Neil G wrote: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
morecambe mick wrote:Is a shaggy wig optional Neil?
Neil G wrote:morecambe mick wrote:Is a shaggy wig optional Neil?
Shaggy wig, Deep Purple T shirt and denim jacket all optional
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.
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.
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
North Stand Shrimp wrote: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.
willowthewhisp wrote: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?
Phoenix wrote:willowthewhisp wrote: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.
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
Trinity wrote:I read the District Auditors report on Blobbygate the day before the meeting - nothing has changed.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 130 guests