From Andrew B

Monday, 16 January 2012

I totally agree Kim. I know very few people who will benefit from this whole costly farce. I have visited the Picture House once in over 10 years; to see Shed Your Tears & Walk Away.

The reason I don't support/frequent the cinema is simple:
Films are screened anywhere between 4-8 weeks after their UK Release date!

The Iron Lady for example- I wanted to see because I was only alive for her last few years in power. UK Release Date 06/01/2012, Hebden Bridge Picture House screening 17/02/2012. Why would anyone utilise a cinema that simply cannot afford to screen the latest films.

The fact that (as others have said previously) you can get a mug of tea simply doesn't do it for me.

Those who wish to use the Picture House should pay higher ticket prices, not penalising every local resident who is already feeling the pinch.

From Heather Morgan

Monday, 16 January 2012

Excellent point, how naïve some people were thinking that there would be no financial impact for the local rate payers, or knock on for other local initiatives.

The local Labour Party conform to type, when it comes to spending other people's money and accruing financial risk for us all.

It's a shame that 2 very significant 'white elephants' will consume more of the local funding going-forward. I wonder how long it will be before we are asked to support the Town Hall financially.

I do not recall being asked to vote on either of the above schemes, based on conversations with friends a quiet majority of people in this town were not in support of either scheme and could see the shortfall.

From Tim B

Monday, 16 January 2012

I'm yet to be convinced that Hebden Royd taking on the cinema will work but both Labour and the Lib Dems think it will work. However I'd rather pay these costs up front now, rather than by a loan which we would have to pay back over several years, with interest.

From Paul Clarke

Monday, 16 January 2012

The usual tired arguments why communities shouldn't pay to protect and develop much loved and well used assets.

Like most people I'm feeling the pinch but I think I can stretch to about 2p a day or 20p extra per week to help secure the future of a cinema used by thousands of local residents and their kids. I'm proud when I see kids streaming out of our cinema having fun and developing a love of film . . . all for 2p a day.

Kim, I could equally argue that why should I pay extra so a minority of commuters in Mytholmroyd can park next to the station? Sadly councils can't do everything and a community asset used by 90,000 people probably trumps extra parking. Councils have to make decisions and I hope you will organise a survey like the PH did and hopefully over 1000 people will respond. That will force the council's hand next year assuming you get that level of support/interest.

Andrew, it's sad your only visit to the PH in a decade was to see one of the worst documentaries ever made. Unlike you I go to my local cinema more than once a decade and although I'm a huge film buff I am happy to wait a few weeks so I can stroll along to my cinema and not have to worry about last train out of Bradford. Ten of thousands of people are also willing to wait. I respect that you make a different choice but frankly if you are that desperate to see revisionist tosh like The Iron Lady then you deserve all you get.

Heather, I asked my 'silent majority' mates if they wanted a cinema and surprise, surprise they said yes because they take a longer view than you. But my pointless unscientific poll of my mates proved nothing just like yours. it is one of the all time classic weak arguments citing people who are almost certainly going to agree with you. You were asked your opinion about the PH in a survey which a loud majority of over 1000 people took part it. This is a staggering level of response and I assume you used the any other comments box to raise the concerns of the 'silent minority'. As far as I am aware the Town Hall people aren't looking for any money and to call their community asset a 'white elephant' insults their sterling efforts.

The reality in local government is that we often pay for services we don't use. Many people in Hedben don't have kids but pay a big percentage of their council tax to support schools and many of us don't use social services but we gladly pay to protect children. I think the cynics need to accept that they might be in the minority who don't want to pay for the PH but it is part and parcel of how councils work. You could always run a 'we don't want to pay for the PH' campaign and see how much support you get.

From Graham Barker

Monday, 16 January 2012

I'm broadly in favour of supporting one of the country's few remaining independent cinemas, and don't think a short wait for major releases really matters. A new film is a pleasant night out, not a three-line whip.

What I do find curious though is that Labour councillors are happy to make us stump up close to £14 per household (according to the HEC) to preserve the cinema, while doing nothing to preserve Calder Valley Club. That's a priority to remember come voting day.

From Andrew B

Tuesday, 17 January 2012

Paul, I was only stating my view on the matter- afterall I thought that's what Hebweb was all about?

"Andrew, it's sad your only visit to the PH in a decade was to see one of the worst documentaries ever made."

Your view, but as the film featured people I know/knew, local issues (whether you believe they're an issue or not is not a debate I want too start here!), and the Picture House, on that occasion was one of the few that did screen the documentary.

"I respect that you make a different choice but frankly if you are that desperate to see revisionist tosh like The Iron Lady then you deserve all you get."

I find myself personally defending my previous post again, I want to see a film- please don't judge or insult me for that.

If the Picture House did show up to date films then it would be used by thousands more- I still don't think everyone else should pay because it's somewhere nice to take your kids.

From Cllr Susan Press

Tuesday, 17 January 2012

I just want to set a few things straight as I think it would be helpful.

1. The cost of Hebden Royd funding the Picture House is an average £10 a year more for the precept payer - the £14 figure used by the Courier is for the highest council tax bands which are in a tiny minority of properties. The increase works out at about 20 pence more a week. So even in hard times, it's affordable and for Lib dems to suggest otherwise is disingenuous scaremongering.

