Protesters demanding public consultation over Dorchester's Charles Street scheme (From Thisisdorset)

I encourage everyone who has strong feelings about this to sign the petition. In order to get something done we need to estab;lish that a majority of the population of WDCC agree with the sentance in the petition. I reckon there are just under 100,000 people in West Dorset and so counting for those 20% who do not have internet access then that means we need 40,000 to log on and sign the petition. Don't be put off by the fact that this petition is being run by the Liberal-Democratic party - If you are not a supporter of the Lib-Dems (and to be honest after that debacle at the recent conference who is?) please go and sign the petition.

What is really need is a full investigation by an outside party from scratch to see how and why the colossal balls-up happened, like so many other over budget or cocked up council fiasco's. Then sack or hold to account those responsible. Our civil service is full of either the back -handing one trouser leg brigade or the P.D inept. It needs an enema.

I fully support the Charles Street Development. The County Town of Dorset deserves the best possible facilities, a large, quality supermarket and new M&S. This development will create more jobs and accomodation for young people like myself.

Pebbles-on-the beach does not understand what the people are angry about.
The real issue is building a new Council Office on prime town centre land when the Council could have been re-housed in far cheaper offices elsewhere in the town.
Charles Street is prime building land which when developed could have provided a huge increase to WDDC's revenue by way of business rates, rents, tourism etc etc etc.
The real question that doesn't get asked is who is driving this? Simons clearly are the tail that is wagging the dog and the very fact that Mr Gould will not meet with anybody over this when most people in favour of something would be only too happy to extoll the virtues of this project.
His silence only reinforces the view of the majority of Dorchester residents that the council has no interest in doing what is best foir the taxpayer.

Pebbles-on-a-beach is right, the Charles Street Development is needed.

But WDDC, for the past 30 years, have handled the project absolutely appallingly. Some developers have been little more than crooks with their "fees". Schemes have come and gone in far better economic tiimes than now...and still WDDC have waited, discussed and discussed and virtually nothing has happened.

In the real commercial world this would not have happened, but WDDC have our money - whether they deserve it or not.. that is the difference.

No, there should be a full Public Enquiry into this fiasco and it should be soon... and why was Councillor Gould "unavailable for comment" for TV interviews on the subject yesterday?

Pebbles-on-a-beach wrote:
I fully support the Charles Street Development. The County Town of Dorset deserves the best possible facilities, a large, quality supermarket and new M&S. This development will create more jobs and accomodation for young people like myself.

I agree, same old nimbys, quick to complain when it affects them but equally quick to criticize fellow citizens of Dorset when they have the audacity to take to the streets of Dorchester trying to protect their jobs and livelihoods.

When this project started I said it would not get to phase 2 without hic-cup because of the current economci climate. I was proved right yet again, and the WDDC have been proved what they always were, liars and cheats with back-handers all the way. I support the county town and believe it should be the best in Dorset, but not at the expense of the local taxpayers without due process and accountability. All through this development, there has been no true consultation, and when Gould has been called to task, he refuses to comment. Public enquiry needed right now by independent investigator, both in to this development and why it has been such a balls-up, and into why Gould was never willing to comment. There is corruption in WDDC and we need to root it out now.

mr commonsense wrote:
Pebbles-on-the beach does not understand what the people are angry about. The real issue is building a new Council Office on prime town centre land when the Council could have been re-housed in far cheaper offices elsewhere in the town. Charles Street is prime building land which when developed could have provided a huge increase to WDDC's revenue by way of business rates, rents, tourism etc etc etc. The real question that doesn't get asked is who is driving this? Simons clearly are the tail that is wagging the dog and the very fact that Mr Gould will not meet with anybody over this when most people in favour of something would be only too happy to extoll the virtues of this project. His silence only reinforces the view of the majority of Dorchester residents that the council has no interest in doing what is best foir the taxpayer.

No. Why would you want to build your council offices on cheap land elsewhere? The council offices need to be in the middle of our community serviing us, working for us - smack bang in the middle of us. That is why this developement works for us.

