O/T The Dome

[Mark S]

Can you two gentlemen please take this personal stuff off line?

If anyone has been upset or offended please let me know and I will delete.

I dont want to close this thread but if it degenerates into petty name calling and political one upmanship, it will be.

Thank you

[skyecat]

when I was looking at putting a gig on there the other year, the costs were actually very reasonable - some might call it cheap!
Especially compared to the Platform - it was about the same price with about double the capacity - so maybe their pricing structure is partially to blame?

[Neil G]

One for the oldies The mighty FOCUS are booked to play the Dome on April 25th 2009, I appreciate not everyones cup of tea but if you've been on the planet around 50 years you might remember how fantastic this dutch band were first time around, check out the albums Moving Waves and Hamburger Concerto for some breathtaking compositions.
No Jan Akkerman with this line up but the younger leaner guitarist Niels van der Steenhoven is world class, with Pierre van der Linden on drums and Thijs van Leer (organ, flute and yodel ) from the classic line up they are still real quality musicians so if you like your instrumental prog rock/ jazz/ classical all rolled into one buy your tickets as soos as possible, this might be some of the finest music you'll hear in Morecambe before the Dome is flattened

[Ade Adams]

One for the oldies The mighty FOCUS are booked to play the Dome on April 25th 2009, I appreciate not everyones cup of tea but if you've been on the planet around 50 years you might remember how fantastic this dutch band were first time around, check out the albums Moving Waves and Hamburger Concerto for some breathtaking compositions.
No Jan Akkerman with this line up but the younger leaner guitarist Niels van der Steenhoven is world class, with Pierre van der Linden on drums and Thijs van Leer (organ, flute and yodel ) from the classic line up they are still real quality musicians so if you like your instrumental prog rock/ jazz/ classical all rolled into one buy your tickets as soos as possible, this might be some of the finest music you'll hear in Morecambe before the Dome is flattened

Sounds like alot of 'Hocus pocus' to me

[Neil G]

http://www.focustheband.com/newskin.html

That's correct Ade, Hocus Pocus, Sylvia and House Of The King ( the Tommy Saxondale and Magnus Pike theme tune that everybody thinks is Jethro Tull )

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=OznS7X9BO ... re=related

Happy Days

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pRd0Z37Dt ... re=related

[morecambe mick]

Is a shaggy wig optional Neil?

[Neil G]

Is a shaggy wig optional Neil?

Shaggy wig, Deep Purple T shirt and denim jacket all optional

[morecambe mick]

Is a shaggy wig optional Neil?

Shaggy wig, Deep Purple T shirt and denim jacket all optional

I've already got the the Denim jacket

Might have to see Bez (the man with 100,000 t - shirts) for the Deep Purple shirt

[Trinity]

I agree Callum its another huge error of judgement made by our wonderful council. The last event I attended at the Dome was the "Mamma mia" concert towards to end of last year. The Dome was packed.

Could someone clarify which councillors on the Cabinet voted for axing the Dome and those who voted against.

Copied from the Visitor website:-

CONTROVERSIAL plans to close the Morecambe Dome have been 'called in' by a group of Lancaster city councillors.

The decision to shut The Dome as of June 1, 2009, made by Lancaster City Council cabinet on December 9, will now be discussed again at a meeting on January 5.

The council's overview and scrutiny committee will get the chance to ask questions of those who decided to close The Dome as part of a massive cost-cutting drive.

They could potentially ask cabinet to reconsider the decision, or they could decide to take no action.

The meeting is at Morecambe Town Hall and starts at 6.30pm. Members of the public are welcome to attend.

[Aspers]

May I offer my deepest sympathies to all those who vote.

[Trinity]

Despite the actions of a minority of responsible councillors at last nights meeting, who did raise some very valid questions about Officers and Consultants reports and got no satisfactory response, a majority of irresponsible councillors rubber stamped the Officers recommendation to close the Dome on 1st June.

Some councillors on the committee abstained from voting, how irresponsible is that?

I was appalled at what I witnessed - absolute incompetence and a total disregard for public accountability.

I read the District Auditors report on Blobbygate the day before the meeting - nothing has changed.

Look forward to reading the local press before I make any further comment on this thread.

[Mark S]

Personally, I look forward to everyone reading the entire collection of Shakespeare's work before commenting any further on this thread. If it descends into political name calling or one upmanship, it will have fate similar to the one The Dome has found itself in.

[North Stand Shrimp]

.

[Trinity]

North Stand shrimp wrote:

it doesn't make money.

What council building or service does make money? (Salt Ayre Sports Centre, The Dukes, The Platform). When its used it does make money? Have the council publicly advertised the venue for use by a private operator or invited expressions of interest?