2. Our consultation on the cinema got well over 1000 responses ( more than the consultation on Piece Hall) and 84 per cent said they wanted to town council to take care of it. I'm sorry if anyone did not get the chance to get their views across but for several weeks before Christmas we were outside the cinema, in St George's Square and market, had on-line facilities for questions. Short of paying for every household to get a mailshot (v expensive) we could not have done more and councillors gave up their time to do so.

3. No-one is going to be asked to fund the Town hall. Ownership of the Town Hall (previously Calderdale) was transferred to Hebden bridge Community Association several years ago and they got national and European grant funding for their renovation project. It should be ready by May. No-one pays a penny on precept for that

4. At the last council meeting, HRTC pledged to write to Calderdale MBC to ask them to re-think the future of Calder Valley Club. We have also advised CVC that we might be able to help with a small grant to tide them over but our total budget for community grants in 2012/13 is £75,000 ( just increased by Labour from £60,000 which Lib Dems wanted to stay put). They need at least £180,000 every year to be back where they were before talks broke down. The entire budget for HRTC is about £250,000. Nothing would please me more than seeing this resolved - I have attended two of the club's AGMs and they do a brilliant job. Local councillors Dave Young, Christine Bampton-Smith and John Beacroft-Mitchell have been doing their best to get both sides round the table. I am hopeful it will be sorted.

5. Paul's point re public services is spot on. Just because you don't benefit personally from a facility does not mean it is not a good thing for the community.

6. The money for the cinema is a one-off. The alternative was to get a loan and go into debt, paying thousands of pounds in interest. And threatening the jobs of Picture House staff and the long-term viability of the cinema.

From Ned Netherwood

Tuesday, 17 January 2012

Well, if you'd rather waste all day going to Bradford to see a film rather than simply wait a few weeks for it to get to Hebden, then you have got too much time on your hands. The reason the cinema gets films later is because it is not part of a big chain. The big mutltiplex chains hog all the new releases as they own the distribution too and places like Hebden have to wait. Perhaps you'd be happy if they built a big showcase cinema on the park so you can have new releases a little earlier?

From Lizzie D

Tuesday, 17 January 2012

I do think it is good that we have one for those who use it, but I do resent paying for it. If the option was given in your survey to ask would people be willing to pay, would the response have been different?
I think those that go to see films/events should have seen the price increase not all of us. I would happily pay more per event if I were to benefit from it.

As a community owned venue, you wonder how long before it can only afford to show films years later rather than the 'months later' that Paul doesn't mind?

From Cllr James Baker

Tuesday, 17 January 2012

I wasn't going to post here, but seeing has Sue has put across the Labour point of view I will put across the Lib Dem one.

1. If the Cinema improvements had been funded from a loan it would have been from the Public Works Loan board that offer very low interest rates specifically for this sort of project. The repayments would have come out of the profit the Cinema is projected to make. The Cinema could have been run as a separate profit centre. This means that any repayments would have come from cinema users not the local rate payers. To say the loan option would have put jobs at risk is nonsense.

2. Costs to the Cinema are higher than the capital works. The increase of £16,000 per annum in staffing costs in this year's budget are largely in part to an increase in our clerk's salary. Because the Council has increased in size the clerk now gets paid more for looking after a bigger council.

3. It is true that 84% of people voted in a consultation to say they wanted the Town Council to take over the cinema. Cllr Press did a lot of hard work with the consultation as did many of the Labour Councillors. In hindsight however the cost implications were not explained, and perhaps people could have been asked how they thought it could have been funded.

The Labour group also voted down a Lib Dem amendment to have the option of community ownership on the consultation. They did not even want people to have a say on this option that was the Liberal Democrat groups preferable asset transfer option.

Despite this the consultation does still demonstrate a high level of public support which is one reason why I personally choose to support the project despite my own reservations about council run entertainment businesses.

4. Sue is quite right everyone is trying to keep the Calder Valley club going. Technically there was nothing to stop the Town Council raising money through the precept to help them rather than improvement works on the cinema. Really though I don't think the Town Council can be a major funder of this type of service and Calderdale council needs to resolve this matter. She is right they could apply for one of our small grants.

5. No one is going to have to pay for the Town Hall. Rather than being run by the council it is being run by a highly successful community association that has done a fantastic amount of working in raising its own funds.

6. Sue takes issue with the Courier's figures but fails to provide any of the sums by which they came up with their own figure. The percentage increase of 25% is a fact. Their figure is based on certain bands on smaller properties. Regardless of the exact amount It is all money you won't have towards a bill or a Marks and Spencer meal for two on valentines day (yes my partner is a lucky lady!).

7. What the Labour group appears to have forgotten is the Town Council does not just represent Hebden Bridge. Sue doesn't even think the cut to Mytholmroyd Station funding is worth an explanation. This is a real loss to Mytholmroyd as progress was being made with Metro planning a feasibility study. With money gone from our budgets the impression left on potential partners is that the council is no longer interested in it.

Mytholmroyd is certainly the loser in this budget as Money for work on Mytholmroyd Library was also turned down as Labour sought to save money elsewhere. The loss of the station car park project to Mytholmroyd will put further stain on the public transport system as people drive to Hebden Bridge to park there instead.

8. Cllr Dave Young stated in the meeting that one reason why they wanted to fund the cinema out of the budget was to get around any attempts to cap future increases in Parish Council budgets. He said that raising the budget this year would mean next year the £80,000 increase could be spent on other things. For Sue to claim therefore it is a one off increase is misleading and contradicts what the leader of the Labour group on Hebden Royd stood up and said in the budget meeting.

