dont have the money to build it and have had to delay it since they unanimously agreed to it.

As far as I can see the only delays are because we are changing the plans for what we got them to agree and the only delay at the moment is that we are withdrawing 3 million quid that was part of the planning. You can argue that its a reasonable request but its hardly surprising they want to review it.

The stadium hasnt been built because we cant finance it, you can say its not our fault and the fault of the economy, but that doesnt make it the councils fault.

 

[Cricko]

I have never heard so much twaddle in my life. Decades of non assistance. We might be changing plans now, not our fault, just the way the times have worked against us. Jam Man I am not going to bother posting on this particular thread again because its like banging my head against a brick wall.

If the majority of people on this site want to believe that SBC have always been helpful and supportive then I know they are deluded. If you think SBC has done enough to get a new stadium, particularly with the benefits to SBC in mind, then I suggest you seek prescription medication for the neck up.

I can't even begin to or can even be bothered to dissect this load of "Twaddle"..it is you Rab that are living in some delusional land of make believe.

:gun:

 

[ldnfatso]

Demolish the seafront and then there will be no need for car parks! The council can then build what they like where they like!

 

[OldBlueLady]

Demolish the seafront and then there will be no need for car parks! The council can then build what they like where they like!

How can you demolish a "seafront"? It's a coastal feature so not really possible to be demolished! :raspberry:

 

[bazzashrimper]

You can demolish a seafront by building on the sea. We need more piers