A NEW SPORTS HALL FOR SWANAGE???
From PLANNING PURBECK'S FUTURE:
From the 19th January PDC report on Council Core Strategy - Key Issues Item 2.9:
In Swanage there is opportunity to investigate how a new sports hall could be provided for the benefit of residents.'
-----------------------------------
What do Swanageview's bloggers feel about the need for this, in light of all of the other priorities for the town? What facilities would you want to see it have?
Posted by Anonymous to swanageview at 8:14 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
103 comments:
PDC have plans to give us one - a Sports Centre that is!
Now show your knowledge, show that you have engaged with the outside world and tell me how I know it - it's available to the public - if you can be bothered to find it.
It would be only polite to give us the link. Thank you.
Posted by Anonymous to swanageview at 1:40 AM
Funding-It seems that there is pots of money available if it fits a certain criterior. So let find a pot that fits education and a sports centre. There is lottery funding available, similar to the Keystone Project funding.
The Purbeck Heritage Committee and community partners are pleased to have been awarded £1.4 million from the Heritage Lottery Fund to promote and celebrate the nature and culture of Purbeck's landscapes.
We want the programme to be as flexible as possible, and would therefore welcome applications either to modernise or enhance sporting facilities, or provide revenue funding for any aspect of sports development, or a combination of the two.
The total funding available is £10 million of National Lottery money.
Sport England.
The overall aim of this investment programme is to develop projects that encourage people living in rural communities to participate and / or sustain their participation in sport, and help those with talent fulfil their potential.
We can do this !
9:11 AM
Delete
Anonymous Anonymous said...
We so need this. But is has been discussed for 30 years. Remember the exhibition at the TIC about 5 years ago. The sites were identified and the builders seemed ready to start. What happened?
Posted by Anonymous to swanageview at 8:41 AM
9:11 AM
Delete
PLANNING PURBECK'S FUTURE
'19 January - report to Council Core Strategy
Key Issues 2.9:
In Swanage there is opportunity to investigate how a new sports hall
could be provided for the benefit of residents.'
Also Core Strategy 7.2.9 makes the same reference.
These are hardly firm undertakings by PDC. Have you found something better?
Posted by Anonymous to swanageview at 7:29 PM
I'm 6:44
".... partnership between STC and Darwin to develop the Vista into a better leisure centre...."
That'd put them in competition with what PDC are planning.
Unless you think Swanage should have two Sports Centres?
Posted by Anonymous to swanageview at 7:01 PM
It's interesting how this thread has meandered between inter-related topics - schools, transport, environmental issues and now sports centres. The common challenge appears to be funding, or lack thereof.
I will add another reason why Swanage could do with an sports centre - there is a lack of things for holiday makers, especially families with children, to do on wet, inclement days in Swanage. An indoor sports centre would remedy this.
Again, it comes down not just to the will, but to the money. The only pot of gold I can envisage to kick start any of these projects would be the money the town made from selling Swanage Bay View. But is this available for capital expenditure, or must it be invested for the future?
Although it was not perfect, the Vista up at SBV offered a Town Council operated pool, a gym and some other feature. These may, or may not, remain open to public under the new (private) owners. So any opportunity to possibly look at how that facility could better suit Swanage may be gone.
I would hasten to add that Sport Centres, and especially swimming pools, have high running costs and generally require subsidies from Councils or high ticket prices to cover running costs. Perhaps it is not too late to discuss a public/private partnership between STC and Darwin to develop the Vista into a better leisure centre open to not only the park's owners and guests, but to everyone in the town? Darwin may be interested in such a partnership. Just a thought.
Alternately, the the Middle School site would appear to have everything needed for a sport centre which could be built (and funded) in phases. I for one would be willing to vote for an increase in local property rates for this.
Posted by Anonymous to swanageview at 6:52 PM
"Keeping kids in Swanage may just propagate this 'what's best for Swanage' mentality, whilst ignoring bigger issues."
That was me wot posted that!
One of the subsequent posts supported that view, the rest, not.
Comments such as
"A few years ago PDC were trying to get a Sports Centre for Swanage"
Not to my knowledge.
They spent £11 or £12 thousand on a survey of what the people of Purbeck wanted. Top of the list, by quite a fair margin, was a Sports Centre in Swanage.
I was at the meeting where the Councils and various local bodies were discussing the survey. When they announced this I was ecstatic; only to be cut down when PDC said that this survey would be considered as 'for information only'.
I was gutted, but I learnt a very important lesson there, democracy and community involvement is a wonderful thing when those in power can afford it.
Now, all of you who are whining and moaning because we, stamp foot, should have a Sports Centre because we, stamp foot, deserve one, weeeellll, guess what
Oh dear, I am responding to 2.18 and supporting 11.47. I happen to be online at the moment.
A few years ago PDC were trying to get a Sports Centre for Swanage. Alot of time and effort was put into this. We were asked to join a group, led by PDC, to input our views with the aim to achieve this. Then it all went quiet, I don't know what happened to the pot of funding that must have been available to initiate these discussions.
I also know that Gary Suttle and one other councillor did not support the PDC's proposal to fund the more recent expansion of the gym at the Purbeck Sports Centre. I had previously raised the issue with Peter Aston (PDC Democratic Services Office), that the council minutes were (in my view and others) not detailed and did not record the way that councillors voted. It seems that we should be aware of how our councillors vote if we are to re-elect them. I also made my comments known to Gary. I was told that unless councillors specifically ask for their names to be recorded in the minutes, then this does not happen.
Gary wished for his name to be recorded as being against this proposal to finance the Purbeck School Gym.
Perhaps he was hoping that this funding would support a Sports Centre in Swanage ??
The council's Purbeck includes, Lytchett and Upton, it is an extensive area, it seems that we need facilities for Swanage, we are a larger town than Wareham.
The people of Swanage seem to be always trundling along the road to Wareham. PDC/DCC are trying to reduce traffic on the A351, but how does this happen between Swanage and Wareham, if we are for ever having to access facilities in Wareham.
Posted by Anonymous to swanageview at 6:23 PM
Swanage is often told it can't have a sports centre because it would jeopardise the one in Wareham. But the only thing that matters is if there would be enough custom here. If they built the other one in the wrong place it deserves to close.