Pebbles-on-the beach has got this spot on.

marabout
The council does not need to be in the middle of the town except to allow employees to shop during lunch time. A small office would allow for the public to make enquiries, check the electoral register, etc.

lostnfound wrote:
marabout
The council does not need to be in the middle of the town except to allow employees to shop during lunch time. A small office would allow for the public to make enquiries, check the electoral register, etc.

If they are shopping in their lunch breaks then surely that it good for the town centre businesses.

South Somerset District Council Offices are on the edge of town in Yeovil.

Exactly - so it makes sound commercial sense for the council offices to be in the centre of town. The new building will stand as a flagship for our town.

But this thread is not about the new council offices - they are almost complete and looking very majestic - great work and a compliment to the designers, planners and builders - well done to you all.

This thread is about phase 2 of this development which concerns the introduction of new businesses and trade in the centre of town. I think that we should fully encourage the introduction of new businesses into the town. These new buidings will generate trade, employment and abve all they will bring a feel good feeling to the town. So, if the WDCC need extra money to help pay for these services then lets do it.

Pebbles-on-a-beach wrote:
I fully support the Charles Street Development. The County Town of Dorset deserves the best possible facilities, a large, quality supermarket and new M&S. This development will create more jobs and accomodation for young people like myself.

There is no question that ‘Fit for purpose’ facilities are required but it is paramount that the new facilities were built in the right location maximising the commercial a benefits at the same time. It’s called coherent joined up thinking, the sheer stupidity of putting a non-income stream facility on prime high value brown field site is madness. Based on the last update, it was my understanding that M&S & Waitrose were considering exercising an exit clause in the lease therefore the key anchor stores underpinning the scheme and arrival of smaller retailers would be forfeited. Obviously if this is the case it would put job generation in jeopardy. For me the damage is already done, the loss of convenient parking means Dorchester is no longer a destination for shopping I would rather travel to Yeovil or Bridport now.
So in the cold hard light of the day, the council have done an excellent good job of sorting themselves out to the detriment of a potential new income stream notwithstanding an inferior urban planning strategy that dissects the high street retail area from the standalong Brewery development. Being cynical from experience no doubt the council will sweep any criticism under the carpet and customers simply won’t be inclined to shop in Dorchester so these promised jobs wont materialise. What can be guaranteed is that the mis-appropriation of local taxes, fiscal unaccountability, lack of directorship responsibility will continue to go on unaddressed until something is done about it.
A vote of no confidence in the leadership of this council is appropriate; it wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if they gave themselves another inflation busting pay rises to celebrate this historic disaster in the making.

max planck wrote:
Exactly - so it makes sound commercial sense for the council offices to be in the centre of town. The new building will stand as a flagship for our town. But this thread is not about the new council offices - they are almost complete and looking very majestic - great work and a compliment to the designers, planners and builders - well done to you all. This thread is about phase 2 of this development which concerns the introduction of new businesses and trade in the centre of town. I think that we should fully encourage the introduction of new businesses into the town. These new buidings will generate trade, employment and abve all they will bring a feel good feeling to the town. So, if the WDCC need extra money to help pay for these services then lets do it.

Yeah sure...as majestic as an ivory tower!! Here is a news flash for you......Councils like central government buildings dont produce an income. Why cant people understand basic simple ecomomics, where do you think all the money is going to come from?? I'm afraid its too late and the writing is on the wall, how is plenty of unoccupied shops going to make you feel?

Just a minor point, and ignoring the wider issue. There is already a new hotel going in at the Brewery development. I don't really see the need for 2 new hotels in Dorchester right now.

I also think that the Brewery development is going to 'pull' visitors to that end of town. It's important that the Charles Street development works to draw the customers into South Street and High West street, preventing these areas from losing trade.

oh and to Pebbles. I feel your pain, I had to move away from Dorchester for years before I could afford to live in my home town. But prime land in the centre of town isn't the place for affordable housing. Nor is it the place for a council office.