From Jason Elliott

Tuesday, 17 January 2012

"Hopefully, we can all now move forward in a positive direction."

For the sake of the the townspeople and those who come from elsewhere to this fabulous building, it would be good if this happens and priority is placed on the project rather than arguing about which party did this or that.

From the outside, it seems that both parties have done a lot of good work to achieve what has been done so far, not to mention private individuals putting their own time in, so please keep it up without getting too sidetracked by point-scoring off each other.

To the rest of us it can get a little tedious.

Thank you all for what you've done so far though. :-)

From Kim Degnan

Wednesday, 18 January 2012

I appreciate everyone has a point of view, and it's good that these can be aired here.

I fully support the Hebden Bridge cinema - I go to watch films there, my children perform in school concerts there and I think it's fabulous that you can get a cup of tea in a real mug!

What I object to is that funding has been earmarked to be provided by every household in the Hebden Royd catchment area. Any enterprise meant to be run commercially surely ought to be funding itself?

I have read that this is meant to be a "one off" funding requirment - therefore can we expect £20 less per household Hebden Royd precept for 2013/14? What do you think...

From Greg Hobson

Wednesday, 18 January 2012

Having an active and attractive independent cinema in a town as small as Hebden Bridge surely benefits all the people that live in the area, whether they use it regularly or not? It adds cultural vibrancy and colour and makes the place feel genuinely interesting, specially given its central location. I don't think the arguments about when films are programmed or how frequently it is used are particularly valid. It is an imporatnt local asset.

From Jenny B

Monday, 23 January 2012

Kim raises a very valid point here. Is the precept for one year only or are we to see this as a continual increase to maintain the cost of the cinema?
From those who stand so firmly on the pro community ownership of public buildings side, there are shouts of the cinema being an asset to the town which undoubtedly it is. But, I would have still liked to have had the choice to have a say on how we paid for it. I would prefer to see my ticket price increase so that I subsidise it as/when I use the cinema.

Whilst you can argue that it is an important local asset, I don't agree with Gregg's point that he "doesn't think the arguments about when films are programmed or how frequently it is used are particularly valid". I feel that the cinema should be looking to be increasing its use on a regular basis, and that it should be being actively promoted as a venue that needs to make a profit to enable it to keep open and become self-financing.

There are bound to be ongoing costs with a building of that age, technology improvements will be needed to keep pace etc. The new cinema complex in Halifax will be open next year and will be screening new releases for those of us who do want to see films before they are available on dvd. And yes, I for one wouldn't particularly prefer to see films months after their release at Hebden Cinema just because you can get a cuppa with it! Each to their own, but in my view those who use it should be willing to carry the cost. After all if it was such a sure fire profit making venue, Calderdale would have kept hold of it.

Could I therefore ask, as Kim has done: Are we as council tax payers going to continue to pay for this via our precept year on year or is it for 2012/13 only?

From Mal Campbell

Monday, 23 January 2012

Looking at the Picture House programme for this month alongside UK release dates, the time lag is somewhere between 4-6 weeks. Never been a problem for me.

From Paul Clarke

Tuesday, 24 January 2012

I realise Jenny B may be trying - and failing - to be ironic when she says that films come out on DVD before they hit the Picture House.

But irony has to be based on something like reality so perhaps she could tell us exactly which DVDs came out before the film came to the PH?

But on a serious note can people stop peddling the myth that it takes 'months' for films to come to the PH. As Mal points out it is a matter of weeks and if you use the PH you know this when you make your choice to wait.

The pennies per day in extra council tax being spent on the PH is to make it an experience that can compete with Halifax's multiplex. If Jenny chooses the more corporate route trekking to Fax then fair play to her. I prefer to walk to and from my local cinema.

The reality is that 35mm prints are coming to the end of their life so going digital was not an option but a reality. Good on Hebden Royd for being brave enough to put a tenner per year on my council tax bill or 50p a week.

As I understand it the rise isn't just for this year, but I would say given the draconian scale of cuts being mastermined by Cllr Battye (Calder, majority 53) in Calderdale we might need that extra money next year to support local charities with grants to provide essential services.

From Graham Barker

Wednesday, 25 January 2012

Is this the same Paul Clarke who on 27 February 2011 posted (among much else in the same vein):

'As someone who is a council tax payer - and therefore already a part-owner of the cinema - I'd be keen to see why all those people think a bunch of well-meaning amateurs running my cinema is such a good idea.'

Something of a change of heart now, I see.

The objections of Kim and others here remain valid. I'm in favour of supporting the cinema but not this way. Making us all pay an involuntary additional tax of £10 (or whatever) without asking is high-handed and not a good precedent. Had we been given a choice, an extra £10 per household could have gone a long way toward funding other worthy Hebden Bridge causes. I think we've been taken for a ride here.

From Cllr Susan Press

Wednesday, 25 January 2012

In response to Graham - We did ask. We asked over 1500 people in Hebden Bridge and Mytholmroyd and over 84 per cent said they wished the Town Council to take over.

Our consultation was looked at with a fine toothcomb by calderdale as was our detailed feasibility study and business plan.

I am sure Paul will correct me if I am wrong but as I recall the meeting his comments in February 2011 did not refer to the Town Council. They referred to the then possibility of an unelected, unaccountable group running the cinema.

At every stage, the Town Council has sought guidance and shared expertise and will continue to do so. The post of cinema manager will shortly be advertised and it will be run by professionals employed by the Council

Just to clarify again - Band A householders pay just over £9 a year more on the precept. Band B properties over £11 a year. That's two-thirds of the properties in Hebden Royd. Average cost? Less than 25 pence a week.