There is enough custom here. If you were to ask all the 40-60 year olds how they spent their time about 25 years ago, many would say, at Harrow House sports club. It was amazing, it is such a shame that our own children have not experienced this. There was a great mix of people, doctors, builders, accountants. We should have been fighting for another sports facility, what happened we had children, were exhausted and took our eye off the ball! A Swanage sports facility could be sighted at the existing Middle School or ? future Swanage Secondary on this site, or on the old Grammar School Site.
Lets hope our older children feel up to fighting for a Swanage Sports Centre, 'cause after this school fiasco, I think some of us will be a bit worn out!
Antonio over to you !
Posted by Anonymous to swanageview at 6:01 PM
We so need this. But is has been discussed for 30 years. Remember the exhibition at the TIC about 5 years ago. The sites were identified and the builders seemed ready to start. What happened?
Posted by Anonymous to swanageview at 8:41 AM
..and I was at a Council meeting where I tried to get some guarantee that the Vista pool could continue to be used by the town in the same way, and the same Mr Suttle said "There's absolutely no need. Swanage has a perfectly good swimming pool. It's at the Purbeck Sports Centre."
I was at the same meeting, Postman.
So the official view of STC is for us to run our cars furiously up and down the A351 to take our kids to school, go for a swim, and whatever else?
So much for all the hot air about transport policies and sustainability emanating from the Council.
They had better build that superstore at Worgret then - with cheap petrol. We are going to need it!
Perhaps someone could investigate whether Swanage is the largest town in Dorset without a Sport Centre, they may find it is the largest town in this country without one.
There is an absolute need for good local amenities, if the councillors don't think this is the case, then its time to replace them.
They spent £11 or £12 thousand on a survey of what the people of Purbeck wanted. Top of the list, by quite a fair margin, was a Sports Centre in Swanage.
What was the outcome of this survey?
If you'd read my post just a little further, you'd have read this,
"...PDC said that this survey would be considered as 'for information only'."
If you'd read my post just a little further, you'd have read this,
"...PDC said that this survey would be considered as 'for information only'."
So what was the purpose in the first place. Was it just a waste of tax payers money !
Do you know how much the DCC school review consultation has cost.
Ask Bill Trite.
Deja vu is not what it used to be. A few years ago PDC employed someone on a fixed term contract to do the research into what was needed and fill in the funding application form. At the end of the six months she departed and nobody had thought to ask if she had sent the form off. It was in fact discovered in her desk some months later by which time the Sports England funding scheme had closed.
SWRDA turn up here from time to time promising the earth if we indulge in some of their boy scout community planning nonsense. Not many years ago funding was apparently available from them but the argument was over whether to put the thing at the side of the middle school site, close to where the largest concentration of young people live, of adjacent to the old grammar school site, the latter being favoured by the them mayor. That was when we had the plans shown at the TIC. It was all put on ice while DCC decided what to do with the schools in Purbeck and now the end of that protracted process is in sight it is being dusted off.
This is all so depressing !!
I want to scream..what is going on in Purbeck, is there no joined up thinking at all? So much time seems to have been wasted, while a whole generation of children have missed out on a sports facility.
There seems to be too much time discussing a policy for this and a policy for that, and they don't really mean that much at the end of the day, just a load of subjective jargon that no one understands. Perhaps its just a case of getting on with it ourselves, surely we know of someone rich that would like to see Swanage become bit more vibrant than it is now. eg Jonathon Ross and...
Lets get these plans back off the ice, and do something. It seems that Swanage has been left in limbo for too long !
VAT going up to 20% after the next elections, whoever wins,........
Reduced public borrowing and spending promised by both parties............
Greece on the verge of default......possible domino effect throughout the Eurozone......the pound will not be immune.......Pressure will increase on the British exchequer....
An inflation increase will loom towards the end of 2010, with interest rates increased to counter it........
Swanage Town Council in shortage of funds, with many hundreds of thousands less income coming in, due to the sale of Swanage Bay View, its 'cash cow' (the former mayor's own words).......
Shops closing; homes foreclosing; less in business and personal property rates coming in.......
Ergo......There are no 'pots' of money in Swanage, Purbeck, Dorset or Whitehall waiting to be discovered for a new sports centre/hall! Get over it.
The same goes for the new secondary school 'fantasy'. It won't happen now because there won't be the funding for it. End of story.
The sports centre at Purbeck is excellent. Twenty minutes away by W&D. What's the problem with that?
The same for Purbeck School. My children are very happy there, and we are happy for them to be there. What's the problem?
'Perhaps its just a case of getting on with it ourselves, surely we know of someone rich that would like to see Swanage become bit more vibrant than it is now. eg Jonathon Ross and...'
Why pick on JR? Look, ask STC/PDC for a referendum to apply an increase on local property and business rates so that a bond can be sold to pay for this. Or get STC to spends the 7.25 million from Swanage Bay View on this. Stop expecting Father Christmas to bring the money down some imagined chimney........
I helped a town the size of Swanage raise money for its leisure centre - it took ten years but we got there. It is a public/private arrangement between DC Leisure and North Norfolk County Council. The whole community worked on this - it was hard but rewarding to do it ourselves.
Swanage will have to do the same, to have this asset here. Form a community trust with STC. Form a leisure centre committee, and start fund raising. Here's a challenge......convince STC that, for every pound raised through public endeavour, STC will match it with one pound from the SBV funds. Get businesses and sponsors to do the same.
Sorry, but I've enjoyed it!
PDC have plans that include:
new health centre
new hospital
new sports centre
refurb of Swanage footie club
and others.
OK, these aren't set in stone, but they will be paid for by the developers. PDC will use their (our) newly revamped Section 106 powers so that when the developers build between 650 and 1000 new homes in Swanage they will pay for all, or some of the above.
Source:
http://www.purbeck.gov.uk/land__premises/local_development_framework/core_strategy.aspx
Scroll 'til you find - Documents
then
Core Strategy - Planning
Open and read the 128 page pdf document. The Swanage housing plans are about pg 53 onwards.
Sorry, if the link in the last post doesn't work, then use this one
http://tinyurl.com/yc7a7vl
This is the old consultation document. I referred to the more recent PDC document of 19 January which replaces it.
Your document is out of date now and irrelevant due to the docs of 19 January.
Want to see how effective these deals between property developers and Councils work? Just have a look at the fiasco between Bournemouth Council and Barratt Homes over the surf reef development.
