Shepton Mallet Says NO To Civic Hall

By Ed_2010 | Friday, November 25, 2011, 12:34

Shepton Mallet's registered voters were yesterday given the chance to answer the question as to whether or not it wanted a new Civic Hall built which would place the Town Council (the Town) in debt for something between 10 and 50 years. 488 people turned out and while 50 people said they were in favor of the idea, 438 people said they were not, sending a clear message to Town's elected representatives.

Shepton Mallet yesterday: A sign of democracy

Irene Handley, who led the opposition group who called for a referendum on the Civic Hall proposal said "it really is time for them to realize that their positions on the Town Council is to reflect the opinions of the electorate, and not their own individual pipe dreams!"

Despite the modest turnout, it was inspiring to see people such as one elderly gentleman who could barely walk make the effort to come out and voice an opinion, whether it is the one you agree with or not.

Regarding accusations that people were 'bussed in' to support the Civic Hall as a way of showing political allegiance, "you can take a horse to water..." said another elderly man who confessed that he had shown up to pledge his disapproval.

Certainly on the surface, public opinion has been strongly against the Civic Hall proposal from the outset and aside from the proposal itself, it has been received as a message, unfairly in many cases, that the Town Council does not listen to the electorate.

In the Skate Park meeting last week, Councillor Will Dunscombe claimed he had received various 'threats' and opted to abstain from the vote, when his only 'crime', from an onlookers point of view, would appear to be supporting a group from the local community, who are now empowered to forge ahead without further input from him. Being well versed with an issue and having a firm opinion on it counts as predetermination in political speak, apparently.

This must illustrate to all that the Council is not a single minded entity but a forum for a variety of different thoughts and opinions. Like all groups where different views and proposals are shared, there is disagreement and we only hope when we vote that the best interests of the Town ultimately shine through and are represented.

In the case of the Civic Hall, it was felt that 'political wranglings' might undermine this and so the public decided to take matters into their own hands, in the right and proper way, of course. History shows that such public 'pitching in' has made Britain what it is, from the smallest of protests to fully fledged revolutions, and so must be seen as a valid adjunct to the formalized leadership we default to, and an illustration of the freedom we enjoy.

That 'the Council' doesn't listen would therefore be a broad-brush judgement and we must remember that the Skate Park did get the support of the majority of the councillors who were eligible to vote and that there was opposition for the Civic Hall from within the council. Which ever side of the 'yes/no' debate you fall and however you feel about the Skate Park, this is democracy in action and it can only be encouraging that it is being pursued with passion from outside and from within our Town Council.

Re-post Write a story

Ads by Google

Comments

re: the Amulet (or whatever)

Thanks for that John - yes, I think it was about 12 years ago the idea of the Town Council using the Amulet/Centre/Academy/Doorstop as a base, and I agree that it was an excessive building for that purpose. Also, I believe as a chamber, it wouldn't have also been able to sell alcohol, so it would be a single use building, and the only way that building was ever going to work was as a multi-purpose building that was thoroughly utilized, and it never ever has been. I remember just the once when I was very young being taken to see some museum exhibits in an upstairs room, and there was also a show being held in the ballroom, which at that time doubled up as a cinema, and there was a disco planned for the Black Swan suite. Those times were few and far between and I have seen so many people come and go and even enjoyed some really good events in there.

It does sadden me to say, as Francis Showering was a family friend and I remember him as being a very nice chap who I believe meant well, but in the absence of it being heavily overhauled and put to good use (aint gonna happen) I would rather see it pulled down, the one way system extended and the return of front of shop parking a la pre 'the decade of demolition' (mid 60's-mid 70's).

Re the council stuff: One of the things I very much enjoy about this site/shepton.org is that it brings the council and those who want the best for the town but don't have the time to get involved actively, just that little bit closer. Knowing about the processes involved in chamber isn't useful to me directly (I never plan to stand for council) but it helps me/us to understand the process that drives the town. I have gained immense respect for those competent Councillors who do a good job with professionalism (which isn't all of them, sadly) in the name of the people of Shepton Mallet. Let's not forget they aren't paid!

re: Councillor Marvin stating the % of people who voted against...his 2011 election return was 469, so you can't say (less than symbols aren't allowed apparently, but 'less than') 6% matters one day and not the next, which ever side of the fence you sit. It was 10.2% in favor, 89.8% against - it would be undemocratic to ignore that outcome.

Never apologize for going off-topic Dano. We like off-topic!

