Hello All,
In a meeting with campaign representatives in December the council, through Cllr Les Jones, made it very clear that they were going on with the RHC proposals regardless of what we campaigners think, feel, or believe.
For my part I fervently believe this to be a mistake on behalf of DMBC, not because of my bias toward protecting the heritage of British glass, but also because I truly think they are missing a major opportunity to aid local regeneration and increase visitors to the area - which in turn will mean income to the locality.
Of course this is only an opinion, however DMBC appear to give great credence to opinion, since their own officer, Duncan Lowndes, gave his opinion in that same meeting that a Trust for the museum, its collections and archives, would not work. There was no empirical evidence for this, purely an opinion. Apparently that is OK when it is an officer of DMBC .
Whereas Duncan Lowndes cannot back up his opinion with facts, I can - by using DMBC's own documents, whereby they clearly state that their aim is to increase overnight stays in the area.
So, in order to do this they propose close a good attraction that they have not given publicity to over the years (BHGM), in favour of supporting an ailling attraction (RHC) which they cannot close, since, if they do, they will have to repay monies given by European Funding to revamp the RHC.
Of course, rather than examine what might work on that site they follow a course that is based purely on an idea, without substantiation, that by moving another attraction in it will answer the problem. Forget the problems associated with the 'A' road passing by, and the lack of parking facilities that are actually NOT owned by the council. Instead follow a 'wizzo' idea.
If DMBC were serious they would have gone about this in a direct way, rather than hide their intentions behind what they will claim to be an independent study - which it cannot be since it's terms of reference were dictated by themselves, through their officers, and not the wider requirements of the borough dictated by their own documents and proposals for the area regarding regeneration and tourism.
Furthermore, when challenged to substantiate the figure of £7 million pounds to develop an unspecified site, they refused - might this be because in someone's opinion it will cost that much. Why, because whoever it was stuck their finger in the air and the answer was (shock, horror) £7m !!!
What a bunch of untrustworthy, devious people we really are dealing with. But, why should I be surprised, they are politicians, albeit led by officers of the council.
When the council representative appointed to read this thread does so, please report my comments in full.
Many thanks, Nigel Benson