I would also point out the precept won't pay the total cost of taking on the cinema - we have plugged the gap by making savings elsewhere and not committing money to projects which at the moment are yet to proceed (ie Mytholmroyd car Park) but have been agreed in principal . . . subject to feasibility studies by Metro...

From Graham Barker

Wednesday, 25 January 2012

I don't think Susan gets it. There may have been widespread consultation about taking over management of the cinema, which is laudable, but I'm not aware of anything that said 'and oh by the way, it'll cost you all an extra tenner on your rates'.

And it really doesn't matter how little per week it pans out at. If someone breaks into my house and steals one biscuit, it's not the biscuit I'll be unhappy about but the fact I was broken into.

From Ian M

Wednesday, 25 January 2012

As she has the figures to hand could Cllr Press please tell me how much all these £9 a year or 25 pence per week add up to when multiplied by the number of house holds that will be paying it?

At the moment Its a bit like Sky TV sending you a leaflet trying to get you to add the sports channel for only 50p a day - when you add all those 50ps up, it turns out to be a hell of a lot of money!

Whats the total combined cost per year councillor?

From David Telford

Wednesday, 25 January 2012

I really don't think the local council should be getting too involved. Yes, if the cinema wishes to perhaps maximise revenues with a bar & cafe the council should bear in mind the benefit to the community in terms of offering a cinema when deciding to grant a licence or planning permission.

It's really not he council's place to run the evening entertainment for residents. Politics & businesses do not mix well, on th eone hand there may be complaints about which film is shown and if politics gets involved here, where will it end?

We've already seen how political the involvment can be. We've had a great comparison of which political party has done the most to 'save' the cinema with the whole thing turning into a propaganda farce by certain political egos.

Ther are enough people who are passionate about this cinema on this forum, I suspect there may be more out in the real world. It seems to me to be a classic opportunity to form a co-operative business and invest in that way. I'd argue that a community cinema may be more suitable to this form of ownership than a Pub.

From Lizzie D

Wednesday, 25 January 2012

So Cllr Press . . . is it every year or a one off increase?

From Jonathan Timbers

Wednesday, 25 January 2012

I don't agree that the cinema should have been transferred burdened with a substantial loan. It's important that this venture succeeds and is able to invest any surpus it generates, so it can compete with the multiplex opening in Halifax.

I'm not exactly wild about the prospect of the town council taking over the cinema, but I don't see what else can be done. The only alternative uses for the building are as a pub or a club (which might lead to public order issues) or as apartments (but the market is too depressed at the moment to be worth converting it). The other option is to allow the building to become derelict.

I hope taking over the cinema doesn't overwhelm the town council. It isn't the state, it's more like a mate who gives people the odd fiver when they need help. I fear that in taking over the cinema it's in danger of becoming more like a devolved office of leisure services. That's why the cinema needs to succeed commercially - otherwise, it'll be forever bailing the bloody thing out.

From Cllr Susan Press

Wednesday, 25 January 2012

The £81,000 allocated to cinema on precept will just be allocated for this year. It will pay for essential digital equipment and basic improvements ie toilets

Precepts are as follows for 2012/13

Hebden Royd has 4658 properties

All figures are per year.

Figures in brackets denote number of properties in band - note two-thirds are Band A or B. Precept levied pays for community grants, environmental projects, spring clean-ups, Christmas lights, new allotments, staff salaries and ( reduced this year) Mayor's allowance of £3500 annually.

Town councillors are volunteers and do not receive a penny from the precept.

Band A - (2) £36.00
Band A (2159) £48.60
Band B (923) £56.69
Band C (534) £64.79
Band D (474) £72.89
Band E( 305) £89.09
Band F ( 177) £105.29
Band G ( 80) £121.49
Band H (2) £145.79

From Andy M

Thursday, 26 January 2012

Rather than speculating on whether the cinema will or will not not break even why don't we all go a little more often and guarantee it's solvency?

From Ian M

Thursday, 26 January 2012

So there you have it.

Following 1260 people saying they would like the Picture House transferred to the council, 4658 Households (lets say 3 people per houshold = 13974) have to stump up £81000 in year one alone!
Now thats what I call democracy!

From Dave M

Friday, 27 January 2012

Yes that is democracy. Everyone had a say. Those who chose to say nothing can hardly complain after the decision is made. I think we should be grateful that the council made this brave decision.

From David Telford

Friday, 27 January 2012

Question for the councillors, if a buyer was prepared to take on the cinema with some guarantees, I assume you'd be happy to sell.

From James Baker

Friday, 27 January 2012

The community run Town Hall has raised well over £1 Million from grants. Can Sue explain why her group voted against consulting people about whether the Cinema should be community owned? What effort was made to identify grant funding? Why was no one asked how it should be paid for?

Sue has also failed to promise the precept will go back down next year. In the budget meeting her group leader Cllr Young said putting up the increase this year would help avoid any government caps on rate rises in future years. This seems the real motive for putting up taxes do much now.

From Lizzie D

Friday, 27 January 2012

Everyone may have had the opportunity to have a say Dave. But, did they have an opportunity to say how the cost of this transfer of ownership should be met?

