Published Date: 25 January 2010

CONCERNED Scarborough councillors have spoken out passionately against the possible sale of the town hall.

The Evening News revealed on Saturday January 16 that the historic St Nicholas Street building – which has been home to the local authority since 1899 – could be abandoned in favour of a more cost-effective site.
The idea of moving to an out-of-town business park has been dropped for now because of environmental and financial concerns, but a switch to another town-centre location or a site "on the periphery" of Scarbor-
ough are among seven suggestions still under consideration.

Several councillors, speaking at a meeting held in the building's chambers on Wednesday, voiced opposition to the controversial proposal.

Cllr Lucy Haycock said the Jacobean-style council headquarters was the envy of local authorities all over the country, and that the council should work to preserve the building rather than abandon it.

She added: "We do not appreciate our civic pride enough. When we visit other boroughs they haven't got a town hall like ours, and when other
people come here they are so impressed.

"When I hosted dinners as mayor some of the guests that did not have a chance to look around would ask if they could come back another time for a tour."

Cllr Hazel Lynskey also spoke out in favour of remaining at the building, and highlighted the amount of money already spent on developing the premises.

"This is a historic building – everyone knows the town hall," she said. "I can't believe that we would have gone to so much trouble to set up Customer First and then move away from the history of our town. I can't envisage what it would be like if we changed to a box on Dean Road."

A location in Weaponness is one of those being suggested, and remodelling the existing building to make it more modern and energy efficient is also under consideration.

Earlier in the meeting councillors discussing the local authority's 2010/11 budget heard the state of the economy meant spending cuts would have to be made in coming years.

Some suggested a halt to expensive new projects, while others said "cash cows" such as parking charges could be exploited to raise more money for council projects.

* What do you think? Email us: letters@scarborougheveningnews.co.uk
Write to: Evening News, Aberdeen Walk, Scarborough, Y011 1BB.

Text us: Text the word SENEDITOR and send with your message to 81800 (25p charge plus standard national rate. See terms in Public Notices)

Join the website Forum debate at www.scarborougheveningnews.co.uk

Page 1 of 1

Last Updated: 25 January 2010 8:53 AM
Source: n/a
Location: Scarborough

Bookmark:

Del.icio.us Post this story to Del.icio.us

Digg

Facebook

StumbleUpon Post this story to stumbleupon

Last

crazyxxxx,

25/01/2010 09:14:50

The council want all business out at Eastfield so why not the town hall.?

Report Unsuitable

English like wot she is meant to be spoke,

25/01/2010 09:26:58

How many of these Councillors are against the move because they will lose their own free access to the town centre?

And how many because they just don't want anything or anybody to move to Seamer?

Anyway, whatever the reason why they are against this move, they can always vote against it!

Report Unsuitable

Amaroo,

Scarborough 25/01/2010 09:49:14

It was announced on the 16th January, a council meeting was held on the 20th January and it has taken until the 25th to be reported on in the SEN.

I find it strange that not one councillor has spoken out other than at the council meeting either for or against.

One question remains as to how the SEN could report it in Saturdays paper. It meant that someone had released the information on the Friday. After that report there was only a comment in a later SEN Editorial. It seemed to be a 'non-discussion' subject with the SEN and indeed councillors.

'A location in Weaponness is one of those being suggested.' Weaponess is but a myth as far as anything being developed there.

I note Cllr Hazel Lynskey has made comment, a rareity indeed but no doubt authorised to do so by the Leader Cllr. Tom Fox.

So, a move was on the cards as quoted in the above,
'The idea of moving to an out-of-town business park has been dropped for now because of environmental and financial concerns'.

To do that needed the monies from the sale of the Futurist and all lands back to King Street for development I would suggest.

Oh what a mysterious web the council weave !!!!!

Report Unsuitable

darkstairs,

25/01/2010 09:58:21

mmmmmmmmm
There seems little point in moving everything to another town centre location. Apart from customer 1st, there is no reason why SBC ahouldnt be located to Eastfield.
Unlike Haycock, a venue for dinner parties is the least of my worries, and lets face it they aint gonna pull it down.
It is not the building that needs moving its the occupants that require serious attention.
The councillors may be concerned, but its nowt to to with them, the officers will decide this issue.
Bleating to the press wil only enhance the publics view of the emasculation of their role in democracy.