Just sent the Echo a letter on this but as they miss the importance...the council should be considering whether it wants to continue making a significant financial commitment to Simons Group, who posted a 43% reduction in turnover (ie, sales, not profits) in Dec 2011 according to Construction News. If they go under how much taxpayer cash goes with them?

- 43% reduction in turnover (not profit) from £174.5 to £99.9m in 2011
- Operating loss up from £1.5m to £3m in 2011
- Cash reserves down from £28m to £16m

Given their cash burn rate last year and the reasonable assumption that this has worsened since March 2011, does this sound like a company in a healthy financial position? Or is this a major factor in their proposal to change the design of the scheme while simultaneously inferring that anchor stores are about to pull out?

http://www.cnplus.co
.uk/news/simons-grou
p-posts-43-per-cent-
turnover-dip/8624319
.article

A very good point raised there James! just like the Iceland depoist debarcle, I'm sure they have got this one covered.....cough...
..cough

more shops, some housing, less carparking, and we pay for it.
does not quite sound right to me.

I have to agree with some that I think it is in the wrong place, maybe they should have taken over the market area and built a complex linking the two stations and the brewery square complex. All the retail would be in the same area.
Whilst we are redesigning Dorchester how about having one railway station south of the split.

Can I quote for the demolition?

Donearunner - jest not! Rumour has it that the ground floor of the new library is under water and the floor and electrics will have to be lifted!!
Who's been overseeing the job - DCC you need to get your inspectors in there quickly. Photo's available.

cj07589 wrote:

max planck wrote:
Exactly - so it makes sound commercial sense for the council offices to be in the centre of town. The new building will stand as a flagship for our town. But this thread is not about the new council offices - they are almost complete and looking very majestic - great work and a compliment to the designers, planners and builders - well done to you all. This thread is about phase 2 of this development which concerns the introduction of new businesses and trade in the centre of town. I think that we should fully encourage the introduction of new businesses into the town. These new buidings will generate trade, employment and abve all they will bring a feel good feeling to the town. So, if the WDCC need extra money to help pay for these services then lets do it.

Yeah sure...as majestic as an ivory tower!! Here is a news flash for you......Councils like central government buildings dont produce an income. Why cant people understand basic simple ecomomics, where do you think all the money is going to come from?? I'm afraid its too late and the writing is on the wall, how is plenty of unoccupied shops going to make you feel?

Sadly Cj - it is you who needs to read the post again. max Plank has got it spot on. He did not discuss economics he merely stated that this proposal made good commercial sense. You need to understand the difference between commerce and economics

westendcat wrote:
Donearunner - jest not! Rumour has it that the ground floor of the new library is under water and the floor and electrics will have to be lifted!! Who's been overseeing the job - DCC you need to get your inspectors in there quickly. Photo's available.

Funny I heard the same thing

marabout wrote:

cj07589 wrote:

max planck wrote:
Exactly - so it makes sound commercial sense for the council offices to be in the centre of town. The new building will stand as a flagship for our town. But this thread is not about the new council offices - they are almost complete and looking very majestic - great work and a compliment to the designers, planners and builders - well done to you all. This thread is about phase 2 of this development which concerns the introduction of new businesses and trade in the centre of town. I think that we should fully encourage the introduction of new businesses into the town. These new buidings will generate trade, employment and abve all they will bring a feel good feeling to the town. So, if the WDCC need extra money to help pay for these services then lets do it.

Yeah sure...as majestic as an ivory tower!! Here is a news flash for you......Councils like central government buildings dont produce an income. Why cant people understand basic simple ecomomics, where do you think all the money is going to come from?? I'm afraid its too late and the writing is on the wall, how is plenty of unoccupied shops going to make you feel?

Sadly Cj - it is you who needs to read the post again. max Plank has got it spot on. He did not discuss economics he merely stated that this proposal made good commercial sense. You need to understand the difference between commerce and economics

Capitulating to Simons demands because they are clearly in financial trouble makes no commercial sense.
The argument that M&S and Waitrose might pull out makes no commercial sense.
Giving the most productive land in the town over to a wealth consumer makes no commercial sense.
What would make commercial sense is waiting until the economic situation improves.
To put it another way, in ten years time, when the economy is back on its feet, would Dorchester have been better off had the whole development being put on hold.
The only answer to that question is yes. The land occupied by Goulds Folly would have been generating lots of tax revenue and attracting shoppers to the town. There would have been places to park.
If you had any grasp of the economic arguments you'd understand that you don't give wealth producing land to wealth consumers.