I didn't vote, to be honest I didn't see anyone or hear anyone ask, but that may be my 'blinkers' or slight loss of hearing, and possibly no ones fault but my own. By not voting I dont think that I should now not be allowed to have a whinge about the cost to me of our community owning a cinema.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing and if those that had voted would have known what they were voting for was an increased council tax bill, then maybe their answers might have been different too.

From Allen Keep

Friday, 27 January 2012

Personally I wasn't sure at all about the "usual suspects" community takeover which was originally mooted and I have concerns over this to an extent (as Jonathan has mentioned). Ideally, I would have preferred the cinema to stay in Calderdale hands.

I understand however, that what has been done is to try and preserve the cinema for the social and economic benefit of the whole community - which I'm certain it does whether you go there or not -as there was genuine concern that we would lose it in the current (con/dem) climate. The cost? According to Ian's figures approx 30p per household per week.

Some may find that unaccepatble (I don't -it's a bargain) but perhaps the real motiviation is to rubbish Labour members and deflect attention from the real crimes being committed on the local and national stage.
Here's an example upon which those who are outraged by Hebden Royd's actions may like to reflect - the payment of 3.6 million shares in RBS (80% state owned after being bailed out with billions of taxpayers money) to its chief executive. That should earn him a tidy £1m. Perhaps he could buy the cinema for us with the money? And by the way - it was a purely discretionary bonus not bound by the contact he was given by the Labour Government.

From James Baker

Friday, 27 January 2012

Allen, I agree Bankers' bonuses are too high. Although if you express them in weekly amounts the yearly £3.6 Million RBS bonuses are costing all 22 Million House holds in the UK only apx 0.003p a week. It's quite amazing how you can make unreasonable charges seem affordable isn't it!

From Ian M

Saturday, 28 January 2012

And lets not ignore that he has turned around a failing bank nationalised under the Labour administration and losing £1 Billion a year, and turned it into a £2 Billion a year profit maker!
Not bad for our ConDem government!

From Paul Clarke

Saturday, 28 January 2012

I would have a lot more respect for Cllr Baker's views if he - or indeed any of his Lib Dem mates has attended the last Picture House Committee to lay out their alternatives to the current process. I think local voters need to know exactly how seriously the Lib Dems take this vital issue and the answer is they don't.

In fairness Cllr Trickett - who has acted like an adult throughout this process - did tender his apologies. But guess which local cllr didn't?

Yep, you guessed it, it was serial non attender Cllr Cllr Mayor Fekri JP, who not only couldn't be bothered to turn up, but didn't even have the common courtesy to tender an apology. His attendance record on this committee is shameful. If Cllr Baker is so bothered about the PH why didn't he work with his colleagues to come along as a substitute which he is entitled to do? He didn't because he has nothing concrete or relevant to say.

I would ask him to send us a link to the Lib Dem's detailed and costed proposal for a community owned PH. I would but it doesn't exist except as some sort of ridiculous fantasy.

I would ask him the send a link to the Lib Dem proposal for where these grants for the PH might come from. But yet again that document doesn't exist because that would have required them to do some work rather than sounding off to try and destabilise the current process.

There has been been a consultation about whether it should be a community group that runs the PH and as Susan points out 84% preferred the Town Council to take over as they are at least accountable to the voters, rather than some self selected community group like we had last time. I would point out to Cllr Baker that more than 1000 people took the time to join that consultation which is a huge number for a small town but Lib Dems only like democracy when it fits with their plans.

in the meantime while Cllr Baker and most of his cronies have been semi-detached from the whole process the rest of the council have got on with a smooth asset transfer, putting the funds in place to refurb the PH and creating a structure of professionals who can run the place.

It is might make Cllr Baker feel warm inside to indulge in some fantasy about a community run PH but sadly running a 360 day plus business requires clear direction and professionals to run the day to day operation. So my challenge to him is simple: produce your detailed proposals - with costs - for how a community group can run the PH otherwise I can only assume you are playing petty politics with this vital issue.

From Dave M

Saturday, 28 January 2012

Cllr James Baker - you ask Cllr Press what effort was made to identify grant funding. May I ask the same question of you? Did you find out about any possibilities of grant funding and take them to the Town Council? If not, why not? (We already know about the loan possibility that was rejected - I am asking specifically about grants.)

From David Telford

Sunday, 29 January 2012

Paul Clark, you are arguing over how the council should run a cinema and you are asking for a political party to produce a detailed and costed proposal for a community owned cinema! This is why a council should not be owning or running the thing.

I think I'll stand as an Indy next time and my proposal is this:

The council should invite bidders to purchase the cinema with assurances to continue to operate as a cinema. There is lots of scope to incorporate a bar / cafe even night club and someone (maybe a co-operative) with the right background will make a real good business out of it. It will no longer be a financial burden to the council and we'll not have this ridiculous stick waving contest being played out by Labour councillors and their myopic supporters.

Once sold, the local council should stick to it's remit of making sure pavements are clean, street lights work and bins are emptied, we've seen far too much time spent on these side-shows. I don'r think the council needs to be involved in arranging my leisure time.

From Allen Keep

Sunday, 29 January 2012

James plays a neat trick comparing affordability but my problem with Hesters payout is not its affordability rather that it is morally obscene. Boris Johnson is "bewildered" by it and even some of the more hardened tories are claerly embarrassed.

Not, of course, defender of the anihiliation of the NHS Ian M. He appears to be revelling in the fact that a man who earns £5000 an hour already has sacked 20000 workers, lowered the share price of RBS and failed to meet all his objectives recieves £1m worth of shares effectively from the public purse (and whatever the gripe against Sue Press and co -it doesn't really stack up does it)

At least it is surely yet another nail in the coffin of the argument that we are all in it together.