It's in dire need of refurbishment that would cost alot!

It does not have to be refurbished just kept operational and up to minimum standards of health & safety like the remainder of the Councils buildings. until an equal or above replacement venue is established.

In a time of financial turmoil a big hole to pour money into is not what the town needs.

Have all the other ways and means of budget savings been fully explored?

Will the Councils decision have a positive or negative effect on Morecambes regeneration prospects?

Just a sample of some of the questions raised by a minority of responsible councillors. Lets see if the local press puts you in the picture of the response received to these questions.

If it does not I will cos I was there - thats not "political or oneupmanship" its just a case of telling you the truth, thats if site admin allows me to do so.

[Trinity]

Minutes of the meeting from the Councils website
(link: http://committeeadmin.lancaster.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.asp?CId=298&MId=4799&Ver=4)

Minutes:

Members were advised that the Cabinet decision in relation to the Dome Options – Minute 97, had been Called-in by the following 5 Members:

Councillors Mike Greenall, Roger Plumb, Rebekah Gerrard, Peter Robinson and Ron Sands.

Members were informed that the Call-in had been made on the basis that the decision of Cabinet had not been made in accordance with all the principles set out in Article 13 (Decision Making) of the Constitution, in particular:

(a) Proportionality (i.e. the action must be proportionate to the desired outcome)

(b) Due consultation and the taking of professional advice from Officers

(d) A presumption in favour of openness

(e) Aims and desired outcomes will be clearly expressed

(f) Options that were considered and the reasons for arriving at the decision will be explained

The Chairman outlined the procedure to be followed and invited Councillor Plumb to summarise the reasons for the Call-in.

The Chairman invited Councillors Fletcher and Mace to explain the reasons for the decision of Cabinet.

The Chairman invited signatories to the Call-in to ask questions and Councillors Fletcher, Mace and the Head of Cultural Services responded.

The Chairman invited Members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to ask questions and Councillors Fletcher, Mace and the Head of Cultural Services responded.

The Chairman invited other Members present to ask questions and Councillors Fletcher, Mace and the Head of Cultural Services responded.

The meeting adjourned at 8.05pm and reconvened at 8.40pm.

On behalf of the Call-in signatories it was proposed by Councillor Plumb and seconded by Councillor Greenall:

“That the Cabinet decision to close the Dome in principle from 1st June 2009 was based on grossly inaccurate information provided in the Capita Symonds Report and prior to the Council determining its Corporate Plan priorities and objectives for 2009/10 we recommend:

1. That the future of the Dome is referred to Full Council on 4th February for further discussion as part of the Council’s consideration of the 2009/10 Corporate Plan priorities and related budget process with a view to delivering a balanced budget that would ensure the Dome remaining open for a minimum of 3 further years.

2. That, in the event that the decision to close the Dome from June 2009 is upheld, the Cabinet resolution (minute 97 (4) refers) requesting a further report on the viability of The Platform be prepared as soon as possible.”

Councillor Bray proposed that the recommendations be considered separately but after having taken procedural advice from the Chief Executive, the Chairman informed the meeting that this was not necessary and Councillor Bray withdrew the proposal.

Members then voted on the original proposition as set out above. 2 Members voted in favour of the proposition, 6 Members against with 1 abstention whereupon the Chairman declared the proposition lost.

It was proposed by Councillor Bray and seconded by Councillor Leytham:

“That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee agree to uphold Cabinet’s decision in relation to the Dome.”

Upon being put to the vote 6 Members voted in favour of the proposal, 2 Members against and 1 Member abstained whereupon the Chairman declared the proposition to be carried.

By way of an amendment, it was proposed by Councillor Plumb, seconded by Councillor Greenall and agreed unanimously:

“That it be recommended to Cabinet that the further report requested with regard to the Dome (Cabinet Minute 97 (3) refers) contains details of the urgent works and financial implications of running the Dome until 1st June 2009.”

Resolved:

(1) That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee agree to uphold Cabinet’s decision in relation to the Dome.

(2) That it be recommended to Cabinet that the further report requested with regard to the Dome (Cabinet Minute 97 (3) refers) contains details of the urgent works and financial implications of running the Dome until 1st June 2009

[willowthewhisp]

I'm a little confused by this figure of £500,000 which is being bandied about. Someone said earlier that the Dome loses £500,000 a year. That does not seem to tie in with the Council's claim that it will need £500,000 spending on it in the next five years..... unless they are saying £500,000 a year for 5 years. But why 5 years? If the Winter Gardens is projected to be viable in 3 years time and the Urban Splash development is to go ahead the Dome won't need to last 5 years.

Why would it need to be refurbished knowing it is going to be demolished anyway? Surely all it needs to do is tick over until it is no longer needed. Why chuck out something which works before there is anything better to replace it?