Good try!
"An inflation increase will loom towards the end of 2010,"
If only. A vigorous inflation is the only thing that can destroy the real value of the deficit. This is how all previous deficits were paid off. I realise this a heretical view after decades of being told inflation is a bad thing, (mainly by the owners of the money that looses its value.)
One question though, what mechanism is going to push inflation up? It can't be demand for goods and services as that is stagnant or falling, it can't be pressure for pay rises with unemployment at a peak. None of the factors that produce inflation are in place so far as I can see. The risk of deflation is far higher, a tory government will apply its one and only cure of bleeding the patient and cut spending, labour will be panicked into doing the same if it is in power. Less government spending = more unemployment = less demand = falling prices and wages. I suggest you look at the 1930s and 1870s (the latter was known as "The Great Depression" until they hada a greater one in the 30s.
Nope!
It's still the current plan. Sure, it will evolve, but it's based on PDC's approx 2,000 homes needed, that hasn't changed.
Section 106 has got a bad name and isn't easy to enforce, but it's our best chance of raising money.
If PDC have any sense, then they'll look at where 106 has been used successfully and replicate that.
Excessive borrowing or 'printing money', both of which this gov't is doing, will produce inflation. Both dilute the value of money, especially in foreign exchanges, where the UK is heavily exposed.
Section 106 depends upon the agreement of the developer.
He has to make a profit, too.
If say in order to get permission to build the maximum number of new homes in Swanage - 1000 - a developer has to build a new sports/leisure centre which costs say 10 million pounds, that is a per house premium of 10000 pounds.
Seems a lot for the market to bear, and the number of new homes could be less and the leisure centre costs more. Also, who will pay for the running costs of the leisure centre, which is always high and requires considerable subsidies??
I still think sorting out transport issues between Swanage and Worgret is the answer in the short to medium term to the school/leisure centre/superstore issues and fits in with existing thinking.
Seems a lot for the market to bear, and the number of new homes could be less and the leisure centre costs more. Also, who will pay for the running costs of the leisure centre, which is always high and requires considerable subsidies??
Leisure centres are often high because of a large heated swimming pool, not so expensive to maintain without one.
How much do courts, and a cafe/bar cost to maintain ? It would create employment for Swanage and give families something to do.
To travel to Purbeck for an hours worth of sport, ie game of squash, short tennis, does not economically or environmentally make sense.
So, now you begin to see PDC's thinking coming together!
I can see 4 answers
1 train - likely
2 Corfe bypass - unlikely
3 considerable widening of Corfe to Studland Rd
4 one way system, using above rd, turning Corfe to Swanage to Corfe into a circle, if you get my drift.
While you're at it you may as well make Studland hill one way - down and the golf club road one way - up.
Section 106 used properly is not a problem, Cousin Ken managed to get up to 90% affordable housing and many community centres built.
Also, bear in mind that your £10 million sports centre costs a fraction of that to build. The developer is there, their workers are there, they're already laying the services and there won't be any planning issues - well, apart from a few NIMBYS.
Sorry
Edit of point 4
"...using above rd, turning Corfe..."
should be
...using above rd as it is, turning Corfe...
'Also, bear in mind that your £10 million sports centre costs a fraction of that to build. The developer is there, their workers are there, they're already laying the services and there won't be any planning issues - well, apart from a few NIMBYS.'
Not necessarily true.....it would have to go out to tender. 'They are laying on the services' - where? Is a site already designated?
I agree it could start off modestly, but I would suggest it should have the scope to be added on to in the future as/if needs require it and when funding returns. It would seem smart to place it next to or on to the SMS site so it could be used by schools, too.
from http://www.sportsfacilitiesgroup.co.uk/ballhall.htm
'Contains one full-size and two practice basketball courts, six badminton courts and four cricket bays. It includes changing rooms, staff office and small fitness room AND on the first floor, five classrooms, the whole project was built for an all in price of £1.1m'
-Sutton Grammar School, Surrey
The tendering is done in the original bid to build the 650 to 1000 houses, part of that will be Section 106 and discussions between PDC and the developer as to what the developer does for the community.
Therefore, as I said, everything is in place and so much cheaper.
sorry, forgot to say that the Ball Hall seems very good - just a shame they look like glorified Nissan huts!
Still, that can always be designed out.
Is it then, that to get a sports complex, we have to get it on the back of unaffordable housing that we don't need, and supermarkets that we dont need either.
In all my life in Swanage, I have never known such chaos abound !!
I hope there is an overall plan for all of this, and its not like the commercial road/Kings road development, where it seems that many different developers have been involved with no overall plan taken into account.
If all this development does take place we should insist that local builders and craftspeople are used, this should keep a few people in employment for a few years. Another box ticked.
'sorry, forgot to say that the Ball Hall seems very good - just a shame they look like glorified Nissan huts!'
A row of Leylandii screens most bad architecture!
Too bad we can't plant a forest of it around the Mowlem - or the Pierhead wreck as well!
Joking aside, I have seen these buildings adapted to blend in with local architecture - well, to a degree! Purbeck stone facing, for example.
Let's hope the Council insists on new houses that don't look like ticky-tacky, but complement Swanage vernacular architecture.
But NOT another Poundbury!
8.42:
Certainly not unaffordable, but lots of affordable housing must be created, or Swanage will be strangled. Affordable housing for those with local jobs only. NOT the weekenders/second home owners.
A new Supermarket at Worgret, not Swanage. It is needed for Purbeck as a whole; we should not have to drive to Poole. Local shops CAN survive (if they adapt).
Leave schools alone for the time being. No chaos/change there.
High speed internet throughout Swanage (40mb minimum) to encourage home based businesses in an area which has little scope of other new industry. A new initiative for education and support for these businesses within the town.
I support your desire for other older jobs, such as builders, to be given the first bite of the apple for the changes and development to come.
Sport hall - now. Swimming - in the future. Let's dream dreams, but let's keep Swanage what it is while adapting for a new economy. Selling ice cream to tourists is not the future, the internet is.
I assure you there are legions of parents in the Home Counties who would kill to be able work from, and to raise their children, in Swanage.
We tend to look at problems in Swanage and ask 'WHY?'.
Bill Gates or Steve Jobs would look at possibilities in a place as tranquil and beautiful as Swanage and say, 'WHY NOT?" Silicon Valley was nothing 30 years ago.