Report Unsuitable

castle crusader.,

scarborough 25/01/2010 10:13:51

I am sure we have all heard of disreputable salesmen trying to sell the town hall clock but SBC take the biscuit, they are actually proposing to sell the Town Hall with it.

I for one do not believe it has anything to do with SBC councillors suddenly becoming financially prudent and wanting to save council tax payers money, on the contrary, this is just another ploy in a long list of councillors manipulation of the public to sell off every single asset of the town to their disreputable private developer cronies, they already have great swathes of the North Side, is this latest ploy the start of the death knell for the South Side.

Once again the public are being conned by the Conservatives, the site of the Town hall would be worth hundreds of millions to a Private Developer, with its magnificent views overlooking the whole of the towns South Bay, far from being, as councillors state a move to a more cost effective site, this is nothing short of SBC wanting to obtain funds by means, fair or foul, to fund Scarborough Council's staff final salary pension scheme which has a £64.39 million deficit.

This time I for one will not stand idly by and watch it happen and I shall referred this matter to the ‘Local Government Ombudsman’ if SBC want a fight they are more than welcome, if it comes to Legal Action, which I am sure SBC cannot afford, I am equally as sure that there are many people in this great town that would contribute a few bob to a fighting fund and take on this disreputable rabble who wish to destroy the very last vestiges of OUR TOWN.

Report Unsuitable

tinpotgodslayer,

scarborough 25/01/2010 10:14:22

The deal to move out to Eastfield was done long ago, the location i was told was the buildings to the right hand side of the new road to the south of Pindar, Raflatac etc.
If you travel through the lights away from Morrisons and the former Scarborough Building Society HQ, as you approach the next roundabout to your right are unused buildings that i was told were the subject of the move.
Right next to the landfill site.
No wonder environmental issues have cvaused a stink(ooohh i know, i know).
Lots of council stuff is already re-located out there in readiness for the move, i am assured.
So yes MR Fox and the Tories have sorted it out and yes it was more than likely dependant on the sale of some piece of Scarborough history or asset to fund the moves.
Now the people have spoken it seems to have been scuppered for the time being and rightly so.
Its the whole council and committee`s and the officers that the clear out is needed, that would save millions and there would be no need for service cuts (which means jobs) and the council tax would not need to go up so much each year.
Get rid of the tories and solve a lot of the problems before they have sold it all off.
It matters not to much who replaces them but they cannot be allowed to ruin this town further.
It should be an offence of somoe kind to behave the way in which this lot have, its a copmplete shambles. Oh and the out of the woodwork councillors who have now voiced an opinion, where have you been for the last 3 years? Is it election year???

Report Unsuitable

Hello Vera,

25/01/2010 11:06:58

Since when have SBC been concerned about being 'Cost effective'?

Report Unsuitable

castle crusader.,

scarborough 25/01/2010 11:08:14

Just a thought but if SBC are truly interested in money saving ideas, without job loses or a reduction in services here is one, reduce the number of town councillors by half, thereby halving the cost of their Allowances, expenses, cost of computers and phone/internet charges.

Truly a case of 'spend nowt and save a lot'.

If the whole of the USA can be run by 100 Senators, surely Scarborough can be run by 25 councillors.

Report Unsuitable

tinpotgodslayer,

scarborough 25/01/2010 11:42:53

great idea CC but it would depend on which 25 councillors were to run it would it not, if it was Mr Fox and the lunatic tories, the computer say "Noooooo"

Report Unsuitable

castle crusader.,

scarborough 25/01/2010 11:48:07

Re4, Unlike Haycock, a venue for dinner parties is the least of my worries, and lets face it they aint gonna pull it down.

Why aint they gonna pull it down? Don’t tell me its cos it’s a listed building, that did not stop the council allowing the demolition of the Pavillion Hotel, Balmoral Hotel, Bar Church, Opera House, Floral Hall and the Olympia, to name but a few and they were all listed buildings.

Foxy stated last year “as a council we will not sell our Souls” he neglected however to mention, but the heart of the town is for sale to the highest bidder, with guaranteed, anything goes planning permission.

I also refer you to a statement in another of todays SEN articles, Eastfield pub makes way for housing- Scarborough Council's planning manager Jill Low said: "No planning permission was needed for the demolition works”, enough said I think.

Report Unsuitable

Last