From Jim M

Sunday, 29 January 2012

If a 'grant' had been obtained for the PH likely that would have been funded by people elsewhere. I am not sure that would be fair. A PH on the rates should at least be local rates surely ?

From James Baker

Sunday, 29 January 2012

Paul If you want a full proposal for community ownership then simply read the proposal that was put forward by a Lib-Dem controlled town council for a consortium to run it. You can find the link on HebWeb.

A lot of the work done in that original proposal went on to help with the development of the business plan that has now been done for the Cinema. This why Sue's the claim that Lib Dem's have just been on the sidelines is absolute rubbish. The original idea of transferring it was a Lib Dem one. The only differences between the two groups has been over to what model of ownership it was transferred and how the work on the Picture House should be funded.

Although i'm not a member of the Picture House Committee, but I did attend some meetings as a substitute for Nader when he was on Mayoral duties for Calderdale. I attended a meeting where I suggested that the option of community ownership should be an option for consultation that we all helped carry out. If Sue as chair would allow it we would happily have some more Liberal Democrat representation on the Picture House Committee.

Paul the consultation didn't even ask the question about whether people wanted it to be run by a community group. Despite not being happy with the questions I still gave up my time for free to help run the consultation. I also voted to support the proposal for the Town Council to take it on.

I'm happy to accept that community ownership is not going to happen and I think the Town Council taking it on is a good thing. I just think it is a shame that it all ended up being paid for through taxation. .

Dave the consortium would have looked into the details of available grants once established. The successful community run town hall has raised well over £1Million. Heritage Lottery fund, Arts Council, Public Subscription, or Fundraising evenings could all have been possibilities.

The clerk would normally carry out this type of research if instructed to by the council. Just as the clerk did a fantastic job writing the business plan.

Raising money for the cinema through taxation was the easy option. It doesn't' require lots of work hunting out funding sources.

From Jenny B

Sunday, 29 January 2012

I would agree that if we are committed to subsidising the cinema, then there should be a 'residents concession' on ticket prices. Even though I use the PH rarely this would perhaps encourage me to use it more. However, I suspect that not only are we to pay for the PH through our council tax, we will see increased charges due to enhanced digital qualities of the screenings. Can anyone clarify if ticket prices will a) incorporate a price freeze or b) offer resident concessions?

From Anne H

Sunday, 29 January 2012

As Cllr Press explained ealier, the precept covers a whole bunch of things including Christmas lights, mayoral expenses and community grants. If you think of the cost of running the cinema as a particularly large community grant, then it seems very appropriate to me. Small community groups that only benefit a handful of people can sometimes be awarded a couple of thousand pounds grant - and we as rate payers haven't had a say in that - sometimes we just have to trust the elected representatives to decide how to spend our money.

By comparison, I think the cinema deserves a pretty large chunk of that money. It doesn't just benefit those who attend the cinema regularly, it draws in people from surrounding towns and villages, 7 nights and 3 afternoons a week. They come and meet frieds, spend money in the shops, pubs, restaurants and taxi ranks. Think what Hebden would be like as a town if the cinema didn't exist! I think it has a much bigger effect on life in this town than a lot of people give it credit for.

From Paul Clarke

Sunday, 29 January 2012

David Teford, I'd love it if you stood on a free market maniac ticket as I think you'd get even less votes that the last 'independent' candidate who came a very distant and embarrassing fifth last year.

I hope the other Tories in HB are more capable than you of following a simple argument. I was actually asking the feeble 'opposition' on the town council to produce a detailed report for the the sort of co-operative you suddenly seem to be such a fan of. (Is that cos Callemedave suddenly loves them too?) I ask the Lib Dems to show their counter proposal because they oppose the current process without anything concrete to offer in its place.

I'd ask the same of you but given your utterly bizarre - and completely daft - plan to turn the PH house into a bar or a nightclub I won't bother. Or maybe you could use your undoubted business ability to head up a consorita to take it over. No...didn't think so.

For your information the PH will be run by an experienced town clerk, a manager who will have relevant professional experiences of running a business like this and a professional booker. They will report to an elected town council made of people with different sort of experiences they can bring to bear on running the place. Not everything councils do is run as badly as - say - RBS.

I'm shocked you think councils should still clean pavements, provide street lights and empty bins. Surely they could be better run by the private sector you are so in love with. In fairness, the bins are run by a private company and look at successful they are.

From David Telford

Monday, 30 January 2012

@Allen Keep, I think you've really missed James' point re Hester, he simply saying if you divide a figure by enough people it's fairly easy to make even the most obscene amount look chicken feed.

On Hester's bonus, you do have to take on board that his task is to save the treasury billions of £'s and IMHO, if he succeeds then he deserves to be rewarded. He did leave a very well paid job to take this role and it has already consumed his marriage. The issue here is that he's being rewarded before succeeding although in fairness, the bonus is in shares that can't be sold for 2 years (I've read conflicting reports on the term and many reports haven't mentioned a term at all) so the value of that bonus is very much in the hands of him being a success which is fair enough. I'd prefer that to be in options myself but nevertheless, it's not actually costing the taxpayer real money and the more value he creates for himself is dwarfed by the value he creates for the owners of RBS (i.e. us).

