Saturday, May 15, 2010

Need money?

If you represent a non-profit making organisation in Swanage, have you seen the ad in the Advertiser offering grants of typically up to £1000 from the De Moulham Trust? For more information, look at the ad on page 15 of this week's (May 13) issue. Guidelines and application forms on the website:  or phone 01929 423636 or via email

Applications must be received by 4pm on 30th June.


Anonymous said...

Please note that this is nothing to do with the Mowlem Theatre. It is a trust controlled by the town council which gets its income from what amounts to a "bedroom tax" on developments on the De Moulham Estate. The freeholds there contain restrictive covenants and they charge to change them.The money must be spent on culture or sports and benefit the people of Swanage. The advert says grants of up to £1000 but there is nothing in the terms of the trust.restricting it in this way.

How the word "benefit" is construed is not spelt out. Does it mean activities which are intended to be indulged in or attended by Swanage inhabitants exclusively or is it broader. For instance would it fund a festival of some type which would benefit the town by bringing in money even though the festival events were attended mainly by outsiders? We all benefit from making the place more prosperous.

There always seems to be a disconnect in council thinking on this point, both by the town and district bodies. Some of you may remember the abortive draft cultural strategy produced by PDC some years ago which categorically excluded the possibility of council money going to anything used by outsiders, despite our economy depending on our ability to attract them and maximise their spend here. Any thoughts Mr Postman?

Anonymous said...

Talking about “bedroom tax”, a guy in the pub last night was saying that presumably our new MP Drax will be all in favour of its complete reintroduction on any additional building to fund the new Sandford bypass. He said much of the land for the new bypass will need to be purchased from the Drax estate.

Anonymous said...

Dearey me, which pub as that knowa-ll in. So far as I am aware "A" class road construction is funded by the government not the highway authority? PDC, which levied the tax, is not a highway authority in any case, its DCC which does roads. How does Drax come into this? He is nothing to do with either council. The Sandford bypass is history as the land cannot be used because of the damage it would do to wildlife habitats. I don't know what they are putting in the beer in your pub but it must be good.

You could of course write to Mr Drax and ask his views on the destruction of wildlife habitats to speed up the traffic.

Anonymous said...
A£%! is specifically named.
Circular 05/2005 ‘Planning Obligations’ is national policy so of course Drax could become involved and he presumably stands to make a lot of money.

Anonymous said...

Yes, yes. But all the rest of the nations infrastructure projects are funded by borrowing or private finance whereas the man in the pub thinks PDC, which has nothing to do with road building, wants to levy a tax to build a bypass. Pity they don't have any legal power to build it. I'm amazed you took him seriously enough to post it on here.ungran

Anonymous said...

say what you like but the fact remains if you don't pay your infrastructure tax (or enter into an agreement to do so) PDC will refuse planning permission. The guy in the pub never suggested that PDC would build the road, just that they will be collecting the finance, and Drax could influence how it is levied, especially if he has an interest in one particular project.

Anonymous said...

But the finance does not come from local taxation. It does not come from PDC either. The money from the bedroom tax is spent on ameliorating the effects of the bypass not being built, according to PDC, the precise opposite of funding the road from it.

Was the man in the pub aware that the overarching policy of PDC is preserving Purbeck, to the extent that the leader of the council, Bill Trite, resigned to be free-er to fight against building large number of houses. Their entire posture is deeply opposed to the environmental destruction a bypass would entail.

As I have already said, I am amazed you thought this piece of "analysis" was worth passing on to the world.

Anonymous said...

Well if you really think a cycleway between Wareham and Upton is going to take the queues of traffic off the A351 I admire your confidence in whole scheming bunch.

Anonymous said...

I do wonder about the people who blog on here, the most likely option is that the B3075 will be widened - major owner - Forestry Commission.

That's what DCC suggest, and that's most likely.

Anonymous said...

"Well if you really think a cycleway between Wareham and Upton is going to take the queues of traffic off the A351 I admire your confidence in whole scheming bunch."

I was only saying what PDC have said they intend to spend the money on. I make no comment on its effect. So far as I know DCC are scraping round for the money to cut the sharp corner where the B3075 meets the A35. This has been the position for several years, more or less since the bypass scheme was killed off.

Its an interesting reflection that none of the modern estates in Sandford would be permitted under the current rules. Enemies of mediocre ticky-tacky housing may regret it took so long to stop the erosion of heathlands. I understand 86% of Dorset's heathland has now been lost.