[Neil G]

It doesn't make money.

It's in dire need of refurbishment that would cost alot!

In a time of financial turmoil a big hole to pour money into is not what the town needs.

Get over it.

That's not a very charitable response from someone who would like us all to be charitable to his cause.

Some of us want to save the Dome, why should we " Get over it "

Losing £500,000 a year my arse

[Phoenix]

I'm a little confused by this figure of £500,000 which is being bandied about. Someone said earlier that the Dome loses £500,000 a year. That does not seem to tie in with the Council's claim that it will need £500,000 spending on it in the next five years..... unless they are saying £500,000 a year for 5 years. But why 5 years? If the Winter Gardens is projected to be viable in 3 years time and the Urban Splash development is to go ahead the Dome won't need to last 5 years.

Why would it need to be refurbished knowing it is going to be demolished anyway? Surely all it needs to do is tick over until it is no longer needed. Why chuck out something which works before there is anything better to replace it?

I thought the £500K comment had been retracted becuase it was wrong. It's still losing a signifcant amount of money though.

The refurbishment work sounds like it needs some work doing to it to keep it in a condition that allows the public to use it until June 1st. I'm guessing the closure would have been earlier but there will be contracts in place for performances upto June 1st which would cost us to cancel.

[Neil G]

I'm a little confused by this figure of £500,000 which is being bandied about. Someone said earlier that the Dome loses £500,000 a year. That does not seem to tie in with the Council's claim that it will need £500,000 spending on it in the next five years..... unless they are saying £500,000 a year for 5 years. But why 5 years? If the Winter Gardens is projected to be viable in 3 years time and the Urban Splash development is to go ahead the Dome won't need to last 5 years.

Why would it need to be refurbished knowing it is going to be demolished anyway? Surely all it needs to do is tick over until it is no longer needed. Why chuck out something which works before there is anything better to replace it?

I thought the £500K comment had been retracted becuase it was wrong. It's still losing a signifcant amount of money though.

The refurbishment work sounds like it needs some work doing to it to keep it in a condition that allows the public to use it until June 1st. I'm guessing the closure would have been earlier but there will be contracts in place for performances upto June 1st which would cost us to cancel.

This is the main problem with the council, instead of spending money on the Dome to keep it open they spend the money on a process of meetings, consultation, surveys and the accurate recording of every squeak and rumble along the way to decide how much needs to be spent to keep it open, at which point much of any available funding for a refurb' has dissipated. The Dome could be a profitable venue if it were run by right minded people. Call me cynical but it sounds like someones trying to justify having to sell the land to developers to me. I'd sell 'em that big shiny rubbish for live music box they call the Platform and keep the Dome any day of the week. Just my 10p worth.

[Trinity]

Good posts there Neil G. Your hitting some key points Were you there also?

It was indeed a good turnout by the public. Its a pity that CCTV or a webcam cant monitor these meetings. If they did you would be able to make an informed judgement of who to vote for and who not to at the next election. Wish i had taken my camcorder so that I could have shared the experience with you all.

Well heres the report from the Visitor (link: http://www.thevisitor.co.uk/morecambe-news/Attempt-to-save-Dome-fails.4847405.jp):-

Published Date:
06 January 2009
By Greg Lambert
A LAST-DITCH attempt to save The Morecambe Dome appears to have failed after a council committee stood by the decision to close the popular venue.
But a group of politicians still say "all is not lost" and will continue the fight to save The Dome from the wrecking ball.

Lancaster City Council's overview and scrutiny committee backed Cabinet's cost-cutting decision to close The Dome as of June 1, during a packed and emotional public meeting at Morecambe Town Hall on Monday.

Coun Susan Bray, of the Conservative party, proposed to uphold the closure decision, seconded by Coun Karen Leytham of Labour. When put to a vote, six city counciilors agreed, with only Independent councillors Roger Plumb and Michael Greenall voting against.

Afterwards, Coun Plumb described it as "a sad day for Morecambe".

"We tried to get Lancaster City Council to think again, to look for other areas where money could be saved.

"It was disappointing that a Morecambe councillor showed her true colours and voted against the wishes of the people."

Coun Evelyn Archer, who had also battled against The Dome's closure, said she was pleased to see so many members of the public at the meeting.

"As a city councillor, I am disappointed that this is something else Morecambe is losing.

"And as the chair of the Winter Gardens Preservation Trust, I am sad the council is shutting The Dome before The Winter Gardens is ready to take on events which may now be lost to Morecambe."

Pro-Dome councillors have now asked the city council to look into finding a private operator to keep The Dome open - an option the council had already dismissed as unviable.