I'm also a little lost in Allen's argument, the left tend to demand that the banks pay for their mistakes which is fair. Here, the bank is doing all it can to pay the treasury back for it's mistakes and as Allen points out 20,000 have already paid with their jobs, surely this is what you are demanding? Literally we are all in this together bankers are losing their jobs along with some public servants as well as millions of private sector employees as well as private entrepreneurs who have lost livelihoods in the recession. I'm a bit confused as to why Allen criticises the 20,000 lost jobs when so many from his side of the political fence have been baying for such action.

From Dave M

Monday, 30 January 2012

Cllr James Baker - If I understand you correctly, you think that a funder may have provided a grant for the Picture House but you personally did no reserach because it wasn't your job to do so. Is that right?

Mr David Telford - Why do you think the Council has a moral responsibility to look after street lights, bins and pavements? Why should I pay for bins I don't use, clean pavements in streets I never litter and lights in roads I never walk down?

From James Baker

Monday, 30 January 2012

Dave I think there is a possibility of funding which should have been explored because other groups such as the community run Town Hall have raised over £1 Million from investigating and applying to grants. Having charitable status tends to open up more funding streams.

That would really have been a job for the group taking on ownership, just as the Hebden Bridge community association have done the work finding their own grants.

So If you are asking me personally whether I have done detailed research into all funding possibilities then the answer is no.

Generally the Town Clerk would do this type of detailed research work upon instruction by council or a committee.

Most of my time as a parish councillor in a Mytholmroyd ward has been spent working on the Mytholmroyd Station car park project, which has now had its funding cut.

From Steve Sweeney

Monday, 30 January 2012

I don't usually get involved with the debates on this site although I do follow them with interest. However I feel that I need to to correct the mistaken assertion by James that the Mytholmroyd Car Park has had its funding cut.

There has been no detailed expenditure planned in the budget, merely an arbitrary balance to be carried over from the previous year.

The Council agreed to support the car park in principle and to look at the situation again, later this year, following the proposed feasibility study by the landowners Metro.

From Dave M

Monday, 30 January 2012

Cllr James Baker - Well if you really believe there was a possibility of funding from a grant then I think that you as an elected representative on the Town Council who clearly has an interest in the Picture House should have done some research and brought a specific proposal to the Council before the decision was made to increase the precept. You could have saved us all £81,000. I sincerely believe that you have let us down very badly.

From Graham Barker

Monday, 30 January 2012

I don't want to take sides in this but it seems to me that James Baker has answered Dave M's question twice, by stating that it's normally the Town Clerk's role to do that kind of research on instruction by the council. That makes sense, as you then don't get duplication of effort and there can be no suggestion that the findings are biased. So perhaps Dave's question should be 'Why didn't the council ask for the research?'

From Paul Clarke

Tuesday, 31 January 2012

I can never decide if Cllr Baker deliberately misses the point. I asked him for the Lib Dem paper they should have put to the PH committee as part of this year's budget cycle as an alternative to the council running it and he comes up with a paper presented by the 'usual suspects' that was rejected as unworkable. To claim it as a Lib Dem document is laughable and doesn't reflect the good work done by members of all parties to at least try and kick start the process.

If we are waiting for Cllr Baker to actually come up with a workable PH alternative people would be viewing luxury flats in that building.

I also note he ignored the absence once again of Cllr Mayor Fekri JP, and failed to explain why if he is so interested in the PH he failed to go along as a substitute. The fact is when given the chance to lay out his alternative he failed to take his chance because he has no clue how a community owned cinema will work.

Graham B, the point being made is that Lib Dems like Cllr Baker talk a good game but never actually do anything. If Cllr Baker thinks the money shouldn't be raised by raising the precept by pennies a day then it is his duty to tell us where the grants will come from. It is sheer laziness to offload it onto the town clerk. Show us the money Cllr or keep quiet.

I would like to know more about the Mytholmroyd car park question. I wonder if Cllr Baker can send me a link to where he - as a diligent local Cllr - presented a detailed and costed case for that money? It seems to me that if money is being earmarked in the current climate then it should be properly costed so all voters can see the benefits to the local community. Or maybe that is something else the town clerk should be doing on Cllr Baker's behalf.

I'm told the Lib Dem's grandstanding on the money for the London Olympics and Golden Jubilee was just a vague wish with no detailed proposals to spend two and half a grand of our money in tough times on some unspecified celebrations. Can James send the link to the briefing paper for that money?

You can see a pattern emerging here of Lib Dems grandstanding on vague pots of money and projects that have no substance or purpose behind them . . . a sad metaphor for a party dying at the polls.

From David Telford

Tuesday, 31 January 2012

Paul Clarke, I wasn't aware that I had made any "utterly bizarre - and completely daft - plan to turn the PH house into a bar or a nightclub". I think you've forgot to read the part where I say the council needs to get "assurances to continue to operate as a cinema" and I simply suggest there can be "a few options incorporate a bar / cafe even night club" which will increase income and fully utilise the asset as an income generator. The word "incorporate" was used to suggest that the other operations can be united (one thing) with the cinema operation that is already in existence.

It was kind of you to answer on my behalf re. the point on heading up a consortia to take over the cinema. Perhaps before assuming my answer as "No...didn't think so" you could take on board that I openly asked the councillors for clarification: "Question for the councillors, if a buyer was prepared to take on the cinema with some guarantees, I assume you'd be happy to sell." If we get an answer, perhaps we can take it from there. I'd be a little nervous in heading it up as I'm no film buff.

@Paul Clarke Don't be surprised that I think rubbish collection, street lights etc should be financed out of local taxation.