THAT is the future. Don't be afraid. Carpe diem.
"Excessive borrowing or 'printing money', both of which this gov't is doing, will produce inflation."
I wish this was going to happen but in the present state of demand how do firms make price rises stick? How do people get inflationary pay rises with a couple of million unemployed. If you look back to when we had high inflation in the seventies we also had only a few hundred thousand on the dole.
At the time, there was much discussion by a certain type of economist of models intended to calculate the the level of unemployment needed to reduce inflation to an acceptable level. (I know because I have their work on my bookshelf). This was translated into practical policy by you know who in 1979 when interest rates were pushed up. As a result both the pound and unemployment shot up and inflation fell. The cure turned out to be a lot worse than the disease and we lost a large chunk of our manufacturing capacity because of the high value of the pound, reduced demand and the cost of money. I am very much afraid we will see exactly the same nut-house policies applied shortly and the recession madeworse.
I see your quandary. I agree; UK-produced products cannot justify price hikes by themselves. What will cause inflation will be imports, which will cost more as the pound deflates. It has begun already. It is foreign trade, mostly imports, upon which Britain relies. UK products will raise prices in line; inflation will follow.
The only good news is that those with bonds and interest bearing savings accounts will receive higher interest rates.
The next few years will be far worse than things are at present, no matter who is elected. Expect a massive hangover from the binge of 13 years of New Labour. 8-12% interest rates within two years, perhaps up to 18%, with 20% VAT.
Anybody up for a party??
With the biggest risk being a double dip I still find it hard to see much in the way of inflationary pressures, apart from the short term effect of the VAT cut ending and pushing it up for a month or two. Do we need to look further than a simple demand and supply model? After years of demand being sustained through ever increasing credit where is the demand to create inflation to come from? There is no sign of the banks rushing to expand lending. We have had a period of deficit spending propping up the economy and that prop is about to be removed. Inflation is rapidly becoming a folk memory.
Mervyn King has announced that interest rates will rise to 3% before dropping back to 2% toward the end of 2010. What cannot be foreseen will be the effect of spikes in energy costs. The UK oil and natural gas supplies are fast running out and we are now net importers of both; it is likely oil and gas prices will continue to rise well above inflation and other indicis; hence they will contribute to a net rise in inflation on a year-by-year basis. The pound, already under pressure to remain below $1.70, is unlikely to strengthen, thus making imports more expensive and exports cheaper; both factors will contribute to a rise in CPI/RPI and a fall in trade balances.
Inflation isn't the sole fear; it will be kept in check by a rise in interest rates by the Bank of England. It is this rise that will affect our pockets the most.
We are well off topic....except that this will affect plans to build new schools, sports centres and other infrastructure.......so it has some relevance.
"Mervyn King has announced that interest rates will rise to 3% before dropping back to 2% toward the end of 2010"
I think you will find that he was talking about the inflation rate not the bank rate. According to the Telegraph's report of the Bank of England's latest inflation report "Interest rates, which have been at 0.5 per cent since March 2009, could remain unchanged all of this year and well into 2011, according to the Bank of England's latest forecasts."
Exactly why 2% inflation +/- 1% is a good thing in the Bank's eyes and anything higher or lower an abhorrence is a mystery . 5% would make a lot more sense until the deficit is down to a palatable proportion of GDP.
Please can we get back to the Sports Centre for Swanage.
Sorry...........
When I suggested this thread, one question I raised was : What facilities do you thing the centre should have?
-multi-use sports hall
-fitness/weight training room
-studio for aerobics, etc
-children's play and exercise room
-cafe/catering or vending machines
-changing rooms
-indoor pool/shallow for children
-indoor pool/deep for diving
-sauna/steam/whirlpools
-outdoor facilities for football, cricket, track, athletics, etc.
-other??
-location
-with parking
-on bus route
-near town centre
-adjacent to a school
-should the pool participate in the government scheme to provide free swimming for children and OAPs?
Thanks.
My answers:
-multi-use sports hall YES
-fitness/weight training room YES
-studio for aerobics, etc MAYBE
-children's play and exercise room YES, NEXT TO CAFE
-cafe/catering or vending machines YES SEE ABOVE
-changing rooms YES;
-indoor pool/shallow for children YES
-indoor pool/deep for diving YES
-sauna/steam/whirlpools MAYBE
-outdoor facilities for football, cricket, track, athletics, etc. YES, SHARED BY ADJACENT SCHOOLS, USED BY FIRST SCHOOLS WHEN NEEDED
-other?? NO
-location AT SMS
-with parking YES.
-on bus route YES
-near town centre WITHIN WALKING
-adjacent to a school YES-SMS
-should the pool participate in the government scheme to provide free swimming for children and OAPs? YES. ALL SWANAGE CHILDREN MUST BECOME PROFICIENT SWIMMERS.
'When I suggested this thread, one question I raised was : What facilities do you thing the centre should have?'
Wow !! who's asking? Can we really do this ?
It would be great to have a swimming pool, but not if it means..the powers say..we can have none of this 'cause a pool is too expensive to run, but ideally yes a pool too.
The kids at the Secondary Mod (SMS now) helped to dig a pool out themselves, this wish list sound's great. Let's start digging !
Yes, as far as I am concerned this is something DCC can build for us at the SMS site as a sort of 'Sorry, Swanage' IF they make us go to two tier education (I just read their website and it seems this WILL happen in 2013; that we 'had our say' and they could give a 'flying '#$%$^%' about our views. So much for 'consultation') and turn down our request for a secondary school.
So, to make it up to us, they can use all the pots of money they claim they have or they will save, to build us a fantastic sports centre/leisure centre/community centre on the SMS site (where St Marks and maybe another primary school will end up) and make it the community and recreational focus that we will lose when our 11+ kiddies end up at Purbeck School. That way Swanage kids up at Purbeck can have a proper - some might say wholesome - place in town to hang out evenings and weekends, and not up in Wareham. Go to Wareham any Friday night and ask yourself - do I want my 12 year old hanging around here, with crowds of drunken yobs, and police in vans watching them, outside the fish and chip shop??