JamesYoung wrote:

marabout wrote:

cj07589 wrote:

max planck wrote:
Exactly - so it makes sound commercial sense for the council offices to be in the centre of town. The new building will stand as a flagship for our town. But this thread is not about the new council offices - they are almost complete and looking very majestic - great work and a compliment to the designers, planners and builders - well done to you all. This thread is about phase 2 of this development which concerns the introduction of new businesses and trade in the centre of town. I think that we should fully encourage the introduction of new businesses into the town. These new buidings will generate trade, employment and abve all they will bring a feel good feeling to the town. So, if the WDCC need extra money to help pay for these services then lets do it.

Yeah sure...as majestic as an ivory tower!! Here is a news flash for you......Councils like central government buildings dont produce an income. Why cant people understand basic simple ecomomics, where do you think all the money is going to come from?? I'm afraid its too late and the writing is on the wall, how is plenty of unoccupied shops going to make you feel?

Sadly Cj - it is you who needs to read the post again. max Plank has got it spot on. He did not discuss economics he merely stated that this proposal made good commercial sense. You need to understand the difference between commerce and economics

Capitulating to Simons demands because they are clearly in financial trouble makes no commercial sense.
The argument that M&S and Waitrose might pull out makes no commercial sense.
Giving the most productive land in the town over to a wealth consumer makes no commercial sense.
What would make commercial sense is waiting until the economic situation improves.
To put it another way, in ten years time, when the economy is back on its feet, would Dorchester have been better off had the whole development being put on hold.
The only answer to that question is yes. The land occupied by Goulds Folly would have been generating lots of tax revenue and attracting shoppers to the town. There would have been places to park.
If you had any grasp of the economic arguments you'd understand that you don't give wealth producing land to wealth consumers.

What a ridiculous notion.

What 10 years? Are you mad?

Who would benefit from waiting ten years (apart from 10 year olds).

Financial benefit = None
Commercial benefit = None
Environmental benefit = None

No sense at all in waiting.

Sadly I don't think you grasp what is at stake.

That land - ALL of that land - had a value to Dorchester. The original proposal, which most of us backed, had a large shopping area and a hotel as well as some affordable housing. There was to be lots of parking.

Had the development gone ahead as planned, we would have had thousands of square feet of retail space. This would have created jobs. It would have created tax revenues - VAT, corporation tax, paye on those jobs. And it would have generated parking revenues.

In ten years time, the development would probably have been thriving.

Instead, the council has relocated its offices to half of the site. No new jobs. Lost parking revenue. No business rates. No extra VAT on sales. No extra corporation tax. In perpetuity.

Now, the council wants to modify the scheme because they fear the two anchor stores pulling out because of the recession. This doesn't stand even a simple test of logic. You only have to walk around town (Starbucks, Stead and Simpson) to see that in a recession companies avoid taking on new leases and ditch old ones. So the modified scheme goes ahead, the recession deepens, and the two anchors pull out with the council being left with the bill.

Waiting a few years will protect parking revenues and will hopefully ensure that modifications to the scheme are not necessary. The economy will pick up and the anchor stores will be willing to sign for bigger footprint than they would today. The town will be no worse off than it has been for the last thirty years, apart from the loss of parking.

You ask who will benefit from waiting. A better question might be who will benefit from going ahead. I would suggest that the answer to that is Simons Group and I think that is why strings are being pulled. I also think Simons are in trouble - their accounts show declining turnover (43%) and an unsustainable cash burn. They have cut their staff by 20% since December. I fear that we are going to end up with a half built development.

Totally agree James.

I'm thinking about taking bets as to when Simons goes under......and how many "development companies" have we had over the last three decades?

Councillor Gould is a total disgrace to his - and my - party.