They also questioned a report which states The Dome would require a £500,000 upgrade over the next five years - saying The Dome would be closed in three years anyway to make way for Urban Splash's planned promenade redevelopment.

Ken Partridge, who works at The Dome, agreed.

He said: "In my opinion The Dome makes money, I don't think it loses money at all.

"It is self sufficient, it has two bars, it has its own box office - events that are staged have ticket sales, surely there is an income from ticket sales/ door take, then the sales of drinks, surely there is a profit?

"Other places (operated by the local authority) don't have the same facilities, and therefore their overheads must be higher and therefore must be supported by public money.

"The Dome needs to have £500 000 to be spent on it? Well, it could do with updating, but there is no reason it could not continue trading as it is, it doesn't have to have the work done it is structurally sound. It hasn't any safety issues. So why does it have to ha £500 000 spent on it?

"There was a report prepared in August in relation to works suggested and/or required for The Dome. I believe that any member of the public have a right to see this report."

Many event promoters with shows booked for The Dome after June 1 have already made enquiries to switch those events to The Platform

Lets see what the Lancaster Guardian reports next.

[Phoenix]

Look forward to reading the local press before I make any further comment on this thread.
Copied from the Visitor website
Well heres the report from the Visitor
Lets see what the Lancaster Guardian reports next.


Could you explain what relevance the local press report on the meeting has to the decision? I don't see why we have to hang on their every word.

[Posh]

I read the District Auditors report on Blobbygate the day before the meeting - nothing has changed.

What? Is Tricia Heath still lying to the District Auditor to get others in trouble?

Or was it the bit that exonerated Ian Barker from any involvement and put the blame almost wholly on council officers?

Blobby was a farce but if one council officer had signed one piece of paper then taxpayers would have lost nothing.

[North Stand Shrimp]

.

[Phoenix]

As I read Neil G's original message, he was trying to get across that from someone trying to raise money promoting your sponsored run, your "Get Over It" remark in a serious discussion was quite flippant and may give people reason to consider whether to donate or not to someone who treats possible redundancy in such a manner.

(That's an interpretation, not my opinion)

[Posh]

This debate seems to revolve around several things that people agree on in one form or another:

1. The Dome is far superior as a venue than The Platform.

This is partly what makes this whole issue look crazy. Yet the City Council won't close down The Platform because the Tourist Information Centre is located there. In my view pressure now needs putting on the council to improve The Platform.

2. The Dome loses money.

The City Council is not a commercial organisation and doesn't operate like one (sadly). The problem of Council's being the local organiser of large scale fun and entertainment has been a problem across the country for time immemorial. Venues across the country are facing the axe because when money is tight councillors and officers faced with the choice would rather lose an entertainment venue than a core service. The Wirral is closing Pacific Road; in Corby one is closing; etc. etc.

3. The site of The Dome is earmarked for development by Urban Splash

The reality is that The Dome isn't being closed to pave the way for Urban Splash, although it would have to at some point. Given the current economic climate and the state of finances at Urban Splash building work is unlikely to commence for a couple of years. Yet this is what Saint Evelyn has been bleating on about because any development may partially block the view from the Winter Gardens.

4. The "Council" are ALWAYS to blame because they don't like Morecambe

Sure it was a council decision made by councillors and officers. Yet The Dome would stay open if it wasn't for the dreadful state of the council's finances. The responsibility for this lies with all the political parties in the District because they've chosen to run the council together. I for one want Labour to pull out now as I believe the Tories and MBI are making an appalling mess and turning us into a joke.

Yes Lancaster projects are at fault - Ian Barker as former leader opposed council investment into The Storey in Lancaster yet this council backed it and we've pumped in over half a million pounds, which could have been spent elsewhere. The rent review on the market means it loses nearly half a million a year. Blame for this can be pointed all round but personally I blame officers who insured a £10 million market for £1 million, only to see it burn down, forcing others to make painful decisions.

As for Morecambe, £180K was spent (by Lancaster-based Labour politicans) on saving the Winter Gardens, which was never re-paid; (Lancaster-led Labour politicians with the backing of the LibDems and Greens) spent the revenue from the sale of a car park in Lancaster on building the Splash Park in Happy Mount Park; £200K was loaned (by Lancaster-led Labour politicans) to Morecambe FC; a predominantly Lancaster-led Labour-led coalition helped get the Midland Hotel refurbished; build two sets of new toilet blocks; finished the Promenade overhaul; delivered the Poulton project; and much more.

So basically stop blaming the council and, if you want to, do something about it.

Evelyn Archer moans and moans and moans yet what's she done. Nothing (except give planning permission for an Aldi on Morecambe Prom - that'll brought the tourists flocking in).

If the Winter Gardens was opened now we wouldn't be having this debate.