Maybe STC can kick in a financial contribution from the Swanage Bay View sale 'slush fund' towards this, like they just approved a nice early retirement pension for the retiring Town Clerk (see Council minutes). We can call the centre the 'Alan Leeson Project! to get their support!!! Just kidding!!! Sorry, AL!!
If we 'lose' our middle school kids to Wareham, and if we oldies have to go there for any sort of recreation or community centre since we don't have one here, then the guts will truly be torn out of Swanage. It will continue to slide toward retirees and weekenders only.
It's as simple as that. I don't know why the people of Swanage don't seem to care enough about this, except for the same small group who have been brilliant about this - at least those under 55 and those with kids should be up in arms about this. They should be packing every meeting of the Town Council to get their views expressed, and they should be working with Sandford Middle who are in the same boat and have their act together. Those over 55 should remember what was important when they raised their kids, and think of their grandchildren, and get involved, too.
Apathy will be the death of Swanage for young families! If we have to lose 11+ education in Swanage, and it appears to have been decided - then a town recreation centre will compensate in many ways for the loss of middle school education.
A recreation centre WITH a pool!!!! No child living by the seaside should be allowed to be a non-swimmer!
I'd also like to see, on the same site, some classrooms'lecture halls for an evening college for adults who need training and professional qualifications for a viable career in the ever-changing economy. But that's a different topic....
I helped North Walsham (same size; same challenges as Swanage) do this ten years ago - it can be done.
http://www.dcleisurecentres.co.uk/LC2Resources/wse/file/eb29e4415a7df6a/October09MainBrouchure.pdf
The one I helped bring about is the Victory Centre. We raised the money to build it through local government and Sport Council grants, local fundraising and sponsorship, and the Lottery Fund. DC Leisure operates it so the town doesn't have ongoing running costs although it makes an annual contribution, as does North Norfolk DC - same as happens up at Purbeck.
Would an asset like this be good for Swanage? How do we get started? Do we have the stamina to work for this (my North Norfolk friends think we in the south are 'too soft' to get this done!). Now there's a challenge for Purbeck!
OK Bill Trite - let's get going on this!
'Go to Wareham any Friday night and ask yourself - do I want my 12 year old hanging around here, with crowds of drunken yobs, and police in vans watching them, outside the fish and chip shop??'
They will go to Wareham, because that's where their friends will be. Been there done it with out kids. If they go to Purbeck, they make friends with loads of kids,from Bere Regis, Wool, Bovvie, so be prepared to be a taxi until they learn to drive themselves.
The point is there is little to do at night in Swanage. A sports centre would be something, especially for the 11-13 year olds.
My 17+ will not be driving my car if he is going to Wareham for a booze up!
This on BBC Dorset website today 18 Feb...so the money's out there it seems.
Lotto grant boosts Bridport leisure centre
More than £300,000 of lottery money is being given to a Dorset leisure centre to try to appeal to more women, girls and over 55s.
Bridport Leisure Centre will use the money to upgrade its indoor changing facilities and build outdoor changing rooms to increase capacity.
It is part of a £10m grant to get more people in rural areas doing sport.
About two thirds of local authorities with the lowest sports participation are in rural areas, Sport England said.
The centre's bid was one of 500 applications for Sport England's Rural Communities fund to help tackle grassroots participation.
Sport England chair Richard Lewis believes the project can help fulfil the 2012 Olympic legacy aim of getting one million people playing more sport.
Currently the leisure centre is taking part in a scheme that offers non-swimmers free lessons.
The scheme is funded by the Amateur Swimming Association and run by West Dorset District Council.
The Postman - well spotted.
To the best of your knowledge, has anyone in Swanage or STC, or Purbeck DC, examined the feasibility of fundraising for a such a facility in Swanage within, say the last three to five years? Is there any expressed interest, or lack thereof, in a new sports centre facility, within Swanage Town Council or Purbeck District Council, beyond one member's dismissive comment that there is a perfectly good sports centre just up the road in Wareham?
I would remind STC that it has recently sold the town council's indoor pool and gym to a private enterprise. The argument against a new sports centre has been changed by its action.
If you'd read my earlier post
"PDC have plans that include:
new health centre
new hospital
new sports centre
refurb of Swanage footie club
and others.
OK, these aren't set in stone, but they will be paid for by the developers. PDC will use their (our) newly revamped Section 106 powers so that when the developers build between 650 and 1000 new homes in Swanage they will pay for all, or some of the above."
Then you'd realise that a sports centre for Swanage is possible.
5.09
I have read your previous blog entries and I am aware that the document to which you refer is a wish list that PDC hopes to extract from developers in order to grant them the rights to develop those homes.
If you want to see how 'well' these agreements work in practice, may I refer you to Barratt's deal with Bournemouth Council over the Boscombe reef/regeneration fiasco.
That issue aside, once built, a leisure/sports centre requires careful consideration over operating costs. These are not small. These costs need to be discussed as well.
Be wary of what you read. Be even more wary of apparent 'gifts'. These things are not as cut and dried as you apparently believe, as evidenced by your rather flippant assertions to the contrary.
You said
"... things are not as cut and dried as you apparently believe,...."
I said
"OK, these aren't set in stone.."
Perhaps I should explain a little more thoroughly, 'aren't set in stone' is a phrase used when no-one is quite sure about the outcome.
What I do believe is that if/when the houses are built then PDC will use Section 106 to ensure that the developers give something back to the community. If PDC do their job properly then they will look at where 106 has been used successfully and replicate that practice.
I'm enough of a realist to realise that things in life are rarely perfect, but if PDC do their job properly then Swanage, as a community, can benefit greatly from a new estate of 650 to 1000 houses.
I hope that's not being too flippant for you!
Thinks - wonder if I need to explain 'flippant' .........
Is it true that they want to move the hospital and doctor's surgery to the grammar school site? And will we be allowed to comment?
I quite like being able to walk easily to the doctors and then being near a pharmacist. Given the number of older folk it never seems that full.
And has anyone had any problems with the hospital? It's a beautiful building and we've always been dealt with speedily. Friends cannot believe we have such a good service. They expect to lose a day if they have to go to casualty, not be out in five minutes. The only trouble is having to go bloody Poole if it's anything too serious.
For the life of me I cannot see how that would be a good idea, although the doctor's surgery can get a bit busy. But the hospital?? Where is the money for that scheme?
"Is it true that they want to move the hospital and doctor's surgery to the grammar school site?"