@Dave M, Street lighting, cleaning etc can't be provided to one person without free-loading as they have Non-excludability and non-rivalry characteristics. Both have safety and health implications which should be provided to everyone.

@Paul Clarke Re. standing for election on a "a free market maniac ticket", I'll not. I'll stand on a ticket of how I think the local council should operate to deliver fairness, cost effectiveness and economies in order to allow individuals and business to flourish and reach their own potential and goals. If people want that, I'm sure I'll do well. Indy's do struggle because the electorate can be so tribal which is sad, for me, running a local council isn't about the colour of rosettes, it's doing things right.

@ Anne H Most understand the specific local issues that the precept covers, the point here is that there really isn't a need to tax to pay for something that can and should be provided privately.

From Jonathan Timbers

Tuesday, 31 January 2012

Local Lib Dems always use weasil words when arguing or proposing changes and none more so than James Baker.

The report he asks us to read from the 'Lib Dem controlled town council' was written by a group of people which included one town councillor, Labour's Robin Dixon. At no point does it suggest that the cinema should be funded out of a loan. In fact, the figures it uses indicate that capital expenditure over the next few years is likely to be substantial.

This whole 'discussion' is a storm in a teacup, created by the Lib Dems to drum up support for themselves. They should get behind the project.

I don't use the cinema much with my family (it's quite expensive if you haven't got much brass and kid's films tend to be rubbish) but I'm happy to pay my rates over a year to support others if the general view is that this improves community/ society. I'm a democrat so I'm disappointed in those who take a more selfish view.

From James Baker

Tuesday, 31 January 2012

I think this is going to be my last post as people are now just throwing insults rather than debating things.

I read your letter about Mytholmroyd station in the Hebden Bridge Times about how this isn't a cut. Sorry Steve but I really don't see how you can claim that. Last year the station project had a budget of £25,000 and this year the budget has been cut to £0. I suppose you could argue the budget was cut because the Labour group didn't think it likely the money would be spent in the next financial year, but it is still then a cut in funding.

Why the cross-party working group for the car park project had their request refused? That working group requested the money be kept in there so it could be spent as soon as we had enough partners on board to go ahead with the work.

Also I should point out that Metro aren't the land owners, they were (are still possibly?) a potential partner who agreed to conduct a feasibility study. They did this because we had earmarked money for the project. The land owners are Network Rail as everyone on the working party is aware.

Paul - I wonder why I even bother replying, do you read my posts? I already said I did turn up as a substitute for Nader at some of the Picture House committee meetings, so why do you keep saying I'm lazy and that I should have gone along as a substitute?

You then say I should have put a proposal for alternative funding to the Picture House Committee, but it isn't even that committee that decides how funds should be raised. That decision is made by Strategy and Review. Proposals were put forward to fund the Picture House budget in other ways at strategy and review. We tried to have a discussion about other funding streams at full council but the debate got moved to a vote to raise it from the precept.

Every Council in the land functions with officers being instructed to carry out work on behalf of councillors. How do you think the business plan for the Picture House was created? Councillors often then get involved in helping, just as I helped out with the consultation. I'm sure Sue Press helped out Jason with the business plan too.

Looking for potential grants is not a large bit of work, of the top of my head I can think of potential grants coming from the Heritage Lottery Fund (for a listed building), Arts Council England, Round Table. That is before you even talk about charity fund raising events.

There are sets of costings for the Mytholmroyd car park. There was previously a budget of £25,000 already set, all that was being asked is that this budget was rolled over. I can email through the costs of Mytholmroyd station to anyone who wants them. There isn't a link on-line to them.

Jonathan - I never said the original asset transfer proposal for a consortium to take over the cinema contained an argument that the capital works should be funded by a loan. You are quite right it has a contribution from a Labour Councillor, when the Lib Dems ran the Town Council we also let Labour Councillors chair committees and have a decent representation in meetings. It was a far more non-partisan affair with budgets being proposed by one party and seconded by another.

David makes the point that it would have been up to that consortium to fund and secure funds for the required capital works, just as the Hebden Bridge Community Association has done for the Town Hall project. I don't want the council to run everything!

I personally think it is selfish to make people who do not use the cinema pay for it. Why should a poor family be made to pay for a fancy new projector in the cinema when they may not even like watching films?

I want to live in a society where people are free to choose what entertainment they want to enjoy, not one where other people decide for me and force me to pay for it. It's a rather simple idea called liberalism. As David says parish councils should clear the bins, make the parks look nice and keep the street clean.

From Dave M

Wednesday, 1 February 2012

I'm not sure why it's 'selfish' to make someone pay for a cinema they don't use but it's not 'selfish' to tax them for a car park they don't use. Or to make them pay to keep the park looking nice if they never set foot in it. Anyway, won't a 'poor family' get Council Tax Benefit?

I think Mr Telford and Cllr Baker might have misunderstood slightly about the Picture House. Town Council control doesn't mean that the Council is involved in arranging anyone's leisure time or that people are not free to chose the entertainment they want. As far as I am aware no-one is going to be forced to go to the Picture House and residents will still enjoy the same freedoms that they always have. I think it was just about saving an important local asset - nothing more sinister.

I think it is a shame that Cllr Baker won't be leaving any further comments. Local politicians enter a tough world where people are liable to criticise you harshly. I think that even senior politicians can get a bit of stick from time to time.

See also:

HebWeb Forum: Picture House programming