Saturday, 15 March 2008

Changes around SCC's Bury HQ


As a result of the move to West Suffolk House, Suffolk County Council will be selling their Shire Hall complex. A draft Development Brief has been prepared before marketing the site for sale, and the Council intends to commence consultation in respect of the brief on 17th March for a period of 28 days. The brief will include details of how the complex could be developed and will be published when the consultation begins, where it will be available on the Suffolk County Council website together with the letter sent to consultees.

17 comments:

Mark G. Hardy said...

How interesting that you know its being sold when the letter sent to me dated March 7th (not tenth) (http://www.suffolk.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/2CEEC140-69D9-402A-9617-2DA064D89F3F/0/100308letterdraftdevelopmentbrief.pdf) before the recent election does not say that. When did you know, why didn't you tell the electors?

Conflict of interest - or just part of the process that is hell bent on selling off all assets from all councils to prevent assets falling into the "wrong hands" with the impending unitary status?

Bet you don't let this post be public.

Regards

Mark Hardy

Paul F said...

Not being a member of SCC I only know what and when I am told when it happens. I shall be informing those immediately affected on Monday. The electorate of Abbeygate are used to my acting thus, which was no doubt partly why they gave me 379 more votes than you.

You have seen my posting criteria. Why would I not publish your comment?

Bury Boy said...

Well what a surprise, another public owned asset to be sold off for the benefit of the few. Who is paying for the new roof on the old shire hall, the rate payer or the new owners.

I dont see the proceeds being used to reduce our tax, or increase services, or even improve local peoples oppitunities. I do how ever see SCC paying far to much ( IMO and many others) for a new CEO, one it seems was due to be out of a job soon any way. Kick in the teeth for the out going chap ( what ever his name was) and any on the vastly experiences number twos already on the pay roll. Maybe the Daily Telegraph was right to question if a shire county CEO with limited influence on the fabric of the country should be paid more than the prime minister.

I take it as you are NOT a CC the tory gag does not apply and you can comment on your local leaders policies.

Oh and one last point, dont be so pleased to glout on the recent win, It was the tory party machine that "got" you elected. along with IMO the total contempt shown by not issuing polling cards and dis enfrancising the local population.

Paul F said...

Welcome back BB, and thanks for your warm congratulations.

I personally delivered through over 3,000 letterboxes so I presume I am the "machine" you refer to. The card decision was the Town Council's. Anyway the turnout was over 21%, which isn't bad for a parish council by-election.

Sorry if I appeared to be "glouting"; I was merely responding to your neighbour, having ignored all the many negative comments of your pal the other candidate.

I am only the messenger as far as SCC goes, as you will discover soon through your own letterbox.

Bury Boy said...

Paul I look forward as ever to your latest letter box drop.

Dont fool your self that 3,000 leaflets swung the vote, postal voting and the well oiled tory machine did that for you. Whom ever the tory canidate selected for this ward would have had that advantage.

My Pal ? whom ever could you be referring too, I may have many you just dont know.
I suppose being bury boy any one from the town with 40 years plus standing would or could be my pal?. Never mind you stick to politics, and I will restrict my self to comment and insight, conjector, and goading. being a agent provocateur sounds interesting.

Do not misunderstand, I am a Bury Boy, my heart, soul, past and future is bound up in Bury St Edmunds, I will fight for it.

Paul F said...

It is somewhat frustrating to have to justify having received the largest majority of votes of any Town Councillor - except myself in 2003 when I stood with no political description at all.

I suppose deducting PH's generous estimate of 75% of the postal votes (issued to anyone who asks - not just Conservatives) from my 303 majority, still leaving me the winner would not convince you either.

Nor could my success have anything to do with the fact that I receive many non-Conservatives' votes on a personal basis - maybe something to do with my efforts?

I must not blow my own trumpet, and it's a pity I allow you goad me into doing so. I shan't let it affect the standard of service I try to offer to all Abbeygate residents, of whatever political or other persuasion.

By the way I may not have enough leaflets to get down to your house, as I shall concentrate on the 50 nearest ones affected. I've just printed them off and must now stop to guillotine - them not me!

Paul F said...

By 9.15am there's nothing new yet on the SCC website, so if anyone is desperate for the information I can email it to them via a PDF file. Just contact me:

mail@paulfarmer.com

Mark G. Hardy said...

So how come you got it first? When did you get it?
It is on the SCC site now anyway

2 quick points:
(a) why isn't the police station included - it being well known that the police want to move to the PSV and just have a middle of town "drop in" facility?
(b) why has the Borough agreed to give up its 40 year lease on the Manor House car park? How much is SCC going to pay for that?

Paul F said...

Mark, your first two questions are of academic interest only.

The answer to (a) may perhaps be sought from the Police Authority. (b) presumes that an agreement has taken place, which would seem odd at this early stage - surely the value of the land would be dependent upon planning consent.

Paul F said...

A reader has kindly pointed out that my claim in comment 6 above was inaccurate but is too coy to comment here.

I said:

"It is somewhat frustrating to have to justify having received the largest majority of votes of any Town Councillor - except myself in 2003 when I stood with no political description at all."

I should have said:

"It is somewhat frustrating to have to justify having received the largest majority of votes of any Town Councillor in the May 2007 elections. Even in 2003, when I stood with no political description at all and was my own agent, my majority was only 27 votes fewer. So much for the Conservative 'machine'."

I apoplogise for this unintentional mistake. To the best of my knowledge the corrected version is accurate - unless anyone knows otherwise.

Paul F said...

Apologies to the anonymous commenter who criticised another's blog. I can't really publish it in its present form. Try tempering the language or even come out?

Bury Boy said...

Paul, go back a few months, and consider a conversation and maybe a blog, concerning the Manor House / Record Office carpark. Was the reason that this could not orginally be included within scheme F, due to the fact the BC did not have any rights, and the land "belonged" to SCC. BUT now from mark g. we learn the BC have or had the lease which in turn has being sold to SCC

whom is misleading whom here !

Paul F said...

BB - It would be unusual for a car park to be included in a residents' parking scheme, and I don't believe that was ever considered in organising Zone F.

What I think you are referring to is the use of spaces there designated for SCC permit holders only, which are obviously in the gift of SCC.

The rest of the car park is leased to SEBC and would therefore be subject to appropriate negotiations if SCC wanted to use the land for its own purposes.

I hope this clears up any misunderstanding - and as ever thanks for the comment.

Mark G. Hardy said...

Duh?

The cynic in me makes me ask the following:

Has StEds Borough agreed to (or let it be known that it will) abandon its lease to the car park?

If not, how can you not vote against the planning proposals - whatever else may be involved?

Paul F said...

Mark - it is as I have said, the ball is entirely in SCC's court. Incidentally there is no planning application yet, but if an when there is one I refer you to my answer already given to another of your comments.

Mark G. Hardy said...

The ball is not in SCC's court. They took possession of the entire site from the old West Suffolk CC that you so ardently promote on your other post.

Want to join me in an application for Judicial Review on at least two of the Diplock principles?

Paul F said...

At risk of repeating myself, Mark, it is entirely up to SCC what they propose for their property.

I will take your invitation to join in legal action with a pinch of salt, especially given your subsequent behaviour towards another whom you persuaded similarly to assist you!