The Grammar school site - well, if you include the development on the other (w-ern) side of the road as well, then yes.
"And will we be allowed to comment?"
You were. It was advertised in the Advertiser, here and in other places. You should've received a questionnaire from PDC, if not you should have contacted them.
There's thread on here
http://swanageview.blogspot.com/2010/02/distributing-new-housing-around-swanage.html
JIC
http://tinyurl.com/ycgmeoc
That got 7 responses, I was a little worried about that!
Comments about the Hospital - well the Staff, who make the hospital so good, shouldn't change too much, so put them in a brand new building and it might be even better.
"Where is the money for that scheme?"
Section 106.
7.54 - Oh Ye of Section 106 and singularly adept at copy and paste arguments!
Section 106 raises its gnarled head again. Maybe Gordon Brown can tap into that one, too, and solve the mess he has got us into??
Section 106 is a for of stealth tax that harms the common man. By that, I mean: if local government pays for all these projects by dunning the developers of new homes in Swanage, then the developers will pass on the expense to the purchaser, some of whom we dearly hope will be on modest incomes. Shareholders of the developers are not going to pay whatever Section 106 demands. The developers have a legal duty to obtain the maximum return for its investors, a law with greater force tham Section 106. A simple fact you seem to fail to grasp.
'Section 106 is a for(m)..' oops. sorry!
Sorry to copy and paste again, but I think that it makes it clearer as to what I'm saying.
"The developers have a legal duty to obtain the maximum return for its investors, a law with greater force tham Section 106. A simple fact you seem to fail to grasp."
Of course they do - so blindingly obvious, that I didn't think it necessary to comment on. Think about the recent sale of Cadbury's - a great British institution that should be protected - wailed various members of the public, strongly supported by the media. However Kraft had made an offer that - in the short term - the shareholders would've been stoopid to turn down.
Now try this, you're a CEO of a large building firm, there's a project in Swanage that if there was no Section 106 you'd make £5 million on; but as there is Section 106 you are only (!) going to make £3million, so you don't put your tender in.
You then go before the shareholders who, quite rightly, want to know why you didn't bid. Unless you made more than £3 million by some other means, then you're in trouble.
A project of this size will be profitable for the developer and in an area like ours a damn site more profitable than any other option.
Section 106 is flawed, but it's our best chance of getting improved roads, medical services, leisure facilities and school places.
Now I'm sorry to copy and paste again, but I also like to bring ideas in from outside and show that what I'm saying can be checked, compared, criticised.
So have look at Southwark, at the moment they have to build 29,500 houses by 2016. Puts our numbers into perspective as well.
http://www.southwark.gov.uk/YourServices/planningandbuildingcontrol/S106/S106exp.html
JIC
http://tinyurl.com/yeovfks
Oh, yeah, I also copy and paste to make sure things work, many thanks to tinyurl!
Look, I hope you are right - it would make all of our hopes come to fruition.
Let me make another point, then, which flag a problem. You have asserted that Section 106 has its own challenges and pitfalls, which I interpret as meaning that a local or unitary authority has to be pretty much on the ball to make it work to their benefit.
Having observed our town and district councils 'in action' for many years, and being somewhat less than impressed by DCC over the way it has handled school consultations, I have to say that I am dubious that these bodies could pull off a deal using Section 106 that would benefit Swanage as we would hope.
In other words, I wouldn't bet the farm on them getting it done!
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation looked into S106 back in 2006
Their conclusion:
"Once development starts on a site, in most cases, S106 pretty much delivers what was agreed. The two most important issues are: the general planning permission not going ahead; and delays associated with large, complex or brownfield sites which often involve renegotiation. There remains an issue over whether the outputs are as good as the original stakeholders had expected.
However, this growth and compliance has occurred during a period of economic expansion. A downturn in the market might significantly change both attitudes and development behaviour."
http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/delivering-affordable-housing-through-section-106-outputs-and-outcomes
JIC
http://tinyurl.com/ycklefz
As I've been saying, if PDC are doing their job properly then they'll have looked at good examples and will replicate them.
Fingers and toes crossed!
I sent one of those response forms back but didn't realise that was going to be it!
Is the main problem that Purbeck is too wide an area with no real centre? You can't have joined up thinking if everything is too far to join up.
Wareham is little more than a set of roundabouts and a train station in the middle, not the 'heart' of the district, no matter what the bean counters and planners think.
Swanage should have its own district. For 30 years it has lost out to Wareham but despite their best efforts it has not quite killed us off. Better for us to part company and look after ourselves. Perhaps then everything else would follow and we'd no longer have to sit in STC meetings watching our councillors pass the buck to PDC.
Always read the small print!
At the moment it's just an idea, a suggestion, a tick box exercise, but it could become a reality. if it does then, no doubt, it will change a lot.
With a possible change in Gov't around the corner it could change a lot as the Cons are saying "The solution lies in giving local councils incentives for house building, not targets. By creating
a real and substantial financial incentive to reward communities that accept house building, we guarantee that those directly affected by development are those that benefit."
Which is interesting cuz Labour set targets - as in the 2500ish houses around Lychett, whereas the Cons are offering bribes.
Ah, well, we'll see.
Swanage should be its own District, 1.47? Are you joking?
Swanage (in terms of civil administration) isn't even a Town - it is a Parish!! I believe it is one of the largest local parish governments in England, with one of the largest parish budgets, and it is larger than quite a few local civil government areas classified as towns.
No doubt someone will correct me if I am wrong. Swanage is a Parish!
And it is this toy town organizational mentality that keeps it marginalized, forgotten and subjucated to the whims of PDC.
I can cut and paste, too!
Re Section 106 from http://tinyurl.com/ycklefz:
"However, this growth and compliance has occurred during a period of economic expansion. A downturn in the market might significantly change both attitudes and development behaviour."
Which is exactly my point. We are in the worst recessions since 1929, hence this warning should be heeded. I do not have much faith that new home development will fund large projects in Purbeck until this recession is done and dusted, and sustained growth returns to the property market, which IMHO will be after 2015.
Sorry, I don't understand; this isn't a battle.
If you go back to my 1.08 post I included that bit. I copy and paste, as I said above, to try and get an informed debate going.
As I've said before, S106 isn't perfect, but if PDC do their job properly then it could fund many benefits for the community.