By Ed_2010 at 16:59 on 28/11/11
Report
The Marvelettes were a three girl singing grpoup, from the 60's, who issued various tracks - including "Someday, someway".

The Marvinettes are a three girl group on Shepton Council, 60's related, with a leader who proclaims "Someday, someway".

By AndrewRain at 11:43 on 28/11/11
Report
John, yuo can't see the development from your back window so you could have spoken - just missed out every other word from your speech. As for voting I am rather worried that councillors vote on things in which they have no interest! Seriously, there have to be rules but where there is no personal financial interest (or indirect benefit) then it should be possible to vote. So, you should have been able to vote on the Skatepark and you should be able to vote on the golf club matter unless the grant was to reduce subs or you are a shareholder. Sometimes rules are applied far too rigidly.

As regards the Civic Hall a jnumber of people are aware that town counclioors give of their time willingly and without financial reward. Knowing that there is a finite amount of time it would be better if the use was prioritised and rainbow ends not chased. When councillors annouce that SMTC can borrow money at an interest rate that the Chancellor of the Exchequer can't get; when councillors indicate that there is a hypothecated tax system in operation and when councillors invoke The Queeen to justify such an erection then the populace worries. And when the leading proponent goes onto the local radio and says that the result is immaterial and that only 5.48% of the population are against it makes the whole town look stupid. Is there really merit in proceeding with any thinking at all when less than 1% of the population is in favour of the proposed methid of financing? For that is the Marvin logic.

By AndrewRain at 08:30 on 28/11/11
Report
I'll try to shed some light on the darkness.

In the last 10 years or so, the Amulet, or now renamed The Academy has not been in the Town Councils hands. Mendip did hold the lease for a period prior to 2003, during that period they did try to run it as a public building, however the lease that had been signed was a very poor one, the condition of the building and the equipment was such that it needed approximately £1.3 million spent on it to enable it to continue to be used. Mendip did not own the building, the owners are a company based in London, they merely had a lease.
After it was decided that we could no longer afford to plough public money into it, the lease was passed on to Coxley Developments who as far as I know still own it. They were the landlords during the ill fated Peforming Arts Academy period. The building is currently empty, however planning permission has just been granted to issue a licence to the bulding enabling it to be used as a public house.

For the record, I have always been against the building of a civic hall in Park Road, and I would equally be against using public money to convert the Academy into a civic hall, I voted in favour of the working party because I take decisions based on fact rather than gossip, and a working party would have put the matter to bed once and for all, all that has been acheived now is to spend £2000 of public money to reach a decision that the working party is quite likely to have reached free of charge.

The other thing that requires some explanation is when a councillor is barred from voting on a particular subject. If a decision is being made at a council that has a financial impact on a councillor, his or her family, property owned, businesses operated, or other bodies that the councillor is a member of then under the code of conduct that councillor should take no part in the debate, and should not vote. The individual is allowed to make a personal statement before the item is dicussed, but should then leave th eroom and take no further part.
In my case, as I am a member of Mendip District council, and the skate park debate had a financial impact on the district council, I was obliged to leave and not vote, this should also apply to other councillors if they find themselves in a similar position.
For example, I am also a member of Mendip Golf club, if the club were applying to the council for a grant, I would also be required to declare an interest and leave that meeting as well.
I know it seems bizarre to many people not involved with councils, unfortunately those are the rules we have to abide by. When I was first elected the main thrust of my campaign was the Norah Fry development, when I got elected I found I could not vote on th ematter as I can see it from my house, it is very frustrating sometimes!!!

By johnp2010 at 21:09 on 27/11/11
Report
Ed

Thanks for your feedback. Why should 'the ship have sailed'? Even if they had to stump up some money for the Amulet it would still be worth it. I'd rather see a currently unused building, right at the heart of our town, being used to it's best potential than to have a new building constructed (for 'our' benefit) and for it to be used in a manner that would not justify it's cost. And the cost can't be justified at this time in particular.

The Amulet is an asset almost begging to be made use of. Ideal time to do it, in my opinion.

As for Mr Dunscombe, if he would elaborate on what was said and by whom I'd just make sure that it was remembered when the people that made the threats stood for office again.

And if they are not, themselves, democratically elected by us, perhaps someone on the council should be looking at why they are doing this sort of thing....

I'll certainly make contact again if something I write doesn't get published!

By BusterGonad06 at 19:02 on 27/11/11
Report