Please bear in mind that even tho' we're in a bit of a pickle, house prices are rising.
Let's hope you are right, but I am less optimistic about the economy than you are.
An additional point - although local property prices appear to be rising, wouldn't hundreds of new homes built locally dilute the price of all homes? Just a thought.
Hmmm, yeah, wouldn't that be wonderful, let's hope it happens nationwide!
A couple of years ago a friend of mine with a young family moved up to the NW. Same job, same wage, but now he has a decent house and spare cash.
A first cousin is moving up to the Midlands for all the same reasons.
Obviously, I'm either a non-home owner, or a non-mortgage payer, or have massive equity!
Please bear in mind that even tho' we're in a bit of a pickle, house prices are rising.
How is that supposed to help ?
This country needs to 'get real', there is no money, it didn't work for me trying to spend my way out of debt, to pay it back, it was necessary for me to give up my car, get two jobs, and remember to never spend beyond my means again.
A house is bricks and cement and investment, a home is somewhere to live. We need affordable/social homes for people to live here.
No more houses, that will stand empty. If we don't have affordable housing, we won't need a sports centre, cause eventually there wont be anyone living here.
Empty plots should not be for filling up with unaffordable houses. Land is precious and should not be wasted.
dear 4.06
Well, first of all you have to put into context; I was answering the 2.39 post, and added in the fact that house prices are starting to rise.
I'm also 3.34, where I expressed the opinion that it'd be wonderful if house prices crashed.
Now, if you go and read PDC's plans then you'll discover what they are trying to do about the lack of affordable housing.
What is affordable housing? Does it mean when you leave school you get given a three bedroom detached house with a nice garden. Or does it mean if you fight hard to get a good job you can afford to rent a flat?
'Affordable housing' surely means housing that you can afford, given the size of your income. It does not mean luxurious housing - until you have earned enough to afford it.
The problem is that house prices have risen far too high, whereas local wages and salaries have not kept up. The housing costs to income ratio is too high.
Who remembers when you could not borrow more than 3 times your income (and had to produce a hefty deposit - usually 10-20%) on your first flat or home? Given that formula the average Swanage salary of 20k pounds pa would cap a flat purchase at 80k pounds. France still employs such practical measures; one reason why its banks did not collapse. It is also why the percentage of the population living in rented accommodation is much higher there, than here.
Our home cost 48,000 25 years ago its now been valued at over 400,000
It was affordable (for us) 25 years ago, but our income has hardly increased. What are our kids going to do. They don't worry about whether they rent or buy, but rent is over 600 a month too.
We don't need any more expensive housing, we need housing that reflects local incomes.
Oops this thread seems to have changed from Sports to housing.
But a sports centre, education, and housing are all inextricably linked.
As for your kids, they will be ok when they inherit your house, if the government doesn't take it all away.
Have you thought about creating an irrevocable trust to deed it to them while you retain rights to live there for the rest of your life? Provided you live seven years after the trust is created, there will be no tax issues.
Oops - that's in other countries (America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand)! Sorry.
Don't count your housing chickens. This is on todays Times, not currently a Labour leaning publication
"Tory planning change could hit affordable homes"
They intend to scrap Section 106 agreements which are what councils like PDC now rely on to pay for building affordable housing.
Seems perfectly natural to me. Mr C obviously asked "Why should those poor hard working developers have to cough up to house the poor. Most unfair." Oh well, nice while it lasted.
As I said back at 2.11
"With a possible change in Gov't around the corner it could change a lot as the Cons are saying "The solution lies in giving local councils incentives for house building, not targets. By creating
a real and substantial financial incentive to reward communities that accept house building, we guarantee that those directly affected by development are those that benefit."
Which is interesting cuz Labour set targets - as in the 2500ish houses around Lychett, whereas the Cons are offering bribes."
The Times has a slightly different slant to it.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/construction_and_property/article7036927.ece
JIC
http://tinyurl.com/y9kkfe6
The report contains many 'possible, maybe, could'; and worryingly
“retain a fast-track process to avoid planning inquiries taking years and give Parliament a new role to vote on and ratify national planning policy.”
So it's all about giving us power, that, seemingly, Parliament can overrule!
Still, it's a Green Paper, so could still change, and, who knows, the Tories might not get in anyway.
I wonder what they mean by incentives. More spending the other side of the tory face says we cannot afford perhaps? Planning is already devolved to the lowest level here. Surely they could not be crazy enough to give it to parish councils? PDC is fatally weak because it is so tiny. The odd thing is the fewer applications they have to deal with the busier they say they are.
I have had a look at this Conservative policy document to find out more about it.
They will "Incentivise new house-building by matching local authorities’ council tax take for each new house built for
six years"
So that means more borrowing, higher taxes or cuts elsewhere.
and
"Allow all households to benefit from lower fuel bills with an entitlement to have £6,500 worth of energy efficiency improvements done to their home - the costs being recovered automatically through the household energy bill over a period up to 25 years;"
Where is the £6500 to come from? More borrowing or more tax? I am quite baffled. Perhaps some of you supporters of their policies could explain.
I read a bit more and discovered they will pay for the "incentive" by paying councils less under other headings so there will be no net increase in spending. I am still puzzled though that they say they want to devolve decision making downwards but also want to nudge council decision making in the direction they want it to go. Actually all the parties make noises about moving decision making downwards and they all end up centralising more of it.
Just about true, Labour made a botch, or bodge, of it in England, but they've devolved a fair bit to Scotland and Wales.
Their attempts in the rest of England with the Regional Development Agencies just seemed to create talking shops who spent lots of money doing very little. When they tried to set up a partially devolved Councilish type of thingy - sorry! - in the NE, the locals voted it out cuz it didn't give them enough power!
Friends who live in London, may have hated Ken and find Boris just a blinkin' fool, but they do say that they feel that they have some say - not much, but some!
But overall, yep, they're all power crazed gits, who for some unknown (!) reason just don't trust us!
Can't imagine why!
Ummmm - are we a tad off topic??
Not if we assume that due to a lack of democracy, we don't get what we want!
Oh, tut tut - do I sense a bit of rebellion going on here?
Just sit down, citizen tax payer, and take a deep breath. DEEP breath. There. Feeling better? WE will look after you. Just do as WE say. WE know what's best for you....and your children....WE will look after you.....after you....you are getting sleepy.... sleepy...... shhhhh...... shhhhh.......
Thanks for that, I feel all warm and safe now ......
"We will rock you rock you little boy we will keep you warm and safe"
Thanks we.
I don't buy into this local devolution stuff. Why should we create more post code lotteries which is what will happen if different decisions are made in different places.
Oh, how I love it when people resort to cliches and ignore the actualité.
"..post code lotteries.."
exist because decisions are being made locally - it's stretching the point a bit to use it as an example of democracy, but it's local professionals making decisions for their community.
Obviously, you'll get better services in one area than another because the services are meant to meet their communities needs - and all communities vary.
Why postcode? BH19 and BH20 are in the same Health Care area.
Please, steer clear of cliches.
The actualité is that if you are an elderly person needing social services support you had better not live in Dorset. Exactly why the community here does not need the same standard as many other parts of the country is a mystery. Its not about professionals - its about our elected representatives being given more leeway to deliver substandard services and the government then being able to pretend it is down to local decision making.
What particularly irks me is the way politicians of various hues are able to garner uncritical support by indulging in these artificially over simplified generation of sound bites about "moving power downwards". They know perfectly well that its nonsense but equally know it plays well with their supporters.
My actualité was looking at the broader situation, yours has narrowed it down to Social Services.
Your comments about 'moving power downwards', weelll, it does!
Money and standards come from Central Gov't, the spending is then done 'locally' at County Council or from our Health Care Trust.
Elected Reps have Employees to advise them, whether they take that advice is up to them of course, but in the vast majority of cases they do. If you think about, if you employ somebody and ask them to do a job, don't you usually trust them?
I'm not saying this a good system.
I chose social services for the elderly as an example. Another one is homelessness services. When the audit commission looked at PDC's performance a few years ago they were so appalled they said they did not think PDC would recognise a good service if they saw one. Those were their words. No doubt there are local authority services that are better than average here. The point I was making is that calls for local decision making are a con trick. Another example. For decades the amount spent per pupil in Dorset schools vied with Devon's to be the lowest in the country.
These variations become exposed in the context of a national health service where people naturally enough think a disease is a disease regardless of where you live and should receive treatment of equal quality. However, if your child is dyslesic or your mother has alzheimers the same should apply and it is quite perverse to advocate the opposite.
Social Services are controlled by DCC, PDC's homelessness may be appalling, but DCC and PDC are different bodies; please compare like with like.
I don't understand the Education funding but DCC has had low Central Gov't funding for decades, and if you compare how the Schools perform compared to their funding, they actually do a pretty good job.
Then you move on to the NHS - another completely different body - County 1, has high rates of heart disease and low rates of Alzheimers; County 2 has high rates of Alzheimers but low rates of heart disease; you want both Counties Health Services to spend equal amounts of money on both diseases; that's perverse!
There again, I could train as a Heart specialist, go and work in the County that has few heart problems and earn my money for doing nothing.
Now, that is perverse!
Whoops, after posting that I checked what this thread is about!
Can't we have a permanent 'off topic' thread?
My word verification thing is: dopily.
Apt!
"you want both Counties Health Services to spend equal amounts of money on both diseases; "
No I don't. I was talking about social services support for people with alzheimers and their carers and grumbling about how poor it is in Dorset. Why should it be better in one place than another? When funding levels are decided surely it should be on the basis that people should be treated equally and not subject to the whims of local decision makers. I have not seen any convincing argument in favour of inequalities in service provision.
By the way, PDC got the money to build the Purbeck Sports Centre at Wareham though a piece of statistical manipulation in that the supposed catchment population it would serve was expanded geographically until it became large enough to justify the investment. It may well have been that or no sports centre.
"By the way, PDC got the money to build the Purbeck Sports Centre at Wareham though a piece of statistical manipulation in that the supposed catchment population it would serve was expanded geographically until it became large enough to justify the investment."
This makes sense. It can be used as justification for centralising secondary education in the Purbecks there, too.
OK, so we now scrap ALL local decision making and devolve it to London.
Any chance that you feel like being President?
As for the Sports Centre - well done to the local Councils, why scapegoat PDC?
Better to have a Sports Centre 10 miles away than not to have one at all. Most of the funding came from DCC.
Hi 5.25, I was replying to 4.44 and missed your point.
The bit on catchment area is a good reason why Swanage gets b'all of the big stuff.
I can't remember the figures, except one. 'Within a 10 mile radius' is the phrase and of course hugely penalises any coastal town, esp Swanage where we have the sea to the S and part of the E, the rest of the E is Studland and then Poole. W is Worth, Kingston etc. N is Wareham, which depending where you start or finish measuring can be more, or less, than 10 miles away.
So along came the Market and Coastal Towns Initiative, who chatted a bit, got peoples hopes up, and then seemed to disappear.
The RSS (Regional Spatial Strategy) is the latest incarnation of, er, something; it to may pass away unlauded, but at the moment it's our best chance of anything positive happening.
DEEEEEP breath, hold on to it, DO NOT breath out!
"OK, so we now scrap ALL local decision making and devolve it to London."
Makes sense in many respects. Centralisation works. I don't see a mass demand for scrapping the national curriculum and letting local education authorities decide which subject to economise on. Setting standards nationally makes more sense than leaving it to the arbitrary whims of local politicians. I appreciate this is contrary to the prevalent rhetorical position of many of our politicians.
Are you doing this deliberately?
Standards are set centrally and then it's up to the various bodies to meet them.
I try not to do things accidentally. If local councils are simply there to implement government circulars, as health authorities used to be then there is no devolution of decision making because there are no decisions to be made by councils. I prefer this state of affairs to one in which they can make up their own minds. I got pretty sick of the second rate services my family received here compared to the situation in other parts of the country. You don't expect VAT to be lower in Dorset than Manchester in return for inferior services, so why should things like day care provision vary. My real beef is with politicians who think they score points by advocating making the situation worse with more local decision making and hence more unfairness and possible partiality.
No offence meant, but as you keep on coming back to your own personal agenda, of poor health care and I'm trying to talk generally (my agenda), I think we'd best just agree to differ.
Bye!
OK. I was using examples rather than generalities because I think they point to the weakness of the position I was criticising. As you say, we must agree to differ. No offence taken and I hope I did not cause any.
Post a Comment